1966-01-27

Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday during an exchange on the orders of the day a question was asked of me in relation to motor car prices, and I misunderstood the question. I had understood, in the background noise, that I was being asked whether I had said during the election campaign that there would be parity of car prices in Canada and the United States, to which my answer was no.
On reading Hansard I found that the question, as reported at page 282 of Hansard, was:
Did the minister not make an announcement during the election campaign to the effect that the price of Canadian cars had been reduced?
Of course, Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is "Yes". An announcement was made in late October, on October 28, pointing out that announcements by Canadian automobile manufacturers respecting 1966 models indicated that in relation to similarly equipped 1965 model cars, there were reductions in prices. I do not want to have misled the house. There were reductions in car prices compared to similarly equipped 1965 model cars, and I did make an announcement in October last to that effect.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I was going to rise on a question of privilege in connection with the same matter, but the minister has answered it. However, if it is permissible I should like to make some further remarks about what he has said in answer to my question, and to state that the minister also said in the city of Kitchener on October 26, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen:
Industry Minister Drury said Tuesday night the Canada-United States automobile agreement will save Canadian car buyers about $49,000,000 this year.
Mr. Drury estimated that prices have dropped an average of $70 on each car and, with about 700,000 cars expected to be sold in Canada this year, that makes a saving to buyers of about $49,000,000.
"I suggest to you that the agreement is not only working but is working in the right direction," he told about 200 persons at a Liberal rally.



MR. TEILLET-CORRECTION OF ANSWER RESPECTING VETERANS AFFAIRS

Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if this is the proper time and place I also should like to correct an answer which I gave the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) yesterday. The correct answer to the question was that instead of a committee dealing with the matter talks have been taking place among representatives of veterans organizations, the Canadian Pension Commission and myself with respect to basic pension rates.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Are there any more corrections today?
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources) 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 Northwest Territories Act to increase the number of elected members of the council from four to seven; to increase to five thousand dollars per annum the maximum indemnity payable to elected members; to provide for the payment of a maximum indemnity of three thousand five hundred dollars per annum to appointed members; to provide also for the payment of reasonable travelling and living expenses incurred by members in going to and returning from sessions of the council; to provide that the first one thousand dollars of the indemnity paid to a member be not subject to income tax; to establish a separate consolidated revenue fund for the Territories and for the administration thereof; to provide also for the keeping of territorial accounts, for the examination of these accounts by the Auditor General; and to provide further for certain changes in the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Arthur Laing: 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 Yukon Act to provide for the payment
January 27, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry of an annual indemnity of three hundred dollars to each member of the advisory committee on finance and for the payment of reasonable travelling and living expenses incurred by them in attending the sittings of the committee; to increase to five thousand dollars per annum the maximum Indemnity payable to members of the council; to provide for the payment of reasonable travelling and living expenses incurred by members in going to and returning from sessions of the council; to provide that the first one thousand dollars of the indemnity paid to a member is not subject to income tax; to provide also for the keeping of territorial accounts, for the examination of these accounts by the Auditor General; and to provide further for certain changes in the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the Minister of Justice a question arising out of a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated yesterday that it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the validity of a search warrant which was executed in August on the premises of the Seafarers International Union in Montreal for the purpose of securing documents connecting Hal Banks with the falsification of accounts and the crime of theft. Now that the decision of the Supreme Court has been made, is the minister in a position to say whether his department is launching a prosecution with respect to these thefts allegedly committed over a period of two years?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Before the department decides whether or not to launch a prosecution it will, of course, be necessary to have a full report on the facts and on the allegations.


John George Diefenbaker: Was not the minister in Montreal the day before yesterday in this regard, following the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I am sorry but I did not hear the question.


John George Diefenbaker: Was not the minister in Montreal immediately after the decision was rendered by the Supreme Court in this connection, with a view to determining whether a prosecution should be launched?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not there.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Can
the minister inform the house whether the R.C.M.P. searched the premises of the S.I.U. in the first instance without his knowledge?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Yesterday I asked the Minister of Industry whether he had received a request from Mr. George Burt, the Canadian director of the United Auto Workers, for a tripartite meeting of representatives of the government, the trade unions and management with reference to the crisis which has developed in connection with the metal stamping companies. The minister then said he had received no such telegram from Mr. Burt.
I wish to ask whether he has now received it, and whether I am correctly informed that the minister has refused to call such a tripartite meeting.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: have received a telegram, and I have replied to Mr. Burt pointing out that discussions have already taken place with the parts manufacturers and with the automobile manufacturers. I think the problems are well on their way to solution, but if Mr. Burt has further suggestions to make or requires additional information I would be glad to have a meeting with him.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question may I ask the minister, in view of the fact that he says he has had meetings with the parts manufacturers and the auto makers, would it not seem fair that the trade unions, whose members are vitally concerned with reference to job security, ought to be included in these talks? I ask him, is he prepared to reconsider his decision and hold tripartite meetings on this vital matter?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Well, Mr. Speaker, it has been the practice up to the present for the motor car manufacturers and the parts manufacturers to advise their employees, nearly all of whom participate in labour agreements, through this machinery rather than through what is perhaps a less informative and rather more laborious system of having to provide information via union channels. The circumstances of each company tend to be different,
January 27, 1966

and accurate, precise information can probably be more easily obtained, under the particular circumstances of a company, from the management rather than from the government in Ottawa.
Mr. Reid Scot! (Danforth): As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the difficulties arising out of this agreement are coming about because of the initiative of the minister and his government, I want to ask him does he not feel that the workers, whose livelihood is affected, ought at least to be able to make similar representations and be given similar considerations as are afforded to the auto companies?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: This has always been our policy.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker, most heartily.


Mr. Scott (Danforth):: Why don't you do it,
then?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I suggest that the consideration and preoccupation of the government with the situation of the workers are just as great and just as intense as for the companies themselves. Indeed, the house will recollect that last year the government introduced a scheme to provide unemployment benefits for those who were laid off as a consequence of this agreement.


Mr. Graffiey:: Peanuts.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: This is described by one hon. gentleman as peanuts, but the fact of the matter is that because of the over-all arrangements which were made it has not been necessary in any significant measure for the workers to apply for these benefits. I suggest that the agreement is working out to a large degree more to the advantage of the workers than it may be for some of the companies themselves.


Mr. Lewis:: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ontario.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Ontario. Perhaps the hon. member for York South may ask another question at a later period. [Later:]


David Lewis: Further to earlier questions, Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of
Inquiries of the Ministry Industry and ask whether his refusal to hold a tripartite meeting on the auto parts problem is a result of representations made to him by the automobile manufacturers and the parts manufacturers that the trade unions should not be present at such meetings.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker. As I endeavoured to explain yesterday, we have held tripartite meetings in the past in connection with this automotive agreement. I am delighted to meet with anybody in any way, at any time, if this will be helpful and will provide assistance. As I indicated yesterday, I have not refused to hold a tripartite meeting. It does not seem, however, that at this particular juncture a useful purpose would be served by holding one.


William Heward Grafftey: That is a refusal.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour regarding the prolonged trucking strike in the province of Ontario which is causing economic hardships. What progress is being made, and would the minister, in view of this serious situation, take the initiative and call the parties once more to the bargaining table in the hope that the strike might be ended?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that not much progress has been made in efforts to settle this unfortunate dispute. Both parties have been advised that officials of my department-and I may say there is a special officer on the job-and an officer of the Ontario government, which is perhaps even more directly concerned than the federal government because the strike affects so many parts of Ontario, are standing by willing to help.
My present information is that a meeting was held yesterday in London, Ontario, of the leaders of the trucking industry. It may be that action will be taken at an early date, but I do not consider it appropriate to intervene within the next few days.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Transport. Did the Canadian
January 27, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry Highway Safety Council make representations to the government for an increase in their grant?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I think this question would be more appropriately addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, sir. I think he is prepared and will give an answer.


Percy Verner Noble: May I direct this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Pearson:: He will be here in a moment.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice.
Did the minister make an investigation with regard to a statement made by Mr. Wagner, the Quebec Minister of Justice, to the effect that Ottawa and especially the R.C.M.P. and the federal Department of Justice are full of spineless people? Could we have the minister's comments on such a serious charge?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, there is no need for me to investigate, since I am quite sure that those spineless people are non-existent.


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Would the minister tell the house if it is true, as stated by Mr. Wagner, from Quebec, that the R.C.M.P. refuses to provide provincial police forces with certain useful information in many circumstances? Those are serious charges.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, Mr. Speaker.



REQUEST FOR DETAILED SURVEY OF MARKETS ABROAD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I think we can leave the application of the rules of this house to you, Mr. Speaker.']
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the need to greatly increase our export trade and the need to help our export producers in this

regard, will the minister give consideration to having his trade commissioners make another detailed survey of their markets and report as to what Canadian products could be sold there if a greater sales effort was carried out, and then pass on that information to the industries as soon as possible?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this is being done on a continuing basis. As the hon. gentleman knows, we have an excellent trade commissioner service which is attuned to the opportunities in those areas the commissioners represent, which is in effect virtually the whole world. There is a continuing two-way flow of information between them and the department in Ottawa so as to keep attuned to the opportunities for Canadian businessmen to trade in foreign markets.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to make an inquiry in respect of the arrest and sentencing in Hungary of Mr. Tibor Torma, a naturalized Canadian citizen who, at the time he obtained a visa to enter Hungary as a tourist last fall, was a constituent of mine. He is alleged to have caused a disturbance in a coffee house and to have been convicted for a political offence. He was held incommunicado-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly state his question. I rather suspect at this moment that it would be a proper question for the order paper. However, we might allow the hon. member to put the question if he will do so right now.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether this is not a situation of concern to all Hungarians here and in the world as a whole.


Some hon. Members:: Put the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he may wish to place his question on the order paper.
January 27, 1966	COMMONS


[Stage Direction]
MAKING OF POLICY STATEMENTS OUTSIDE HOUSE DURING SESSION On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. It has a great bearing on the traditions of this house and the rules under which we work, and for that reason I believe you personally, sir, will be very much interested in the answer.
My question to the Prime Minister is this. In view of the aberrations from tradition since this parliament opened, the latest example being yesterday when the Minister of Finance used the question period to make a partial announcement on a serious matter of policy for which we on this side have been pressing for the last two and one-half years, is it now the policy of this government to make statements on policy outside the house when the house is in session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think we can leave the application of the rules of this house to you, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Would the minister tell the house whether he agrees with the Belanger report on taxation in Quebec, when it recommends to substitute for the system of basic abatement, a system of tax abatement on personal income, in conjunction with the federal government?



TRANSPORTATION ARRANGEMENTS TO FILL ORDER FROM JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of either the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Transport, because it concerns both their departments. I refer to the matter of the order from Japan for 1 million tons of coal. My question, if I might preface it with this remark, is this. As Canada is shipping 1 million tons of coal from Alberta to Japan, and the freight rate for shipping
DEBATES	311
Inquiries of the Ministry the same is one third less via the United States than it is by C.P.R. via Vancouver, and there is now a suggestion of opening up the railway from Michel, B.C.-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member will agree that the question is not properly submitted. The hon. member should seek information rather than make an argument or express an opinion.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then I will put the question this way. I do not think it is a question for the order paper, with the greatest respect, because there is urgency in connection with this coal order. Would the Minister of Transport look into the matter to see whether they are opening up the railway from Michel, B.C., to join up with the Great Northern Railway in the United States, so as to bypass Canadian transportation facilities? If so, will the United States be undercutting us in the market, which will mean we will lose this order for 1 million tons of coal?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have been looking into this question for some time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that the minister may have been looking into it. Would he now report to the house his findings in that regard, so as to assure the coal operators of Alberta that they will keep this contract for 1 million tons of coal, which means so much to Canada and particularly to our exchange problems?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, this is not a question I can answer on the orders of the day. I suggest that the hon. gentleman raise it on my estimates.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am prepared to debate this question at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Complon-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Since he has announced a forthcoming debate on capital punishment, could he tell the house whether the Parole Act will be amended?
January 27, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; that is another question. If there is any decision with regard to that matter, it will be announced in the house in due course.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the prosperity in this country indicated in the Speech from the Throne, has the Department of External Affairs made arrangements to appoint a full time ambassador to South Korea?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think I will take notice of that question.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of representations by the Premier of Alberta with regard to the leasing problems in national parks, particularly mountain parks, is the Prime Minister now ready to announce a board of inquiry into the situation in mountain parks as promised in the election campaign?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said during the election campaign that those concerned would be given an opportunity to make their representations before any legislation is passed, and that will be done.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: May I ask a
supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister be willing to table the letter from the Premier of Alberta in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the Premier of Alberta has no objections, I certainly have none. I will communicate with him.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May
I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Will they also table a 

letter from Mr. George Steer, Q.C., of Edmonton, setting out the fact that there is a breach of contract between the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the people of Banff?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Because of the unusual number of blizzards on the prairies this winter many new snowplow clubs have been organized so that farmers can keep roads open for fuel supplies as well as for farm children to attend school. My question is prompted by letters I have received from constituents. Will the minister consider suspension of the 11 per cent sales tax on the purchase of snowplows by non-profit farm groups who work together to keep roads open for necessary services?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Duquel (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works?
In he Soleil, last Thursday, January 20, an article appeared saying that accommodations at the Quebec main post office were inadequate for the employees as well as for the public. I would like to know whether the minister has read the article, whether conditions are such as described and what he proposes to do to remedy the situation?

Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public
Works): As soon as the hon. member drew the article in question to my attention, I immediately took steps to have an investigation made. A start has been made already on remedying the situation.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Why
did you not tell the member and save the time of the house?
January 27, 1966	COMMONS



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister giving consideration to the sending of military observers to Viet Nam in order to get first hand information on any developments in methods of warfare so the training of Canadian forces may be kept up to date?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, this matter was given some thought, but in view of Canadian participation in the international truce commission, it was considered inadvisable. However, steps were taken to obtain from United States forces full reports resulting from their experience in Viet Nam.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Sainf John-Alberf):: should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he will state his hopes for the very important railway legislation this session. Will he also give us a progress report on the special committee that is studying the transportation problems of the maritimes?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is a rather large question for orders of the day. We hope to have some estimates before the house quite soon.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister endeavour to speed up the consideration that is being given to maritime transportation problems so that the effect of the new legislation on the maritimes can be considered when that railway legislation is before the committee?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not believe, sir, it would be possible to have the study of the consultants completed in time to be included in the railway legislation that has been under contemplation for the last two or three years.
I am just as anxious as the hon. member to see the consultants proceed just as fast as they can, as long as they do a good job.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister assure himself that there will not be anything in the new legislation that will be prejudicial to the transportation rights of the maritime provinces?
DEBATES	313
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman knows it would be impossible for me to do otherwise.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I would have done so yesterday but time ran out. Yesterday there were some questions asked about a Supreme Court decision relating to a case involving an Indian person and his hunting rights. I should like to ask the minister what progress is being made or what is happening with regard to the committee on hunting and fishing rights of Indian people which was announced last year by the then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. When can we expect that this committee will conclude its study and make a report?


Arthur Laing: Because I asked that the other questions on this subject be taken as notice, I would add this one to them if the hon. member would agree.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Is it the government's intention to soon close the Veterans Hospital now located in Quebec City?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I would first say, in reply to this question, that we have no intention of closing this hospital. Discussions are taking place between representatives of Laval University and of the Department of Veterans Affairs, but I can assure the hon. member that this hospital will not be closed.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Could the minister tell us whether the hospital will remain under the jurisdiction of the Department of Veterans Affairs or whether its administration will come under some other agency?
314	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Teillel: The discussions between university representatives and our own have to do with administration of the hospital, but we can give the assurance that the hospital will not be closed down.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: I have a question for the Secretary of State, perhaps not as important as some which have been asked this morning but very important indeed to many of my constituents. Has a decision been reached as yet on the building of a C.B.C. television station in the city of Saskatoon?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I shall take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker, and inform the house after I have received the information from the C.B.C.



TEXTILES-POSSIBLE QUOTAS FOR CHINESE WORSTED FABRICS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: I should like to reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Marquette concerning the importation of worsted fabrics from mainland China. In answer to his question I may say that I have not had any direct representations or official representations from the China National Textile Import and Export Corporation, and I can assure the hon. member that the customs administration is adhering to the procedures provided for in clause II of memorandum I of the long term wheat agreement between the Canadian Wheat Board and the China National Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation. Under this memorandum, provision is made in clause II that goods of a class or kind made in Canada shall be valued for duty purposes on the same basis as similar Japanese goods or their equivalent. Of course this is being done with appropriate adjustments for quality.
Following the signing of the wheat agreement the then Minister of Trade and Commerce, in his announcement of October 28, indicated that the Chinese State Trading Corporation had agreed to limit their annual exports to Canada of sensitive items. He 
DEBATES	January 27, 1966
indicated also that within the over-all limitation, individual quota limitations were to be determined subsequently by agreement between the two parties, and it is my understanding that the two parties will be planning to come together in the near future.


Maurice Allard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the situation is deteriorating daily with regard to the textile industry as a whole and Sherbrooke mills in particular, and since a high proportion of our imports from communist China consists of textiles, would the minister and the government make representations to the Chinese authorities requesting that they diversify to a greater extent their exports to Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the member for Sherbrooke put his question on the order paper.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I
should like to answer a question asked on January 19 by the hon. member for Cumberland.
The federal government has today authorized Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to enter into negotiations with Deuterium of Canada Limited with the object of concluding a contract that would result in increasing the production of heavy water from the Glace Bay plant.
The decision to negotiate regarding an increase in the heavy water output at Glace Bay from 200 tons to approximately 400 tons per year follows consideration of new factors related to heavy water requirements. Since the decision was taken in the autumn of 1965 to increase Canadian production capabilities by 400 tons per year of heavy water, prospective export of two more nuclear power stations not included in previous requirements has become much better defined and the chances for supply from Canada appear much brighter. Should these prospects become firm commitments, it is apparent that an expanded Glace Bay plant is the only source that could be in production in time to meet the requirements of these stations. An early decision to
January 27, 1966

expand the Glace Bay plant will also help Deuterium of Canada Limited in its planning and pricing.
Discussions between Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Deuterium of Canada Limited have continued over the past several months, and it is expected that the negotiations toward a contract should be concluded at an early date.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, may I also answer a question which was asked two days ago by the hon. member for Oxford, having to do with the problem of land acquisition for water conservation projects in Ontario.
My colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources had studied this problem, when he was responsible for water resources, with the appropriate minister for Ontario. I intend to resume these negotiations at a moment mutually convenient to the Ontario minister and to myself.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Would the government give consideration to amending the Criminal Code so that breathalizer tests can be made mandatory?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, that is one of several possible amendments to the Criminal Code which are now being given consideration by the government.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs two questions. The first is with regard to the international commission serving in Viet Nam. Are the two reports that the minister mentioned the other day, the one of June 1962 and the one of February 1965, the only

Inquiries of the Ministry reports of the activities of that commission over a period of three and a half years?
My second question is this. What did the minister mean by saying, with regard to the report of February 1965, that Canada did not dispute the findings of the majority, when the report itself says that the Canadian delegation dissents from the terms of this majority report?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In my opinion this is not a proper question. The hon. member is asking for an interpretation by the minister, whereas I suggest that a question should seek information. I really do not think this is a proper question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, if you feel that the second question is unsatisfactory, though honestly I am seeking information from the only source which can give it to us, then perhaps the minister would answer the first question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think the first part of the question is one which, if I may say so with respect, is properly before us on the orders of the day. There have been other reports. They were called interim reports. One of the reasons there have been no further such reports is that is has not been possible to proceed owing to the fact that other members of the commission at one time insisted that reports should be unanimous; and for a long time there was disagreement whether there could even be a dissenting report.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then may I ask this supplementary question. In view of the fact that only these two reports have been made public in the last three and a half years, and in view of the fact that the members of the commission find themselves unable to work together, is the minister satisfied that there is any value in suggesting to this house that this commission is serving a useful purpose at the present time?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: There have been difficulties, Mr. Speaker, in the conduct of the work of the Indo-China commissions because of disagreement about whether majority reports and minority reports were in order. But I must say, in light of the present situation, and notwithstanding all the frustrations, I believe it is important that the commission should continue to operate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Apart from the two reports already published, the
January 27, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry ones of June 1962 and February 1965, is it the minister's intention to publish the other reports to which he referred, reports which so far have not been made public?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, those other reports are not the property of the government of Canada but the property of the international commission.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question. Do the Canadian representatives on the commission intend to press for the publication of those reports?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give consideration to that question.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether he has received any communication from the air line pilots association, in addition to the one I passed him yesterday, regarding the possible effect on relations between the air line pilots and Canadian Pacific Air Lines, which might exist if any extension of C.P.A. service is authorized?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I made some inquiries, sir, after the hon. gentleman communicated the telegram to me, and I had expected a report before I came into the house; but owing to my having been at a cabinet meeting, I have not been able to find out whether it has yet reached me.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would direct this question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with a protest made to the United States Department of State about recent regulations of the securities and exchange commission which affect many Canadian companies and which in fact constitute an unwarranted intrusion into the business affairs of companies outside the United States. This matter has also been protested by the United Kingdom and other

countries, and it places Canada in the position of having to comply with United States laws outside that country's boundaries.
Has a reply been received to these protests, and is it the intention of the United States to alter these regulations, which in effect today mean that the United States will be able to look into the private affairs of Canadian businesses with as much as 92 per cent Canadian shareholdings?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, a formal complaint has been made to the government of the United States with regard to the application of this legislation in the United States in so far as it concerns Canadians operating in that country. Discussions are now taking place with regard to the representations that have been made. Until these consultations have been completed I would not want to suggest how we will be able to persuade the United States that the course it is taking is one which might be revised. Consideration has been given as to whether the legislation in the United States has an extraterritorial effect to which we could properly object. We are looking into this aspect of the question.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, as far as results are concerned, does the minister agree with the views expressed by the president of Salada Foods Limited, who said that he could not conceive of a Canadian company being required to comply with United States laws in this regard, and that if they were forced to do so it would cause Canadian companies to "become an open book to our United States competitors"?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, the opinion expressed by the gentleman quoted represents part of the argument that is being made by Canada.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Is he aware of the report that the fundamental rights of the French-Canadian members of the Seafarers International Union are not respected and that the parties
January 27, 1966

concerned are the victims of racial discrimination since their union denies them the right to testify in French, their mother language, before its appeal board?
If the minister is not aware of this situation, could he have an inquiry carried out in that respect?


Mr. Speaker:: Of course the hon. member has just raised a very important question, but I would suggest that he put it on the order paper,


Georges-J. Valade: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This question is very important since members of the union are called upon to testify and they want to do so in French.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Georges-J. Valade: I rise on a question of privilege. I think my point was not very well understood by Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon.
member did not hear me correctly. A ruling was made. I indicated to the hon. member that the question did not appear to be sufficiently urgent to be allowed at this time. His only remedy under the rules is to suggest that it be debated at ten o'clock.


Mr, Valade:: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will debate this matter at ten o'clock.



FORESTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question based on the assumption that published reports are correct when they say that a massive government program of support for the forest industry is in the making, and that this will include a $30 million research development program. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether in consultation with the Minister of Forestry he will ensure that a main component of this research program will be in the field of pollution control in the forest products industry.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to look into that matter. I am not familiar with the report to which the hon. member has referred but I will be glad to make inquiries.
The Address-Mr. Bigg EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



SOUTH VIET NAM-PROVISION OF MEDICAL PERSONNEL AND HOSPITAL FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the government has given consideration to assisting in South Viet Nam by way of providing medical personnel and hospital facilities so that the wounded, whether American or Australian or New Zealand or Korean may be helped, as well as the South Vietnamese themselves who suffer from the attacks of the Viet Cong.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: We have given consideration to undertaking whatever projects would come under our external aid program. We have had some discussions in this connection with the Red Cross.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, January 26, 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, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lambert.
Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock yesterday evening I was interrupted by the clock. I was making a plea for some attention to be paid by the present administration to the problems facing Canadian agriculture. It would take years to go through the list of what has been neglected in this regard.
The Speech from the Throne debate is our one opportunity to cover most of the subjects which are of interest to a backbencher in bringing forward the needs of his constituents. I was extremely disappointed by the fact that I was unable to do very much about my election promise in the matter of old age pensions, but since we have completed the debate on that subject I will pass on to what I regard as another most important matter.
We are continually hearing from all sides of the house of the need for reform in parliament and streamlining our procedures. The Leader of the Opposition has often been blamed, except by his own party, for not allowing the work of the house to proceed. I have done some research on the subject, and I find that the present Leader of the Official

January 27, 1966
The Address-Mr. Bigg Opposition has always been foremost in meeting reasonable requirements in this field but has not been given the credit for the lead he has always taken in this regard. I might mention the question of speaking time in the house and the restriction which was imposed,
I think quite rightly, limiting members to 40 minutes. We have always been and always will be, I trust, willing to put our weight behind any reasonable reforms in our procedure.
I hasten to say, however, that I do not think there is any need for tremendous changes in our rules, though perhaps at times we need some changes in our individual attitudes. I do not think a rule book can ever be a proper check. No strait-jacketing of the rights and privileges of members can ever hasten our march toward a bigger and better Canada. I would resist any encroachment upon the rules we have because I think these rules are quite adequate for most purposes.
I see in the Speech from the Throne that the government is promising equality of opportunity for everybody in Canada. Today I want to speak for our first citizens in Canada, the Indians, and express the hope that this administration will put the formation of an Indian claims commission high on the list of priorities. I believe the Indians have always been willing to take their place as citizens of Canada and put forth the necessary effort. For many years the Indian affairs branch has taken a paternalistic approach. We have thrown up our hands and said nothing can be done for the Indians. I say that the best possible thing we can do for the Indians is to proceed as rapidly as possible to make them entirely self-sufficient.
The Indians do not want relief. They do not want welfare. They merely want an opportunity to upgrade themselves and play a full part in the development of this country, a country which at one time was theirs. They have lived up to their part of the agreements in the treaties. I do not think we have done so. The earlier we bring forward this claims commission and clear up once and for all whether we have kept our promises as set out in these treaties, and go back as far as we can to restore to these people their dignity and their right to live in Canada as free and equal citizens, the better it will be.
One step in this direction would, I am sure, be the appointment as soon as possible of at least a deputy minister of Indian affairs of Indian origin. The Indian people do not trust the white man in this country, and I do not

see any reason so far why they should. They will never have complete confidence in any Indian affairs branch until they are directly represented by somebody of their own blood and of their own choosing.
[DOT] (12:00 noon)
There is one tremendous danger in the bill which has already been proposed concerning Indian affairs and the setting up of an Indian commission. It is suggested that the government should have the right to remove the Indian representative on the commission through a joint address to both houses of parliament. I do not care how it is hedged around; any government that tried to exercise that right would do nothing less than completely destroy any good which such a commission could hope to perform. I for one will vigorously oppose any restriction on the rights of our native people to speak freely at all times and have a representative of their own choice put forward their side of a claim.
We have got past the point where any kind of official rubberstamp, no matter how well intended, can adequately represent the needs of these people. It was the pride of our administration when we were in power that we gave the Indians the long promised ballot. Many of the native people were afraid that using the ballot would militate against their rights but now they are becoming used to it and see in it a real hope that they will be able to take their full part in Canadian affairs.
There is to be a new adjustment of the Indian affairs department. I would like to see at the same time an examination of our national parks administration. As a nature lover I would be the last to restrict in any way the preservation of our natural beauty and natural life, but I am certain there was a dual purpose in setting up the national parks, the second being to make sure there were adequate recreational facilities to permit our people to enjoy the natural beauty which our forefathers took the trouble to lay aside.
The Wood Buffalo park in northern Alberta is an area of 17,500 squares miles, rich in minerals and natural resources, but largely wasted. It is not a recreational park in any way, shape or form. It is true we have a large herd of buffalo in it, and 30 or 40 whooping cranes, but we do not need 17,500 square miles of land to look after that small amount of wildlife.
A year or two ago I took it upon myself to help open negotiations with the provincial government of Alberta to see if we could take
January 27, 1966

a new look at the whole question of national parks, always with the aim of preserving the natural beauty and wildlife of northern Alberta. The same principle should be used in the rest of Canada when we decide to take a good look at national parks and see whether many of the resources of our country might not better be spent in areas further south which are more beautiful, more accessible and more useful for the secondary purpose of recreation, which may in effect be the primary purpose of national parks in promoting the health and recreation of our people.
So far we have had absolutely no co-operation from the provincial government of Alberta. The premier of Alberta, Mr. Manning, has said he cannot get co-operation from the federal members of parliament in matters such as this. However, it has been my personal experience, which I believe is shared by other federal M.P.'s that the door is locked from the provincial side and certainly not from the federal side. When I was trying to have these negotiations started I got the full co-operation of the Prime Minister and of the minister of northern affairs, who at that time had responsibility for national parks. There was a wide open door policy so far as discussions were concerned. We made no foolish promises except to say "Let's get together and talk it over." The door has been opened on the federal side. Unless it is opened from the other side these false accusations concerning co-operation should cease.
I am interested to note in the Speech from the Throne that the administration is interested in the affairs of youth, but I do not think the promises in the speech go nearly far enough. In this last half of the twentieth century the proper training of youth, both with regard to higher education and trade education, and the question of their physical welfare are so important that it is high time we set up a full ministry-call it the ministry of youth, call it the ministry of federal education, call it what you will-to take care of this whole matter.
I have some very definite views on this subject. One that leaps to my mind is that steps should be taken to try to standardize education across Canada. We talk about equality of opportunity, but we find many cases where children spend years in high school, then when they move from one province to another they lose a whole year out of their academic life, and sometimes two, so that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. We do not want to carry
The Address-Mr. Bigg on toward the end of this century in a haphazard manner, in the matter of training our youth either in physical or mental standards.
It is my sincere hope that the government will take a new look at the idea of a corps of youth, make it a complete national project, and give it the full status it deserves with a minister of the crown in charge, a minister who can bring together all these varied and difficult problems under one effective department in order that we can give proper attention to our young people.
I also note that something is going to be done with regard to consolidating pension rights in the civil service. I expect this will also include the R.C.M.P. and the armed forces. This is an opportunity for the government to get out of what I think is a rather sticky situation with regard to pension schemes. Perhaps with adequate adjustments to the existing pension schemes we can plug some of the holes in what I consider to be the inadequate pension scheme we passed last session. This would also be a timely opportunity to revise the pension schemes of those people who spent most of their lives in the public service and who are now retired, the veterans of the civil service who in some cases are trying to get along on a pitiful allowance. Many of them are receiving less than $100 a month after a lifetime of service.
It is not a good enough excuse to offer, as we did with regard to some of the other federal statutes we passed recently, that we do not know where the money is coming from; because when the whim of the government is such that it wants to spend money in large and unlimited quantities, no apology whatsoever is made to the taxpayers of Canada. We can find scores of millions of dollars for such luxuries as the C.B.C. and centennial grants. I do not say these are not worthy causes, but I do think that paying adequate pensions to the veterans of the civil service, the armed forces and the R.C.M.P. is far more important and should have priority over the fringe benefits of culture and the expensive commissions of one form or another that we set up to see that the luxury side of our life is looked after properly.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
It is high time we co-ordinated our efforts in this regard and put first things first. I would place at the top of the list the rewarding of those people who have already given the productive years of their lives to the betterment of Canada and its people. I said

January 27, 1966
Division
last night, and I repeat, that there is no excuse for the government in the fact that it is a minority government, because a minority government in 1957 launched Canada on a very progressive, imaginative and courageous program, the like of which has not been seen since.
We are criticized almost daily for criticizing the government, but what is the main function of the opposition? I suggest our main function is to keep the government on the rails. It is not our job to run around backslapping them. The government will receive that sort of praise and appreciation in this country when it performs well. If it does not perform well it is our plain duty to offer constructive criticism. I think some members on the other side of the house will be the first to admit that during the past three years, had it not been for constructive criticism from this side of the house, Canada might well now be in a very serious state.
I am not one to cry the blues. Canada at this time is experiencing a tremendous boom. I demand that the products of that boom period be not wasted, and that the high production and wealth which Canada now enjoys be adequately distributed to those people who deserve it. To do so would not require an adoption of socialism in Canada. There are many things which even a Liberal administration might do without looking to that corner of the house for the support they might find elsewhere. The government will always receive the support of the official opposition at any time it brings forward constructive programs for the welfare of this country. We in the official opposition do not put the party first we put Canada first. That is why I am pleased to see our team strengthened. We have a fine group of recruits, and we welcome back to the front benches those men who made such a magnificent contribution when they were sitting on the treasury benches.
Mr. Speaker, let me warn the Liberal party at this time that we intend to turn out on many more occasions at 100 per cent strength, as we did the other night. We are not only going to be watchdogs; we are going to be workhorses.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I, too, am anxious to hear the minister, but the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) was to speak on the address in reply to the speech from the throne last

night. We are both independent members of the house; we are spokesmen for the renewal of political parties and, yesterday, there were about a hundred persons in the gallery to hear the member for Trois-Rivieres.
Therefore, pursuant to standing order 29 and seconded by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), I move:
That the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) be now heard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: May I at the outset express the hope, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) will shortly have an opportunity to speak. I know we shall all listen to him with great interest.
My main purpose in rising to take part in this debate is to discuss recent developments in financial relations between Canada and the United States. Before doing so, however, I should like to congratulate you, sir, and join with so many others in expressing our good will toward you in your high office. We all know you will adorn it by your intelligence and your moderation.
I also take this opportunity, as is customary, to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the motion now under discussion. It is heartening for all of us who believe in this institution of parliament to hear two such excellent speeches from new members of this house, one of them from our French speaking society and one from our English speaking society, both ardent and talented young Canadians.
May I also, before turning to the main theme of my remarks, say a brief word about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). This comment will be very brief because I do not think the amendment deserves anything more than brief comment. Indeed, I find it most extraordinary that a former and highly respected Speaker of this house should have permitted himself to be party to such a motion. The most charitable explanation I can suggest is that the hon. gentleman's party is so divided that it was unable to reach agreement on the terms of a suitable amendment.
January 27, 1966

The Address-Mr. Sharp I suggest to the hon. gentleman that it recent arrangements made between the would have been most unusual, indeed it governments of the two countries.
would probably have been somewhat improper, for the Speech from the Throne to have forecast tax changes. There could be no objection, of course, to any hon. member expressing himself on the subject of the 11 per cent sales tax or on any other matter which concerns the public welfare. I am not, of course, objecting to these comments. Indeed, I am paying the utmost attention to them in preparation for the forthcoming budget.
In this connection, during the election I listened to my present colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce making some comments about this subject. I was not then minister of finance but I was very interested in the subject because, as all hon. members know, it involves an important tax affecting both the revenues and the commerce of this country. I would remind the house, however, that the views of my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce have not always been well represented here. I should like in this connection to quote from a speech he made on November 5 when he said, as reported in the Globe and Mail:
I would be in favour of removing the tax as soon as possible when the government no longer needs the revenue or when it is necessary to stimulate construction.
These are sentiments which could be shared even by the Minister of Finance. I therefore suggest that the time for the house to express itself upon the 11 per cent sales tax is when the budget is brought down and the house can judge whether the whole composite of financial measures is such as to commend itself to the house. It at that time the hon. gentleman or anyone else opposite finds anything at all in the budget which he does not like, I am sure he will not be lacking in courage to move suitable amendments. But this, Mr. Speaker, is not the time.
Before moving to the main subject of my remarks may I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, so as not to break the sequence?
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, at one o'clock I was about to begin my remarks on the main subject on which I intend to speak for a few minutes this afternoon, namely, financial relations between Canada and the United States and the implications of some of the

Hon. members will recall that for more than a decade Canada has been spending more abroad than it has been earning abroad. The deficit has been as high as $1J billion in 1959. In 1963 and 1964 it was down to about half a billion dollars. In 1965 it got up to about $1 billion and during the present year it will probably be a little more.
At times of prosperity like the present when our own resources are almost fully employed, this current account deficit and the import of capital which accompanies it enables us to grow and develop more rapidly than would otherwise have been the case. We are, of course, able to have these continuing substantial deficits only because we are able to finance them.
Where is this capital to come from? Only from the United States can we expect to raise private long term capital in the quantities that are required to finance this substantial and continuing excess of current international payments over current international receipts. Neither the volume of saving disposed toward foreign investment nor the organization of the capital markets is great enough in Europe or elsewhere to supply more than a modest fraction of our requirements. We are fortunate that for a variety of reasons Canada enjoys the confidence of American investors. It is that confidence which enables us to invest and to grow at the high rates that we desire, and indeed expect, while also maintaining a high standard of consumption.
There are differences of view whether it is desirable that we should incur such substantial current account deficits year after year and import capital on the scale that we do. One point, however, is obvious, namely, that it makes more sense to incur deficits and import such large sums of capital at a time when we are working close to potential and growing rapidly, as is now the case, than it was, say, in 1959 when the party opposite was in power and there was a high rate of unemployment. I have already mentioned the figure for 1959 when Canada was in a bit of a recession. That year we were importing capital at the rate of a billion and a half dollars a year. It is none the less true that we are heavily dependent upon being able to import the capital we need and we are therefore vulnerable to any change in the United States capital markets or any restrictions placed on the United States capital markets of a nature
January 27, 1966	COMMONS
that would interfere with the flow of capital into Canada.
This leads one immediately to consider the position of the United States today. It is hard for us, living as we do just across the border and perhaps even more difficult for people living at a greater distance from the United States, to realize that a country as powerful and as rich as the United States, one whose currency is in such demand in so many parts of the world, can have a balance of payments problem. Yet there is no doubt that it has. although it is very different from ours.
Unlike Canada, the United States normally has a large surplus on its current international account. That is to say its earnings abroad exceed its spendings abroad. The amount of the surplus varies of course from year to year, but the general pattern is clear and strong.
The problem of the United States arises from the fact that the American people and the American government, for one reason or another, have in recent years wished to invest abroad, provide as foreign aid, or utilize for defence purposes much more each year than was available from the surplus in their current account balance of payments.
The flow of private investment from the United States has been running at billions of dollars a year for many years. It has contributed in the short run to the over-all deficit in the balance of payments which the United States has experienced. These over-all deficits show up in the loss of the United States gold reserves and in the accumulation of claims on the United States by central banks and governments of other countries and by other banks. While some of us, such as Canada, are only too glad to hold most of our exchange reserves in the form of United States balances and short term investments, others have been accumulating more of such reserves in U.S. dollars than they feel they would really like to hold and they wish from time to time to convert substantial amounts of such balances into gold, thereby reducing the ultimate reserves into which the U.S. dollars are convertible. For the past several years the United States government has been taking measures to deal with the situation. The more important and spectacular of these measures have been those which aim at reducing the flow of U.S. investments to other countries.
From what I have said earlier about Canada's position, it is evident that we are particularly vulnerable to restrictions on the
DEBATES	323
The Address-Mr. Sharp outflow of U.S. capital. At first sight it might look as if we were the country most seriously affected. In fact, however, the United States cannot really improve its own balance of payments situation by restricting the flow of capital to Canada. That is the difference between the Canadian position and the position of other countries. In short, we are not a drain on the United States. We provide support to the U.S. balance of payments.
One of the first important measures the United States took to improve its balance of payments was the interest equalization tax, a tax payable by United States investors on the purchases of foreign securities. This was intended to make foreign investment less attractive to Americans. When this was first announced by President Kennedy in July, 1963, there was consternation in the financial markets of Canada because it was quickly realized that this measure as originally proposed would either leave Canada seriously short of foreign exchange and investment capital or would necessitate a substantial increase in interest rates in Canada to levels that would induce Canadian borrower -provinces, municipalities and corporations -to borrow in the United States in the required volume despite the tax, and I would suggest the order of magnitude is more than a 1 per cent increase in interest rates which, under these circumstances, is very substantial.
Fortunately we were quickly able to convince Mr. Dillon, then Secretary of the Treasury, and through him President Kennedy, that for the reasons I have described it was not possible for the United States to improve its balance of payments position by reducing the exports of capital to Canada below what was required to meet Canada's current account deficit. Consequently, the United States authorities agreed to exempt new issues of Canadian securities from the interest equalization tax. In return, the Canadian government undertook that it was not its intention to increase its foreign exchange reserves through the proceeds of borrowing in the United States.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
For some months after the announcement of this special interest equalization tax in the United States there was uncertainty as to just how it would apply and the need for working out specific aspects of the exemption. During this period there were relatively few issues of Canadian securities in the United States. Once the situation had clarified, however,
January 27, 1966

The Address-Mr. Sharp U.S. lenders and Canadian borrowers anticipated the final enactment of the law and the exemption, both of which were to be retroactive, and a big backlog of Canadian issues held up during the months of uncertainty moved on to the U.S. market in the second, third and fourth quarters of 1964. In keeping with the spirit of our undertaking to the United States, the former minister of finance, my predecessor in office, appealed to the provincial authorities in December, 1964, to avoid as far as possible adding to the volume of new Canadian issues in the United States at that time.
Early in 1965 President Johnson reinforced the interest equalization tax with a program of "guidelines"-advice, suggestions-for voluntary action on the part of U.S. investors and companies to restrain the flow of their investment outside the United States and bring back to the United States such funds as they reasonably could which had been held abroad by them or their subsidiaries. These guidelines made in February contained some specific provisions for Canada in keeping with the special circumstances which had been recognized in the exemption granted Canadian issues from the interest equalization tax. Notwithstanding these provisions, however, the guidelines of early 1965 did cause some difficulties in the Canadian market for short term securities which did not benefit from the special provisions applicable to long term investment.
I now come to more recent events in respect of which I think this house is particularly interested. In the latter part of 1965, at a season when the Canadian balance of payments is normally relatively strong, our current account and general balance of payments were suddenly strengthened as a result of the second large wheat sale to Russia. During the autumn Canadian borrowers were also selling a large volume of Canadian securities in the United States. As a result, Canada's exchange reserves, including our net . creditor position in the international monetary fund, which is proper to count in this connection, increased well above the level at which we were aiming to hold them in accordance with our understanding with the United States in 1963. We regarded this abnormal rise in our reserves as temporary. I said at the time and I say again, we can reasonably expect to see it reverse in the first half of 1966, but it coincided with a period when the United States was quite concerned over its balance of payments.


The Minister of Finance in November last requested all major Canadian issuers of securities in the United States to defer delivery of their issues, wherever possible, until after the turn of the year when our current account position would be seasonally weaker and the U.S. position could be expected to be stronger. I should like at this time, through the medium of this house, to express the appreciation of the government for the cooperation shown by these Canadian borrowers in meeting this request, and also for the co-operation of the dealers and buyers of the securities concerned.
While a considerable improvement in the United States payments position had resulted from the measures taken in 1963 and from the subsequent guidelines programs instituted by President Johnson last February, the United States over-all deficit remained large and the United States government decided last fall that it must adopt further measures. There were two of these of major concern to Canada.
The first of these was a new guideline, a request by the U.S. authorities to financial institutions other than banks, which includes not only investment companies, insurance companies, etc., but also pension funds and other major buyers of securities, to limit the increase in their holdings of long term foreign investments to a small fraction of their holdings at an earlier date. This was a most important restriction on the sale of long term securities in the United States. It is one that for some reason or other has been overlooked in some of the comment which has been made in the press of this country. If applied to Canada, it would have had very serious adverse effects. We sought and obtained an exemption from this important restriction, justified on the same grounds as our original exemption from the interest equalization tax, and in consideration for an undertaking of the same kind on our part regarding the level of our reserves.
We felt, and when I say "we" I mean the financial authorities in this country-the Bank of Canada and the Department of Finance- that in the present state of the economy it was not desirable to rely too heavily on general monetary and financial measures to control the inflow of capital and a more specific instrument of control might be needed.
I therefore told Mr. Fowler, the Secretary of the Treasury in the United States, when I whs acting minister of finance, that the
January 27, 1966

Canadian government would be prepared, if necessary, to buy outstanding Canadian securities held in the United States to offset any excess flow of U.S. capital to Canada and thus to maintain the net flow of capital at the level required to finance our balance of payments deficit. Instead of adding to U.S. assets in our exchange reserves we would be reducing Canada's liabilities in the United States. Conversely, if the volume of borrowing by other Canadians were not sufficient to meet the balance of payments needs, the government would itself arrange to borrow in the United States. In this way our reserves could be maintained at around the desired level without interfering either with trade or with the normal use of the U.S. long term capital markets by Canadian borrowers. I also agreed that while our reserves must be expected to fluctuate from month to month, we would regard it as appropriate that such fluctuations take place around a level somewhat lower than the mid-1963 figure, say, approximately $2,600 million U.S.
Should it be necessary to borrow in the U.S., I would foresee no great difficulty in obtaining moderate amounts as and when we require them. On the other hand, I believe that there are sufficient government of Canada securities held in the U.S. market to enable us to do what might be required in buying Canadian securities in the U.S. by using the authority to purchase our own securities that is already granted in the Financial Administration Act.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the house that since the beginning of 1966 we have purchased about $40 million worth of our outstanding U.S. bonds that were held in the United States. Our purchase of these securities was consistent with the plan I have outlined but was also intended in considerable part to improve the market for the sale of other Canadian issues in the United States this month when there appeared likely to be a large volume of such issues scheduled for delivery.
The second important measure adopted by the U.S. in December was a voluntary ceiling on direct investment by United States corporations, of whom about 900 will be asked to report regularly on the progress of their co-operation with the United States administration. The guideline, and I will not take time now to give details, does not stipulate how any company shall distribute its direct investment among geographic areas. This is a global restriction. It does not apply to Canada
The Address-Mr. Sharp particularly; it applies to the world. Where it is applied is a matter for the business organization itself to decide. Canada is not exempted from this ceiling or guideline as it was from the previous guideline applying to direct investment.
As soon as we learned of the new United States guidelines for direct investment we told them that while it was very hard for us to assess what its effects on Canada would be because so much depended on the decisions of the businesses, we thought it would cut down some of the flow of such capital to Canada. In so far as it worked in reducing such flow of such capital direct investment it would simply mean a greater need for new issues of Canadian securities in the United States under the arrangements and exemptions provided for long term issues. We felt that from a U.S. point of view there was no reason why the Canadian balance-of-pay-ments deficit with the United States should not be financed by direct investment just as well as by the sale of new issues of securities. Consequently, it seemed to us there was no certainty that the effort to restrict direct investment in Canada would in fact help the U.S. balance of payments at all in the final result.
We also pointed out that the inclusion of retained earnings of subsidiary corporations in the figures used to determine the voluntary quotas for direct investment worked a particular hardship on Canada. U.S. controlled companies form such a large part of Canadian industry and have been so long established in Canada that they must be regarded as a basic and substantial part of the Canadian economy.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
On the basis of these arguments, we suggested that the United States should continue a special exemption for Canada in their guidelines on direct investment or, if they could not see their way clear to do that, they should permit the investment of retained earnings to be outside the quotas.
My understanding is that the American authorities considered the points we put forward, as they said they would, but came to the conclusion that the guideline on direct investment had to be relatively simple and without special exceptions if it was to be effective in meeting the aims of their general program. They did assure us, however, that these guidelines would not affect in any way
326	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Sharp the expansion necessary to achieve the purposes of the Canada-United States automotive agreement.
This guideline on direct investment is intended to restrict the outflow of capital from the United States parent companies to branches and subsidiaries in other countries. There is nothing in these guidelines, so far as I can see-and this is an important point-that would prevent Canadian subsidiaries of United States companies from borrowing like other Canadian companies by means of long term issues in the United States market.
As I said when these guidelines were announced, they have come into effect at a time when capital investment by business in Canada has been increasing very rapidly and cannot be expected to go on increasing at the same rate. In some measure the restraints imposed by the direct investment guidelines will not conflict with the necessities of our own domestic situation. In particular cases they may, however, result in the delay or cancellation of projects that we might have preferred to see proceed. It is our general economic dependence on imported capital which exposes us to dangers of this kind.
In all the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, we have been fortunate in making arrangements that enable us to finance our balance of payments without restriction on current trade or payments and enable us to secure foreign savings to supplement our own.
I cannot agree with those who say that we should have accepted the application of the interest equalization tax and accepted limitations on our right to raise long term funds in the United States and should in return have retained our freedom to increase our reserves at will. As members of this house know, this point of view was urged recently by a man prominent in the financial world. So far as I can see, the result would have been to increase very substantially the cost of Canadians borrowing money both in Canada and the United States without increasing the supply of funds available to us and without gaining anything of substance by way of increased freedom to control our own affairs.
These American guidelines limiting direct investment have also raised another issue, that is to say, whether through them the United States government is interfering in the internal economic affairs of this country. As I have already said, we pointed out to the United States government that this kind of measure as it applied to Canada was of very doubtful value as a means of relieving the

DEBATES	January 27, 1966
United States balance of payments problem. I believe they would have been better advised to continue the exemption to Canada, both on economic and political grounds. It must be recognized, however, that in attempting to limit the direct investment of its companies abroad the United States government is following well-established precedents. Other countries faced with balance of payments problems-I have in mind, for example, the United Kingdom and France-have taken and do take measures to limit direct investments abroad of their international companies, and I have never never heard any suggestion that either the United Kingdom or France is thereby interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.
I do not like these American guidelines on direct investment and I seriously doubt their wisdom. As a Canadian I find some of the language used by the United States Secretary of the Treasury in appealing to United States companies to co-operate in the program rather objectionable.
But given the over-all arrangements between the Canadian and United States governments which ensure an access to the United States market for long term funds and the scale and nature of the temporary guidelines on direct investment, I do not think there will be damage to the Canadian economy at this time; indeed the results could be advantageous-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret I have to interrupt the minister's speech but the time allotted to him under the rules has now expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister does not have the unanimous consent of the house to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair hears a "No".


