1965-04-08

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members will have noticed, there are on today's order paper almost 100 public bills listed lor introduction by private members. It would be difficult il not impossible for the Chair to review the provisions of these bills at this time. In view of that fact, may I suggest to the House that we adopt the procedure which was agreed upon by the House in the past two sessions, namely that we proceed to the introduction and first reading of these bills so that each may be scrutinized between now and the time appointed for second reading in order to determine whether there be any defect therein with respect to the practices and usages of the House.
Therefore, in order to save the time of the House, taking into consideration that perhaps more than two hours would be required to introduce each of these measures separately, it is suggested that, by unanimous consent, all the bills listed for introduction on today's order paper be deemed to have been introduced, given first reading and ordered for second reading at the next sitting of the house, subject of course to a subsequent examination as to the regularity of each bill.
Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code (the Judas-Tree Amendment)-Mr. Fisher.
Bill C-3, respecting the national game of Canada (lacrosse)-Mr. Prittie.
Bill C-4, to preserve and promote native Indian and Eskimo arts and crafts-Mr. Howard.
Bill C-5, to amend the Transport Act and the Railway Act (B.C. water carriers)-Mr. Barnett.
Bill C-6, respecting Canada day-Mr. Chretien.
Bill C-7, to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act (application to mentally retarded)-Mr. Howe (Hamilton South).
Bill C-8, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (freedom of conscience)-Mr. Fisher.
Bill C-9, to amend the Bank of Canada Act (form and material of notes)-Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi).
Bill C-10, to provide for control of the use of collateral bills and notes in consumer credit transactions-Mr. Ryan.
Bill C-ll, to provide for the protection of news sources (press privilege)-Mr. Fisher.
Bill C-12, to amend the Immigration Act (foreign intervention in industrial disputes)- Mr. Ormiston.
Bill C-13, to amend the Immigration Act (disclosure of reasons for deportation)-Mr. Brewin.
Bill C-14, respecting Sir John A. Macdonald day-Mr. Macquarrie.
Bill C-15, to amend the Criminal Code (raffles and bingo for charitable purposes) -Mr. Gray.
Bill C-16, to amend the Criminal Code (disturbing the public peace)-Mr. Gelber.
Bill C-17, to provide for the establishment of the Canada Disaster Fund-Mr. Herridge.
Bill C-18, to restrain the use of tobacco- Mr. Mather.
Bill C-19, to amend the Oaths of Allegiance
Act	(affirmation)-Mr.	Howe (Hamilton
South).
Bill C-20, to amend the Railway Act (abandonment moratorium)-Mr. Southam.
Bill C-21, to amend the Fisheries Act (forfeiture floor)-Mr. Carter.
Bill C-22, to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act (hog and egg prices stabilized half yearly and regionally)-Mr. Rapp.
Bill C-23, to amend the Immigration Act -Mr. Hahn.
Bill C-24, to amend the Small Loans Act -Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-25, to amend the Bank of Canada
Act (reserve)-Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi).
[Stage Direction]
April 8, 1965
Introduction of Bills
Bill C-26, respecting marriage (age of marriage)-Mr. Matheson.
Bill C-27, to amend an act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act and the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act-Mr. Marcoux.
Bill C-28, to amend the Broadcasting Act- Mr. Chretien.
Bill C-29, to amend the Canada Evidence Act (privileged communications)-Mr. Matheson.
Bill C-30, respecting genocide-Mr. Klein.
Bill C-31, to amend the Family Allowances Act and the Old Age Security Act (charitable gifts)-Mr. Harley.
Bill C-32, to amend the House of Commons Act (Speaker on dissolution)-Mr. Whelan.
Bill C-33, to amend the Criminal Code (a purge for the King's evil)-Mr. Fisher.
Bill C-34, to amend the Railway Act-Mr. Prittie.
Bill C-35, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (allowance to leaders)-Mr. Marcoux.
Bill C-36, to amend the Criminal Code- Mr. Prittie.
Bill C-37, to amend the Combines Investigation Act (captive sales financing)-Mr. Noble.
Bill C-38, to amend the Criminal Code (insanity)-Mr. Brewin.
Bill C-39, to better assure the public's rights to freedom of access to public documents and information about government administration (administrative disclosure)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-40, to amend the Broadcasting Act (community antenna)-Mr. Fisher.
Bill C-41, to amend the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act (age discrimination) -Mr. Mather.
Bill C-42, to amend the Income Tax Act- Mr. Howard.
Bill C-43, to amend the Post Office Act (hate literature)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-44, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (agricultural employees' coverage)-Mr. Rapp.
Bill C-45, to amend the Criminal Code (company housing)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-46, to amend the Criminal Code (commutation of death sentence)-Mr. Temple.
Bill C-47, respecting the flag day of Canada-Mr. Rinfret.

Bill C-48, to amend the Railway Act (responsibility for dislocation costs)-Mr. Fisher.
Bill C-49, to amend the Bankruptcy Act (wage earners' assignments)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-50, to amend the Canada Grain Act (off-track elevator licensing)-Mr. Olson.
Bill C-51, to provide for the development of certain provinces by the distribution of industry and for the reduction of unemployment therein-Mr. Coates.
Bill C-52, to amend the Weights and Measures Act (truth in packaging)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-53, respecting the parliamentary staff -Mr. Aiken.
Bill C-54, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (abolition of the Senate)- Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-55, to provide for a Canadian National Anthem-Mr. Ryan.
Bill C-56, to amend the Combines Investigation Act (Consent decree)-Mr. Gelber.
Bill C-57, to amend the Radio Act (community antenna)-Mr. Fisher.
Bill C-58, respecting the Department of Foreign Affairs-Mr. Marcoux.
Bill C-59, to amend the Criminal Code (Contempt of court)-Mr. Cowan.
Bill C-60, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (severance pay)-Mr. Fisher.
Bill C-61, to establish the office of parliamentary commissioner-Mr. Thompson.
Bill C-62, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act and the Interest Act (off-shore instalment sales)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-63, to amend the Bankruptcy Act (Orderly payment of debts)-Mr. Smith.
Bill C-64, to repeal the Tobacco Restraint Act-Mr. Cowan.
Bill C-65, to amend the Criminal Code (provincial lotteries)-Mr. Valade.
Bill C-66, to amend the Criminal Code (nuisance).-Mr. Herridge.
Bill C-67, to amend the Combines Investigation Act (floor penalties, criminal joint tortfeasors, and moieties)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-68, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1964, (provincial marriage and divorce laws)-Mr. Prittie.
Bill C-69, to amend the Financial Administration Act (discretionary garnishee against Crown)-Mr. Whelan.
Bill C-70, to amend the Canada Elections Act (appointment of D.R.O.'s and poll clerks) -Mr. Francis.
April 8, 1965
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-71, to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act (Confederation road)-Mr. Fisher.
Bill C-72, to amend the Criminal Code (wire tapping, etc.)-Mr. Pennell.
Bill C-73, respecting the national game of Canada-Mr. Roxburgh.
Bill C-74, to amend the Small Loans Act (Advertising)-Mr. Orlkow.
Bill C-75, to approve the ex gratia payment of compensation to persons injured by aiding and assisting the Governor General to preserve and maintain the public peace and order and to dependants of persons killed thereby (criminal injuries compensation act)-Mr. Ormiston.
Bill C-76, to provide for the length of sessions of Parliament-Mr. Ryan.
Bill C-77, to amend the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation Act (Tisdale grain elevator)-Mr. Rapp.
Bill C-78, to amend the Financial Administration Act (public accounts)-Mr. Fisher.
Bill C-79, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (increase in minimum wage) -Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-80, respecting the inspection of tobacco and tobacco products entering into international and interprovincial trade (tobacco inspection act)-Mr. Whelan.
Bill C-81, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (three weeks annual vacation after three years)-Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-82, to amend the Broadcasting Act (political programs)-Mr. Harley.
Bill C-83, to amend the Interest Act-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-84, to amend the National Capital Commission Act (tenure of office)-Mr. Francis.
Bill C-85, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (royal assent, reservation and disallowance)-Mr. Choquette.
Bill C-86, to amend the Broadcasting Act (disclosure of C.B.C. service program, cost, and estimates for 5 years)-Mr. Fisher.
Bill C-87, concerning the exportation of the growth and produce of Canada-Mr. Peters.
Bill	C-88,	to	amend	the	Criminal Code
(family planning)-Mr. Francis.
Bill C-89, to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act-Mr. Howard.
Bill	C-90,	to	amend	the	Criminal Code
(restriction on publication of proceedings)- Mr. Lachance.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Bill C-91, to amend the Indian Act (liquor rights)-Mr. Barnett.
Bill C-92, respecting the Canada medal- Mr. Leblanc.
Bill C-93, respecting Commonwealth day- Mr. Ryr.ard.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister now be in a position to make a reply to the questions which were asked by the hon. Member for Mackenzie and the hon. Member for Marquette regarding the questionnaire of the B and B Commission, containing as it does a variety of questions which are none of the business of the B and B Commission?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, immediately after the orders of the day yesterday, when I left the House I got in touch through my office with the Commission and asked them, as indeed I had before, for information on which to base a reply to this question. I was assured this morning when I phoned them just before coming into the House that a reply was being forwarded, but I have not received it yet. However, I will do so, and I apologize to my hon. friend for the delay.


John George Diefenbaker: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that these things happen, but I do hope the Prime Minister will be in a position to answer tomorrow, because what has taken place in this questionnaire challenges the entire jurisdiction of the B and B Commission.



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF PRICING POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, a week ago today, during the previous session, I asked the Prime Minister whether he would be able to make any announcement regarding the Government's wheat pricing policy before the farmers began their seeding operations. At that time the Prime Minister indicated that he hoped he would be able to make a statement during the course of the next few days, and I am wondering whether the Prime Minister is now ready to make that statement.

April 8. 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this matter with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and perhaps he is now in a position to make a short statement on the matter.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have looked up the dates on which the announcement of an initial price has been made in the past, and I have found that it is not usual for such statement to be made so early in the year. Last year it was made on June 17. The previous year it was made on July 24, and the year previous to that on August 7; for 196162 on July 6, and for 1960-61 on July 19.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Am I to take it from the Minister's statement that there is no change in policy for the coming crop year, and that the Minister will merely be announcing an initial payment and will not be announcing any guaranteed final payment?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is a most improper question on orders of the day. When government policy is formulated it will be announced. I do not accept the implications of the question.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I wonder whether the Prime Minister has any word for the House as to the expected date of the report of the Royal Commission on Taxation, particularly in view of the fact that we can expect the Budget shortly after Easter?


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I am not able to be specific on this, Mr. Speaker. I am hoping that the report will be ready some time this summer.



PROVINCIAL OWNERSHIP OF SHARES IN CHARTERED BANKS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, the amount that would be appropriate for Canada to contribute would depend, of course, on the extent and the cost of the total program. Canada has already been contributing to this project through the Government of my right hon. friend, when in office, and since then through this Government. If this program is extended, as we hope it will be, we will have to increase our contribution to it.']
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question.
Can he tell us if the provinces were prohibited from acquiring shares in chartered banks as a result of protests from the present

chartered banks against the Bank of British Columbia?
Can the minister tell us if some provinces protested against the federal government prohibiting the provinces from acquiring shares in chartered banks?

[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, this is a long and complicated subject. I am hoping that legislation to revise the Bank Act will be introduced very early in this session and that there will be an opportunity to examine and discuss this particular matter in detail to the full satisfaction of my hon. friend.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance.
Can he tell us how many provinces protested against this decision of the federal Department of Finance?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The correspondence I have had with one province has been tabled, and to my knowledge that is the only correspondence we have received.


Mr. T. S. Barneft (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Minister, in view of his statement that this is a long and complicated subject, whether he has given any consideration to the introduction of an interim bill which would extend the charters of chartered banks for another year.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I think if we are able to proceed with the revision of the Bank Act soon that will not be necessary. If, on the other hand, it appeared that it would take longer than one might hope to deal with that legislation, then of course it would be necessary to ask the house to approve a bill extending the bank charters for another year or for some other period of time. I am sure all hon. members will agree that we do not want the banking system in the country to come to a stop.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for
April 8. 1965

External Affairs asking him when he, as the responsible Minister, first became aware of the plan that was placed before the people of the United States and Canada last evening by President Johnson. Was the information that a so-called Marshall plan was going to be enunciated by the President in the possession of the Government of Canada last Friday or prior to last Friday?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, that information was not before the Government last Friday.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when did the Government of Canada first become aware that the President was going to announce this policy, and, since it became aware of it, has there been any discussion between the Canadian and United States governments as to Canada sharing in it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, we were made aware of this shortly before the speech was delivered. I did not actually see the text of the speech, but I knew one was available and I had been advised of its contents.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when was it that the Minister was advised?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was advised at some time between six and eight o'clock; I would say around seven o'clock.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister subscribe to the suggestion that the plan announced by the President of the United States in respect of this aid scheme for the Far East is a product of the mind of the Prime Minister of Canada, as suggested by the C.B.C. last night?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in respect of a matter of this importance I am not going to indulge in idle comment. I think my right hon. friend and the House generally will agree that the discussion which the Prime Minister had with the President last Saturday was a useful one. I believe that the President's speech last night took into account important suggestions that had been made to him from many quarters, and it is clear from some of the proposals that the conversation of the Prime Minister of Canada with the President was indeed a very useful and fortunate one at that particular moment.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
While I am on my feet I should like to say that the Canadian government welcomes
22620-7 j
Inquiries of the Ministry President Johnson's proposal for a greatly expanded co-operative effort for economic development in Southeast Asia to be initiated under the United Nations. Some weeks ago there was mention made of a development scheme for the Mekong. Because of Canada's initial interest in this program we have been thinking along much the same lines as the President and are prepared to play our full part in contributing to the success of this plan.
It will be recalled that on Friday night the Prime Minister, speaking at Temple University, made specific suggestions for such an expanded co-operative effort. The Canadian government stands ready to designate a special representative to join with the Secretary General of the United Nations and representatives of other industrialized countries to help in the preparation of the plan and in mobilizing the necessary additional resources. I am happy to note that the President is establishing a special United States team to be headed by Mr. Eugene Black, the distinguished former President of the World Bank. The government shares the hope that all other industrialized countries, including the Soviet Union and, I might add, eventually China, will contribute to this common endeavour and that, as soon as peaceful co-operation is possible, North Viet Nam could take its place in the co-operative effort.
Canada is particularly fitted to play a role because of our long association with many of the countries of Southeast Asia, our participation in co-operative peace and development efforts in the area. Because of the character of the Indochina countries our bicultural heritage will be of considerable advantage. I should like to say that we have asked our Ambassador at the United Nations to come to Ottawa-he came last night-to discuss with us certain proposals that we will make to the Secretary General in connection with the proposal made by the President with regard to this scheme for co-operative development in Southeast Asia.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with reference to my question I would point out that the Mekong development was agreed to and undertaken while we were in office, so naturally we support any effort of that kind in Southeast Asia. I would ask the minister this question. Were the views that were expressed by the Prime Minister in his speech at Temple University known to the President of the United States before they were delivered? I ask that because of the apparent annoyance of the President over the conduct

April 8, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry of the Prime Minister as revealed in the American press although, of course, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has brought into play its whole massive propaganda machine, both visual and verbal, to justify what took place.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the text of the Prime Minister's speech had not been given to the President beforehand, but I hope I may say we all agree that the suggestions made by the Prime Minister with regard to a situation of great importance not only to our two countries but to the peace of the whole world incorporated ideas that will be and have been weighed very carefully by the government of the United States and I hope by other governments concerned.


John George Diefenbaker: The British government had the same view a week ago.


Mr. Churchill:: Was the Prime Minister reprimanded by the President?


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in putting a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs perhaps I might be pardoned for saying that we welcome the statement of Canada's willingness to take part in this commitment in Southeast Asia. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if the Canadian government is planning to follow up another aspect of the President's speech in which he said that the United States was ready for unconditional discussions leading to a final settlement. I was wondering if Canada proposed to take any specific steps with regard to this aspect of the President's speech.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government is available for discussions at any time. Indeed, we have discussions with the United States in one form or another almost daily. What is now required is that the other side should be prepared to enter into discussions. There was a notable statement in the President's speech when he said that the United States was prepared to enter into discussions without any preconditions.
I am now in a position to say, having sought clarification of that speech, that a cease fire would not be a condition precedent to the initiation of discussions which, as the President said, were being offered unconditionally. On the other hand, the President said any settlement would have to meet certain requirements involving the independence of South Viet Nam. In other words there do seem to be conditions for a settlement, but not for the beginning of discussions.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Does this position of the President apparently represent a change of view, that is the reference to unconditional peace negotiations? Can the Minister tell us if this, in turn, reflects an apparent change of view by the authorities in Hanoi?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on policy in the United States. My hon. friend asks if this represents a change of policy, but I cannot be expected to comment on that. Likewise I cannot say what the policy of Hanoi is unless it is given clearly, and it has not been given. With regard to pre-conditions, when we were presented with the Belgrade appeal of the 17 nations, I said, on behalf of the Government, there was much in that appeal we could support. One element was the absence of pre-conditions with regard to the holding of peace talks.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: should like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister following up the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Did the Prime Minister receive a delegation of five Canadian university professors yesterday, who presented a letter signed by 313 Canadian university professors of all political persuasions which urged Canada as a Sovereign nation to seek an end to the war in Viet Nam by calling for immediate negotiations to be undertaken without pre-conditions? Would the Prime Minister inform the House of his response to this propulsive appeal?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did receive these professors informally, and received from them the statement to which my hon. friend has referred on behalf of those signatories to that statement. I informed the deputation I shared the concern which they had expressed about the situation in Viet Nam. I shared also their desire, as I am sure all hon. members do, that negotiations for a peaceful and honourable settlement should begin immediately if possible. I did not, I must add, see eye to eye with them in their entire assessment of the responsibilities and reasons for the present situation.


Mr. W. B. Nesbili (Oxford):: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of all these very promising plans we heard from the President of the United States, and which receive general support in this House, can the Minister now tell us, since all these plans are predicated on the existence of the United Nations, if we can take it
April 8, 1965

from the announcement of the President of the United States that the impasse in the United Nations is likely to be broken in the near future; and can the Minister tell us how negotiations are getting along in connection with the opening of the new Assembly in respect of a vote taking place?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I fail to see any
relationship between the facts stated and the suggestion of the President, supported by the Canadian Prime Minister, that the Secretary General of the United Nations should use his good offices to further the development of this co-operative economic aid program under the auspices of the United Nations. This plan has nothing to do with the deadlock in the United Nations. The Secretary General is to give consideration now, in the absence of a meeting of the General Assembly, to whether he will take this proposal to the Security Council for authority to act. This is one of the reasons I have asked Mr. Tremblay, our Ambassador to the United Nations, to come to Ottawa in order that we can discuss our ideas as to what course the Secretary General might wish to take.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The Secretary of State for External Affairs said this plan had nothing to do with the United Nations-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, no.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Does he not agree that it would be extraordinarily difficult to carry out such a plan on a long range basis unless the present difficulties are settled in the General Assembly? Again I ask whether any progress has been made toward a settlement of this serious problem by the General Assembly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the hon. Member, who is a supporter of the United Nations, would not wish to give a wrong impression. I did not say this question had nothing to do with the United Nations. This plan will, we hope, be put forward through the United Nations. With regard to the last part of the question, the committee of 33 nations has been meeting to seek ways and means of resolving, if possible, the financial dilemma. Beyond that I cannot report any progress.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. I wonder if he could tell us how many attempts were made before President Johnson finally agreed to meet with the Prime Minister.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question to which the answer will be as simple as the "No" to a previous question. I ask the Prime Minister whether at the time he made his speech on Friday last in Philadelphia he had any knowledge that the United States had in mind a massive aid plan for Southeast Asia or that they were working on such a plan.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I had no knowledge of any massive aid plan being worked on by the United States at that time. The President had, I think a week before in a speech on Viet Nam generally, made a reference to the desirability of economic and social development in that area. I had also made a reference to that a month ago in New York.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not what the New York Herald-Tribune said.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: This is a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, either to the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs, with regard to the announced proposals for extensive economic aid to Southeast Asia. In announcing its willingness to participate in this program, has the Canadian Government given any indication as to the amount of money it would be prepared to put into this effort?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the amount that would be appropriate for Canada to contribute would depend, of course, on the extent and the cost of the total program. Canada has already been contributing to this project through the Government of my right hon. friend, when in office, and since then through this Government. If this program is extended, as we hope it will be, we will have to increase our contribution to it.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: My question is for the Prime Minister. Has there been any change in government policy with regard to the award of contracts to low bidders?
38	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
No, subject to the qualifications and exceptions which have been traditional over the years and which have been followed by previous governments.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Has any directive gone out from the Prime Minister's office setting out a code of ethics to be followed in awarding contracts? I would appreciate an answer. Could the Prime Minister tell us whether there has been such a directive?


Lester Bowles Pearson: These are Treasury Board
matters and, as the hon. Member knows, they are dealt with in Treasury Board in the customary way.



PROPOSED U.S. EMBARGO ON SHIPMENTS OF CANADIAN CATTLE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture or to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is either of those two gentlemen aware that the American National Cattlemen's Association has asked the United States government for an immediate embargo on the import of all Canadian cattle into the United States? If so, is the Canadian Government taking appropriate steps to protect our beef producers?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, I was not aware of this information. Now that it has been given I will take the matter under consideration.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): May I ask the Associate Minister of National Defence whether he is yet in a position to reply to the questions I addressed to him on April 2 and previously.
Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I have not yet gathered all the pertinent information on this subject. As soon as I have done so I will be glad to answer the hon. Member.



INQUIRY AS TO RECONSTITUTION OF HOUSE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: should like to direct a question to the Min-[Mr. Aiken.)
DEBATES	April 8. 1965
ister of National Defence. Will the Minister press for the early reappointment of the Special House of Commons Committee on Defence, bearing in mind that certain studies were not completed during the Committee's two previous meetings? I think this is an important question, because certain information has reached me in the last two days that unnecessary and stupid expenditures are being made by the hon. gentleman's Department contrary to his declaration that efficiency and economy would be insisted upon.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minisier of National Defence):: I have already indicated that it is the intention of the Government to establish a Committee on Defence this session. I understand that the actual nature of such a Committee, whether it is to be a Special Committee or whether it is to be set up under the new standing orders to be put into effect for the session, is still under consideration. I am unable to give the hon. member a more definite answer until discussions have taken place in this connection.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the Prime Minister what position the Government is taking as a matter of policy? Are we to proceed to the appointment of Committees in accordance with standing orders or will there be a delay until a Government proposal is introduced in the light of the representations made by the Special Committee last Session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, there will not be any need for such a delay. I think the Committees will be set up very shortly.



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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to address a question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as Leader of the House. Is it the intention of the Government to take the initiative and introduce a notice of motion to consider at this Session- I understand this is the correct procedural way of doing it-a report made during the previous session of this Parliament, namely the report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections relating to the reproduction of the front page of the Hansard Index by the Political Action Committee of the Hamilton Area Council of the Steelworkers Union?
April 8. 1965


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Privy Council):: That matter has not received consideration, but I will be very glad to take the question as notice.



LETTER RESPECTING ALLEGED FRAUDULENT VOTING IN B.C.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question, not in his capacity as Minister of Transport but relating to electoral matters and particularly the responsibility he had in 1964. This question relates to the case of electoral voting irregularities in British Columbia, brought to the attention of the public by Moreland Brown. I would ask the Minister whether last year-and I am speaking specifically of the spring-Mr. Castonguay or anyone else brought to his attention the fact that Mr. Moreland Brown had sent him a letter complaining about certain voting irregularities, and whether the Minister is aware of the contents of that letter.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I ceased to be the Secretary of State for Canada on February 3 of last year. Any time after that date it would not have been appropriate for this matter to be brought to my attention. To the best of my knowledge and recollection, speaking without looking at any files, it was not, but I cannot be absolutely sure; I do not know.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am not satisfied with the answer, and I should like to debate it tonight at the adjournment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the question could be directed to the appropriate minister.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saini John-Alberi):: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Having in mind the provision of a second National Park in Nova Scotia, may I ask the Minister if discussions have taken place recently with New Brunswick about a second National Park in that Province and/or an extension to the existing National Park there?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I did not
Inquiries of the Ministry follow the last part of the hon. Member's question. Was he asking about another area?


Thomas Miller Bell: I am asking whether any discussions have taken place regarding a second National Park in New Brunswick and/or an extension to the existing park.


Arthur Laing: No, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask the minister whether the same favourable consideration will be given to a proposal from New Brunswick, bearing in mind the fact that New Brunswick is lagging seriously behind Nova Scotia in the expenditures of his Department?


Arthur Laing: I would say that every consideration would be given to an application from the Province of New Brunswick or, indeed, from any other Province regarding the establishment of an additional National Park. Our thinking is that Canada in its entirety requires more National Parks.


Thomas Miller Bell: In other words the initiative lies wholly within the particular Province concerned?


Arthur Laing: Usually we work with the Provinces following discussions which arise between our parks people and their counterparts in the Provinces.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question arising from the concern which members of the House feel, I think, because of the news stories respecting the evidence coming out in court in relation to the Autair contract, particularly as it may reflect on one of his ministers and the High Commissioner in London. Can the Prime Minister give us any indication as to what the Government may plan in order to give the public a statement or some clarification on this matter, aside from what may be involved in the courts?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think it is highly desirable to make a statement on this matter and we propose to do this, but only after the court has made a decision.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Would he take into consideration the fact that when certain evidence

April 8. 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry came before the Dorion inquiry he did not hesitate, or his Minister of Justice did not hesitate, to make a clarifying statement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the hon. Member does not wish to go on a fishing expedition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Lambert:: What a statement to make.



INQUIRY AS TO COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONAL POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice and ask him whether the Special Committee to study and make recommendations on a comprehensive policy in the field of correction, mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, refers to the Parliamentary Committee which he announced last session or to a committee of experts, or both; and if to both, will he tell us when they are likely to be set up?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I propose to deal with that in my speech tomorrow.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of Transport. It is good to have the attention of both of them. Has an application recently been made by a Montreal firm, on behalf of a Russian ship, for permission to come into the interior of Canada through the St. Lawrence Seaway?


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if so, I believe it is the first time such an application has been made; and in view of considerations in relation to Canadian-Soviet trade, can the Minister tell us whether the application is being granted?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have been advised since I came into the House that such an application has been made and is under consideration. It may be that I can give some definite information tomorrow in response to the question.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, the urgency of this question is based on many representations made to me by the young people of this country. It is directed to the Minister of Finance. Although not mentioned in the Throne Speech, will the Federal Government soon be announcing the federal scheme for university scholarships, as promised many times in the last election campaign?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows
that Government policy is announced at the appropriate time, in the appropriate way.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. These young people would like to know if it is the intention of the Government to live up to this election promise, yes or no?


John George Diefenbaker: The answer is no.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforlh):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Industry, but in his absence perhaps I could direct it to the Minister of Labour. In view of the action of President Johnson in submitting to the United States Congress a Canadian-U.S. auto trade agreement containing a broad plan of financial assistance to U.S. companies and workers adversely affected by the plan, and in view of the striking contrast this represents to the Canadian situation where no such assistance is available, can the Minister assure the House that the Government is prepared to amend the Canadian agreement so it is at least comparable to the advantages offered by the U.S. legislation?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minisier of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept, of course, the argument that my hon. friend introduced into his question, alleging a contrast between the availability of assistance to Canadian workers from displacement factors. We are at present engaging in discussions with the union. Tomorrow we shall have a meeting with the company presidents to discuss what appropriate adjustment measures may be required as a result of this particular arrangement.
April 8, 1965	COMMONS


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. What steps does the Minister propose to take to find employment for those Canadians who will be put out of work by the transfer of the purchasing and accounting departments of auto manufacturers in Canada to the head offices in the United States?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, any problems of adjustment that may arise will be in a context of expanding employment in this particular industry arising from this agreement. Whatever adjustment problems may occur will, we trust, be worked out by arrangements in the first place between the companies and the unions with appropriate government consultation and, wb ;re necessary, assistance.


