1966-01-21

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker:: I understand that negotiations among the different parties in the house regarding the application of the provisional standing orders adopted in the last session are still in progress. If this is the situation the Chair is prepared to wait until Monday to hear arguments on the subject and to determine the position that should be taken in the house.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct a question to the Minister of Justice and ask him whether in the last few days any order has been passed declaring a state of emergency in this country under the provisions of the War Measures Act.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Well then, Mr. Speaker, if there has not, what justification is there, and what authority is there, to keep a man who has not been tried, Victor Spencer-and I have no sympathy for his alleged conduct -under perpetual surveillance? What is the authority under law that allows the government of Canada to interfere with the rights of a citizen in that way?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, there is no specific law or statute that covers the question of surveillance; it flows from the ordinary administration of the law by law enforcement officers. For instance, if a law enforcement officer suspects that crimes have been committed, even though the suspect may not have been convicted of them, or if he suspects because of previous actions that the man might continue to engage in such activities, then it has been the practice to maintain surveillance. This is in the interests of the public. It seems to me that the right hon. gentleman would certainly not deny that right to the police.


John George Diefenbaker: Is this surveillance carried on 24 hours a day?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The surveillance is done as the situation requires.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the Minister say that such conduct can be justified in any way under the law? Tell me any law which allows surveillance to continue after a government has decided that there is no offence upon which a court should be given an opportunity of deciding whether or not there is a case.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: would like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that this man has been charged by the minister himself on a national television program and denied any opportunity to prove his innocence; in view of the fact that he has been dismissed and denied the right of appeal, and has lost all his pension rights, does the government contemplate taking any steps which will give this man an opportunity of clearing his name rather than remain for the rest of his life under constant surveillance by the R.C.M.P.? Does the Prime Minister not think that in the interest of justice this man should be given some opportunity to have his innocence or guilt established?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: The hon. gentleman has raised another and far-reaching point to which I should like to give consideration. It may be desirable to make a statement on this subject very shortly.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister about the issue which has just been discussed. Does the Prime Minister assert on behalf of the government that a general right exists to scrutinize and keep under surveillance any citizen, on the basis of what the government thinks that citizen may do in the future?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The government has a general right to do what is required and what is within the law to provide for the security of the country. I have already said that I think it will be desirable very shortly to make a statement on this whole matter, and perhaps I may leave it at that.


John George Diefenbaker: This isn't under the law.
86	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouetie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Yesterday in his speech he said that the question of family allowances was under consideration.
Would he tell us if, in his opinion, this matter will be brought before parliament during this session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was announced yesterday by the minister concerned, also, that the matter was under consideration partly in view of the representations made at a recent conference by a minister from Quebec, but for other reasons as well. When any decision is taken with regard to a change it will be announced in the house.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I wish to address a question to the Solicitor General. Would the hon. gentleman inform us whether we can gather from his remarks yesterday that he is planning to authorize the R.C.M.P. to issue regular statements on the security of the nation and on the situation in relation to organized crime from time to time? Or does he intend to issue a white paper on the subject in order that the public may be more fully informed on this important question?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: In
the brief period I have been in office I have not had an opportunity to consider adequately the suggestion contained in the hon. member's question. However, I will give it further consideration.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the intention of the Ontario government to introduce legislation at this session requiring all companies whose 
DEBATES	January 21, 1966
shares are traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange to conduct themselves in a manner which will make it very difficult if not impossible for there to be a recurrence of the Windfall type of operation, would the minister consider introducing legislation this session requiring all Canadian companies whose shares are traded on any Canadian stock exchange to conduct themselves in a similar manner, and thereby protect the Canadian investing public?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the house were pleased at the announcement made by the Ontario government of its intention to improve securities legislation in this province. On December 22 last the Prime Minister wrote to the premiers and prime ministers of the provinces suggesting that there should be a meeting of federal and provincial representatives during the course of the next few months to discuss the question of securities and exchange legislation. I can assure the hon. gentleman that the government of Canada shares his desire to secure improved securities legislation in Canada.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the possible ill effects on meat, does the government intend to prohibit the feeding of chicken litter to pigs and cattle until further studies have been completed?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in sending me notice of this question. I have discussed the matter with the departmental officials and find that they are investigating it, but to date they have not completed their investigation and no decision has been reached as to any action to be taken. However, when their investigations are completed I shall be very pleased to notify the hon. member of the decision made.