Some hon. Members:: No; carry on.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it unanimously agreed that the minister shall continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair requires unanimous consent and there is an hon. member who is saying "no". Perhaps the hon. member would identify himself.
January 27, 1966


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There is agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I shall be about one minute. I am just at the conclusion of my remarks. Perhaps I may, in order to recapture my thoughts, go back a sentence. Given the over-all arrangements between the Canadian and United States governments which ensure an access to the United States market for long term funds and the scale and nature of the temporary guidelines on direct investment, I do not think there will be damage to the Canadian economy at this time; indeed the results could be advantageous if the emphasis on capital imports is shifted somewhat from direct investment to borrowing as successive Canadian governments, including the government of my right hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), have been attempting to promote in the past decade. Certainly it is inconsistent for Canada to protest measures which have the effect of limiting the foreign ownership of our industries and resources.
This is a situation that calls for watchfulness on the part of the government. We want to see the Americans succeed in their efforts to solve their balance of payments problems-we are on their side-so that these kinds of defensive measures on their part, the kind of measures I have been talking about, will become unnecessary. This government will continue its consultations with the United States with the aim of ensuring that both countries deal with their balance of payments problems in ways that take into account the interests of the other.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I have a question regarding the $40 million of Canadian securities that Canada purchased from the United States. Did the United States sell those to Canada at a profit or at par? What was the outcome?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, these securities were purchased by the Canadian government from private holders of Canadian government securities and they were purchased at a price that is profitable from the point of view of the Canadian government.


Gilles Grégoire: May I also direct a question to the Minister of Finance?
The Address-Mr. Mongrain
Does he intend to ask the Bank of Canada to supply the capital that will not come from the United States, following the restrictions imposed by the American government on American investments in Canada? Does he intend to ask the Bank of Canada to make a similar amount of credit available for Canadian investments?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I say in reply to the hon. gentleman that I do not expect the effect of the measures that the United States has taken will be to reduce the flow of funds to Canada below what is necessary to balance our payments.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, it would be redundant to repeat here all the congratulations and wishes which have been addressed to you since the beginning of this session. I will therefore restrict myself to adding my voice to that of all hon. members who spoke before me.
I would also like to offer my own congratulations to the movers of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne (Messrs. Goyer and Stanbury). These two young men have a bright future; they did not break anything, they did not start a revolution, but they displayed great insight and frankness in the circumstances, because it must be remembered that they belong to a party and they must obey party discipline. They have thus shown qualities which are a good omen for their political future.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my congratulations to the new ministers, the new parliamentary assistants, the chairmen of committees, and add a word of special gratitude in the case of the Clerk and his assistants who have guided my first steps in the house with an eagerness worthy of praise.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the incident which, this afternoon, brought the house to a vote. I want to make it very clear that it never entered my mind to ask for precedence over the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp). On the other hand, I had been under the impression, rightly or wrongly, for a day or two, that some manoeuvring was going on behind the scenes so as to silence the voice of the smallest opposition, since I do not belong to any political group, and I thought the time had come to find out if the house would really condone such manoeuvring or would

328	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mongrain uphold the democratic rights of a member of this house, although not a member of a political group.
In the meantime, I thank those of my colleagues who were good enough to vote in my favour this morning, and I wish to keep-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will allow me to point out to him that no comments should be made about a vote just taken in the house.


Mr. Mongrain:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It goes to show once again that I was right in saying a while ago that I needed your guidance for my first steps in this house.
Mr. Speaker, I appeal to all my colleagues here to sympathize with the first impression of a new member of this house. It seems to me that I am seeing shades of all the great parliamentarians who came here before us, leaving a deep imprint upon Canadian life. I feel, at times, that I am hearing echoes of their voices and the fact that I am sitting with 264 highly selected colleagues normally representative of the very best among good Canadians. Getting to know certain impressive members of this house constitutes for the new member a challenge to do a little bit more and a little bit better for his constituency, for his province and for his country.
People in some circles wondered why the member for Trois-Rivieres, after having been active within the Liberal party for several years, had decided to run as an independent. Some reasons are not of public interest; there are perhaps one or two I could give here, only to explain my attitude in this house. At one time, like many other Canadians I realized that the old parties had lost their popular appeal. I will go further and without the least offence intended for my friends in the government party, I will say that I am under the impression that, to a certain extent, the Liberal party won the last election by default.


Mr. Choquelte:: So did the independents.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I can explain this in many ways. When I say "won by default", that is perhaps because Social Credit suffered from too many divisions and subdivisions; perhaps because the New Democratic party lacked leaders; perhaps because the Conservative party had acquired a bad name with regard to national unity, at least in the province of Quebec. But I still think that this attitude of Canadians toward the old parties should draw the attention of the leaders and the whips of these parties because it should not

DEBATES	January 27, 19G6
last too long. The major parties have played an important part in Canadian life and I think that they are called upon to do so again; but they will find this impossible if they allow public disfavour to go on tarnishing the reputation of their parties.
If I may speak to you as an independent member, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the main thing now for the political parties-and I am speaking especially to the one in which I was once active, the one now in office-the important thing, I believe, what is most urgent, is to make their organization and their finance truly democratic. We feel that campaign funds, as they exist at present, are unacceptable, and-


David Réal Caouette: Good for you.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: -for all kinds of reasons which I do not have time to explain, but especially because it is antidemocratic for anybody to benefit from campaign funds that might come from some mysterious sources, sources which could eventually exert a certain influence and then perhaps force a member, against his conscience, to yield under certain pressures.
Election funds canvassers who are not interested in Canadians of slender means and who refuse funds from disturbing sources obstruct the normal course of democracy. I am not saying this to blame the Liberal party, where I have many a friend, and for whose leader I have the greatest admiration. I am saying this because I feel that it is important for a voice, which is not necessarily interested in the defeat of that party, to warn it while there is still time, and before alienation from the Liberal party reaches such proportions that we may see election misadventures place this old party in an awkward position.
Nor would I want third, fourth or fifth parties to infer, from what I have just said, that I have no consideration for the influence they exercise in the country. I may have the opportunity to say what I think about the beneficial influence they have had in certain circumstances and which they can still have.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, again as an Independent, I should like to make a suggestion to my colleagues, because there is another state of affairs which did great harm to the old parties. I refer to this mania, during the last several months, of bringing about scandals or of taking pleasure in thrusting into the limelight real or imaginary scandals.
January 27, 1966

If wrongdoings take place within the House of Commons, I suggest that there are courts which could settle that. The Canadian people are fed up with the house losing weeks and months wallowing in scandals, when it could get down to the more useful business of passing good legislation for the nation. I suggest that, in the light of this disaffection of public opinion toward the political parties, it is time for the two main parties, and even for the third and fourth, to decide to call a truce for a few months or at least for the time necessary to pass legislation which has been pending for months.
This, Mr. Speaker, brings me to say that I find the Speech from the Throne acceptable, because it embodies a considerable amount of work. These matters have been called "photocopies" and "remnants". I think that perhaps there are so many "remnants" because there has been so much filibuster. Perhaps if there were less filibustering we could pass the legislative program.
There is another reason, Mr. Speaker. It is that there are many new ministers who will need weeks and even months to get to the bottom of their respective departments and therefore to prepare the legislation which the people need. Until they have had the time to do so, therefore, I suggest to my colleagues that we give the government time to approve these remains of legislation which have been pending for months and months.
Mr. Speaker, the riding of Trois-Rivieres which I represent, will develop considerably in the next few years for reasons that I will outline very briefly. Let it be well understood that if I raise this matter, it is because Trois-Rivieres will become a centre of development which will affect the whole province and country because of the bridge which will be built across the St. Lawrence, of the throughway which is under construction and which will connect Chibougamau, Trois-Rivieres and Sherbrooke and extend to the American border, of the super-highway which is being built between Montreal and Quebec city and of the Sidbec complex which will be located right across the river from Trois-Rivieres. In short, for all kinds of similar reasons. We foresee for Trois-Rivieres a tremendous development in years to come.
The city of Trois-Rivieres, one of the oldest French cities in North America-it was founded in 1634-the queen of all newsprint producing cities and also a cultural centre, has certain problems to face.
The Address-Mr. Mongrain
For instance, our grain elevators which come under the jurisdiction of the national harbours board are experiencing difficulties because of some tax changes that were brought in this year. The burden put on grain elevators has become so prohibitive that it is to be feared they may be forced to move elsewhere.
Those grain elevators are most important to the movement of the wheat we sell abroad and if they were exempted from those charges, or compensated in return, I am sure the house would have found the way to solve the problem of the grain elevators of Trois-Rivieres.
I cannot ignore the fact that the city of Trois-Rivieres owes a lot to the previous government as far as its harbour is concerned, because at that time it was represented here by Hon. Leon Balcer who was then minister of transport. The harbour has continued to develop under this government but it will have to be given the opportunity of further development as soon as possible if the city of Trois-Rivieres is to meet the challenge of the tremendous development which will take place in the area within the next two, three, four or five years.
The redistribution of electoral constituencies will also raise a problem. I know that this matter will be discussed at a later date. I hope I am in order if I say a word about it. I was not here when the commission sat. The city of Trois-Rivieres Ouest was removed from the constituency of Trois-Rivieres, even though it is part of a demographic and economic entity to be annexed to Trois-Rivieres in the coming months. It is most inconsistent to remove from the Trois-Rivieres riding the city of Trois-Rivieres Ouest and to join it with Berthier.
Winter navigation, also of concern to our friends from Halifax and the Maritimes, is becoming increasingly important every year in Trois-Rivieres which has become the head of winter navigation.
I should like to reassure my colleagues. After looking at the figures, I doubt it could be said that what comes from Trois-Rivieres would in anyway deprive the Maritime provinces. On the contrary, it contributes to the development of shipping and shortly the Maritimes will benefit, if they do not already do so.
I have several other points to make, Mr. Speaker, but I want to deal immediately with certain problems involving my province, or at least its relations with the rest of Canada.
330	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mongrain
An hon. member opposite recently suggested that the federal government should establish a department of federal-provincial affairs. I think this is an excellent and timely idea.
But, I say that indeed something should be added. There is always reference to "dominion-provincial relations", but is there not a third level of government called the municipalities, all too often treated with stand-offishness and all too often put off indefinitely.
Municipal government has its own importance, just as federal and provincial governments. Moreover, from the historical viewpoint, it is the most ancient form of government; besides municipal government is, in fact, closest to the people.
Granted, municipalities come under provincial jurisdiction, but I do believe that at the conference table, when the time comes to discuss the distribution of responsibilities among the three levels of government and then the share of fiscal resources that each of those governments should get to meet its responsibilities, the official representatives of the municipalities should be invited to take part in the discussion, so that they no longer be treated as poor relations.
Hon. minister-I mean Mr. Speaker-I am sorry if I make those slips. I shall get used to it in time and I hope you will bear with me and help me with your good advice.
In addition to this last proposal concerning the relations between the federal, provincial and municipal governments which are nearly always strained, and which are dealt with on a piecemeal basis during meetings of ministers and high officials who have other concerns and who, anyhow, cannot follow up those discussions, I would like to suggest that my colleagues study the composition of an agency which was set up in the United States and which has given excellent results. I am speaking of an intergovernmental advisory commission made up of representatives of the three levels of government.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)

Its membership in the United States is made up of three private citizens appointed by the President, three members of the United States Senate, three members of the United States House of Representatives, three officers of the executive branch of the national government, four governors, three state legislators, four mayors and three county officials. Moreover, these 26 members of

DEBATES	January 27, 1966
the commission are assisted by some 30 staff members made up of specialists in their own field. Of course, it would have to be adapted to conform to our pattern of government, but I think this body could render some outstanding services toward streamlining operations of our governments at the three levels.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is also important to point out one thing. Like many others, I noticed that following the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister made a statement to which the newspapers gave this interpretation: The federal government's position toward the provinces is hardening.
If "hardening" means that they will not give the provinces what they are entitled to under the constitution, I am against that. But if "hardening" means that the federal government is beginning to realize that it deserves a better treatment, that the federal government is-to use an expression which is not very parliamentary-getting sick of negotiations by insults and accusations, I think that the government is right to get tougher and stand up straight.
I will now go on quickly to various matters which are more closely related to the welfare of all countries.
I think that some matters, for instance maintaining peace in the world, are of the utmost concern to hon. members. I have nothing to say about that matter because I do not feel qualified and I have full confidence in the competence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) to solve those problems.
I am satisfied to see that all hon. members want Canada to do whatever it can to maintain peace in the world.
Next year Canada will witness another event which will probably help to reinforce national unity and promote good will among nations, and during which Canada will be in the spotlight. I am referring to the 1967 World Fair. Here again hon. members should restrict their criticism to a minimum and, united, get really behind that extraordinary undertaking which will be for Canada the starting point of a tremendous development.
Mr. Speaker, reference is made also to the constitution. It is said that it should be revised; some even claim that it should be revised at once. I humbly submit my point of view to my colleagues for a more detailed study. I do not think that we shall ever
January 27, 1966

agree on that constitution, that great charter of Canadian life, if we start discussing the matter in this house or on the hustings. I should like again to say this: we should accept and recognize, at the outset, that as members of parliament we still have that sort of election complex which prevents us from seeing things in their true light.
I think we should set up some kind of areopagus, a council of the wisemen of the country, made up of French speaking and English speaking Canadians or of new Canadians who would meditate in silence and then draw up a kind of Canadian Magna Carta, a new constitution. Let them have all the time they need, one, two or three years, even more if necessary; it is only afterwards that it would be wise for us, politicians, to apply ourselves to the study of this Magna Carta and decide on the advisability of adopting it.
At any rate, even though that constitution would eventually have to be revised, I am one of those who believe that, for the time being, we should give an honest and last chance to the present constitution to bear its fruits.
For all Canadians, that will be one way of trying to consolidate what I call Canadianism or patriotism in this country. I would tell my colleagues that at home, in Quebec, we are Canadians in the full sense of the word, we believe in Canadian unity, we are not separatists but we want to be full citizens of Canada. We are not claiming any privileges, we are asking for nothing we have not already contributed.
In my province, the English are members of the family; they have their industries, they go to their churches, they attend their schools; they are members of our clubs and we look upon them as members of the family. When they go before the courts, they are spoken to in their own language and when they deal with the provincial government, they use their own language. That is what we are demanding for all French Canadians throughout the entire country. They want to be full Canadians, not Canadians out of charity.
We are not asking for full bilingualism, Mr. Speaker, because we know that is impossible; it was never our intention to ask people of Toronto or Winnipeg to force themselves to speak French, but we are asking for official bilingualism in all provincial legislatures and in all courts of justice. That is one condition of our being full Canadians.
The Address-Mr. MacRae
We also want the control of all that can deeply affect the way of life of any French Canadian who wants to be a full Canadian. We are loyal to the British crown; we proved it in 1774, 1792, 1812, 1842, 1876, 1914, and 1940 but again if we are to have unity we will have to be considered as full Canadians.
We are tired of being told that we should assimilate. Assimilate to what? Assimilate to whom? We have been assimilated to Canada for 350 years, we have been Canadians for 350 years, we have paid taxes, fought in wars and given the nation great parliamentarians and great businessmen. We no longer want to hear such words as: Remember the Plains of Abraham. I think that words like these only add fuel to the fire and that those who say them are responsible for the deplored separatist movement in Quebec.
For example, I was told during the election campaign that the member for York East (Mr. Otto) and the member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) apparently said something to the effect that "it is time for French Canadians to assimilate".
I want to tell those colleagues of mine that until I have proof to the contrary, I shall assume that they did not mean to say such things or that they were misquoted by the reporters. If it were true, they should be considered as troublemakers and unworthy of sitting in this house and being members of the Liberal party.
I say again that we, from Quebec, want to be first class Canadians. We want to do our share in this country, but we also want to be put on the same footing as other Canadians.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry for my lack of experience and I thank you for your co-operation. Since I do not wish to overtax my colleagues' patience, I shall close my remarks here, so that other members can take part in this debate.
My apologies for this morning's incident, which was not meant to embarrass the house, but rather to try and establish once and for all the principle that the house is willing to respect the prerogatives of each and every member, even if he comes here as a lone wolf.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be to congratulate you on your elevation to the office you now hold. I have been impressed, as I am sure all hon. members have been over the last few years, by your ability, by your
332	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. MacRae fairness and above all by your sense of humour. I think your ready smile may do much in the months or, it may be, the years ahead to smooth over the rough places in our parliament. If the decision should ever be made that there should be a permanent Speaker I think Your Honour would be given a unanimous vote by this House of Commons.
I should also like to congratulate the Deputy Speaker, who has been a personal friend of mine for many years, and the Deputy Chairman of Committees. My congratulations extend also to the mover (Mr. Goyer) and seconder (Mr. Stanbury) of the address. As the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said, the maiden speech of any member of the House of Commons is never an easy one. These gentlemen conducted themselves very well indeed.
I could not help but recall, when the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer) was speaking, a night last June when his predecessor from that constituency sat here while the now famous Dorion report was tabled. I hope the career of the hon. member who now sits for Dollard will come to a happier conclusion than that of his predecessor.
I was interested to hear the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) mention during his remarks that he was speaking for 300,000 constituents. I might point out that if this late, unlamented, and unnecessary election had not been forced upon the people of Canada he might have represented a much smaller number of people when he came here. This is one of the reasons why we should not have had the election which was held last November. I refer to the gross inequities in representation today.
There have been a number of resignations from the government. I think the former minister of finance, the former secretary of state and the former postmaster general followed the only honourable course they could follow in resigning their portfolios. I think there are two others, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau) and the present Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) who might have followed that worthy example. I congratulate those ministers who have been newly appointed to portfolios as well as those who have been promoted, particularly the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson), a fellow New Brunswicker who has now held four different portfolios. For the good of this nation I wish him success.
It seems to me that in this nation we face roughly half a dozen basic problems. One of

DEBATES	January 27, 1966
the greatest is the threat of inflation and I should like to discuss this at some length. The second problem I should like to discuss today in the time available to me has reference to what has been called the education explosion.
I see there are a number of items on the order paper relating to another subject which particularly interests me, the importance of fresh water and the polluted state of many of our lakes and rivers. A third question that deeply interests me is the growing number of highway accidents and fatalities. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) has been especially active in this field, one in which a number of members on this side of the house have also taken a keen interest. I think we have reached a point where this House of Commons will have to take action in order to prevent so many people destroying themselves on the highways. Then there is the subject which the previous speaker has raised so eloquently today, the ferment in one of our great founding provinces.
First, I should like to discuss inflation. At this moment there is a question standing on the order paper in my name which asks:
1.	Is the government aware and concerned about
the possibility of inflationary trends in construction prices in this country?	,
2.	If so, what action is the government planning to take about any such trends?
This question was motivated by an item which appeared in the press a few weeks ago reporting that the president of the Canadian Construction Association had warned the nation that there was definitely a grave risk of inflation, that in fact this situation had already come about in the construction industry. It is to such a danger as this that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) was directed, because it especially concerns the 11 per cent sales tax. I saw another item in the press yesterday under a Canadian Press dateline from Vancouver. This is a terrible thought. It says that in the year 2011 we will be paying $5 a pound for beef. But what is even worse, Mr. Speaker, is that he said we are going to be paying $35 a bottle for Scotch whisky and $750 for a suit. He also goes on to say that the average person's salary, if the present inflationary trend continues and the cost of living continues to increase, will be $23,000 and pensions will be $7,900 a year. Finally, he says:
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
If the figures seem absurd, go to the newspaper files of 45 years ago and look at what prices were then.
January 27, 1966	COMMONS
Therefore it seems to me we are definitely faced with a problem of inflation in Canada. The present cost of living is at an all-time high. In September, 1964, according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, the consumer price index was 135.6 in relation to a base of 100 in 1949. In 1965, one year later, the consumer price index was 139.1. This is an increase of 3.5 points, or $3J if one wants to look at it that way, or a rise of 2.6 per cent.
Of course what happens with inflation is that it falls most heavily on the small wage earner and on the pensioner who is in receipt of a small pension. I was distressed, as I am sure many hon. members were, by the curt and almost arrogant answer of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) in his reply to a question about federal civil service superannuates. There is a branch of this association in my constituency, and I know one widow who is trying to live as best she can on $39 a month, which is the amount of her deceased husband's pension. I think the point has been well made by many others but I should like to repeat that there should be an escalation clause tied in with the cost of living and attached to the pension schemes of these people, as there should be to all pension schemes.
I have been deeply disturbed by the number of strikes which took place during the past year. It seems to me that in 1965 we had more strikes in this nation-perhaps this is true of the United States, too, because our economies are so closely allied-than we have had for many, many years. Just to digress for a moment, we saw the recent strike in New York city which cost the people of that large metropolis $100 million a day and almost tied it up completely. During the strike this fellow Quill was able, figuratively, to thumb his nose at the mayor of the city and the President of the United States. Sometimes we private members may think we have troubles here but look at the problem of Mayor Lindsay who took office at midnight and five hours later was faced with the New York transportation strike.
Another strike I should like to discuss briefly is that of the vocational students in Quebec which I believe has now come to a conclusion. I read that the premier of Quebec and his minister of education were greatly disturbed by it, and so they should be. Some
25,000	students went out on strike because their school year was extended from June 4 to June 21. High school students and most vocational students-I know whereof I speak
DEBATES	333
The Address-Mr. MacRae because vocational teaching is my profession-attend school until the end of June.
I understand that over the last half dozen years we have spent $1,100,000,000 on the building, equipping and staffing of vocational and technical schools. These students are paid to go to school. It is in their own self-interest that they do so in a world which is changing rapidly, in a world where automation is doing away with jobs that men's hands and in many cases men's minds have been doing for centuries. This is a great opportunity for them to achieve an education, to go out in the labour market and be employed that much sooner; yet they go out on strike. It is a sad commentary on what is happening today. They are paid to go to school. A great many here did not have their opportunity but would have welcomed it.
I should like to discuss the educational explosion and more particularly the report of the Bladen commission. A few figures will highlight what I have to say. In 1953 there were 63,000 students attending university in this nation. In 1960 that figure had risen to 100,000. In 1963 it was 140,000, in 1965, 180,000 and in 1975, according to the Sheffield projection, there will be 461,000 students in universities, more than three times the number of students who were there two years ago.
The cost involved is interesting. It is estimated that in 1965 the cost of university higher education is $355 million. In 1975-76, when there will be approximately twice the number of students who are attending university today, the cost will be $1,704,000,000 or five times the cost today. There will be two and a half times as many students but five times the cost. Therefore I think we must bend all our minds and all our efforts to this problem.
The recommendations of the Bladen commission are worthy of being placed on the record of the house. This commission was set up by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, with the distinguished Dean Bladen as commissioner. Here in part are his recommendations;
1.	That the federal and provincial governments undertake to provide for the expansion of higher education in Canada on the scale of the Sheffield projection.
2.	That the federal government initiate annual discussions with the provincial governments to review the adequacy of the federal contribution to the cost of higher educationthis is rather interesting.
-but that federal support be in a form which avoids any invasion of the provincial right, and obligation, to direct and control such education