Reid Scott: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can we take it from what the Minister has said that where dislocations take place as a result of the agreement, the Government is prepared to make available sufficient financing so the income of the dislocated workers will be maintained while they are being retrained and relocated?


Thomas Miller Bell: They are socialistic enough.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps I should direct it to the Minister of Finance rather than the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that it is admitted that there will be dislocations in the automobile parts industry because of this treaty, are any arrangements under consideration by the Government to assist the owners of plants who will now find themselves without any orders as a result of the agreement?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I think we are getting this problem of readjustment out of perspective. In the first place, as a result of this agreement there will be $250 million worth of more work in Canada every year by the end of the next three years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Obviously that will provide more jobs than there have been in this particular industry. It will also provide very great opportunities for the businessmen in this industry to readjust their operations and take advantage of a very large and increasing market. I think if this is appreciated we will 22620-8
DEBATES	101
The Address-Mr. Marcoux all be able to see the picture in a little better perspective.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Since the automobile companies are getting a rebate of $50 million a year, will they or the Government contribute anything toward the cost of retooling the plants which this rationalization of the automobile industry will make necessary?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we can pursue this kind of detailed question effectively on the orders of the day.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It has been announced that there will be an opportunity to debate this agreement-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: -which, I must say, is one of the great achievements of the last year.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the first
budget that the hon. gentleman introduced? That was supposed to be a great achievement too.


Mr. Fred F. Stenson (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Are they going to be Canadian-owned companies that will increase this employment?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Some of them, I hope, Sir.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It does seem to me that we have discussed this matter at quite some length.
[DOT] (12:00 p.m.)



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, April 7, 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.
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, as we were reminded by the reading of the speech from the throne, we are now beginning a new session. May I offer my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Cashin) and the seconder (Mr. Chretien) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne for having highlighted, according to the views of their party, the main points
April 8, 1965

The Address-Mr. Marcoux that will come up for discussion during this new period in the life of the twenty sixth parliament.
The proposals brought before us by the government are far-reaching and we may well wonder whether it is realistic to imagine that we could go through such of heavy program during the next few months, especially when the government is in a minority position.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on this twenty sixth parliament which, while it did not give us a majority government, has just the same provided a stable administration. In the first place, let us not forget that the present representation in the House of Commons obviously reflects the state of mind of Canadians from coast to coast. The democratic system allowing for a free vote, it seems that the Canadian electors did not see enough outstanding qualities in any party to give them an absolute majority. And I think that such a situation will continue for several years to come.
Governments will have to get used to such a way of life. Like a person suffering from diabetes or from a heart condition who has to make the best of his illness, our government will have to recognize that the days of all-powerful administrations are definitely past. However, we must admit that in spite of defects and infirmities, the life expectancy is not necessarily shorter, quite the contrary. But that is a far cry from saying that no cooperation is necessary.
Many take pleasure in saying that others- not them indeed-have tarnished the image of the House of Commons. Newspapermen from coast to coast have been saying that parliament is on the downgrade. Despite all the reservations I often make in regard to newspapermen, 1 must nevertheless admit that it is here indeed that they form an opinion about parliament, and not outside the house. When they charge the opposition with filibustering, it is certainly because idle discussions go on and on, that we mark time and that no new ideas are brought forward. Even if a party blames another for doing everything to achieve its purpose, it will become as guilty when it also resorts to such tactics.
And, Mr. Speaker, this brings me to discuss the conception that certain politicians have of public as well as personal morality. It seems that the basic principles of natural law are more and more ignored. Instead of being guided by those principles, those politicians readily come to take an everybody-is-

doing-it attitude. While yesterday fraud and theft were considered as sins against natural law, the trend today is to greater tolerance because many people commit such wrongdoings. In the past, people used to say adulterers, but today they say "common law spouse"; formerly, respect for justice was the order of the day, but today freedom not to abide by it is claimed. And I could go on.
How is it that individuals attempt to exert pressures on public men for the sole purpose of lining their own pockets? Is it conceivable that alleged guilty persons would try to buy their innocence? Why is it that many persons are under the impression that politicians can tamper with the administration of justice? Are there any reasons why one should think that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor? Is it because some individuals have uncovered some secret dealings and want to be treated like certain privileged persons?
Why is the member of parliament consulted as if he were a lawyer and why is he expected to espouse the cause of his so-called client? Apparently some people thought the climate was favourable to such dealings and resolved to try to benefit therefrom, no wonder that there are so many partisans and parasites around. Is it any wonder then that the underworld, seeking protection against the administration of justice, the law and the authorities, joins hands with political hangers-on-particularly those who gravitate around the party in office-hoping to influence them.
Public administration is usually considered as the art of governing and the latter as the art of making things come true. His Worship Mayor Jean Drapeau, of Montreal, even said that it was the art of bringing into being the things that are necessary. That is all very well. But from a partisan point of view, politics can be quite a different proposition. And I fully agree with this statement I have heard: Politics is the art of getting into office and remaining there. The large number of parties we now have and the powerful opposition will have at least served to bring the government to pay more attention to its role as administrator and forget about partisanship.
However, the speech from the throne shows the eagerness of the Liberal party to cater to the electorate. They bow to the pressures exerted, they yield to the demands of intermediate groups. They no longer care whether the principles of Christian democracy are safeguarded; they no longer seek the objective criteria which should continue to guide
April 8. 1965

our actions. No, they try to compromise on a middle-of-the-road policy-which is not always the right one-between the age-long interests of financiers and swindlers, while endeavouring to soothe the people with phoney presents.
As a former Liberal prime minister said, "Not necessarily conscription but conscription if necessary", today they say "Not necessarily socialism but socialism if necessary".
I do not imply by this that social measures are not useful. On the contrary, our party has been advocating this imperative necessity for more than 30 years. What we fear is the increasingly larger place our governments are taking in the life of the individuals. We believe in maintaining the freedom of individuals and businesses, not the freedom of gangsters, outlaws, monopolizers, trusts, tyrants or dishonest people. Unfortunately, when persons speak along these lines, they are readily called reactionaries. Attempts are made to picture them as people who oppose progress and experiments.
Nothing is farther from the truth or more malicious. But I believe that it is the part of wisdom to warn against making any change in our system without scrutinizing it beforehand. Otherwise, we might become unable to back out of such changes without difficulty. When we see how painfully the government makes a show of letting the provinces opt out of joint programs, especially on account of the huge organization of civil servants necessitated by centralization, we immediately realize how it is almost impossible to reverse the trend in the social field, even if we are conscious of being in a false position. Let us remember that the former labour prime minister of Great Britain, Lord Attlee, said in February 1947 that there was a basic difference between totalitarian planning and suggestive economic planning. Like everyone else, he did not dare go forward blindly into dictatorial state control. Well, less than six months after that statement, the Labour government had to recommend labour conscription.
In saying that, I do not accuse all socialists of deliberately trying to set up a totalitarian regime; however, I should like to point out that socialist planning bears within itself a germ which will lead to serious but inevitable consequences.
The government has stated that it will consider the establishment of health services for Canadian citizens. Does it mean that our compatriots are unable to look after their 22620-8J
DEBATES	103
The Address-Mr. Marcoux own health needs? No, Mr. Speaker, it simply means that they do not have the financial means to do so. Would it be that no mutual insurance company has specialized in that field? Here again, it is a question of lack of means. The structures are there but the Canadian people cannot take advantage thereof.
The way hospital insurance is being administered at present gives an idea of the iniquitous rules which health insurance would impose upon both the professionals and the public.
The proponents of socialism claim that private enterprise has been subjected to the whims and fantasies of a few irresponsible people. According to them, planning is essential to general welfare. To achieve such a high standard of perfection in the establishment of various health services, private enterprise must have undertaken intensive planning and multiply consultations with the various bodies concerned.
It must not be forgotten that the general interest of a people, the common good, cannot be measured on a scale. It is imperative that the common needs and interest be examined at various levels by the proper agencies of intermediate organizations where each need of each human person must be placed in its own context. Totalitarian and executory state planning seems therefore inconsistent with the adequate working of true democracy.
It should also be noted that an undue state control really affects the people in the end. It is most important to bring about a psychological change, to alter the character of the population. This is done gradually and brings forth new attitudes toward authority. When complete planning has firmly taken hold of each member of the community it moulds them at will, albeit with the best intention in the world. It catches society as a whole in a huge net of minute complicated and standard rules which practically prevent the people from acting intelligently.
After sincerely claiming to be the people's protector, one eventually becomes a tyrant. Will-power is not destroyed or crushed, but it is softened, moulded and controlled. It cannot be said that man is forced to act, but he is constantly prevented from acting and reacting. Such a power of the state does not suppress life, but it prevents it. It does not really tyrannize, but it compresses, emasculates, stifles, stupefies a people, until the nation becomes a herd of scared pack-animals. We can stop wondering why so few voices are
April 8, 1965

The Address-Mr. Marcoux raised behind the iron curtain. Those people have reached a state of bestial submission that makes them behave like trained animals without the power to protest.


Mr. Coie (Chicoutimi):: Exactly.


Guy Marcoux: Perhaps some will say that I should not take things so tragically, but I suggest it is normal, fitting and wise to stop and think, review the situation and contemplate what any change in our way of life could bring us in the long run. Since the Soviet Union has reached the summit of communism, that is the socialist state, it is perfectly natural to study the conditions that exist in countries behind the iron curtain. I feel it is foolish not to consider all avenues while pretending to wish to take people out of their misery and poverty.
And let us not forget that totalitarianism can come by different ways, even if it all amounts to the same results. It is of no importance to me whether we have a nazi, fascist or communist dictatorship. I do not want any of them. Regimes such as Japan, Italy and Germany used to have are of no more appeal to me than those found today in Russia, East Germany, Cuba and elsewhere. In my opinion, they all end up by creating a great big herd of slaves. And it can only be a good thing to try and find the reasons why state interventions will produce results that perhaps one did not seek.
What is wrong, is the well organized, arranged, and indeed, extremely well planned movement to allow our economic life to be controlled by the state which would eventually and inevitably become the main owner of production means. This is true socialism.
I do not mean to imply that our present system is perfect. On the contrary, and for over 30 years, our party has been thundering against the abuses of capitalism, objecting against its materialism. As a matter of fact, I consider our present system as an economic dictatorship, as hateful as any other. It surely does not reflect much credit on our system that segregation and discrimination could still exist in America and that poverty is still rampant.
But we must at all costs guard against the danger of being so impatient to obtain quick results as to select means, as useful as they might be in the near or distant future, which are inconsistent with the preservation of a truly free society.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with a point that has been sys-

tematically overlooked since 1958: family allowances. At that time, before the election, as it happened, during the consideration of the 1957-58 supplementary estimates, a provision was included as a clause in the supply bill, so as to increase by $1 the allowances paid at the time. What an improvement.
When they were established under chapter 40, 1944-45, so-called responsible people jeered at large families and even made so bold as to suggest that such allowances would encourage the bestiality of parents. As if those allowances would be enough to support a child, even a baby. Well, Mr. Speaker, it seems that many people still hold this view, because no one can bring the government to comply with the rightful demands of the fathers and mothers of large or small families.
And here is why we ask that the Bank of Canada be used to increase those allowances. Allow me to repeat some points of law since some hon. members seem unconvinced still. If you refer to the Bank of Canada Act, chapter 43, 1934, you will find that it is not granted any power to issue bank credit. But section 21 gives it the exclusive right to issue bank notes which constitute legal tender. Section 24 stipulated that chartered banks had to maintain a reserve but it was abrogated by section 11 of the act amending the Bank of Canada Act, chapter 33, 1954. Therefore, it is necessary to refer to the Bank Act, chapter 48, 1954, to find out what liquidities the chartered banks have to maintain, that is what amounts in bank notes of the Bank of Canada, in addition to the money deposited with the Bank of Canada, chartered banks must keep on hand to create a $100 credit. Under section 71 of the Bank Act, that cash reserve must not be lower than $8, which means that each $100 loan granted by a chartered bank must be covered by $8 in cash. That provision means, therefore, that under the act chartered banks are authorized to loan 12J times more money than they have on hand.
I ask this question. Why should not the Bank of Canada be authorized also to loan to the Canadian government 12J times the amount of the deposits it has on hand? It is not a matter of preventing chartered banks from helping the small people as well as the big companies; it is only a matter of applying to the Bank of Canada those principles which are good for the chartered banks. It would encourage the general development of our country instead of benefiting only a small group of privileged
April 8, 1965

people. To solve in this way social problems, Mr. Speaker, that is not socialism but simply the application to the common good of a system that has always well served particular interests.
So as to show you that this is really a fault of capitalism in general, may I quote from a pamphlet entitled "Money Facts" and published on September 21, 1964 by the United States government for the committee on banking and money of the House of Representatives.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)

On page 1 we find question No. 3:
Why is the money-creating power important?
This is the answer:
Because, by creating money, banks provide the exchange media which the economy needs to prosper and grow. Since the growth and proper functioning of the U.S. economy require increasing amounts of money over the years, those who control the amount of money exercise great power over business activity, the incomes people earn, and our economic strength.
Page 2, question No. 7:
What problems are raised by an "independent" Federal Reserve?
The answer is:
There are two major problems. One is the problem of political responsibility for the country's economic policies. The other is the problem of final control over the government's actions in the economic sphere.
Page 5, question No. 22:
What is money?
The answer is:
Money is anything that people will accept in exchange for goods or services, in the belief that they may, in turn, exchange it, now or later, for other goods or services. Any number of different materials-including paper i.o.u.'s-may serve as money. How money functions, and what money represents are its important aspects and not simply what it is made of.
Page 12, question No. 69:
If the government can issue bonds, why can't it issue money and save the interest?
This is the answer:
A few clear headed and firm individuals, such as Abraham Lincoln, have insisted that the government should. The late Thomas A. Edison stated the matter this way:
"If our nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay: but one promise fattens the usurer and the other helps the people."

The Address-Mr. Marcoux
However, it has long been one of the political facts of life that private banks must be allowed to create the lion's share of the money, even if not all of the money. Thus there is little opposition to the government's printing bonds and then permitting the banks to create the money with which to buy those bonds; but proposals that the government itself create the money instead of the bonds have always set off tremendous political upheavals. For example, Abraham Lincoln set off a political furor when he insisted upon having the government issue $346 million in money, the so-called "greenbacks", instead of issuing interest bearing bonds and paying interest on the money.
Page 29, question 155:
Isn't the suggestion of improving the money system both impudent and a call for needless tinkering with the economy?
This is the answer:
Not at all. The monetary system of today, improved as it has been over the past 200 or so years, is still man made. There is no reason to conclude that the system is perfect. The process of improving the money system is not complete any more than is the process of improving our national life generally.
Further, in every period of our history, people, especially bankers, have resisted any change in our money system with the cry, "leave well enough alone." Then some disaster would strike and the monetary system would be changed in panic and haste. The system always looks solid or at least adequate until the moment it becomes inadequate. The fact that the system is now functioning more or less satisfactorily is no reason to shun inspection. Economic health and progress is the result of continual care and attention.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read question No. 157:
In practical terms, what is meant by Federal Reserve "independence"?
This is the answer:
There are two sides to independence-one is economic, the other political. On the economic side, independence means that the Federal Reserve formulates and executes economic policy, using its monetary controls, without any necessary reference or co-ordination with the policies being followed by the other branches of the government. This, of course, invites clashes between the Federal Reserve and other parts of the government.

Mr. Speaker, following these extremely brilliant explanations, I cannot but recommend to all the hon. members of the house the reading of this remarkable document issued by the U.S.A. government and which bears publication No. 37-240.
The disclosures contained in that document allow me to go on wondering how the masterminds of the high international finance have succeeded so far in maintaining the myth of money scarcity during depressions and of easy credit in the so-called periods of prosperity.
106	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Marcoux
For me, this is insulting human reason and holding in perfect contempt the sovereign power of the people in a democracy.
In the light of such principles, and as the Liberal party has already taken position in favour of debt-free money, we do censure it for not having increased the family allowances according to the cost of living, and we move the following subamendment.
I move, seconded by the hon. Member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson):
That the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition be amended by inserting, after the word "advisers", the following:
"having failed to carry out an economic and financial program such as would have been possible through the facilities of the Bank of Canada; having thereby failed to raise family allowances in keeping with the cost of living and been unsuccessful in establishing a balanced economy and in lightening the burden of the public debt and the interests thereon so as to provide every Canadian with a standard of living consistent with the value of this country's natural resources; not having considered it advisable to invest a huge amount of debt-free social capital through the Bank of Canada, with a view to financing the training of an adequate staff to deal with medical and hospital care, do not enjoy the confidence of this house."
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I have had an opportunity of reviewing the subamendment, and at first glance it does seem to me it enlarges considerably on the amendment. If there is no objection in the House I would propose to put the subamendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder, so we can understand it thoroughly and if it would not be irregular, perhaps Your Honour could just read the amendment as amended so the House could see just exactly what was before it. It does strike out certain words and substitute others.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In effect it strikes out all of it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I also point out to Your Honour that it seems to me a subamendment must modify an amendment and not replace it, which is precisely what this does. It has no reference at all to the amendment. I would put it to Your Honour, therefore, that a subamendment must amend an amendment and must be related thereto. The present amendment as proposed is not related to the amendment in any way, and does not modify it. As a matter of fact it merely seeks to replace it.
I am subject to correction here, since I have

DEBATES	April 8, 1965
only had a glance at the subamendment, but I would draw to Your Honour's attention the need for a careful study to ascertain whether or not it is in order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could say a word on the point raised by the hon. Member for Edmonton West, whose opinion I always respect. In this particular case the substance of the amendment is the word "regret". It is an expression of regret that the right hon. gentleman seeks to make in his amendment, and it is an expression of regret that the hon. member seeks to make in his subamendment. It does seem to me that to substitute one set of reasons for regret for another would be the kind of subamendment which has been allowed on the Address in order that, in the kind of Parliament we have been having in recent years, every party represented in Parliament could put forward its own point of view and have it voted upon.
I would draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that in practice we do not circumscribe the debate strictly to the subject of the subamendment, but we have always ranged over both amendment and subamendment. From my experience in the House, which is rather more limited than that of other hon. members though it is beginning to grow a little, it does seem to me that the rights of the right hon. gentleman would not be in any way abridged if the House were permitted to vote upon the hon. Member's amendment. I am not suggesting for one minute that I would be prepared to support it, but I feel that so far as we are concerned we would not wish, on a technicality, to have the hon. Member and his party deprived of putting forward their point of view.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think one has to look at this subamendment in the same way one would look at a subamendment that sought to strike out all the words after the word "that". I think that merely to go a little bit further and strike out the substance does not differentiate it from that kind of subamendment. I believe the practice in recent years at any rate has been to frown upon any amendment to strike out all the words after "that" except in two cases, namely on Supply Motions and on the Budget.
With respect to the point made by the Minister of Transport, which I think he made with some validity, that our aim in the Throne Speech debate is to permit all parties to have
April 8, 1965

a chance to present their point of view, it should be said that is one of the reasons for the change in the rules which clears the decks by the end of the fourth day. By tomorrow at six o'clock, whatever is before the House will have been voted upon and we will be back on the main motion. Any party that has not had an opportunity of presenting its point of view by means of a subamendment presumably would have an opportunity by way of a main amendment. I believe that is the answer to the point made by the Minister of Transport. Basically, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that you would have to rule on this subamendment in the same way you would rule on any amendment that proposed to strike out all the words after "that".


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to support what the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre has said. When we modified the rules to have votes on the second, fourth and sixth days, my recollection of the discussion in the Committee when the proposal was made was that it would preclude having to deal with this type of amendment as a subamendment interposed before the fourth day. This might more properly be raised following the vote on the fourth day of the debate.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to say that the wording of this amendment is similar to the practice that has been followed in the past on a number of occasions, as has been so well pointed out by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre. I believe we have to take into consideration also this word "regret". As the Minister of Transport pointed out, this is really the operative word in this amendment. We go on, as he said, to point out a number of reasons why we regret the action taken by Her Excellency's advisers. These reasons, if I may say so, are substantially different from the reasons offered in the amendment.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
This still does not change the operative word in the original amendment. I would draw to Your Honour's attention the fact that what is now proposed by the hon. Member for Quebec-Montmorency is on the same lines as other amendments moved in the past. An amendment to the amendment has been moved to strike out all the words after "that", so there is a possibility of a completely new idea being interjected. I do not think this is a departure from our practice; a number of similar cases in the past could be cited.
The Address-Mr. Groos [Translation]


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a few comments with regard to the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux), following the remarks made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who had the opportunity to occupy the Chair for the complete duration of a parliament. He will agree with me that, in early February 1963, our party had moved a subamendment which actually struck out almost all the words contained in the amendment moved by the Liberal party at the time and kept only the word "government" at the very beginning.
At that time, after a few moments' hesitation, he had allowed the subamendment and all will remember that this amendment caused the defeat of the Conservative party.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to thank all hon. Members who have endeavoured to assist the Chair. Their views have been most helpful. At the beginning I was considering the applicability of Beauchesne, citation 202(3), but in view of what has been said in the House today and the procedure followed in the recent past it does seem to me that we can consider the subamendment as being in order.


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria, B.C.):: I do not
wish to take up too much time in commenting directly on the Speech from the Throne, since I have a few other matters to bring to the attention of the House. I should like to stress that to my mind one of the most far reaching features it contains is the indication that the rules of Parliament will be altered to permit the allocation of time on legislation by agreement among the house leaders.
This procedure is already being followed in Westminster, the mother of parliaments, and it is long overdue in this House. The change that is proposed should introduce a measure of efficiency into this House which at the moment I feel is sadly lacking. It will cut down on the number and length of dreary speeches which are the curse of the present arrangements. I think most Hon. Members of the House and all members of the Press Gallery will welcome the change. Too long has the country been forced to accept length of debate as a measure of the sincerity and intensity of investigation into proposed legislation. We in this House know this is at best a very unreliable yardstick.
April 8. 1965

The Address-Mr. Groos
Surely the change will put new life into Parliamentary debate. I look for not just shorter but sharper comment and wit in this House as a result, and I hope this proposal will be introduced by the Government and agreed to at the earliest possible date.
We hear a lot in this House and elsewhere these days, Mr. Speaker, about what is going on in Quebec. We hear about biculturalism and bilingualism; we hear of French Canadian rights under the British North America Act; we hear of the quiet revolution, and so on. Representatives such as myself from the western part of Canada are fortunate in being close to the action, since we can see probably more clearly than those who are not so close just what is going on. However, our position carries with it the responsibility for interpreting to our constituents what it is we do see. It is our clear and, I think, pleasant duty to report back to them, and on this subject we can in truth say that an old era is passing and with it is going a great deal that should have long since departed.
When the hasty words and wild actions of the fanatics and men of ill will have been rewarded with the public contempt they so fully deserve, and when in the calm atmosphere of tolerance we take a good look at the activities of the genuine Quebecker, we can see very clearly what he is working for. What he is building is surely his share, his rightful share, of something we have all been giving lip service to in word and song for many a long year, a land strong and freed, a land with a future that will be proud and respected.
Few of us can have any argument with this objective, and I know that most Westerners will wish Quebeckers the best of good luck. All Canada will be the stronger when this quiet revolution gets up a really good head of steam. It is a very poor imitation Canadian whose heart does not beat just a little bit faster when he visits la belle Province and its great city of Montreal. He sees for himself what his fellow countrymen are achieving down there these days. What the French Canadians are doing for themselves in the Province of Quebec will unquestionably stimulate lively discussion in the rest of Canada. It already has, and what is wrong with that? I am sure that with imagination and good sense, fortunately present in such abundance on both sides, we will all survive and be the better for it.
I wish now to speak on two other matters to which I regretfully found no reference in

the Throne Speech. The first concerns inflation and the second the up-dating of pensions for retired Federal Government civil employees and military personnel.
I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that no one group in our society is more aware of the dangers and effects of inflation than pensioners. No group is more ill equipped to fight the continuous day to day battles of inflation than retired public servants and their widows. I think it is because of our mild climate in Victoria and our generally civilized outlook on life-if you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, for referring to it in those terms- that we have living in Victoria a large percentage of retired persons, including large numbers of retired military personnel and civil servants, o (12:40 p.m.)
I wish to make a special appeal for consideration of their problems. With so many on the front benches who have been employees of the Federal Government themselves at one time or another before entering this House, I cannot help but feel that my plea will not fall on deaf ears. I doubt that anyone would dare claim that Government employees generally, be they civil or military, have been overpaid in the past for the work they have done. The military and the federal civil service have been and still are among our nation's most loyal and trusted servants. They have an international reputation for their ability which is second to none, and it grieves me to see how they fare at the hands of the nation after their retirement. With pensions wedded or welded-call it what you will-to the rates of pay they were receiving at the time of their retirement, there is no-I repeat, no- provision for the implacable, gnawing away effects of inflation, an inflation which the Government is apparently unable to prevent.
This being the case, Mr. Speaker-and I do not argue this point; I am not one of those who believe that the Government can control inflation without at the same time imposing a host of other wholly unacceptable and undesirable controls-I think the Federal Government has a responsibility toward their faithful and on this point largely helpless, servants to provide decent pensions as a matter of right-having been honestly earned -at a rate, I suggest, that is at least in step with the up to date salaries or wages paid by the Government for the same work today.
Surely this is not too much to ask. It is not even striking into new ground, because the same principle has been followed for
April 8, 1965

years by the government in the land to the south of us, and to a certain extent it is also being followed across the sea today in the United Kingdom. If we cannot strike out on our own with a new, improved formula, can we not at least follow in their footsteps? We might even want to tie federal pensions to the cost of living index; and this is another approach which would be quite all right with me.
I am very encouraged to see in the Canada Pension Plan that the Government for the first time has done something along this line, and has provided automatic increases in pension payments with increases in the cost of living index. I commend the Government wholeheartedly for this. If the Government does not want to take the course of action that I recommended just now to provide fair, up to date pensions, then by all means let us regard the Canada Pension Plan as a precedent and tie our federal pensions in with the cost of living index. I do not mind which course we follow; but we must, in my view, do something. What I wish to impress upon the Government is that the time is far past when we should have made this move. Successive governments have fumbled, waffled and ignored their pensioners long enough, and Provincial Governments and private employers have not been slow, as we all know, to follow suit.
If I may make an observation at this point, Mr. Speaker, I think federal pensioners generally have been much too quiet on the subject of their inflation-caused pension troubles. This is perhaps natural. With years of public service ingrained in their lives, after retirement they have for the most part sat patiently by and watched their hard earned pensions slowly but surely being eaten away by inflation, hoping the Government in its role of Great White Father will do the right thing by them.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that bitter experience has shown them that their confidence has been misplaced. This is a lesson that should not be lost on the federal civil service of today, particularly when they approach the bargaining table for the first time this year, as I am happy to see was promised in the Throne Speech. Nothing can be more frustrating than to see salaries increase year by year across the land, taking care of rising costs for those fortunate enough and young enough to be still employed, while at the same time pensioners experience those same rising costs but are caught in the vise-like grip of a fixed pension.
The Address-Mr. Starr
At present there is no way out for them, Mr. Speaker. Retirement sentences the public servant to a gradual lowering of living standards, and the spectre of an eventual appeal to welfare or charity of one sort or another is a distinct possibility in all too many cases. Members should ask themselves the question, is this fair and is this right? These people do not require alms or handouts; they do need help, and help to them is most justly due. As a Federal Government it is both our moral responsibility and in our own best interests to provide it; for if we are going to attract good people into the service of our country- and, looking ahead, I suggest this is as important today as ever before in our history- we must show that at the end of such service there is a fair retirement.
Surely this fits in with Liberal thinking- spell it as you wish, with a large or a small letter "L"-for the Federal Government to show the way, to provide the lead for provincial and private employers in protecting the purchasing power and the retirement way of life of its faithful servants. I hope, therefore, that the Government will remember its responsibility, will look closely into this problem without delay and will take action very shortly during this Parliament to bring an end to this sorry situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. Member permit a question? In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance was not able to be here to hear this important speech, this very excellent speech, I wonder whether the hon. Member would personally see to it that his speech is brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance.