SHIPBUILDING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. On Monday, January
January 21, 196G	COMMONS
17 a reduced federal subsidy program for shipbuilding was announced by the minister.
I would like to ask him whether the present subsidy payments apply to vessels whose keels were laid after last February 2 and, if not, do they apply on that part of such vessels still to be completed?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the intention is that the proposals which we will bring before parliament will apply, as the announcement said, as from January 1, 1966 to construction started after that date.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: As a supplementary question, will the minister fully examine the rumours in connection with this matter that certain preferential treatment will be given to yards which have constructed ships in the interim period?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The announcement also indicated that my hon. friend the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) would be administering these new subsidies, and I cannot conceive of that hon. gentleman discriminating in any way as between one Canadian and another.


Thomas Miller Bell: Then may I ask the Minister of Industry if he will assure the house that there are no exceptions to be made in this interim period when the shipbuilding subsidy was not in effect?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. G. L. Chatierion (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Can the Minister apprise us whether the date January 1, 1966, applies to commencement of construction or to completion of a contract?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am not sure of the answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, so I will take it as notice.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: As a
further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker,
I want to ask the Minister of Transport, who is from the Atlantic provinces, will he guarantee, as announced in his statement, that the subsidies for the construction of fishing trawlers will be continued, this being most necessary in order to modernize our fishing fleet?


John Whitney Pickersgill: They were never suspended at any time, and it is certainly the intention of the government that they should continue.
DEBATES	87
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



RESPONSIBILITY FOR STATEMENTS BY DEPARTMENTAL SPOKESMEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I apologize for not sending him notice, but I have had several long distance telephone calls that required attention. My question is based on the fact that it appears the minister is now following the example set by the Secretary of State in the United States, for instance, whenever it is necessary to chastise another nation. The chastising takes the following form. A spokesman for the Department of External Affairs-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly pose his question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have just reached that point, Mr. Speaker. My question is this. Does the minister stand behind every statement made by one of these anonymous spokesmen for External Affairs, particularly when they deal with important matters?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to examine the application of this question to given circumstances, but I am going to give consideration to the suggestion already made by the hon. gentleman that perhaps on some occasions he might become my spokesman.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question yesterday the Minister of Agriculture may have left a wrong impression, in that he indicated that because no request had been received from a province for assistance in crop failure areas that do not qualify for P.F.A. the government was not giving them any consideration. In regard to future requests, must they originate with the province, or will consideration be given to requests made by interested organizations and individuals when and if they need assistance?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I believe the answer to the question is that inasmuch as under our constitution any question of drought relief is essentially a provincial matter, the constitu-
January 21, 1966
88	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry tional practice is for the province to approach the federal government for drought relief or other emergency legislation.
If any interested organization makes an application for relief, however, I would certainly be most pleased to receive it and to approach the provincial minister concerned, if that would be beneficial.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the statement in the Speech from the Throne to the effect that the government intends stretching out its expenditures on public construction projects in areas of heavy pressure on the construction industry, can the minister assure this house that this policy will not apply to the construction of the Prince Edward Island causeway and that that project will not be stretched out for that or any other reason?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the extent to which I should try to elaborate on the Speech from the Throne during the question period. I think it speaks for itself. In any event, I had some difficulty hearing part of the hon. member's question, and I should like to take it as notice and give him a better answer on Monday.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria, (B.C.)):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has the minister as yet received a report from Dr. Richardson covering his inquiry into the present condition of former Hong Kong prisoners of war and, if so, can he tell us when he will be able to table it in the house?


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, some days ago I received an interim report and yesterday I received Dr. Richardson's final report. There are only two or three copies on hand. The report is now in the process of being printed and translated, and I am told that I should be in a position to table it in the house in approximately ten days' time.



