1966-01-20

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker:: Before calling orders of the day yesterday I referred to the problem of the application during this session of certain amended orders which were passed in the last session, I suggested at the time that hon. members might want to submit arguments in this respect today so that the matter might be settled.
However, I understand there have been discussions since then, and in view of the fact that today is also a very special day, it being what is commonly known as "Leaders' Day", it might be advisable once more not to see the clock and also to suspend the operation of the amended standing order regarding sitting during the dinner hour. So if this is agreeable to hon. members we will proceed today on this basis.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion: That it is expedient that the Houses of Parliament do approve the agreement concerning automotive products between the government of Canada and the government of the United States of America, signed on January 16, 1965, and that this house do approve the same.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this motion stands transferred to Government Orders at the next sitting of the house.



RESEARCH COUNCIL ACT


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Research Council Act to change the 23033-3J
formal title of the National Research Council; to provide that members of the council, other than the president or a vice president may, during any period in which they perform duties on behalf of the council in addition to their ordinary duties, be paid such remuneration therefor as the council may authorize; to authorize the appointment of persons to perform duties of a temporary nature for a period of not more than six months- to authorize the council to operate and maintain a national science library; and to provide further for certain changes in consequence thereof and also in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act to change the name of the act to Rural Development Act and to extend its application to all rural areas in Canada where projects of the nature already provided for can be advantageously undertaken; and to provide authority for the payment of remuneration to members of advisory committees.	'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
January 20, 1966
Proposed Legislation


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act to provide for the payment, out of the consolidated revenue fund, to the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development of sums not exceeding in the whole an amount equivalent to the subscriptions thereto required from Canada, that is to say, one thousand five hundred and thirty two million United States dollars.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure for the development of the commercial fisheries of Canada; to provide, in connection therewith, that the minister may undertake federal projects or participate in federal-provincial projects and make payments in consequence thereof; to provide also for the establishment of advisory committees for carrying out the purposes of the act and the remuneration and expenses of their members; to provide further that all expenditures for the purpose of the said measure shall be paid out of money appropriated by parliament therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. w. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Aeronautics Act to authorize the Governor in Council to prescribe charges for the use of facilities and services provided by the Minister of Transport and to impose charges for the availability to aircraft during flights within Canada of facilities or services provided by the minister; and to authorize the minister to establish boards of inquiry to investigate aircraft accidents and provide for the payment of the expenses of witnesses appearing before these boards; to provide that the Air Transport Board shall consist of not less than three and not more than five members;

to provide that members of the board shall be appointed for a term not exceeding ten years and to provide for retirement of members of the board appointed after the coming into force of the proposed measure at seventy years of age; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the Act.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is as follows. In the last parliament I had put on the order paper a notice of motion for the production of papers asking for the names of all those who had ordered a new series of 1965 coins. This notice of motion was passed by the house, but I never obtained the documents in question.
Since those documents were supposed to contain the names of the 400,000 persons who obtained those new 1965 series, and since there were 2 million series available and everyone was entitled to five each, I was much surprised to find that all those names were listed within two days and that after seven or eight months I had still not succeeded in getting them.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am pressing the Minister of Finance to know whether he could not make available to me the papers asked for in a motion agreed to by this house in the last parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is no question of privilege. The hon. member has made representations of which the Minister of Finance has no doubt taken notice.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Prime Minister in connection with the situation so far as the Prime Minister of Nigeria is concerned, a great statesman of the Commonwealth and a man who in the last few years gave such leadership toward democracy. Is the Prime Minister in a position to say whether there is any information available to him in connection with this matter?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, press reports have been received that an official statement was issued in
January 20, 1966

Lagos to the effect that the Prime Minister of Nigeria had been assassinated, but we have not yet been able, through our own representative in Lagos, to confirm those press reports. I can only hope that the news is not true, but the background to the information suggests that it may very well be true. If my right hon. friend would permit, I would like to reserve any comment until I get further information.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: As a
supplementary question, could the Prime Minister inform the house whether the government has taken any action toward recognition of the new military government of Nigeria?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we are carrying on our relations with the present government, the government that seems to have taken over, but as yet no final decision has been made regarding formal recognition.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture with reference to his statement in the city of Regina regarding a comprehensive inquiry into increasing costs of farm machinery to see whether the farm implement companies are exploiting the farmers. I would like to ask the minister when such a comprehensive inquiry will be launched, what form it will take, and whether it will be by a royal commission or by a committee of this house.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have the matter under consideration and after the throne speech debate, if there is any government action in this regard it will be duly announced through the proper procedures of the house.



BANK OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Inquiries of the Ministry
In view of the difficult position of many municipalities, school boards and even provinces of Canada, is it the department's intention to allow the provinces, the municipalities and the school boards to obtain from the Bank of Canada moneys required for their development, I mean interest-free loans such as Canada made in the case of Jamaica in 1965?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is no.



MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and relates to the municipal development loan fund. I know there is considerable concern across the country as to whether the loan fund period is to be extended. Could the minister inform us on the policy of the government in this regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I take notice of this question.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government intends to prepare and, if so, to introduce a white paper on broadcasting policy before any changes are made in the present situation with regard to broadcasting, and before any action is taken under or in respect to the Fowler report?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, at the present time the government is considering the Fowler report and its recommendations. After that consideration has been completed I shall be glad to announce to the house what procedures we think should be adopted in respect to this very important subject.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Can we have any assurance at all that parliament will have a chance to pass upon policy proposals before they are implemented?
38	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think I can give my hon. friends the assurance that parliament will have a chance to consider broadcasting before a final decision is taken.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a further question. In light of his reply to me that parliament will have a chance to deal with this matter before any final decisions are made, are we to take that to mean that the decision to reappoint Mr. Alphonse Ouimet for seven years is not a final decision?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that decision was made under the terms of the legislation appointing him. I have nothing to add to that.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pose a question for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell the house whether the government has plans for increasing veterans pensions and allowances during this session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if there is any decision to be announced regarding this matter it will be made to the house in due course.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General. I also wish to take this opportunity to congratulate him on his appointment and wish him the best of luck in his dealings with the R.C.M.P.
Here is my question: Might the Solicitor General tell us whether the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will reveal to the Quebec Minister of Justice the names of those Quebec politicians who are said to be in collusion with the underworld in the province of Quebec?
Mr. Speaker, am I to gather that the minister did not understand my question because his microphone was not open? If so, I could repeat it in order that we might get a reply.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.

DEBATES	January 20. 1906
In view of the serious accusation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that the course of justice is being impeded in the province of Quebec through the collusion of certain public men of Quebec with the underworld, will the right hon. Prime Minister tell us whether he intends to ask the R.C.M.P. to supply the Minister of Justice of Quebec with the names of these Quebec public men?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us whether the government intends to remain silent on the charges made by the R.C.M.P. concerning certain public men from the province of Quebec or whether the government will eventually reveal the facts to parliament with regard to those serious charges made by the R.C.M.P.?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Danforth.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I rise again on the question of privilege which we brought up during the last session and which the then Speaker, hon. Mr. Macnaughton took into serious consideration.
Here is my question of privilege: When a French speaking member puts a question, because interpretation is involved the English speaking minister inevitably hears the question four of five seconds after it is asked; if the Speaker does not allow for this four or five second delay to enable the minister to understand clearly the meaning of the question, then we French Canadian members do not get a reply to our questions, as happened three times today during the question period.
I noticed a moment ago that the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) and finally the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) were still listening to the interpretation of the question when, cutting them short, you gave the floor to another member.
January 20, 1966	COMMONS
Well, Mr. Speaker, I hope that, as did the previous Speaker, you will take this request into consideration and give an English speaking minister time to hear the full interpretation of a question put to him in French, so that we too may enjoy our privileges and obtain replies to questions asked in French.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be permitted to deal with the question raised by the hon. member for Lapointe. First of all I should like to express belated but sincere appreciation of the hon. member's good wishes with regard to my new post.
I believe the concern expressed by the minister of justice for Quebec is based on a press report. This press report in turn was based upon a background paper prepared by the R.C.M.P. at the time of the federal-provincial conference on crime, and the paper dealt generally with organized crime and the ways in which it could be determined.
I respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a reading of this background paper, which I am prepared to table, will make it clear to hon. members that the paper was merely setting out ways in which organized crime could be determined, the ways by which it prospers and exists, and that it in no way contains charges of graft or corruption on the part of public officials, government officials or police officers.
Perhaps I might add that I released the background paper with some hesitation. I accept full responsibility for it and I am satisfied that in my new duties it is in order that the public be made aware as fully as possible of all matters concerning organized crime. It was for that reason the paper was released. As I indicated, I am prepared to table it, but I repeat that it does not contain accusations in respect of graft or corruption.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I take it that the minister has formally asked for permission to table the document?
If that is the case, I think we should give him the authority to do so.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I have the document before me, Mr. Speaker, and I am prepared to table it now with the consent of the house.
DEBATES	39
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare with regard to the recent federal-provincial conference on social security.
Can the minister tell the house whether during this conference some of the provinces expressed the wish that the family allowances plan be changed, and that the rate of allowances be increased? Does the minister intend to grant this request?
[English1


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, suggestions were made at the conference of provincial ministers of health that changes should be made in the system of family allowances. These suggestions were made in particular by the minister of health for the province of Quebec. His suggestions were made public by his statement.
On behalf of the federal government I stated that the department is presently conducting a review in depth of the system of family allowances and is prepared to consider suggestions made by the province of Quebec and by other ministers or provinces at the conference.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Did the health minister for the province of Quebec express a desire to have jurisdiction in respect of family allowances transferred to the province of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Is the minister aware of the fact that Volvo of Canada may be re-establishing in the province of Quebec and, if so, will he use the good graces of his department to encourage that company to come to the lower St. Lawrence area where we have high unemployment-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


James Russell Keays: -and year round port and plant facilities available?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
40	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry THE MINISTRY



REQUEST FOR LIST INDICATING JURISDICTION OF MINISTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: should like to address a question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the announcement regarding transfers of jurisdictions between different departments, will the government issue a list indicating which ministers have jurisdiction over which subjects so that members will know to whom to address questions, letters and so forth in respect of various matters? What I have in mind is, does the minister of northern affairs now answer questions regarding Indian affairs, or does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration still answer on behalf of that department?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think if my hon. friend will look at the Canada Gazette, part 2, for January 12 he will find the answer to his question. But in case returns are not in as simple a form as they should be, perhaps I can make arrangements to have a special return made for hon. members.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, what I had in mind was just a simple list showing what matters each minister has jurisdiction over, which members could readily consult in their offices or at their desks.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think that is quite a reasonable request.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would direct a question to the minister of Indian and northern affairs. Would he tell the house what arrangements have been entered into between the government of Canada and the province of Ontario relative to Indians; whether, in view of the fact that Indians are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament, the Indians have been consulted in connection with this matter and have agreed, tribe by tribe and band by band, to have their rights in whole or in part dealt with by the province or any of the provinces?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there has been for some time the opinion that

DEBATES	January 20, 1966
a great number of the provincial services granted to all peoples in all the provinces should be extended to our Indian people as well. This is not something that is new, because at the present time about 45 per cent of all the Indian school children are attending the provincial schools. Incidentally, I might say they are obtaining there a higher grade of education than they could possibly be expected to obtain on the smaller Indian-location schools.
In 1964, as a result of the federal-provincial conference on Indian affairs, there was a proposal made that more of these provincial services should be undertaken by the provinces in co-operation with the federal government and with federal government participation. My immediate predecessor in November last sent to the provinces a pro forma agreement-


Mr. Starr:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I bring to your attention that surely the Minister can confine himself to answering the question, rather than making a speech.


Mr. Nielsen:: Were they consulted?


Arthur Laing: I am quite certain that the hon. member for Ontario does not want to be critical of his leader. I would tell him that if I were to answer the question as it was put to me by the right hon. gentleman, I would be half an hour.


Michael Starr: The way you are doing it, you will be a whole hour.


Erik Nielsen: Time marches on.


Arthur Laing: These agreements were sent to the provinces in November last, and a few days ago the province of Ontario made the statement that the agreement had been signed by them. As a result of the nature of their statement there was some concern among the Indian people, and particularly among the national advisory board of Indian people, because certain of the newspapers had written the matter up in such a way as to indicate that the federal government was removing itself from responsibility for Indian affairs and transferring it to the province. This is a fear that the right hon. gentleman indicated was present, and indeed our Indian people are very concerned about it. They have asked, in the meantime-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Woolliams:: How are Banff Oils doing?


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to suggest to the minister that perhaps his reply is more in the
January 20, 1966	COMMONS
nature of a statement. I should like to bring to the attention of all hon. members that questions should not provoke debate, and answers should not provoke debate. Therefore I would suggest to the hon. Minister that he has made his point and his reply is sufficient now.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I asked a question and it provoked an oration. All I asked was this, in effect. Have the Indian tribes or bands voted on this matter and given their consent?


Michael Starr: Answer yes or no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Unless the minister wishes to add something to what he has said already, I believe his answer is sufficient. Does the hon. Minister wish to add to the reply he has already made?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, may I say that no part of the agreement has any validity whatever unless and until each and every separate Indian band approves.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources with regard to the question of Indians. Will the minister not agree that the government cannot divest itself of any of its powers or authority with regard to Indians unless and until the parliament of Canada has authorized the government to do so?


Arthur Laing: Yes, sir.



REPORTED U.S.-CANADA AGREEMENT ON DEVELOPMENT OF SAINT JOHN RIVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. A press release in the New York Times, dated December 23 last, stated that United States and Canada had agreed on that day to negotiate on the co-operative development of the Saint John River in Maine and New Brunswick and that talks were expected to begin early in January. The statement said the agreement was reached in an exchange of notes between Canada's foreign secretary Paul Martin and United States Ambassador W. Walton Butterworth.
My questions-and I have arrived at that point-are: Has the minister any information he can give the house on this interesting development? Will he table the exchange of notes between the United States and Canada? 23033-4
DEBATES	41
Inquiries of the Ministry Will he table President Johnson's report to Congress prepared under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, Stewart L. Udall?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is, of course, very interesting and very important. However, I suggest to the hon. member that perhaps this type of question could be placed on the order paper.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to present it at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to bring to the attention of the hon. Member for Kootenay West that the house has agreed to suspend this order.



NOVA SCOTIA-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO OPEN NEW MINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piciou):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I tried to place a supplementary question before the house but because of the coal dust that developed I was not able to do so. I should like to ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys if he will, after receiving the Donald report, give consideration to providing a part of the $25 million for the opening of a new coal mine in Pictou county.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I can make that promise now. I said yesterday I would give it my full attention and all my interest and concern.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: You made lots of promises a few months ago.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the Minister of Finance indicate when he expects Dr. Donald's report to be completed? Because of the urgency, in the meantime will he make the responsible people in the coal areas aware of what portion of the Donald report he has available to him?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might answer the last part of the question first. No part of the Donald report has been given to the federal government. I talked with Dr. Donald about two weeks ago and I discussed with him the progress of his work. I asked him to present his report as quickly as possible, and I expect it in the next few weeks.
January 20, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr, Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question tor the Minister of Finance. Am I to understand trom the minister's reply that in September of this year he did not receive from Dr. Donald an interim report which was to be turned back for completion at a later date?


Mitchell William Sharp: I must reiterate the answer I gave. We have not yet received the report from Dr. Donald. We have had a number of conversations with him as to the progress of his work but the report is not complete.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in reply to a question from the hon. member for Peace River the Minister of Agriculture indicated that some areas would qualify for P.F.A.A. I wonder if the minister has extended his knowledge to the point where he understands that certain areas cannot qualify unless they form blocks. Will those areas which cannot form blocks qualify for any form of assistance, either jointly with the province or by the federal government alone?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I could not understand the first part of the question. However, I believe that the reply I gave yesterday is still valid. It was to the effect that areas that are covered by P.F.A.A. have received federal assistance in the past three years, and that emergency drought measures would be in the nature of a duplication of federal assistance which would be, first of all, prejudicial to the nature and ambit of P.F.A.A. and, second, would be giving an added benefit that is not given to other provinces which have received emergency drought assistance by reason of the fact they did not qualify for measures such as the P.F.A.A. which involve a federal contribution.


Stanley James Korchinski: I do not know whether the minister understood my question. My question was, in areas where farmers cannot form blocks in order to qualify for P.F.A.A. is any form of assistance to be given?


John James Greene: We have not had any requests from the provinces with regard to such areas. Any such requests we receive from the provinces will certainly receive due consideration.


Mr. H. A. Moore (Weiaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Alberta farmers I should like


to ask the same question. Is the minister considering doing anything for those farmers who are not covered by P.F.A.A.? It is a hit or miss affair in that area.


John James Greene: I believe this is in essence the same question. Any provincial requests that are received will certainly be given every consideration by my department.


Harry Andrew Moore: A supplementary question. Is this what the government means by its war on poverty which it has widely proclaimed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Richard Cashin (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the assurance given to the previous parliament by the former minister of labour regarding amendments to the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, incorporating the provisions of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, can the minister inform the house if the assurances given will be carried out and, if so, when?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's concern, I can assure him that the assurance given by the previous minister was brought to my attention shortly after I took office. The matter is receiving careful study, and the government's ideas will be reflected in legislation which will be laid before the house shortly.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Augusie Choquette (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, who is the first bilingual holder of that portfolio since confederation.
Since it is imperious to ensure an adequate income for industrial milk producers, I should like to ask the minister if he intends to change the subsidy policy adopted last year in order to improve the lot of producers of milk for processing?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere, I should like to remind him that price support for
January 20, 1966

farm products, including dairy products, is part of a government policy. Therefore it will be up to the government to announce a little later, before the beginning of the dairy year, its support policy in this regard, that is on or about April 1, 1966.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture?
Would he state whether the arrangements that will be made and which he just announced are the result of the Conservative platform in the last election?