David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to send him a copy, signed by my own hand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Michael Siarr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, as is traditional in this House on this occasion, I also wish to join with others who have preceded me in this debate and extend my congratulations to the mover and the seconder on their speeches in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) and the hon. Member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien). They certainly put forward their best efforts. This is what all of us in the House of Commons are very proud of, namely the high calibre of the speeches of Members who are assigned these very important functions of moving and seconding the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Their
no

April 8, 1965
The Address-Mr. Starr speeches are always on a high plane, and we are all proud of these people each and every time this is done.
I was rather impressed with the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mrs. Rideout), the hon. Lady who made her maiden speech yesterday. I am sure she is somewhat relieved now that this chore is over, because I remember vividly back in 1952 when I had to deliver my maiden speech and know that a person goes through a lot of nervousness; but the atmosphere of the House helps a great deal. I think the hon. Lady has used this atmosphere very effectively, because her presence in the House is very noticeable; and I notice, also, that she seems to enjoy being a Member of Parliament. I want to congratulate her on her maiden speech, and we look forward to many more contributions from her during the life of this session and the sessions to follow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)


Michael Starr: The Speech from the Throne is a tremendous and voluminous speech filled with words of platitude. One has to examine this speech very carefully to find what new legislation the Government intends to bring forward during this Session of Parliament. This Speech reminds me of the speech made by President Johnson, because it has been dubbed as the speech of war on poverty, and I think this has been done purposely.
This Speech also reminds me of the 60 days of decision used by this Government as its slogan when it first came into office, which slogan was modelled on the late President Kennedy's motto of 90 days of decision. The only variation is the difference of 30 days. This Speech is nothing but a manifesto of words, when we come to look at it very closely. To my mind this Government has copied the actions, the words and the platforms of the Democratic Party of the United States now on two occasions; first, those of the late President Kennedy, and now those of President Johnson. I am wondering when this Government is going to come forward with some of its own ideas, and when it is going to tell the people of Canada that it is prepared to stand on its own two feet rather than mimic the actions of the Government of the United States.
I am also wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether any action is going to result from the listing of some of the things which are embodied in this Speech, because very few

of the matters listed in the last Speech from the Throne which we debated in this House came about. It is true that the Government make a practice of adding words to present legislation. When they talked about certain aspects of legislation which is now on the books of the country in the last Speech they said this was to be "improved", a word which meant nothing at all. They now apply a different adjective to legislation which is presently on the books and already in existence. The 60 days of decision was a complete fraud and a flop during the last session of parliament, and we now expect that the pious platitudes which have been set out in this Throne Speech will experience the same fate.
The war on poverty is a very interesting title for this Speech from the Throne because, as we have noticed in the past session of parliament, cabinet minister after cabinet minister in this Government, particularly outside of the House of Commons on public platforms, has declared that things were very much better, that the Government had solved the economic problems, and that things were on the move. It is strange that now in the Speech from the Throne we find the admission by this Government that there is poverty in Canada, and that they are going to wage a war on that poverty. I will deal with the various items the Government propose in order to eliminate poverty as I go through the Speech. I am wondering whether the war on poverty, as I say, is an admission that nothing has been done since this Government came into office two years ago to rectify the situation.
Let us see, Mr. Speaker, what the Throne Speech contains. First of all there is a reference in one paragraph of the Speech to the automobile agreement which was signed by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada. Let us look at the situation created by this agreement. First of all, it was agreed that Canada would forgo on new parts and new automobiles coming into Canada duties ranging anywhere from 17J per cent to 25 per cent. Under this agreement the United States also agreed to forgo up to 8J per cent duty on all parts and automobiles being shipped into the United States.
As I understand it, 50 per cent of the power to forgo this duty lies in the initiative of the President of the United States; the balance, the other 50 per cent, lies in the Congress of the United States. It was
April 8. 1965

decided that the President of the United States would not exercise his part of the power to reduce the duty on these automobiles and parts going into the United States, but rather would wait until Congress had approved the agreement so the whole remission could be made at once. On the other hand, Canada immediately implemented her part of that agreement without coming to Parliament for approval of any kind. This was done either by Order in Council or by decision of the Cabinet. The Government were anxious to get into this agreement, but up until now it has been a one way agreement which has been implemented by Canada but not by the United States.
The Government now proposes that a resolution be introduced into the House of Commons to ratify the agreement which is already in existence. This is the method which this Government has employed throughout all its legislation during the period of time it has been in office. It has put the cart before the horse. Parliament has been the last to ratify or learn what this Government intends to do or what this Government is doing.


Mr. Moreau:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Would not the hon. Member agree that there is a second part to this arrangement, namely an agreement between the automobile manufacturers and this Government to increase Canadian production, and should that not be considered when discussing this automobile trade agreement?


Michael Starr: I agree entirely with the hon. Member that we should have access to the letters that were signed and written which gave an undertaking to the Government on the part of the automobile companies. But this correspondence has been kept secret and none of us can find out the ground rules laid down in these letters signed by the presidents of these automobile companies. I think the hon. Member is right. I think the whole thing should have been brought to Parliament and that we should have been told the basis upon which we entered into this agreement with the United States.
I say that because I feel that not only does this agreement affect the automobile industry in the manufacture or assembly of motor cars, but it has also already affected the small parts manufacturers in various areas in this country, and it will affect them as days go by in the lay-offs which are taking place among their workers, with no provision
The Address-Mr. Starr on the part of the Government for care of these displaced people. Each and every day when questions are asked about this matter there is only a shrug of the shoulders, because the Government has no plan ready now to take care of those who will be displaced.
May I call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, when the recess was called at one o'clock I had just completed dealing with the automobile agreement between the United States and Canada. I had made some comments to the effect that the Government had placed the cart before the horse. That has been a traditional practice on the part of this government, at least over a period of two years, applicable to that particular agreement and other legislative items brought by this government before this House.
At this time I should like to point out some factors regarding the so-called war on poverty as outlined by the Speech from the Throne, which states in part that the Government intends to eliminate poverty among our people. It then goes on to list proposed federal legislation which will rectify the situation.
What are the steps outlined in the Throne Speech to be taken by this Government in its attack on poverty? First of all, there is a suggestion that provincial conferences will be held. Second, it suggests that there will be regional development, and then qualifies this step by saying this will take a good deal of time, possibly years, to bring about. Let me remind hon. Members that regional development programs have been in existence for a number of years. The party to which I belong put these programs into effect when it was in office. When the Liberal Government came into office a few years ago it was quick to take up these programs, modify them, and claim the credit for them. I wonder what else will be done in this regard by Government.
The Speech from the Throne contains several references to employment and the training of workers for new jobs. That type of program was, of course, put into effect, or

April 8, 1965
The Address-Mr. Starr at least accelerated by the former Government in 1960, and has been continued by the present Government. What else will be done in this regard? I suppose we will have to wait to find out the answer to that question.
Also included in the Throne Speech is a reference to a program for the redevelopment of rural areas. Our Government put such a program into effect in the form of ARDA legislation, so this is nothing new. There is also reference to blighted areas in cities, and this problem of course was attacked by the previous Government in the form of changes in the Central Mortgage and Housing policy which have made possible an increase in housing and in the construction of schools. I see nothing new in that policy or anything which will create an acceleration in this area.
One thing that does surprise me about the contents of this Throne Speech is that portion which suggests there will be new opportunities for young Canadians, because nothing is set out as to what sort of opportunities will be extended to this segment of our population. There is just a usage of words, ended by a period. I doubt whether any advantage will be forthcoming in this regard. I am sure the young people of this generation will become old, 60 or 70 years of age, before this Government takes any action which will be of assistance in this field. The Hospital and Medical Insurance Plan was promised for many years, and legislation in this regard has been brought in piecemeal.
It seems to me the Prime Minister has less faith than almost anyone else, in the ability of his Ministers to carry out effectively some of these programs, as indicated by his new role as co-ordinator. He intends to take these programs under his wing and co-ordinate them through a special secretariat. This fact indicates, at least to me, that the Prime Minister feels that at least some of his Ministers, and possibly all of them, need guidance in order to co-ordinate these efforts. I am afraid I cannot blame him for taking that position, because certainly the past performances of his Ministers both in and out of this House have indicated a need for someone to help them co-ordinate some of these programs. Obviously they need guidance in this regard.
Another subject referred to in the Throne Speech is a new and activated farm policy. It is about time this Government launched a program in respect of farm policy. I represent a riding which is not only an industrial area

but also encompasses one of the finest mixed farming areas in the country. A number of responsible individuals engaged in agriculture in my area have informed me that the prices now being paid for agricultural products are as low as they have ever been, and can be compared with prices paid in the 1930's. Consequently they feel something should be done about the inertia on the part of the government, particularly on the part of the Minister of Agriculture. Agriculture is one of the mainstays of our economy, and the people involved in this industry should be looked after. These prices should be increased so as to provide this important segment of our population with at least an opportunity to earn a decent living. The Minister of Agriculture did announce a new dairy policy a short time ago, and perhaps it is too early to criticize or approve this policy because its effects will not be known for approximately 11 months. We must wait to see how favourable this policy will be.
The Speech from the Throne also contains the suggestion that there will be an increase in assistance for the construction of vocational schools. Similar legislation was introduced by the former Government in 1960, which was followed in two and a half years by a tremendous acceleration in the construction of schools of all types in this country. Since the present government came into office that program has almost reached a standstill. There is an obvious need for accommodation for the training and retraining of our young Canadians, and I suggest that this program should be accelerated.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. Member permit a question? Has the hon. Member forgotten the number of schools that have been built in one of the largest provinces of Canada, and the very large expansion in this regard in that province since the present Government came into office?


Michael Starr: I realize that the Minister is referring to the Province of Quebec, but let me remind him that that province has had the same opportunity in this regard as other provinces have had; and when he refers to the acceleration which has taken place since his Government came into office, I think if he will consider the facts he will realize that no such thing has occurred in Quebec. Perhaps he will obtain some facts and figures from the Minister of Labour in respect of that province. He has suggested that there has been great expansion in this field in that province, but there are no figures which will prove that contention.
April 8, 1965

There is another reference in the Throne Speech to the effect that the Citizenship and Immigration Acts are to be amended. I suggest that steps in this direction must be taken in this country, and in this regard I would remind the Minister of Transport that when he was the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration some reference was made to second class babies. That hon. Member had no use for second class babies at that time, but I think the Minister should now consider this situation seriously and support any amendment to the citizenship act which will allow people coming into this country to become citizens on the same basis as anyone else.
The whole Throne Speech is an attempt by the Government to enunciate policies, most of which are not new. It is my belief that the Government has in this way enabled itself to sit back and enjoy the result of policies that were brought into being by the former Government. They were fortunate enough to come to power at a time when these policies were really taking hold and bringing results. They themselves have done nothing new to accelerate a decrease in unemployment and to accelerate an increase in vocational training.
C2:40 p.m.)
There is no mention of any increase in income tax exemptions, and this is a matter that is worrying a great many people. Reference is made to improvements to be brought about in the conduct of the business of the House. We are certainly glad to hear this. I do not entirely believe that we should conduct our business in the House in the same way the board of directors of a big corporation would conduct their business, but I think there should be an improvement over what has taken place in the past two years. The responsibility in this respect lies entirely upon the Government.
I say there has been an admission by the Government that the way in which the business of the House has been conducted has been their fault. This is confirmed by the fact that in two years the Government has named three different House Leaders. First we had the Minister of Transport, but he did not do such a good job. He was pulled out of the job and replaced by the Minister of Justice, who was a complete flop. Now we have the President of the Privy Council, as House Leader, and we will have to wait and see how he makes out. But the responsibility rests on the Government so far as the orderly conduct of the business of the House is concerned, and I am glad to see
The Address-Mr. Starr some indication that the Government is prepared to mend its ways; because the House of Commons cannot carry on with the incompetence, the bungling, the bargaining, the threats and the blackmail to which the House has been subjected so far as its business is concerned. The situation that has existed reflects on all of us, wherever we may sit, and on Parliament as a whole. Therefore I hope the Government will mend its ways so we can deal with the business of the country in a more orderly fashion.
The Prime Minister made some reference to the two cultures and to bilingualism and biculturalism in Canada. He said that basically Canada is a nation of two founding races, and that these two founding races should be the cornerstone of our existence. No one has any quarrel at all with such a statement. During the flag debate we in our party stood firm and fast for the view that the two traditional races should be depicted in some way on our flag. However, we were not successful in that regard.
We agree that there are the two basic cultures, but what about the five million other Canadians who have come to this country, have become good citizens and want to participate as Canadians, as well as their sons and daughters who have been born here in the second and third generations. What role are they left to play, and which side are they going to take? They have been told time and time again that they have brought to this country rich cultures and traditions, and that Canada is prepared to adopt much of these cultures and traditions not on the basis of a melting pot but through integrating them into a Canadian way of life. Nothing has been spelled out with regard to this third group of Canadians, who comprise almost a third of the population of the country and who will increase far more rapidly than the other two groups in the years ahead. No role is set out for these people, and they are left in a quandary and wonderment with regard to how their cultures and traditions will be integrated and play a role.
Speaking in Kitchener on April 7 the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said very rightly to a group of those Canadians who have received citizenship:
In the past Canada has sometimes been referred to as a great "melting pot", a place where scores of divergent nationalities met and fused. I sincerely believe, however, that our ideas have changed considerably in the past decade or so, and now it is hardly possible to submerge all divergent characteristics into a totality called "Canada". I like to think that the melting pot ideal has
April 8, 1965

The Address-Mr. Starr gone and that a new image has taken its place, a new image which can perhaps be more aptly termed a "mixing pot" rather than a melting pot, a combining, yes, but not a fusing at the expense of individuality.


An hon. Member:: What kind of pot?


Michael Starr: A mixing pot. This is the new policy that the government has for five million Canadians.


John George Diefenbaker: It would describe the Government, too.


Michael Starr: I think we are not paying enough attention of this third large group of Canadians. In my view we have left them out on a limb. At first they felt that their cultures and traditions were going to be integrated, thus adding something to Canada, but now they are at a loss to know where they stand because the emphasis is going to be on two cultures and two languages in this country. We agree with this, but there should also be an avenue whereby this third group can be integrated and have their place as well. I do not believe they will want to be left out. They do not want to be classed as second class citizens any longer. They want to play a full part in this country in the light of their ability, their knowledge, their culture and their tradition.
I think it is important that Canadians should be Canadians and not hyphenated Canadians, but in the past year or two more and more hyphenated Canadianism has come into being. There are English speaking Canadians and there are French speaking Canadians and there are other Canadians who do not want to be hyphenated but will now possibly have to be hyphenated. This situation has brought about great strife, and I think the Government should deal with it very forcefully, effectively and quickly. They should not employ emotional policies to deal with this matter but should bring about economic policies that will create satisfaction in every part of the country and in every province.
One of the main omissions in the Speech from the Throne is the matter of relief for the municipal taxpayer who is overburdened with municipal taxes. On an average home he is now paying $700 to $1,000 a year in taxes. There is no mention of relief for these people. Sixty cents of every municipal tax dollar, and in some cases more, now goes for education. There is no relief in this respect. Relief could be provided without infringing upon provincial jurisdiction over education, but the Government is not concerned about this matter.


There is another matter I should like the Government to consider. I refer to the salaries of letter carriers and postal clerks. The policy now in effect and implemented by the Civil Service Commission is that across the board from coast to coast the same salary shall prevail. In my opinion this is not right, because there are areas in the country where letter carriers and postal clerks can live fairly comfortably on their present salaries, whereas in large urban metropolitan areas letter carriers and postal clerks are nearly starving on the salaries they are receiving. Many of them are leaving the service for better jobs with better pay.
I place the thought before the Government for their consideration that they should consider establishing these salaries on a regional rather than an across the board basis, so the cost of living can be kept in mind when salaries are set for those who work in urban areas such as metropolitan Toronto and the immediate vicinity, in comparison with those who work in Northern Ontario or in other parts of Canada.
[DOT]	(2:50 p.m.)
This Speech from the Throne, when it was prepared by the Government and read by the Governor General, was dubbed "a war on poverty". However, after close scrutiny one finds that this war on poverty is nothing but a camouflage; this war on poverty is nothing but a rehash of existing legislation. We will watch with a great deal of interest to see what will be done about the other legislation and the opportunities for young Canadians in the days to come.
[DOT]	(3:00 p.m.)


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take the opportunity afforded me by the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne to point out to the government the main needs of my riding and express my views on politics in general.
I must congratulate the mover of the address, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) for his wonderful speech, and the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleehe (Mr. Chretien) who seconded it. Evidently, they had to admit that the government of Canada needs to take drastic steps to raise the living standards of the working classes. They also accepted and approved without discussion the measures proposed by the government which, in my opinion, are but
April 8, 1965	COMMONS
aspiring to soothe the pains of a suffering population whose cries are becoming ever louder.
Mr. Speaker, the area I represent is relatively new; it is important that it should be developed rapidly as regards industry and agriculture as well as services in general. In the last few years the vast area of Abitibi has suffered from a decline in agriculture and a slowing down in practically every other field. Farm revenue is inadequate to allow farming families to live decently. While most of our farmers must work in the woods, on construction sites or in mines to get enough money to keep their families and retain their land, it is necessary to import from Ontario and elsewhere every week thousands of pounds of pork and beef, thousands of dozens of eggs and tons of all kinds of vegetables. And yet all those things could be produced in abundance in Abitibi, at least in sufficient quantity to meet our own needs.
Some increase has been made in the grants to dairy farmers, but a ceiling has been set. Farmers are not asking for a ceiling but for a reinforced floor so that they may earn a decent livelihood, overcome indigence and poverty, and enjoy the full benefits of the wealth which they can produce.
In the industrial field, mining companies have started operation in Matagami in recent months and others will also begin operation in Joutel. At lake Quevillon, construction of a paper mill got underway recently and small towns may be expected to sprout around those industries which will require all kinds of service.
Among the services which ought to be established are, first of all, air transport services and radio-television services.
The authorities of Chibougamau and Chapais have repeatedly requested government assistance for the construction, in the case of the former, and the improvement, in the case of the latter, of airports to allow the landing of medium size aircraft. In view of the results obtained and considering that such requests are fully justified, I think the Department concerned should take immediate action in this regard. Along these lines, I think the department should already be considering the construction or improvement of medium size airports in the vicinity of the places I have mentioned, as well as near the towns of Amos, La Sarre, Senneterre and Matagami. Lebel, on lake Quevillon, should also be considered.
DEBATES	115
The Address-Mr. Laprise
Radio-television services at Chibougamau and Chapais should also be looked into immediately.
The citizens of those communities are entitled to a radio and television service just as much as the citizens of any other city in Canada. Incidentally, I may point out that those who want television must pay $81 per year, plus an initial payment of $200 to be connected to a cable system. They can pick up only one channel and the reception is often very poor.
The municipal councils of Chibougamau and Chapais, the chambers of commerce of those two communities, the Chibougamau League of Home Owners, the Chibougamau St. Jean Baptiste Society and Kiwanis Club, the mine workers union of Chibougamau and Chapais made numerous representations on behalf of their fellow citizens, asking for free radio and television.
At this stage, I should like to point out that those two towns alone have a population of over 12,000 people.
I made several representations myself on that matter and every time, the reply was: the estimates do not provide for this, and we do not have any money.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) said: We will have to wait for the report of the Fowler commission.
But I wonder whether he waited for the report of the Fowler commission with reference to the news item concerning the world fair. In fact, this is a report carried in the publication Expo Digest of April 7, which said:
The project is to build another permanent building on the site of the fair. It would be a building provided with all the equipment required to broadcast throughout the world television and radio programs concerning Expo 67.
Radio and T.V. programs will be broadcast throughout the world, except to Chapais and Chibougamau.
I quote:
This building will be erected by the C.B.C. at a cost of ten million dollars.
For the world fair, everything is possible; but when it comes to services for people who have settled several years ago in isolated centres, far from communication centres, then there is not enough money.
The miners, the taxpayers are the forgotten men. That reminds me of the depression before the war. In peacetime there is no money; but in wartime, there is no shortage
April 8, 1965

The Address-Mr. Laprise of money. For the fair, no financial problem must stand in the way; every project no matter how fanciful must be achieved; money is no object; let future generations pay for our extravagances.
Mr. Speaker, the improvements I have just claimed are essential and physically possible. People are asking for them. The only obstacle, at the present time, is lack of funds. The needs are there. They could be met, and Social Credit would remove the financial obstacle.
The Speech from the Throne is no better nor worse than those we are accustomed to hear, except that it contains disturbing admissions which point to the weakness of an administration that failed to anticipate or settle the problems of an expanding nation. Government by the old-line parties has been an obstacle to this country's development and the welfare of its population, in that it has left too many people in dire poverty. The government has just realized it as evidenced by the speech from the throne; however, there are two rather contradictory paragraphs which I will quote. First:
Our country is achieving a high rate of economic growth. Trade is expanding. With the growing industrialization, Canadians are enjoying rapidly increasing employment opportunities; incomes and living standards are rising; the number of people out of work has been reduced to lower levels than for many years.
And the next paragraph continues:
All the great potentialities of our economy are not, however, being realized. The talents of some of our people are wasted because of poverty, illness, inadequate education and training, inequality in opportunities for work.
While the economic growth of some favoured classes of society is praised, it is recognized that a great mass of the population are becoming poorer and poorer; fortunately the government has just realized it. But what does it propose in this connection? For some, the situation has improved; for others, it has considerably deteriorated. The number of poor, poverty stricken and needy people has kept on increasing, and what does the government propose? Long term measures: to study the situation of the poor man, find out why he is poor.
In Health and Welfare of January 1965, published under the authority of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss La-Marsh), there is an article entitled:
Fight against indigence.
It is subtitled:
Canada attacks one of the great social evils of today.


I would like to quote the beginning of this article.
In Ottawa, on a day in November of last year, about 50 people met to launch an attack against poverty, which is probably today's greatest social evil. The group was made up of experts from the federal civil service, universities, labour unions and social welfare agencies; they were all deeply worried about continuing poverty in Canada. They all knew that poverty exists. Many of them had seen appalling evidence of it; several were engaged in studies and research to find out the reasons for it; others were working to alleviate it. But they all agreed that a more thorough investigation was needed to gather all information available and discover what information was still needed.
It was felt that not enough information was available to determine what is poverty and want.
Among this group of people who met in November last, nobody was found to be sufficiently informed or intelligent enough, nor could such people be found elsewhere in Canada. That is why it was found necessary to ask another country, England, to come to our rescue. Therefore, the council brought in as a consultant, Professor Richard M. Titmuss, of the London School of Economics. There was no one in this country intelligent enough to find out what is poverty and how to fight it in Canada! It was necessary to go outside the country to find someone who could show us what had to be done and how to do it.
Here is what the same Mr. Titmuss suggested:
Mr. Titmuss advised against a comprehensive study of poverty; instead, he recommended an extensive investigation on certain groups of low income families and individuals. He stated; "Proceed immediately by realistic stages like, for instance, the taking of photographs."
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that is going quite far, perhaps a bit too far, to determine the extent of poverty in our midst. If the board appointed to study hardship had left its large, comfortable air-conditioned offices and taken the trouble of going down into the working class sections of our towns, into our villages and everywhere in the country, it would not have had to send for a Londoner to determine the extent of poverty in Canada. You can be sure that if it had sought hardship where it exists, in its actual surroundings, it would not have been long in finding solutions.
I do say, Mr. Speaker, that if the members of that board and the members of the government traded places, not for a year but only for a week, with the unemployed-or even the people with jobs but who have inadequate
April 8. 1965

incomes, who suffer hardship and insecurity, they would soon realize that it is not a speech from the throne that is required to remedy the situation of the needy in Canada, but rather a bill providing for immediate steps, rather than long term policies, as is proposed in the speech from the throne.
And here is what that board will do about those recommendations and others:
In the first place, it will collect and thoroughly examine available statistics to grasp their significance;-
Because they do not seem to understand their significance at the present time.
-next, it will select, in view of a comprehensive survey, a certain segment of the population, a lower bracket group which, as David Woods-worth said "reflects the absence of structures of improvement."
Well, Mr. Speaker, we found that article in a publication issued in January 1965, thus a few months before the Speech from the Throne.
Now, the only things we find in the Speech from the Throne are long-term measures, and the proposal for inquiring into the problem of poverty among our people, as if it were a recent development. This problem has been with us for years. When certain solutions were brought in, they had been overdue for a long time. And we are still at the same point.
Here is what the government suggests in the Speech from the Throne:
It will include improved measures for regional development...
This is rather vague and non-committal.
...the re-employment and training of workers...
It seems to me the Department of Labour has made such an experiment with unemployed persons 45 years of age or over. Or it may be that the advertising agences benefited far more from this program that the workers themselves.
Here is another thing we find in the Speech from the Throne:
...the re-development of rural areas.
This program has been in existence for a few years already. Millions of dollars have been spent to study it, but what, I ask you, has it really meant for our rural citizens?
We can see also:
"assistance of needy people"
It seems to me we already have a program of unemployment assistance, distributing money sparingly and of no real help to the poverty-stricken.
...the renewal of areas now blighted and congested in our cities...

The Address-Mr. Laprise
Does the government see slums only in our cities? There are plenty of slums in our villages and our rural areas where large families have to crowd together and live in houses which are much too small and not built for our severe climate.
What the people want, Mr. Speaker, is the right and the opportunity to determine their own future, to decide where they are going to live, what they are going to wear and to eat, the education and the medical care they are going to get, what to do in their spare time. In short, people want freedom in security.
Mr. Speaker, we Creditistes are convinced that Canada, with its great natural resources developed by Canadians and through scientific and technical know-how, can provide each and every one with decent living conditions where all would be able to develop fully in the pursuit of their natural ideal.
The speech from the throne should have announced an increase in family allowances proportionate to that of the cost of living index since 1945. That would have been of immediate benefit to large families, the ones most affected by poverty.
It should have been announced in the speech from the throne that old age security pensions would be increased to $100 at the age of 60 and that blind and disabled persons pensions would take into account in the future the number of dependants.
It should have been suggested in the speech from the throne that a tax cut will be granted in the budget by increasing deductions to $5,000 for married people and to $2,500 for single persons. When we ask for those tax reductions, we are inevitably told: Where shall we find the money required to administer the country? Take it where it is to be found. Stop taxing workers with low incomes and turn to the Bank of Canada. It is as simple as that.
We are convinced that with an economic system reflecting the actual wealth of our country and banking on the will and industry of Canadians, everyone might live decently in our present and future abundance.
That is why we are asking for a reform of our monetary system through the Bank of Canada so that money can be made to serve man. Let us stop trying to solve production problems; they should be tackled by the producers; let us rather concentrate on solving the goods and services distribution problem.
But if the government included in the speech from the throne things which would
April 8, 1965

The Address-Mr. Roxburgh provide immediate solution to the problems of the day, you can rest assured that the Ralliement Creditiste would have fully endorsed its policies. But the speech from the throne only contains long-term measures which, if and when they are carried out, will have become obsolete.
That is why, during this session, we shall examine thoroughly every bill and introduce all the amendments we may deem necessary, so that parliament may pass legislation which the Canadian people require for their own welfare.
For the time being, Mr. Speaker, we are considering a subamendment which I think all members of the Ralliement Creditiste will strongly support at the proper time.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: May I, Mr. Speaker, associate myself with the things which have been said in complimenting the mover, the hon. Member for St. John's West, and the seconder the hon. Member for St. Maurice-Lafleche for their addresses in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I sincerely want to congratulate these two Members for the very fine presentations they made. I would be very remiss indeed, Mr. Speaker, if I were not to also congratulate our fair and lovely lady, the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mrs. Rideout) on her maiden speech in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: She is a real asset to the Government and to the House of Commons.
The Speech from the Throne at the beginning of each session of Parliament is an important indication of the direction the Government intends to take, and I am very pleased to note the strong stand that is being taken toward war on poverty, a very definite intention of doing something for agriculture, and the promise of a better immigration policy 

and my goodness, we certainly need one; there is no doubt about that.
I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that it was not my intention to speak in the debate on the Speech from the Throne, but circumstances have changed this. My real reason for taking part in this debate concerns a matter of vital importance to my constituency of Norfolk County and to me, their representative at Ottawa. As their spokesman I intend to deal with a matter today that I, as a member of the Government-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, oh.
TMr. Laprise.]