WHEAT-PRICES PAID FOR SHIPMENTS TO INDIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Can the minister inform the house whether the federal government has recently purchased wheat for India from the private trade at a premium over wheat board prices?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is probably referring to an article that appeared in the Globe and Mail on January 19 in which such a suggestion was made. I should like to make it quite clear that the government has purchased wheat for India for shipment from both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. This wheat was purchased from the private grain trade at prevailing prices. There was no premium involved. The government in effect paid prices comparable to those which any other buyer in the world would have had to pay for Canadian wheat at the time the purchase was made.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the reply given a few moments ago by the Minister of Finance, would he advise the house what price was paid to the grain trade for No. 2 Northern wheat and also for No. 3 Northern?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is the sort of question that might better be put on the order paper; but in view of the fact that I did make reference to this matter today, I can give the right hon. gentleman some examples. There were several cargoes. With respect to shipment from West St. John, the price of grade No. 2 was $2.13| per bushel. The estimated replacement price would be exactly the same. From the same port, for No. 3 northern the price was $2.05% and the estimated replacement price was $2.04|. From Pacific ports, No. 2 northern, the price was approximately $2 and a very small fraction of a cent while the replacement price was the same. Those are examples.


John George Diefenbaker: What about No. 3 northern in Vancouver?


Mitchell William Sharp: There were no transactions in No. 3 northern from Vancouver.
January 21, 1966

WHEAT-STATEMENT AS TO FINAL PAYMENT On the orders of the day:


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I add to an answer I gave yesterday when I was speaking about the Canadian Wheat Board. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. McLelland) asked me when the final payments would be made. I have checked with the wheat board, and it is expected that the issuance of final payment cheques for wheat will commence early in February, to be followed by the distribution of cheques on the oats and barley accounts. The level of final payments has not yet been determined.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the new Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the strong opposition of Premier Manning of Alberta to a universal, compulsory medicare plan, and in view of the fact that such a national plan needs the provinces' consent, has the government given consideration to calling another conference with the idea of dropping the compulsory side of that medicare plan?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, there will be a conference of ministers of health at the end of this month and there has been a suggestion that the question of medicare be discussed at this conference, and that an indication be made by the provinces as to their intentions with respect to the federal proposals. There is no change in policy, with respect to the latter part of my hon. friend's question.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat difficult, as I am certain you realize, to keep track of where responsibilities lie in the new cabinet reorganization. I should like to ask whatever minister is now in charge of penitentiaries the following urgent question. In view of the renewed and unanimous opposition of organizations in Canada interested in penology to the type of new prison construction, is it the government's intention to proceed with
Inquiries of the Ministry the present construction and to call for tenders for new buildings on the old plans, to which so much unanimous objection has been raised?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to deal with the question, I am not clear as to what type of construction the hon. member is referring to; whether he is referring to a medium security, a maximum security, or a special detention unit. If he is referring to the special detention unit at Leclerc, this unit is being proceeded with. The other proposed units are being stayed until we see how the one at Leclerc works out in practice.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the minister what attention has been paid to the unanimous objections with regard to this type of construction, which objections I understand he has received in the past few weeks and which were also made some eight or nine months ago. Is attention being paid to those objections, and is any new consideration being given to the type of construction?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, certainly the department pays attention to representations made in these matters. However, I am not aware of any recent representations. I understand there is divided opinion as to the various types of construction.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has the government made a decision with regard to the advisability of appointing a transport controller for box car allocation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand, sir, there is no legal authority for the government to take such action.



EXCESSIVE USE OF CANADIAN BOX CARS BY U.S. RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of what appears to be a widespread and excessive use of Canadian railway box cars by United States railways at this time, what action is contemplated by the government to correct this situation which is working to the serious disadvantage of our Canadian grain trade?

January 21, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the government is looking into the allegations contained in the hon. gentleman's question. I shall be glad to make a report as soon as the investigation is complete.



CANADIAN CO-OPERATION WITH U.K. ON BALANCE OF TRADE PROBLEMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to address to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It arises out of a statement attributed to Lord Brown, a joint minister of the British Board of Trade, in which he implied that the Canadian government is dragging its heels in co-operating to help Britain cure its balance of trade problems. In order to clear up any misunderstanding may I ask whether the government has received requests from Britain for co-operation and/or aid in curing its balance of trade problems. If so, what has been the nature of the government's response, if any, to such requests?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that this question may be put on the order paper.


Reid Scott: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I have just attempted to raise a matter in which the integrity of the Canadian government has been raised and questioned. The Leader of the Opposition previously was permitted to ask a statistical question of the Minister of Finance. With all due respect to the Leader of the Opposition it seems to me that the rules of the house apply to all equally.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, since my name was mentioned I may say I was simply asking for details in respect of an answer given by the minister, and there was no question of derogation of the rules. The minister very properly answered it.