John James Greene: The Liberal platform.


David Réal Caouette: When did the minister prepare the answer which he just gave to the hon. member for Lotbiniere? He was reading it a moment ago.
[Later:~\


Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compion-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Several farmers of my riding have told me that the milk subsidies have not yet been paid. Could the minister tell us why those subsidies have not yet been granted?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac that he put this question on the order paper?


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in connection with the question just put by the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Latulippe).
The predecessor of the present Minister of Agriculture stated that all payments had been made on July 31. I have the same problem in my constituency; in fact the situation obtains generally throughout the country and it would be preferable to have an explanation about this once and for all.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may obtain the desired information by putting his question on the order paper.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, we may be getting close one way but not in principle.
Inquiries of the Ministry
I desire to ask a supplementary question of the government house leader, and I think it is so urgent that it requires an immediate answer. In view of the fact that many civil servants in this building and throughout Canada were unable, because of their responsibilities, to take their holidays or accumulated overtime prior to December 31 of last year, in which event they lost them pursuant to government policy, I should like to ask whether they will now be paid for the overtime worked last year and for their lost holidays in spite of the government's decision that they had to take them by December 31 or lose them.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hor. member that he place this question on the order paper.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, as this is a matter
which affects civil servants who have lost time off, could they be given an answer now?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. I should like to know whether he can tell the house and the people of Nova Scotia why the New Brunswick coastline along the Bay of Fundy remains closed to fishing while the coastline along the Nova Scotia side of the Bay of Fundy remains open to all. And when can the people of Nova Scotia expect a change in this policy which discriminates against inshore fishermen of Nova Scotia?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, the reply to this question will require a very long answer, which I will be prepared to give to the hon. member in writing, but I want to assure him at this time that we are looking into the matter of this particular closure. I would also assure him that it does not affect the interests of the Nova Scotia fishermen to the extent that he may be led to believe.



METHOD OF OBTAINING EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is
directed to the Minister of Fisheries. After a fisherman qualifies for assistance under the
January 20, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry emergency assistance to fishermen, from what office or department will he receive such assistance and how soon? I pose this question because of its urgency-I am sure the Minister will agree with me it is urgent-and because of the fact that while some have qualified, they have not received an indication whether these moneys are to come through and how soon.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the hon. member that the local unemployment offices have acted as agents in connection with this special assistance to fishermen. Applications are sent to the Department of Fisheries as soon as received, and as soon as they are received by the department cheques are directed to the fishermen concerned.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question. May I ask the Minister whether he would kindly indicate to the several officials of the National Employment Service the proper manner in which to go about this. I know of many fishermen who have had to contact the Department of Fisheries directly.



REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO SALT FISH INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Would the Minister of Fisheries tell the house what action is contemplated by his department to assist the salt fish industry in view of the fact that the recommendation was made yesterday by the Atlantic Salt Fish Commission that no salt fish marketing board should be established in Canada?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, the report referred to is now being considered by the department and every attempt will be made to assist the salt fish industry in Newfoundland and other Atlantic provinces wherever there may be a need, but I want to assure the hon. member that the salt fish industry has never been in better shape.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the government

now giving consideration to the early implementation through legislation of the recommendations of the Freedman commission?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minisier of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Freedman commission was not strictly a commission relating to my responsibilities. It made its report primarily to my colleague the Minister of Labour, and I imagine that he would be the minister who would make any reply which was made in this connection.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question. I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he can tell us if the government is considering legislation to implement this report.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the report is a very comprehensive one, though I will not say an unduly lengthy one having regard to the magnitude of the problems. But I can assure the hon. member that it is receiving careful consideration not only by me and the officials of my department but by other branches of government that are concerned, and when we have reached a conclusion as to what course should be followed with regard to the recommendations of the report I will lay them before my colleagues in the government and then they will be placed before the house.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CAUSEWAY-EMPLOYMENT OF ISLANDERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, the matter of the construction of the Prince Edward Island causeway is of some moment to me. For that reason I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Would the minister be so kind as to inform the house as to the number of Prince Edward Islanders now employed on the initial construction of the Prince Edward Island causeway?
Hon G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I can get that information from the contractor. I would be very glad to try to do so and give the hon. member the information he desires. But I would point out that the work now being done is on the New Brunswick end of the causeway.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. According to press reports the Minister of National Revenue said that the government spent $1 million on Prince Edward Island and did not win a seat.
January 20, 1966



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and is a follow-up to questions I asked him on November 19, 1963 and June 1, 1965. Owing to the ever-increasing death toll on our highways, would the Prime Minister call a conference of all the provincial ministers who have jurisdiction over the highways in their respective provinces with a view to having immediate steps taken by way of more rigid traffic law observance, more driver education and use of all practical safety devices for cars, in an all-out effort to cut down on the suffering and terrific loss of life on our thoroughfares?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This should be a question for the order paper.



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF FINAL PAYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. D. McLelland (Rosefown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister give us the date when the western farmer may expect to receive back some of his money through a final wheat payment from the Canadian Wheat Board?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have not talked specifically to the chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board about this matter recently, but I would expect that it would be at about the usual time of the year.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell the house what answer he made to the Canadian Railway Labour Executives Association in reply to that body's request last Monday for a hearing by the cabinet regarding the discontinuance of the Dominion by the Canadian Pacific Railway? In particular, will the association be given an oral hearing so it can adequately deal with this question?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I received the message, as my hon. friend said, last Monday. I have not yet replied to it. I am consulting my colleagues to be sure that the reply is comprehensive.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister consider, in making that reply, assuring the association that it will be given an oral hearing?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to consider that. Perhaps the Minister of Transport would be glad to meet them.



REPORTED DELAYS IN GRAIN MOVEMENT TO WEST COAST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Finance whether he would obtain from the Canadian Wheat Board a report on the extent of the deficit in the amount of grain moved out of Alberta to the west coast this season compared with last season and also whether he could ascertain from the Canadian Wheat Board the date by which this serious situation will be remedied, particularly in regard to the C.P.R. shipping points.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as was indicated yesterday, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Agriculture and I met today with representatives of the C.P.R. to discuss this very question. The urgency of the situation at Vancouver is fully realized on all sides and the Canadian Pacific Railway representatives reiterated the assurance they had given me at the beginning of the year that they would fulfil their commitments under the contracts into which the Canadian Wheat Board had entered.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he intends to follow the suggestion of the Minister of Agriculture and have this matter investigated. There is a commitment from the C.P.R. but we are still on a one bushel quota. Does the minister intend to have this matter investigated? As the hon. member for Medicine Hat has indicated, this is a very serious question, particularly in Alberta and Saskatchewan.


Mitchell William Sharp: The seriousness of the situation is well understood by both the government and by the wheat board. The C.P.R. is not the only reason why the quotas are low in certain parts of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
46	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry In order to fulfil the enormous contracts which have been entered into it was understood that the decision to move grain which was dry and in the most available positions at this season of the year would mean a great diversity of quotas. This has happened. It is not surprising. The C.P.R. fully understands, and before the end of the season they hope that the situation at its shipping points will be comparable to that in other parts of the west.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question. The hon. gentleman has mentioned that the presence of certain dry and damp grains in the province of Alberta is the reason for the discrimination. Would he now explain to the house why the quota at all the C.N.R. points is seven bushels while on the C.P.R. it is only one or two bushels, as was stated by the Minister of Agriculture when he was in Alberta?


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. member for Bow River has distorted my statement. I did not say what he now says I did. I said that because of the urgency of the shipping situation there was bound to be a considerable disparity in quotas at this season of the year, and this problem has been complicated by the damp grain situation. All concerned, including the C.N.R., the C.P.R. and the Canadian Wheat Board, will do their best before July 31 to improve these quotas as quickly as possible.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Agriculture, speaking in Winnipeg, said that the C.P.R. was shirking its duty in this matter of shipping grain to the Pacific coast. I wish to ask the minister whether in his opinion the C.P.R. is shirking its duty and, if so, what assurance he has received from the railroad that it intends to change its methods so as to improve the present situation.


Mitchell William Sharp: I will allow the Minister of Agriculture to speak for himself, of course. But may I say, as an indication of the progress which has been made in fulfilling this vast commitment upon which the Canadian Wheat Board entered on behalf of the western farmers, that the Canadian Pacific Railway has actually moved in all directions, not just to Vancouver but in all directions, considerably more grain, considerably more wheat, than they moved in the same period of 1963-64 when Canada attained the highest export and shipping records ever established in this country. So I do not think it

DEBATES	January 20, 1966
can be said that any part of this vast and complicated system has broken down or failed to discharge its commitments.
It is recognized, however, that there are some very serious problems, to which the Minister of Agriculture quite properly drew attention, concerning the movement to the west. These are now being inquired into in the hope there will be an improvement in the western movement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can the minister tell the house how many box cars have been shipped by the Canadian Pacific Railway to the United States between August 1 and the end of December? If not, can he get that information for the house?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will suggest to the hon. member that he should put this and all other questions of this kind upon the order paper. We would be very glad to answer them.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the house and of the country, will the minister, will someone, tell us whether the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Transport is responsible for answering questions concerning the shortage of box cars in the west. Which of the ministers is responsible?


An hon. Member:: None.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat? May I suggest that since there have been a number of questions on this subject we should allow other members an opportunity to put questions on subjects which may be of interest to them.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, when may we have an answer as to which minister is responsible for the shortage of box cars?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Is it the Minister of Transport?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. When did the government decide to renege on its commitment to the provinces to pays 37J per cent of the cost of lands acquired
January 20, 1966

for water conservation projects? Will the minister table a copy of the order in council or the departmental directive, whichever is appropriate?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the hon. member that this is one section of my department as formally constituted which is now in the hands of the minister who sits behind me. I would add, however, if he would permit me, that there has been no reneging at all. There have been discussions with the province of Ontario because of rising costs but these have nothing to do with abrogating any agreement whatsoever.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York Soulh):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him how soon he can dispose of the many deferments under the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, particularly with reference to the hours of work per week, so that all employees coming within federal jurisdiction may benefit from that act.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I will not attempt to forecast how long it will take to deal with all these applications. There are a great many of them, and they all require individual attention and consideration. I have already started work on some of them, but to give a direct answer to the question would be impossible at this time.


David Lewis: As a supplementary question, could the minister tell us whether any one of the applications has yet been disposed of or are they all still under consideration? I ask this because they have been before the department for many months.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: In answer to the hon. member I can only say I have not disposed of any of these applications. My predecessor may have done so. I shall inquire, however, and give the hon. member the information he has asked for.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION



EXPECTED EXPENDITURE RESPECTING COLOUR TELEVISION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the C.B.C. has now made application to the Board of Broadcast Governors for amendments to its television licences which will allow the C.B.C. to enter the colour television field, can the Prime Minister inform the house of the extent of the authority which has been granted by the government to the C.B.C. in relation to the huge expenditures which can be expected in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest that the hon. member place this question on the order paper.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Is it his intention to recommend that parliament vote the funds necessary for the extension of radio and television broadcasting services to regions not yet served, such as Chibougamau and Chapais, as recommended by the Fowler Commission?

Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport: Mr. Speaker, I think I would have to give a lot of consideration to that question before I could give an answer.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Last April 13 in response to a question he told me that the government was giving consideration to the matter of setting up a royal commission on divorce reform. In view of the widespread interest in this subject among the tigers in his tank, as shown by the bills they have filed, I wonder whether the Prime Minister has completed his consideration, and is he now ready to inform the house of his decision?
48	COMMONS DEBATES	January 20, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National
No, Mr. Speaker, the matter is still under Health and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I shall be consideration.	glad to make inquiries, but I do not recall
any.



BIRTH CONTROL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Priiiie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question somewhat related to the one asked by my colleague from Danforth. There seems to be a Liberal interest in birth control also, as revealed by private members' bills. Can we expect the introduction of amendments to section 150 of the Criminal Code during this session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is another important matter which is under consideration.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Is the minister aware that our municipalities in Quebec are unable to borrow from chartered banks because of the credit restrictions, which prevents them from carrying on their winter works? If he is aware of that fact, could he tell the house if he intends very shortly to introduce measures to remedy this urgent situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Lapointe raised the question yesterday I took notice of it, and I am having inquiries made in the department about the general situation affecting the winter works program.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister received any complaints from railway employees concerning the way in which the Canada Pension Plan is being integrated?
[Mr. Scott (Danforth) .1



INTEGRATION WITH CIVIL SERVICE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS PLANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, in order to answer a question now in the minds of a great many people across Canada, I should like to ask the house leader whether he is in a position to state emphatically and categorically that the Canada Pension Plan has been integrated with the civil service and House of Commons retirement plans. If the answer is in the affirmative, can the minister inform the house whether there will be a deduction made this month?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is a question for the house leader, but I shall undertake to accept the question as notice and obtain an answer for the hon. member.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has he received any complaints that the $200 assistance payable to fishermen who have had a bad fishing season and who have dependants is too much?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the question, the hon. member asked whether the $200 assistance was too much.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I asked whether the minister had received any complaints to the effect that it was too much.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not received any complaints that it is too much, but the hon. member should be informed that the amount involved is not $200 but $350 for fishermen with dependants.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry a
January 20, 1966

short question arising out of a notice of motion in his name. Last year the minister declined to table in the house the letters of undertaking between the government and the four major motor car companies. Has he now changed his mind and will these letters be available to all members of the house for consideration?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, if my recollection serves me correctly the four letters in question were tabled during the last session.


Reid Scott: I have a supplementary question. Is it clear that those letters are the letters of undertaking referred to in testimony before the United States congressional hearings?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the terms of reference to the United States congressional hearings, but they are the letters of undertaking given to me by the Canadian motor car manufacturers.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the minister has given notice of motion to obtain approval for this bill, will he agree to table the correspondence including telegrams which have passed between Canada and the United States in this respect?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker, I think this was discussed thoroughly last year. Sound reasons accompanied by good precedents for not tabling diplomatic correspondence between two countries were given then and I do not think the position has changed.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, January 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Goyer for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in rising to deal with the motion now before the house I wish at once to extend my very sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer) and the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) on the manner in which they placed before the house, in their respective maiden speeches,

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker their views and ideals. I will not say I agreed with all of their conclusions but that is to be expected.
It is always a matter of great interest to anyone who has been in the house over the years to see young men and women come into this chamber, because new members and returning old members give lifeblood to this house which strengthens the mission of parliament. I do not wish to single out any one member but I am sure the house will not raise any objection if I refer to the fact that there is one member here who, by reason of the association of her late husband and her late father with this house, deserves special mention. I refer to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis).
That hon. member's late husband, Angus Maclnnis, was one of those members of this house who spoke fearlessly with the authority of idealism. He gave fine representation in the best traditions of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Her father was here but a short while after I came as a new member. Illness struck him but he returned to this chamber on one or two occasions thereafter. I heard him speak. He was a man whose life was given in devotion to the things in which he believed. He was a socialist; he advocated socialism and was not afraid to stand for the things in which he believed.
I recall watching that hon. member from the gallery of this house at the time of the outbreak of war. That was before I became a member. He rose and spoke. What he said was not acceptable to a great majority of the members of the house but they listened with an attitude that is characteristic of parliament.
This same thing happened on another occasion when the late Hon. P. J. Cardin rose in the house during the dark days of the war. What he said did not have complete approval, but the fact that he was listened to with intense feeling on the part of all reflects something of the meaning of this institution. We must preserve those things that are worthwhile.
At this time, sir, I must, in something less than a purely formal sense, extend my congratulations to you. What I said the other day remains unrevised and unrepented. It requires no change of wording. As Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition my congratulations are extended to you in ample measure. We have seen you in action and we
January 20, 1966

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker appreciate the dignity, capacity and ability that you have displayed in the discharge of your high office in a matter of a few hours.
Now, sir, I am going to speak for a moment about parliament before I start to deal in some detail with the Speech from the Throne. And lest anyone thinks I am going to continue these commendatory words, I immediately give warning that I am not. But this parliament, and parliament in general, is something that we must do our part to preserve.
The idea is getting around today that parliament needs to be changed. The efficiency experts speak of parliament as though it were a kind of directors' meeting where efficiency is the objective. Parliament is no such thing. Parliament is a place where freedom is maintained. Parliament is not a place where we administer; parliament is not a place whose value depends on the number of statutes that are passed. Parliament is a place where we assure that the administration shall be carried out honestly and effectively.
Parliament is not a place to be operated, as I said a moment ago, like a business. The opposition has a responsibility in parliament and that responsibility is to do its part to examine carefully, to criticize strongly where necessary and to stand when the government endeavours to bring about measures that in the opinion of the opposition, conscientiously arrived at, are not for the benefit of the people.
There is a philosophy growing up that amendments have something sinister about them. I know my hon. friends opposite do not belong to that school because when they were in opposition amendments, votes of non-confidence, were prolifically produced. The record speaks for itself. Suddenly these people opposite have become paragons of parliamentary perfection. We are living in a new era. Even my friends of the New Democratic party who speak today of phony amendments seem to forget their contribution to parliament while we were in office.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to have the opportunity. The record is short and to the point. I find that on October 16, 1957, after we came into office, a motion was made by Mr. Coldwell, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North-


Stanley Howard Knowles: "Centre".