John Maxwell Roxburgh: -certainly do not relish. I have no alternative but to deal with the statements made recently by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, because I must be fair to myself and to those whom I represent. I am very sorry to see that the Minister is not here this afternoon. I phoned the office this morning and understand that she is busy on committee work; but I certainly would have appreciated it very much indeed if the Minister could have been here this afternoon.
Recently there has been a great deal of publicity directed toward tobacco, cigarettes and lung cancer, and because of that situation the Department of National Health and Welfare, with the sanction of the Government, decided that a program of education should be carried on throughout the schools of Canada and that a certain amount of money should be spent for experimental purposes.
I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the tobacco industry has given its fullest support and co-operation in this program, and rightly so. However, the Minister has not been satisfied with carrying out the Government program-and I stress, the Government program-but has at times gone out of her way to make unnecessary, unjustified suggestions; suggestions that in no way-and, Mr. Speaker, I mean in no way-represent Government policy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good for her.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: In her address here at Ottawa on March 12 last the Minister made the following statement:
A ban on television advertising of cigarettes will have to be considered if other anti-smoking campaigns do not prove effective.
This statement brought such headlines in the London Free Press as "May Ban T.V. Cigarette Commercials, LaMarsh said" and similar headlines in other papers from coast to coast.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: All I know, Mr. Speaker, is that whether we like it or whether we don't like it, a large majority-a very large majority-of Canadians watch and listen to United States television and radio stations, and until such time as the Government of the United States takes the same action, any efforts along this line by Canadian television would be puny and meaningless. I would also point out-and I stress this as well-that before such a step could be taken-and get this-that step would first have to be approved by the Cabinet of this Government
April 8, 1965	COMMONS
and not by the Department of National Health and Welfare alone.
 (3:20 p.m.)
During the question period in the House of Commons on March 31, the likeable Member of Parliament for Simcoe East asked the Minister this, as reported at page 12998:
-is the hon. lady giving any consideration to asking the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a public agency, to set a national example by removing all cigarette advertising from its programs?
To which the Minister replied:
Yes, Mr. Speaker; I am considering that.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, but I suppose there is nothing we can do to stop the Minister asking the C.B.C. to consider something. However, I should like to point out that the C.B.C. is the body that decides such programs, not the Department of the Minister in the present Government. Actually the Minister could have, and should have as far as I am concerned, referred the question to the Secretary of State for reply; but I suppose that headlines are headlines, whether practical or not.


Michael Starr: All the Cabinet Ministers have been looking for headlines.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Again I stress, Mr. Speaker, that until this Government makes this a policy, such statements and suggestions by the Minister of National Health and Welfare should be regarded as only meaningless insinuations. Unfortunately, however, they are not so regarded by the general public, many of whom, like a lot of us, just read the headlines.
Before I go any further, Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that everybody understands that nobody-and I mean nobody-is criticizing the Minister for carrying out Government policy regarding education and experimentation. In fact I read with interest the speech which the Minister gave on March 12, and outside of the one statement to which I have referred the speech was excellent.
I should like to point out that from the time the debate on tobacco and cancer commenced, the tobacco industry of Canada has given its full consideration to the subject of television advertising by programming late at night and by making changes in advertising methods-for example, by not using sporting activities or sporting personalities as the media in television programs. The same cannot be said, Mr. Speaker, of another industry whose product, by the way, is not only dangerous to health but also saps the very
DEBATES	119
The Address-Mr. Roxburgh moral heart of our nation; yes, a product which is programmed from morning until night. Every day, at some time during the 24 hours, we hear that that old fellow John Barleycorn and gasoline just do not mix; but during the Saturday night hockey broadcasts they do mix quite freely, and at a time when the youth of our country, the boys and girls of Canada, Mr. Speaker, are watching the program. Even to some of us who enjoy beverages this kind of advertising has become rather sickening.
Speaking personally, I should like to see the advertisers take more responsibility for the type of advertising they use and the times at which they use it. It is not my intention- and I want to make it very plain that I mean this sincerely-to ostracize any product, as each plays its own particular role, some very important ones, in the economy of our nation. But if the Minister and her Department are really sincere in their effort to better the health and welfare of the Canadian people, I suggest that she take a really good look at this type of advertising. Because, Mr. Speaker, if it continues it will not be too long before the children's hour programs will be signing off with such quotes as "Be sure boys and girls, that Mommy and Daddy have their drink of that exhilarating, full-bodied beverage before they tuck you in your little bed. Good night, boys and girls".
This may sound sarcastic and out of place but, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you it is not so far out of place as we may think. There are many-and I stress the word "many"- products detrimental to the health and welfare of our nation being advertised over T.V. and radio to which the Minister could and should give, consideration, instead of just giving consideration to the one product.
While on the subject of T.V. advertising I should like to deal briefly with the C.B.C. program "This Hour has 7 Days", as it dealt with tobacco and cigarettes some weeks ago. The programming itself was good, but some of the facts which were the heart of the program-because facts are the heart of any program-were very far from correct. For example, this question was posed: "Would the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Government be prepared to buck the powerful tobacco growers' lobby?" Mr. Speaker, if it were not for the seriousness of this question it would be downright laughable. The tobacco growers, like the wheat growers, the corn growers, the milk producers, the hog producers, the strawberry
120	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Roxburgh growers, etc., bring their problems before the Provincial and Federal Governments in a regular manner and they are dealt with in the same manner as any other growers' organization.
The second statement made on this program with which I should like to deal-I should like everyone to listen to this-was that the Government of Italy had prohibited T.V. advertising of cigarettes, and that in three years the consumption of cigarettes had dropped more than 30 per cent. Nothing, Mr. Speaker, could be further from the truth. In fact it is a downright prevarication. The facts are that from 1961 to 1964 the consumption of cigarettes in Italy-the over-all consumption, that is-increased by well over 13 per cent and did not decrease at all. I can give you the figures for each year, Mr. Speaker, if necessary or if anybody wants them. I am taking these facts from the official report by the Foreign Agricultural Service of the United States Department of Agriculture which I received on Tuesday morning, so they are right up to date.
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, why the Italian Government banned cigarette advertising? The Italian Government did not ban T.V. advertising of cigarettes to help to control cigarette smoking, as the public was led to believe. The ban was placed on advertising only because cigarettes are a Government monopoly, and the Italian Government wished to shift a greater share of the cigarette market from the more frequently advertised imported brands to those of the Government monopoly. That was the reason it was done, Mr. Speaker, and the suggestion it was otherwise is an innuendo.
I am sure we will have to agree there is little doubt that innuendoes seem to be the fashion of the day, but the only thing that really upsets and worries me is that a public agency like the C.B.C., with the millions of dollars which this Government has granted them for operational purposes, have not a decent research branch. I suggest they had better use some of this money recently granted to them to do a little better research in their programs, and when they make such statements to the public of Canada they should see to it that they are factual, not innuendoes.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Until I started to look into this question I did not realize that smoking has been going on in this old world of ours for more than
DEBATES	April 8, 1965
400 years. It has been a source of pleasure and relaxation to millions of smokers. I did not know whether I should broach this subject at this time, but I think I will carry through and quote something which has been said by an eminent research specialist in this regard. This subject brings to mind a recent statement made by Dr. W. B. Ober of the Knickerbocker Hospital Laboratories in New York, one of the most famous laboratories in the world. Dr. Ober stated:
They tell us that smoking causes lung cancer; that sexual intercourse causes cancer of the cervix, and that drinking causes cancer of the throat.
Lord help us all.
I have spoken on a number of occasions about the dollars and cents value of the tobacco industry to the nation and to the Government. I have no intention of dealing with this again, except to point out that this multimillion dollar business is providing work for thousands of Canadians and plays a large part in helping to balance the economic structure of this nation. However I cannot help bringing to your attention the fact that the tobacco industry is the most heavily taxed industry in Canada, to the extent of something like 7 per cent of the federal budgetary tax revenue, contrasting sharply, by the way, with the situation in the United States where tobacco taxes provide only 2 per cent of that country's revenue. Very few Canadian industries could survive if they were taxed as heavily as the tobacco industry.
May I make a few brief comparisons at this time. Cigarettes, the highest taxed product in Canada, represent 124 per cent of retail price net taxes. Distilled spirits, and I use this example simply because it is one of the highest taxed products in Canada, represents only 59 per cent of retail price net taxes, including Provincial mark-ups. There might be a slight increase in this regard since Ontario has decided to add a little more in the way of taxes on distilled spirits, but undoubtedly this second highest taxed product is taxed to an extent less than half that which applies to cigarettes. If automobiles were taxed at the same rates as cigarettes a family car costing approximately $2,500 would sell close to $6,000. I have given these figures to point up the fact that if one looks at the tax imposed on tobacco from a straight business angle, even the most antitobacco individual will have to admit that tobacco is subjected to more than its share of taxes.

April 8, 1965

We all know from experience-prohibition -that we cannot legislate any product out of existence. So rather than attempt to carry on a campaign of that kind, it would be much more practical, and only good common sense, for the Government to increase grants for study and research. I wish to suggest to the Government that they make money available in this regard from revenue collected through tax on cigarettes.
The first amount which entered my mind was one cent per package, but I did not realize how much that would amount to. Do you realize how much one cent per package would involve? It would amount to $20 million. In view of this, I would suggest that one quarter of one cent per package should be set aside for research. This would amount to $5 million. You may feel that this is a large sum of money, and so it is, but not when one considers the importance of this suggested program to the health and welfare of our people and to the economy of our nation. Mr. Speaker, I am sure we would agree that such an investment, derived from cigarette tax revenue, would be based on downright common sense. This money would be collected from those individuals in Canada who enjoy this product, and would not be taken from general funds.
If such a suggestion were acted upon, it would be more in line with the multimillion dollar crash program undertaken by the United States Department of Agriculture, and there is little doubt that such a move on the part of this Government would go a long way towards solving the present problem in relation to tobacco, and would do so without the bitterness which is being created by the present attitude adopted by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh). It could even eventually mean the survival of an industry that plays a mighty big role in the economy of our nation.


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I join with all previous speakers in extending my congratulations to the Mover and Seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) and the hon. Member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien).
This is the third session of the twenty sixth Parliament, and as the old adage goes, the third is the charm. After all the fumbling and bungling in the first two sessions of this Parliament, it is about time this Government came up with a charmer. In the Throne
The Address-Mr. Noble Speech the lure that is being used on the end of the line is bright, colourful and attractive, but nevertheless deceiving.
Eloquent words and phrases with cosy promises have been used freely in the hope of reconciling the Canadian people who were subjected to many distressing experiences by this wayward Government-a Government that has continually embarrassed its own supporters.
If we are to believe that all these things mentioned in this Throne Speech will be acted upon and brought into fruition by this government, the results would leave this country a virtual Utopia. No one would have a worry. However, one must consider the whole program with much reservation and considerable doubt. One need only reflect on the promises made in the past by the disappointing galaxy in the Government seats of authority. Much of that attractive legislation went down the drain with their 60 days of decision. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, they have turned over a new leaf, and in this session things will be different. Almost everybody in Canada is hoping and praying that this may be so.
We hear on every hand of Canada's wealth, her bright future and of new vistas, horizons and unlimited resources. We do have all these things, and a virile and energetic population which places Canada in one of the most envied positions of any country in the world. Why then do we find ourselves in so many difficulties? Is it not because of Government inefficiency? We need and must have the positive and vigorous leadership which has been so sadly lacking in the first two sessions of this Parliament. If the Government cannot supply it in this session, they cannot expect the Canadian people to tolerate them any longer. Justice must prevail.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The most pressing problems facing the country are constantly brought to the attention of the Government not only by Opposition members but also by their own backbenchers. There should be no hesitation in facing up to these matters. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) speaks of a war on poverty. There is not a Member in this House who would not support him in this respect. The same support would be forthcoming with regard to any of the difficult situations facing our people such as unemployment, low farm incomes and, in fact, inadequate incomes anywhere. It is entirely up to the Government to take the initiative and give the required lead-
April 8, 1985

The Address-Mr. Noble ership. A better and more sincere effort must come from high places and without delay.
My riding, and in fact the whole Georgian Bay area, could benefit greatly from more industry. We have much to offer such development, but apparently not enough to interest the Government. When the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) was selecting the designated areas last year I appealed to him to give the Georgian Bay area at least a second look because the Government could and should help us to direct more industry to that area. Finally I was advised that the figures supplied by the National Employment Service did not warrant any assistance by way of an incentive program for our area, even though nearly a thousand people could not find work in midsummer.
My argument, Mr. Speaker, is that the N.E.S. figures are not a true basis on which decisions on such matters should be made.
I am thinking of our youth, the most valuable asset of any community. We have two large high schools in Owen Sound from which several hundred students graduate each year and, of course, many more from other high schools in our area. What happens to these talented young people? I can tell you that very few of them apply at our employment office for positions because they know it would be futile. There is an annual migration of these would-be community builders to the larger centres to the south and even into the United States. My point is that all these graduates should be totalled and added to the N.E.S. figures to get a true picture of our situation. It would be much different from the one that the Minister of Industry has been looking at. To give the viewpoints of some of the students I will put on the record the observations of some of them as expressed to our daily paper, the Owen Sound Sun-Times of March 26. Here is one by a young man:
I don't plan on working in Owen Sound after I finish high school because there is little opportunity for promotion. The pay is too low here when compared to the relatively high cost of living.
Another young man states:
I would definitely not work in Owen Sound after completing high school. There is no future in this city for a young person and the wages are too low.
A young lady states:
After completing high school I would not work in Owen Sound. There is no chance for improvement here.


Another young man states:
I wouldn't come back to Owen Sound to work because there is not much chance of promotion here or a good pay rate unless you are in a Government job.
Another young lady states:
I do not plan to go to university but I am going to continue my education and become a medical recordist. I wouldn't return to Owen Sound to work.
These, Mr. Speaker, are the spontaneous views of these young people, and hundreds of others would answer likewise. To have these young people leave for greener pastures is a tragic loss to our community, and surely the Government will not continue to turn its head but will face up to this situation and make some effort to arrest this migration of our best community and nation builders, not only from their communities but from the country. We will be looking forward to the fulfilment of some of the promises in the Speech from the Throne which must surely be designed to help areas such as I represent.
The tourist industry is bringing millions of dollars to Canada but should and could be exploited more extensively. The Georgian Bay district is perhaps one of the best resort areas in the country. Not only does it excel in magnificent scenery, plenty of unpolluted water, clean sandy beaches, but it also has thousands of the finest summer homes to be found anywhere. Our rolling hills and abundance of snow in winter have made us famous as the possessors of the finest skiing accommodation to be found anywhere. However, Mr. Speaker, tourism in Western Ontario could increase one hundredfold if a national park was established somewhere in the confines of this great tourist country. We have non-productive areas available which would be ideal for park development. Such a park would provide recreation and camping facilities for thousands of people in the large centres to the south who cannot afford summer homes. This would certainly fit into the promise of a better standard of living for all our people. There should be no delay in such a worthy development.
I move now, Mr. Speaker, to a topic that is close to my heart. I speak of the production of mink in captivity, an industry that had Canada as its birthplace. Perhaps as an introduction you will allow me to quote an excerpt from a speech I made to our mink fraternity in August of 1964 which was reproduced in the Fur Trade Journal of Canada:
April 8, 1965

The story of the mink is a fabulous tale and one would have no difficulty writing an Interesting book with the wealth of material that could be put together about this little prince of the fur empire.
My experience with mink began in 1929, and perhaps in this year of 1964 I might rate as one of the pioneers. Nevertheless, in that period of 35 years there has been a tremendous transformation from a very primitive kind of enterprise to one of the most scientific livestock operations in the world.
It is almost beyond the realm of our imagination to visualize the fur industry without the mink and the magnificent contribution he has made toward warming the hearts of the elite as well as bringing comfort and style to women of lesser means.
The mink has put many a man on easy street; he has built an empire that embraces many countries; he has spread his wealth into many facets of our economy, and has turned thousands of tons of what was once considered waste into pure gold. He is a wonderful little animal. Now can we preserve him for posterity? I do not hesitate to answer this in the affirmative.
It has been stated in these pages many, many times that the mink industry would sag and perish under the weight of numbers. On this score I fully agree-provided the industry continues to produce mediocre to poor quality in the present astronomical figures. But there is a way for the survival of this worthy industry. It is to steer a course that will get a large majority of our production into the upper brackets of our quality line.
There is no easy formula by which this can be accomplished it is a matter of personal application. In first place I would put hard work; second keen observation; third, intelligent management. These three requirements embrace a myriad of details, none of which can be neglected from the time a young mink is born until he has been delivered to the auction house.
In my opinion the days ahead hold much Pr?,miSe if we put our house in order. Competition will be keen, and when it gets real tough there will be a levelling-off process, which each time it occurs will tend to solidify the industry. Canadian mink breeders are not handicapped-we have a plentiful source of food, our climate is right; our home market is ever improving, and we have enough of the finest mink in the world to build better for the future. So, by and large, our fate and our future are in the hands of the man each of us sees in the mirror. It is the love i *t_garne' with its chEillenge, tlmt resilly supplies the extra incentive th3t lesds to the top of the ladder.
This industry is not confined to Canada's boundaries. Many countries are now extensively engaged in the business, especially the United States, the Scandinavian countries and Russia. World production was approximately 18 million pelts for 1964. The 1,500 ranches in Canada produced about 1J million pelts valued at $25 million at retail.
It can be fully realized from what I have said that we do have the fear of world overproduction and of competition that may make
The Address-Mr. Noble our export trade difficult. Canada exported $16 million worth of ranch mink pelts in 1964.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The mink industry has all the problems of any other livestock operation, as well as some others, because of its short history and the fact that mink may never become completely domesticated. Some of us find ourselves in unexpected dilemma because our source of food supply has been contaminated by the unlawful use of a drug. I bring this matter to the attention of the House because it is of great significance and becomes more so as our investigation progresses. All indications point to the fact that diethylstilbestrol has been used in the production of poultry from which the by-products were sold to a group of mink ranchers in Grey and Bruce Counties and used over a period of time to feed their mink.
The results, to say the least, have been disastrous. I can speak with some authority on the matter because our own herd of 2,800 females and 650 males was severely affected. After sperm checking live males and post mortem work on dead animals by qualified veterinarians, we found that most of our males were completely sterilized. There is no way of checking the live females, but females which died showed no ovary development. Our only chance of any reproduction was to bring in unaffected males from other ranches and hope that some of our females might be capable of bearing a litter. However, 1,000 females were not mated. The full extent of the loss will not be known until after the whelping season next month. One authority who has made a survey-this has been an independent survey -of the ranches affected estimates that the loss will be at least one quarter of a million dollars. Furthermore, veterinarians claim ranches may suffer from poor production for a three or four year period after being exposed to diethylstilbestrol.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about the welfare of the mink industry. I am concerned also about the health of our people who may be exposed to diethylstilbestrol contamination. This drug is being used for the production of beef cattle, hogs and sheep, but is not permitted in the production of poultry. However, I find it can be procured by anyone, with no strings attached. Diethylstilbestrol may be a wonder drug in the hands of a scientist or a doctor, but in the hands of a layman the results can be devastating, as has been demonstrated in the mink herds. Some control over the source of supply should be
124	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Prittie exercised immediately, and sales should be confined to licensed people competent in the administration. Furthermore I would recommend that much more research be done on all sprays, pesticides and drugs used so freely and promiscuously these days with regard to their relationship to the health of humans and animals.


Mr. R. W. Priltie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne delivered on April 5 included many items of varying importance, but it was not as allinclusive as some Members have claimed. There were significant omissions, and I propose to deal with one of the most important omissions briefly. I shall speak about the subject of the Canadian consumer and the complete absence of any mention of him in the Speech from the Throne.
First, just how important is the consumer in today's economy? At the present time the total value of goods and services produced in Canada is approximately $46 billion a year. Canadians have at their disposal for private spending about $27 billion a year. In addition to that they spend, through their Governments at all levels, several billion dollars a year. It is traditional to complain about taxes and Government spending, but I suggest that we may well receive better value for our money spent by Governments-in this sense I am speaking of Canadian citizens as public consumers-than we receive from our private spending or as individual consumers.
At least, at the level of Government, we have elected representatives who are in a position to scrutinize expenditures and bring the light of publicity on public spending. Further, it is generally true that Governments and other public bodies are sufficiently strong so that they have some power when they are making purchases for us. This is not so in our capacity as private consumers. In so many cases, it is the individual against the manufacturer or seller. Frequently, the contest is an unequal one, to say the least.
In the past, it was believed, according to conventional economic theory, that the consumer went into the marketplace to buy his goods and that sales and manufacturing were regulated by his choices. There was a companion doctrine which said: Let the buyer beware. I do not know if this ideal economic world ever existed, but it certainly does not exist today. It does not exist in this day of monopoly enterprise where a few giant firms can gang up on the consumer, not in this day when the extensive use of advertising and public relations techniques,

DEBATES	April 8, 1965
reinforced by the application of modern psychology, has tended to make the producer depend, not on the real qualities of his product but rather on the skills of advertising specialists to present a favourable impression of his goods; not in this day when producers are wary of price competition.
It is not difficult to enumerate many examples of the problems of the modern consumer. Any housewife knows examples of false and tricky packaging, and the difficulty of determining the price per ounce or per pound of a product. I speak of the soap manufacturer who markets a box of his product weighing one pound three and a half ounces for 41 cents; a two pound eight ounce package for 82 cents; and a four pound six and a half ounce package for $1.40. Then, there is the toothpaste which sells for 39 cents for a tube of 44 grams; 61 cents for 82 grams and 94 cents for 162 grams. Different manufacturers use different sizes of boxes and tubes so that the purchaser has a difficult time determining which is the best bargain. We simply don't have enough mathematicians in this country to accompany each housewife as she wends her way through the supermarkets, trying to determine the price per ounce or per pound.
Then there are other complaints. There is the complaint we have heard for many years relating to the lack of standardization in clothes sizes. I noticed another was mentioned today. All Members receive the Western Producer, and in the copy for April 8 I noticed that Mrs. Plumptre, President of the Consumers Association of Canada was speaking in Calgary. I am going to quote these two paragraphs from the news report of her speech:
She instanced garments and yard goods without labels to tell customers the type of fabric used in their manufacture and without instructions as to how to care for hem.
Later, in the same article I find this:
Another project of C.A.C. concerned accurate labelling of "drip-dry" fabrics; some garments so labelled had been found quite unsatisfactory, and had not met the qualifications claimed on the labels. A set of symbols has been drawn up which will tell consumers how to care for these garments.
So we have these examples of the confusion which exists in the marketplace, confusion which the consumer faces every day. How do we know we are getting the best products a company can give us. Today there are for sale in North America steel razor blades which are much better than we have been able to buy in the past. It is important to note that these blades only came on the
April 8, 1965	COMMONS
North America market after a British company entered the field. How many dollars did we spend for how many years on inferior products when we could have had these better products? We don't know; and that is the point. We don't know how many manufacturers are not giving us the best products possible because it is not in their interests to do so.
The purchases of household appliances by Canadian families account for hundreds of millions of dollars every year. The term "built-in obsolescence"-that is, the practice of making products to last just so long and no longer-has become part of our vocabulary. Automatic washing machines today all have sealed mechanisms. If the unit stops operating it must be removed and, in most cases, a new unit is sold. I am told by persons who know these appliances that if a small hole were left so that the main bearing could be oiled periodically, they would last forever. As it is today, an automatic washer in constant use is expected to last about seven or eight years. If it lasts longer, you are lucky.
Again, on the same subject, I am informed that it costs some manufacturers money not to put a safety switch in their lower price models. They do this so that they can advertise the safety switch as a feature of their higher priced lines. Refrigerators, for example, used to have motors with compressors. These units would last indefinitely if the belt on the motor were replaced periodically. But this type of mechanism has not been made since the late 1940's. Today vibrator and diaphragm units are made. They are quieter than compressor type but they do not last as long. Generally repairs are not made; you must get a new unit.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The old doctrine of "Let the buyer beware" is no longer acceptable. The idea that the Government should protect the consumer has been accepted by the Western democracies at least to some extent. At this point I want to interject a definition of government which I have always liked, and it goes something like this: The act of people doing collectively that which they cannot do alone. In a real sense it is the co-operation of people in their own interest, not something imposed by a disinterested third party.
When this situation is examined, we find that the Federal Government does act to protect the consumer in a number of ways. The Food and Drug Act comes to mind immediately. We have a Weights and Measures
DEBATES	125
The Address-Mr. Prittie Division. There are the laws concerning monopolies and restrictive trade practices. There is inspection of meat and eggs by the Department of Agriculture. The Departments of Fisheries and Agriculture each have Consumer Sections. Agriculture has fruit and vegetable inspectors. There are postal laws concerning false and fraudulent advertising. The Board of Broadcast Governors regulates advertising on radio and television. There are Federal acts to regulate interest rates. Last summer an Advisory Council of Consumers, reporting to the Minister of National Health and Welfare was appointed.
But we can do better than this. I realize that much of the power and responsibility in consumer affairs rests with the Provinces. In British Columbia trading stamps are not permitted. They were outlawed by the Legislature several years ago, an action supported by consumer organizations. Several Provinces are now studying the subject of the disclosure of true interest rates. In the British Columbia Legislature this session a Bill has been introduced by a private Member requiring standard measures in packaging so as to make comparative pricing easier in supermarkets. Although the Provinces have a considerable responsibility in this whole field of consumer protection, the Federal Government has a role to play-a greater role than it plays now.
In 1962 the late President John F. Kennedy sent a special message to the United States Congress on consumer problems. He made a number of recommendations for consumer protection to the Congress. He requested that more of the information already in the hands of Federal Government agencies be made available to the public. He pointed out that the research done for Government procurement purposes had already assembled a wide range of information which would be of immense use to consumers. In Canada there is the Department of Defence Production which purchases large quantities of goods for government Departments and the armed forces. Presumably this Department carries out quality tests on some of the products which it purchases. This information could be made available to the public by means of regular bulletins.
I am sure most of us are familiar with the bulletin issued by the Consumers Association of Canada. This is a very small magazine entitled The Canadian Consumer-a bilingual magazine. The organization carries out tests of many kinds of products and recent reports
April 8, 1965