January 27, 1966
The Address-Mr. MacRae
3.	That the federal government assign responsibility for co-ordination of assistance to universities from all its agencies to a minister of the crown.
4.	That such minister establish a small advisory committee mainly consisting of senior professors from various regions and disciplines, and appoint a senior civil servant as secretary of that committee and as organizer of the proposed annual discussions with the provinces.
5.	That the financial problems of the universities are so urgent that action to resolve them should be taken without delay.
The commission also made a particular recommendation to the federal government which I am glad to see has already been implemented in part within the last week, namely, that the present per capita grants be raised to $5 for the year 1965-66 and increased by $1 each year thereafter.
There is a further submission I would like to make in connection with the Bladen commission report and it comes from the Association of Atlantic Universities. It is one that is especially important to all of us who come from Atlantic Canada, an area of Canada which, through its universities, has given so many distinguished men and women to this and other nations of the world. The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada recently presented a submission to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) based on the findings of the Bladen commission. It asked for more generous equalization payments and urged in the meantime a special grant to maritime universities. Here is the particular point as they made it:
The commission pressed its belief that the special fiscal needs of the less wealthy provinces should be dealt with by general equalization grants.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
That is the principle which the Conservative administration followed between 1957 and 1963 with great benefit, and we in the Atlantic provinces are very grateful for that administration's adherence to this principle.
The association then stated:
We share this conviction. We, therefore, urge the federal government to provide more generous equalization payments to these provinces as quickly as possible. Until such time as increased equalization payments are made, we suggest that a special grant of $3 million per annum be paid to the universities and colleges of the Atlantic provinces in proportion to their number of full time students, who are eligible to be counted in calculating federal per capita operating grants.
Then the association makes a second recommendation which deals with out of province students. There are many out of province students attending universities in the Atlantic provinces, universities such as

St. Francis Xavier and the University of New Brunswick in Fredericton and Dalhousie University in Halifax. Many out of province students come to take forestry and engineering at U.N.B. and in the early days they came to study law at Dalhousie when the late Hon. Sidney Smith was dean of law there. They come to St. Francis Xavier to study the cooperatives.
This measure is of very great importance to our Atlantic provinces' universities because they have such a large percentage of out of province and out of country students. Many Canadian universities have in their enrolments substantial numbers of other provinces' students and students from other countries. We favour the movement of Canadian students from province to province and we welcome the students from other countries.
We are of the opinion that the federal government has a special responsibility to assist universities in financing the cost of educating such students. As a means of discharging this responsibility, we suggest that the federal government should provide a supplementary grant for educating such students according to a formula to be devised in consultation with the provinces and universities. We suggest that the supplementary grants should be made only with the clear understanding that this will not reduce to any extent the grants required to implement the recommendations we have endorsed and recommended. I submit these suggestions for the earnest and sympathetic consideration of the government of this nation.
There was a third point about which the Bladen commission was specific and which will perhaps not be too popular on the hustings if members endorse it. I refer to the recommendation in respect of free tuition. The suggestion of free tuition is an attractive one but we know only too well that nothing is free and that everything we do and everything we buy must be paid for in one way or another. I think it would be unjust and unfair to those Canadians who cannot avail themselves of a university education to have to pay for capital grants and so on through taxes and also pay for others to get an education. For at least some time in the forseeable future I think students should make every effort to pay their own tuition.
It is my belief that there should be scholarships and that their number should be greatly increased. There should, of course, be a student loan plan, but I think a student who has
January 27, 196S	COMMONS
had loans for perhaps five years will find himself with a heavy burden to carry upon graduation. At that stage of life many of these young men wish to marry and establish homes of their own. In spite of all the difficulties involved I concur in the suggestion of the Bladen commission that those who can afford to pay full tuition fees should pay at least a portion of the cost of a university education.
One other matter which is very close to my heart, and I spoke of this during the last session, concerns between 1,000 and 1,200 men in this country. I refer to the men who were prisoners of war of the Japanese after the fall of Hong Kong in 1941. A number of members in all parties have been urging the minister and the government to give these men some special consideration. The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg) and the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Groos) are particularly concerned about these Hong Kong veterans.
Those veterans underwent greater hardships than perhaps any of the rest of us who were privileged to serve during world war II. The time they spent in prison camps and the treatment they received are comparable to the suffering of those people who were incarcerated in Hitler's concentration camps. We know something of what happened to those six million people who were dehumanized, brutally treated, starved, tortured and murdered. This is one of the blackest chapters in the history of mankind. There are a number of people in our nation who spent some time in these concentration camps, and I know there are several members of the house who were prisoners of war in Europe. I refer to the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) and the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Clancy). There are a number of others who were prisoners of war including the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet).
I was fortunate enough never to have been a prisoner of war but I am sure those who suffered under the hands of the Japanese suffered immeasurably more than others who were relatively fairly treated. I think these men deserve special consideration.
An inquiry was made by Dr. Richardson over the past two years regarding the Hong Kong prisoners of war. The findings of that inquiry are very slow in their final production.
I know it takes time to evaluate matters of this kind and I am happy to see that a slight concession has been made in that these veterans have been given extra dental care. There
DEBATES	335
The Address-Mr. MacRae are only 1,200 of these men. Their lives have been shortened as a result of their experiences. We saw many of them when they returned. Many of us talked with these men and realized that they were healthy individuals weighing up to 200 pounds when they were captured but had been reduced to 95 or 100 pounds by starvation and now shook like leaves. I urge the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the government to give very special consideration to these veterans.
There are a number of other points I should like to mention. I have already discussed the matter of federal civil service superannuates. I believe these people have a case, and I know that many members of this house are aware of this situation. I urge the government to reconsider its attitude and treat this matter in a different way from that in which it was treated the day before yesterday and during the late show in the evening.
I notice on the order paper that an hon. member has sponsored a bill in connection with section 150(2) (c) of the Criminal Code. This bill relates to the subject of family planning and so on. This is something we should very earnestly consider. It seems to me the basic problem of mankind today is the population explosion. We are searching for some way to maintain peace in our world but if we continue to multiply-not so much in this nation or in the United States but in India where a famine threatens as a result of which millions likely will die this year of starvation, in China, in South America, in the West Indies and in Africa-this overpopulation- problem will be aggravated. Mr. Speaker, if we move in the direction suggested by the bill to which I have referred, it will be a step in the right direction.
I suggest to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) that in view of the fact we are having difficulty in recruiting men for our armed services there should be a reengagement bonus paid to men when their terms of service expire, whether that term of service be three, five, ten or fifteen years. I know from talking with many of these men that they look upon this suggestion with a great deal of favour. The institution of such a plan might very well prove to be a factor in the maintenance of the strength of our armed forces, and by keeping trained and experienced men in our forces we will in turn maintain their efficiency.
In conclusion I should just like to touch briefly again upon the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. 336	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Orange Lambert) which suggests that the 11 per cent sales tax should be abolished. How well those of us who were in this house in 1963 remember the then minister of finance coming out like a lion in castigation of the previous government and ending up by imposing upon this nation the 11 per cent sales tax. Eventually he had to withdraw it and reimpose it in instalments.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is an unjust, unfair tax, especially on the young people who wish to build their homes. I suggest it is inflationary and that it should be removed at the earliest possible opportunity. If it should be that because of the usages of parliament the hon. gentleman's amendment is defeated tonight, I would urge the government to take this matter into its most earnest consideration very soon. When the budget for the next fiscal year is presented would be an admirable time to remove this unjust, inequitable, discriminatory 11 per cent tax which was placed upon the people of this nation.


Mr. R. J. Orange (Norihwesi Territories):: Mr. Deputy Speaker, on rising in the House of Commons for the first time I congratulate you and the Speaker of this house on achieving your present positions. From the many remarks made on both sides of the house it is obvious to those of us who are sitting in this chamber for the first time that the Speaker and yourself are held in the highest regard by all hon. members and that collectively you will carry out your duties with the best interests and integrity of this house as your only objective.
I congratulate the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer) and the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury), the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. They have set a standard that not only augurs well for the future of this house but is also an example to those of us who are now following them.
The Northwest Territories, the constituency that it is my privilege to represent, is a vast land of many faces, an exciting and frustrating land, the land of the long day where Canadiana, I suggest, has been blended in a way that has not been seen anywhere else in this our nation. Those of us who are fortunate enough to live on Canada's last frontier have a particular pride in our land. We know we face the realities of life, the cold, the wind, the darkness and, for many of our people, hunger and frustration. We know we

DEBATES	January 27, 1966
have around us a heritage of toughness, excitement and hope. We know we have made a contribution to Canada's history, that we are part of Canada's present way of life and, more important, we know we will share in our nation's future. When a northerner comes to southern Canada he sees an affluent society. He becomes concerned about the lack of understanding on the part of our countrymen of our land, our people and our future.
Canada is a northern nation, one which has been blessed by Providence, where the seeds of nature curl up each winter in hibernation to rejuvenate after the winter months in the warm sun of the spring and ripen and blossom into the productivity which makes our country great. By nature's design we are a northern country. We share the roof of the world with Scandinavia, Russia and the United States. Yet are we meeting the challenge of being a northern country? Do we know the extent of our physical resources, the mineral, oil and water potential? Do we know or understand our greatest resource, the people who live there? Collectively as Canadians our answer is less than ideal. Possibly individually, either in a corporate or personal sense, there are some who do understand these things.
However, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that as a youthful, dynamic, exciting and energetic country we as Canadians are not fully aware of our national identity as a northern country. Sometimes those of us who call the north our home smile benevolently and yet with great concern at the stresses and strains that pull at the foundations of our country. We cannot help but wonder why there is a cleavage, if there is one, between the founding races of confederation. Yet we too are fighting for our identity and we try to understand that Canadian confederation is the grouping together of peoples of various backgrounds and cultures who are anxious to share equally with pride and understanding the fruits of the geographic entity known as Canada.
To many the north is a bewildering and unknown country, the land of snow and ice. To too few Canadians it is the land of opportunity, excitement and the future. We hope that our countrymen will learn more about us and our country as it is in this land that our nation will build its future in the generations to come.
An historic occasion, Mr. Speaker, is taking place on the grounds of parliament hill during the balance of this week and next week
January 27, 1966
with the meeting of the Council of the Northwest Territories. I say "historic" because I am convinced that the Carruthers commission, the commission appointed by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) to determine from the people of the north the form and type of government best suited to that country, will recommend that all future sessions of the Northwest Territories Council be held in the north. This step, combined with the transfer of the Commissioner and his office to the north, will bring territorial government closer to the people of the Northwest Territories.
The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) made a number of statements last Friday with which, surprisingly enough, I must agree. It is possible that this will be the only time we will see eye to eye on any subject. He advocated the transfer of many of the powers now held by the federal government to the territorial governments of both the Yukon and Northwest Territories. He specifically referred to the transfer of such matters as land administration. He pointed out the difficulties of dealing with an administration centred thousands of miles from the scene of activity.
The logic of this argument makes much sense and should be the basis of planning now. I hope that when the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources sponsors amendments to the Northwest Territories Act he will provide this house with a meaningful blueprint which will detail greater autonomy for the territorial government combined with a timetable for the transfer of functions that are territorial in nature to the territorial government.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I am hopeful, too, that the bill can be dealt with expeditiously in order that the franchise may be extended to those citizens of the eastern Arctic who are now unable to vote in territorial elections. There have been suggestions that possibly the principle of appointing members to the Council of the Northwest Territories be abolished. The majority of elected members past and present have consistently acknowledged the contribution of the appointed members. These men serve without pay and sometimes at great inconvenience to themselves. The councillors are strongly in favour of retaining appointed members of council at least for the foreseeable future. This fact too will be examined by the Carruthers commission, and I believe it
The Address-Mr. Orange is only proper to await the commission's recommendations before expressing our personal opinions on this subject.
One of the disturbing factors that has been suggested on a number of occasions in the past few years has been the somewhat rude and intolerable suggestion on the part of provincial representatives of two of the western provinces that the boundaries of these provinces be extended north to absorb the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories into those provinces. Let me make it clear that northerners have no desire to become part of any nefarious scheme of this nature. We find it somewhat strange and disconcerting that this interest has been generated only after the oil and mineral potential of the Yukon, Mackenzie and Arctic have become a reality.
For many years, the Northwest Territories were virtually ignored by our provincial cousins in the same way that many parts of the northern areas of the provinces were ignored by their governments. Now that the resources of the north are becoming a major factor in spurring the development of our country, it becomes obvious to us why there are those who are casting covetous eyes on our territories. To know northern people is to understand them and to understand them is to appreciate them and the pride they have in themselves and in their land. We want to develop our own institutions and political entities. We are not interested in being swallowed up in a Louisiana type land grab by any of the provinces.
Northerners are strong for political autonomy, the opportunity to run their own affairs and to participate in the development of their own country. They recognize that they have neither the population nor the resources to do it on their own. They acknowledge the impetus given to this progress by the government of Canada, particularly during the last decade, and are anxious to see it continued and, more important, increased. The end results will be to build a strong north fitting within the framework of Canadian confederation and contributing to Canadian society. It is freely acknowledged by people who know northern Canada and its economic potential that the future of the country rests with the mining industry. If we are to grow and prosper we must see new mines come into production and our people trained to participate in this development.

338	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Orange
There are two serious problems facing all or part of the mining industry today. There exists throughout Canada a severe labour shortage in the mining industry. In the July, 1965, edition of the publication, Today in Mining, the official journal of the Mining Association of Canada, the managing director of the association is quoted as saying that there are more than 4,000 men needed this year across Canada to fill a wide range of technical, skilled and unskilled jobs. This figure could be higher, the general manager goes on to say, since some companies were not in a position to forecast their requirements at that time. I have been told by the managers of mines that some of the mines in our more isolated or marginal areas could be forced into a position of cutting back on their operations and, in one particular instance, possibly closing unless there is improvement in the labour supply. I am hopeful that perhaps a new training program for unskilled and partly trained workers will take into account the urgent needs of the mining industry, an industry which in Canada affords employment directly or indirectly to approximately 13 per cent of our national labour force and accounts for 7.2 per cent of our gross national product.
A second and equally important point of concern is the possibility that the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act will be allowed to expire in 1967. This act was extended in 1963 for four additional years. I can think of no way of retarding northern development more than by not extending this act beyond 1967. It is equally important that the decision in this regard be made as early as possible in order that the industry may be assured of further government assistance to give it an opportunity to schedule its work beyond the present expiry date of the act. If this measure is not extended, I can foresee the closing of mines in the Northwest Territories which would be a serious blow to the development of the north.
At the same time, there is a provision in the act which I believe should be re-examined. It is my understanding that assistance under the act does not apply to any new mine which came into operation after June 30, 1965, unless this mine is located in an area which is presently classified as a gold mining community and where the majority of the persons employed in the mine would normally live in the community. In other words, the way the act is framed at the

DEBATES	January 27, 19G6
present time it is virtually impossible for a northern gold mine to be brought into production or operation unless it is located in the immediate vicinity of the thriving nortropolis of Yellowknife.
During the next few weeks the house will have an opportunity to discuss the organization of the new department of Indian affairs and northern affairs. I hope to have an opportunity of expressing my views at that time on the role and place of our first Canadians in present day society. It has occurred to me, however, that the proposed name of the department might be changed. I should like to think that a possible name for the department might be the department of Indian, Eskimo and northern affairs to give recognition to the contribution our Eskimo people have made to Canadian society.
Like many of our colleagues, I am concerned and worried about the rate of progress being made in bringing some Indian and Eskimo people into the mainstream of Canadian life and giving them the same opportunity for education and human development that other Canadians now have as a birthright. It is not easy to go into an Indian community and to accept the squalor, deprivation and despair you may find in many communities, where even basic amenities such as power, water and decent housing are unknown.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I suggest that there is not an Indian problem in Canada but there is a white problem, a problem of the lack of understanding of the Indian people and their culture. A philosophy has been developing over the years that the Indian people are wards of the government. Fortunately, this thinking is changing, but we must ask ourselves whether it is changing fast enough and must we wait for generations to see the results.
In the northern parts of the provinces and in the Yukon and Northwest Territories many Indian and Eskimo people continue to hunt and trap as their forefathers have done before them. This way of life is a hard and for the most part an unrewarding means of existing. Since world war II the price of furs and skins has been steadily declining while costs to the producer, the man living in the bush or on the tundra, have increased at a rate comparable with the rest of Canada. The result has been a great increase in welfare payments to our native peoples combined with a general decline in the trapping industry. The obvious effects of welfare in place of
January 27, 1968	COMMONS
work require no amplification. I would recommend to the government that serious consideration be given to the establishment of a floor price on furs and skins which would bring stability to a wildly fluctuating industry, and at the same time provide a means whereby a man who wishes to pursue this means of livelihood will feel that he can support his family and himself in dignity.
It may be argued that fur is a luxury item and should not receive any form of government support. Granted it is a luxury item to the fashion model in Montreal or Toronto, but to the hunter and trapper it is a means of support. I believe strongly that should stability be brought to the fur industry welfare payments would decrease in direct proportion to the subsidy or floor price. Even more important, many of our Indian and Eskimo peoples would become productive citizens of our society, gaining in the self-respect that comes from economic independence.
I suggest also that the concept of a floor price or subsidy is not unknown in our Canadian society. If we are to attract settlers into the north of Canada, I think we must do so in a way that acknowledges that there are differences in the cost of living between northern Canada and the south, that many of the amenities enjoyed by our countrymen in the south are not readily available in northern Canada.
At this time I should like to make note of the contribution the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has made to our northern way of life. The northern service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, either through local radio stations or by means of shortwave, covers much of northern Canada. The corporation is to be congratulated on the initial steps it has taken in extending radio services throughout the north. I would like to think that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's progress to date has reached a plateau from which they intend to launch further advancements.
One of the problems facing northern residents is the lack of recreation. Because of the extreme weather conditions outdoor recreation is virtually impossible for most of the winter. At the same time we have read press reports that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is intending to develop a colour television network in southern Canada in the near future. Yet I understand there are no firm plans to bring television services to those areas of Canada which do not enjoy this benefit. I would hope that there would be a
DEBATES	339
The Address-Mr. Fulton rethinking of the C.B.C.'s plans in order to bring a combination of live television to those areas where it is economically feasible, such as the southern Mackenzie, or to establish semi-automated videotape stations where live television is impractical. I would like to see this happen before a colour television network is developed for the populated areas of southern Canada.
The headquarters of the northern service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are located in Montreal. Programming is controlled from this centre. In the Mackenzie district there is a hook-up with the prairie service of the C.B.C. With the exception of national news reports newscasts in the north are not of topical interest to the listeners to the Mackenzie network. It seems to me that if the C.B.C. were to pursue their radio network to its logical conclusion, the headquarters of the northern service would be located in the north together with such features as a northern newsroom.
In concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, may I express the fervent prayer that the members of this house will deal with the nation's business in a way that will give to the people of Canada confidence and pride in the activities of their representatives in parliament.


Hon. E. D. Fullon (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the debate, I wish to say a few words to congratulate you sincerely on your appointment as Speaker of the house. The qualities you have already shown, prove that our choice was a wise one. We are pleased to have such a competent and distinguished man to chair our proceedings.

I should like to add too my felicitations to those who have been chosen to serve with you in the office of Deputy Speaker and the other offices of the house, and to wish them and you every happiness in the discharge of your responsibilities with the assurance of our support in that task.
I am in a position, Mr. Speaker, where I crave the indulgence of the house to make a personal reference for a brief moment or two. I am returning to the house after an absence. I am not sure whether I am making a maiden speech or not but I hope I will be given the indulgence that maiden speeches are usually accorded in this place. I should like to express my very grateful thanks for the
340	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Fulton warmth of the welcome I have been given by my colleagues both inside and outside the chamber.
I appreciate that welcome the more in that I am following, as the member for the federal constituency of Kamloops, Dr. Charles Willoughby, a member of parliament who, together with his wife, in the comparatively short space of time that they were here endeared themselves to everyone as well as establishing a remarkable record for faithful and effective service to their constituency. I hope that the career I follow here in the future will be worthy of the example that he set.
I have referred to my absence for a short period. This absence gave me time for reflection. It contained one or two incidents which I hope will not be repeated, such as a defeat in an election, but it did serve as a profitable opportunity for reflection. It also had the effect, that as absence gives time for reflection, so the return makes me perhaps the more happy. Because I have returned to the greatest of Canadian institutions, the House of Commons in the parliament of Canada, and who could help but be happy at being back in that institution.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I have tried during that absence to keep in touch with issues in general, with the discussions in parliament and with the changes in the rules which have taken place and which are now being tried out. I realize I have much to learn on my return but I hope I shall be able, along with my colleagues, to serve effectively this great institution of which we are members.
I have appreciated the difficult period through which my hon. friends in the House of Commons have been passing during the last three years. If one were to believe everything one reads in the press-and I have learned not to accept it all as gospel-one would think that parliament was in imminent danger of collapse. There have been difficulties, it is true, and I appreciate those difficulties fully, but it seems to me we can preserve a sense of proportion about those difficulties by realizing that the country itself is going through a difficult period.
Canada is today facing a situation as crucial as any it has faced in the past as it comes to the point of determining the direction- national, economic, political and cultural-that it will take. It seems to me that the difficulties experienced in parliament were but a reflection of the state of the nation. As yet no

DEBATES	January 27, 19G6
clear cut decisions have been taken with respect to these questions. The country has not decided and it should therefore be not surprising that parliament has been undecided and at times divided and that this chamber should now be a house of minorities.
This is the decision the people made last November 8. The government, it appears to me, cannot avoid a large share of the responsibilty for the indecision and lack of direction I have mentioned since it is the responsibility of the government to give leadership and direction. I will say more along these lines at other stages of the session. But the main thing, to my mind, is that we should accept our responsibility here, the responsibility of all of us, difficult though the circumstances may be, to make this institution work.
May I say a further word on the subject because there seems a danger when discussing this matter of co-operation and making the institution work, ends to which each one of us is dedicated, that one might be taken as meaning there should not be division on important issues. We must have divisions on issues and the opposition must constructively oppose where real issues are involved. I am certain many such issues will arise this session. The Speech from the Throne, if fulfilled, contains many issues on which there must be debate and division of opinion on a philosophical basis, issues such as the one we shall be voting on tonight, matters on which a marked and legitimate difference of opinion may be expected. Surely co-operation such as has been asked for and extended does not and cannot mean there should not be vigorous and proper opposition. That is the duty of opposition in this house. I assure you, sir, and all members of this house it is in this spirit I shall attempt to make my contributions to the discussions in which we shall be taking part.
It is in this spirit I should like to turn to consideration of the Speech from the Throne. It is, I believe, a legitimate criticism to say that this speech lacks the sense of direction for which parliament and the country are crying out. I recognize the presence in the Speech from the Throne of forecasts of legislation and programs to deal with real issues. But it does not appear to me to be an adequate document to set the pattern for making Canada great. The problems which confront Canada today are not just those which can be solved by spending money on welfare, desirable though it may be to do this. It seems to me the real problems of
January 27, 1966	COMMONS
Canada today can only be solved by challenging our people to take thought for the future and by giving them the sense of direction for which they are waiting so anxiously. There is no single thought of this responsibility of government which emerges from the Speech from the Throne.
I should like to mention one specific area of challenge, one of great difficulty for the future of Canada, an area in which we are entitled to expect the government and this parliament to challenge the resourcefulness of our people as we are now challenging the government, inviting them to indicate whether sacrifices of short term interest should not be made in order that we may profit by sound plans for the long term future. I am referring particularly here to the area of a national water resources policy, surely one of the most pressing questions with which we are now faced, one which is truly urgent in terms both of its size and of its opportunities, urgent also in view of the shortness of time available for its disposal if we are not to find ourselves in a grave situation. It is most disturbing to find no reference to a national water resources policy in the Speech from the Throne in 1966.
We believe that criticism by the opposition should be matched by constructive proposals and I will therefore suggest for the consideration of the government and of the house some elements which I feel should be incorporated in and be the objects of any national water resources policy.
I would place first the following objective: To preserve and ensure the availability of an adequate supply of pure, clean water for Canada's present and future needs. Having said this, hardly anything more is needed to demonstrate the size and the urgency of the problem with which we are faced. Second, our object should be to ensure the best distribution of water within Canada. We do have areas which are rich in water and others which are water-poor. We must ensure, for instance, that the prairies are served with adequate supplies of water. We must ensure also that there is a fair distribution within areas. For example, in certain areas, such as the one from which I come, there is land which would profit enormously from irrigation while there is water not too far distant which could be used for this purpose.
Third, having accomplished our first two objectives we should seek to ensure the optimum use within Canada of these resources.
DEBATES	341
The Address-Mr. Fulton Here we should perhaps pause for a moment to reflect upon the many vital uses of water and of the potential conflict between these uses so as to illustrate the size of what is involved. Consider the ways in which water is used, for domestic consumption, for sewage and other municipal purposes, for fishing, boating and similar recreational purposes, for transportation along the great waterways and canal systems, for industrial uses and for many other purposes essential to the vital needs of a modern society.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
We must therefore tackle now the problem of reconciling the potential conflict between these uses and assure that no one use is allowed to interfere unduly with the other uses I have mentioned and which are equally essential. This can only be done if criteria are established on a national basis for the maintenance of an adequate supply of pure water.
Such criteria, it seems to me, will differ of course from river basin to river basin and from location to location even within a basin, but we must take thought now to plan for the reconciliation of these multiple uses. After all, those responsible for city planning and the location of industry must have such criteria if they are to be able to plan precisely.
Fourth, I would mention as among the aims of national policy in this sphere the establishment and maintenance of a Canadian position, a Canadian policy, before ever entering upon any discussions with regard to the diversion or alienation of any Canadian waters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that American overtures in this regard are inevitable. I want to return to this subject in greater detail a little later but I am sure there is not a member of this house who does not accept that as a fact. But only an adequate national policy, a preconceived and sound Canadian policy in connection with water can be allowed to form the basis of a rational response to these overtures from the United States. In other words, the Canadian position, protecting Canadian interests present and future, must be established before any negotiation is commenced on water diversion, and it must be maintained during that negotiation.
Fifth and finally, I would suggest that among the aims of national policy must be to ensure that when and if negotiations are
January 27, 1966