John George Diefenbaker: The motion was:
This house welcomes the measures indicated in the Speech from the Throne . . . We call upon


the government to give immediate effect to the social and economic planning-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Strange how these things change. The Liberal party of that day did not move any amendments until the famous one that will always be remembered in parliamentary history, the paternity of which is claimed, I believe, by three of the hon. members opposite.


Erik Nielsen: Three of the Horsemen.


John George Diefenbaker: The New Democratic
party at that time did not suffer from that new idealism that has suddenly become its wont as it finds itself in a position where it would like to support certain things but is afraid of the consequences.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: They say they believe in barking, but they must not bite. How interesting the change. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-I listened to him last Sunday as he revealed the revelations that have come to him since 1957-has not always held this opinion. I find there was also the amendment moved by Mr. Argue at that time one of the cornerstones of socialism-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: -who was later rejected by Liberalism. He moved an amendment regarding the flag, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). Have things changed since those days?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman says yes, they have changed, because they are afraid to take a stand now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Then on the second supply motion on November 18, it was moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and seconded by Mr. Argue:
That all the words after the word "'that" ... be struck out . . .
"this house is of the opinion that the government should consider the advisability of taking immediately whatever steps are necessary so that federal payments under the provisions of the Hospital Insurance Diagnostic Services Act will be available-
That was perfectly proper. They were trying to force the government to act and to carry out their beliefs. Have things changed, that amendments like that should no longer be made? Then I go on. The third supply
January 20, 1966

motion was moved. Again I point out that this new party, the New Democratic party, is not following the basic principles of the C.C.F. of that day, but the same people were there. It was moved by Mr. Coldwell seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre:
That all the words after the word "that" ... be struck out . . .
"this house is of the opinion that the government should consider the advisability of taking the necessary steps to bring the trans-Canada natural gas pipe line under public ownership".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: That was a principle they believed in.


An hon. Member:: And they still do.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member says they still do. If it was moved today, you would vote against it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: It is always encouraging to me to find a reaction such as this as their consciences call them to speak. On the fourth supply motion it was moved by Mr. Coldwell, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre:
That all the words after "that" be struck out-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The motion continues:
this house is of the opinion that the government should give consideration to the advisability of taking steps to relieve the financial crisis in education.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
This is quite proper. It is the only way in which an opposition can place its views before the house and either force the government to act or be in a position to criticize.


Harold Edward Winch: You always voted us down.
What is your position now?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know what the
interruption was.


Harold Edward Winch: I said you always voted us down. What is your position now?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman in a speech made in Calgary said he was going to abolish parliament.


Harold Edward Winch: That is a lie. Everybody knows it is a lie. I hereby in the house say it is a lie.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not mind interruptions. Finally, on the 20th of January the first motion was made by the Liberal party. It was moved by the present right hon. Prime Minister and seconded by Mr. St. Laurent. I
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker need not go into it. It was one in which they said that in view of the desirability of having a government pledged to implement Liberal policies His Excellency's advisers should, in the opinion of this house, submit their resignation forthwith.
In those days amendments such as these were proper. I never criticize the making of amendments, because they are necessary to parliament. Suddenly, under the new philosophy, you must not deal with those things. You have got to bring about a new parliamentary system. My hon. friends of the N.D.P. recognize this fact. The leader of the socialist party in the United Kingdom does not raise that objection with a government that hangs by a thread. Regularly there have been motions of non-confidence and amendments.
Now, sir, I am not for the moment going into the period between 1958 and 1962.


An hon. Member:: The dark ages.


John George Diefenbaker: All through that period the hon. gentlemen who now sit on the treasury benches moved amendments on every occasion. I have them here. There was nothing at that time sinister or detrimental to parliament in that connection.
Now I come to 1962. In 1962 when parliament met, a motion was moved immediately by hon. gentlemen who sit opposite. They continued to raise these motions on several occasions. They were finally successful on a subamendment moved by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette). They were together then. The subamendment referred to the government's failure to pursue any financial policies based on Social Credit principles designed to establish a balanced economy and so on. Indeed, in the fall of 1962 on one such amendment the Liberal party voted for debt free money.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: Those were the days before the Liberal party was able to bring into the house three wise men. I say nothing more about that at the moment.
Those were days when on every occasion questions were raised by way of amendment. We never took any objection to that because that is parliament. Are you going to have an opposition stand for something, say that they believe in this and this and this, go through an election campaign standing for certain principles that are just as valid today as they were then, and then, when they come into the
January 20, 1966

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker House of Commons, not bring up these things? They say we will be holding up the institution if we do.


An hon. Member:: It is the same old gang.


John George Diefenbaker: Sir, it is necessary that we study parliamentary principles, if the greatness of our tradition is to be preserved. Remove that and all you would do would be to get up in the house and speak and, having spoken, not vote. That is what they are trying to get the people of Canada to believe today, that there is something very wrong in members of a party standing up in parliament and calling on the government to do something that they ought to do. I have never found that the greatness of parliament could be upheld by those who endeavour to turn it into a body for talk but with no vote.
Now, sir, I come to the Speech from the Throne. I do not have to spend much time on that. It has all the earmarks of "Kentish" origin because the words of Mr. Kent in the last Speech from the Throne with a few additions, have been repeated with almost photostatic exactness.
You will remember that we were told that all that was necessary to bring about bold and imaginative government was to return those who today sit opposite. What has been produced is a puerile, pusillanimous piece of repetitive propaganda. Oh, they go marching by. There is reference to the Canadian economy. Mention is made of the preservation and the strengthening of Canadian identity and unity. The question of dominion-provincial relations is touched on in a rather careful way.
A few months ago in the previous Speech from the Throne they had a formula to amend the constitution and bring it back to Canada. Nine provinces said yes. Where is that now? It is put in these words:
It remains the objective of my Ministers to provide that the Constitution of Canada may be amended in Canada.
It is a delightful document. There is a reference to the fact that the Canadian people can be well served by their political institutions only if each element in our federal system is able to act effectively within its constitutional sphere. I am going to come back to the reorganization of the cabinet in a moment. The ministers do not seem to know yet who is who or who is responsible for what when questions are asked.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
When the Prime Minister issued his press release he said that bankruptcy, he thought,


would come under the purview of the President of the Privy Council I thought that an unusual place. After all, bankruptcy was one matter over which his Minister of Justice had authority. The year 1965 saw $500 million worth of bankruptcies. It was the greatest open season for wrongdoing that Canada has ever seen. The act is going to be amended but never is. Then the Throne Speech refers to economic development, and about that I may say something in a moment.
With regard to education there is an addition here. We took a strong stand on the subject of education. We said that the time had come when action must be widespread and massive while preserving the constitutional and exclusive authority of the provinces over education. Anything the government brings in in this connection which will preserve and maintain this constitutional safeguard will not be one of the matters that we will oppose.
As I go along through the speech I see our old friend the Canada Development Corporation has come to life again. In 1963 this matter was vital. In 1964 it did not appear in the Speech from the Throne at all. In 1965 it was resuscitated. Again it is brought in, and I wonder what will happen to it. Will it actually be introduced and proceeded with?
Then the question of capital punishment is mentioned. I think this question should be dealt with at once. I have had some experience in the courts and I have strong feelings on this subject. When we came into office we took the stand that anyone convicted of murder, who was given a recommendation to mercy by the jury, ought not to be executed, for such a division of opinion among the jury would indicate that there had been serious reason for the determination made by that jury. While the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) was minister of justice we brought about reform in this connection by dividing murder into two groups, capital and non-capital murder. I know what this means and I can understand the feelings of anyone who, as prime minister, has to sign the document. But we took the stand that where there was cold-blooded, premeditated murder the law either meant something or it did not and we carried it out.
What has happened recently in this connection? There should be no exception to this rule. But we have a government which has made the administration of capital punishment something beyond what could ever have been contemplated. Naturally I do not know
January 20, 1966

the facts of the various cases, but there are two or three cases in respect of which, so long as the law is as it is, I find the reprieves that have been granted difficult to understand. I hope that this uncertainty will be removed one way or the other and at once. I join with the Prime Minister in giving approval of and support to a free vote in the House of Commons, for we cannot go on with a law on the statute books which is partially carried out, indeed often derogated from.
So far as other sections of the Speech are concerned I will make some passing references, but I should like to say this. What we have in this Speech from the Throne is a caricature of what is needed in this country today. The Speech seems to have been the result of the right and the left trying to get together, the representatives of the great interests and the representatives of no interest trying to come to something which would be acceptable to all.
All of us know the circumstances surrounding the election. The Prime Minister said that he could not carry on without a majority. There are many quotations in this regard and they can be placed on the record in due course. He could not carry on and his various Ministers said the same. There they were, hamstrung, their hands tied. In one breath they said they were being interfered with. In the next breath they said to the people that they had the finest government there ever was. They told them to look at the wonderful record of legislation which the government had brought before parliament.
The essence, Mr. Speaker, of the election being called, in complete derogation of an implied undertaking on the part of the Prime Minister given in June last, was based on the excuse that they needed a majority, that they wanted support in all parts of Canada. There are now three provinces in which they have no representation. The government could not carry on unless they had representation across the country. This was the excuse.
I do not want to use a lot of words, Mr. Speaker, to describe this government and I want to remain strictly within the parliamentary tradition. The greatest parliamentarian of them all was Churchill. He got up on one occasion, I am not sure of the year, while he was leader of the opposition, looked over at the Attlee government and said:	"Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me to say so-I hope you will not call me to order-this is a lousy government". Then he went on to say: "That expression is not used in a contemptuous
The Address-Mr. DiefenbaJcer way; it is simply a narrative of a situation". That is what Churchill said on one occasion. All through the years that he spoke formidably in the house there was none of this new philosophy that the House of Commons is to be a kind of glorified kindergarten. Just read the debates, Mr. Speaker, which took place between Aneuran Bevan and Churchill, one man who, above all others, Churchill did not always decide to cross swords with.
This is a floundering government, Mr. Speaker. It has bumbled, bungled, boxed and bewildered' itself. In case the Prime Minister thinks I am using too strong language, I might recall his words before he developed a new philosophy in September, 1963.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Sir, this is a sell-out government. It is a government which has forgotten its sovereignty in its financial relationships with the United States, a government which has sacrificed the Canadian economy in order to meet the balance of payments situation in that other country. I had that experience. I have never told it. But I have read some biographers of the late President Kennedy, biographers who, I hope, come closer to the truth than some in Canada do. The United States took a strong stand against our selling wheat to Communist China. Today the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) spoke of the tremendous sales which had been made.


Mr. Hamilion:: Which you over there condemned.


John George Diefenbaker: When we arranged to enter into agreements with Communist China for the sale of wheat we were told this should not be done. Let that be clear. I will go further, and say this. In order to ship the wheat we had to have loaders. There was only one company in Canada which provided loaders and it was a United States subsidiary. I was informed, after the arrangements had been made for the necessary loaders, that we would not get them. We got them. We decided that our policy, while co-operating at all times on behalf of freedom, would be made in Canada by Canadians and for Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: That this is a serious situation is shown by the balance of payments position which is worsening all the time. Exports are not increasing at the same rate as imports. There is tight money for Canada because it is necessary to help the United States with its position.
January 20, 1966

The Address-Mr, Diefenbaker
Sir, in the international field we are endeavouring at all times to be in agreement. I do not intend to deal with the international situation today except to say that at this time, when one of the great Commonwealth Prime Ministers retires from office-I refer to Sir Robert Menzies-the Commonwealth faces one of the most serious challenges to its continuing existence in its short but glorious history. I will at all times join in hoping that whoever the Prime Minister of Canada may be he will carry out to the fullest extent possible the ameliorating processes that will bring about the kind of settlement which was achieved between Pakistan and India only a few days ago. It is a matter of serious consequence, as the effort is made to meet Communism in all parts of the world, that we within the Commonwealth could not bring about a settlement and that it took the U.S.S.R. to achieve something which we had not been able to obtain.
In the national field I say deliberately that this is a government which has whittled away the basic principles of Confederation. It has bent to demands. It has virtually brought about a position in this country whereby provinces may become, if not sovereign states, associated states. I am glad to see that there are now some in the Liberal party who are standing against that. I think of the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau), already honoured as Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. Read what he has to say about this idea of special status for any one province or associate states. He takes the strongest possible objection. It is of interest that when we took that stand we were pictured as being anti-Quebec. What was heresy when we stood for it is now approaching orthodoxy within the Liberal party.
Never in Canada's history has there been a government so prone to be prone. Its attitude has been the attitude of men and women who did not dare to take a stand. I wish to refer particularly to one of the serious things that is happening today in this nation, the multiplicity of conferences between the federal and provincial governments. I believe the number in the last year has been about 108 or 109, mainly behind closed doors. Talk about parliament falling back. If what has been agreed to behind closed doors is brought to us we will become rubberstamps in this House of Commons. That has been the attitude. Why was there any need for the secrecy attached to the conference on poverty? They

met behind closed doors. Why? I can understand why that should take place in connection with one held on national security. One thinks of the latest meeting to which reference has been made, one of those things which has not been advertised even though we have a Government which advertises most everything. I have in mind that meeting between the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Premier of Quebec on the second day of January of this year at 24 Sussex Drive. What happened there?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We had dinner.


John George Diefenbaker: The Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau)-I do not know what his position is now-laugh. All I know is that the government has since turned completely away from all its ideas of separate status.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
They are bring criticized today by Mr. Lesage. I can just see them sitting down together and the Prime Minister of Canada saying to Premier Lesage, "Now, what do you really want", and Mr. Lesage replying, "You know, Prime Minister, I have got nearly everything".
I,	of course, am speaking without even having the support of what are known as authentic sources, authoritative personages. But I can see them there, and finally the Prime Minister says to Mr. Lesage, "Look, you are going to have an election. You get right out and go after us. You have got everything now. You don't need the amendment formula any more. We have amended it under the table." Mr. Speaker, you will never build a Canada that way. The time has come for decisions on questions regarding Canada's future to be determined in this house and not in these secret meetings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: This place should be more than a rubber stamp to approve the arrangements that are made by the federal government and the provinces. I do not blame the hon. member for York-Scar-borough (Mr. Stanbury) for wondering yesterday whether the day would be far removed when his constituency might start making treaties. All you have to do is have a secret meeting. This kind of thing is the reason that this nation is divided and we say that the time has come, these closed-door meetings having become so numerous, to have a decision made that, excepting where security is at stake, such meetings shall be open.
January 20, 1966	COMMONS
I said there were 106 or 108 of them. I was wrong. There were 130 in 1965. The only way in which Canadians get any information is when somebody comes out of these meetings and says, "I will let you in on something." The only way in which Canadians find out about conclusions between Ottawa and the provinces is when legislation eventually comes before parliament. This has become a dangerous course and I say to you, sir, it must be brought to an end.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am going to await the Prime Minister's reply because I shall have an opportunity to reply to him. For the edification of the former minister of justice, now I understand about to be elevated to the judiciary-


Mr. Favreau:: You said that.