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: May I say that I was unable to hear most of the question, but I will read it in Hansard and provide an answer at the earliest opportunity.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre)-: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister

aware of the commitment made by his predecessor on December 18, 1964, and repeated on two or three occasions since, to the effect that the federal government would bring in legislation regulating the private pension plans that come under federal jurisdiction comparable to such legislation that some of the provinces have brought in? If so, is it the intention of the present minister to bring in such legislation?
Mitchell William Sharp: I always benefit from the diligence of my hon. friend. Now that he has brought this to my attention I will endeavour to give him an answer as soon as possible.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: May
I ask a supplementary question. I wonder if the minister would look at some material which has appeared in the Toronto Star in which statements were made to the effect that the Canadian Pacific has used its pension fund in an illegal way. I want to know whether the legislation could control that kind of action.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I should like to ask a question of the minister of northern affairs arising out of a newspaper article this morning terming his attack on the minister of welfare for Ontario as a petulant and unfortunate attack. I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the house, but I would appreciate a brief answer from the minister. Does he agree with the policy of his government as indicated by the agreement signed earlier this month?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: The answer to that question is "Of course". The only reason I took the action I did was to allay the fears of the Indian people themselves along the very lines raised in this house yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition.


David Orlikow: I want to ask the minister if the federal government has signed that agreement concerning Indians with the Ontario government?


Arthur Laing: No, sir. I gave an undertaking to the Indian people that they would have as much time as they wanted to acquaint themselves with the true conditions. I am hopeful that we will be able to sign the agreement in a relatively short time.
January 21, 1966

fTranslation]



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
A few months ago the province of Quebec appointed a new Minister of Natural Resources. Has the minister received new requests for the transfer of the administration of Eskimo affairs from the federal government to the government of the province of *Quebec?


Arthur Laing: No, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to put to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that Mr. Kierans was expressing the views of the Canadian people in his letter of December 6 to the United States Secretary of Commerce, protesting the intrusion of the United States government into Canadian affairs, why did the minister not make this protest on behalf of Canada instead of, by his silence, making it necessary for the provincial minister to do so for him?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is not a question; it is an argument.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Is it true that the C.B.C. requires its French network employees to be bilingual? If so, does the C.B.C. intend to pay a special bonus to such employees?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would suggest that the hon. member put his question on the order paper.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the Secretary of State was about to answer.
Inquiries of the Ministry



SHIPBUILDING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport which relates to a matter of urgency. Is the government giving immediate reconsideration to its discriminatory policy against the province of British Columbia of not allowing a federal ship subsidy on any new vessels that may be required by the B.C. ferry service, which is a provincial crown corporation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no discrimination against any province. The proposals will apply to all provinces.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. May I ask if the Minister of Transport is not aware that the only provincial ferry service in Canada is operated by the province of British Columbia? This policy therefore is a direct discrimination against my own province. Will the minister reconsider?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not only is the minister not aware, but that is not a fact, Mr. Speaker; there are other provinces which have a ferry service.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that I should like to direct to the Minister of Fisheries. It has to do with the very adverse publicity which Canada is receiving abroad at this time over the alleged slaughter of seals. I had thought this matter had been cleared up last session, but in view of the renewed charges this week I wonder if the minister would give us the facts.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, this is a problem that has created general interest in the house and throughout the country, and is now unfortunately spreading abroad and seriously damaging the image Canada enjoys. In order to clarify the situation may I beg the indulgence of the house to give a full reply to this question? The reply would be longer than is usually permitted at this time. If I have the

January 21. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry indulgence of the house I am sure that I can give an explanation, and I am sure that I shall be able to clarify the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that the minister wishes to make a statement?


An hon. Member:: Make it on Monday on motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister want to table the report to which he has referred?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I think it might help, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, is it not more appropriate, if the minister wants to make a statement, to let him make it on motions? That is the proper place to make it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important matter that the minister wants to deal with. Canada is getting a black eye as a result of representations being made to the effect that the cruelties perpetrated in the past are being perpetuated now. I suggest that the government might see fit to ask the house to revert to motions so the minister can make his statement.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Whatever the decision of the house, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to abide by it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the desire of the house to revert to motions at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Starr:: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that the minister is asking that the house revert to motions?