The Address-Mr. Prittie have included the results of tests on thermometers, life-jackets, electric razors, steam irons, facial tissues and children's toys, to mention just a few examples. However, the Consumers Association has stated that it lacks testing facilities. It is obvious that they could render a greater service to Canadian consumers if increased facilities and technical services were available.
I note that in the budget of the Department of Finance there is an item of a $30,000 grant to the Association. I suggest that a healthy increase in this grant would enable this organization to do a more complete job of testing products and providing information to consumers. I do not know whether any of the Provincial Governments contribute or not. Certainly it would be in the interests of their citizens, were they to do so. In addition there are, of course, the United States magazines, Consumer Report and Consumers Bulletin. However, many of the products which they review are not sold in Canada, or the variety of the product in this country is different. So we do need the Canadian Consumer. I should like to see it enlarged and I suggest this is one way in which the Government could help the Canadian consumer, that is, by making a larger grant for this purpose. Speaking of the United States magazine Consumer Report I should like to mention that in the March, 1965, issue there appears an article concerning a bill introduced in the United States Senate by Senator Philip A. Hart of Michigan. It has to do with truth in packaging and the article mentions the problems the Senator is having with the food producing organizations-the lobby which they have been building up against the Bill which he has brought in.
Last year, on July 27, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) announced the appointment of an Advisory Council of Consumers. At that time I made the following statement on motions. It appears on page 5987 of Hansard and I should like to quote it on this occasion.
This move to establish a consumers advisory council is a step, albeit a very small step, in the right direction. The minister must be aware that the Consumers Association of Canada and the Cooperative Union of Canada have both asked for a government department to handle the increased activity in this direction. It is interesting to note that we have a government department to look after practically every economic group in the country such as agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining and so on. However, consumers, who spend about $25 billion a year on personal goods in


this country, do not receive the same sort of attention from the government as the other economic groups do.
I think in time, as a result of pressure from the Consumers Associations, the Government will come to the point where a full scale department will be required to assist consumers in assessing the great variety of goods on the market at the present time. This is a step in the right direction, but it is a very faltering one, a very small step.
I want to emphasize again today the need to establish a Department of Consumer Affairs. We are very status conscious in this country. The fact that we have a Department of Fisheries is a recognition of the importance of the fishing industry. The creation a few years ago of the Department of Forestry was a demonstration that the Federal Government considered that this important Canadian industry required a Federal Department and Minister. The present Government saw fit two years ago to create a Department of Industry. I suggest that now is the time for recognition to be given to the Canadian consumer and that a Department of Consumer Aff airs should be formed. The Federal Government should collect together all its present consumer services, plus any additional ones it undertakes, under a single Department responsible to Parliament through a Minister of Consumer Affairs. As I envisage it, this department could include the Food and Drug Directorate and much of the work of the consumer sections of the Agriculture and Fisheries Departments. Much of the work of the Standards Branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce would also be more appropriate in the new Department. Inter-departmental Committees should be established with other Departments to co-ordinate matters of mutual concern. One of the main reasons for removing food and drugs from the National Health and Welfare Department is the prospect of vastly increased work for the latter Department with the Canada Pension Plan, and the hope for a National Medical Insurance Scheme. Perhaps a more important, or more logical reason, is to remove the notion that the Government's interest in consumer affairs is so narrow as to be just interested in health and safety.
The Consumers Advisory Council appointed to advise the Minister of National Health and Welfare last year should be maintained but would, under the proposed re-organization aid the Minister of Consumer Affairs rather than the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In addition to its current functions, this Council should be given wider authority to take the initiative in advising the Minister on
April 8, 1965	COMMONS
current consumer problems and suggesting possible Government actions in respect thereto.
All of our economic activities are directed to one end-consumption. It is time that this important fact was recognized by the creation of a Federal Department and the naming of a Minister.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
There is one other aspect of consumer affairs I should like to deal with. This has to do with the whole question of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission and the AntiCombines Act. We have been waiting for a very long time to see some change in this legislation; in fact, ever since the present Government took office. I kept quite a file on this subject. The first clipping that I have here is dated December 16, 1963. The headline reads, "Tougher Combines Measures Promised", and I will quote the first paragraph:
Justice Minister Lionel Chevrier has promised to consider putting "teeth" into federal anti-combines legislation to strike at companies guilty of collusion, mergers or monopolies.
Again, in January of 1964, another heading, "Combines Change Looms". Nearly a year later, October 3, 1964, the heading reads, "Favreau Favors Law Change on Mergers". Then the following month, in November, "Seek Changes in Combines Legislation".
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) has made a number of speeches on this subject, and some of them were quite good. I have read them carefully and there is some very good content in them. He made some of them last year and I had expected there would be legislation by this year. In one of his speeches the Minister mentioned the difficulties of operating under the Criminal Code only; the need to prove conspiracy and how difficult that is. He mentioned the fact that his Department is exploring the possibility of noncriminal actions along the lines used by the Federal Trade Commission in the United States. That is all to the good. I have studied something of the operations of the Federal Trade Commission and agree that we could usefully follow some of the procedures which they use. It seems to me that that part of section 91 of the British North America Act which gives the Federal Government the authority to act to regulate trade and commerce should provide the scope for this kind of activity suggested by the Minister.
But even if the Federal Authority does find that it can act in the non-criminal field 22620-91
DEBATES	127
The Address-Mr. Prittie with respect to monopolistic practices, it is important to continue investigation of those cases which are of a criminal nature. It seems to me that conspiracies to maintain prices must always be of this type. Persons who engage in this type of activity are in fact robbing the public for their own profit, and they should be punished. Fines are not enough. Most of us recall the case in the United States about two years ago when officials of some of the largest electrical manufacturers were not only fined but imprisoned for conspiracy to fix prices. Then there are examples in the United States of civil cases to get damages from these companies. 1 do not think we have had that sort of thing in this country.
There is one other aspect of combines administration that I would like to mention. Ever since this Government came into office in April, 1963, I and one of my colleagues, the Hon. Member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather), have been asking questions about one particular report of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. This has to do with the question of tied sales, the practice of the oil companies forcing service station owners to buy their tires, batteries and accessories from designated suppliers. The Commission made a recommendation-this is over three years ago now-that the legislation should be changed. We have asked this question I think at least eight times in the last two years and the answer has always been "Under Consideration", "Under review", "An interdepartmental committee is looking at it". We asked this question again just last month. It seems very strange to me that with the help that must be available or can be obtained in the Department of Justice they cannot come up in three years with suggested changes to the legislation. It has been a very great disappointment that there has been no change at all; because the present Minister of Justice was a Member of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission several years ago and is a man who should know this field very well.
Mr. Speaker, I would again express my disappointment that in the Speech from the Throne this very important subject of consumer protection generally has not been recognized by the Government. This is a subject which is of very great importance and will be of increasing importance in the type of economy which we have in the Western countries. The Government should give close attention to this subject. As I have mentioned before, it pays attention to all the different producer groups of the country; each has a
April 8. 1965

The Address-Mr. Forest Department of Government-they have that recognition. It is time the Canadian consumer received the recognition that he deserves.


Mr. Yves Forest (Stansiead):: Mr. Speaker,
I also wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. Cashin) and the seconder (Mr. Chretien) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne who magnificently performed their duties and proved that they are worthy of the trust which was bestowed upon them. A brilliant political future certainly awaits those two young members, and it is encouraging that our party can attract and rely upon young persons of such ability to plan and promote its innovating policy.
I also wish to pay a tribute to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) who retains and will always retain the firm confidence of all the members of our party. Our people are certainly fortunate in being led, through these trying times of a crucial importance for the future of our country, by a statesman who, apart from enjoying the confidence, the esteem and the admiration of the whole world, understood better than anyone else the problems which arose and are still arising at the national level.
Mr. Speaker, before discussing briefly certain proposals contained in the speech from the throne, I should like to refer to the area which I have the honour to represent in this parliament of the nation. The riding of Stan-stead is located in the heart of the eastern townships, one of the most picturesque regions in Canada and the third largest centre in the province, after Montreal and Quebec.
My riding is becoming increasingly urban although agriculture still plays an important part, while yielding to industrialization which should be given a new impetus by the recent improvements in the road system, the efficient operation of our industries, the leadership provided by our municipalities in making available industrial funds to facilitate the establishment of new industries, and also by the regional economic boards which can render tremendous services if they co-operate to carry out planned objectives.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, a problem is becoming more and more acute in my riding. The new activities continuously created are not adequate to meet the needs of our population and our region is losing through emigration, directly or indirectly, a good percentage of its population, especially members of the younger generation. The


problem of creating jobs for our young people is very difficult to solve, and I note with gratification that the government is fully conscious of the problem we are facing to facilitate the re-employment of workers displaced by automation or affected by other economic changes and that it intends to encourage regional development and contribute to the industrial development of regions that are not developing adequately.
The eastern townships constitute an industrial, agricultural and forest region.
Our chief industry, especially in the two main centres of my riding, namely the city of Magog and the town of Coaticook, is the textile industry and the area has developed in step with that basic industry. It employs about 35,000 people in the eastern townships and today it operates again at practically full capacity and its production can be estimated at about $500 million per year. That goes to show how important is that industry, and I am confident that the Canadian government will always keep in mind the protection of that industry whose future lies upon well defined tariffs and realistic trade policies rigidly enforced by government authorities, in order to protect that important industry which ranks first in many towns in the province and the country and which, too often, suffered as a result of international trade deficits.
Granite quarries, among the most important in the country, qualitatively as well as quantitatively, are also operated in my riding.
A prosperous agriculture, national forest management will remain for a long time to come the foundations of the economy of our region.
All that cannot solve the unemployment problem but any recession in these sectors would complicate matters even more. A serious effort at regional planning would greatly help our farmers in the long run and responsible committees are now studying that matter under ARDA and they have already made recommendations.
The new measures to develop the economy of rural areas and the proposed amendments to the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act are welcome and impatiently awaited.
The dairy industry, which is our farmers' main source of revenue, will derive benefits from the new dairy policy of the government, recently announced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays), which should
April 8, 1965	COMMONS
guarantee farmers a higher price for manufactured milk used in this country.
The Liberal government does not merely pay lip service to agricultural problems but it is carrying out its election program so as to assist the farmers in this country, particularly eastern farmers, who have long felt neglected by the federal administration.
I should like, at this stage, to stress the importance of the Lennoxville experimental farm which was established in my Tiding as far back as 1914. It has gone a long way to solve the general agricultural problems and it is now directing every effort toward specialization, especially through the study of problems pertaining chiefly to our area. It has rendered great services and still does; and I hope the Department of Agriculture will earmark larger sums to allow it to play its part more efficiently since it serves a very large area.
There is also Bishop University at Lennoxville, a universally recognized institution founded in 1843, which has greatly expanded, particularly in recent years.
Another institution of higher learning is the University of Sherbrooke located at the boundaries of Stanstead and Sherbrooke counties. On June 6 last, it celebrated the tenth anniversary of its founding; it has grown tremendously; no less than 1,600 full time students are enrolled. The founders of this university had justly and wisely foressen the need for this institution whose good influence is felt throughout the area and even throughout the province.
Tourism plays an important part in our area with such attractions as Mount Orford park, renowned lakes, such as lake Memphre-magog and mountains suited to the development of increasingly popular ski trails.
In Stanstead county nearly a third of the population is English speaking; the good feelings and mutual understanding that prevail there and everywhere in the eastern townships were often held up as an example for the whole country. This leads me to say that closer and more frequent contacts between the main ethnic groups would contribute considerably to lessen prejudice still existing, unfortunately, in various parts of our country.
Mr. Speaker, since it came into office less than two years ago, the Liberal party has carried out a good part of the program it presented to the people early in 1963. The atmosphere of confidence which replaced the inaction and indecision of the previous government, and the great number of long and
DEBATES	129
The Address-Mr. Forest short term measures passed by the government have revived the economy, reduced unemployment to its lowest level since 1957 and are getting Canada moving again as had been promised. However, there are, as in other prosperous countries, areas where the same impetus has not been felt. And the speech from the throne contemplates stronger action to provide for a more general economic development and further improve the social security system.
The report of the economic council of Canada has shown that within a few years, the main problem will be to find employment for an ever increasing labour force and that the present economic growth, although remarkable, will soon be inadequate to meet the needs.
The government has resolutely tackled those problems and, as stressed on several occasions in the speech from the throne, it will need the full co-operation of the provinces, which will be consulted in the new spirit of co-operative federalism. What was already included in our party's platform, which looked forward to a close co-operation between Ottawa and the provinces for the good administration of the country and the respect of their rights, in their own fields, in order to safeguard and promote national unity.
At a time when confederation is in danger, when dominion-provincial relations run the risk of growing acrimonious, this new federalism, based on interdependence of both levels of government, on consultation and co-ordination in the fields of joint jurisdiction, has proved its efficiency and has certainly preserved Canadian unity.
The agreements concluded between the central power and the provincial authorities do not constitute defeats or victories for either level of government, but increase the flexibility and strength of our Canadian federalism. There should be a fair balance of rights and powers to ensure the survival of our country, and this new formula will achieve it if all our leaders continue to apply it with fairness, patience and good will. A strong and prosperous province of Quebec needs a powerful and dynamic Canada.
As the Prime Minister was saying in his masterly speech of Tuesday last:
A healthy federalism, a co-operative federalism is one in which the two levels of governments both fulfil their own responsibilities; and respect each other's, but they do so taking into account their mutual concerns.
The voice of reason and common sense has indeed found its echo among us. In spite of
130	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Forest the outcries of a very small minority, the vast majority of the Quebec population only want unity and progress for the whole of Canada, as well as order and respect for the rights of everyone throughout Canada.
In the Speech from the Throne, the government also announced other plans for strengthening Canadian identity, in order to develop further a real national consciousness, a legitimate and natural pride in our country.
Following the adoption during last session of a distinctive national flag, a symbol now flying all over the country and throughout the world, which identifies our country as an independent and sovereign state, we shall soon have a national anthem, "O Canada", which, I hope will be adopted without a long and acrimonious debate, the text being modified to some extent perhaps, in order that the same feeling be expressed in both languages.
The Speech from the Throne provides also for an address to the queen in order that the constitution may be amended here in Canada, according to the formula finally agreed upon unanimously by the central government and the provinces, last October. The formula adopted following long discussions which started in 1927, is evidently a compromise, and as such cannot give satisfaction to everybody.
I do not have the time now to discuss this question thoroughly, but it seems to me that it should be debated realistically, without partisanship, bearing in mind that even though the formula may not be perfect for everybody, it represents at the present time the best solution to the problems of constitutional changes and is only a basis or a first step toward the possible drafting of a new constitution.
As Premier Robarts of Ontario said recently: [DOT] (4:20 p.m.)

This is where you must start; you cannot do anything until you make that start.

The white paper clearly indicates that, during the various conferences, there never was any doubt as to the main objective, which was to find a way of submitting all aspects of the constitution to the Canadian legislative authorities, so it could be amended, repealed or replaced. Therefore, there is no barrier or obstacle here that would prevent any changes from ever being made to the constitution. In any case, such changes are seldom the result of a formal amendment,

DEBATES	April 8, 1965
as we are taught by the constitutional history of the other federal states.
It is interesting to note that constitutional law is flexible to the point where court orders can have, on statutory provisions, a declaratory effect equal to that of an amendment. A case in point, the judgment of the privy council in 1937, on a federal social measure, where it was decreed that all legislation dealing with unemployment insurance, a weekly industrial day of rest and hours of work, came under provincial jurisdiction.
The constitution was also amended in the past by customs or conventions which have become binding or accepted with time. Measures passed by parliament have often had the effect of amending the constitution when not disallowed by courts of justice. I also point out that the formula confirms in writing what had moreover become a practice established and followed for several years respecting amendments which might affect the federal balance. The new climate prevailing in Canada in the federal-provincial relations and the spirit of justice and good faith which will surely actuate the Canadian parliaments or legislatures should ensure in the near future a move toward a constitutional reform adopted in Canada and for Canada, in accordance with present needs.
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to note in the speech from the throne that the government intends to amend the Bankruptcy Act. I hope that major amendments will be made to provide for more stringent controls on the administration of bankruptcies.
The number of bankruptcies has been continually increasing since 1950 and, in 1963, they numbered 3,678 with a total liability of nearly $194 million. This shows the seriousness of that problem in the economic life of our country. To my mind it seems obvious and fair that this act and related acts should be revised in keeping with the needs of our times. In December 1963, during consideration of his estimates, the then minister of justice stated without hesitation that that act should be amended, that as it stood, it was in some cases inefficient to say the least; he assured the House that it was indeed being considered by his department's officials. Members of the bar and a great number of businessmen, associations, unions, etc., passed resolutions to that effect or sent briefs with recommendations along this line.
Actually, the Bankruptcy Act goes back to 1920. It was amended at various times before being completely overhauled in 1949.
April 8. 1965

No change was made to it for the past 16 years. Time and experience have now shown that major amendments are required so as to prevent fraudulent bankruptcies. Unfortunately, the act sometimes falls short of its main objectives, which are to remove part of the burden borne by honest but unlucky or ill-fated debtors and to protect creditors by providing for the best distribution of the bankrupt's assets. It will be argued that creditors fail to take advantage of the means put at their disposal by the law but, in most bankruptcies, available assets are not large enough to justify the long and difficult investigations and the costly and complicated proceedings which are required in cases of suspected unlawful acts and irregularities.
Out of the bankrupt's estate, trustees have to pay fees to the government for the administration of this act and a special department, under the supervision and direction of the superintendent of bankruptcies, should be set up to make the necessary investigations and, if necessary, take legal action every time a violation of the law is suspected; furthermore, special counsel thoroughly familiar with all the problems arising out of the administration of this act should be appointed. I think the most important thing to do would be to appoint one or several qualified and specialized employees in each bankruptcy or judiciary district, as required, to replace present trustees, and these should be their sole duties. They should be well paid and have no other interest or concern but to settle, as quickly as possible and in the best possible way, bankruptcies or liquidations under their jurisdiction; I believe this would put an end to practically all the abuses which often occur under the present system.
In spite of the heavy and important Liberal government legislative program, I hope priority will be given to this legislation which constitutes an integral part of our economic activities. We are most anxious to find out, when the bill is introduced, what exactly the government has in mind.
Mr. Speaker, parliament will be considering a program which shows that the government intends to carry out its welfare policies for the benefit of the various segments of our population.
With flexible regulations more adapted to our times, it will now be up to parliament to consider and approve, if necessary, anything which will pave the way for our beloved country to continue on the road to progress, our country that we love so much and that
The Address-Mr. Churchill gives us so much in return, considering its immense resources and its promising future.
[DOT]	(4:30 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, before entering into the debate on the subject matter now before us, I should like to extend my congratulations to the Mover and Seconder to the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne to which I listened with interest. They made very able contributions to the debate in this Chamber.
At the same time I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mrs. Rideout) who, in making her maiden speech yesterday, successfully surmounted a most difficult hurdle that faces a new Member of Parliament. I thought it was a very good speech which added a considerable contribution to this debate.
I am afraid I will not be able to continue in this pleasant vein, Mr. Speaker, because my purpose in rising this afternoon is not to congratulate the Government, as I should like to do if it had been more effective, but I speak at this time because of certain statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on Tuesday. I regret very much that he is not able to be here this afternoon because I do not like to speak of individuals in their absence. However, I have no control over the attendance of Members of the Cabinet, which is now represented by only one Member in this Chamber, and because I cannot defer my remarks until such time as the Right Hon. Gentleman is present I shall proceed.
The Prime Minister when speaking on Tuesday made an attack upon the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), during the course of which he drew my name into the arena. At that time I had formed no intention of taking part in the Throne Speech debate, but now I find that I must do so.
To indicate what took place on Tuesday I should like to read from the Minister's statement as it is recorded on page 32 of Hansard for April 6, 1965. The Prime Minister is reported as having said:
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?
[DOT]	(4:40 p.m.)
I considered that was a very serious allegation, Mr. Speaker, and I immediately rose and said:
132	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. 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.
The Prime Minister replied:
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 reference of the Prime Minister, of course, was to the so-called Butterworth letter which I read to the house on May 27, 1963. I wonder a bit at the Prime Minister's raising this subject again after a lapse of two years. What is troubling him? Is he ready to clear up the matter? Has he some additional information that he can give the House? Frankly I would welcome clarification. Or is the Prime Minister just indulging in a smear campaign? I said it was a serious allegation that the Prime Minister made, and he then requested me to answer certain questions of his. I am under no obligation to answer those questions. I am not obliged to deny anything. I read that letter into the record. I made no accusation; I made no charge. I simply disclosed for public information a copy of a letter which had reached me after the election campaign in 1963.


An hon. Member:: For what purpose?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have done nothing to deceive the House. 1 am not being charged, I hope, with contempt. It is only when an Hon. Member, with deliberation, deceives the House of Commons that he can be charged with contempt. As May on Parliamentary procedure puts it, if what he does that is a subject of criticism is done deliberately and with intent to deceive, he may then be accused and he may be dealt with by the House of Commons. But it is within the right of a member to make public information that comes to him, and that is exactly what I did. I gave the Government the opportunity to make a complete answer over a period of two years. Why was this not done? What is being covered up?
I should like to see the record cleared, and that is why I make no apology this aftenoon for dealing with this particular subject. It has been opened up by the Prime Minister and I should like to know why he opened up the subject again. I suggest that we might retrace our steps for a few minutes and examine what happened two years ago. In the course of the speech I made on May 27, 1963, I dealt with American comments on

DEBATES	April 8, 1965
United States interference in the Canadian election campaign of 1963, and I gave four quotations on that subject from what I considered to be reputable Americans. They raised it in their columns. On page 318 of Hansard for May 27, 1963 you will find the quotations which I used on that occasion. The first one reads as follows:
Doris Fleison writing in the Washington Star says, "It could just be that some well-meaning friend here decided to give Mr. Pearson a hand. Precisely that suggestion is going the rounds with a rather important name attached."
The second quotation was from the Chicago Sun Times and reads as follows:
The issue is political in Canada. The American press release seemed to correspond with the position of Diefenbaker's political opposition, Liberal Leader Lester Pearson.. .For our part we hope Washington hasn't committed a diplomatic Bay of Pigs with our friends the Canadians.
My third quotation was from Mr. Walter Lippmann, a very distinguished writer who commands a great deal of respect throughout the world. This is what he wrote:
American dealings with the Canadian Government have no doubt been complicated. But the crucial issue is the same one which has disrupted American relations with France and shaken the whole western alliance and has alienated the U.S. from General de Gaulle.
It was a thoughtless decision to embroil the U.S. with Ottawa in a relatively minor aspect of the great issue which is posed from Paris.
My fourth quotation was from Mr. Richard Starnes of the Scripps-Howard chain who wrote as follows:
Adroit statecraft by the American State Department brought down the bungling, crypto-antiYankee Government of Prime Minister John Dief-enbaker and replaced it with a regime which promises to be faithful to the concept of Canadian-American interdependence.. .American intervention was coldly calculated to do precisely what it did, and it was a brilliant success.
Those, Sir, are American comments on alleged American interference in the Canadian election of 1963 and that is the subject with which I was dealing on May 27 of that year. At that point I asked this question:
How coldly calculated was it by the State Department? In the brief chronological summary that I have given, there should be inserted a letter dated January 14, a copy of which I received in the mail.
I then read that letter to the House.


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


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, I am not answering any questions at the moment. I simply read that letter so that it would be a matter of public
April 8. 1965	COMMONS
knowledge, and it gave the Government an opportunity to deal with the matter. Nobody in the House of Commons dealt with these comments I read from American critics of the alleged American interference in the Canadian election, but they seized upon the letter which I read into the record. It is interesting to note the turmoil that arose in the House of Commons on that day. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) rose in great wrath as the dean of the House of Commons and made this statement as found on page 319 of Hansard:
I greatly suspect that what the hon. gentleman is now doing, and he is doing it with knowledge, is that he is reading a letter which he knows to be an absolute forgery.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Somebody says "hear,
hear". The dean of the House of Commons made that statement which subsequently he had to withdraw abjectly, of course, because you cannot abide by the rules and make such an accusation against any hon. Member in this House.


Mr. Greene:: You have not denied it.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: He was assisted by the then Minister of Transport and there was some dispute and points of order raised. Finally the Deputy Speaker, as reported on page 321 of Hansard, gave his decision in these words:
I do not believe the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has to deny anything.
That, Sir, is the situation in the House of Commons; that is the custom and that is the rule in this House. Hon. Members are not obliged to deny careless statements that may be made by people on the opposite side of the House.
I thought that would end the matter. Now the Prime Minister has raised the issue again. Of what is he afraid? Is it the prospect of an election campaign? Is he fearful of comments by Americans, such as the ones I have quoted this afternoon? Is he fearful that in the next Canadian election campaign these people, Doris Fleison, Richard Starnes, and Walter Lippmann may refer to the campaign of 1963 and may express a wish that there shall be no American interference in a Canadian general election?
Additional information has come to my attention since May 27, 1963. Victor Lasky, who wrote a book entitled, "JFK: The Man and The Myth", a critical study of the Kennedy administration directed to the American 22620-10
DEBATES	133
The Address-Mr. Churchill people, certainly not the Canadian public because it deals almost solely with United States matters, uses these words on page 555:
Then, all of a sudden, to the amazement of most Americans, the United States found itself in an unseemly row with its indispensable close neighbour, Canada. The United States, through a misguided State Department press release, brought down the government of Prime Minister Diefen-baker.
This is a statement by Victor Lasky, a distinguished writer in the United States. Then, Mr. Frank L. Kuckholm wrote a book entitled, "What's Wrong with United States Foreign Policy", a book written for the United States public and not for the Canadian public. On page 186, I find this sentence:
The United States government, on the other hand, forced the crisis in Canada which led to Lester Pearson's assumption of the leadership.
Now, I ask you, what is the Prime Minister afraid of? Is he afraid of American comment in the future along these lines?
I want to deal, Sir, with the so-called Butterwort'n letter, and put before the house the type of information which has been provided. I have already mentioned the intervention of the then Secretary of State for External Affairs and the then Minister of Transport, who shouted out in this house, "It is a forgery". The Prime Minister, as reported on page 322 of Hansard for May 27, came storming into the House to deliver himself of these profound remarks:
When this letter was brought to my attention, or a report of it, during the election campaign I let it be known then that I had received no such letter, and the United States ambassador let it be known that he had sent me no such letter.
Now, listen to this:
My hon. friend opposite must have known that, and therefore the letter was a forgery; of course it was a forgery.
The Prime Minister says, and Mr. Speaker you may use this in the future, that if you hear of a letter being sent to you and you do not receive that letter, then that letter is a forgery. Now what type of evidence is that? Two years ago the people and this House might have accepted a statement along that line from the Prime Minister without question. Two years later, there is uncertainty in the minds of members of this House and the people of this country with regard to some of the statements by the Prime Minister. On December 17 last year, 102 members of this House, in a recorded vote, expressed their uncertainty with regard to a statement made by the Prime Minister, an unprecedented
April 8, 1965

The Address-Mr. Churchill action in Canadian history. This is the evidence given to us by the Prime Minister. I did not receive the letter, therefore it is a forgery. What nonsense.