John George Diefenbaker: -I want to read to him the words of the three new members and, of course, there is also the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey), the man who spoke of the "mystic bond." So far as we are concerned we want to see that mystic bond between the federal and the provincial governments. That was one of the great expressions of all time, but I would point out that since the famous meeting at 24 Sussex Drive that hon. member has suddenly become a proponent of Conservative policy in connection with dominion-provincial relations.
With respect to what we intend to do in this session I would point out that the government has taken a proper course in making no appointments to the other place until it has had a supporting vote by the House of Commons. We hope that whatever vote takes place it will bring about the end of a government that went to the country on the basis that it did not want office and could not govern without a majority. They certainly forgot that quickly.
They went across this country with the help of the Gallup polls and with the help of a self-anointed political prophet. They used the C.B.C. for political purposes during the last two or three days of the election campaign. They spread propaganda across the country, and I believe it was even spread after candidates were in a position where they could no longer reply over radio and television.
This leads me to a step which I think we have to take. Today the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson) spoke about colour television. We in this house have a right to
DEBATES	55
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker know the attitude of the higher echelons of the C.B.C. We have a right to a full examination. That body was set up by one who was condemned by Liberalism but who was supported at the time by the present Prime Minister. It was set up by the late R. B. Bennett to be an institution above those things that divide the nation.
From time to time the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) deals with Viet Nam and other problems. He takes the stand that the United States is in Viet Nam because, without it, there would be the spread of Communism throughout southeast Asia and the overrunning of countries that have stood for freedom. But what about the C.B.C.? According to its programs you would think the United States was one of the great enemies of mankind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Propaganda is spread in every part of this nation about how terribly the Americans are acting. 1 am one who on occasion has been strongly critical of the United States but the C.B.C. programs picture the most diabolic cruelties being perpetrated by the Americans. Why does it do that? It has even brought in Tim Buck and presented him on television to tell Canadians what is wrong with the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: We want to inquire into this among people in the C.B.C. and I do not mean the employees, those who occupy a level of positions below the top. What the people at the top are doing is actually brainwashing or endeavouring to brainwash the Canadian people.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
That is not what the C.B.C. was established for. We wanted it to be an institution above those considerations that ordinarily separate us.
If one considers the programs one by one, and I have followed them somewhat carefully, one will be amazed, as I was amazed, at the degree to which they have assiduously inculcated in the minds of Canadian people that United States citizens who are dying over there for you and for me, for that is what they are doing, belong to a group which would imperialistically grasp for power and want war. We want to know about these things and I am going to press as strongly as it is possible for me to do so, for an opportunity for these people to come before parliament to explain these things. All one has to do is read the Fowler report to appreciate the
56	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
criticism. I do not agree with the idea of setting up a czar. The criticism of the higher echelon of the C.B.C. finally impelled the head of the C.B.C. to appear on television and say: Here I am-what perfection.
We have the right and want to know the answers to questions being asked right across this nation regarding the reason for these things which are taking place. I think of the tremendous influence of the propaganda that has been put out during the last few days of the election campaign regarding the big sweep that was to take place. That was not done as an impersonal act for the benefit of the people of Canada.
I now come to one other subject, Mr. Speaker, and I am practically through. I have not mentioned wrongdoing in high places for some time but the press has. It was reported over the air that the R.C.M.P. report to the crime conference was to the effect that organized crime existed because of the acts of certain politicians. That statement was cleared up today by the Solicitor General <Mr. Pennell) and I should like to say to him that I admire the way in which he goes about the discharge of his responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: We will never get to the bottom of these matters unless we have a royal commission. What is the situation in the narcotics, bankruptcy and arson areas? It has been stated that they are not connected and that it is ridiculous to make that suggestion. What action is going to be taken? I am not too impressed with this idea of an Interpol. I do not think that could meet the situation but some action must be taken.
In the United States there has been established a National Crime Commission composed of 19 members. Criminal activity is multiplying out of hand. In that country one third of all parolees return to crime. Drug addiction is on the increase among young people and organized crime is expanding. This situation must be looked into in an open way on a national basis. The government has denied that there was any criminal infiltration into Canada. It now has been forced into the position of having to admit that there has been infiltration.
I do not know whether the government did not trust the Minister of Justice to do the job properly or whether they thought he did not have the necessary ability, but they did decide to trifurcate the responsibility and place it with three ministers. There will be no communication as a result of dividing the

DEBATES	January 20. 1966
authority in that way with one minister looking after this, another looking after that and another looking after something else. I should like to know the basis for this decision because in my opinion this is a grave mistake. It is often said that justice is blind. In Canada it is now three-headed. The difficulties which have existed up to the present time in the administration of justice have often been aggravated by the division of responsibility between the federal and provincial governments.
We said that these wrongdoers were coming into Canada because it looked to be a happy hunting ground, particularly in view of the circumstances surrounding the Stonehills, Bonannos and Minaudos. Consider the report which appeared yesterday in the Ottawa Journal. It states that the immigration department will put 16 special agents to work this year to halt what is described as a procession of top Mafia men into Canada. They must like our climate. Those are the words, "a procession of top Mafia men". The report then states:
An agent will be placed in Rome, probably by April 1, and he may be the forerunner of an expansion into areas where the narcotics rackets flourish: Beirut, Corsica and Sicily.
Agents also will be placed in Toronto, Montreal-
Yes, and even in Windsor, as well as in Vancouver. The Immigration Department's chief enforcement officer stated that the object is to stop undesirable aliens from coming into Canada. We always knew that they could get out of Ottawa. Banks proved that. It has now been established that they are coming in. The report then states:
Mr. Lefaive said a senior intelligence man advertised for some months ago has been chosen-
He will not have a licence to kill. The job is not as dramatic as that. But this underlines the necessity of a royal commission. This bears out what we have said over and over again and it bears out what Mr. Kierans said in September. It also bears out what the Minister of Justice said in the province of Quebec in the latter part of September or the early part of October. This explains as well the action now being taken and why it was that a request for information by the Ontario Crime Commission, when the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau) was Minister of Justice, went unanswered for a number of months. These things must be looked into and I hope that the government will do so. What took place yesterday is just a post-election admission by the government of what they
January 20, 1966

refused to admit during the election, that foreign criminal elements were entering Canada.
We intend to take the stand in this house that this government ought to carry out the views that it expressed during the election, that it did not want to hold office unless it had a majority with representation in all of Canada. There are those who say that when a vote of non-confidence is carried the government is defeated and it means an election. It means nothing of the kind. If the Prime Minister meant what he said during the election campaign the Prime Minister would simply go to the Governor General and say, "If there is any other party in the house that is prepared to accept the responsibility, they may do so."
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: They do not say that now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister puts up his hands. What did he say on June 23, 1958? That was the very philosophy that he enunciated in this house.


Erik Nielsen: Now he laughs at it.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, now he laughs at it. How changed things have become. This was reiterated over and over again during the election campaign. The Prime Minister does not like to hear this. I could quote to him some of his really choice statements but I will reserve them until after he speaks so that I may be able to answer and fill in those parts of his speech that require to be elucidated in a straightforward manner.
I say this to you, sir, that the stands we took during the election campaign we shall take now. Others may follow another course. We shall press for things that have to be done. We said that the financial situation of Canada was serious, and it is.
The new Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) made a speech the other day. With his vast experience as an industrialist and a company executive, I am sure the government will pay more attention to him than they did to the previous Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon). The Minister of Trade and Commerce said the other day, "We have to be careful that we do not find ourselves in a position where the depreciation of the dollar becomes serious". Today we have the
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker highest cost of living in Canada's history. During the election campaign the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that as a businessman he thought there should be a reduction in taxation. He also said that the 11 per cent sales tax on production machinery was a discrimination.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Now that the power has come to him I ask him not to forget, to the same extent that the Prime Minister has, some of the things that he said during that campaign. Indeed, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, when he spoke in Alberta among the Liberals that were still there-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -said he was in favour of tax cuts. We would like an indication from him now that the words spoken in the Rockies are to be the action of his government.
We intend to press for the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and production machinery. We intend to press for teeth to be put into the bankruptcy laws. No matter what teeth are put into the laws, they will never be effective unless there is stern enforcement. We also intend to press for the restoration of the National Productivity Council so that representatives of labour, management and government may join to bring about that productivity that was recommended and indeed demanded by the Economic Council in its last statement.
These issues we stood for:	Education,
honesty in government, a federal-provincial confederation conference. They are as necessary and as applicable today as when we brought them forth. We want these things and we shall press for them. As far as agriculture is concerned, we intend to press that certain policies be implemented. The new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) is not in the house but anything I now say will be transmitted to him. Is it not an interesting thing that after having had Harry Hays for 2| years, it took a new Minister to find out that the situation in western Canada was not good?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The new Minister of Agriculture pictured-I noticed that he did have the undivided support of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) in this regard-the horrors of discrimination against western Canada. They were vividly expressed by him
January 20, 196G

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker to such an extent that all through that country today they say, "What a man, but what an outfit he is with".
We shall continue to press for a program of urban renewal. We shall continue to press for relief being accorded to home owners with respect to taxation on their homes to the extent of $500. We intend to press for a minister of youth affairs. Indeed, we intend to press for those things for which we stood. They were policies for the benefit of the people. In the light of events, we were not able to establish them to the extent that we would have had we formed the government.
With regard to a national agricultural policy, we pointed out that in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario the dairy farmers were being unfairly treated. We advocated a feed grain agency which would enable farmers in eastern Canada to obtain feed at reasonable prices. We had the legislation ready in 1963 at the time we were defeated. We are glad the government has accepted that policy. These are some of the things for which we stood and which, following this debate and the decision taken by the house, we intend to press forward with in the days ahead.
Now, sir, we also took a stand on old age pensions. The old age pensioner and the veteran in Canada are today in a desperate position. The cost of living is mounting today as never before in peacetime. The only attitude the government adopts is: Well, it is not as bad as it could be. We took the stand that there should be an increase in the flat rate pension from $75 a month to $100 a month. We took the stand that the means test for the blind and disabled should be removed. If members of the government have received the same type of correspondence that we have in the opposition, they will know these are matters of paramount importance in every part of Canada.
We said there was no need to impose additional taxation in order to raise the amount from $75 to $100 and that it could be taken out of the fabulous extractions that are now being levied against the Canadian people. The burden on the employer or the person operating his own business is 1.8 per cent. This is a tremendous amount totalling $500 million or $600 million a year. The cost of living has been going up in the last few days because various industries are passing on this cost to the average Canadian. We said this would happen. When we said we would pay it out of that fund the answer was that it could not be done. The then Minister of National Health and Welfare announced that


the $2,200,000, or whatever the cost was of the political propaganda in Canadian newspapers and over the radio on behalf of the Canada Pension Plan, would be paid not by taxation but out of this fund. If that payment could be made out of this fund, so could this increase which we have advocated.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
There are so many matters upon which we could move an amendment. Any amendment that covered the shortcomings of this government, even for the last few months, would be a voluminous one. We decided that under all the circumstances our amendment should be the very essence of simplicity and directness. We want to know where the members of this house stand, not by evasive explanations as to what is or what is not going to happen, not by pretending that they alone are the custodians of parliament, not by conjuring up a new philosophy of parliament whereby only votes that are declared to be votes of non-confidence shall be so interpreted. Where did that come from? They were not thinking of that in February of 1963. They did not have that in mind. Suddenly they conjured this up in order to find a manner or means or way to avoid facing the situation.
All over this nation the old age pensioner is asking for action. In every part of our country this demand is generally accepted by people everywhere. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) that the following words be added to the address:
We respectfully regret that Your Excellency's advisers have omitted to provide for an immediate increase from $75 per month to $100 per month for all recipients under the Old Age Security Act.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I must begin, as my right hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) began, in the time-honoured way by congratulating the mover of the address in reply, the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer), and the seconder, the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury). Over the years I have heard many movers and seconders of the address. I have not heard as many as my right hon. friend has but I have heard a good many. I have never heard that honourable and difficult function more efficiently performed.
I should like also to join my right hon. friend in the very moving tribute he paid to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). Those of us who knew her father and her husband, and I am honoured to be one of those, are particularly glad to see
January 20, 1966	COMMONS
her in this house. They were men who were always true to themselves and true to their consciences wherever this led them. It led them to a position of honour and respect among those who knew them, whether they agreed with them or not.
Although I do not want to single out new members, Mr. Speaker, because then I would have to stand on my feet longer than I expect I shall have to, I should nevertheless like to single out the member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) because of the affection and respect that we all had for his father.
I should like to join in the tribute paid to you, Mr. Speaker. We have already expressed to you our feelings on the opening day. We are looking forward to your presidency over our deliberations. I am delighted to see back in his accustomed seat the right hon. gentleman


An hon. Member:: You do not really mean that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am delighted to see him
surrounded by 97 of his supporters.


An hon. Member:: You do not mean this one either.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would have been more delighted if it had been 67 but there it is. I am delighted to see those who have returned to this house after distinguished service to the country on this side. The right hon. gentleman talked for a long time. As always he put up a very good show. He entertained us and he instructed us and he inspired his own followers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: At times he was so anxious to inspire his own followers that he turned round and talked to them and we could not hear his words.
I do not know how long he talked. Whether it was for an hour and a half or an hour and three quarters, he came to the subject of the amendment at the very end of his speech. He spent very few minutes indeed on the amendment. I may be able to explain that, at least to my own satisfaction, a little later because there was a great deal of discussion about many, many subjects but only a few words about the subject of the amendment which provides for an immediate increase from $75 per month to $100 per month for recipients under the Old Age Security Act. In due course, Mr. Speaker, I will explain to the house why we on this side cannot accept this vote of non-confidence.
DEBATES	59
The Address-Mr. Pearson
The right hon. gentleman made a very strong appeal indeed to other opposition parties to support him. Whether he will get that support I do not know. Of course it is a vote of non-confidence and the consequences of the defeat of the government on a vote of non-confidence are obvious under our parliamentary system.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Churchill:: Are you using the big club again?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The right hon. gentleman, while spending a lot of time on the development of a new doctrine of parliament which he seems to have discovered, has lost sight of the old doctrine of parliament which used to mean so much to him. He has recently been indicating-he mentioned this also this afternoon-that it is a very simple matter to defeat the government. All that is required is a vote against the government, and then a call upon the right hon. gentleman to form a government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am very interested to hear his supporters applaud that sentiment. I never thought I would be in this house to listen to the right hon. gentleman put forward this doctrine. My mind goes back to February 1958, or perhaps it was January-I ought to remember the date. At that time the right hon. gentleman poured scorn for hours and with great effect, I remember very well, on the idea that in order to save the country a general election at a time of mounting unemployment there should be a change of government without a dissolution of parliament and an election. Will we ever forget that afternoon in the house.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this was at a time when the official opposition had 107 members in this House and had come through an election where they received 42 per cent of the vote. The government of that day had 112 members, only five more, but had secured only 39 per cent of the vote. When it was suggested at that time that perhaps there could be a change of government in certain circumstances without a dissolution, my right hon. friend demolished that argument in no uncertain terms and in a way which some of us, I among them, will never forget. And now, what was absurd, nonsensical and ludicrous in 1958 becomes a cornerstone in his new constitutional and parliamentary doctrine. Now in 1965, he is sitting over there passionately determined to get back to this side-


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are in 1966 now.
January 20, 1966

The Address-Mr. Pearson


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, 1966-at a time when the government has 131 members, not 112 and the Opposition has not 107 as the Opposition had at that time but 97, in these circumstances he says that all that is required is to defeat this government and turn over the administration of this country to the right hon. gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -with his 97 members representing not 42 per cent of the people, as was the case with us in 1958, but 32.4 per cent. This is the right hon. gentleman who gives us lectures on parliamentary and governmental traditions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You said you could not carry on without a majority.


Michael Starr: Can you carry on now?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is a simple matter. In order to establish his claim to this changeover and to secure a majority in relation to an amendment of this kind, the right hon. gentleman made a very moving appeal, especially to the New Democratic party. I wonder if it has ever occurred to him that whatever may have been the views and the attitudes of the New Democratic party or the C.C.F. in the past, it is just conceivable that they may not wish to support him in his desire to become Prime Minister of this country at this time. And it might even be conceivable that they would take that position in the national interest.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is the deal here? Under the table?


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend asks what is the deal and is it under the table. He is an authority on under the table deals, especially with regard to putting letters on Hansard which are under the table letters.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I dealt with this subject last year but the Prime Minister would not answer it. What is the inference contained in his suggestion? Is he admitting that there was an under the table deal between himself and somebody outside the country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. gentleman took the floor by suggesting that he had a question of privilege. There is no question of privilege involved in what he has said. He

asked a question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), but the Prime Minister has not released the floor for this purpose.


Gordon Minto Churchill: My question of privilege concerned an accusation against the Prime Minister of an unfair insinuation which he could not back up.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If my hon. friend would stop making unfair, insinuating interruptions perhaps it would not be necessary to reply. There was one part of my hon. friend's statement though to which I must refer immediately, Mr. Speaker. In his references to the election and its results, which have returned us to this side and he and his followers to the other side, he made a charge against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which was very serious indeed. He suggested-he did more than suggest; I believe he stated-that the attitude of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the last two or three days of the election was not an impersonal attitude but that they favoured the Liberal party for some reason or other, that they did not do their duty as a broadcasting corporation to be impartial in the election campaign, and that this was not an impersonal or accidental result.


An hon. Member:: And that is right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend confirms that that is their view, that there was this kind of interference by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the election.


Erik Nielsen: You are twisting it now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a serious charge and perhaps my right hon. friend will have an opportunity to prove it.


An hon. Member:: It is a very serious offence.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is a very serious offence and it is a very serious charge, and it is the kind of charge to which we in this house are becoming accustomed, made without evidence and by insinuation and innuendo.
Before I come to the amendment and some other matters which were raised by my right hon. friend concerning domestic politics, I should like to spend a moment or two on foreign affairs, though my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) will, I hope, have an opportunity to deal with these matters at greater length before long.
I agree entirely with what the right hon. gentleman said about the departure from
January 20, 1966	COMMONS
office of the Prime Minister of Australia, Sir Robert Menzies. I have already sent a message of regret at his departure to Sir Robert expressing admiration for his services over the years. Those of us who knew him, which includes my right hon. friend and others in this house, will know how much he has done for Australia and for the Commonwealth. He will be a loss to the Commonwealth as well as to his own country. So also will be the cruel and premature death of the Prime Minister of India. While we lament in this tragedy for India, we welcome his successor as Prime Minister of India, and we wish her well on the very heavy and crushing task which she has undertaken on behalf of the 600 million people of India.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
It is going to require all the wisdom and patience and experience that we who are in positions of responsibility in the Commonwealth can muster to maintain the strength and the value of this great and historic association. It is a very different organization now than it was in the '20s as it developed out of the Empire. Its most solid foundation, and the foundation which now gives it new opportunity for service to its people and to the world, is the fact that it is now a multiracial association spanning all the continents and including peoples of all creeds, all colours, all races and almost all cultures.
As I spent two or three days in Nigeria at the Commonwealth meeting I was much impressed by the new and potential value of the Commonwealth though I was also conscious of the difficulties of keeping it together in its present form.
The crisis in Rhodesia is a very good indication of that difficulty. The situation in Rhodesia, a country now ruled by those who represent only a few hundred thousand of its four and a quarter million inhabitants, is a threat not only to government by majority in Rhodesia; it is a threat to race relations in the whole of Africa besides being, certainly, a threat to the multiracial character of our association. If this threat cannot be removed, if independence cannot be achieved by the people of Rhodesia on the basis of majority rule, and if the present illegal regime cannot be replaced in a way which will lead to that result, we will face a very difficult period indeed for the Commonwealth.
Once again, as was done some years ago in London by the right hon. gentleman opposite, the Canadian position was made clear, that
DEBATES	61
The Address-Mr. Pearson we stand for racial equality and the removal of all discrimination inside the Commonwealth association.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: After the unilateral declaration of independence, U.D.I.-or "I.D.I.", the illegal declaration of independence, as the Indian delegate termed it-the government took what we considered to be appropriate economic and financial action in concert with other members of the Commonwealth and with other countries. I feel strongly-and I hope I am right in this feeling; I hope the results will justify my feeling-that the overthrow of the illegal regime can be achieved by economic and financial measures without the use of military force. I think the Lagos conference did something to clear up the situation in this regard and to remove the immediate pressure for military action, military action which I believe at this time would have been wrong and, indeed, which might not have had the decisive and immediate result which its proponents assumed. For we have learned in the last 25 or 30 years that military action does not always have quick results in achieving a political objective.