Mr. Speaker:: I did not hear that from the minister.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not made any such request. The situation is that a question was put on orders of the day asking for certain information. The nature of the question is such that it cannot be properly answered on orders of the day. It raises the old problem of whether it should not have been put in the form of a written question. In any event the answer is a lengthy one.
This is a very, very important subject. Perhaps it would be agreeable if the question could be put as a written question to which a written answer would be given. That is the way the subject should be handled. Asking to

revert to motions to make an answer to an oral question, even if properly placed, solves no problem at all for the house. It seems to me the other method is the better one. If the house is ready and willing at this moment to treat the oral question as a written one and to permit it to be answered now, then perhaps that might meet the situation; but I am not asking that that be done.


Mr. Speaker:: There is obviously no agreement in this matter, so the Chair has no alternative but to call orders of the day.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, January 20, 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. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Douglas.
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate all the members who, last night, through their vote, confirmed their respect for the rights of the minorities in the house. Indeed, minorities, wherever they may be, must be respected. I was not at all surprised to see the members for Yukon and Grey-Bruce (Messrs. Nielsen and Winkler) doing their utmost to curb my freedom as a member and the leader of the Creditistes in the house.
That is precisely the type of narrow-mindedness and meanness which is prejudicial to mutual understanding in Canada. The true fanatics, strange as it may seem, are always found in the ranks of the Tories, the Conservatives, the people who wear blinkers and cannot see beyond them.


Mr. Lambert:: How about examining your own conscience.


David Réal Caouette: Too bad the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), was away last night. He would have had the opportunity to see with his own eyes and hear with his own ears the utterances of his two assistants. The Leader of the Opposition who clamours his love of minorities wherever they may be would have blushed with shame at the sight of his two colleagues. We all know that the
January 21, 1966	COMMONS
member for Yukon is narrow-minded and that he accuses everybody-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: -when insinuations are
made, the voice of the member for Yukon is always heard. He is the only righteous one. If he really believes he alone knows the way, I hope he gets to heaven as soon as possible so as to enjoy the reward his good intentions will have won him.
According to our parliamentary tradition, the leader of a party is recognized as such in this house. This was true, for instance, in the years 1958-62, in the case of the leader of the C.C.F., Mr. Coldwell, and their government leader, Mr. Hazen Argue, although their party only had eight members. At that time, the head of the government was the present Leader of the Opposition and it did not occur to anyone, as far as I know, to fail to recognize the C.C.F. party. Would it be because I come from the province of Quebec and because I am French Canadian that the hon. members for Yukon and Grey-Bruce are hounding our group so much? They should reflect on their irresponsible action.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to convey to you my sincere and heartfelt congratulations on your appointment, approved unanimously, as Speaker of the most important institution in our country, the Canadian parliament. You deserve this honour and our unqualified confidence.
I wish to congratulate the movers of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Messrs. Goyer and Stanbury). It is quite easy to move the address in reply, but making one's maiden speech in the house is a different matter. We all remember the first speech we made in the house.
As could be expected the new member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer) had high praise for the present government. That is as it should be since he is a member of that political party.
As far as the new member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) is concerned, he gave us a very interesting description of his sprawling riding; he did it so well that I would be tempted to move there, were I not convinced that the country's most beautiful riding is still the riding of Villeneuve where the people gave me 69.7 per cent of the popular vote last November 8. However, the hon. member for York-Scarborough deserves
DEBATES	93
The Address-Mr. Caouette sincere congratulations for his faultless French.
It is gratifying to see how anxious the rising generation of Canadians is to recognize the dual character of our country. I have faith in Canada's future provided men of good will from all sections of the country work together to give Canada political, economic and social leadership which will be a credit to the whole population.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the speeches delivered since Wednesday. Following the mover (Mr. Goyer) and the seconder (Mr. Stanbury) of the address, we heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) give a historical account of his 1963 defeat, recalling with malicious pleasure that a non-confidence motion moved by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) and seconded by myself had brought about the defeat of his government. He did not fail to point out that at that time, the hon. member for Red Deer and myself were together. In all fairness, he could have added that at that time, he had at his side the hon. Leon Balcer, his chief lieutenant for the province of Quebec, the hon. Pierre Sevigny, Mr. Remi Paul and others.
Was it not Mr. Balcer, his chief lieutenant, who expressed the firm belief that there was no longer any place for a single French Canadian within a party headed by the Leader of the Official Opposition?
Instead of seeing the mote in his neighbour's eye, it seems to me the Leader of the Opposition should first remove the beam from his own. That would be more in accordance with elementary justice.
But, Mr. Speaker, after these tirades against the statement "One province against nine in Canada" the Leader of the Opposition mentioned toward the end of the last election campaign, that in an effort to influence the popular vote, the Liberal party had used all sorts of organizations such as the Gallup poll and the C.B.C. and that newspapermen and editorial writers had been paid by the Liberal party to praise that group and to present it as the only plausible and acceptable alternative for Canada.
For instance, we have seen on the C.B.C.-and I will name him-Mr. Romeo Leblanc, a commentator who went practically around the world at the expense of the C.B.C., that is to say of the taxpayers, we have seen him time the applause after a
January 21, 196&