An hon. Member:: What about the Ambassador's denial?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thank you very much for reminding me of that. The Ambassador issued a statement, and I will put it on the record because I do not believe it has appeared on Hansard. No Member of the Government defended the Ambassador in this House. Here is what he published in the newspaper:
The alleged letter from me to the Prime Minister, the purported text of which I understand was read into the record of the House of Commons this afternoon, is a complete forgery. The forgery was brought to my attention during the recent election campaign.
I notified the then government that such a forgery was being circulated, and denied to enquirers who asked me about it at the time, that I had ever written any such letter. I reiterate the denial.
This is the sum and substance of the Ambassador's statement. There we are, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister said: I did not get the letter, it is a forgery. The Ambassador said: It is a complete forgery. Then the propaganda machinery of the Liberal party saw to it that I was condemned: I should not have raised this issue in the House of Commons. After all, the Prime Minister said if you do not get a letter, it is a forgery. He had not received this letter, and therefore I should not have read it in the House of Commons. So I was condemned all across the country for disclosing this information. There was an investigation instituted by the then Minister of Justice, Hon. Lionel Chevrier. On July 15, Mr. Chevrier, in answer to a planted question, gave this reply as recorded at page 2182 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I do not know that It is the practice to make these reports public, but X can say rather summarily what the report did contain.
This is the R.C.M. Police report.
The investigation revealed first of all that there is no evidence that either of the two machines in use by the Ambassador's office at the embassy of the United States of America in Ottawa was used to execute any portion of the questioned typewriting.
There are just two machines, so a little foreign aid is required here. Perhaps they should have three or four. It does not say whether they were new machines or had been in use three or four months. I continue to quote:

Next, there is evidence to indicate that the paper comprising the covering letter and its envelope are products of an English firm. Finally, there is no evidence to indicate that the original of the photo copy was a composite or montage, but photographic techniques used in its preparation could obscure such evidence.
This was the result of the R.C.M. Police inquiry. What instructions did they get? What did they investigate? Were they called off? Did he finally decide it was an administrative matter which should be referred to the Postmaster General, because it was a letter and there might have been a stamp on it?
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
You will be interested to know that no question was asked me by the R.C.M.P.; no examination of the copy of the letter in my possession was ever carried out. The R.C.M.P., the Department of Justice, have no idea whether the copy in my possession is typed, or whether it is handwritten, or whether it is a photostat. They do not know whether it was mailed in New York or in Washington or in Ottawa; they do not know the country of origin of the paper upon which it appears. In short there was no investigation at all of the copy I admitted I had in my possession-no investigation at all. It is somewhat strange that the then Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) did not consider it necessary to have an investigation made.
I have reported what was said by the Prime Minister and by two Ministers of the Crown as well as by the Ambassador. I have disclosed, as did the Minister of Justice, the abortive and incomplete investigation carried out by the R.C.M.P. When you have as little information as this, you must refer to the press.
I examined rather carefully as many of the press stories as came to my notice, and I discovered that some of the gentlemen of the fourth estate had a little more information than was given by Mr. Chevrier or by the Mounted Police. I cannot refer to all of them but I do not think Mr. Blakely would object if I were to refer to his account in the Montreal Gazette on May 29. I quote:
Informants say one flaw in the document was that in assembling the photographic stages the physical proportions of letterhead, type and signature were thrown out. The photostat, reproduced to the normal size of U.S. Embassy notepaper, would have the document's text running off the normal-sized page.
This was new and important information. In the Star Weekly magazine of October 26 a feature article by Don Peacock appeared,
April 8, 1965

and in the course of that article he had this to say:
But the giveaway was all in the body of the letter. Aside from the atrocious writing style, the contents were too long to fit on an actual-size-sheet of the embassy stationery of which the photostat purported to be a reduced copy.
By typing out the letter with the same line lengths, spacings and margins as were used in the photostat, embassy officials found the stationery about five lines too short.
Then, further on, he said:
The Mounties made the same typing test with the purported stationery as the embassy had and with the same result that the officials obtained: The "letter" was too long for the paper.
May I just summarize the so-called evidence at this point? There is the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the statement of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) who simply said the letter was a forgery. There was the statement of the Prime Minister that he had not received such a letter and that therefore, of course, it was a forgery. There was the Ambassador's statement that he did not write the letter, and then the evidence which the press obtained from informants that the letter when typed out on normal sized stationery ran over the page.
How conclusive is this evidence? May I suggest to people who are interested in investigating this matter at this late date that they should try doing two or three things. First they might type the letter on paper measuring eight and a half by twelve and a half inches. They will find that it fits. I had this done. It occurred to me that perhaps the letter had been written on stationery larger than the article which I have quoted called normal size. I have known for a number of years that there are several sizes of stationery used in offices-eight and a half inches by nine inches, eight inches by ten inches, eight and a half inches by eleven inches-and eight and a half inches by twelve and a half inches. Type out the letter on a sheet measuring eight and a half inches by twelve and a half inches and you will find that it fits perfectly.
Then I would suggest to an investigator that he take a photostat of the letter written on a sheet of paper of those dimensions and reduce it to the size of four and a half inches by seven and a half inches. He will find he has a photostat which corresponds to the photostat which was printed in some of the newspapers-the same size and the same spacing.
22620-10J
The Address-Mr. Churchill
Then I suggest that if anyone is interested he might ask the United States Embassy to give him a sample of the embassy stationery measuring eight and a half inches by twelve and a half inches with the seal of the United States in the upper lefthand corner and the words "Embassy of the United States of America" embossed in the upper righthand corner. If they have not used it up by now they may have some left over from 1962-63. An investigator might also want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether by any chance there has been any correspondence with his office over the years in the course of which stationery measuring eight and a half inches by twelve and a half inches was used by the United States Ambassador.
I took one of these elementary steps and I found that the letter did not run off the page. So what credence can one place in these stories from informants or from the Mounties-if that is accurate-that the letter must obviously be a forgery because it is greater than the size of the normal stationery? The Grit propaganda machine got working on this at full blast and I was subjected to editorial comment and attention in various articles, all because the Prime Minister said the letter had not been received and that therefore, of course it was a forgery, and because informants said that when typed out it ran over the page. I do not know how long evidence of that kind would stand up in a court of law.
There are some interesting questions which could be asked, and I wish the Prime Minister would clear them up. After all, he raised this issue; he re-opened it. I ask him this: If the letter was a forgery, why would a letter dated January 14 not become available in January, February or March if it was intended for use in the election campaign? I ask a second question: was the letter ever intended to be sent to the Prime Minister or was it a useful document for fund-raising if shown to the right people at the right time, indicating powerful support for the Liberals? I ask a third question: Perhaps the Ambassador had nothing to do with it. He issued a statement, but no Member of the Government defended him here in the House of Commons.
Far be it from me to question anything that an Ambassador states or writes but I note on looking carefully at his statement that he simply says: "It is a complete forgery. I deny that I have ever written any such
April 8, 1965

The Address-Mr. Patterson letter." I am not questioning the Ambassador's statement but in similar circumstances I would have said: "I have never written such a letter; and I have never dictated such a letter; such a letter has never been produced by my secretarial staff and I have never signed such a letter." That is the type of statement I would have issued in those circumstances.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Another question: Was it just an ambassadorial indiscretion?-for this has happened with ambassadors. There is the famous case at the close of the nineteenth century, when a British ambassador wrote a letter which was used effectively in a Presidential campaign in the United States. Grover Cleveland was very seriously annoyed and the British Government was very seriously embarrassed. There was an ambassadorial indiscretion committed in this country in 1956, and if you look at the Globe and Mail for Wednesday, April 18, 1956, you will find-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. Member, but his time expired a few minutes ago; unle_ss he has the consent of the House to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Have I the agreement of the House, Mr. Speaker? I can finish in just a couple of minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent, I regret.


An hon. Member:: They don't want to hear the truth.


An hon. Member:: Ain't it the truth!


Mr. Smallwood:: Go back to the beer
parlour.


Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton):: They
can't stand the truth.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May we have order, please. The hon. Member for Fraser Valley.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, as is customary, the debate currently taking place is covering a wide range of local, regional, national and international problems. The Speech from the Throne itself sets the stage for such a broad discussion. Although it is traditional that very few details of proposed legislation are indicated in


the Speech, I think this one is so general in nature that it is very difficult to know just what may be forthcoming. However, as we look over the Speech from the Throne we find that there are a great many items of real interest, and I believe that in one sense it does indicate that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Government is interested in the development of human resources, as is indicated in the Speech.
Throughout the various debates that are held in this House we find constant reference to the need to conserve and develop our natural resources, and I believe this is very Important. Too many times we have found that criminal waste has taken place as far as natural resources are concerned. We have had to face the alternative of revising our legislation, revising our concept of the problem, or else facing the inevitable consequences of our neglect. However, if it is wrong *-and I am sure we all agree that it is-to neglect the proper conservation and development of natural resources, then I believe it is doubly criminal if we are to in any way fail to develop and conserve our human resources. This would be, I believe, the repudiation of the basic principle of democracy.
Someone has said that it is every person's desire to be somebody, to be recognized as an individual and to make a contribution to the age in which he lives. I believe this is basically true. However there are certain things that somehow or other tend to minimize the importance of the individual. I suppose that the very magnitude of the universe in which we live and the fact that so many of its vast secrets are being revealed to man today somehow tend to dwarf the individual. Then we think of the society in which we find ourselves, in which we are pretty well classed, not as individuals with a name but as a unit with a number. This, perhaps, also tends to submerge the individual in the mass of mankind. But in spite of this I believe that the individual, his needs, his aspirations, his capabilities, his welfare must be the paramount concern of those who occupy places of responsibility and leadership.
Therefore I would say that one of the basic principles of our democratic society must be that the individual be assisted to achieve a full and abundant life through the exercise of personal initiative and the assumption of individual responsibility. Every person must have a constitutional right to live his own life, make his own decisions, develop his own personality and pursue his own activities,
April 8, 1965

provided that in so doing he does not infringe upon the similar rights of others. I would like to think that this document which we have before us today in the form of the Speech from the Throne is a recognition of this fact and expresses the desire and the determination of the Government to do something worth while in assisting in creating the kind of economy and the kind of society that will enable the individual citizens of Canada to achieve their true greatness as individuals and not just as a unit of a larger organization. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I just wanted to make reference to that particular aspect of the Speech before I enter into some of the more specific recommendations and specific proposals that have been made.
There is one that perhaps fits in very closely with this idea of the development of human resources and the development of human personality. That is the reference in the Speech from the Throne to the desire of the Government to establish new legislation as far as our Indian people are concerned. I know this has to do mainly with material things, but it does recognize the fundamental rights of the Indian people of this country. I refer to the Indian Claims Commission that is to be set up. Now, Mr. Speaker, I realize that the need for such a Commission has been constantly urged upon the Government; it has been urged by representatives of the Indian people themselves, by organizations that are concerned with the welfare of these citizens of Canada, and also individuals who on their own have given some thought and consideration to the problems that these people are facing.
In 1963 a bill was introduced in the House, Bill C-130; it was introduced for first reading on December 14, 1963. The purpose of this measure was to try to undo some of the injustices that had been perpetrated in days gone by. But unfortunately we did not get very far with that particular measure, or with many other measures for that matter, and now we find that once again the Government has indicated in the Speech from the Throne that they will be introducing a bill to establish an Indian Claims Commission. Following the introduction of Bill C-130 a great deal of study went into that particular document, and at conferences of Indian people that were held across the country a great deal of consideration was given to the various clauses. It was felt that if this was to really be effective in solving these problems and in dispensing justice to the
The Address-Mr. Patterson Indian people, a great many amendments would have to be made. These were submitted to the Government as well as to various Members of Parliament-I suppose, to all Members of Parliament-and I trust that in the drafting of the new legislation the Government will take into consideration the briefs that were presented by the Indian people themselves and by other interested organizations, and will see to it that the very best possible piece of legislation will be introduced with a view to meeting the requirements of and solving the problems in this particular connection.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I believe there is a new conscience being developed with respect to the needs of our Indian peoples. We must recognize their aspirations, we must recognize their abilities and we must recognize their rights. If we are to fulfil our responsibility and recognize the basic principle that all men are equal, then I believe we must do something definite and positive to meet the needs and to solve some of these problems which have been of such concern to the Indian people down through the past years.
There is one matter to which I should like to refer which is not included in the Speech from the Throne, although perhaps it is in some indirect manner. I refer once again to the problems we are facing in my own constituency with respect to the Fraser River. On February 28, 1964 I dealt with the recommendations of the interim report of the Fraser River Board and urged action. I should like to refer briefly to what I said in Hansard on that occasion, as reported at page 381:
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have this problem outlined for us. The board introduced an interim report in 1956 which contained specific recommendations which it felt were necessary and advisable at that time. The thing that concerns the people of the lower Fraser Valley at the moment is that in spite of the fact specific recommendations were made nothing has been done up to this time. We have been advised that the final report of the board will be brought in some time this spring, possibly in March. It is our hope and expectation that as soon as this report is introduced the governments concerned, both provincial and federal, will give immediate attention to it and will endeavour to work out a satisfactory solution to these problems.
As I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that statement was made on February 28, 1964. The final report was prepared and tabled in the month of March. The question I should like to ask at this time is: Just how much progress has been made up to the present in carrying
April 8, 1965

The Address-Mr. Patterson out the recommendations of the Fraser River Board? I recognize the fact that considerable study would have to be put into the problem. Engineering studies and all these other things would no doubt take time. But one year later we still face the situation where nothing tangible or concrete has been done to meet and to solve the problems in that particular field.
Last Spring saw the danger point reached once again. There was great fear in the minds of the people in the area that once again they would be faced with, perhaps, a repetition of the flood of 1948. The farmers of this area suffer heavily from seepage through the dikes. At one place there was a break in the dikes. We are now moving toward that time of the year when once again we face the possibility of a recurrence of this situation. As I have pointed out, apparently nothing concrete has been done up to the present to attempt to eliminate the possibility of this situation developing once again.


Arthur Laing: Would the hon. Member permit a question?


Alexander Bell Patterson: Yes.


Arthur Laing: May I ask whether the hon. Member is not aware that the Federal Government made the first approach to the Minister of Lands and Forests of B.C.; that we committed ourselves to 37J per cent of the $4,900,000 involved to r;aise the dikes in the Fraser Valley; that subsequently Mr. Williston, the Minister, called a meeting at Mission of the municipalities interested, and that the municipalities refused to accept their 25 per cent? Further, in respect of the Harrison area where the flood occurred last year I would ask the hon. Member to recall that we have made an agreement with the Provincial Government to proceed immediately, irrespective of the total job in the Valley, to repair the dikes at once and that that work is now under way.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the fact that these matters to which the Minister has referred have come about, but I would say with regard to that one particular problem, the matter of the dikes, that it did take a very long time to receive a reply and for something concrete to be done. I was speaking to the municipal authorities and they were very concerned. They said that if they were going to meet the problem and repair and strengthen the dikes so that they would not be faced with the same situation again, the Government would really have to

get cracking. I appreciate the fact that this agreement has been worked out, but I am not laying the blame altogether on the Federal Government. However, I would say once again, on behalf of the people of that particular area who face the danger of flooding, that we would expect both Provincial and Federal Governments to act with dispatch in solving this problem and bringing relief to this particular situation.
I should now like to deal with another problem, which is the main problem to which I should like to make reference today. I refer to the allusions in the Speech from the Throne to agriculture. There seems to be quite a section of the Speech from the Throne devoted to agriculture legislation. Part of the Speech reads as follows:
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.
This is setting out, I believe, the main objective in the mind of the Government regarding agriculture and agricultural problems.
If we look back to the last Speech from the Throne we find that reference is made to agriculture and some proposed legislation. But no matter how much pressure was put upon the Government and no matter how many recommendations were made, it did not seem as though we got around to considering the agricultural problems as such. Therefore, I hope that the measures forecast in the field of agriculture in this Speech will receive better treatment from the Government than did those included in the Throne Speech of last year. These references are very general. There is no indication just what specific measures will be taken or recommended, but we will await the details with a great deal of interest.
As we all know, Mr. Speaker, agriculture remains an industry basic to our whole economy. No matter how much industrialization takes place and no matter how much development in secondary industries takes place, agriculture remains the basic industry of this great nation of ours. In the carrying out of the activities in this particular area, our people face a great variety of problems; but it just seems as though the farmers cannot forecast or anticipate them.
They never know just which ones they will have to face from year to year. I think of my own constituency in the Fraser Valley, and of others which are facing the same problems.
April 8, 1965

Last fall once again the fruit growers faced a very heavy frost which destroyed a great portion of the strawberry plants.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
They have been trying to figure out ways and means of reestablishing or rehabilitating the industry. They have made representations to the Provincial Government and have been successful in obtaining some assistance, but when one thinks of the assistance given to the agricultural industry in various parts of Canada by the Federal Government it seems that there should be some way in which these people can be assisted by the Federal Government, as well as by Provincial authorities. This is just one of the difficult and uncertain problems which faces the agricultural industry across this nation today.
In addition to those problems, Canadians in the agricultural industry today must face the difficulties created by a general increase in the cost of production and a decrease in net income. This problem has never been solved. It has been discussed and studied from many angles, but to the present date no solution has been found. I hope that the Government in fulfilling its promises contained in the Speech from the Throne will be able to come up with some worth-while solutions to this problem.
At this time I should like to refer to several measures referred to in the Speech from the Throne. It contains a forecast of an expanded program in respect of agricultural manpower. Such a program has been referred to in the past, and suggestions relating to this very serious problem, which exists in many parts of the country have been made. Agricultural organizations have referred to it in briefs presented to various authorities. The Government has shown some wisdom by giving attention to this difficult situation at this time.
I should like to read a statement made at page 18 of a brief presented by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. In that brief this is stated:
On this question of availability of seasonal labour particularly we suggest that a special study group be set up, on which there would be representatives of the Canadian Horticultural Council as well as other Federation representatives, plus representatives of appropriate Government departments. It should be the job of such a study group to thoroughly assess the situation and the problem, and attempt to work out policies which can be effectively applied to prevent recurrence of the difficulties experienced in the past year.
No doubt the Government has given some attention to the recommendations of various
The Address-Mr. Patterson agricultural organizations and, as I pointed out earlier, we will look forward with interest to the introduction of legislation which will assist in solving this problem.
Another reference in the Throne Speech to the agricultural industry is the suggestion that the Government is going to introduce policies which will achieve larger and more reliable incomes. I suppose this means that the Government intends to introduce legislation designed to bring a fair share of the national income to the agricultural industry. This is something we have urged upon various governments over the years. Representatives of every party in this House have urged this upon the Government, and I am sure that Members of all parties in this House have given thought to recommendations in respect of increasing and stabilizing farm incomes. Such an accomplishment would provide farmers with a better opportunity for budgeting their money to meet their financial obligations from year to year.
The arguments I have advanced in regard to the agricultural industry in general can be specifically applied to the poultry industry, the dairy industry, the small fruits industry and to all these various segments of the agricultural industry which must face these problems. These industries are all looking for help and guidance which will enable them to increase and balance their incomes, so that they may face the future with the knowledge that they can count on a certain income each year.
One other paragraph of the Throne Speech is related specifically to the dairy industry and the establishment of a Canadian Dairy Commission. It is my opinion that it is essential to establish such a body, Mr. Speaker, and in this regard I should like to refer to an article which appeared in one of the newspapers published in my area of the country, the Abbotsford Sumas and Matsqui News, which is a very reputable newspaper as are all the newspapers in that area. This article refers to the problems which the dairy industry faces, and it concludes with the following words:
Mr. Brannick, President of the FVMPA, put It in a nutshell at the annual meeting last week.
"Prices must be increased to the Canadian farmer, or Canada will become an importing nation." He added "this is unthinkable."
With reference to the dairy industry particularly, and to the whole agricultural industry in general, it will be a sad day indeed when farmers reach that point, which many
April 8, 1965

The Address-Mr. Patterson of them have already reached, where they are not able to carry on and must go out of business, forcing Canada to become an importing country in respect of agricultural produce. At such time we will be left at the mercy of other agricultural producing countries, as far as prices are concerned.
The Throne Speech referred also to the movement of feed grain, and suggested the establishment of an organization or agency to deal with this particular problem as it affects Eastern Canada and British Columbia. In the old days when I first came to Ottawa one of our main themes in this House related to this feed grain situation. We urged the Government to adopt a program for providing assistance in respect of the movement of feed grain.
This situation is still critical, and particularly so in British Columbia where the industry is facing competition from industry in other areas which have access to cheaper feed. In that area the people are forced to pay high prices for feed grain, and find that the difficulties created as a result of these high prices are greater than they can surmount. We hope that the Government, in working out a solution to this problem, will be able to develop something which will be fair to every part of Canada, and which will give producers in all areas an equal opportunity to share in the benefits resulting from any policy adopted.
The Throne Speech suggests that the Government is interested in the maintenance of the family farm structure in Canada. Agricultural organizations across Canada have been concerned in this regard for many years and have advocated a program of assistance for the maintenance of family farm units. There has been a trend toward the development of larger farm units and the integration of small farms into large agricultural operations. These agricultural organizations have been concerned about this trend because of the possibility that small family farm units will become things of the past. As I have pointed out in the past on many occasions, individuals who operate small family farms do not do so only to make a living for themselves and their families, but because this is a way of life which they enjoy and want to maintain. They have no desire to move into the city and become units of a Canadian industrial labour force. Farming, to these individuals, is a way of life which they enjoy, and one which they wish to perpetuate. These farmers only want

a fair opportunity to live with decency and dignity, and with incomes which are sufficient to enable them to meet the needs of their families. Therefore I would urge the Government to encourage the Department of Agriculture to concern itself with this situation. I believe that family farm units are an essential part of the general economy of this country.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I want to refer to a statement regarding this matter in the submission by the National Farmers Union to the Government of Canada on March 1, 1965. On page 7 they say:
If the farm family is to be the keystone of national agricultural policy, this can be achieved through the implementation of farm policies which make it economically possible for the farmer to maintain his family and himself with a sense of dignity and at the same time apply sound farming practices to his land.
There are many other matters to which consideration could be given this afternoon but I wanted to refer particularly to some of the problems related to the agricultural industry. I wish to commend the Government for facing some of these problems and I hope they will be able to come up with an answer that will be satisfactory to the industry itself, and will be of benefit to the economy of our great country. As I have said, there are many subjects I should like to cover but time does not permit. Others of my colleagues will be dealing with various matters of importance and concern, and I appreciate this opportunity to call to the attention of the Government some of these problems of urgent concern.


Mr. Jean-Paul Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I must extend my heartfelt congratulations to the mover, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin), and the seconder, the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien), of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. If I may, I should like to single out the member for the constituency next to mine for the manner in which he represented the St. Maurice valley.
The session just ended was a long and hard one, but it achieved most gratifying results for this country, since we were able to move ahead in the program we had set for ourselves and that we had placed before the people during the 1963 election campaign.
I am glad to see also that the speech from the throne provides for a reform of parliamentary procedure. I can only hope that the
April 8. 1965

new procedure will do away with the endless repetition of the same arguments and the same speeches, as was the case during the last session.
Why not set a time limit on debates as is done for the speech from the throne debate and allow the tabling of other speeches as having been read, even if there should be a day of discussion where party leaders or their spokesmen would state their policy which, I think, would waste less time while offering the same result and respecting the democratic process.
Mr. Speaker, the riding of Champlain which I represent-I like to repeat it-is one of the privileged ridings in the province of Quebec. After a survey, it was found that nobody wants to see it broken up under the new redistribution. That riding, located between Montreal and Quebec, is adjacent to the ridings of Three Rivers, St. Maurice-Lafleche and Portneuf.
My riding is both rural and urban. Cap de la Madeleine, an industrial city, has a population of almost 30,000 and the rest of the riding is divided into 19 rural communities, typical of French Canada, without forgetting my own native village of St. Tite.
It is not surprising, Mr. Speaker, that I should often ask for retaining walls, wharves and marinas, since a part of my riding is along the St. Lawrence River, from Cap de la Madeleine to Champlain, Batiscan, Ste Anne de la Perade-the kingdom of tommy cods- with Ste Genevieve de Batiscan.
The city of Cap de la Madeleine is known throughout the world for its sanctuary which attracts thousands of people every year. "The Cape", as it is called, is an industrial city in the highest sense of the word and an ideal site, like all communities in my riding, to set up prosperous industries. We have a healthy and hard-working population.
The establishment of a steel mill in Becan-cour was greeted with much enthusiasm in my constituency because it will have economic repercussions throughout my area.
Becancour stands opposite St. Marthe du Cap de la Madeleine. Its fabulous development will no doubt provide a most sound argument for speeding up the extension of the Three Rivers harbour toward Cap de la Madeleine, for which we have been clamouring for a long time.
While Cap de la Madeleine has developed at a rapid pace and has a bright future, each parish in my riding would like to expand,
The Address-Mr. Matte and rightly so, and they are all opened to industry. I am looking forward to the day when each municipality will be able to live comfortably from the proceeds of industry and farming, as much from one source as from the other.
Farmers make up an important section of our population. They suffer, as all eastern farmers, from an unpropitious situation. The new dairy policy of this government will no doubt give hope to those people who, more than any other, need to be looked after. Under section 95 of our constitution, farming must come under the joint jurisdiction of Ottawa and the provinces.
I am proud to say that the speech from the throne will bring a ray of hope to the honest and good people who, let us not forget it, are the descendants of the founders of our country. In fact, it provides for:
1.	Measures to help farmers increase their income and assistance to rural families;
2.	The establishment of a Canadian dairy commission;
3.	Improved movement and marketing of feed grain in eastern Canada and British Columbia;
4.	Creation of a fund for rural economic development and amendments to ARDA, the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act.
What a gratifying program when we see the sincerity the present government brings into its fight against poverty, which should not exist in our fine country.
1.	Parliament will be called upon to grant the Prime Minister the necessary powers to administer a program to fight poverty.
2.	A commission will study the opportunity of creating a position of ombudsman, a sort of protector of the people.
3.	The program of assistance to underdeveloped districts will be extended.
4.	The creation of a system of assistance at the federal level, and many other measures to assist the people according to the concepts of co-operative federalism.
Mr. Speaker, my riding has known unemployment too often, and that is the worse plague which can exist. Employment is a source of happiness for everyone, and unemployment is a real calamity. I am fully conscious of this situation as a result of the many visits I receive from unemployed persons in my office.
Every man has a right to work, especially in a country like Canada, and it is our duty
April 8, 1965

The Address-Mr. Matte to look particularly alter those who suffer, as the speech from the throne states so rightly.
This brings me to deal with unemployment insurance which will be improved by the government. I find the word unemployment a pejorative and I would like that fund to be called "Worker compensation fund", which I feel is more positive.
Why could unemployment insurance benefits, a social measure, not be paid to a worker who falls ill but who must nevertheless support his family? And yet, if a recipient falls ill at such times, he continues to draw benefits.
The reforms will no doubt remove all those anomalies.
I would also like the department to be more human and to apply simpler regulations to the people. I often think it is unfair for some people to be able to evade the law while others, through ignorance, are being refused benefits.
During the 1963 federal election, we submitted a five-point plan as follows: (1) revive the economy of Canada; (2) restore security; (3) preserve confederation; (4) develop the agricultural industry; (5) restore Canada's prestige.
Mr. Speaker, considering the accomplishments we have witnessed until now and this speech from the throne, we can formally declare that we kept our promises to the people, for after two years only, all those planks of our platform have been implemented. There is still much to be done, we are aware of the facts and we are being consistent.
I have received several delegations from my riding and I take this opportunity to thank the protective staff and the staff of the house for their courtesy and willingness to help visitors. However, I wonder if it would not be a good idea to put bilingual people at the main entrances because quite often people who can speak both official languages are relegated where such knowledge is not as necessary.
Before closing, I would like to pay tribute to our great Prime Minister who, more than any other man, has really understood the problem of unity, and I truly believe that he was the man chosen by Divine Providence to save Canada.
He knows how to engage in dialogue; he is the man of peace, that peace he personifies and spreads around him in our country and throughout the world. We are all the more

convinced of that in view of the award he received recently from the University of Philadelphia.
Mr. Speaker, "a flame of ideals is burning in the heart of our fine youth", said the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche, a flame is burning in the hearts of all the citizens in my province. I hope I will see the day-not far away, I hope-when all together, throughout the country, equally, in complete unity and conscious of our diversity, we can sing whole heartedly and fully convinced "O Canada, beloved country of mine".
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambion-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I should like at the start to compliment the previous speakers on their presentations relating to the Speech from the Throne. Both the Mover (Mr. Cashin) and Seconder (Mr. Chretien) could be singled out for special consideration because of the excellent manner in which their material was presented. I would also be remiss if I did not compliment the lady Member from Westmorland (Mrs. Rideout) upon her maiden speech in this House. My own first speech here is not so far removed that I cannot vividly recall it, and sympathize with her in that rubbery feeling this Chamber brings to one's knees.
We have all heard comments presented from various sections of the House relating to various items in the Throne Speech. I believe therefore there is no need for repetition. My only comment on the Throne Speech is that it is a truly fantastic play on words. In order to describe the verbiage contained therein, I should like to recall an old Irish saying in our family which goes like this: Talk is cheap, but it takes money to buy whiskey. I do not believe there is any segment of the population that has not been mentioned in a general way for health or welfare. There is even a plan for those unfortunate Canadians who are in jail. Of course it is obvious that neither Lucien Rivard nor Hal Banks will be able to benefit, as things stand at the moment.
The announcement in the Speech from the Throne that Parliament is finally going to have an opportunity to discuss the agreement with the United States covering the automobile industry is indeed most welcome. It is long overdue. This agreement, which appears to be as one-sided as anything ever entered into by the Canadian Government, affects a wide range of industries in Canada. It affects
April 8, 1965	COMMONS
the livelihood of many Canadians, and many of them are In my own constituency. These people want to know, what is this agreement and how was it made? How will it operate in the future? With all due respect to the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury), and I have a high regard for his abilities, the information he has given up to now is not enough. He wants Parliament to accept the deal and feel that he has made the best deal possible. I cannot accept that and few Canadians, I find, are accepting it. The Minister of Industry has been one of the biggest disappointments in this Cabinet, and that covers a lot of territory.
May I call it six o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional Standing Order 39A to inform the house that the question to be raised at ten o'clock this day is as follows: the hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard)-House of Commons-consideration of Committee report on reproduction of Hansard index.
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. Diefen-baker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Marcoux.
Mr. McCuicheon:: When the House rose at six o'clock I had commented on the lack of information given to Parliament concerning the mechanics of the free trade car deal with the United States.
There are many questions that come to mind. What kind of deal is it which gives the big automobile companies a debate of $50 million in exise duties they would otherwise pay on parts imported into Canada, while
DEBATES	143
The Address-Mr. McCutcheon not one consumer in Canada gets one cent of advantage out of it? We are told to have faith and put our trust in the Government because everything will work out well. We are told there will be a tremendous growth in employment; that the companies need this extra money for a few years for development purposes. The question which comes to my mind is this: If this deal is so good why are the ordinary investment channels not available to Canadian manufacturers for expansion? In this way the benefit of the excise rebate could be passed back to the consumers, the car buying public. Of course we have been given the promise that cars will be cheaper in price. But when? And by how much?
Blame for lack of information about this plan, and failure to understand it, lies on the shoulders of the Government as a whole, but particularly upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury). They go down to the United States, sit around a table with the United States administration and come back and tell us that all will be well if only Canada will cut down its tariff on United States automobile parts. On some bright, sunny day in the future, they tell us, the Americans may cut down their tariffs and let Canadian cars into the United States duty free. They tell us that the President cannot carry out this bargain until the Congress of of the United States decides whether or not to lower automobile tariffs. That is perfectly true. It is Congress which will eventually decide. The President of the United States proposes and Congress disposes. This is the principle of United States policy that Canadians have learned the hard way in the past. I do not think we should have to learn it the hard way in every generation.
Already there are signs that there will be opposition to such a move in the United States Congress. As a consequence we are in the hands of one man. Our auto deal depends on whether or not the President's popularity and his salesmanship of his ideas can effectively force this measure through the Congress.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
One fact has been overlooked, however. It is that the President already possesses some power to cut tariffs. Indeed he can cut them up to 50 per cent for bargaining purposes. Did the Prime Minister ask for a cut to be made in Canada's favour? We do
April 8, 1965