Harold Edward Winch: You are right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have learned, since the right hon. gentleman mentioned the matter earlier this afternoon, that the chairman who presided over that conference with such great wisdom and patience, one of the men Africa needs most at this time, is now reported to be dead. This is a great loss to his country, to the Commonwealth and to the world. He was an unusual, outstanding man. He came out to the airport to see me off. It was 15 miles outside Lagos. There were troops in evidence at the time. There was obviously something wrong in that suburb of the city. Within a few hours he was abducted. Now it appears he has departed.
The situation in Rhodesia is, as I mentioned, a threat to peace and to orderly development. I hope the recent happenings in Nigeria will not set back that orderly development, though one cannot be very happy about what has happened.
I should like to say a few words now and only a few words about the situation in Viet Nam. Just as the situation in Rhodesia is a threat to peace and orderly development in all of Africa and could bring about an African conflict, so the situation in Viet Nam remains a threat to peace and to orderly development not only in Southeast Asia but also in all of Asia. It could ultimately lead to the worst of catastrophes. In recent weeks the
January 20, 1966

The Address-Mr. Pearson United States government has made offers for a negotiated settlement. I believe, on the information I have received and from the contacts we have been able to make-and these have been close and continuous-among our friends in Washington, in London and in other capitals on this subject, that these offers are genuine and sincere and that they should be supported by all who believe in the necessity of bringing the fighting to an end and beginning a process of negotiation.
In one sense I think it is right to say that these offers have already begun the process of negotiation by throwing out public proposals and by eliciting perhaps not counterproposals from those to whom the original proposals were made but counterproposals from one source or another. I hope this process will be continued. Obviously there is a limit beyond which this kind of dialogue cannot be carried but I hope what has been going on will lead to the constructive play of diplomatic negotiation and a chance to explore opportunities for peace, and that those who are more directly concerned than we are and who are bearing the burden of this issue will be able to maintain the patience and wisdom they have been showing in recent weeks since those offers were first made. There is a discouraging side to all this. It is that there has been no response that anyone can detect from Hanoi itself. I think it is wise for the critics of the United States to remember this fact.
At the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting last June we tried to take an initiative which would bring the Commonwealth into this issue by way of a Commonwealth mission which would include members who were certainly not unacceptable to the Communists, men who, in two cases, were certainly uncommitted. No success was achieved as a result of that effort. It was spurned by Hanoi and perhaps by some of those who are behind Hanoi; I do not know.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a question. In that initiative on the part of the Commonwealth did the representatives at that conference contemplate that the Viet Cong should be represented in any conference that could be convened?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No. We took the position at that time and I believe it is the American position now-perhaps it was also at that time though it was a little unclear to some of us-that in the negotiations which will have to take place the North Vietnamese government,

as the other government of Viet Nam, should bring to the negotiations anyone it wished, including the Viet Cong, as part of its delegation. There were some members of the Commonwealth mission who certainly would have gone further than that.
However, there has been no positive response from Hanoi on this present occasion, and there was no positive response on that earlier occasion either. So far as one can gather from any statement of their position, they have made it clear, at least publicly, that there can be no negotiations without the United States withdrawing and without the Viet Cong being considered as the only legitimate representatives of the South Vietnamese people. That is a very difficult position for anyone else to accept.
Nevertheless the United States has suspended air bombing and I hope it will be able to maintain that suspension as long as possible. I also hope that with patience, as well as determination, this effort by the Americans for negotiations will have some success.
I should like to read just one sentence from the President's Congressional address to which I think considerable importance should be attached, but to which not very much publicity has been given. I quote from his address as follows:
We will respond if others reduce their use of force; and we will withdraw our soldiers once South Viet Nam is securely guaranteed the right to shape its own future.
Perhaps progress would be possible if the North Vietnamese even accepted the idea of negotiations. Once that acceptance has been given by both sides, and it has already been given by the United States, it might be possible, on the acceptance of negotiations, to begin a process of withdrawal. Perhaps that is what the President was hinting at as a possibility in that sentence. I do not know. However, Mr. Speaker, in my view it is perfectly clear that military force alone will not settle this problem, will not resolve this issue either by toppling the regime in the north or by permitting the communists to absorb the south.
Perhaps the result-and it is not one that anyone can get any particular satisfaction out of-perhaps the ultimate solution will have to be, as it has been in other cases since world war II, the acceptance of two Vietnamese communities, neutralized, with other countries staying out. So long as the problem is approached in terms of "puppet regimes or national liberation struggles" we run the risk of obscuring the basic fact that there are now two communities in Viet Nam and we also
January 20, 1966

run the risk erf misjudging the possibility of one community gaining a complete ascendency over the other by military means or by subversion, or by any other means not based on the clearly expressed choice of the people concerned. In the case of two communities that have developed for more than a decade along different lines, and toward which such massive outside engagements have already been made, it seems difficult to believe that one would now be allowed simply to extinguish the other.
In my view we should not preclude the possibility of the reunification of Viet Nam which, unquestionably, corresponds with the aspirations of the Vietnamese people, and it would be my hope-and I am sure of all hon. members-that when the fighting has ended and peace is restored, the two communities could proceed quickly toward establishing the basis of confidence which would bring about such reunification.


John George Diefenbaker: Could I ask the Prime Minister a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course.


John George Diefenbaker: Today U Thant, the Secretary General of the United Nations, mentioned some possible initiative on the part of the United Nations. Is there any possibility of such being accepted, with Communist China being in the position that it is today?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would like to think that there is, but I cannot help but add that every indication is against Communist China participating in any United Nations intervention of that kind. Naturally I think we would all like to see the United Nations involved in this matter as soon as possible if there were any possibility of progress in that way, just as in the Rhodesian conflict we at Lagos agreed that if economic sanctions, financial sanctions and oil sanctions did not work, and if any member of the Commonwealth thought they were not working, then, having set up the sanctions committee, that member of the Commonwealth could appeal to the sanctions committee for a reconvening of the Commonwealth conference or could go to the United Nations and, in the Security Council of the United Nations, introduce a sanctions resolution under chapter 7 of the charter which would be obligatory on all members of the United Nations. This could be possible and successful in the case of Rhodesia, but I think it would be quite unrealistic to think UN involvement would be effective in any way in the Vietnamese conflict, unless some-
The Address-Mr. Pearson how Communist China could be brought into association with it, and both governments of Viet Nam showed a desire to go to the United Nations.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the field in which perhaps there is not quite as much agreement as I believe there is in foreign affairs, the field of domestic affairs, and refer to some of the matters mentioned by my right hon. friend and, indeed, refer to some matters that were not mentioned by him.
As we approach our centennial year, the centennial of our confederation-and with any luck this should be our centennial parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think my right hon. friend would disagree with that because it would not preclude the realization of his cherished dream of a quiet move across the floor, without the agony of another election.
As we approach our centennial year our country, of course, is passing through a difficult period. Some of the difficulties were referred to earlier this afternoon. But it is not the first difficult period in our history. It will not be the last, and it is not the most difficult period in our history that we have encountered.
It is well to keep our present situation in perspective. It will keep us from joining the "gloom-doom" brigade that despairs of our destiny.
The first item of domestic policy that I want to talk about is of direct concern to the house because it is the subject of the amendment, which asks that at this time we should increase old age pensions from $75 to $100 a month. To keep this in perspective I would like to point out the progress that has been made, the advances we have achieved in the field of social security since this government came into office in 1963.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
When we came into office, and that is not very long ago-less than three years-the position was that people from age 70 received $65 a month in old age security through a federal program and that people between age 65 and 69 could draw up to $65 a month, but only on a means test. The only opportunity people in those age groups had to obtain this kind of assistance was based on a means test. They could only obtain $65 if their other income did not exceed $30 a month for a person living alone, or a combined $35 per month for a married couple. That was the situation at that time.
64	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Pearson
That assistance program which gave those to whom I have referred $65 a month, apart from the old age pension, was in a field primarily administered by the provinces. The federal government at that time paid half the cost of that assistance up to a maximum of $65 per month, and that was all.
The Conservative government, which had been in office before we took over, did not share in providing any additional assistance over the $65 to those aged 65 and over, except to the extent to which older people got extra help through this unemployment assistance program. It is just as well to remember that.
Let us see what we have done during this period of less than three years, and what we are doing now. In less than three years the government has moved rapidly in this vital area of helping people, people who cannot help themselves but who need new opportunities to better their own lot. Its action adds up to a sweeping modernization and reshaping of social welfare. The government has raised the $65 old age security to $75, which is the highest universal non-contributory pension in any country in the world, so I am informed. The government has provided that in the future this amount will be increased automatically if the cost of living goes up. My right hon. friend has told us that the cost of living is going up by leaps and bounds and I will have something to say about that later.
For people aged 65 to 69 the government has legislated to replace old age assistance, dependent on the means test, by old age security available to everyone without a means or needs test. That transfer is taking place a year at a time and it commenced on January 1, 1966. Everyone aged 69 at that time became entitled automatically to the $75 old age security without a means test. That added 100,000 people to our pension rolls. The following year this will be extended to individuals aged 68, and so on, until finally in January 1970 old age security will be available to everyone 65 years and older, provided he or she meets residence qualifications. This means that over 500,000 more Canadians will be added to the pension rolls, and that represents a great increase in expenditures. The expenditure on old age security in the financial year 1960-61 was $592 million. In 1965-66, our current financial year, this expenditure will be $930 million. In 1970, according to the projection I have referred to, this expenditure will be $1,600 million.

DEBATES	January 20, 1966
The government has also worked out with the provinces a program, and is committed to introduce legislation this year, to implement the Canada assistance plan. This is one of the arrangements which my right hon. friend has talked so scathingly about, because it was made as a result of meetings between the federal and provincial governments. We are obliged to introduce legislation this year-the Canada assistance plan-to provide assistance to everyone in need; not only to older citizens but to all who are in need, with the federal government sharing the cost with the provinces. There is no fixed limit to the amount of the assistance in which the federal government will share. If a province decides that older people need a total income of $100 per month, and under the constitution, the primary responsibility in these matters, lies with the provinces, assistance will be paid at the necessary rate-$25 a month supplementary to old age security. The federal government will share half the cost of meeting that figure.
In addition, after quite a struggle, we put into effect the Canada Pension Plan. After listening to my right hon. friend this afternoon I am now not sure he is in favour of it. We did establish the Canada Pension Plan which will provide for people retiring in the future at far higher pension levels than ever existed in the past. For example, at retirement age 65, a single man will be able to get a pension of up to $179 per month, and a married couple will get up to $264 a month from the Canada Pension Plan and old age security combined. That benefit level will rise automatically in line with wages and prices.
Youth allowances were begun in September of 1964 as an extension of family allowances but with a special purpose. Payments of $10 a month are made for children aged 16 and 17 who remain in school. Of course, the goal is to help young people continue their education and training to fit themselves for the jobs they will need in our fast changing society. That program is helping the families of more than 400,000 students at an estimated cost this year of $46,500,000.
Later in my speech I will be referring to additional assistance for this year only until we work out long-range plans for universities by which per capita grants for universities of $2 will be raised to an average of $5. That will increase the amount the federal government will be making available for higher education to $100 million.
There is also our program of scholarships and bursaries which we hope will be put into
January 20, 1966

effect this session. That will cost $40 million a year when it is fully in effect.
If one adds these all up he will see that the federal government is making a substantial contribution to education in this country and in the main this is a field which must remain within the jurisdiction of the provinces.
Medicare, when in effect-I hope it will be in effect in accordance with the principles we have laid down as being what we consider the right principles for federal participation in something which is essentially provincial in jurisdiction-will relieve pensioners of a major expense. Indeed, the Canada assistance plan will relieve pensioners of a major expense before that.
The fast-growing economic strength of the nation under the present government-our rising prosperity-has brought Canada to the point where medicare can become part of the country's basic social services, and we are going to do everything we can to make it so.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Now my right hon. friend's proposal is to provide $100 a month to everyone over age 65. Immediately that would mean that more would be provided to all people in that age group. I admit that our program provides more to the people in need in that age group, above what we are doing for them in other ways.


John George Diefenbaker: Provided the provinces make a contribution.
Mr- Pearson: My right hon. friend says, "provided the provinces make a contribution". Well, let us see what the implications of my right hon. friend's proposal are. He is very, very worried about inflation, as indeed he should be. He proposes that $100 a month be paid to everyone whether they need it or not. My right hon. friend should be concerned about inflation, because of the implications of his proposal if it were adopted. My right hon. friend says that the enormous sums needed to pay $100 a month to everyone at age 65 would come from the funds of the Canada Pension Plan. Mr. Speaker, I have already described that proposal as phony and impossible of realization.
I would also point out to my right hon. friend that a $100 pension for all who are 65 or over would cost the treasury this year $855 million. If my right hon. friend does not agree with these figures, I will get the exact figures for him.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all. It does not begin at age 65 now. It begins at age 69, does it not?
The Address-Mr. Pearson


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, I see that my right hon. friend has backed away from his election promise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do apologize, Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: You have misread it, that is all.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My right hon. friend moved this amendment on the assumption that it was carrying out his election promise, which he repeated over and over again during the election campaign. I have a whole series of quotations from his speeches. I will read only one. This is-from the Montreal Star, and was written by James Stewart:
Halifax, September 25. He repeated his promise of $100 a month pensions for those aged 65 and over paid for out of the Canada Pension Fund.
Well, if the figure is now $855 million at age 69, and it goes down to 67 in 1970, it will then be more than $855 million. It will be hundreds of millions of dollars, beginning at age 69 this year. I will be able to get the exact figures for my right hon. friend shortly. It will be a very large figure. I point this out not to say that we should not do this because it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, but we in the government have a heavy responsibility in balancing our efforts to help people in need.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Now the argument is that this is to come out of the Canada Pension Plan.


Mr. Lambert:: No-the increase.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know there are hon.
members opposite, and some in the Senate who belong to my right hon. friend's party, who are pushing very hard that it should come out of the Canada Pension Plan because it is one way of destroying the Canada Pension Plan. And it certainly would destroy it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: How about advertising of the Canada Pension Plan?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The funds in the Canada Pension Plan which are now being contributed are contributed by people who are now working to pay for their future pensions. The first charge on those funds is the administration of the plan. The provinces have agreed with that. Apart from the charge on administration, the funds are then to be invested by
B6	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Pearson the provinces in accordance with the legislation and in accordance with the agreement with all provinces participating in the fund. The funds are to be invested in the meantime by the provinces to earn interest and pay for needed projects in the provinces such as new schools and roads.
Is my right hon. friend suggesting that we raid those funds for federal purposes, after the agreement we have made with the provincial governments that they should be used for certain purposes? Is that what he is suggesting, to strengthen confederation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: What about advertising?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is my learned friend suggesting that the provinces are likely to agree with this suggestion? If some provinces do not agree, and others do, are the taxpayers and contributors in those provinces that do not agree, to have their funds in the Canada Pension Plan used to increase a universal pension for Canadians in every province? Is that what he is suggesting? That is what happens if you take this money out of the Canada Pension Plan; and that in itself should be enough to assure the defeat of this particular amendment-and perhaps it was designed to be defeated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My right hon. friend's proposal to help old age pensioners is to raid the Canada Pension Plan, to which contributions have been made by younger Canadians for certain purposes, and to give that money to the older pensioners who have not contributed-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Ten years from now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the program that has been put before this house in an amendment involving a vote of no confidence in the government.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, before the
recess I was attempting to deal specifically with the non-confidence amendment which provided for an increase in old age pensions from $75 to $100 to be paid for out of the contributions to the national pension plan. I was wondering how the right hon. gentleman