The Address-Mr. Caouette public speech, during the election campaign. What a fine spectacle on the C.B.C. television network. Others used the newspapers, such as Mr. Regenstreif, for instance, who travelled across Canada giving his impressions on the Gallup poll and predicting 150, 160 or 165 seats for the Liberals.
The political organization bought less full-page advertisements but, on the other hand, it employed newspapermen like Messrs. Gingras and Willie Chevalier, of Le Droit, of the Hull-Ottawa area, and Messrs. Vincent Prince and Felteau, of La Presse. Those people were used for publicity or propaganda purposes on behalf of the Liberal party during the election campaign.
Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he exposes the abuses committed by the C.B.C. and by certain newspapers in their publicity on behalf of such or such political group and which then turn around and boast to our citizens that they are impartial as far as political groups in our country and in our province are concerned. The Leader of the Opposition was quite right to censure those people yesterday.
If the C.B.C. lacks responsible people the place should be cleaned out. The C.B.C. has a president by the name of Alphonse Ouimet. He is paid $40,000 a year plus expenses. If he is unable to administer the C.B.C. in a spirit of fairness to all groups in Canada, then let him be replaced by a more competent man.
Mr. Speaker, abuse has its limits. I think it is time that members of the federal parliament or the people responsible for the C.B.C. take the necessary steps to put an end to this abuse. Even if this crown corporation is autonomous it is still responsible to parliament.
Mr. Speaker, we heard the Prime Minister deal with the non-confidence motion introduced by the Leader of the Opposition and which reads as follows:
That the following words be added to the address:
We respectfully regret that Your Excellency's advisers have omitted to provide for-
And here they said "une majorite". It seems to me that there ought to be someone among the Conservatives who knows how to write French properly. Instead of "majorite" it should be "maj oration".
-an immediate increase from $75 per month to $100 per month for all recipients under the Old Age Security Act.
The Prime Minister said that this was now impossible for he mentioned that it would cost the federal government $855,000,000 to set pensions at $100 a month.


Mr. Speaker, it was really touching to hear the Prime Minister tell us yesterday that Canada cannot provide $855,000,000 to help our own senior citizens.
I,	myself, do not regard this as a motion of non-confidence, but rather as a very timely motion.
During the election campaign and even during the past three years in this house we of the Ralliement Creditiste, have pressed for a $100 a month pension at age 65 and at age 60 for people in need.
Mr. Speaker, $100 a month is not too much. We will vote in favour of this amendment, but not because it is moved by the Conservatives. Our vote will not be a vote against the government but a vote in favour of the senior citizens of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: I see that my good friend, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Cho-quette) approves. It is true that he promised the same thing to the senior citizens of his riding during the last election.
Mr. Speaker, for the same reasons, we shall also vote for the subamendment seeking the lowering of the minimum age for pensions to 65. There again, this is not a vote in favour of socialism; neither will it be in favour or against the government. It is solely in favour of the senior citizens of Canada.
[DOT] (12:00 noon)
As for the subamendment, if I may digress for a moment, it was put before us only yesterday and I deeply regret-and I say so immediately to the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas), who came to Quebec not so long ago and told us all the admiration he felt for the French language, for the French Canadian element in Canada,-that he did not choose to put his subamendment in good French to the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