The Address-Mr. McCutcheon not know. Did the Secretary of State for External Affairs remind the Right Hon. Gentleman that President Johnson could have cut the United States tariff in our favour, had he so wished, without waiting for the approval of Congress? We do not know. Did the Minister of Industry jog his colleague's elbow and urge him to ask the President to make tariff concessions which might save a few thousand Canadian industrial jobs? We need 1J million more jobs in Canada in the next few years, as the Economic Council has pointed out. I do not think we want agreements with foreign countries that cut down jobs in Canada; and I can tell this House that a lot of people are saying in my part of the country that the Liberal Government has lost its shirt in making this automobile deal with President Johnson. It is not the Government's shirt; it is the shirt of some small Canadian manufacturers of automobile parts and accessories. Do you think we are going to get our shirt back? Well, we are merely told to wait and see.
I mentioned previously that the future of this automobile deal depends on one man. This concerns me very much, because it reminds me of some of the things I learned on a recent trip down into the United States. I visited in Texas; in fact, I visited at the L. B. J. Ranch, not far from Austin. They get a lot of visitors down there these days. I would like to comment, in passing, that I can recommend a visit to Texas for my friends and colleagues in the House of Commons. It's a great state, and Texans are a great people. In our part of the country we see lots of Texans visiting Canada, and we like them. I submit that it would be a change for our Government if some of the Ministers got in their cars, as I did, and drove down. They then would find out what ordinary Americans think about this Government and some of the things it is doing. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) goes to places like Hyannis Port, Philadelphia and Camp David. He has lunch with the President; he makes speeches, and he has his newspaper clippings about them. This is not the same as talking to the man in the street in places like Houston, Austin and Tyler. This is what is called the grass roots approach, I am told. One thing about Texas, when I was there in January, is that while it is a beautiful country-and they have lots of beautiful country-they have also plenty of dry, stony and rough country; and it looks particularly rough and dry and stony to anyone who

comes from Ontario, the garden land of North America-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: -and especially from that garden spot


Mr. Whelan:: Essex South.


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: -the riding that I happen to represent, which embraces Lambton and Kent Counties. The L. B. J. Ranch is in the Pedernales country; and I must give credit to anyone who has made a ranch and a home in that rough country of rock and sagebrush. The President has a nice little lake right on the ranch. They have built a dam across the river; and there is also a nice big airstrip to take the biggest, fastest jet aircraft, so he can go to and come from Washington. Those Texans down there know Lyndon Johnson, and it is interesting for a Canadian to get the Texas point of view.
I would like to report what I heard in Johnson City, Texas, which is 11 miles away from the L. B. J. Ranch. It is a thriving place and has a population of 611. I visited with farmers and ranchers who came into the town the day I was there. I talked with them in the casual, friendly way that they have in Texas, and this one man in particular had a word of advice which I am going to pass on to the Prime Minister of Canada. We talked about Texas and the United States, and we got into discussion about this automobile agreement. I said to him, "What do you think about this car deal between the President and our Prime Minister?" I had hoped the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) would be here, because he could take some notes on real diplomacy as this Texan spelled it out to me. "Well", said this man from Johnson City, in his Texas drawl, "I reckon your Prime Minister better have his shirt well buttoned down, 'cos if'n he ain't, I can tell you who is going to have that shirt pretty soon; it's going to be our Lyndon". He went on, "You know, our Lyndon is one of the biggest wheeler-dealers in Texas, and if'n your Prime Minister don't have his underwear on tight, he may lose that, too". Well, I guess he could see that I, as a Canadian, did not like the idea of our Prime Minister losing his shirt and underwear to L. B. J., even in the cause of cementing the long friendship between Canada and the United States; so he added these words, "Of course, our Lyndon is a real Texas gentleman, and he will lend your Prime Minister his shirt back so he can get home safe".
April 8. 1965

Mr. Speaker, I am not worried today about the Prime Minister and his shirt; I am concerned about his image abroad. The Prime Minister may be the dove of peace in Philadelphia, but I suspect he is just a pigeon in Texas. I can tell this House that a great many Canadians in the small parts manufacturing companies around Ontario are worried about losing their shirts; and the sooner Parliament gets down to examining this automobile agreement and hearing directly from the Minister of Industry, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister the exact terms they have agreed to, then the better it will be for Canada.
I noticed in the London Free Press recently an article which was headed up, "Ford Exporting 400 Cars Monthly to New York State". It goes on to say that Ford of Canada has started exporting 400 cars a month to dealers in Upper New York State, the first time the company has shipped to the United States. This is datelined Oakville, Ontario. The question that comes to my mind is this: How can Ford Motor Company export cars to the United States of America and pay 84 per cent duty to the United States Government, and still be competitive? I am sure that our American cousins are not going to pay any more for these cars manufactured at Oakville than they will pay for domestic models manufactured in the United States of America. I confess that I do not have the answer, but I can only surmise that Ford must be discounting their price at least 8i per cent in order to be competitive. The question in my mind is this: If they can do it for Americans, why can't they do it for Canadians?
War on poverty is a fine, abstract doctrine, even if this is borrowed, like a shirt, from President Johnson. What we want to avoid in this country is importing poverty from the United States. Unless the automobile agreement starts working, and working pretty soon, in Canada's favour, that is exactly what the Prime Minister is doing; he is importing poverty for the employees in the production of automobile parts. So I have this to offer to the Government: You have no monopoly on knowledge of all the things that are good for Canada. Take us into your confidence some time; you might be pleasantly surprised to learn that we are as interested as anyone in Canada's welfare. After all, you should thank the Opposition for correcting a lot of your ill-conceived legislation.
The Address-Mr. Latulippe
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Mr. Henri Latulippe (Complon-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, like all other hon. members,
I should like to express my thanks to the mover, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) and the seconder, the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien), of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, and also to offer them my sincere congratulations for having carried out their responsibility so well.
In the Speech from the Throne read by His Excellency the Governor General, it should be noted that a very definite emphasis is put on economic and social problems.
The government intends to fight poverty and unemployment, improve the protection provided for Canadians against the dangers of illness, facilitate the adaptation of workers to new requirements of technology, stimulate the development of underdeveloped regions. All those are initiatives that will meet very real needs in this country.
Finally, the Speech from the Throne refers to the delicate matter of jurisdiction between Ottawa and the provinces.
The Government is only realizing now that there is dissatisfaction everywhere, hardship and poverty. Poverty has been deliberately maintained by the old-line parties, especially the Liberal Party which has been in office for 33 out of 45 years. We now have to resort to mobilization to fight poverty. What have old governments done to date to establish a debt free monetary system based on present and potential production? What are both Liberal and Conservative parties doing to provide, out of our colossal production, the necessities of life to everyone? Have they passed any legislation to protect the large family, the farmer or the settler? They all have a hard time to make both ends meet.
Under the old-line parties there is nothing but poverty, unpaid debts, mortgages, mortgaged governments and subservient people forever in debt to a few Canadian financial institutions and, in a proportion of 80 per cent, to foreign interests. To remedy this situation, instead of distributing our abundant available production, the old-line parties and especially the Liberal Party are becoming leftists in accepting state socialism, which is contrary to individual freedom, and they presented it to us as a remedy in proposing a series of measures aimed at correcting a situation which has become unbearable when
April 8. 1965

The Address-Mr. Latulippe they should be putting an end to that situation; they use it as a starting point; they put the blame on private industry and try to replace it. This is probably a part of a great scheme to establish a super universal state.
The strategy of the secret force calling the shots is very simple but effective: first, create unbearable conditions; second, state interference, with economic improvements paid through the loss of certain freedoms. There is the occult power which acts as a financial system to put private enterprise in a difficult position and which liberates the same financial system at the right time on behalf of public enterprise to make it look good.
It must be remembered that man is not born to produce, that life should not be spent exclusively on producing material goods. Economic security is necessary if freedom is to mean something, but once a minimum of economic security is guaranteed, freedom becomes much more important than wealth.
Under normal circumstances modern production is already more than enough to offer good living conditions to all. Why then all those programs for employment and large scale production with the intervention of the state, everywhere private enterprise cannot keep everyone at work? What is the purpose of all that when there is enough for the necessities of life for some extra comforts too? Why not leave alone those who are satisfied with such necessities of life, such comforts.
For those who are interested solely in material objectives, the employment and production plans may have a meaning for those who want a socialist state; they may have a meaning for the enlightened people from the London School of Economics, from this seminary for the training of the higher bureaucrats of the socialist state of tomorrow.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
But they do not make sense for those who, like the Creditistes, have a broader concept of the human person, and they are distasteful to those who refuse to give up freedom for materialism. What every individual should acknowledge as the main purpose of economic activity should be to free man while providing everyone with his vital needs.
It is then that freedom makes sense and that it is odious to allow it to take a back seat it to the requirements of planners.
For instance, our fine pension plan which brings the human being into subjection, is one of the most socialistic measures ever enacted in Canada.

I urge all right-minded people to join with those who suggest the English and French Canadians are able to solve their own problems and that since production has been organized for a long time, it should be easy to ensure its distribution. Our two old line parties have at last generally admitted that there is something completely wrong with our economic system and that it is also absurd to refuse to men devoid of the necessities of life the necessary money to obtain them, simply because there is such an overabundance of those things and that no labour is required for further production.
The factor limiting production of actual wealth has been the failure to distribute products, because the consumer does not have the money required to buy everything.
Production is short-lived, Mr. Speaker, when there is no buyer. Mass production requires mass consumption. It is therefore necessary to investigate the purchasing power mechanism in order to meet the needs.
And, while a surprising evolution took place in the science of production, no similar change occurred in the financial machinery. The system of distribution of the purchasing power dates back to centuries of scarcity when there were insufficient goods to meet the needs of the people.
There should be an end to worries, to unjust orders issued to protect some friends at the expense of other people. There should be an end to requests for privileges; now it is the people's turn to live.
The citizens want their freedom and I think that sooner or later there will be a freedom march of the Canadian citizens.
Governments have always found money to wage war or arrange for international massacres. They have always found a means to finance their war budgets. The budget and the economy were balanced in wartime. Natural resources and productivity were successfully mobilized. The necessary capital was always found to wage war. Nothing was impossible for the sake of war. What we did to win the war, let us do it now for the sake of peace. What was spent for guns, let us spend for our fellow citizens, our children and ourselves.
Let us now accelerate our production and our productivity and let us put all these goods at the disposal of our fellow citizens. Let us help our poverty stricken families. Let us put an end to poverty and indigence. Let us put an end to ignorance, incompetence and unemployment. Let us put all our adults
April 8, 1965

to work; it is done in other countries. Would we be incompetent, mentally retarded, careless with regard to our most urgent problems? Are our best brains, our experts at the end of their rope?
Let us improve the lives of our citizens. Let production meet the needs of the people in their homes. This is possible. For that we only have to put at the disposal of Canadians the necessary purchasing power.
If society is able to provide the arms and the brains, it is the duty of governments to provide individuals with the purchasing power necessary to their development.
If, Mr. Speaker, interest rates on capital are too high, let us lower them. No one in this parliament has asked to lower the rates of interest which are too high, to bring to reason finance companies. There is no one either among the Liberals or among the Conservatives who would have the courage to ask that order be restored to the economic situation.
It is absurd that capital assets should always be more protected than human capital. Men are neglected but the golden calf -or is it made of silver or bronze-is always protected.
In 1964, Mr. Speaker, the total amount of taxes paid by the taxpayers exceeded what the citizens had spent for food, clothing and housing.
In 1964, each taxpayer paid about $800 out of his income solely for the federal government administration, that is almost 20 per cent of the average wage which is $4,200. It is a real shame. It is perfectly absurd. This, Mr. Speaker, is not the way to solve the problems of poverty amidst plenty.
On many occasions, I directed some questions to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh), to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) as well as to the government. I asked for an increase in family allowances, and the reply was that the government was considering the opportunity of increasing family allowances in order that they may be attuned to the tempo of the other sections of the national economy.
Do not forget that an eight-year old child, for instance, receives from our governments an allowance of $6 if he lives with his family, $65 in a foster home and up to $90 and $120 in orphanages and institutions. Such differences are recognized as normal and legitimate. These figures may be checked. They are a matter of public record. Why not
The Address-Mr. Latulippe increase family allowances to bring them in line with the rise in the cost of living?
Mr. Speaker, I believe that if we wanted to bring family allowances in line with the cost of living, they would have to be at least $1 per day. The reply of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and of the Prime Minister is always about the same, vague and non-committal.
The government is always on the look-out for means to improve social security programs in Canada, and any decision in this respect will be announced in due course.
This is a word-for-word quotation from the debates of the House of Commons.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Since July 1944, that is since the enactment of the legislation, family allowances have remained at the same level, namely $6 and $8 per month, while in all other sectors of the economy, everything was multiplied by four, six, eight, ten and 11 as statistics show clearly. Why not the same escalation when human beings are concerned, especially when our children, the future citizens of Canada, are concerned?
In Canada, in 1964-65, there is no shortage of goods, housing, clothing, food or medical care. All that is plentiful. Manufacturers and businessmen want to sell, families have obvious needs. Nevertheless, the products are not sold according to the needs because of a lack of money in the family. The responsibility to remedy such a situation by restoring the proper balance of the economy rests with the government; that would give the consumers, our Canadian families, a purchasing power equal to the production yields.
What have you done, Grits or Tories, what solutions have you offered in these so-called 20 years of progress, so that the people could live according to the production capacity of the country, and not according to restrictions imposed by those who control money and credit? You have done nothing except increase our debt and consolidate the position of the financial dictatorship. During all that time, the only thing you did was to rob some to enable others to live or exist.
You have done nothing to make the material development work for Canadian individuals and families.
All that was done was to take note of the representations and suggestions of the people which means that nobody really deals with them, and for the people, the only alternative will be to live in patience or to die of despair.
April 8. 1965

The Address-Mr. Latulippe
It is easy to stifle the efforts of the awakeners of the masses. Mouldering in forced idleness and insecurity, are not those people ripe to accept anything?
You members of old-line parties you are responsible for the present chaos, you are responsible for the waste of the precious time we would have to find a solution to the defects of the economy. Certainly, it will be necessary some day to find a financial machine which will help Canadians, instead of punishing them, a machine which will make money to meet requirements, instead of merely creating debts; a machine which will increase purchasing power as the people increase production, instead of reducing this power through ever increasing taxes, without consideration for human beings.
Mr. Speaker, the right to life, the right to the means of living is a birthright, a right which implies the duty to respect the same right of others, by allowing them a reasonable standard of living, in a country where there is plenty of everything and where goods and skills are lost for lack of financial means. An addition to a family should not deprive the other members of the family or of the country of a decent livelihood.
Mr. Speaker, I ask this question. In order to benefit from the progress of science, to get three meals a day, is it necessary to be a dog? If not, let something be done.
Mr. Speaker, there is injustice in taxation; large institutions are favoured at the expense of private citizens. This is done to protect once more capital and especially interest.
In this way, companies and large institutions are afforded more opportunities to increase their dividends so that their shares may rise on the stock market. All that concerns only 10 per cent of the population; the mighty, the rich and the learned in Canada. All that gives nothing to the 80 per cent that forms the bulk of the people. Here we represent the people, we must see that they get justice, security and liberty.
Here are some very definite examples where the government grants great privileges to companies, while denying them to individuals.
First, the tax form for 1962 shows that companies pay only 21 per cent on their profits on the first $35,000 and only 50 per cent above $35,000 and there is no limitation, while individuals pay 50 per cent as soon as their taxable income has reached $25,000 and up to 80 per cent on larger sums.

Second, between 1954 and 1963, during a ten-year period of prosperity, the personal income tax went up by over $1,000 million whereas the corporation income tax remained at the same level, as can be seen on page 1041 of the French edition of The Canada Year Book, at approximately $116 million.
In the field of national economy, Mr. Speaker, before 1962, under various old age assistance programs, monthly payments of $20 or $25 to $40 were made to needy older citizens who presented an application and submitted to a means test.
In 1952, the government set up old age security, thus guaranteeing a pension of $40 a month to any person of 70 or over, without any means test.
That pension was raised to $46, on July 1, 1957, and to $55 on November 1 of the same year. On February 1, 1962, it was further increased to $65 a month and then again to $75 on October 1, 1963.
Consequently, old age security was raised in 1952, 1957, 1962 and 1963, five increases from 1952 to 1963.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Members' indemnities, including expense allowances, which were $4,000 in 1944, were raised to $18,000 in 1963. In fact, this indemnity which was $2,500 in 1906, $4,000 in 1920, $6,000 in 1945, $10,000 in 1954, is now $18,000.
On the other hand, family allowances, voted in 1944 and paid since July 1945, were $5, $6, $7 and $8 for children under 16. This was raised from $6 to $8 in 1957, before the surprise election called by the Right Hon. Leader of the present Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). This increase represented, on the average, one cent per day or 30 cents per month, for every child under 16. On the other hand, from 1944 to 1957, the price of milk went up five cents a quart.
Mr. Speaker, nothing was done on behalf of the families, on behalf of those who are the nation, the real nation, on behalf of the survival of Canadians, and toward the development of French Canadians. Nothing was done apart from levying new taxes, imposing new burdens and vexations. Those are the only achievements of our governments during 33 years of Liberal administration and during the rest of the time by the Conservative administration.
No one ever paid any attention to the people. However, many schemes were devised. Every possible formula and means
April 8, 1965

were found to wage war, to promote the expansion of high finance and the good of barons of finance. Measures were taken to favour only the powerful, to increase the rates of interest and to endorse loans for provinces, municipalities and school boards. We have come to the point where we are now endorsing for individuals. The only thing the federal government can do is to become an endorser and to adopt a patronizing attitude toward the large financial institutions, to the prejudice of the family.
After 33 years of Liberal administration, we are beginning to notice a feeling of unrest within society and to be aware of the need for reforms. But should those reforms be carried out by taking more money out of the pockets of the taxpayer, who has not enough already, how is this going to straighten out matters? The reforms proposed by this government will come to nothing.
The speech from the throne is vague and contains no concrete solution. The solutions that are being proposed and the reforms that are mentioned are general reforms. They are not likely to benefit the individual, the family; they do not tend to protect the family, in brief those who need to be protected.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.
fText]


Mr. J. E. Lloyd (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion proposed by the hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) and seconded by the hon. Member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien). Both gentlemen discharged the traditional duties assigned to them with impressive eloquence. Reflecting upon the work and exhausting efforts of the past two sessions, the hon. Member for St. John's West chose this occasion to pay tribute to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). He said that the Prime Minister had shown a rare and perceptive talent for dealing with particular and urgent problems of this nation. Today, I add that the contents of the Speech from the Throne eloquently support that conclusion. The hon. Member for St. John's West went on to say that the Prime Minister was acutely aware of the situations in Canada and is magnificently equipped to deal with them.
Now, Mr. Speaker, events of the past few days have focused attention on the performance of Canada's Prime Minister. Canadians, and indeed people throughout the entire
The Address-Mr. Lloyd world, recently watched with great concern the escalation of the war in Viet Nam. All were grateful when Canada's Prime Minister, in a speech in Philadelphia, put forward constructive proposals that might remove another threat to world peace. Our thankfulness deepened yesterday when we learned that the President of the United States had shifted the emphasis of the United States from military to diplomatic measures in Southeast Asia. The Ottawa Citizen of April 8 reports the news in these words:
President Johnson has broken the impasse over Viet Nam with a declaration of willingness to hold "unconditional discussions" for a peaceful settlement.
He also proposed a vast Southeast Asian development scheme to which he said the U.S. would contribute one billion dollars as a starter.
The latter idea was phrased in almost the same terms used by Prime Minister Pearson last week.
It was a time of greatness, Mr. Speaker. Two men, President Johnson and Prime Minister Pearson, exhibited to the world that they possessed that quality when it was urgently needed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne contained many references to international matters; and the meaningfulness of this, as well as of the reality and the need to be involved in these affairs, was very well illustrated in the past few days. In addition, the Speech from the Throne deals with matters of development in Canada. We are concerned with the problems and factors of economic growth. There will be no easy answer to the challenge put to us by the Economic Council. Indeed, it would be absolutely foolish for us to expect that the solution we require to meet that challenge will be found simply and only in some tinkering with credit. It goes far beyond the question of credit.
Let us examine what the Economic Council has to say, and the effect that involvement in their proposals may have on urban regions of Canada and the rural areas of this country. Last December the Economic Council of Canada published its first annual review. The Council projected the expansion of the labour force and population growth through to 1970. By 1970 it is expected that over one million persons will be added to the labour force. The dominant factor, the report points out, is an increase in Canada's population of working age. Reflecting the high birth rate in the ten years following the war, the number of people in the 20 to 24 age group is expected to increase by 33 per cent from 1965

April 8. 1965
The Address-Mr. Lloyd to 1970. By the end of the decade, the increase will be 55 per cent. The average increase in the sixties of the 20 to 24 age group will be ten times that of the fifties.
The Council noted another significant element of change in the labour force. Ten years from now three out of ten married women are expected to be in the labour force, compared with only one out of ten in the fifties. The population of Canada last year crossed the 19 million mark. By 1970 we can reach 22 million, and the decade of the sixties will roughly see an increase of 22 per cent. The Economic Council continues to observe that with the massive inflow of young people, the rapid increase in the number of working wives, the labour force is expected to grow at a faster pace than the population. Speaking of the increase in labour force, allowance must be made for a reduction in the current rate of unemployment. The challenging conclusion by the Council is an additional 1.5 million jobs between 1963 and 1970.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
In the light of that realistic appraisal the justification for the much debated Canada Pension Plan became apparent. The funds it accumulates over the next ten to 15 years will be fully required to supplement the massive social capital needs of the Provinces and their municipalities in making their contribution to the essential growth of the economy. It is also clear that the portable benefits at age 65 of the Canada Pension Plan phased into maximum payments over the next ten years is a practical and timely measure. The same observation applies to the reduction of the retirement test of the Old Age Security benefit from age 70 to age 65 over the next five years. Competition for jobs in the next decade will make it increasingly difficult for our citizens of retirement age to obtain and hold remunerative employment. It should be noted that over 60 per cent of our labour force are not covered by private pension plans.
I was pleased to note that in the Speech from the Throne reference is made to the need for us to become involved in legislation which will bring about a consolidation of a number of assistance plans and bring about an improvement in the assistance provided under existing arrangements. The scheme is to be called the Canada Assistance Plan. There is no doubt in my mind that this is the next step to be taken. Those of us who were actively concerned with the Canada Pension Plan recognized that it needed to be done.