DEBATES	January 20, 1966
was going to do that out of the contributions to a plan under which agreement had been made with the provinces by which funds, after administration costs and other primary disbursements had been made, would be invested by the provinces. I was wondering whether he had been able to secure, before putting an amendment of this kind before the house, agreement of the provinces, because that would have to be secured. I was wondering whether he realizes that the province of Quebec is not a part of the national pension plan. It has its own pension plan along the same line as the national plan. There is interchangeability between them, but there is no contribution from Quebec toward the national plan.
Presumably the $25 increase would be given to Canadian citizens living in Quebec as well as in other parts of the country. Otherwise, there would be flagrant discrimination. Presumably the increase to be given to Canadian citizens in the province of Quebec to bring them up to $100 would be paid for out of the contributions to the plan outside the province of Quebec. I doubt very much whether that would appeal to those contributors, or to the provincial governments concerned.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, it is important that we do-as I tried to indicate this afternoon this government has done-all that we can to meet the needs of older people, which must remain the concern of this and other governments in Canada.
I indicated this afternoon that the government is taking important steps now to buttress and expand its support in these fields through the Canadian assistance plan and medicare program which it hopes will soon be in effect, especially the latter, because it is the older groups which are most vulnerable to the high costs and uncertainty which relate to medical care. Although they will be assisted under the Canada assistance plan in regard to medicare, that is not the complete assistance they would receive under the national plan.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that we are continuing to give consideration to the provision which has been made for old age pensioners. In this regard we are examining a number of different approaches; their effectiveness in meeting the needs of older people; and their impact on over-all priorities. We must never forget that these priorities include education, training and family allowances which are now under consideration, and other important
January 20, 1966
social programs. We have to balance the various categories of needs; and then we have to relate the over-all expenditures required to the economy and it is only, of course, out of an expanding economy that increasing social and welfare needs can be responsibly met.
Canadian budgetary problems are of course, and should be, subordinate to human problems. But budgetary difficulties and economic difficulties can prevent our doing for people what we want to do for them. The general nature of the budgetary problems which parliament will face this year, as indicated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) earlier this month, is a serious one. Obviously it will be premature and certainly unwise for me to try to be specific on this subject. The most important major factors to be taken into account are already public knowledge. They show that our expenditures would be substantially higher than those of last year, partly because of the growth of a number of programs such as family allowances, hospital insurance, vocational training and others, and partly because of the important new programs which we hope to put into effect, such as the Canada assistance plan, the increased university grants which I mentioned this afternoon and of which I will have more to say this evening; the grant for scientific research for industry and important manpower programs. On the other hand our tax laws already include a provision to divert a higher fraction of income tax revenues to the provinces. The economic situation is not such as to suggest at this time that a large budgetary deficit would be appropriate. Consequently, as a responsible government we must watch the cost of new proposals to be undertaken this year.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) was worried about inflation. I would remind him that programs which he suggested this afternoon, however desirable they may be in themselves, and however necessary it may be to implement them, are very costly and will add hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to our expenditures. That has a bearing on the inflationary situation. This afternoon he mentioned how dangerous this situation is.
The second report of the Economic Council of Canada, a report for which we should be grateful because it underlines some of our problems and opportunities as the first report Sid, in dealing with these matters says that sur economy has now attained such a high
23033-5J

The Address-Mr. Pearson level of output, and our expansion is so great, that this means that there are now to be increased risks of various kinds of distortion and instability which could tend to undermine our ability to maintain sustained progress toward the 1970 potential.
This is the verdict of the Economic Council. You look at these matters objectively and dispassionately. In their membership are representatives of all elements of our community. I do not know whether the right hon. gentleman, in suggesting this afternoon a reconstitution of the productivity council, was going to do away with the Economic Council. I hope not, because the Economic Council does the work the productivity council does, and much more besides as a result of its broader basis.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Having called attention, and rightly, to the dangers of inflation, this report went on to refer-and I quote the words of the report-to "our relative success in Canada in maintaining reasonable price and cost stability." It went on to say that the indicated average annual rates of change in this period, in the first half of the sixties, have generally been no higher than in the preceding five years, a period certainly of expansion with its inflationary forces. It also pointed out that the relatively moderate over-all extent of price increases in Canada over recent years has been quite remarkable in view of the widespread strengthening of demand forces.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it seems clear, according to this expert council in its objective survey, that while one must be aware of the dangers of inflation which could destroy our economic expansion and stability, nevertheless we do not wish to exaggerate these dangers to the point where we put a brake on our expansion in trying to deal with them. This is the problem the government faces. We have to reconcile, or do our best to reconcile, both these possible dangers.
It is obvious to any of us that the economy, which we were told this afternoon we had sold out to the United States, has never been more prosperous, and the general outlook for the months ahead in 1966 is favourable, subject of course to national and international security being observed. Last year Canadians produced more than $51 billion worth of goods and services, more than 9 per cent above 1964 and almost one fifth higher than in 1963. This broad expansion in economic activity was shared pretty generally across the country, though there have been and still are pockets of underdevelopment and
68	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Pearson poverty which I will mention later. This has enabled more Canadians to be employed and our stock of capital goods to be increased substantially. It has provided the basis for higher living standards for Canadians than ever achieved before. Over the last two years, and allowing for increases in prices and in population, the output for every Canadian has increased by about 9 per cent. That is the real output.
Most important of all, Mr. Speaker, this expansion has led to a reduction in unemployment, and thus alleviated a serious economic and social problem which has plagued us for many years. Last year our unemployment rate averaged below 4 per cent, which is the lowest it has been since 1956. More recently the unemployment rate has declined to about 3.5 per cent, and in many parts of our country workers with skills are in very great demand indeed. We have adopted in government special policies to reduce unemployment further in those areas where it remains high, and to provide further training-and my hon. friends opposite began this program-for those whose skills are not up to standard.
All of us would want this prosperity to continue, and on the broadest possible basis. Jobs must be made available to all those young Canadians coming in to the labour force and those who will be coming in to the force in increasing numbers in the years ahead. Finding jobs for them will not be enough. All of us are now aware of the opportunities which modern technology has opened for providing even higher material standards of living, and for all of us to share in the benefits. For this we need to keep up with the most modern and efficient industrial methods, and we must further improve the skills of our people upon whom ultimately the health of our economy depends. We need to provide them with the best education-and the Economic Council report keeps returning to this on almost every page-and the most modern machinery with which to carry out the tasks for which education will qualify them. We need to provide our businessmen with the fullest opportunity to compete in the expanding markets both here and abroad. We need to adapt our institutions, both private and governmental, to the new environment in which we now live, and that is only one reason why we are bringing in our government reorganization bill.
All these things cannot be done easily, or perhaps quickly, and they do not depend for

DEBATES	January 20, 1966
their success entirely on our own efforts. Because we live in an interdependent world, successful economic policies in other countries are important to the successful achievement of our own economic goals. Few countries in this world today can live prosperously as islands unto themselves, and Canada is certainly not one of them. Accordingly we place the highest importance in the conduct of our national, economic and financial relations with other countries, and we want to play our proper role in building and developing a healthy international environment.
It is well to remind ourselves of these things, Mr. Speaker, when we talk and worry about-as we should-national control of national development. We cannot hope, however, to build our future prosperity on the success of other people's policies and rely on others, and more particularly the United States, to solve our problems. So we have obviously to do everything possible to ensure by our own efforts that we sustain and prolong our current and unprecedented period of growth and prosperity in Canada. All Canadians, and perhaps primarily Canadians in government and in politics, can assist in achieving this goal by not trying to gain at the expense of others, or by some exploiting others, on the assumption that times are good and no harm will come from such action. Any such purely selfish course would, of course, in all likelihood, lead to unacceptable increases in prices; it would hinder our progress and cause us to lose the markets we have been building up abroad. Those who make the decisions affecting the determination of prices and profits, costs and wages, must keep this in mind, as well as the fact that our real wealth and improvements in our standard of life are based upon productivity and the efficiency with which we conduct our economic affairs.
While we can rejoice in our economic expansion and prosperity, we can never get full satisfaction out of this till we eliminate the pockets of poverty, both urban and rural, which are still in this country. Distress and degradation in this country are intolerable in any area or in any class of our affluent society.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Prosperity must be shared by all citizens. There must be equality of opportunity for all Canadians in all parts of this country and our policies as a government are designed to help bring this about.
January 20, 1966	COMMONS
This leads me to say something in greater detail about education. The second annual report of the Economic Council of which I have just been speaking reaffirms the conclusion-and I quote-that education is "a crucially important factor contributing to economic growth and to rising living standards." The Council recommends, without giving much direct guidance as to how this is to be achieved, that the advancement of education at all levels be given a very high place in public policy and that investment in education be accorded the highest rank in the scale of priorities.
Last October the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada submitted jointly to the government of Canada and the governments of the provinces proposals based on the report made to the association by its commission on the financing of higher education in Canada. In a public statement at that time I welcomed this submission by the association and, while recognizing that under our constitution the jurisdiction over education is that of the provinces, I accepted on behalf of the federal government a responsibility to consider these recommendations which had been directed by the association to the federal government as well as to the provincial governments. I emphasized that the response to these important recommendations on the development of the human resources of Canada should be a joint response of the provincial and federal governments, and undertook to propose to the provinces a special federal-provincial conference-another federal-provincial conference-to consider the universities' proposals.


John George Diefenbaker: Behind closed doors?


Lester Bowles Pearson: A conference which would be called and held in the normal fashion applicable to such conferences. In the years from 1958 to 1963 I do not recall any federal-provincial conference of this nature being held in public, or any conferences of federal-provincial officials being held in public. I might also recall, Mr. Speaker, that once when I was holding a job as secretary of federal-provincial conferences, when Mr. Bennett was Prime Minister in 1933, I suggested to him that we might hold at least our first meeting in public. But he did not think that was very wise.
Circumstances have not permitted an early federal-provincial conference for this purpose, and at the meeting in December of the tax structure committee, it was suggested that the federal government should make a
DEBATES	69
The Address-Mr. Pearson decision concerning interim arrangements for the academic year 1966-67 without waiting for a general conference, bearing in mind that it is normal for the provincial governments to review university budgets in the month of January. Having this in mind and also that the provincial governments will wish to incorporate in their own budgets a level of support appropriate to the needs of the universities in 1966-67, the government has decided to adopt this suggested interim procedure, as I indicated this afternoon.
In order, however, to consider the longer term responses of the federal and provincial governments and the relationship between them, it will in our view be necessary to discuss them at a federal-provincial conference and I hope that an opportunity for such discussions can be arranged within the next few months.
The interim arrangement which we propose to outline will be applicable to the academic year 1966-67 only, and is made without prejudice to that which may obtain thereafter. It deals only with an increase in grants which should help materially to meet the operating costs of the universities.
Subject to the approval of parliament, the federal government is prepared for the academic year 1966-67 to increase its per capita operating grants, as I have already indicated, from $2 to $5.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In provinces other than
Quebec, the grants would be paid, as now, through the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, to universities which are recognized by that association as eligible for such grants under its agreement with the federal government. We propose to arrange with the association that the distribution to universities within each province shall be made in accordance with the formula proposed by the association in its submission to the federal and provincial governments in October, which takes into account not only the number of students at each university but also whether they are full time or part time, whether they are in graduate courses or undergraduate courses and, to some extent, the nature of the courses they are taking.
For Quebec, the abatement of corporation tax equivalent to the existing $2 per capita grant will be continued, but to give effect to the proposed increase in that province, a cash payment would be made to bring total federal assistance to that province to a level which is in proportion by population to what all other provinces are receiving. The fact that the
January 20, 1966

The Address-Mr. Pearson organization and institutions of education in Quebec are considerably different from those in other provinces warrants, in our view, the continuation of special arrangements with Quebec in respect of those grants.
In considering the form of payments through the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the federal government feels that something additional should be included in the grants to universities in those provinces that take a higher proportion of out-of-province students. To give effect to this principle the grants will be paid in the form of a basic grant per capita of the population of each of the provinces concerned, supplemented by an amount per out-of-province student in each province equal to the average of the basic grant per student in all these provinces. I hope all hon. members understood that. These basic grants together with the supplementary grants will provide an average of $5 per capita, but the distribution to universities will be higher in those provinces with a higher ratio of out-ofprovince students.
This arrangement, if approved by parliament, will increase the federal contribution in respect of universities in all provinces for the academic year 1966-67 by an estimated $60 million to a total just under $100 million.
It is the earnest hope of the government that this interim arrangement for federal grants to universities, together with the action which provincial governments will take in respect of the needs of universities in the academic year 1966-67, will constitute a constructive step forward in making a joint response to the need for adequate financing of higher education in Canada. It, of course, leaves to the provinces full responsibility for legislation in respect of university affairs.
Perhaps I should refer to one or two other subjects which were mentioned by the right hon. gentleman, though I am bound to say there are many matters contained in the Speech from the Throne with which I shall not be dealing at all-matters as important as those I have been considering today. These will be dealt with by the Ministers directly concerned with them.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Die-fenbaker) drew attention to the desirability of doing something at once about the situation with regard to capital punishment. I could not agree with him more. It is, I think, essential that a decision be taken by this parliament one way or another with the least possible delay so as to get out of the situation
[Mr. Pearson.1

we are in now, where every case for commutation has to be considered bearing in mind that capital punishment may be abolished in a week or so. It does not make a problem which is agonizing in any event, any easier to deal with when one is dealing with it in these circumstances.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
My right hon. friend said that while he was in office they had only commuted sentences when there was a recommendation for mercy from the judge or jury.


John George Diefenbaker: No, that is a misunderstanding. I said we made it clear that any recommendation for mercy would assure a commutation, not that there would only be a commutation if a recommendation were made. If I made that statement, it is not correct.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I secured the record on that point, and it shows there were 15 cases between December 1958 and March 1963, in all of which the death sentence was commuted by the previous administration, though neither the judge nor jury recommended mercy. In any event, I hope before many days have gone by the members of this house will have an opportunity to declare themselves, as members of the house, on this important problem, and settle it once and for all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My right hon. friend also referred to the fact that we said very little in the Speech from the Throne about constitutional amendment, and that we seemed to have dropped the Fulton-Favreau formula. We have not dropped it, Mr. Speaker. We shall do our best to put it into effect if and when we get the agreement of all the provinces; but without that agreement it cannot be done. I wish very much it could be put into effect: I believe it is a good formula. I know my right hon. friend does not think it is a good formula. He has attacked it very vigorously-not immediately after it was adopted, but subsequent to that time.


John George Diefenbaker: At all times.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, I have got some interesting quotations on that point.


John George Diefenbaker: That's all right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is very interesting to note that a former minister of justice who is now the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), and who unfortunately is not in his seat-and I regret having to refer to him when he is not here-has indicated on more than one occasion
January 20, 1966

how much he welcomed this formula of constitutional amendment. Also, the Premier of Manitoba thought it was fine. He called it the "Fulton formula". As a matter of fact Premier Roblin said on October 24, 1964 that the delegation provisions of the draft were "exactly the same as under the Fulton formula".
The hon. member for Kamloops was reported on November 5, 1964 as saying that the present formula for repatriating the constitution is "essentially the same as the scheme advanced in 1962", and on November 4, 1964 he went even further in his praise of this formula to the point-and again I wish he were here-that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), referring to his endorsation of the plan at that time, circulated a memorandum charging the hon. member with treason. The hon. member for Kamloops had better look out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Premier Robarts has also given the formula endorsation, and it is regrettable that we have not been able to achieve unanimity with all the provinces so that we could proceed with this matter and patriate the Canadian constitution.


John George Diefenbaker: Didn't Mr. Lesage say it was a dead duck?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was a good working
formula put forward by the former minister of justice.
This afternoon the right hon. gentleman had a good deal to say about parliament. I of course agreed with what he said about the importance of maintaining our parliamentary traditions, our parliamentary practices, and keeping strong and healthy parliamentary institutions. I think we are all in agreement on that, but I hope we are also in agreement on bringing our practices, our rules and procedures, without sacrificing any of our traditions, into line with the necessities, needs and requirements for our work in the sixties. That is why I was glad to note the progress made in this direction during the last parliament, and I hope that progress will be continued during the twenty seventh parliament of Canada.
It is also equally important to bring the executive procedures of government into line with the new age, the new governmental age. That is the purpose and the significance of the government's organization bill which will be introduced into the house shortly, and which has already been criticized. Indeed it was criticized this afternoon by the right hon. gentleman.
The Address-Mr. Pearson
I do not propose to say very much about this bill now, because I shall have a lot to say about it when it is introduced. Its broad outlines are already known and most of the bill's more immediate objectives are being implemented already by the use of the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act; but certain statutory changes are required to establish the new and effective departments in a final and orderly form. Those changes can only be made by parliament and a bill will be submitted to the house for that purpose.
I am not going into the matter in any detail now, but I would point out there has been widespread public and press approval which shows that the changes have been recognized as meeting changing conditions and changing needs, and that this reorganization will facilitate more effective action in a number of important areas of governmental responsibility. They also follow the fines laid down by the Economic Council in its second report.
We face-and it is trite so say it-a great many problems at the present time, some old ones, some new ones. In facing up to them I suggest we should have the courage to see the Canadian situation as it really is, not as we fear it might be, not as we think it should be. As a result of the work, the ingenuity and the determination of almost 100 years, Canada has been transformed from an agricultural to a highly industrialized state. This creates many of these problems I have been talking about, and others I have not been talking about, but it also gives us new opportunities.
We have not only economic, financial and social problems, but we have political and constitutional problems arising out of the federal character of our state. We must find new methods of co-operating with the provinces. We must improve old ones. We must decide on the priority of problems which confront our country, political as well as economic, and find new administrative and political techniques and frameworks within which each region of Canada can develop according to its own particular requirements, but as part of a strong and united country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This afternoon the right hon. gentleman complained that we were having too many federal-provincial meetings. I wish he would point out one of them in the last 12 months that he would have cancelled if he had been in office. He complained that we were holding these meetings in secret, not in
January 20, 1966

The Address-Mr. Pearson public. I wish he would point out the federal-provincial meetings during his administration that were held in public.
Many of these meetings of officials must be held in secret because the officials will be reporting to their ministers when they return to their capitals; and if they come to any recommendations involving any change in policy, these have to be submitted to the legislatures for approval. That is the way our parliamentary institutional system works. That is the way it should work, and if this parliament does not provide the money for carrying out these policies then none of them can be brought into effect.
The right hon. gentleman this afternoon went so far as to suggest that perhaps I should have had my dinner with Premier Lesage in public. I am sure that if I had invited the right hon. gentleman he would have enjoyed the evening.