David Réal Caouette: It seems to me this would have been a good example to set at this time, as evidence that French is considered exactly on the same footing as English in the parliament of the nation.
I congratulate the Conservatives for presenting a French translation of their motion. On the other hand, I am sure that the leader of the New Democratic Party will take this remark in good part. I do not wish to take him to task for this; I am simply stating a fact, and I am sure that it will be taken into consideration by the New Democratic Party in future.
January 21, 1966
Furthermore, we could help them to translate their motions. But there are members in the New Democratic Party who understand French very well and can write it. I know that the member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and the member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) speak French fairly well, as does also the member for Timmins (Mr. Martin).
That was just a comment I wished to make in passing because we want to have the amendments and subamendments in French as well as in English, since when we introduce our own we do so in the two official languages of Canada.
To come back to the comments of the Prime Minister who stated it would cost Canada $855 million to pay a pension of $100 per month to all our people of 70, 69 or 68 years of age, beginning next year-


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: At 65.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not that worried when it is a question of helping a foreign country, anywhere in the world. He does not tell us, for instance, that the aid to underdeveloped countries of the world costs $40, $50 or $100 million. Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that, under present circumstances, it is impossible for anyone to live in Canada on a pension of $75 a month, that it is impossible to feed oneself properly with $75 a month only. If the Prime Minister wants to find out for himself, he just has to try and live on $75 a month for a six-month period. It is felt by some that the old people exaggerate when they ask for further assistance.
Mr. Speaker, we believe-and the right hon. Prime Minister said so yesterday-that Canada produced this year, or rather in 1965, $51 billion worth of goods and services. Fifty one billion. And out of this sum of $51 billion Canadians earned approximately $36 billion.
I ask the new Minister of Manpower (Mr. Marchand) to take note of this, for between $51 billion in production and $36 billion in purchasing power, there seems to be a margin for additional employment.
Mr. Speaker, even then the difference is not accurate. When we speak of a total production of $51 billion, we are not taking into account all the stocks in Canada.
Today, anyone who ranges throughout our province or throughout Canada sees sales and specials advertised everywhere. Nobody knows what to do with Canada's production.
The Address-Mr. Caouette
Our production is tremendous and yet there is a clamour for increased productivity in Canada. There is no production problem in our country. There is, however, a problem in regard to the distribution of production. That is the only problem.
Even if the government were to make plans and still more plans to improve and increase production, the problem would still be there. The problem is to make the existing production available to the Canadian consumers, and the only way to do that is to create new purchasing power by using the Bank of Canada and issuing a national dividend which would enable consumers to buy that production. That is the solution.
Mr. Speaker, since 1962, under the leadership of the Ralliement Creditiste, representatives of the common people have become the courageous spokesmen for the rights, needs and aspirations of the whole Canadian people, and especially of the people of the province of Quebec. In spite of the political set-backs we suffered in the last election-they were unavoidable as the Liberals and the Conservatives are well aware-in spite of frequently unfair publicity and very limited financial means, because our funds come solely from the people, the Ralliement Creditiste is still here in the House of Commons. We are still standing, still determined to fight for freedom and security for all Canadians.
We will be working toward that goal during this session. We are not interested in political quarrels. They always work to the disadvantage of the people who always pay the piper.
We will insist upon the government doing some constructive work for the welfare of one and all. Canadians expect issues to be considered in a constructive way.
The opening of this twenty seventh parliament enables members of parliament to see the alarming situation which exists at present in our country. More than 12 pieces of legislation were dropped when the last parliament was prorogued in September at the call of a general election on September 7, 1965, an election which proved to be absolutely pointless since we came back to the house with about the same number of members as before, in spite of the spending of $40, $50 or $60 million worth of the Canadian people's money.
Many problems must be solved since they could affect the economic growth of Canada and its development in general. For instance, the amendment of the Bank Act could not be