The Address-Mr. Fulton commenced adequate recompense for this Canadian resource, or such part of it as we
may then decide on the basis of policy is available for joint use, must be secured to Canada for that priceless asset.
I have spoken of the urgency of the problem in terms of its size and of the time factor and I would like to demonstrate this urgency and the practical importance of working out this policy by reference to two or three examples. I think of the situation in my own constituency, or such part of it as will be left when the redistribution commission is through with it. I think of a part in the very centre of my constituency at the junction of the North and South Thompson rivers, rivers which again are typical of the beauties and the diversity of the present Canadian water supply, and also of the problems that are to be faced if we are to preserve this supply in its splendor-fishing and recreational rivers, rivers which are used for irrigation, for domestic consumption and, in growing measure, for industry.
This area now has a growing problem, a pressing problem with respect to the setting up of a water users community, again so as to reconcile these interests, to ensure that multiple use can be made of the supply instead of one use overriding another. There is a pressing problem in this respect. Also we have Indian reserves on both those rivers, and up and down their banks, and they are also concerned and affected. It is a problem in which it is quite obvious that an effective solution is going to require the assistance of the senior levels of government both provincial and federal. It is a problem which cannot be much longer deferred.
Naturally, as one does, I think of the situation in my riding, but I think also of situations elsewhere in Canada, of the situation on the great lakes with respect to navigation and pollution, particularly lake Erie, described by spokesmen who are not alarmists in this field as already being a dead lake. I think of the situation below these parliament buildings in the Ottawa river, a river which has been described, again by informed spokesmen in this field, as being more polluted than the Rhine, that great artery of commerce in Europe which has been used for thousands of years. How long have we been using the Ottawa? Just for a flash of time in history, but already the Ottawa river is more polluted than the Rhine in Europe.
Other members, I know, have similar problems in their areas, and it will be a national


crime if we let this problem go on any longer without taking thought to clear up the mess of pollution where it exists and to prevent further pollution of our supplies of water. After all, if we allow a situation to become a crisis it is always vastly more expensive to cure it than if you take thought for the future and plan to prevent the crisis from arising.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would again like to suggest for the consideration of the government and the house what might be some first steps in the process of devising such a national water resources policy. Of course, it is first of all necessary to recognize that this is a field of divided jurisdiction. This being the case, waters within provincial boundaries being provincial resources and yet there being so many areas of federal jurisdiction involved in their use and control, it follows as a matter of course that the most complete consultation must be commenced with the provinces at the earliest possible date in order to work out an agreed water resources policy.
I would like to refer to the statement of principle made on behalf of this party by its leader in March, 1964, when he said:
Conservation of water is a necessity for Canadian growth .... A dominion-provincial survey should be made of our waters to the end that, in co-operation with the provinces, we will assure that water resources shall be available for future generations.
He went on to stress that national action was needed to meet the problem. Toward the end of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the question of national action and national responsibility, and of co-operation between the national and the provincial governments.
At the same time as we must institute discussions leading to a co-operative policy on water resources, it is necessary to have co-ordination of the multiplicity of federal agencies now operating in this field. In this connection one can think of some of the departments such as the Department of Public Works with respect to navigable rivers, the Department of Transport with respect to control of navigation on waterways, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, the International Joint Commission-all these different areas of jurisdiction and all in many cases acting without any co-ordination of policy.
This is hardly to be wondered at, for they are no more than following the lead of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and of the
January 27, 196S	COMMONS
Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) who speak with two completely different voices on this important matter of whether we should sell our water to the United States. The Prime Minister made a speech on that subject and said of course water is a great asset and might provide sources of great revenue for Canada so that we should sell it or enter into programs for its use with the countries south of the border. That was shortly followed by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources who said in effect that not one drop will be sold so long as he has responsibility for the matter. It is plain to see that there is need not only for co-ordination of the multiplicity of federal agencies in the field but also for co-ordination of policy between the ministers.


Mr. Turner:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is not usual to interrupt a maiden speech but I will be glad to answer.


John Napier Turner: I would not like to comment on the hon. member's maidenhood but, in any event, could he reconcile for the benefit of the house the statements of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton)?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with government policy or lack of policy. At the present time, neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the hon. member for Qu'Appelle speak for the government. It will not be very long before they do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have already mentioned as one of the heads of urgency in this regard the need for a national or Canadian policy on water resources if the federal government is to respond in Canada's best interests to the mounting pressure from the United States for diversion of Canadian water. It seems to me that we cannot take a dog in the manger attitude. I am as concerned as the Minister of Northern Affairs about the preservation of Canadian interests but I do not think it is possible that we can just sit here and say: No, we won't even discuss it with you, and maintain that position forever. We have to look at the realities of the situation.
The shortage of pure water is now acute in the United States. We remember the fact that last summer the New York authorities had to
DEBATES	343
The Address-Mr. Fulton impose a fine of $50 if a waiter served a glass of water in a restaurant unless a customer specifically requested it. The President has informed Congress that every major river system in the United States is now polluted. Incidentally, this should be an example for Canada to proceed while there is still time to prevent that situation from arising in Canada.
I think one can say with perfect fairness that one of the reasons that pressure for diversion arises in the United States is that they have been profligate in their use of water resources. They used to say: We will never have a problem, we have all the water that we could ever contemplate needing. Now they face a crisis situation, so that we now observe the great and mounting interest shown by the United States concerning the diversion of Canadian water, and the future will certainly bring more pressing requests for more diversion.
In 1963 the public works committee of the United States Senate reported that by the year 2000 the United States will need one thousand billion gallons of water every day but that even under the most ideal conditions only 650 billion gallons a day will be available from domestic sources. We must profit by their mistakes and make sure that this does not happen in Canada.
Second, in order to prepare for Canada's own future water needs and to respond in Canada's best interests to United States demands, the federal government must begin to act now in working out a new Canadian water resources policy on which, and on which alone, we would then be prepared to enter into any discussions with regard to this problem.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to mention briefly the constitutional question that is involved. I have spoken of the need for consultation with the provinces, for we must recognize the divided jurisdiction in respect of water resources. Such consultation, planning and programming must not be in a competitive spirit but in a truly co-operative spirit. This can happen and we have seen it happen before provided there is complete consultation at every stage and that the consultation is initiated before any fixed positions are enunciated which will affect anything within the jurisdiction of the other parties. In this regard I think of the happy history of the federal-provincial co-operation in the negotiation of the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Columbia River Treaty in so far as the use of the waters themselves were concerned.
January 27, 1966

The Address-Mr. Fulton
It has surprised me, and I am sure this concerns members of this house as it concerns the provinces, that this present government which talks about co-operative federalism has produced a Speech from the Throne that positively bristles with intrusions into the sphere of provincial jurisdiction. It bristles with these intrusions. No wonder the provinces are angry and express growing concern when you see this trend multiplied in the Speech from the Throne.
In this whole field of resources development there is room for real co-operation; yet this is practically ignored in the Throne Speech. Here there is room for co-operation of a type which would not be an intrusion into someone else's jurisdiction and here is an area of really urgent problems. I think it is to be greatly regretted, and I am using mild words deliberately, that a government, faced with these problems and with these great opportunities of establishing bases of co-operation, should neglect them in favour of almost exclusive intrusions into fields of social security which are primarily the responsibility of the provinces. Important as these fields may be, we are entitled to complain about the neglect of these other fields.
There is also, of course, in this field great need and justification for the taking of federal initiative, first because this area already lies partly in federal jurisdiction and, second, because this is an area in which there can be effective Canadian action only if there is national co-ordination and policy creation.
Let us consider the question of pollution alone. Some say this is a matter that should be left to the localities or provinces. Localities and provinces cannot take adequate action in this field. We all know of the great competition there is in attracting industry to various locations. How, for instance, can one city enact effective anti-pollution measures only to see attractive industries going to other provinces where there are no such measures? In addition, how can the poorer provinces enact effective anti-pollution measures and at the same time attract industry unless all of Canada, including every province, has anti-pollution measures in effect?
This is not only a problem for federal action and initiative with need and justification in areas such as this; this water use, control and conservation problem is common to all Canadians. This is a Canadian resource from which Canadians benefit, wherever they live, and to the preservation of which they are equally entitled.


Here then is where we can, by agreeing on our objectives, take some beneficial action. I am sure if we agree on the objectives first it will be much easier to agree on the jurisdiction and levels of responsibility which should be assumed by the respective governments. If you start talking about jurisdiction first, somebody immediately becomes suspicious that we are trying to muscle them out. Here is an area where, by agreeing on the objectives in respect of a Canadian water resources policy, we can make real progress in moving toward constitutional harmony in Canada.
Finally, do we not dare ask ourselves- in fact, must we not dare to ask ourselves- whether the time has gone by when we can further delay working out a national or Canadian water resources policy, even though such policy and planning for the future may demand sacrifice of short term interests? Do we not dare ask ourselves to say: No, we will avoid making the fast buck-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Kamloops but the time allotted him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: It is
apparent that the house has given its unanimous consent to allow the hon. member for Kamloops to conclude his maiden speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Must we not ask ourselves: Shall we not sacrifice the fast buck to be made by selling for immediate cash and rather take the long view and conserve for the future and, by these measures and this attitude and in cooperation with the provinces, set a policy of constitutional advance and a pattern of distinctive Canadianism?


Mr. Jean Berger (Monlmagny-L'Islel):: Mr. Speaker, my first words will obviously be words of congratulation on your appointment to the high office you now hold. Your outstanding qualities as well as your pleasant firmness will allow you to go down in history as one of the most prominent Speakers this house has ever known.
Needless to say, those congratulations are also intended for the Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Chairman of Committees who is now in the Chair.
January 27, 1966

I wish also, like those who preceded me, to call attention to the excellent contributions made in this debate by the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer) and the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury). They made two very good speeches which lead us to expect other important contributions from them during the months to come.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
May I mention here the points of the speech from the throne which impressed me most: first of all, the field of agriculture. The farmers of Montmagny-L'Islet await with anticipation the numerous measures mentioned and hope that they will be implemented without delay. They have asked me to convey to the new minister responsible for that important department their best wishes of full success in carrying out the program he intends to apply. Their wishes are undoubtedly dictated by the fact that their interests are at stake.
To the new Minister of Manpower (Mr. Marchand), I will simply say that his former union members are counting on him very much. As for the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve), my constituents already know him as one who is aware of our needs and they will surely keep him busy through my humble means.
From the hon. members of the opposition we obviously expect constant alertness but mostly, constructive co-operation without undue partisanship in the difficult days ahead, in the best interests of all Canadians. I am convinced that the experience of the past few years will enable us all to work together more seriously, more efficiently, more diligently and, especially, more agreeably, for the good administration of our country.

Before I go further with my remarks, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of all hon. members who, like me, still believe in the dignity of this house, may I strongly object to the abusive language used here last Tuesday by an ex-minister of the previous government. This can be very easily verified in Hansard, page 244, column 2, when the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), in referring to the relations between our Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the premier of Quebec, Mr. Jean Lesage, my predecessor in Mont-magny-L'Islet, said:
You cannot tell whether two cats are fighting or doing other things by the sound of the racket that is coming out of them.
The Address-Mr. Berger
Such terms or expressions, Mr. Speaker, are in my opinion simply disgraceful for all of us. Let us hope that in the future we will bring this house to the place of dignity and decorum that it deserves and that foul expressions such as this will not be used by former ministers of the crown or other members.


Mr. Lambert:: Oh, you are thin-skinned.


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: With your leave, Mr. Speaker, I shall now deal with a matter which is always close to my heart, Canadian broadcasting and television to which I have devoted 16 years of my life. I am thinking particularly of CKBL and CKBL-TV, of Matane, CJLR, of Quebec City, CKBM, of Montmagny and CHGB, of La Pocatiere, to mention only a few.

Here I have a special thought for the ex-member for Port Arthur, whom I used to tease on this subject every once in a while. I take this opportunity to wish him well in his new activities.

I have carefully read and reread what we generally refer to as the Fowler report. The reading and study of such a voluminous document have left me somewhat perplexed. However, I agree with the committee's views when it says:
It is for parliament to define the goals of the public enterprise and to ensure that the goals assigned to a public agency are achieved. It must say clearly what it wants the broadcasters to do. In the past, Parliament has not stated the goals and purposes for the Canadian broadcasting system with sufficient clarity and precision, and this has been more responsible than anything else for the confusion in the system and the continuing dissatisfaction which has led to an endless series of investigations of it.
Therefore, this leads me, naturally, to ask the government to appoint as soon as possible a committee of the house on radio and television broadcasting in Canada. Such a committee would then enable the elected representatives of the people to choose from the various political parties, to study carefully this touchy question which ceaselessly has regular repercussions in the house, and to find the best solution. It would surely be preferable to setting up, as suggested, a Canadian Broadcasting Board whose chairman would have almost dictatorial powers. Private enterprise is right, in my humble opinion, in dreading and rejecting it completely, as the C.B.C. has already done through its chairman, Mr. Alphonse Ouimet.
January 27, 1966

The Address-Mr. Berger
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, to allay such apprehensions as may be felt on hearing this, I wish to specify that, for most obvious reasons, parliament should not become the sole director of Canadian radio and television, for then the remedy would be worse than the present ill. What is needed, I feel, is retention of the present system of the Board of Broadcast Governors and the C.B.C., plus a more detailed and clearer definition of their duties, responsibilities and prerogatives.
It is obvious that there is a good deal of unrest in the C.B.C., and the numerous complaints heard in this House or elsewhere are surely warranted. The C.B.C. is admittedly competent in radio and television, as shown by its 1964-65 annual report which mentions the awards and trophies won by the C.B.C.
In 1963, the C.B.C. was awarded 61 prizes and trophies in various national and international events. As regards the educational field, the C.B.C. was awarded six prizes by Ohio University in its 28th contest. Twice in three years, the C.B.C. was awarded a prize by the Spanish Broadcasting Corporation for its French "tele-theatre" in 1963. I suggest that the hon. members should examine that report so as to be fully informed in this regard. At the same time, there are too many radio and television programs that are of a questionable character, arrogant, in poor taste and sometimes pernicious.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Therefore, a democratic means should be found to censure, if need be, the C.B.C. if the corporation cannot practise self-discipline. So complex is its administration that it is impossible to know exactly who is to blame or who deserves praise, as the case may be.
This led a parliamentary correspondent to say or, rather, write recently:
When Mr. J. Alphonse Ouimet was asked if he did not think it was about time to find out who was running things at the C.B.C., he replied: "We always know, but no names may be mentioned."
The usual dodge. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is time to put a stop to that. Such an arrogant and offhanded way of dealing with things and people can no longer be tolerated.
Considering the ever increasing budgets, am I not right in suggesting that the government must each year make up the deficit of this crown corporation?
I think it would be quite normal to have a standing committee of the house to fully examine every year the financial and other operations of the C.B.C., find solutions to the problems facing the corporation and, of

course, make suggestions, if necessary, toward improving the corporation's services and programs. We would thus save the time expended on asking questions of the responsible minister who then passes them on to the corporation and finally comes up with evasive answers that are not in the least informative, and this is extremely unpleasant for everybody.
On the other hand, private companies- incidentally, they were treated rather harshly in the Fowler report-would have everything to gain in airing their grievances before the said parliamentary committee. Both sides would gather valuable data, learn about new developments and most probably also have the opportunity to see matters in a different light, which would not be a bad thing.
It is most unfortunate that the royal commission could not acknowledge the great services rendered to their respective communities by private stations for the benefit of various associations, welfare organizations and others.
With regard to the many services which can be rendered by private enterprise, I was deeply shocked to learn recently, in my own riding, that some federal civil servants were advised to curry favour with the management of private radio stations in order to be allowed free broadcasting of announcements, because their department did not have money available for this.
If we consider the financial problems inevitably facing the small broadcasting companies in some areas, this way of doing things is unthinkable.
The Canadian Broadcasters Association, a body representing 228 private radio stations and 55 private television stations, including the C.T.V. network, has just submitted to the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) its reply to the notorious Fowler report.
The association dismissed outright the proposal for the setting up of a broadcasting control board. It is not the only one to do so. I received a letter today from a radio station in my riding which reads in part as follows:
(a)	We are opposed to the establishment of a broadcasting control board, because it would entrust to one man only the authority to decide what the Canadian stations must offer their listeners.
We are in favour of an impartial control similar to that of the present Board of Broadcast Governors.
(b)	We wish government authorities would take into account the financial means of local stations when working out their policy on broadcasting inasmuch as the income of the stations is not as large as that available in larger centres. It is not
January 27, 1966

possible for us to offer programs as elaborate as those produced by stations in large cities or by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's stations.
(c)	In view of the limited staff of local stations such as ours, it would be desirable that the reports required be reduced to a bare minimum, as they involve a large amount of work.
Those were a few notes I received today from Station CKBL in Montmagny.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the association, on the contrary, advocates the maintenance of the present Board of Broadcast Governors, but with this qualification that the number of members should be reduced to three. The latter would, however, work on a full-time or permanent basis. The suggestion deserves consideration, although it does not appeal to me, because of a certain natural distrust of agencies that have a very limited staif, and are thus more subject to undue pressures.
On the other hand, the Association is of the opinion that the C.B.C. should not be forced to extend its services to remote areas. They claim, for instance, that no reason warrants the extension of the corporation's services to the Yukon before the corporation has set up stations in areas already served by private stations.
Broadcasters think that it should be established that in every part of the country there should be room for a private and a public television station.
This somewhat ambiguous quotation makes me think of the difficulty involved in bringing television to an area which I know quite well, that part of the large riding of my desk partner here in the house which we call "the Lower North Shore", in the county of Saguenay. In my opinion it is imperative that, contrary to what is advocated by the Association, the C.B.C. backs up financially the private station which serves this region and which has had to make numerous sacrifices of all sorts in order to satisfy as adequately as possible the legitimate claims of the population of a region topographically so rough and uneven.
Another interesting point in the private stations' reply deserves attention, even if this brings down upon me the ire of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson). It is the following:
The association finally is trying to destroy the myth that private stations are making money hand over fist. They complain that Canada and the United States are the only countries where radio and television stations have to pay taxes. In other countries, they imply, radio and television stations are considered as essential public services, consequently tax-exempt, whereas, in addition to these taxes, Canadian stations have to pay the cost of a permit.
I sincerely believe there is food for thought in this, and at the risk of repeating myself, I
The Address-Mr. Berger feel a committee of the house could more carefully study this question.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I will endorse some of the Fowler report findings, flavoured somewhat with my own humble contributions.

But first, will you allow me to quote certain paragraphs of an article published on this matter by the Edmonton Journal, which read as follows:
Why not recognize the C.B.C. internally (as Mr. Fowler recommends with chapter and verse); have parliament define its objectives (as Mr. Fowler also recommends); give it a realistic annual grant; forget about competing with private broadcasters for sponsors; and then give Canadians the best broadcasting service that can be devised?
Then examine the product, year by year, in parliamentary committee and comprehensively at the end of five years. That should show whether T.V, indeed has a potential beyond simple home entertainment and, equally important, whether Canadians want an egghead-program network. After having seen it, five years should be enough to find out.
By then, too, no longer having a subsidized C.B.C. as a commercial competitor, private networks would have a fair chance to demonstrate the best in private broadcasting.
This general approach, it seems to us, would hold far more promise of achievement than putting C.B.C. and private broadcasters under one Canadian broadcasting authority, dictating their programming and then telling them to fight it out for ratings and sponsors.
This too, I believe, Mr. Speaker, is worth a second thought.

Coming back to the Fowler report we find on page 269:
It will be seen that our concept of the future needs for private and public radio in Canada are different. The lines of development of the two have tended to diverge. Private radio has become more and more local and has seriously neglected its national and international responsibilities. CBC radio has concentrated on its national function and has not sufficiently met local needs and the needs of particular segments of the audience. We believe that the trends of both private and public radio should alter and their lines of development should converge, although they can never meet completely.
Private radio stations, while maintaining their flexible and generally valuable local services, should participate more extensively in the national purposes of Canadian broadcasting. Their facilities should be used to interpret different regions of Canada to each other.
That is a most appropriate remark.
Their considerable assets-both financial and cultural-should be mobilized to produce more balanced, more varied, and better program fare for the listeners of each station. Programs that would be beyond the reach and the means of a single station can be produced by merging their
348	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Rynard
assets and their talents. This should be done preferably by voluntary co-operation between the private stations. The basis of this proposition is quite simple. As we conceive it, the performance of a private station must be a valid part of the Canadian broadcasting system. It is not good enough if one station concentrates on news and public information, another on classical music, another on rock-and-roll.
Each station, perhaps with differing emphasis, must expose its listeners to the complete spectrum of radio services. If it cannot do this from its own resources, means must be found to mobilize the resources of several stations to achieve the desired result by co-operative action.
The C.B.C. should revise as soon as possible its administrative framework in order to stop the unfortunate infiltration within its own staff-noted in the last few years-of separatists, subversive elements or others, and there are others, believe me, whom I shall not name but whom I could easily pinpoint and who have probably been the cause of some sharp but well deserved criticism of the Corporation.
The report read on:
For C.B.C. radio the future course of development we suggest is different. It now does reasonably well in providing a national service, but it is rigid, remote, out of touch with local reality.
It must get down into the market-place, not only in its commercial policy. It must establish better contact with local and regional opinion. It too must become a complete service.
For both public and private broadcasting, radio is the great chance. It is the real communicator, the vital interpreter. Television is muscle-bound by its high costs and the consequent need to reach mass audiences.
As was so wisely mentioned by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) who spoke before me.
The report further states:
Radio is mobile and flexible.
It is up to us to make use of it.
To all radio broadcasters we say: Free your radio policies from the shackles of past practices and traditions. Get going.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I hope all hon. members of this house will gladly and quickly make theirs that motto "Get going", in the best interest of the Canadian people, by getting down to work quietly and efficiently in Parliament.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you on your appointment as Speaker and would you also convey to the Deputy Speaker my very best wishes. I realize, as do all of us, that it takes the wisdom of a Solomon and a man of iron
DEBATES	January 27, 1966
will to control the house from the Chair and to keep perfect order. I am sure that those qualities are possessed in no small measure by the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker.
I should also like to convey my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Goyer) and the seconder (Mr. Stanbury) of the Speech from the Throne. I think they did an excellent job. Their topics were dealt with well and they did their task with minimum reference to notes, which speaks well for them in the house. On listening to the newcomers in this house I have been impressed by the excellent quality of their speeches. First of all, Mr. Speaker, may I say I was a little disappointed in the Throne Speech. There were very few priorities as such. Second, I should like to refer to the Department of Transport and deal with a matter particularly concerning my own riding and also the whole of Canada. I refer to an order issued by the Department of Transport which required certain repairs and additions to be made to two of the boats that sail on the great lakes, the Keewatin and the Assinihoia.
Both of those boats were built on the Clyde. In 1907 they were brought across the ocean under their own steam and at the Welland canal were divided into two, being put together again in the Buffalo shipyards. They then sailed up to the great lakes to go into service for the C.P.R. First of all they sailed from Owen Sound to Fort William and Port Arthur and later from Port McNicoll which is at the lower end of Georgian Bay 85 miles north of Toronto and became their home port. It is just a short drive from Toronto by highway 400. From here they have sailed over the years to Fort William and Port Arthur carrying passengers and freight.
Now, Mr. Speaker, 60 per cent or better of the passengers are United States tourists. They enter Canada at various border points across the country and travel across the country spending their money at motels, gasoline stations and on other services until they arrive at Port McNicoll. There they can park their cars and go by boat to Fort William and Port Arthur at the head of the lakes. The cost of the fare is approximately $100 per person. For another $25 they can put their car on the boat. The boat carries roughly 200 passengers plus freight, as I have already said. The two boats, the Keewatin and the Assinihoia, sail and carry passengers for approximately 10 weeks of the year and they are fully booked throughout
[Mr, Berger,!
January 27, 196G	COMMONS
the year. In other words, if you do not get your ticket and your berth at the beginning of the season you are not going to get on either boat.
Ever since the Noronic fire in Toronto there has been a stepping up in the precautions which should be taken to prevent fire on boats. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, in the case of the Noronic the passengers slept on the boat. I want to make it perfectly clear, in the case of the Assiniboia and the Keewatin, that when they are in port the passengers do not stay on board; they must leave the ship. I also want to make it perfectly clear that they have the best sprinkler system and the best equipment which can be purchased, as well as lifeboats. The problem is that they were both built in the days of wood. Many of the things on them today do not come up to present day requirements.
My feeling is this. Millions of dollars are being spent by tourists travelling on these boats. I have known people who take these boats, proceed right through to British Columbia by car and then come back to board the boat again at Fort William or Port Arthur to return to Port McNicoll, finally making their way to their border crossing point. Many of them repeat these trips.
We are badly in need of United States dollars. Visitors from the United States spend about $500 million in Canada, money which we badly need owing to our deficit which is something in the order of $1.5 billion. A tourist dollar is just as valuable as a dollar earned through selling goods in the United States. Not only that, the market can be an expanding one. The beauties and the charm of the great lakes and the 30,000 islands provide some of the finest scenery anywhere in the world.
I would say to the Minister of Transport that his department should take another look at this order. When the order was issued the C.P.R. said that they were going to discontinue the service. They will still keep the Assiniboia carrying freight. The Keewatin will be sold if they can sell her. Recently representatives of one of the Caribbean countries or islands were in Canada looking at this boat with the idea of purchasing it. The Department of Transport must take another look at this matter and not lose the tourist dollars which are so valuable to us. This is one of the best tourist drawing cards I know of across Canada. Let us take another look at the equipment of this boat and consider the fact that passengers do not remain on the
DEBATES	349
The Address-Mr. Rynard boat while in port. If it is not possible to allow these boats to go on as they are I suggest that the Department of Transport should subsidize the C.P.R. to repair and rebuild these boats so as to meet the necessary fire precautions. To rebuild them would cost a million dollars. But the government could work out some deal with the C.P.R. to subsidize these boats. The government subsidizes industry in this area and many other areas. This would be very worth while in the light of the money brought into this country by these two boats.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
If this cannot be done the government should buy the boats and give them to the Canadian National Railway to run. I do not know how many members realize it but these are the last two passenger boats Canada has on the great lakes. I for one feel we should have enough pride in this country not to let this great tourist attraction die especially as it brings so much money to Canada. In this land, just a few miles from Port McNicoll where these boats berth, is the Martyrs Shrine which is known to many tourists from all parts of the United States and Canada. This is the land of Huronia.
I am thinking particularly about the economics of the two boats which bring so many dollars to this country. Surely it is penny wise and pound foolish to destroy something that is a proven success in order to put money into something which is a lot more hazardous as we find the government doing today.
I should like now to draw the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), or one of the other ministers in his absence, to the fact that in the Trent waterway system we have one of the finest fresh waterways in the world. To complete this waterway in 1919 two marine railways were built. One of them still operates. They were built as a quick means to get power in the first great war and the marine railways were put in there as a make-do device. Today we still have one of them. It was not until many years after they were built that the Conservative government decided in 1960 to go ahead and rebuild and repair the whole of the Trent waterway system at an expenditure of some $12 million. We believe this will run to $20 million later. In my view this was and is a worthwhile expenditure. Today if you go to this region and travel there you will see that the lift locks at Peterborough have been repaired. You will see also the repairs under way at
January 27, 1966