John George Diefenbaker: I would have certainly learned a lot about the schemes you perpetrated between you.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If I thought the right hon. gentleman would have learned a lot, I certainly would have invited him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not mind telling him in confidence about the very pleasant evening it was, and also in confidence that I offered Premier Lesage a drink, but he said he would prefer the fiscal equivalent.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Far from cutting down the facilities that we have developed for federal-provincial meetings and federal-provincial co-operation, I suggest we should make the most of every opportunity for such co-operation. We must also create and maintain the conditions, apart from the constitutional aspects of federal-provincial co-operation, in which English and French speaking citizens can live together in this country as Canadians in harmonious partnership. We must determine how French speaking Canadians and French speaking Canada can develop in its own way, while maintaining the unity of our country. It is no longer a question of which policies will be pleasant or popular: It is a question of what is necessary for Canada as we move into our second century as a state. We must find out what is required to strengthen national unity and national identity, but our unity must also recognize the duality of our origin and the multiracial character of our social, cultural and political development.

It must be a unity based on the English and French speaking partnership of rights and responsibilities developed within the constitution. It must be a partnership that makes possible full participation of French speaking citizens in the development not only of Quebec but of the whole of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, that will not happen if we think of the recognition of the rights of French speaking Canadians as a concession; if we do not accept wholeheartedly the fact that both our founding ethnic groups-and every other ethnic group-have essential contribution to make to the future of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think this kind of partnership is the only possible basis for a one-Canada in the future. If we try to convert this partnership into a monolithic unity we will not strengthen Canadian unity but will weaken and perhaps destroy it.
This means that the government at the national level must be bilingual and bicultural, when that is necessary, to put French speaking Canadians on the same footing as English speaking Canadians. This is our national policy-perhaps I may call it that- which must be based on the principles of cooperative federalism. That means first that each level of government must keep strictly within the jurisdiction given it by the constitution. This applies to the provincial governments as well as the federal government.
In fields of concurrence, overlapping or complementary jurisdiction, federal and provincial policies and actions must be concerted through consultation or negotiation leading to agreement that will promote the interests and welfare of the Canadian people as a whole.
Surely that means that in the future the federal government should exercise great care in agreeing on joint programs with the provinces in which all the provinces do not participate. There may be occasions when this is desirable and necessary and we should exercise great care when the federal government wishes to initiate a program of joint activity. When the provinces wish to do this it might be well for them first to iron out their own differences about the nature and extent of federal participation, so that the federal government will not be put in the position of causing or exaggerating these differences.
This must especially be the case in the field of social security and welfare. Here legislative jurisdiction and administrative responsibility belong primarily but not exclusively to
January 20, 1966	COMMONS
the provinces. The federal government, however, has an obligation in these fields to provide leadership and direction in matters of national concern, and to establish national standards providing for interprovincial transferability of benefits.
In the field of general economic and fiscal policy, as contrasted with social policy, jurisdiction and responsibility is, and must remain, with the federal government. The provinces must not try to take over matters within federal jurisdiction, even though they may be of understandable interest to the provinces, and although they may be entitled to ask for consultation.
To avoid conflict here, there must be better arrangements for federal-provincial consultation on all matters of concern. There must be greater mutual understanding and less talk that causes misunderstanding and controversy.
It is also essential that both federal and provincial governments have at their disposal the fiscal and financial means and resources required to discharge their constitutional responsibilities. For that we must rely on the tax structure committee to advise us on how all this can best be done through tax sharing and equalization. Equalization will become increasingly vital to our federal-provincial financial arrangements.
I have indicated the main principles of co-operative federalism. It can only be made to work successfully if two assumptions prove to be valid. The first is that a policy of adjustment to changing requirements and conditions of federalism is accepted on the federal side. The second is that on the side of the provinces, and in particular on the Quebec side, because in some social respects Quebec is not like the other provinces, there is a desire to preserve and strengthen Canadian unity in a federal state.
In regard to the first I think the federal government and the federal parliament has shown its good faith in recent years. As to the second, we have a right to receive some assurance by deed as well as by work. There can be no federal adaptability to provincial requirements successfully accomplished unless there is the conviction that every province wishes to see a strong confederation with a strong central government discharging the powers given to it by the constitution.
If federal compromises in the interest of agreements, which are valid and wise and some have been made which are valid and wise merely increase the appetite for conces-
DEBATES	73
The Address-Mr. Pearson sions which would not be valid or wise, and if the feeling develops that the federal government will always give way when pressed, then this country is in for serious trouble.


Michael Starr: What do you mean "if"?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I mean "if". I tell this house that if we do not meet the kind of concession arrangements with provinces that have worked during the last three years, and if we do not meet them in some of the difficulties which we have faced together in working out compromises, the strain on this country will be much greater than it has been in the past. There are two kinds of separatists which constitute a danger to our national future. There are separatists who would have nothing go to Ottawa and there are separatists who would keep everything in Ottawa. In any event, this government does not intend to be caught in a spiral of unilateral and unwise concessions which could destroy our federal system of government.
To avoid these dangers and fears, we must make clear what the essentials of the federal position are, from which we cannot and will not withdraw, if there is to be a Canada at all.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Mr. Graffiey:: It is about time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We should be flexible, but firm, as we have been on this question


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and we should say the same thing in Quebec as we say in British Columbia, unlike some of my hon. friends.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: You will win the fiction prize of the year.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: You flushed when you said that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am enjoying these interruptions. They show how seriously hon. gentlemen opposite, or some of them, take this very important subject. It is unfortunate that they bring the manners of the hustings to bear on such an occasion as this.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians today want a strong central government which can speak in the name of Canada, Canada as a whole, but one which will work in close co-operation with strong provincial governments. These Mr. Speaker, are words which I used in Montreal when I tried to speak French three years ago. I said the same thing then.
74	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Douglas


John George Diefenbaker: What date was that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Canadians want us in this house to speak for Canada in the name of our two official language groups. It is here that we can call upon Canadians of both languages to give joint and effective leadership in the affairs of Canada. Let us not forget that the people of Quebec are represented, and well represented, in this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Let us speak and act without ambiguity and without provocation about the major Canadian problems of our national unity, of the part to be played by French speaking Canadians in the effective conduct of our country. This government is committed, and has been committed since it took office-and has accepted and tried to discharge that commitment-to a policy of partnership and full participation. We want the new and dynamic Quebec to play its full and honoured part in the development of a new and proud Canada. Let us build together a Canada which can adjust its thinking in order to meet the new challenges of our society, while safeguarding the moral values and traditions we have already acquired. This is how we must build our country if we wish to realize the great destiny that can be Canada's as we approach our second century as a nation.
It may seem very important now to us, Mr. Speaker, in this chamber, but in the long record of history it will not matter much which government or which party was in power when Canada entered into its second century, or who was the leader of that government. It will matter much-indeed it could be decisive for Canada's future, whatever position we may hold, whatever responsibilities we may have-if we do not act to the very best of our ability to exploit every chance we may get, to use every quality we may possess in serving Canada as we face up to and in the end meet the challenges ahead.
We will then be judged in this parliament, Mr. Speaker, by our deeds and not by our words. I hope that on this basis the judgment will be a favourable one for the twenty seventh parliament.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with both the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in extending heartiest congratulations to the mover and seconder of the

DEBATES	January 20, 1966
address in reply to the Speech from the Throne and say that I am sure it is the opinion of all hon. members of the house that they discharged their responsibilities yesterday in a manner that brought credit both to themselves and to their constituencies.
After millions of words of forensic oratory last September and October, and after millions of dollars of public expenditure, we are back here at the same old stand in a parliament whose composition is not too greatly different from its predecessor. Once more we have a parliament of minorities. It is rather significant that four out of the last five parliaments have been ones in which there was a minority government.
In the recent election the New Democratic party took the position that minority government was not necessarily bad, and majority government was not necessarily good; that we had had minority governments which had succeeded in placing progressive legislation on the statute books, and that we had had majority governments that had settled into a state of arrogance and apathy. It really depends upon the attitude of both the government and the opposition, and I mean all opposition parties, as to whether progress can be achieved in a house of minorities.
The New Democratic party believes that the people of Canada want parliament to attend to the nation's business with a minimum of political manoeuvring and partisan bickering. There is a great backlog of work from the last parliament, plus the business which has been announced in the Speech from the Throne. This will call for a maximum effort if this parliament is to be effective and efficient.
On behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic party, we pledge ourselves to co-operate in expediting the work of this session. However, that does not mean that the dislike of an election should be used by the government as an excuse for sinking into apathy, nor should it prevent hon. members from seeking an expression of opinion from the house on vital and essential questions affecting the well-being of the Canadian people. In a multi-party parliament we shall have to find some way of working out government by consensus.
The New Democratic party does not believe that an expression of opinion contained in an amendment to the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, or an amendment to the budget, or a supply motion necessarily or inherently constitutes a motion of no confidence. There have been instances
January 20, 1966	COMMONS
in parliament where such amendments have been passed without resulting in a dissolution of parliament.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
It has been argued that if one accepts this interpretation it prevents the opposition from turning the government out. This is not correct, because at any time the opposition can move an amendment in specific terms to the effect that the government has lost the confidence of the house and the country. If there were sufficient support for such an amendment, it would be carried. But if an amendment which merely seeks to get an expression of opinion from the house as a whole were passed, the government has three choices. It can, if it chooses, interpret the passing of the amendment as a want of confidence and can act accordingly. Second, it can accept the amendment as reflecting the views of the majority of members in the House of Commons. Third, it can if it chooses submit on its own initiative a motion of confidence to ascertain whether the house wants a dissolution.
We in this party do not intend to be gagged by any fear of an election. We reserve the right not only to express our opinion, but also to ask the house to express its opinion on any matter which we feel to be vitally important.
This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) took some exception to this view. He had a much more ingenious interpretation of parliamentary tradition. He said that the passing of an amendment does not necessarily involve dissolution of parliament; that the government can simply resign; that the Governor General can then call upon him to form a government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This comes strangely from the Leader of the Opposition who, in January, 1958, excoriated the opposition of that day for making just such a suggestion.


Erik Nielsen: He just suggested that they change places.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Actually what the Leader of the Opposition suggested was that the members of this parliament make him Prime Minister, despite the fact that the Canadian people in two elections by a vote of two to one refused to make him Prime Minister. I wish to say in all kindliness to my friends of the P.C.P., that much as the Canadian people dislike the idea of an election, I think they would dislike even more the idea of having the Tories again in office.
DEBATES	75
The Address-Mr. Douglas


Gordon Minto Churchill: They will never have the N.D.P.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In the light of what I have said, I would like to look at the amendment which has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I want to make it perfectly clear to the house that we disagree with the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition and his party that an increase in the old age security pension ought to be financed out of the Canada pension fund. The Canada pension fund was set up for the purpose of providing social security and certain benefits to those who have contributed to it over a period of years. It ought not to be interfered with in any way. Any increase in the old age pension ought to be paid for out of the old age security fund, as the pension has been paid in the past and as it should be in the future.
This amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition makes no mention of where the money should come from. Therefore, because of the terms in which it is phrased, namely that the government has failed to provide for an immediate increase from $75 to $100 a month for all recipients under the Old Age Security Act-with that we agree completely and we will support it.
However, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -the official opposition has only dealt with part of the problem. We agree with its suggestion that the pension should be raised from $75 to $100 a month. However, at the present time no person is eligible to receive that pension until he is 69 years of age. That began only on the 1st of January.
In Canada today retirement for most people takes place at 65 years of age and not at 69 or 70. At the present time the government itself has embarked upon a stage by stage reduction of the age at which the pension will be paid, so that by 1970 persons of 65 will be entitled to the full pension. We do not believe that those who are 66, 67 and 68, as well as those who are 65 right now ought to be penalized because they were born too soon. There is no reason why people in that age group should be refused that benefit, when people five years from now will be entitled to their rights.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I propose to move, seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis):
That the amendment be amended by deleting the period at the end thereof and by adding the following words:
"and have failed to provide for the immediate lowering of the eligible age to 65."
76	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Douglas
Mr. Speaker, may I now turn to the Speech from the Throne, which can be termed a potpourri of warmed up left-overs. This is understandable, because the promises which it contains and which have appeared on at least two previous occasions are just as good as new. They have never been used. They have never been implemented.
There is one note of comfort. It is that the government has at least made reference to the second annual review of the Economic Council of Canada and to the need for maintaining economic growth. In this report the council points out that productivity gains in Canada in 1965, and indeed in the past several years, are below what might have been expected in a period of rapid growth in our economy. Indeed, they have fallen short of what the United States has been able to achieve in the same period. They have fallen short of the gain made in productivity in Canada from 1950 to 1955, the previous period of high economic growth. The Economic Council of Canada placed the issue squarely before the Canadian people, when at page 33 of its review it said:
The most important current problem is to achieve and maintain adequate productivity growth. This is the key to economic growth and to rising living standards for Canadians.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
At page 17 of their review the council said:
Thus, on the basis of existing information, a still higher rate of productivity growth would appear to be required over the next five years to attain potential output by 1970.
I remind the house that one of the goals to which the council is referring is the goal of creating one and a half million jobs by 1970. The fact is that our economy is not yet operating at full potential. Our ability to raise living standards, to wage war on poverty and to contribute to the needs of the world's underdeveloped areas depends on our being able to increase Canada's productivity.
There are many factors which are involved in increasing productivity-capital, both industrial capital and social capital; quality of production facilities; specialization; manpower; natural resources. Some of my colleagues will be dealing with aspects of these problems. I want to deal, as briefly as I can, with four important factors in increasing productivity, namely education, manpower training, health and social security.
May I deal first with education as a major factor in promoting increased productivity. The Economic Council in its review finds that although price levels in Canada and the

DEBATES '	January 20, 1966
United States are roughly equal, the level of income in Canada is about 25 per cent lower than in the United States. This income gap is difficult to understand when one recalls that over the past 50 years Canada has had certain advantages over the United States. Firs* we have had a larger shift of manpower from low-paid agriculture to higher levels of income in other sectors of the economy. Second, we have had a higher level of capital investment per employed worker. Third, we have had a more rapid rate of increase in population.
The Economic Council maintains that the explanation for the lower level of Canadian income per employed person lies in the educational gap and in the difference in quality of technological skills between the two countries. The Bladen report pointed out that less than one Canadian in ten between the ages of 18 and 24 is attending a university or college, whereas in the United States the ratio is much closer to one in three. The Economic Council points out that the educational gap between Canada and the United States appears to have widened, particularly at the secondary school level during the inter-war years and at the university level during the post-war years. In 1960, 45 per cent of the male labour force in the United States had four years high school education, as compared to only 24 per cent in Canada. In the same year in the United States 11.1 per cent of the male labour force had completed university; in Canada the figure was 5.6 per cent.
We have come to the place, Mr. Speaker, where educational opportunity is not only an individual right but a social necessity if we are to enjoy increased productivity and hence higher standards of living. During the past half century United States productivity has remained ahead of Canada's because the United States has chosen to invest a greater proportion of its resources in education. The time has come for Canada to allocate vast sums of money for academic and technical education at all levels, and particularly for upgrading the educational qualifications of those who are employed in jobs that have been, or are likely to be, eliminated by automation and technological change.
The Speech from the Throne makes reference to scholarships and bursaries, and this afternoon the Prime Minister announced an increase in grants to universities of an average of $5 per capita. I am sure that this will be welcomed in all parts of Canada and particularly in university circles.
January 20, 1966

However, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that we will not close this educational gap unless the government is prepared to do two things: first, provide universities and technical institutes with sufficient additional revenue so that they can eliminate entirely tuition fees; second, provide capital and construction grants so that the facilities can be increased and the number of teachers required trained to meet the student explosion which will certainly take place within the next five or ten years.
Scholarships and bursaries will help students meet living expenses. I think the government must move in the direction of the elimination of student fees, so that education is free and available to every person capable of making use of it, right from grade one up to as high in the educational and technical field as a student's ability will take him or her. I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this investment will be more than repaid by the contribution which these young people will make to the Canada of the future. As a matter of fact, when one realizes that in 1960 the average income of a person who had completed high school was $2,000 a year more than a person who had only finished public school, and that a university graduate's income was on the average $3,700 a year higher than those who had completed high school, one can see that over their working lifetime these students will more than pay back in income tax alone the money which has been invested in their education by the people of Canada.
The second factor in productivity is manpower training. Economic growth depends on technical skill and the adaptability of our labour force. Last year the Economic Council pointed out the need for a manpower policy. The government tried to bluff this off as being an unwarranted criticism, but I am very glad to say that they have taken the criticism to heart.
The council pointed out that we needed three things. We needed first a proper administrative set-up, one department with all the agencies contributing to manpower needs under one minister. I am glad that the Prime Minister has decided to take that step; and the new minister, who I think has some excellent qualifications for the task, will have at his disposal all the ingredients necessary to produce a real manpower program, provided he gets from his colleagues the necessary funds to put such a program into effect.
The second thing which is required is a vast training and retraining program, not
The Address-Mr. Douglas only for unemployed persons but for workers who desire to upgrade their educational standards and acquire new skills. But if a retraining program is to work there must be adequate allowances so that the men can take these courses without having to impose hardship on their families. A retraining program will work only if there is a proper placement and counselling service-because there is little value in giving men new skills if we cannot help them get jobs in which they can use their new techniques. Third, there has to be a system of mobility grants. I note the Economic Council at page 184 of its review says:
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
We have, furthermore, serious reservations concerning the division of unemployed workers into two different categories in the administration of this program, with one category qualifying for outright grants and the other receiving loans repayable over a two-year period .... Apart from difficulties which must surely arise in administering these two kinds of assistance, it seems to us that the loan feature of this program will prove self-defeating.
I agree wholeheartedly with that conclusion. I hope the Government will eliminate the loan feature and increase the mobility grants in order to make this manpower program effective.
Let me now deal with the question of health as a factor in productivity. In 1963, it is estimated, over 100 million man-days were lost to Canadian industry through illness. This cost the Canadian economy $1,630 millions or 3.8 per cent of the gross national product, and even this figure does not begin to estimate the effect upon men who continue to work, though they are suffering from ill health. Health is just as important as education in promoting economic growth and a higher standard of living.
Mr. Justice Hall, speaking here in the city of Ottawa to a conference on November 28 last, made these observations:
Education by itself will not give Canada the citizens it must have to achieve the goals this country is capable of attaining, not only for its own citizens, but for humanity at large. The citizen must not only be educated, he must be healthy physically and mentally, otherwise much of the vast sums spent on education will not bring the rewards in human well-being and national prosperity which their expenditures are aimed to achieve . . .
There cannot and must not be any question of conflict or of priority between the needs of better education and those of good health. The economy of Canada is strong enough to carry concurrently these two essential companion services. A study of expenditures, personal and public, in other fields will convince you of that.
January 20, 1966