We thought that before increasing flat rate benefits we should take a first step with the Canada Pension Plan and then go on to a second stage, one to proceed concurrently with the pension plan itself.
Between 1963 and 1970 the pace of expansion will need to be substantially better than our longer run experience if we are to avoid severe social and economic problems and strains. What will be the impact of economic growth on our municipalities? The assumptions made by the Economic Council allow for a high and sustained rate of growth in investment in social capital. The Council recognized a high income society, demanded improved schools, hospitals, highways, streets, parks, cultural and recreational facilities. The report of the Council stated: "There is particular need to improve our cities for both economic and social reasons." The report continues:
This requires among other things rehabilitation of dilapidated residential areas or clearing of some of these areas for more efficient use for commercial and other purposes. There is the need for improved living conditions for families and individuals who are now relegated by economic circumstances and urban decay to substandard and blighted living conditions. To attempt to deal in a comprehensive manner with these needs will require the development of policies and programs directed towards the elimination of their underlying causes. Many problems exist in this field and available information about them is meagre. But we believe that it is essential to develop a much larger and more effective program than now exists for urban renewal and low rental housing.
As to this statement that available information is meagre, I have some reservations at this point about the extent of the Council's research work. Nevertheless, I will continue, my intention being to make some observations to show that the Economic Council might have gone further in its study of the problems of urban and rural municipalities and their relationship with the Provinces. It might have examined the situation in an effort to find out whether or not the provinces have plenty on their platter at home to deal with in the next decade without handing them long range plans having to do with constitutional amendments which will work well only when we work for common objectives regardless of what lawyers may write into those documents.
All of us have used expressions relating to automation and our rapidly changing technology. The latter phrase has become a cliche. But we all recognize what it means. We have observed the shift of population to the urban growth centres from the rural
April 8, 1965

areas. The urban population explosion is widened by the rapid growth of suburban districts, with their inevitable neighbourhood shopping centres.
It is in the urban areas that increasing numbers of employables seek jobs in the servicing sector of our economy, including recreation and the entertainment fields. It is in the metropolitan regions that we find extensive expansion of office buildings and high rise apartments. With the development of industrial parks to escape high central city taxes and land costs on the fringes of the expanded urban areas, workers find themselves no longer in suburbia. Many now leave their jobs to return to sleep and relax in the densely populated traffic-congested city.
In 1956 the City of Halifax decided to take full advantage of the provisions of the National Housing Act administered by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We learned many lessons, experienced disappointments, and enjoyed some achievements. With C.M.H.C. paying half the cost of clearance we demolished several areas of badly blighted real estate. I could tell Hon. Members more about the details, but it suffices now to reach the point at which the bulldozer had completed its work on the first clearance area. The time had come to direct our attention to redevelopment. We soon learned that a comprehensive plan required a study of the economic base of the metropolitan region in which the city was located. We had to identify possible developments of highways and railroads to the region, and bridges to the city of Dartmouth on the eastern side of the harbour and across the North West Arm to county suburban districts. We recognized that, if we were to interest large private developers, economic data and other pertinent information about the city's services and regional developments were essential for that purpose.
We publicized invitations to developers to rebuild the site with broad terms of reference. We favoured leasing the site, because of apparent financial advantages to the city and to developers. To those who may become involved in this kind of thing I would suggest it might be wise to examine the value of a freehold type of lease, even though there may be advantages attached to leases of the more usual kind. We received one proposal from a British consortium of professional planners. They proposed high density development of
The Address-Mr. Lloyd a mixture of tall tower apartment buildings, shopping, banking and office buildings. We decided to negotiate an agreement with our only customer. The proposals were redesigned and scaled down to correspond with both good planning and conservation of economic feasibility.
We discovered a number of things. We found that the cleared site was too isolated from the central business district, requiring the developer to acquire and clear blighted commercial districts to appropriately link the new developments with existing and well developed sectors of the central city region. After many, many months of detailed construction planning for the site, and negotiating of legal agreements with developers, they found they could not complete, to the city's satisfaction, the necessary evidence of financial capability to complete their $30 million undertaking.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Now they must make a fresh start. In the meantime, Webb and Knapp built a $9 million shopping centre in the west end of the City, with Eaton's abandoning their downtown store to become the key tenant. Simpson's across the road, rehabilitated their buildings to meet the competition. Across the harbour in Dartmouth, an industrial complex development stimulated with financial assistance from Provincial Crown Corporations, Industrial Estates Ltd., and low municipal taxes. Dartmouth has been compelled in turn to undertake development land use planning to ensure orderly expansion and redevelopment within its boundaries.
Stimulated by the flow of information on the factors or urban growth and the economic prospects of the region, local realtors and others acquired and cleared sites for high rise apartments and office buildings. The pressure for high density development to offset high cost of land acquisition and local taxes produced many conflicts between the City's planning staff and the private developers. Despite these difficulties much better redevelopment of the city has been accomplished. We are pleased to observe that last year the Federal Government amended its legislation on urban renewal. C.M.H.C. is authorized to extend its participation in clearance cost of blighted commercial districts. That Federal corporation will share the cost of providing sewers, streets, etc. to the cleared redevelopment site, thus relieving the developer from that burden of investment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Edward Lloyd: I hope he will take the advice, too; and I am sure he will. These economic advisers had this to say:
Mobility is necessary. There is no escape from that conclusion. But, if the policy of regional development succeeds, it should be possible to reduce the net outflow of population from the area as a whole. It is necessary to distinguish at this point-
April 8, 1965

I am sure some hon. Members would agree with this:
-between the Maritimes and Newfoundland. No doubt it is true that when a family has decided to leave the island, it is just as likely to move to Central Canada as to the Maritimes. Newfoundland must, therefore, rely upon the attractiveness of her own centre, or centres, of growth. But it seems true to say that people will move around within each province more readily than they would move to Central Canada.
Some of us in the Atlantic Provinces, of course, can fully understand why:
This is one reason why the development of provincial centres of growth should be a means of tapping resources of manpower that would otherwise remain idle or would continue to work in occupations where productivity was low. Quite a lot of this labour may, indeed, be within commuting distance of such appropriate centres as Halifax or Saint John.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I hope that when we reach that stage in our legislative process we will be considering amendments to the legislation we now have with respect to areas of slow growth; that we will keep in mind the lessons which have been learned by the municipalities; and that we will keep in mind what I have said this evening about the explosion in population, if you like, in the urban areas. We must be ready to provide jobs for the 1,500,000 people which the Economic Council says will be added to our labour force in the next five or six years.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Provinces as well as the municipalities have a job to do in this field. The Federal Government can help them with resources and with technical skill and advice; but the initiative must lie with the municipalities in this field and with a fully co-operating and understanding Provincial Government.
I see my time is running out, Mr. Speaker, and I can add only one further thought, which is this. Economic land use planning is just as essential in our rural areas of Canada, and this is a matter which should receive concurrent consideration by the Provincial Government. You cannot hope to have intelligent development and redevelopment planning in the urban areas of Canada without in turn examining what will be happening in the hinterland of these great areas of urban growth. So I welcome the obvious interest of the Canadian Government in the field of improvement in areas of slow growth and in the rural regions of Canada, as expressed through the ARDA program. But I must conclude with this observation, that it might be wise for all of us to remember
The Address-Mr. Rynard and to be somewhat humbled by this very complex business of economics. A great deal has been written on the subject, and there has been a great deal of advice from a number of people holding a wide variety of views. It seems to me that together we need to work and learn more if together we hope to progress in a better manner than has been the case in the past.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Lloyd) a question, if he would permit me. We have listened to a very informative and interesting speech on the problems of urban development and renewal, and while he had some very enlightening opinions respecting many of the problems which would be raised, it did seem to me that he had left out the central problem, which is raising the funds required. I was wondering whether he had any ideas about the changes which could be brought about to provide for this.


John Edward Lloyd: Mr. Speaker, remembering my closing observations about being humbled by the intricacies and complexities of economics, I am sure the Hon. Member who asked me the question on the matter of funding will appreciate my reply, which is this: We have given consideration to the matter of funding. One source of social capital for the kind of things about which I have been talking will be the funds raised by the Canada Pension Plan. There are others who advocate different viewpoints-that there should be a different use of Canada's credit facilities and expansion of its monetary supply. However, I share the view of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) that we have identified the principles and well know how they operate. The only question is the degree, timing and utilization of this knowledge.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate the Mover and the Seconder of the Speech from the Throne; I thought their speeches were exceptionally well presented. My first reaction to the Speech from the Throne was to wonder how it was possible to take up so much time in saying so little. My second reaction was that it seemed to me that the Government had moved well over into the left field and taken some of the block and tackle from the N.D.P.
However, I was surprised that no mention was made of a national water policy, in view of the problems we have had during the past year. I was disappointed that no mention was
April 8, 1965

The Address-Mr. Rynard made of establishing a health facility development fund, as recommended by the Hall Commission. I was disappointed that there was nothing in the Speech to relieve the embattled taxpayer. There was no mention of taking off the 11 per cent sales tax on drugs, even though the Committee on the price of drugs is to be continued. There was no mention of removing the 11 per cent sales tax on machinery, equipment and supplies. There was no mention of raising the exemption of the single taxpayer or married taxpayer. There was no mention of exempting interest payments on houses owned by taxpayers, or of exempting municipal taxes from income tax.
I propose, Mr. Speaker, to deal with these matters rather briefly. First of all, I should like to deal with the necessity for a national water policy. This was advocated about three years ago by probably one of the most outstanding men we have in this field, Dr. Berry of Toronto. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Canada has almost one half of the world's fresh water supply. We are surrounded in this area by the Great Lakes basin. There are 100,000 square miles of water in the Great Lakes basin, besides roughly 300,000 square miles of land with lakes which drain into that area. We have about 32 inches of rainfall per year. If this rainfall should happen to diminish, then in about two years we start to feel the effect of this; it takes about that long. Of these 32 inches of rainfall, 10 inches enters the main source of water supply. The other 22 inches is accounted for by evaporation from the lakes, the cultivated land, and from trees and grass.
Over the past couple of years we have experienced a drop in rainfall, which has created a problem. Lower rainfall means lower humidity. There is more sunshine and therefore more evaporation. This past year we had the lowest level in the Georgian Bay-Lake Huron area for the last 100 years, which is about the length of time for which records have been kept. We have had our ups and downs in rainfall, and I think we can assume that over the years we have had some low levels of rainfall.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Now, Mr. Speaker, what has happened in this regard over the last 100 years? I would suggest, for one thing, that we have had a population explosion. Very few people were living in those areas 100 years ago, but over this period of time there have been great developments in the Great Lakes Basin. These areas have now become very densely

populated, particularly around Toronto, Hamilton and Oshawa. With this growth in population, accompanied by tremendous growth in industry, there has been an increasing demand for water. The amount of water used in the average home in this area today would be equivalent to the amount of water used in a week by a family living in the same area a few years ago.
To illustrate this point, Mr. Speaker, let me refer to some statistics. It requires the use of 20 gallons of water to produce one gallon of gasoline. The production of one ton of paper requires the use of 40,000 gallons of water. To produce one ton of steel requires the use of 14,000 gallons of water. These examples indicate the immensity of the problem which exists as a result of the growth of industry in this Great Lakes Basin. The problem is intensified even more as a result of the accompanying growth in population, with which I shall deal in more detail a little later.
There has been a great deal more transportation service required in the Great Lakes area within recent years than ever before as a result of the development of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Within recent years the first ocean-going steamers of any size were able to ply this waterway. This development has in itself created further problems. We find that the Georgian Bay area, the Huron Lake and Michigan Lake areas-which are treated as one-are uncontrolled lake areas. Lake Superior and Lake Ontario are controlled, as a result of which we have found that Lake Superior has maintained its level, whereas the water level in the Georgian Bay and Lake Huron and Lake Michigan areas has dropped six to seven feet. A national water policy should be developed to find ways of counteracting the economic loss we have suffered in these areas in the past few years. Millions of dollars have been lost to the shipping industry, which represents a tremendous set-back to the economy of the Great Lakes areas. This set-back will be aggravated as the population and industry grow, unless some steps are taken to counteract the current adverse trends.
Many individuals in the Georgian Bay area of the Great Lakes Basin, as well as in other areas, are engaged in the tourist trade. Many millions of dollars will be lost to this industry as a result of uncontrolled water levels. Many people in these areas have been hard hit in the last year because of water level drops and because of pollution. Some of them
April 8, 1965
have had to go out of business after finding themselves left high and dry with beaches stretching for a quarter mile and farther to the water. I suggest that these problems should be considered by a national water council, and treated so this will not occur again.
Many other problems are created as a result of water pollution, and in this regard I should like to quote from an article which appeared in the Toronto Telegram of March 1965, under the heading "Water Pollution". The headline is "Who's To Blame for the Ocean of Filth?" The article in part states:
Montreal pours all its wastes, untreated, from its sewer system into the St. Lawrence River; the largest city of our land rests amidst an ocean of filth.
Apparently this situation is not confined to Eastern Canada, because the article then continues to state:
Edmonton, until the recent completion of a treatment plant, polluted the water of the North Saskatchewan River all the way to Prince Albert, Sask., a distance of 500 miles.
Apparently Provincial Governments can no longer cope with this sewage problem. Sewage from Toronto dumped into Lake Ontario is carried down through the St. Lawrence River to Montreal. Sewage dumped into the Detroit River at Windsor is carried down to Toronto. This article states:
Windsor gushes all its raw, untreated sewage into the Detroit River-
Certainly this results in pollution of the river from that point downstream. This pollution is aggravated by industry.
The average individual today uses 100 gallons of water per day for domestic purposes. It is estimated that it requires 2,500 gallons of water to supply one person with food for one day. These facts obviously indicate that fresh water is a precious commodity. Unless some change is made in respect of water pollution regulations, we will very soon find people in this country clamouring for fresh, pure water. In the United States today it has been established that 40 per cent of the people who live along the Mississippi use water that has passed through sewage systems. This situation both in the United States and in Canada is aggravated by increases in industrial use of water.
Perhaps I should give a few examples of the amount of water required by industry to produce every day items. To produce one pound of bread requires the use of 100 gallons of water. To produce one ton of rayon
The Address-Mr. Rynard requires the use of 165,000 gallons of water. To produce one ton of Terylene requires the use of 215,000 gallons of water. This will illustrate the immensity of this water problem, which I am sure we have not even started to think about.
Mr. Speaker, a great deal of money will have to be spent for research to solve the problems created by lower water levels, and pollution. Perhaps we will have to build a dam below the City of Montreal in order to control the runaway of fresh flood run-off water. If we allow the drop in the water level of the Great Lakes to continue at its present rate, we might just as well forget about our seaway transportation system.
I think the Government must establish immediately a commission to find the answer to two basic water problems-recurring lower lake levels and pollution. This commission, in the form of a national water board, should develop policies in respect of both ground water and surface water, having regard to pollution control. Now is the time to study these water pollution problems.
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to deal with another problem to which I have made reference on previous occasions, and that is the problem in respect of the cost of drugs to Canadian consumers.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) indicated that he was worrying about the cost to the people of drugs and he quoted enough statistics to show that there are a substantial number of people in Canada who are not able to purchase the drugs they need without hardship. He quoted these figures and he referred to the poverty that exists in Canada. He put all these facts on the record. He intimated that the cost of drugs was too high because the matter is going to be investigated by a Committee; but surely it should have occurred to the Government long ago that the 11 per cent sales tax represents about 18 per cent or almost one fifth of the cost of drugs. Surely this is not right. Surely the sales tax should be removed immediately.
I was further disappointed that there was no provision made for the setting up of a commission as referred to previously to help in the building of the medical schools that are so badly needed across Canada. As a matter of fact, the Hall Commission has stated that we will need five new medical schools but nothing has been done in this regard. Yet at the same time we talk about medicare

April 8, 1965

The Address-Mr. Rynard in Parliament. I sometimes wonder whom we are fooling in talking about getting medicare, when we have not enough doctors now to look after the people. When you examine the statistics you find that from 1950 to 1960 there was a 5 per cent decline per capita in the number of doctors who graduated from our medical schools. How in the world can we carry out a medicare program or a dental care program when we are so short of both doctors and dentists and do not have the schools to produce them? I am very disappointed that nothing has been done about the Hall Commission recommendation that a committee be set up to help in the building of these schools and in the education of doctors and dentists.
I was also disappointed that nothing was said in the Speech from the Throne about research. In this regard I should like to refer to an article by David Spurgeon in the Globe and Mail which I think sets out the situation very well. He says:
The gap between the supply and demand for funds for medical research in Canada has widened again this year, and medical researchers are greatly concerned.
This is the time of year when investigators learn whether or not they will be granted funds by the Medical Research Council to continue their work. The council is the chief federal fund granting body for medical research. The council has awarded only about 60 per cent of the funds requested this year-*
That is not good enough in a land like ours, Mr. Speaker.
-compared to 65 per cent last year, 71 per cent the year before and 72 per cent in 1961-62.
Some grant applications inevitably would be turned down because they would not be of sufficient quality. But this year the council has turned down more than $1 million worth of first class applications simply because it did not have the money. At the University of Toronto alone grants were cut by at least 30 per cent. The funds awarded are considered inadequate, a spokesman said.
This is not good enough in a land where we are trying to keep our researchers and are trying to seek cures for cancer and other diseases.
I want to speak for a moment or two about the poverty that exists in this land. I mentioned it before and I want to add some comments now. We have a great land of plenty but many people are suffering from poverty. We have people who are ill-clothed, ill-housed and badly educated. Yet those people have to buy life-saving drugs and the Government collects its tax on those drugs. As I indicated before, surely this tax should be

tossed out the window. These drugs have saved millions of dollars through decreasing the length of illnesses and in hospitalization costs which are paid by Governments, with a small premium from the recipient. There is no excuse for retaining this tax.
The Prime Minister knows that in each large city pockets of poverty perpetuate themselves from one generation to another. What grants have been made to study and obliterate these pockets? We know that in certain cities in Canada they have existed for five generations. It is not fair to condemn the children who are born into these families and to say to them when they are four or five years old that this is their station in life and they are going to suffer the poverty that their parents have. This is not good enough.
The Government knows, because it was indicated by the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), that half a million children of school age are not attending school and have a grade 4 education or less. This is an alarming fact. We talk about automation, training more technicians and the necessity for education, but in this land we have half a million children today who are condemned to be jobless or to work at very menial jobs, which we are told will be very scarce. We are condemning them to that type of life. This is not fair, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that there should be an all-Canadian educational policy and that research should be conducted into this situation in order to make sure that these children are not condemned in their infancy to poverty.
I am disappointed that more has not been done in the field of human betterment in order to help people to improve their own situations. Surely it is better to take these children out of the poverty of the slums and educate them so that they can contribute to the economy of the country, rather than leave them in these small pockets of poverty that exist in many of our cities across Canada. Surely the time has come for action to deal with this situation in the right way and not merely by handing out something to somebody. Surely we should not go on saying that because they are poor we will give them something, and at the same time do nothing whatever to cure or prevent the disease. I suggest it is time that the Government and Parliament took a good long look at curing these ills by means of preventive legislation, and not go on throwing money away by treating the ills after they have occurred.
April 8, 1965


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in the few days since the Throne Speech was delivered a popular interpretation of its contents has been made in newspaper editorials and by columnists, in which it is suggested that the Speech from the Throne is a steal from the New Democratic Party's platform. We in the New Democratic Party suspect that to a large extent this is nonsense. We have heard Liberal Throne Speeches before and we have waited to see their execution, and to say the least we are sceptical that much will come of this Throne Speech.
We think there is a great deal of sham in the Speech from the Throne. We think that on the basis of its past record and performance the Liberal larceny of New Democratic Party ideas is certain to be for appearance's sake only, and not for the substance contained in our ideas.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the goal of a modem nation must be to insure a rising prosperity, with a higher standard of living rubbing off on all its citizens. The phrase coined by President Johnson's ghost writers, the Pearson Government has found in April, 1965, and taken the slogan "War on Poverty".


An hon. Member:: It took them a year to find it.


David Orlikow: It took them more than a year to find it. If we examine the details of their proposal contained in this phrase "War on Poverty", we will see there is very little which will bring economic growth to this country. Growth in this sense envisages an increase in the output of goods and services, with a proper distribution of income. Income is generally distributed through wages and salaries. This makes it essential for citizens to find jobs. Obviously this means growth in both the scale and quality of goods and service producing enterprises.
Theoretically, Canadian Governments have expressed agreement with this objective. As early as 1945, the Liberal Government of that time had a white paper prepared in which they said unequivocally they adopted a high and stable level of employment income, and thereby a higher standard of living, as a major aim of Government policy. It has been made clear that an endeavour to achieve it must be made through Government economic policy. This must be wholeheartedly accepted by all economic groups and organizations, and national objectives must take precedence in importance to sectional and group interests.
157
The Address-Mr. Orlikow Those were brave words, Mr. Speaker. Unemployment stubbornly continued as an economic problem for Canada. In recent years as many as 7 per cent of our labour force were unable to find jobs. Even in the peak year of 1964, of which we have heard so much from this Government, nearly 5 per cent of the Canadian working force were, on the average, out of work.
Economic growth is necessary and desirable, not just for itself as the Russians and Chinese seem to feel, but because it can be used to eliminate poverty and raise living standards, as has already been done in countries such as Sweden. However, the Government's so-called war on poverty will prove to be long on words and short on action. It is too little and already too late. The comparatively rapid rate of growth and no corresponding reduction in the very high rate of unemployment prevailing for the past five years has been achieved. This has been the result primarily of three forces. First, the pick-up in the United States economy; second, the devaluation of the Canadian dollar in 1962 and, third, the very large wheat sales to Communist China and the Soviet Union. We cannot rely on such forces in the future.
It is impossible to completely insulate Canada from the economic forces operating in the United States. We will profit by their periods of boom and be depressed when their economy slumps. We can, however, take steps to make the impact of their business cycles somewhat less critical for Canada. This will require positive Government action, both in the traditional fields of fiscal and monetary policy and by more direct intervention in the economy, particularly by public investment and the development of our own resources and economic capabilities. We got away with the devaluation of our dollar in 1962, but it is doubtful, in fact inconceivable, that we could use such a device again to help expand our exports and reduce our imports without triggering international retaliation, thereby rendering impotent our own devaluation.
While we must be ready to supply foods throughout the world, we cannot count on crop failures and misfortunes in other countries to supply our economic policy. We cannot count on the forces behind our current rapid economic growth. We require positive leadership to bring some fundamental shifts within the Canadian economy. The imperative requirements for Canadian growth were brought forcibly to our attention by a recent report of the Economic Council of Canada.



April 8, 1865
Business of the House
The basic demands put forward by the Council are now becoming very apparent; a 5J per cent growth in production, 3.4 per cent per capita, and the creation of a million and a half new jobs by 1970. We can welcome the Council's report as a first and encouraging beginning at looking at Canada's needs. We, in the New Democratic Party deplore the fact that the Council has not spelled out how we are to achieve these goals. There is no indication that the Council's thinking is accepted by this Government or will be acted upon by it. Some of the implications of these goals are not as clear as the figures themselves. The Council's figures demand a much higher rate of growth than has been achieved over a long period of time in Canada. In fact, the growth rate demanded by the Council is at least twice as much as that annually achieved in the past decade.
To show what I mean, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer briefly to the second annual report of the Manitoba Economic Consultative Board, which pointed out that if Canada does provide a million and a half jobs, as the Economic Council has suggested we need, and if it is assumed Manitoba will maintain the same percentage of the total national jobs as it did in 1961, the Province of Manitoba would have to provide an average of 11,000 new jobs each year from 1967 through to 1970. In fact, in recent years Manitoba has been providing only half of this required number.
May I call it ten o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, before you call it ten o'clock, I should like to ask whether the house would give its unanimous consent so that tomorrow votes could be taken at 3.30 p.m. instead of 5.30 p.m. I think this would be possible with the unanimous consent of the house, and this would make it easier for some members to solve certain problems. I think that the votes are supposed to be taken at 5.30 p.m. on the amendment and the subamendment. If the house is agreeable to that, I think it could be possible to take those votes at 3.30 p.m.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am taken a bit by surprise by the request. So far as we are concerned, if it is the wish of the House, we are quite agreeable to having a vote taken at 3.30 rather

than 5.30. I am wondering if the hon. Member has made any proposals, so that as many Members could speak before the vote as would otherwise be the case?


Mr. Lessard (Lake Si. John):: I feel personally that members who are supposed to speak by 5.30 tomorrow evening will be able to do so after the votes. I feel that the volume of business carried out at the end of the day would still be the same if the house gave its consent.


George James McIlraith: So far as the Government is concerned, we are agreeable to this change in procedure.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I did not hear the first part of the remarks of the hon. Member, in which I presume he set out the reasons for suggesting this change. However, I think it is not appropriate, at ten o'clock at night with a rather slim attendance, to decide an issue of this kind. I think it had better be decided tomorrow morning at the opening of the House.


H.-Pit Lessard: Mr. Speaker, the leaders of the various parties could discuss this suggestion and the government house leader could inform us of the decision tomorrow morning.


George James McIlraith: I would be very glad to call a meeting tomorrow morning for discussion of this point.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional Standing Order 39A deemed to have been moved.
HOUSE OF COMMONS-CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORT-REPRODUCTION OF "HANSARD" INDEX [DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, when a matter of privilege is dealt with by the House, the first determination is made, as I think it is called in Latin, of a prima facie case, that is, as to whether it looks as if there is a question of privilege. Then the subject matter of the question of privilege is referred to the Committee. The Committee examines the question and reports to the House; presumably in the course of the report
April 8, 1965

it makes some declaration by way of motion. I think it is then incumbent upon the House to consider the report and the proceedings in the Committee to see whether or not there was justification for the original decision that there was a prima facie question of privilege.
In the last days of the session just completed the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro), a learned gentleman, raised this question of privilege. I must say he prosecuted with all the fervour associated with the famous Judge Jeffreys, renowned in English courts. But I will be polite and merely say that the hon. member allowed his enthusiasm to attract his tongue and vocal chords into the realm of fantasy when dealing with this question.
None the less the question of privilege, which had to do with a document prepared by the Hamilton Area Council of the Steelworkers Union, was referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. The Committee held its hearings. At those hearings a letter of apology was read signed by one Stewart Cook of the Steelworkers Union. It apologized-I am paraphrasing now-for any affront to the House by the reproduction of any of the documents of the House.
This apology was accepted by the Committee. But what the Committee did allow, in my submission, was a vindictive and vicious attack upon an Hon. Member of this House who was not sitting on that Committee, one who felt that because he was one of the Members referred to in this particular document he should not, as a Member of the Committee, be acting as judge and jury, as it were, at the same time. I submit that the obvious purpose of the whole course of the hearings of that Committee was that certain members of the Committee desired to see the political lifeblood of the Member for Hamilton South (Mr. Howe) spilled, rather than pursue properly the question of privilege which the Hon. Member for Hamilton East had raised in the first place.
There was a motion passed, a motion somewhat innocuous in content in view of all that had gone before it, that the Committee accept the apology of the Steelworkers Union and that a question of privilege remain unresolved. I submit that in view of the vindictive and slanderous approach on the part of some of the members of that Committee, the decision which was reached is a strange one. It leaves the House in the unfortunate position of being unable to determine whether or not its action in accept-22620-111
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ing the argument that a prima facie breach of privilege had been committed was correct in the first instance. I submit there is an obligation attendant upon Parliament now, even though this is a new session, to examine that report and make a determination and see what should be done about the whole question.
This consideration can take place during the present session upon a motion to consider a report of the Committee on Privileges of the previous session. It is true that a private Member could introduce such a motion, but if this were done it would fall into the same category as that which includes other notices of motion put forward by private members; it would be subject to limitation of time for debate, it would fall to the bottom of the list and in all probability it would never be dealt with.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The Member who was the Chairman of the Committee cannot move the amendment now because there is no committee for him to be chairman of. If the Government would take-and this is what I asked the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) to do today-the initiative in this case and place a motion on the Order Paper to consider that report, it would permit it to come under the routine, normal proceedings of business and would enable it to be brought up by the Government, dealt with and the matter disposed of.
This is simply what I asked the President of the Privy Council to do today, namely to revive this matter before Parliament at this time, so that Parliament will not look as if it had been made a fool of by people who wanted to use a particular document and a Committee for their own selfish ends.


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear the hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) raise this point again. He must be terribly upset by the result arrived at in the Committee, and apparently it is because it did not work out to the entire satisfaction of the New Democratic Party.
As I recall it, before the motion was put by myself in the Committee to accept the apology and have an end of the matter, I invited the hon. Member for Skeena and the hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) to make any other motion, as expressed by the hon. Member for Port Arthur,
April 8, 1965

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion that would bring the matter before the House so we could have an open discussion on it.


Frank Howard: The record does not show that; it shows otherwise.


John Carr Munro: But what happened was this. Despite the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Port Arthur, he then left the room and the hon. Member for Skeena took over and supported the motion that we accept the apology. They were not nearly so anxious, apparently, to open this matter and have further discussion on it at that time; they voted to accept the apology and regard that as an end of the matter. The matter thus remained unresolved, and this motion was supported by the New Democratic Party.
Another very interesting feature of this whole thing is the great diligence of the hon. Member for Skeena to protect the hon. Member for Hamilton South, who is now in the House. I would think he is perfectly capable of standing up in this House and protecting himself. Apparently they feel he has no real defence to offer-


Frank Howard: More slander.


John Carr Munro: -and needs the more experienced Members of his party, such as the hon. Member for Skeena, to protect him. I would think he would find it rather difficult,
to promote the argument that he was not a member of the committee from a sense of propriety. More likely is the reason that he spends more hours in Ottawa taking care of his private medical practice to afford time for his responsibilities in committee.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Whenever you run out of policies you start to smear.


John Carr Munro: It is not difficult to attribute motives to your party; you are so obvious in your motives. I cannot understand why the Members of the New Democratic Party do not invite the Member for Hamilton South to get up and promote his argument in this House, to defend his record, to explain how he expects to carry on a private medical practice in Ottawa and supplement his $18,000 a year at the same time.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. I would suggest to the hon. Member that at this point he is going beyond the subject matter that has been raised by the hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I would also point out that a note I have received from the table indicates that the Parliamentary Secretary's time expired at 10.11. It being beyond 10.11, I now call it ten o'clock.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.12 p.m.

Friday, April 9, 1965