The Address-Mr. Rynard Kirkfield. You will go up to the Severn river and there you will find one of the finest locks in the world. It was started by the Conservative government and it was opened last year.
The whole morale of the employees of the Trent waterway system was raised by what that Conservative government achieved and by what the present government has been carrying on. The men on the locks have uniforms and caps. The United States tourist knows whom to address. It is a pleasing state of affairs compared with the rundown condition that existed over 22 years of later Liberal administration, five years of Conservative government and the period of the previous Liberal administration from 1919 on.
There is one stumbling block. There is another lock to go in. There is another marine railway which is closed to all intents and purposes to the big boats that come up the waterway. This is the marine railway at Big Chute. Many of the big boats that come up that far find the risk too great to go over this marine railway and consequently they turn round and go back. In other words the waterway is not to all intents and purposes fully completed until that railway is replaced with a lock and I would urge the government, having regard to the money which has been spent up to now, to build this lock whose construction has been held up.
I would also urge them to leave this marine railway in its place as a lamprey deterrent. The other one has been removed. I think the marine railway is a great tourist attraction in itself. This marine railway only carries approximately 10 to 15 tons and will not carry the big boats of American tourists as well as those of many of our own people from the cities of Toronto, Kingston, Hamilton and elsewhere. Consequently we are not reaping the full potential of the Trent valley and the tourist dollars which can be brought in in this way. I will again remind you, Mr. Speaker, that these are just as important as any dollars we get. Next to wheat and next to the pulp trade comes the tourist dollar in the economy of this country.
We have another problem on the road just a few miles west of Victoria Harbour. There is an underpass there which was built in the horse and buggy days. This tunnel is so narrow that today there are a great many accidents at this location some of them fatal. This should be looked after right away.
1 should like the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to explain something to us. The

right hon. gentleman said, I believe, that he would give to the tourist operators the same consideration as he has given to industry, to designated areas and so on. I should like him to spell out just what these advantages are and what he will do. I am sure his intentions are good but I am also sure that the tourist operators do not know how to go about reaping these advantages.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I now wish to discuss the shortage of hospital beds. Anyone who reads the daily newspapers must realize just how acute this shortage is. I suppose we in this house are all a bit guilty so far as this problem is concerned. When I first entered the house in 1957 the grant per hospital bed in Ontario was $1,000. In March, 1958, we made an amendment to the act and an agreement with the provincial government to pay $2,000 per bed. So far as I know that figure remains the same eight years later despite the fact that construction costs have gone up over 30 per cent and that there has been the imposition of an 11 per cent sales tax in the meantime.
If any member of the government needs proof of the urgency of the problem, let him go to Queens Park in Toronto where he will find that at the end of 1965 every dollar they had has been allocated up to 1968 when the federal-provincial agreement ends. In the interim Ontario has trebled its own grant.
The Conservative government introduced the hospitalization scheme. True, it had been on the order paper before but it was we who implemented it. We took the national average costs and the provincial costs into consideration and, roughly speaking, the arrangement made was that the provincial government paid one third, the federal government one third, and the municipality or municipalities which the hospital served paid one third. I am speaking of the cost per hospital bed. But it seems passing strange that today we are not using that formula in providing beds, and I say the government should be paying one third of this cost per bed right across Canada.
It is also passing strange that a decision has not been reached on the basic requirement needs for all hospitals. Surely there should be some level of equality of costs. The federal and provincial ministers of health should get together and work out such a basic requirement. Then, for anything over and above that, if a municipality wants frills added to the hospital it should pay for those itself. At present $5,300 per bed is paid by the provincial government but only $2,700 by the
January 27, 196G	COMMONS
federal government and the federal contribution per bed for nurses and interns is only $750. Further, in the province of Ontario loans of up to $5,000 per bed are made at 3 per cent interest on a long term repayment basis. This actually means another $3,000.
It is also passing strange that the federal government has never accepted the cost of beds for mental hospitals. In 1966 we still do not accept mental sickness as a disease even though in the province of Ontario mental cases occupy about half the hospital beds. For goodness sake, let us do a little more in this field. Let the federal government accept its responsibility.
Statistics show that about 50 per cent of all the people treated by the medical profession in Canada and the United States are mentally or emotionally upset in addition to their physical ills. The human brain is, one might say, the finest electronic piece of equipment in the world, so fine and so complex that even twentieth century doctors do not understand all its complexities. Without the brain man would be a useless hulk of bone and muscle, unable to move.
It is important that mentally sick people receive help so that they can return to work and happiness. Mental illness does not pick out certain people in a society; it can pick on any of us. We need many more trained psychiatrists and priority should be given to the training of psychiatrists. Doctors, nurses, dentists and so forth are also in short supply.
The government says it will follow the Hall commission report but that report points out that we are already short of psychiatrists, doctors and nurses. It recommends that the intake of students to medical schools be increased by 400 or 500 per year, and that four new medical schools be built by 1970. Any form of medicare requires more doctors. We will need teachers and scientists to teach these students. This is a great problem that must be faced; yet we take time to talk about minor things. These are the things I would have liked to see emphasized and re-emphasized in the Speech from the Throne.
It is interesting to note that last year over
4,000	professionally trained people left Canada and went to the United States, 4,000 who were born in Canada and trained in Canada at a cost, I would estimate, of around $20,000 each. This represents about $100 million in human resources. Last year only 60 per cent of our approved research work was carried out. The other 40 per cent went by
DEBATES	351
The Address-Mr. Rynard the boards. We lost those individuals who would have carried out this additional 40 per cent. One must always keep in mind that research builds countries, produces new goods, ideas, machinery, new operations and new knowledge in the field of medical science.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
What happened to the 4,000 people who moved across the border? Let us suppose they earn now $15,000 a year as a minimum salary. How much does that amount to? If you take your pencil and calculate it you will find that it represents about $60 million a year or for an average 30-year period a total of $1,800 million. Canada cannot afford to lose in this way.
We know that approximately three times the number of individuals per capita are attending universities in the United States than in Canada. Roughly twice the number of individuals in the United States labour force have completed high school compared with the Canadian labour force. The same ratio applies at the university level. In the labour force of the United States roughly twice as many individuals have university degrees compared with Canada.
It is for these reasons perhaps that our productivity is approximately one third less than that of the United States. This might also explain why we have fallen behind in the last two years. Education and retraining must be a priority, because every Canadian who can fit into a training program must be given that advantage. These programs must be made to fit the needs and the abilities of these people. We must have a national education policy. A boy or girl attending school in Newfoundland ought to be able to move to British Columbia, for example, without losing any grades. Individuals throughout Canada should be studying from the same set of books enabling them to transfer without having to suffer. It should be realized that a great number of people are moving every day in this country. Industry moves people, school teachers move, teaching methods change, and we must be realistic about this situation by having a national educational policy for Canada worked out with the provinces.
I should now like to refer very briefly to old age pensions. As an individual who has treated a number of older people I was very disappointed to find no mention of an increase in old age pensions in the Throne Speech. These elderly people cannot live on $75 per month without pinching on their food, their fuel and other necessities which
January 27, 196G

The Address-Mr. Rynard you and I would not want to see them do without. A great number of these pensioners across Canada today find that the high cost of living causes them suffering. When I say "suffering" I mean that they have to do without things that each and every parliamentarian sitting here would not expect them or want them to do without. We are derelict in our duty in this regard and I hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) will change his position in order that the old age pensioner may receive $100 per month.
The same situation exists in so far as veterans are concerned. Their pensions should also be increased and I am not alone in this thought. I heard the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) and the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn), both of whom made very fine speeches, remind the Prime Minister that he must remove the iniquitous 11 per cent sales tax. This iniquitous tax pushes us out of world markets and increases our cost of living, and I hope to see it removed very soon.
Not long ago I went into a machine shop that the owner had built. He informed me that he had paid 11 per cent sales tax on everything used for its construction and an additional 11 per cent on all the machinery there. He stated that if the tax was not removed he would have to go out of business because he could not remain competitive.
In my final remarks I should like to make a plea for those individuals in Canada who have suffered heart attacks or other illnesses. Many individuals have told me that they could not find jobs because they had suffered a coronary thrombosis. The government through its unemployment policy must look after these people. Something must be done so that they can go back to work. We cannot get along without their earnings. They are willing and able to work and they must be provided opportunities in less demanding employment.
An individual came to my office not too long ago and told me that he had been sent on three occasions to prospective employers only to be turned down on each occasion because he had suffered from a heart attack. This is not a good situation. This problem must be placed on a priority list for solution by the government. These people who are not as healthy as the rest of us must be taken into our working force so they can earn their living in a respectful manner. Then perhaps you and I can be proud of Canadian policy in this regard.


Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to offer you my congratulations on your elevation to your high office. I want also to congratulate the mover (Mr. Goyer) and the seconder (Mr. Stanbury) of the Throne Speech on the excellent jobs they did. I had intended to discuss some of the problems in connection with a manpower policy program for Canada. However, during the last few days certain events have taken place in this house, and I refer to the votes on the amendments made to the address, which makes it important to examine this minority parliament.
I think this parliament will be looked upon as an historic parliament, not because this is the first time we have had a parliament of minorities but because it is the first time the Canadian people have deliberately elected a parliament of minorities. If the last election indicates anything at all, I think it indicates that the majority opinion of this country is against having any one political party with a majority. I think it also indicates that many of our political parties are now on borrowed time unless they are able to recapture the confidence of the Canadian people.
In that regard I think this parliament has a particularly heavy responsibility to see that this parliament works effectively in providing the Canadian people with those things to which they are entitled. Although the Canadian voter may not have shown total confidence in the parties that sit here, the Canadian voter showed confidence in the 265 men and women sent to this house, and those 265 men and women have a particular obligation to those who sent them here.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
There is no reason why this parliament should not be one of the greatest parliaments in our history. If this parliament fails, it will not be for lack of challenge in the Canadian economy; it will not be because it lacks talented people to make a government operate and to institute policies of a significant nature. Looking around, I think this house contains some of the most outstanding individuals in this country, and even as one listens to some of the new members who have spoken in this house for the first time, he is impressed with the wealth of ability that lies here at the disposal of the Canadian people.
A minority government may very well be the answer to some of Canada's problems; but it is important that this minority government function. With regard to the last
January 27, 1966	COMMONS
minority government that we had in the twenty sixth parliament, although it was without the requisite number of people to institute any thing it wanted, it was able to call upon the assistance and support of other people in this house, with the result that some of the most significant legislation in Canadian history is on our statute books at the present time. The last minority government could have stayed in office for a full term. It was not defeated; it chose to go to the people without cause. I think the Canadian voters recognized that it had gone to the country without adequate cause and gave that government their answer on voting day.
This parliament can function and should function, and there should be no excuse for not bringing in the kind of legislation that is needed because they are a minority government. There is a great deal to be done. We need a pension program and a medicare program. We are talking about a war on poverty. There is need for a manpower policy; we have constitutional problems that need to be considered; our relations with the United States have to be examined, and there is above all a great need for increasing the standard of living in this country.
I am not going to be naive in this particular assembly and say that all the differences that separate us can be abolished or set aside by a good, healthy dose of Boy Scout good will and optimism. This is not what I am saying. Also I am not underrating the basic conflicts that do exist in terms of political philosophy. What I am saying is that for the preservation of the political ideologies that we represent, we are going to have to establish a good record in this particular parliament or answer to the Canadian people in the absence of such a record.
If this parliament is to achieve that record, if it is to get things done, I think a number of changes have to take place. Above all I think a number of changes in the attitude of the two old parties have to take place. First, I think that the little, secret resentment against the smaller parties in this house that runs as a common thread through the two old parties-that seems to unite them in this particular way as they are not united in any other way-has to disappear. The two old parties should get rid of that particular attitude. I say this, Mr. Speaker, because although we have relatively few seats here, I might remind hon. members in the opposition that we drew almost as much support, in terms of total population, as they did.
DEBATES	353
The Address-Mr. Saltsman


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: That was an accident.


Max Saltsman: One hon. member has called it an accident. I think it was more than an accident; I think it was a deliberate choice on the part of the Canadian people. I believe that the presence of the smaller parties in this house, as well as that of the independent members, must surely stand as an indictment of the two old parties. I think our presence here indicates that the two old parties have failed to give Canadians the kind of life they want, the quality of life that they think is desirable in this country.


An hon. Member:: And we are going to stay.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, may I call it
six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the desire of hon. members that I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the indulgence of the house to permit our reverting to motions in order to table an exchange of letters between Premier Lesage and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson) relating to the constitutional amending formula?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if there is to be a reversion to motions for the purpose of doing this, there must be an opportunity to reply, because in this case Mr. Lesage has today simply pulled the rug from under the government by announcing this in the legislature of Quebec. If we have the right of reply, that is fine.


Mr. Speaker:: We can follow this procedure only if there is unanimous agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, would it be satisfactory if we reverted to motions at eight o'clock, which would permit hon. members to make any comment that may be necessary in the light of the tabling of these documents?

January 27, 1966
Canadian Constitution


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


George James McIlraith: In view of what has been said, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the request at the moment and make it again at eight o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott); industry-automotive parts-loss of contracts by Canadian stamping companies; the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan), external affairs-Hungary-arrest and conviction of Canadian citizen; the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade), labour relations-rights of French Canadian members of seamen's union.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have the indulgence of hon. members to make a request of the house for unanimous consent to revert to motions in order to table two letters having to do with the constitutional amending formula?


John George Diefenbaker: Our attitude, so far as the
opposition is concerned, is that we will consent provided we can make observations on the fact that the tabling has taken place in this house after this correspondence was made available to the public outside of the house and delivered to the press at the hour of 3.30 p.m. or thereabouts this afternoon.
If we have a right to deal with this matter in a general way on reversion to motions, we agree. Otherwise, we cannot accept the travesty on this House of Commons, repeated for the third time this session, of things being

announced outside the house before they were announced in the house when the house is sitting.


George James McIlraith: I point out to hon. members that these letters were made public in another legislature over which this government has no control whatever. The federal government did not make them public until they were made public by the other source.


John George Diefenbaker: What other source?


George James McIlraith: The provincial legislature of Quebec; they were tabled there at two thirty this afternoon. This being the case, I cannot agree to any such proviso because, as I understand, the rules do not provide for a debate on the subject. This being so, I withdraw the request.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could I ask the minister, before he decides to withdraw-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My understanding is that the minister has withdrawn his request. I suggest at this point that we revert to the business interrupted at six o'clock. The Chair will call on the hon. member for Waterloo South.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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, and the amendment of Mr. Lambert.
Max Saltsman: Before the recess I had pointed out the heavy responsibility that rests on the members of this house, particularly of the two older parties, to insure that parliament functions. I feel that the heaviest responsibility of all rests on the government, and it is up to the government to decide how effectively this parliament will operate. The government should recognize that the voters of Canada have had enough of party politics just for the sake of politics. They want parliament to get on with the job. In order to insure that we can get on with the job ahead of us, the government must free itself from its archaic attitude toward what constitutes a motion of non-confidence. It must recognize the right of the opposition to express itself on matters of opinion.
January 27, 1966

When I refer to the opposition, I could make the same suggestion about the backbenchers on the government side who would love an opportunity to express their opinions without being told that they must vote for the government on any occasion. We must be able to express an opinion without threats which seek to establish that an adverse expression of opinion constitutes a call for an election. This attitude of the government to which I refer is an attitude of playing Russian roulette; it is an attitude that will keep this house in a constant state of election alertness. Every vote in this house could become a cliff-hanger, and sooner or later this government may fall by accident. Then the government will have no one to blame but itself.
A good example of the kind of thing we can expect is the amendment that has been moved by the Conservative party and will be voted upon tonight. This afternoon the New Democratic party released a statement to the press, which I should like to read into the record:
The New Democratic party re-emphasizes its position that amendments to the Speech from the Throne do not constitute non-confidence motions unless they specifically say so. We do not intend to allow the government to blackmail us into silence by the constant threat of an election. Neither do we intend to allow the Conservatives to manoeuvre us into a constant bear-baiting of the government by the moving of phony amendments.
The amendment moved by the official opposition savours more of harassment than an attempt to deal with a matter which properly belongs to this debate. It is obvious that the sales tax is a matter for the budget where it can be considered in conjunction with all other tax proposals. The New Democrats believe now, as we argued in the last parliament, that the government should seek an early opportunity to remove the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials as an incentive to home construction and we intend to urge this in the budget debate.
However, the amendment now before the house seems to us to be an attempt to keep the political pot boiling without any constructive purpose. As we have shown already, we are prepared to support or move amendments calling upon the house to express its views on major issues of policy but we do not favour using this privilege for the purpose of pointless harassment. We will not hesitate to register our views on the substance of this amendment at the appropriate time but we have no intention of being manoeuvred into helping those transparently seeking to keep parliament in a continual state of ferment at a time when there is so much to be done.
This is a time for constructive proposals and legislative action but not for playing games with parliament. In our opinion the amendment proposed by the Conservatives seems to have no basis other than political gamesmanship and we shall therefore vote against it.
23033-23J
The Address-Mr. Hopkins
If the government is faced with a whole series of such pointless amendments, it should declare its intention clearly to continue unless defeated on a specific motion of no confidence.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, along with the other members of this house who have spoken thus far, I should like to congratulate you not only upon your nomination as Speaker of this house, but also for the way in which you have conducted the business of the house so far. I have every confidence in you and I know that this house will be conducted in an orderly and businesslike manner. I should like to congratulate also the Deputy Speaker, and for the same reasons.
May I at the same time extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Goyer) and seconder (Mr. Stanbury) of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I am very proud of these colleagues. I am pleased to have this opportunity to sit in the twenty seventh parliament as the member for Renfrew North. My constituency is a rather large one from a geographical point of view, stretching some six miles north from the town of Renfrew along the Ottawa river to within four miles of Mattawa. It is bordered on the south and west by Renfrew South and part of the Algonquin park. In the north it borders the riding of Nipissing. The southern end of the riding is largely a farming community, forest products playing a big role in the economy of the remainder of the riding. The upper Ottawa valley in general has not prospered during the recent economic boom in Canada to the extent that would even begin to compare with certain other areas in Canada. Promotion of industry and incentives to encourage industries are needed urgently if the upper Ottawa valley is going to grow and expand in the years to come. We are fortunate in having the military camp at Petawawa, the Atomic Energy plant at Chalk River, the townsite of Deep River, Dominion Magnesium and Light Alloy at Haley Station, Steel Equipment Limited, Canada Veneer and other wood industries to provide employment and strength for the community at Pembroke.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
However, these industries deserve much improved conditions if we expect them to remain loyal to the area in which they are now located. It would be most desirable, even essential, that this government make an offer of a large grant to the Ontario government Department of Highways for the immediate
356	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Hopkins improvement of trans-Canada highway 17 along many sections of this highway between Ottawa and North Bay. Our road facilities in and out are poor. Some of the industries in the area are hampered by high freight rates, the additional overhead of crating and extra care to be taken in packing their products in order that they may be shipped safely to their destination.
I fully realize, Mr. Speaker, that there are other geographical areas, such as Renfrew county, which suffer from slow growth for the same reasons. These areas have not been developed nor have they progressed to the same extent as larger and more prosperous areas in Canada. It is therefore essential that areas such as these be given special consideration and that new criteria be written into the designated areas legislation of the Department of Industry so that it will readily apply to such areas.
One criterion that should be used to decide what should and what should not be a designated area is a comparison of industrial taxes and residential taxes that are collected in such communities. In areas where the amount of taxes collected from industry is exceptionally small, in comparison with the amount that is collected from residential taxes, special consideration should be given. For example, the town of Pembroke today has an industrial levy of $900,000 while the residential levy is $18 million. This can only indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, that home owners in this town are paying very high taxes. Renfrew North is not one of the designated areas in Ontario because, in accordance with the criteria that have been laid down by the act, the unemployment figure is not great enough to warrant it. However, this does not mean that there are widespread opportunities for the people.
One of the greatest exports from my riding has been its educated youth. Many of the people who have lived in the upper Ottawa valley all their lives have found it necessary to move out and work elsewhere for a livelihood.
If they are going to have a fighting chance, areas such as these must be given equalized freight rates and a reduction in corporation taxes, not only for new industries that move into the area but also for those that exist there now, until such time as improvements in the economy have been achieved and the necessary facilities attained. This may seem