The Address-Mr. Douglas
I agree completely with that statement.
Mr. Speaker, on July 19 and 20 last a federal-provincial conference was held to discuss medicare. At that time the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) laid down four excellent principles. The first was that at this stage medicare was to apply to physicians services, both general practitioner and specialist.
Second, the program was to have universal coverage. In his excellent speech, which I will not take the time to read extensively, the Prime Minister rejected the principle of "need theory"; he said he rejected it because it set up an undesirable distinction according to income level. The Prime Minister said no extension of private plans would meet all the needs. He said this plan should be universal on the same basis as hospital insurance coverage.
The third principle was that the plan should be administered by the provincial governments-that they must take full responsibility. He said it was necessarily a replacement of existing plans of other types.
The fourth principle was transferability. The Prime Minister pointed out that, like hospital insurance, medicare must be available to Canadians as they move from province to province and from place to place.
All of us were pleased by this statement from the Prime Minister, which was fully in accord with the recommendations of the Hall Commission. But we were disappointed when in Calgary on October 20 the Prime Minister seemed to waffle on the principles of universality and government administration, faced as he was by the aggressive opposition of the Premier of Alberta. I want to say to the Prime Minister that in the opinion of this party nothing could be more disastrous than a phony medicare program based on a division of patients into those who can pay the premium under private plans on one hand and those who are required to pass a humiliating means test in order to receive medical assistance, on the other hand. We believe medical care must be free to all without regard to physical or financial condition and that to adopt any other kind of program would set medicare back a quarter of a century.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Government has received an excellent blueprint from the Hall Commission. I hope it will have the courage to follow that report and to believe that the great bulk of the Canadian people will support it if courageous steps are taken. I am

disturbed, however, by a sentence in the Speech from the Throne which says:
When discussions with the provinces have been sufficiently advanced, legislation to carry out these proposals will be placed before you.
Does this mean that unless the federal government can reach agreement with the provinces this plan will not be placed before the House in legislative form?
The reason I am fearful is this: The House will recall that in 1957 the Liberal government introduced the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. In that Act there was a provision that it would not become operative unless six provinces representing more than half the population of Canada agreed. Not a dollar was ever paid out under that act. I doubt if we would have hospital insurance today, if we had waited until all the conflicting groups had reached some agreement. Though on the hustings the Liberal party often takes credit for having brought in hospital insurance, the fact is that not one nickel was ever paid out under the legislation while they were in office. I must give to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) the credit to which he is entitled. One of the first things his government did was to remove that provision and to allow the provinces to come in as soon as they were ready. Two provinces, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, already had hospital insurance plans which had been in operation for many years. When they came in, other provinces decided to come in and it was only a short time before all the provinces decided to avail themselves of the legislation.
I wish to urge the Prime Minister on this question of medicare, which is so vital to the people of Canada, to speak for the Canadian people and not to allow any premiers who may have been influenced by special privileged groups, who want to retain private plans, to obstruct the introduction of medicare in Canada. I want to urge the Prime Minister to follow the gleam which was lit by the Hall Commission. Take, for instance, the statement made yesterday by the Premier of Ontario, who said the plan was not acceptable because while the federal government would give $98 million to Ontario it would cost the province an additional $182 million. When someone asked one of his aides to explain how this figure of $182 million was arrived at, he said: "It will cost forty dollars per capita for medicare."
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the Prime Minister's statement
January 20, 1966

before the federal-provincial conference which limits the contribution to Ontario to $98 million. There is no limitation to $14 per capita. Let me read the Prime Minister's words:
The federal government is prepared to accept fiscal responsibility for an amount per capita of approximately one half of the national cost of medicare programs based on the proposed definition.
Then he goes on to say:
We estimate this half to be $14 per capita in 1967.
I take it that if the cost is $30 per capita, the federal government will pay half.
What about this cost of $40 per capita? The report of the Saskatchewan Hospital Care Commission, a plan which has been in operation for three years, has just been published, and if hon. members take the trouble to look at that report they will find that the average cost for the year 1964 was $24.77 per capita. Therefore, when the Prime Minister makes an estimate of $28 per capita for a national average, I think this is a very reasonable figure. But, according to the Prime Minister's statement, if it costs more than $28 per capita the federal government will still pay half.
I want to plead with the Prime Minister not to allow this befogging of an important issue by some people, who seem to be more interested in keeping the private insurance companies in the medicare field than in getting progressive legislation on the statute books, to keep him from doing the things he started out to do.
The fourth thing I want to deal with is social security as a factor in productivity. There was a time when it was thought in some quarters that insecurity and a fear of want were necessary goads to compel workers to produce. But today social science has demonstrated that people work most effectively when their worries have been reduced to a minimum and when they have achieved freedom from fear and freedom from want.
I am saying that social security is a prime prerequisite to any program designed to raise productivity. Today we are supporting an amendment calling for a $100 a month pension. We have moved an amendment saying it should be paid at age 65 without a means test. Earlier today the Prime Minister described this as being irresponsible. I want to remind him that as far back as November 1961, at a meeting in Manitowaning, in his own constituency, he described the N.D.P. proposal that the old age pension should be raised from $65 to $75 as being irresponsible.
The Address-Mr. Douglas However, in the recent election he and his colleagues were going around asking people to give them some political credit for their "irresponsibility."
The Prime Minister made his major case for not increasing the pension to $100 a month payable at age 65 on the fact that this would cost some $855 million. Let us see how this figure is made up. The cost of raising the pension to $100 a month for those who are now 70 and over, will be $225 million and the cost of dropping the age to 65 will be $630 million making a total of, as the Prime Minister said, $855 million. However, it is not quite fair to use this vast figure as a bogeyman to frighten people away from the proposal which we have put before the House and the country.
In the first place it should be pointed out that the government is already committed to lowering progressively the age at which the pension will be paid, and that when this transitional period is over, paying only $75 a month to this new age group from 65 to 70 is going to cost the federal government an additional $475 million. So we are not talking about $855 million: In reality we are talking about $380 million.
In the fiscal year 1965-66 the old age security fund will have a surplus of some $2162- million, so that now we are talking roughly of $160 million. May I also point out that this is a gross figure, not a net figure.
First of all, under the Old Age Assistance Act the federal and provincial governments are spending nearly $100 million a year and this, of course, will become unnecessary. In addition, under the proposed Canada Assistance Plan the federal government, along with the provinces, will save many millions of dollars in welfare payments that will be unnecessary if a pension of $100 a month is paid at age 65. Therefore I suggest that the cost is getting quite low.
Also I would point out that over the period of the next few years the economic growth, if continued at the rate that the Economic Council thinks it can be maintained given proper economic direction, will take care of a large part of the cost. If the economic growth and increased productivity are not sufficient, then I would remind the Prime Minister that on many occasions we in this party have made two proposals.
As hon. members know, the old age security pension is financed by a 3 per cent sales tax, a 3 per cent surcharge on corporation tax, and a 4 per cent surcharge on income on the first $3,000 of taxable income. If the
January 20, 1966

The Address-Mr. Douglas government needs more money, and it is doubtful that it will, it can raise the surcharge on corporations to 4 per cent so that it will be the same as the income tax levy. It can also raise the ceiling on the 4 per cent levy on income tax. There is no reason why a person who gets $10,000 a year-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I have to advise him that his time has expired unless he has the leave of the house to continue.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope the house gives him leave to continue because if he carries on he will have us making a profit.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Prime Minister that he will have a profit on the right side of the balance sheet, on the things that really matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was saying Mr. Speaker, that surely we ought not to stop at the first $3,000 of taxable income if we need funds for this purpose. There is no reason why people in the $10,000, $20,000 and $30,000 income categories ought not to be required to pay more than, say, a person earning $5,000, and if the government really needs money this is one of the ways it can get it.
May I thank the house for its kindness in giving me some additional time, and at the same time may I say something I omitted to say earlier and intended to, and that is to congratulate you, sir, on your election as Speaker of the House, to say how pleased we are at the way you have conducted the affairs of the house during the very short time you have occupied the chair, and to wish you well as you continue what is a very arduous responsibility.
The other matter I wish to mention is the question of regaining control of the Canadian economy. The Speech from the Throne has two sentences that are worth remembering. One says:
-it is fitting to reaffirm the values and purposes that unite all our people,-
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Later on it says:
The preservation and strengthening of Canadian identity and unity is the most important trust and responsibility of Parliament and of my Government.
We in this party agree wholeheartedly with those statements. Those are brave words but we should like to know what the government intends to do to preserve and strengthen


Canadian identity. As everyone knows, foreign investors now control major segments of our economy in the fields of manufacturing, mining and smelting, oil production and refining, the rubber industry, farm machinery and auto and aircraft manufacturing. Foreign investors are now moving into the insurance and financing fields. Our objection to this is not based on any sentimental grounds. It does not make much difference to a Canadian whether he is exploited by a Canadian capitalist or a United States capitalist, he is still being exploited.
Our objection is that increasingly the important decisions affecting the well-being of Canadians are being made outside of Canada by people who have loyalty to other countries than ours. We had a very good example of that this summer when three milling companies in Canada, subsidiaries of United States corporations, refused to mill flour for the Canadian government because that flour was being sold to Russia, which in turn intended to send it to Cuba. These corporations are doing business in Canada under the protection of Canadian laws with Canadian resources and Canadian workers, yet they feel that their loyalty is not to the country in which they are located but to the country in which their parent company is located. Surely this is untenable.
We may object to the violation of protocol Hon. Eric Kierans committed but the fact is that he spoke out for the people of Canada when he objected to United States foreign corporations milking their subsidiaries in Canada in order to help the United States deficit of payments problem, without regard to the effect their actions might have upon the Canadian economy or on Canada's deficit of payments problem.
Absorption always begins with economic control, followed by cultural assimilation by control of press, radio, television and periodicals. We should not forget that history teaches us that political power inevitably follows economic power, and that once a nation has tremendous sums of money invested in another country it must begin to exercise an influence on the political activity of that nation.
As we look at the situation in Canada we might well ask "where Canada is going?" Some one has suggested that we have passed the point of no return, but I personally do not believe that. Rather I think we should ask ourselves whether we are prepared to pay the price which will be necessary to regain control of the Canadian economy.
January 20, 1966	COMMONS
The former Minister of Finance, the member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon) started out three years ago with high hopes of buying back the Canadian economy. Now he is sitting with some other former ministers in the parliamentary penalty box. I am afraid he did not get much support from his colleagues in his fight to regain control of the Canadian economy.
I am wondering what the new team is going to do. I must say that my fears are not allayed when I see that the Departments of Finance and Trade and Commerce have been taken over by the gold dust twins from Bay Street. The real test of how serious the government's intentions are will be faced when it brings down legislation for the Canada Development Corporation. As it was originally envisaged, it was to be a government operated and sponsored corporation, through which the Canadian people could use their collective savings for the purpose of supplying equity capital for new industry, and buying industry that might fall into the hands of foreign investors. The savings might have been eventually used to buy back some of the Canadian economy.
Let me say to the government that if what it brings before us is that watered down version proposed last year, by which we are merely going to have a gigantic mutual investment fund controlled by financial institutions, what will eventually happen will be that the fund will be used to maximize profits. It will not be used to do the two things it ought to accomplish.
In the event the government does propose that watered-down version, this development corporation will not go into the underdeveloped areas of Canada where the risk is high and it will not be primarily concerned in the development of a Canadian identity.
This raises the question I put to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) yesterday. The Prime Minister ought to make a statement to us about this matter of membership in the Organization of American States. A few weeks ago in Jamaica he said that the government would seriously consider an invitation to join the O.A.S. At Banff a few months ago he said to some students:
I believe that before long we will take our share of responsibility as a member of the O.A.S.
That is a queer way to announce government policy-by statements tossed over the shoulder to a group of students, or in some other country. If the government seriously intends to take Canada into O.A.S. membership, it should state in this house what the
DEBATES	81
The Address-Mr. Douglas intention is, give us the reasoning behind that intention so parliament can have an opportunity of discussing the matter. I am sure that all members in the house, and certainly those of this party, want an assurance that no decision respecting joining the O.A.S. will be made, and that no commitments will be given until this whole question has been submitted to parliament, particularly to this parliament of minorities.
This whole question of Viet Nam, upon which the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) touched this afternoon, will have to be discussed more fully at some later date. In view of the fact it has been mentioned by both those gentlemen, I should like to say that we in this party believe the policies pursued by the United States in Viet Nam are wrong. We believe they are legally indefensible and morally inexcusable.,
President Johnson has appealed in letters to various countries for aid. We have not seen those letters and there is some dispute between the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) as to whether or not such a letter has been received or what it contains. Certainly Australia and New Zealand have interpreted letters of a similar nature as requests for military aid.
There can be no doubt about the appeal by Dean Rusk to NATO partners for assistance to the United States in Viet Nam. So far the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have hidden behind the fact that Canada is a member of the International Control Commission, and therefore any military aid from Canada would be out of the question.
We should have something better to say than that. Even if Canada were not a member of the International Control Commission, surely we ought to have a clear statement from the government that Canada will not participate in any military ventures in southeast Asia, except by way of action as a member of a peace keeping force under the United Nations or the Geneva accord powers. The Prime Minister should know that any attempt to involve Canada by giving military aid to the United States in Viet Nam in any way, shape or form will split this country as it has not been divided since 1917.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I want to say that as far as our party is concerned we will oppose any military participation by Canada with every force at our command. We do not say this because we are
January 20, 1966

The Address-Mr. Douglas anti-American. We must live in friendship with our great neighbour to the south, but good neighbourliness does not mean subservience. There are times when an honest, plain-speaking friend ought to warn us of our folly.
Canada's best role is not to defend United States policies in Viet Nam, as the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have done from time to time; our most effective role is to do what many influential Americans have been doing, and that is urge the United States to accept a strict adherence to the Geneva agreement, which means an eventual withdrawing by the United States of its troops from Viet Nam in order to allow the Vietnamese themselves, by free elections, to decide what form of government they will have and whether or not North Viet Nam and South Viet Nam shall be re-united.
Mr. Speaker, our world today trembles on the brink of a precipice that could plunge us into the third world war. This is not the time for syrupy diplomacy; this is the time for Canada to speak out, and to speak out firmly, for international justice and world peace.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, since there remains only-


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Jas-per-Edson (Mr. Horner) should receive Your Honour's recognition. While we are a multiparty house, there are numbers that deserve Your Honour's attention, if you will permit me to draw it to your attention. If we are to rotate in this and succeeding debates on the basis of party strengths in the house, you will find that the parties representing the largest numbers, both on the government side and on this side of the house, will be receiving the short end of the stick in regard to recognition.
It will mean that one in five speakers will come from government supporters and one in five from opposition supporters, which on the basis of numbers in this house is entirely unfair. I suggest to Your Honour that you should, in all fairness, recognize the hon. member for Jasper-Edson, go across the chamber and recognize a supporter of the government and then come back to this side of the house and following that, down to the other end of the chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I find it both sad and painful that Conservative members should be the first to repudiate the words of their leader who, but a few hours ago, spoke as the strongest defender of the traditions of this house.
Now, it has always been the tradition to recognize first the party leaders, that is, to give them the floor first during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I feel that this tradition, so strongly upheld this afternoon by the leader of the Conservative party, ought to be respected and that Conservative members should follow the words of their leader concerning the respect of tradition and allow party leaders to have the floor first, as it has been the custom since 1917, that is since there have been several parties in this house. Then, our democratic regime will be respected. I beg you, therefore, to recognize another party leader in the person of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette).


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the question, I should like to say that the government itself has set up the criteria for the recognition of what we might term parties in the house. Accordingly, with the understanding that I have, I would now move, under rule 29, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Horner) be now heard.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Michael Starr: It is not ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?
[English1


Mr. Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock, pursuant to subsection 2 of standing order 2 this house stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 10.54 p.m. the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Friday, January 21, 1966