DEBATES	January 27, 1966
like a major task, but these factors must be taken into consideration if we are going to provide equal opportunity for all.
I would like Mr. Speaker, to deliberate for a couple of minutes on transportation problems, from areas in the upper Ottawa valley to the more populous areas in Ontario and Quebec. It is nothing short of a sin when we consider that millions of dollars of Canadian government funds, thousands of square miles of good farm land in western Canada, plus loans from British firms, have gone into the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, a company which today, as a private enterprise, deems it good business to treat the Canadian public in a high handed and shoddy manner.
We have recently received word, Mr. Speaker, of the cancellation of the C.P.R. "Dominion" run. If we as members of this house ran our election campaigns with the same inefficiency and ineffectiveness as the C.P.R. has in operating its 'Dominion" service, there would not be one of us sitting in this house today. The C.P.R. has presented to the Board of Transport Commissioners their financial record of the "Dominion" and have listed their reasons why the train was discontinued. If there is to be any justice in this incident, the C.P.R. management must be called upon to explain why the "Dominion" service was permitted to decline over the past years. Why was the mail car taken off the "Dominion"? Why was the express car taken off the "Dominion"? Why should passenger traffic have been discouraged by one means or another?
Why was it, for example, that a man with two small children, who bought a ticket which included a berth on the "Dominion", found out that the car that contained the berth was not even on the train? Indeed, to take this whole matter of passenger service one step further, why is it that even today the C.P.R. is discouraging passenger traffic on the "Canadian"? How long will it be before we are going to hear that the C.P.R. has applied to the Board of Transport Commissioners requesting that they be permitted to discontinue the "Canadian" because it is not paying?
Let us take a look at some of the things that are happening here. The C.N.R. round trip fare from Pembroke to Ottawa is $4.90 on five days of the week and $5.70 for the two remaining days. Return fare from Pembroke to Ottawa by C.P.R. "Canadian" is $10.80. One can buy a good meal on the C.N. for $1.35 to $1.45 but in order to get a good
January 27, 1966
meal on the C.P.R. "Canadian" one must pay approximately $3.50. Why is it that an elderly lady who boarded the "Canadian" at Fort William was told that there were no berths available, yet at the same time there were only 25 people on the entire train and only a tew berths occupied?
Mr. Speaker, I personally counted the passengers at that time in order to confirm the information that was given to me. These facts alone should prove that the C.P.R. is now treating the Canadian people with scorn, even though millions of dollars of Canadian funds went into the building of that line. Because transportation is of prime importance to North Renfrew, and because our connections with outside centres are poor, you can see that there is great need for improvement in the upper Ottawa region, as well as across certain parts of Canada.
I would like to say that we in Renfrew North appreciate all the work that has been done in the past with the Department of Industry and the Department of Transport by the hon. member for Renfrew South, now the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene). On behalf of my constituents, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture upon his appointment and for his outstanding and dynamic work to date, not only in this house but across Canada. I am looking forward to working very closely with him and with the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Lefebvre) in our combined efforts to improve conditions in the upper Ottawa valley. The minister may rest assured that in his efforts on behalf of agriculture, I shall assist him in every way I can.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Prior to becoming a member of this house, I was vice principal of General Panet High School in Camp Petawawa. While there, serving for over five years in that school, I became very familiar with many of the problems which children of D.N.D. personnel have to face as they move from province to province, meeting up with a different educational system in doing so. At the next dominion-provincial conference I would like to see the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) investigate the feasibility of taking the initiative by inviting the ministers of education from each province to participate in a discussion, and try to arrive at some agreement on overcoming some of the mutual problems which come up continually in
The Address-Mr. Hopkins D.N.D. dependant's schools across Canada. Civilians who move from province to province find themselves in the same position and it is important that the groundwork be started on this problem. This can be done without infringing on any of the rights of the provinces and would certainly be welcomed by parents and students concerned.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I might mention that the Camp Petawawa area received a great shock on Friday last when the principal of General Panet High School, Mr. Thomas Miller, was stricken with a fatal attack in his car on his way home from school and passed away a few minutes later. His sudden passing was a great shock not only to his family but to his students, his staff and to the community. He will be long remembered as a fine, fairminded man by those of us who were associated with him.
I must congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on his foresight in providing millions of dollars in extra funds for education. I am not one who carries around a pessimistic attitude about our young people today. We have a very high percentage of teen-agers who are going to be just as capable of taking up the responsibilities of the future as we are today-and possibly more capable. We must have faith in our young people if we hope to build a strong nation.
Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to represent a constituency which has a long standing history in the development of this country. The Ottawa river was for many years the canoe route of Indian tribes, cou-reurs de bois and other fur traders. Samuel de Champlain visited the area now known as Renfrew North in the year 1613. It was in that year that he lost his astrolabe, an instrument for measuring latitude and longitude, near the village of Cobden and it was turned up on the shore of Green lake by a farm hand in 1867. Like many other of our famous Canadian relics and souvenirs, it has found its way to a museum in New York city. In that same year he visited Morrison's island in the Ottawa river, three miles from Pembroke. Early Canadians recognized the Ottawa route as the gateway to the north. Jean Talon recognized the Ottawa as the key to northern development of the fur trade.
Today we are faced with a shortage of water in our great lakes system. There have been many plans put forth for the replenishment of the great lakes but to date the great replenishment and northern development concept better known as the Grand Canal is the

January 27, 1966

The Address-Mr. Hopkins only proposal which protects the Canadian water heritage by recycling, not by diverting, northern rivers. By its very name the basic goal of the Grand Canal lies in linking the major, multiple, and urgent water services needs of the mid-continent to the important long term development needs of Canada's north, and its vast water resources. Further, it would do this important job for the profit of all concerned and with the full protection, in perpetuity, of Canada's water heritage as its foundation stone. The plan calls for a large dam across the lower part of James Bay. Behind this dam the fresh water from the Ontario and Quebec rivers flowing into the lower end of James bay would be collected. This water would then be pumped up the Harricanaw river by means of a series of pumping stations equipped with locks. The lift over the height of land would be approximately 950 feet. The water would then be transferred southward through a series of locks to the lake Temiscamingue system and hence into the Ottawa river.
This concept proposes to pump water up the Mattawa river, into Trout lake and then into lake Nipissing, the French river and hence into Georgian bay and the great lakes. Not only does this idea provide for the replenishment of the great lakes, but it also provides for Northern development. The eventual plan calls for barge navigation through to James bay. It also calls for ship navigation of the French river, lake Nipissing, the Mattawa river and the Ottawa river route to the St. Lawrence. Thus it would bring back to modern life in a realistic form the historical use of the Ottawa river.
We must also note at this stage that this route is 282 miles shorter from the Lakehead to Montreal than the present great lakes system. Hence, it would cut down on shipping charges for grain. As we advance as an industrial nation the twin locks at Welland will not suffer from the loss of any diverted traffic.
What we must remember is to look ahead. Without a water replenishment system for the great lakes, industry in central Canada could very well be in trouble for a few years. We are already hearing reports that lake Erie is a dying lake. This country cannot afford to have this danger hanging over it, let alone the possibility of reality, if such is the case. The saviour of the Canadian economy is water replenishment of the great lakes, and the salvation of our Canadian culture and identity as a strong nation would seem to be

northern development, of which the navigation and water control of the Ottawa river canal to Georgian bay, and navigational development of the water route to James Bay, are integral and necessary parts. We seem to be prone to move farther inland and take up challenges of development. I would also like to point out that such bold steps as these may seem odd, peculiar and hard to realize. But if someone had told us ten years ago that man was going to fly to the moon we would have sneered. Today it is within the realm of possibility.
The Fathers of Confederation did not pick Ottawa as a capital just because it was an inland town. They chose it also because it was on a main water route. Today we have time to act in such a way that provincial rights under the British North America Act would be protected. A royal commission could be appointed to investigate the feasibility of the entire Grand Canal project. If we wait until a crisis arises, then stronger action will be necessary and this strong direction would of necessity have to come from the federal government, and use of the elastic clause in the British North America Act may have to be called into play.
[DOT] (8.30 p.m.)
It is, therefore, Mr. Speaker, with all these considerations in mind, and with all these benefits for the country in mind, that I strongly recommend to the Prime Minister and the government department concerned that a royal commission, made up of capable economists, businessmen and engineers be appointed to investigate the feasibility of implementing this great replenishment and northern development concept at the earliest possible date. This commission should be made up of people from the business community of the nation and should be national in its composition. It should have the power to hire other competent people as the need arises.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that without northern development we will become stagnated. Without adequate water supply we will be in grave economic danger. The Grand Canal provides the answers to these problems, as well as providing the key for progress in eastern and northern Ontario, western and northern Quebec, and other parts of Canada on the great lakes system. This type of development will provide economic stability and, with economic stability, history has taught us that we will have a strong, united nation.
January 27, 1966	COMMONS
The great lakes could become the reservoir to provide tor the future of the economy, in fact the survival of the economy. We must not let narrow-minded international relations interfere with co-operation in bringing this concept into practice. Let us investigate; let us appoint a highly qualified royal commission, the personnel of which is not burdened with a host of other tasks, and give it the power to do an efficient job. Then, if its report is favourable, let us take the next bold step of implementation and see the concept become a reality, so that future generations will say in all sincerity that the members of this twenty seventh parliament did indeed have their interests and the interests of Canada at heart.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, first I want to offer a word of congratulation on his maiden speech to the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. It is always a most trying and difficult task to make one's first speech in this house following one's election to parliament. I know how personally diffident I felt about it. I think I was one of the last to speak of those who came into the house with me at the same time. It is so important for new members to catch something of the atmosphere of the house, to acquire some knowledge of its traditions, its background, its aspirations and its purposes, and it has been quite revealing to see the high grade of members who have been elected for the first time to this parliament.
Their speeches have been uniformly good and well thought out, which augurs well for this institution and for Canada. I am happy to be privileged to follow the hon. gentleman and to say to him that his contribution, and the suggestions he has made, are worthy of the fullest consideration. They indicate he has given study to a question that is of tremendous importance not only to this area but to the province of Ontario and the country as a whole.
The idea of the development of the Ottawa waterway has been before successive parliaments over a period of 70 years. It received intermittent support, but it is still much in the position that it was in when first discussed, I think in 1854, at the time of the old parliament of Upper and Lower Canada.
This evening I want to refer for just a moment to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman). He is a member for whom I have a profound respect, but I felt somewhat sorry for him a
DEBATES	359
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker few minutes ago as he read that testimonial of the way parliament should act. However, the fact that he smiled about what he was reading indicated he was not taking it very seriously.
His argument in effect was that economic matters should not be dealt with in an amendment to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I was surprised to hear that viewpoint expressed, and while he was speaking I sent out to secure a copy of the amendments that were moved by the C.C.F., whose paternity for the present N.D.P. some seem to have forgotten. Though the name has changed many of the personages in that party still remain. Their argument now is that one must not deal with economic matters in an amendment to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne; but that is what the C.C.F. did on October 16, 1957. Their amendment was moved by Mr. Coldwell, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and among other things it said:
We respectfully submit, however, that in the opinion of this House Your Majesty's advisers should give immediate consideration to the advisability of taking steps to deal with the menace of inflation, rapidly rising unemployment and other serious problems facing this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: They applaud that which they now call heresy, but which was at that time orthodoxy with them.


David Lewis: What is the relevancy? Even a student lawyer can do better than that.


John George Diefenbaker: On May 29, 1958, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), seconded by Mr. Argue moved the following amendment:
We respectfully represent to Your Excellency that, in the opinion of this house, consideration should be given to the advisability of presenting legislation at this session to relieve the very heavy financial burden now carried by the municipalities of this country.
The same argument advanced today could have been advanced at that time.
Then on January 19, 1959, Mr. Argue, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West, moved an amendment which contained the following words:
-and their failure to provide agriculture with a fair share of the national income, and their further failure to take effective steps to combat inflation.
January 27, 1966

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
Again these were matters entirely within the ambit of the budget. I could go throughout the entire period that we were in government when it was regarded as the appropriate course, in moving amendments to addresses of this kind, to deal with economic matters and the steps to be followed. That is what we have done in this case; and what has been placed before you, sir, as an excuse for voting against that which they say they support, is that the course we are taking is one that ought not to be taken-in other words, that it is an improper thing to do.
What a subterfuge, what an excuse, what a travesty on parliament that, believing the 11 per cent sales tax should be removed, they say, as an excuse for their failure to do what they stood for during the campaign, that we should wait until the budget.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
They did not wait in 1957, 1958 and 1959, or thereafter, to move amendments that dealt with economic matters. I think on every occasion, with the exception of two, they moved amendments on matters which, under normal circumstances, would be considered during the budget debate. I find it passing strange that, having wrapped themselves in garments of parliamentary holiness, they want us to believe they are shocked that we would follow the course they followed when we were in government.
It has been of interest to hear several hon. members on the other side of this house expressing themselves in favour of having the 11 per cent sales tax removed. They have voiced objection but they will not vote objection, when it comes to casting a vote. They know what is right to do, but they are unable to do it. They have good leadership in this regard because the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) is a man who has been associated in the fields of Rothschild and has a thorough knowledge of business and the needs of the economy.
The minister said when speaking on October 28 last as reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail:
-that he opposed the federal sales tax of 11 per cent of building materials.
He opposed this tax, he said, for the same reasons he opposed the sales tax imposed by the provincial Conservative government.
He was asked if he agreed with a certain so-called regressive measure and the article states:
This was the first time Mr. Winters had shown anger at the questions-[DOT]
[Mr. Diefenbaker.!
The article states:
I have been asked if I agree with a certain so-called regressive measure.
I take it that was the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and machinery. This report continues:
"I have stated that I do not agree with regressive measures that anyone proposes," he said, clenching his fists and pointing his finger at the audience.
If he will but translate that clenched fist and pointing finger to casting his vote tonight in favour of that which he regarded as regressive in October, we may well be assured that this iniquitous tax will be removed.
My purpose in rising this evening is to deal with a matter upon which no discussion was to be permitted a few moments ago, when the house leader of the government endeavoured to table a document dealing with correspondence that passed between the government of the province of Quebec and the Prime Minister of Canada. As a result, it became necessary for me to take part in this debate to deal with a situation which, to say the least, requires an explanation by members of the government.
Over and over again in this parliament, and it is only a few days old, members of this government have seen fit to flout parliament by failure to give answers to questions or by making statements outside the house that ought to have been made in the house when parliament was sitting.
It was only yesterday that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) asked this question as reported at page 280 of Hansard:
May I direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him if he has had any recent exchange of views with Premier Lesage which indicated that Mr. Lesage will soon be publicly rejecting the oonstitutional amending formula, to which there was a complete absence of any reference in the Throne Speech?
The Prime Minister then replied:
If there is any exchange which I have recently had with Mr. Lesage which caA be made public that will be done.
Strangely enough, the wording of the answer would indicate that the Prime Minister at that moment had no knowledge that there had been such an exchange, because he placed it in a subjunctive manner in this way: "If there is any exchange-", We had been endeavouring for several days, and my hon. friends to the left had joined with us, to find out what had passed between the government of Quebec and the government of
January 27, 1966

Canada in reference to this matter. We tried to find out on several occasions without success.
Mind you, it was on the 24th of this month that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness), during orders of the day, referred to a speech made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau) respecting repatriation. That is a speech to which I intend to make some reference. It is a speech which obviously could not have been made by him without knowledge as to what Mr. Lesage was going to say or had said, for in every particular he offered as an excuse for not proceeding with that formula all of the arguments advanced by Mr. Lesage in his letter to the Prime Minister on January 20.
Let me suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the President of the Privy Council either had seen the letter the Prime Minister received from Mr. Lesage dated January 20 or he possesses a high degree of capacity for knowing what is in somebody else's mind, particularly when he said he had no communication with Mr. Lesage. We endeavoured to get some information.


Mr. Favreau:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a pertinent question of privilege. To the extent that there might be an implication that I had any knowledge of any correspondence with Mr. Lesage when I spoke, or that I had any indication from any source to the effect mentioned, I must deny completely any such implication, and the right hon. gentleman must take my word for that.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: I said that either he had seen or had heard, or he possessed unusual powers of visualization as to what was in the mind of Mr. Lesage. As a matter of fact, when the President of the Privy Council speaks about denials in parliament, I remember the 23rd day of November, 1964, when the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) rose in the house and started to make those charges. He referred to the department of the minister of justice, and the minister of justice said, "It is an absolute lie." Then within a couple of hours he had to admit that what was being said by the hon. member for Yukon was in fact the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mind you, Mr. Speaker, what the hon. gentleman said in that great speech of his in Montreal bears a striking resemblance to the Lesage viewpoint in every 23033-24
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker particular-and I will refer to that-excepting this, that in order to give an explanation for the Lesage ultimatum he said, "We are not going ahead with this because we are opposed by some Tory, colonially sentimental people". Surely he is not going to place Mr. Lesage in that category.
I shall read from his speech in a moment. In the meantime, however, I say that what has happened in this matter is another example of the arrogant and cavalier attitude of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: They will not tell us anything unless they have to. We would not have heard about this if it had not been for Mr. Lesage today, in order to protect himself in his own legislature, rising there and revealing what parliament has not seen.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: Then with parliament sitting, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), now with unusual speed, gave to the press gallery that which had not been placed before parliament. What was the rush? Mr. Lesage told everything today; he revealed the whole position. We do not know what happened in these secret meetings. We do not know what decisions have been arrived at. But we do know now, thanks to Mr. Lesage, in self-defence in the legislature of Quebec, what passed between him and the Prime Minister of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to read some excerpts from that tremendously interesting speech to which I have referred, but I come back to this first. The President of the Privy Council, in a mean, even contemptible manner, blamed us for the course that the government of Canada was going to take in not proceeding with the formula.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: He is capable of anything.


John George Diefenbaker: He said we were sentimental colonialists, while at the same time -if he did not know, he should have known, because this matter is under his jurisdiction-on January 20, Mr. Lesage said "Nothing doing, as far as the formula is concerned. We are not going to go ahead with it at this time until"-well, I do not know how far in the assignable future.
I am not in any way criticizing the government of Quebec for the stand they took.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.
January 27, 1966

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker


John George Diefenbaker: After the hon. gentleman has been here for some while and has learned something about Liberal mythology, he will not laugh so loud.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we tried to find out about this but we got no information. Let me just read the record, because it shows the manner in which the opposition, and not only the opposition but the people of Canada, were treated. We were blamed in an extramural speech made by the President of the Privy Council, when he knew in his heart that what he was saying was not a fact. He blamed us for what he knew Mr. Lesage was going to do, namely not ratify in any way the formula that a little over a year ago was embraced as the finest thing that the political mind of man had ever been able to evolve in the interests of co-operative federalism.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What about the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) and the Fulton formula?


John George Diefenbaker: We in the opposition decided to oppose the formula. We said it would actually place the constitution of Canada, with the changes that were made by the then Minister of Justice and now President of the Privy Council, in a strait-jacket to which no serious amendment could ever hope to be made on matters of national importance. We took the stand that there are certain things -education, the powers under Section 92, and language-that cannot be changed and are unchangeable, excepting with the unanimous support of all the provinces.
We took the stand in, I think it was 1946 when Mr. St. Laurent expressed the view that the rights of language, education and the like could be changed by a simple majority of parliament, that this was wrong. We said no; those rights were made possible by confederation and could not be interfered with excepting by unanimity.
With regard to the formula as amended by the present government, we took the stand that it was wrong, and all over Quebec it was pointed out that because of the opposition-


William Heward Grafftey: Pointed out by Favreau.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, by this person who made the famous speech to which I shall make reference in a few moments. He said that I was inimical to Quebec because I refused to accept this formula, and because I took the stand that although it received the
[Mr. Diefenbaker.1
acceptance of the other provinces of Canada, it was wrong; that it would mean the end of any possible changes being taken on the basis of the experience we had attained in 100 years of confederation, or would attain in the years ahead. I was pictured as something satanic in the stand that I took-and now Mr. Lesage takes that stand.


Robert Muir: Explain that, Favreau.


John George Diefenbaker: I have the record of evasiveness, if not worse, that was practised by this government in reference to this matter. It was generally believed that Mr. Lesage had said that as far as this formula was concerned, it was a dead duck. Well, when I asked about that I was told they had never heard the expression. That is what Mr. Lesage was reported to have said. We tried to get some information on this matter. As reported at page 143 of Hansard, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) asked this question of the Prime Minister:
In view of the reports of the speech made by the President of the Privy Council last Saturday, is it the intention or the policy of the government to delay or indefinitely suspend the efforts they were making during the course of the last parliament to, as it was called, repatriate the Canadian constitution or make it possible for the constitution to be amended in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council made no such suggestion in his speech, and I have had the pleasure of reading the full text. If there is delay in this matter, Mr. Speaker, it is not delay on the part of the federal government.


Mr. Harkness:: Newspaper reports indicate that this was the statement made by the President of the Privy Council. I wonder if the President of the Privy Council could make a copy of this speech available to members so we can see what he did say?


Guy Favreau: I will do that with pleasure.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: I wonder what aspect of parliamentary courtesy was in the minister's mind when he made a major policy announcement at a political meeting at Montreal, in the light of current discussions on this very subject?
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
There was no answer to that. Then, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) asked this question:
May I ask a supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister agree with the reported view of the President of the Privy Council, that the formula which bears his name is now a dead letter and should not be proceeded with?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I agree with what the minister said.
January 27, 1966

I am going to read that. It shows what the Prime Minister's views on this question are.
If my hon. friend will read the text which will be submitted to him I think he will agree with it, too.
In other words, the Prime Minister accepted the slanders of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau) in endeavouring to blame Her Majesty's loyal opposition, by saying that it had taken the blame of the government of Quebec in the stand it had taken.
In other words, he wanted to put the blame on us. This is simply an example of political evasion and irresponsibility. I continue to quote:


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I ask a further supplementary question in this regard? Is it the Prime Minister's contention that the newspaper reports of this speech are erroneous?


Lester Bowles Pearson: They are in part erroneous.
Well, I have read every line of the speech of the hon. gentleman. I have read the press reports, parts of which were in quotes, and the quotes were correct. I should like to know what part of the report was erroneous. I continue to quote:


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood) :: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a further supplementary question. Does he agree with the President of the Privy Council that it is proper to delay consideration of the reform of the Canadian constitution as long as this parliament is dominated by sentimental colonialism?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The statement was not made in that form, as my hon. friend will realize if he reads the text of the speech.
I shall read the text of the speech. Then, the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) asked a question on another matter. Then, I asked this question:
Did the President of the Privy Council receive any advice from the premier of Quebec or any of the ministers in the province of Quebec that in so far as the formula is concerned it is a dead duck, to use that expression? What is the reason for the somersault in the minister's own ideas and in his own thinking, as evidenced by that speech?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, whatever expressions might have been used, I never received any such advice from either the premier of Quebec or any of his ministers, and I have not had occasion to discuss the question of constitutional amendment with him this year.
I endeavoured to ask a further question, but order was called. We were, therefore, left in the position of believing that whatever the President of the Privy Council had said represented his own viewpoint.
Now, I should like to read excerpts from the letters which parliament has not had, but which the legislature of Quebec has had, as
23033-24J
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker well as the press of Canada. The first letter is dated January 20, and I am just going to read excerpts from it which I think apply to the arguments which I intend to advance:
My dear Prime Minister:
As is fitting upon the eve of a new session of the legislature, the Quebec cabinet recently reviewed the principal items likely to be considered thereat. Among them are the draft bills entitled "Quebec Parliament Act" and "An Act to Provide for the Amendment in Canada of the Constitution of Canada".
At the last regular session, the legislative assembly voted an address to Her Majesty, praying her to cause to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom the bill entitled: "Quebec Parliament Act". This is linked up with the proposed constitutional amendment bill since the latter would have the effect of ensuring definitely to the only provincial upper house still in existence an absolute right of veto over any amendment of its own powers. Since the British Parliament has not yet been seized of the request of the legislative assembly, the latter has not been called upon to consider the proposed formula for amending our constitution."
This is the introduction.
Many events have occurred since this formula was elaborated, and it would not be proper to ignore them. Among them should be mentioned the country-wide debate which has taken place respecting the formula itself, the continued dialogue between Quebec and the rest of the country, a constant and sustained evolution toward a new relationship between Quebec, the other provinces and the government of Canada. The progress of the studies and discussions undertaken by the tax structure committee, the royal commission of inquiry on bilingualism and biculturalism and our own special committee on the constitution.
Here are the material words:
You are also aware that the proposed formula for amending our constitution has caused some anxiety in Quebec. Whatever the cause of this feeling, it is a factor which should not be ignored. For instance, I personally am struck by the fact that, as early as last spring, the formula was not being interpreted everywhere in the same way.
He goes on in that regard. We never had any doubts. We interpreted it exactly as it is now interpreted generally by political scientists across Canada. We did not take the popular stand when we viewed this matter objectively, regardless of what had been done in provincial legislatures.
Then, he goes on to say, and this shows the benefit of travel:
The visit which I recently had occasion to make to western Canada also made me aware of the considerable difference between the manner in which Quebec wishes to see our constitutional system developed and the views held on this subject by many Canadians in other provinces. This difference of opinion, moreover, was confirmed to some extent by statements made after that visit by authorized representatives of other provinces.
364	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker My feeling is that after this interval for everyone to ponder our country's future, we shall be in a better position to know what to aim for. It will also be most useful, in that regard, to reflect upon the work of the tax structure committee and the forthcoming report of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism.
I think that is going to come in 1967.
By then, I imagine each of the governments in the country will have had an opportunity to define its policy, not only in the field of federal-provincial relations, but also respecting the relations between French speaking Canadians and English speaking Canadians.
In the circumstances, the government of Quebec has decided to postpone indefinitely the consideration of the proposal for constitutional amendment.
Trusting that you will consider this decision as an indication for our sincere solicitude for the present and future progress of Canada, I remain, my dear Prime Minister-
Well, lo and behold, the President of the Privy Council never heard about this. He made a speech on January 22, which he just distributed broadcast, but he never heard of these suggestions that were made. The matter was going to be left, as it were, in a permanent deep freeze. We will see what he had to say. There certainly must have been what the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) described as a "mystic bond". Otherwise I cannot understand the President of the Privy Council, having taken so strong a stand on this formula, saying, "Here I stand; I can do no other", and since then changing to say, "Here I stand but I have turned a somersault in the meantime."
Let me read what he had to say:
When leaders of the Conservative party stubbornly refuse to accept this evidence-*
He refers to the evidence that Quebec cannot grow and prosper within confederation except as the focal point of a special linguistic, cultural and social entity.
When leaders of the Conservative party stubbornly refuse to accept this evidence and mock the Liberal belief in the two founding peoples' principles, they show themselves as what they are-
It was the Conservative party which first conceived the declaration of equal partnership of the two founding races in 1957.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


William Heward Grafftey: Cheap politics.


John George Diefenbaker: What manner of deception is this for a minister of the crown charged with the responsibility of looking after dominion-provincial relations, among other things? He says we are a group of men whose political thoughts have not yet

DEBATES	January 27, 1966
emerged from the Victorian era and who still believe in the untenable concept of an autocratic central government. I say to the hon. minister that he knew that was not the fact when he said it.


Mr. Nielsen:: Deceitful.


John George Diefenbaker: Then he goes on to ask what are the facts; and he will, I am sure, make allowance for my translation of his French; I do not have the translation before me. But he says: "For my part, my dear friends, I prefer to hold back the repatriation of the constitution"-


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I will read the French in my own way then.


Guy Favreau: The right hon. gentleman is not referring to a translation; he has an interpretation.


John George Diefenbaker: I read as follows:

For my part, my dear friends, I would rather delay the repatriation of the constitution, although I consider it essential, rather than entrust its reform to a parliament which would be dominated by the sentimental colonialism that inspires the Tory conception of national unity.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Now read it in French.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have now attained the acme of perfection. Those to my left who do not understand any French understood everything I read. I ask the minister whether that is not what he said.


Guy Favreau: You say I said it.


John George Diefenbaker: He prefers to hold back the repatriation of the constitution; but the reform will be held back because it will be dominated by the sentimental colonialism which inspires the Tories in their conception of national unity.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: Then he went on, this paragon of national unity who in his time has done more harm to the unity of Canada than good, to say at page 5, in French, that there is
January 27, 1966
a commission of inquiry on bilingualism of which we are waiting the conclusions and recommendations. He said that the government of Quebec has established a parliamentary committee to study constitutional reform. This committee "est toujours au travail". It is still at work, I presume he means. He says there exists a very important federal-provincial committee charged with analysing our fiscal structures. Then he says "Mais ne croyez-vous pas", "But do you not believe" and continues "in the light of all the recent history in the last three years, the best course would be,"-in effect, to do that which has now been announced by Mr. Lesage.
There is the speech delivered on January 22, two days after the letter from Mr. Lesage which the minister said he never saw or heard of. All I have to say is that he certainly has unusual powers of perception as to what others think.
Everything in his speech is included in the letter from the premier of Quebec to the Prime Minister of Canada. What a course to follow-to wait around until all these things are done and then to blame the Conservative party. Was he afraid to blame this on the premier of Quebec? There he was, surrounded by the sycophants who listened to him, and their wonder grew as they listened. He is now in the House of Commons. Statements like that indicate no qualification for the Supreme Court of Canada.
I now return to the Prime Minister's wire of January 24. You remember that on the 24th the Prime Minister said he knew nothing about this matter. I am not arguing about that; if he said it, then that is fine: It is accepted. The letter was written on the 20th. The President of the Privy Council spoke on the 22nd and had all the arguments why this should not be done, which were included in the letter from Mr. Lesage. And he never spoke to him.


Erik Nielsen: He must have been told on an aeroplane.


John George Diefenbaker: That aeroplane forgetfulness took place after the meeting in the maritimes in connection with the constitution. I have here the telegram which the Prime Minister sent which I shall read in part; I will read it all if it is wanted:
I have seen only today your letter of January 20 concerning the constitutional amendment formula. It raises a number of important and far-reaching problems of concern to the federal government and affects the situation relating to the action sought in London. My reply to your letter
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker will have to be tabled immediately yours is made public. In the circumstances you might think it best to defer making the contents of your letter public until you have had a chance to consider my reply which I shall try to send you immediately after consultation with my colleagues on Thursday.
There is an atmosphere of: "Don't let's get this out in the open air".
We now come to the 26th, when the Prime Minister writes a very interesting letter. He says:
As I pointed out in the telegram which I then immediately sent you, I saw only in the afternoon of January 24 your letter of January 20, 1966, concerning the constitutional amendment formula. The irony of it is that I had indicated that very morning, in reply to questions by the Leader of the Opposition and other members in the House of Commons, that the federal government had every intention to submit the constitutional amendment formula to parliament as soon as it had been concurred in by all the provincial legislatures. I had thus implied that I remained of the opinion that Quebec would in due course endorse the proposed procedure to amend in Canada the constitution of Canada.
I interpolate here: Had it not come to the attention of the Prime Minister that the premier of Quebec had stated that he was not going to go ahead? I think that position was taken about a week prior to this. It may be that this was not brought to the attention of the Prime Minister; but, Mr. Speaker, the man in charge of dominion-provincial relations is the President of the Privy Council. He was designated by the Prime Minister of Canada for that position, and when he made that speech on January 22-that speech that was false in the imputations it contained against the Conservative party-he, the man in charge, did not know anything about this. He had to admit that, being in charge of a matter such as this, he did not know what had taken place. If I were in that position I would feel more embarrassed than the hon. gentleman appears to be.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The Prime Minister says:
My view was based on a number of positive factors which I could not but interpret in a positive and encouraging way even though I was, as you know, fully aware of the difficulties.
What were the difficulties of which he showed such a high degree of awareness?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Conservative party was one.


John George Diefenbaker: It amazes me. The man
in charge did not know. This is a man who loved this formula with a devotion which has

January 27, 1966

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker not been seen very often in history. Nevertheless on January 22 he ditched all his principles and had to blame somebody. Whom should he blame? Well, he must have thought: The Tories are here so I will blame them. That is a typical course he has followed.
The Prime Minister said there were certain important factors.
First among those factors was the fact that the constitutional amendment formula was agreed unanimously by the heads of the federal and of the ten provincial governments at the federal-provincial conference on October 14, 1964. We all then undertook to submit the proposed amendment procedure to our respective governments-
There are some other words. I do not want \to read it all.
Second, the White Paper which the federal government published on the subject in March 1965 had been endorsed without qualification by the ten provincial governments.
Third, the Speech from the Throne, at the opening of the last session of your legislature stated "So that the repatriation of the constitution shall not have the effect of entrenching the powers of the legislative council-"
Fourth, all the provinces, except Quebec, have formally notified the federal government of their formal concurrence-
Finally, the federal government has all along been conscious of the potential relationship which exists between the amendment procedure and eventual revision of the constitution itself.
The Prime Minister says in conclusion:
I am bound to express my great disappointment with the decision of your government to postpone indefinitely the consideration of the proposal for constitutional amendment. I venture to hope that the government of Quebec might be prepared to reconsider its decision in the light of the hopeful circumstances to which I have referred and of the many developments in the last three years-
He ends:
It is clear that, if your government does not consider that it can alter its position, we shall have to discuss the whole matter again at a future meeting of the federal-provincial conference.


George James McIlraith: Read the next sentence.


John George Diefenbaker: I will.
Meanwhile, the position of my government remains as stated in that part of the Speech from the "Throne opening the current session of parliament, which reads: "It remains the objective of the federal government to provide that the constitution of Canada may be amended in Canada".
The hon. gentleman asks me to read that hollow sham. It is transparent and diaphanous in every particular. And the hon. gentleman is proud of that after the brave words of *a year ago-"We are going ahead with this". Now the brave words of a year ago have

become: "We are not going ahead but we are blaming the Tories because Mr. Lesage says, no."
The Prime Minister also added his oral contribution. I do not hear these things sometimes. When I said "What are the difficulties?" he said "the Conservative party". Oh, the diametric difference in phraseology. The minister spoke about colonialist, sentimental Tories. I am surprised that the Prime Minister should now blame the Conservative party for his failure to get any agreement. It is a revealing thing.
Now, the Prime Minister says: We should call another federal-provincial conference. That is what we have said. Let us call a national constitutional conference to deal with this matter.
Repentance is welcome no matter when it takes place. I was amazed to find that the student body of the province of Quebec in the Liberal party last week, came out in favour of a national constitutional conference such as we have been advocating. Is there any wonder that the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier) should have used the expression

The garbage cans of the Liberal party.

When you get that translated you will really know what the hon. member thinks of those who sit on the Liberal front benches.
Now parliament has been treated with contempt on this.


Mr. Gerard Pelleiier (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I regret that the Leader of the Opposition is ill-informed, but I have never used that expression which was taken from one of Claude Ryan's editorials in Le Devoir. It is his and he can keep it.


John George Diefenbaker: I would not have brought the hon. gentleman into this, but Mr. Ryan I think purported to quote the hon. gentleman, because he said a lot worse about the Liberal party in his editorial in La Presse which is entitled "The Cock Crowed Thrice". I will tell you what: There is a lot of truth in that. One view is held by the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, another by the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Mar-chand) the proposed new minister of manpower-and we shall be reviewing these with interest-and a third by the hon. member for
January 27, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, the matter which I wish to raise at this time arises out of a question put to the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) on orders of the day regarding the United States auto pact and, in particular, the alleged loss of millions of dollars that is taking place as a result of the proposed cancellation of certain orders of metal stamping companies engaged in the industry.
We raised with the minister today the very genuine fears being expressed by United Auto Workers and their legitimate requests for a tripartite meeting amongst the unions, the minister and the industry involved. As has been the case throughout the history of this agreement, this request has been arrogantly brushed aside by the minister. In my judgment this corresponds with his attitude since the inception of the pact.
When this matter first came before us, we could not get any information. We finally had to write to the United States to get sufficient information. We were unable to get proper answers from the minister. We were unable to have the matter go to a committee where it could be studied. We were merely told that in their almighty judgment they knew what was right.
The minister will recall that we tried to have adjustment assistance for dislocation. Dislocation was denied; but it subsequently took place and a sort of piecemeal plan was introduced. We now have another problem arising out of this agreement, which has been shrouded in mystery since its inception, and that is the dislocation which has resulted to these metal stamping companies.
Once again the trade unions involved are having difficulties which arise out of decisions made by this government in its negotiations between the United States and the manufacturing companies. We think that the rights of the workers ought to be taken into consideration.
[Mr. DiefenbakerJ
I plead with the minister, as I did before, to stop his arrogant treatment of this agreement in this house, his brushing aside of any suggestions put forward by the opposition, his brushing aside of the requests made by the workers involved. They have a big stake in this agreement. They want to partake of it. They want consultation. They do not want to be told that what the government has decided is in their best interests. This has been the history of this agreement throughout.
The minister said this morning that he did not think a tripartite meeting would be useful. I should like to know why. When would one be useful? Why has this very legitimate request of the trade union involved been denied?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I feel somewhat aggrieved at the charge that requests for information have been arrogantly brushed aside.


Mr. Orlikow:: It is true.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In default of there having been an opportunity for a full debate in this house, something I have long advocated and so earnestly hope we will soon have, I say in respect of this agreement that a reply has been provided, both in answers to questions and also in written statements, providing very complete documentation indeed. If the hon. gentleman has not had access to this information I will be glad to see that he is provided with a very substantial volume of information that has been made available; and I hope he will take the time and the trouble-and it will take quite a lot of time and trouble-to read it.
With regard to the request by Mr. Burt of the automobile workers for a tripartite meeting, I did not say, as the hon. gentleman has suggested, that such a meeting would not serve any useful purpose. I did say that there have been on two previous occasions, at the request of the automobile workers, meetings of the character outlined, and that these meetings had not, in my view, been as productive of results as meetings between myself and individual segments of the industry, whether they be the labour people by themselves, or the automobile producers, or the supply people by themselves. These had worked much more satisfactorily.
I will be delighted, as I said earlier today, to meet with Mr. Burt any time he wants and to provide him answers to the information he seeks, and I have so advised him in a telegram.
January 27, 1966


David Lewis: He wants to take part; he does not want to be told what you have already arranged.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I might point out that the federal Department of Labour has a policy in regard to the establishment of tripartite committees within a company or group of companies, composed of representatives of labour, management and government. The Department of Labour has been assiduous in endeavouring to secure agreement to the formation of a tripartite committee for the purpose of mutual conversation. I suggest this is a more fruitful way to proceed than a global one.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)



LABOUR RELATIONS-SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION AND RIGHTS OF ITS FRENCH CANADIAN MEMBERS

['Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Spadina has I am sure served his constituents and this particular constituent a great service. He has pressed this matter on me privately, as the hon. members for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) and Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald) have done.\nTibor Torma, a naturalized Canadian citizen of Hungarian origin, was arrested in\nDEBATES\t371\nProceedings on Adjournment Motion Hungary on November 7 following an incident in a public place as the hon. member for Spadina, has just pointed out. I am not in a position to make a judgment about the validity of the charges, of what have been described as "political offences", which have been laid against Torma by the Hungarian authorities and on which he has recently been convicted to 18 months imprisonment.\nThe Canadian government has taken and will continue to take every appropriate step to extend assistance to this Canadian citizen and, in doing so, it recognizes the understandable feelings of the Canadians of Hungarian origin. Since the fact of Torma\'s arrest first became known to us on November 11, our ambassador to Hungary, who is resident in Czechoslovakia, has been actively pursuing this matter with the authorities in Hungary. He has repeatedly pressed for a clear indication of why Torma was being held, and for normal consular access to interview him in the place of his detention.\nOn December 29 our ambassador was able to report to me that he had managed to secure a promise from the Hungarian Foreign Ministry for permission for a Canadian representative to visit Torma in January. In fact, the ambassador was not permitted to see him until January 22, and it was on this occasion that he first learned that Torma had already been tried and convicted.\nAs soon as I received word of this conviction I instructed our ambassador, who is now in Budapest, to present a note to the Hungarian government requesting them to exercise clemency with a view to the early release of Torma from prison and his departure from Hungary. Moreover, the Under Secretary of State for External Affairs, on my instructions, called in the Hungarian charge d\'affaires in Ottawa yesterday and reiterated to him our views on this matter. Some of the questions which have been asked by my hon. friend must await a reply from the government of Hungary following yesterday\'s interview. I may assure my hon. friend that we are pursuing this matter closely, and I hope we will secure the action which is warranted in this case.\nMotion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.', 'Friday, January 28, 1966']
Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, this morning I tried to obtain some information from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) concerning certain facts given to me in connection with the appeal board of the Seafarers' International Union.
As we know, this international union is now under government trusteeship. Now, members whose rights have been encroached upon have no alternative but to deal with the responsible minister, in this case, the Minister of Labour.
Mr. Speaker, French speaking members of the union are complaining that they cannot submit their grievances to the appeal board of the union because all the proceedings take place in English and therefore representations of the French speaking members could not be heard. Since French speaking members cannot understand or speak English, they are therefore deprived of a fundamental right, namely to be heard in their mother tongue by the committee which must pass judgment on them.
This very morning, I tried to obtain from the minister the assurance that he would see that those allegations are substantiated and inform the House of the corrective measures he intends to take in order to remedy a really deplorable situation, if it actually exists, and which is seriously detrimental to all members of that union who are awaiting a decision of this appeal board return to their jobs if such would be the case.
I should also like to take this opportunity to call the attention of the Minister of Labour, responsible for the trusteeship of this union, to a seemingly obvious anomaly, if one examines the list of members of this appeal
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion board of the Seafarers' International Union: three of the members sitting on this appeal board are apparently members of the executive council of the union.
Since members often have to air grievances which may involve the authorities, that is to say the officers of this union, I believe there is, on that point, an anomaly through which the aggrieved party is deprived of his opportunity to submit his grievances objectively and so to have them objectively and loyally considered by the members of the appeal board.
I ask the minister to investigate this matter which I consider very serious; indeed, last August, that is, on the 25th of August 1965, Mr. Michel de la Chevrotiere who was a member of the appeal committee of the Seafarers' International Union, had to resign because he could neither understand nor speak English. In view of the fact that the evidence is given, and the questioning takes place, in English only, I feel this is surely a flagrant injustice which should be redressed.
Such is the situation within that union.
I ask the minister to take immediate steps to ensure that these people who have been or may be wronged by such an anomaly obtain justice and to inform the House at an early date what measures the government intends to take to give justice to these members of the Seafarers' International Union.


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) has referred to a question that he says is very important and serious, a description with which I wholeheartedly agree. I think it is inconceivable in this day and age, when the question of bilingualism is so important and foremost in our minds, that a situation could exist, particularly in labour, where French speaking minorities are denied the privilege of speaking in one of Canada's official languages.
The hon. member, however, emphasized on several occasions during the course of his remarks that he is not certain of his facts. Certainly we know the situation exists in private industry and we all regret it, and hope the day is coming soon when it will be fully rectified.
The new Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) is one of the more enlightened gentlemen in this regard. He has been on record as far back as October, 1964, in speaking up at
January 27, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Vancouver for the rights of the French speaking minorities in this country. However, I must point out to the hon. member that, on the surface at least, this is an internal problem for the Seafarers International Union. I am sure the Minister of Labour will want to communicate with the union trustees and see, through their normal communications channel, if there is any basis for the allegation.
I would point out that the official publication of the union, the Canadian Sailor, is fully bilingual and, if one might use the expression, appears simultaneously in both languages. I do hope, Mr. Speaker, the day will soon come when these types of problems will be things of the past, not only in private industry but in labour organizations.



Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, on orders of the day this morning I directed a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), which concerned the circumstances surrounding the arrest, detention, conviction and sentencing of Mr. Tibor Torma, in Hungary. My question was a lengthy one. I believe it was ruled out of order on that basis because, with respect, Mr. Speaker, I cannot conceive of its being ruled out of order on the basis of its not being of an urgent nature and of national importance.
I feel, and I believe most hon. members would agree with me, that any question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs dealing with the liberty of a naturalized Canadian citizen in a foreign country is an urgent and important one. In any event, the minister was not given an opportunity to give an answer to my very serious pressing question, one which I submit is of the utmost concern to the Hungarian community in Canada, as well as to Canadians generally. I therefore seek the answer now as to whether or not Torma was the recipient of dark-age justice.
I shall give the facts and allegations, as I am informed of them, and I shall leave it to the minister to clarify them where there may be discrepancy.
Tibor Torma is a young man, 28 years of age, who came to Canada in 1956 as a refugee from the Hungarian revolution. He left his home in my riding at 15 Palmerston avenue, Toronto, last fall and went to Hungary intending to visit his relatives and stay for a few weeks. He secured a Canadian passport, attached to which was the customary warning

to register and advise Canadian authorities before entering Hungary. He gave no notification in accordance with this warning, but in the past very few tourists to Hungary have been in the habit of doing so.
On November 10 last, M.T.I., the Hungarian telegraphic agency, reported that Tibor Torma had been arrested for creating a disturbance in a coffee house. He was apparently taken outside Budapest and held incommunicado. He was later secretly tried and convicted for a "political offence" against the security of the state and sentenced to 18 months in prison. An appeal has been filed and dismissed.
The news of his arrest was carried by several Canadian newspapers and it has created great consternation in Hungarian circles. Hungarian organizations and newspapers were flooded with telephone calls and letters protesting against this arrest and whisking away. Many Canadian Hungarians who planned to visit Hungary have subsequently cancelled their reservations, as a result of this case.
Last December 14, as a result of this reaction, the Hungarian embassy in Ottawa, through its first secretary, Mr. Istvan Varga, said in an interview given to the Canadian Press that "it is quite safe for anybody to travel to Hungary" and that "Torma will soon be tried, probably charged with disturbance."
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
More than a month went by and nothing was heard of Tibor Torma, or his trial. Apparently neither the Canadian ambassador in Prague, nor the British minister in Budapest received any satisfactory explanation regarding his arrest, his whereabouts or his trial, until finally after his secret trial Mr. Bow, Canadian ambassador in Czechoslovakia, who is also accredited to Hungary, was granted an interview with Mr. Torma. Only then did we learn that he had been convicted of a political offence, and sentenced to 18 months in prison.
We still do not know whether he was properly arrested, whether he did create a disturbance in a coffee house, or even if he did commit a political offence against the security of the Hungarian state.
After his arrest, he was spirited away, held and tried in secret. I would like to know from the minister if we can be assured that the allegations against Torma are fact, or has he been framed? Is a grudge or an old injury being pressed against him? Think of the consequences this man will have to suffer, if
January 27. 1966	COMMONS
and when he returns to Canada, if he has been falsely charged and convicted.
Under the circumstances I should like to know from the minister if it is possible to obtain from the Hungarian government a transcript of the evidence at his trial, and to have the witnesses against him interviewed by our representatives abroad.
On the face of it, his sentence of 18 months seems harsh, but how are we to judge accurately if we have no idea of the truth and the degree of the evidence against him?
I believe that arrangements have been made to, at some time in the future, set up a [DOT]Canadian embassy in Budapest. I could see some reasonable delay in gaining access to Torma in Hungary by reason of a lack of an embassy, but a delay of more than two months would seem, under the circumstances of this case, to be inordinate.
One cannot help but feel that the background of Torma's arrest is far more serious than the charge of creating a disturbance would warrant. I would ask the minister if the Hungarian government is implementing a new policy toward tourists. Apparently on November 21 last the Prime Minister of Hungary spoke in the Hungarian parliament and stated that not all overseas visitors to Hungary are welcome. Is this a new policy of the Hungarian government, and has it been followed by police persecution toward some visitors?
I would like to know from the minister if he can tell us whether the Hungarian government has spelled out any class of visitors to Hungary who are not welcome, or has given any indication whether it has or intends to make up a proscribed list.
From all this arises the further question: Is the Hungarian government serious and sincere in its assurances to Hungarians abroad, that they shall have free and undisturbed travel to Hungary?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Spadina has I am sure served his constituents and this particular constituent a great service. He has pressed this matter on me privately, as the hon. members for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) and Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald) have done.
Tibor Torma, a naturalized Canadian citizen of Hungarian origin, was arrested in
DEBATES	371
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Hungary on November 7 following an incident in a public place as the hon. member for Spadina, has just pointed out. I am not in a position to make a judgment about the validity of the charges, of what have been described as "political offences", which have been laid against Torma by the Hungarian authorities and on which he has recently been convicted to 18 months imprisonment.
The Canadian government has taken and will continue to take every appropriate step to extend assistance to this Canadian citizen and, in doing so, it recognizes the understandable feelings of the Canadians of Hungarian origin. Since the fact of Torma's arrest first became known to us on November 11, our ambassador to Hungary, who is resident in Czechoslovakia, has been actively pursuing this matter with the authorities in Hungary. He has repeatedly pressed for a clear indication of why Torma was being held, and for normal consular access to interview him in the place of his detention.
On December 29 our ambassador was able to report to me that he had managed to secure a promise from the Hungarian Foreign Ministry for permission for a Canadian representative to visit Torma in January. In fact, the ambassador was not permitted to see him until January 22, and it was on this occasion that he first learned that Torma had already been tried and convicted.
As soon as I received word of this conviction I instructed our ambassador, who is now in Budapest, to present a note to the Hungarian government requesting them to exercise clemency with a view to the early release of Torma from prison and his departure from Hungary. Moreover, the Under Secretary of State for External Affairs, on my instructions, called in the Hungarian charge d'affaires in Ottawa yesterday and reiterated to him our views on this matter. Some of the questions which have been asked by my hon. friend must await a reply from the government of Hungary following yesterday's interview. I may assure my hon. friend that we are pursuing this matter closely, and I hope we will secure the action which is warranted in this case.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Friday, January 28, 1966