January 21. 1966

The Address-Mr. Caouette completed and requires the attention of legislators. We hope that the revision will be made in a new perspective and that consideration will be given to the Creditistes' proposals to ensure individual freedom, and economic, political and social security for Canadians.
Even though it is said in the speech from the throne that "our country enjoys an unprecedented period of prosperity and growth", we are not that enthusiastic about the economic future of Canada.
In Canada, people worry because the deficit of our current accounts with the United States, which had fallen to $1.1 billion in 1962, amounted to $2 billion for the past year.
I see that some hon. members are smiling but that deficit results from the fact that we buy more from foreign countries than we sell to them, or that we sell below cost price. Some adjustments are needed in this very important field.
It is impossible to expect an improvement of our trade balance in the near future. Moreover, it is feared that the fixed exchange rate of the Canadian dollar may be in serious jeopardy.
It seems to us that in such troubled times the government should see clearly how much its financial system is obsolete and inefficient. Before going any further, Mr. Speaker, I wish to embark on a digression. As you know, a few days after the election, the United States imposed credit restrictions and forbade Americans to invest in the province of Quebec, in short anywhere in Canada.
If at that time the federal government had taken its responsibilities and stated that inasmuch as Americans would cease to invest in Canada, it would use the Bank of Canada to create the credit necessary to complete or replace American investments, then I feel it would have shown good judgment and assumed its own responsibilities.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
But in reading the speech from the throne, we find that the government is not taking appropriate and urgent action to provide favourable conditions for a sound economy. We also note that it is not taking the proper measures to encourage individual initiative.
The taxes that the government takes so much pleasure in imposing burden the personal income at the source and discourage all initiative which has enabled individuals to carry on until now. Surely, taxes are not economic incentives, and thus it becomes increasingly impossible to make personal savings. Such persistence in reducing personal

income at the source discourages individual initiative at the outset.
Individuals, workers, farmers, homemakers, professionals and every citizen will be working only to pay their due to the government, and whatever is left will be spent on the family. No long search is required to find the causes of poverty which the government has just discovered. I admire the government's intentions to pretend to wage war against poverty in this country. It is assuredly a noble sentiment. But the government "measures to reduce poverty" are pitiful for they will only increase the poverty we now deplore. How, indeed, can we claim to help the individual achieve a decent living standard when a large share of his salary is taken from him? This is ridiculous and utopian for any sensible and realistic person.
These policies of the present government clearly reveal strong socialist tendencies. Individual security and liberty are thwarted, personal initiative is discouraged although it is a well-known fact that the Canadian economy is based upon private enterprise and individual initiative. But the government, through its action, tends to socialize the individual, his liberty, his security, and thus removes any chance of survival which free and private enterprise might have.
Mr. Speaker, this system of liberty and security which the people are clamouring for, this system of free enterprise must be respected; otherwise, we will only accelerate the frightening rise in prices and salaries in our country.
This system, under which individuals enjoy the greatest possible freedom, stimulates individual initiatives and assigns to a greater number the task of taking decisions, while permitting a more rational sharing of available human and material resources. It must be respected, it must be promoted. This cannot be done through socialist measures, to which the Ralliement Creditiste intends to object very strongly.
In a free enterprise system the government's task is to ensure conditions favourable to individual initiatives. To this end the individual must be given the means to take the initiatives which he needs for his development. The Ralliement Creditiste intends to support and promote any legislation encouraging free enterprise and individual initiative.
It is not everything to throw dust in the eyes of the people by creating such false problems as national unity or by advancing all sorts of problems such as the majority
January 21, 196S	COMMONS
government we heard so much about for two months or co-operative federalism which was just discussed yesterday. Our task is to solve Canada's real problems.
It was noticed without surprise that the throne speech did not keep the great election promises which were the constant refrain of the Liberal party during the last federal election.
The Conservatives and others were blamed for having promised $100 a month for the aged. But did not the Prime Minister himself state in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, that this same amount of $100 would not be enough and that $125 would have to be paid to the neediest persons.
That is what the Prime Minister said not so long ago, and today we are told it would cost $850 million to raise the pension for the aged. Where is the logic in all that?
We hear one tune during the election campaign and a different one during the session. They change their minds as easily as they change shirts and they try to fool the whole population with astounding words during election campaigns and on other occasions. This is what the party now in office has been doing for quite some time.
It had also been promised that the price for industrial milk would be increased to $4 per hundred weight. There was no mention of it in the speech from the Throne. It had also been promised during the election campaign that family allowances would be increased. Now we are told that the matter is under consideration. There have been lots of commissions, but not too many results achieved up to now.
We were told also that only the Liberal party could give us a strong government, could rescue our agriculture and the labour class. In short, we were told that only the Liberal party could do this or that as if Canada would not exist any more without the Liberal party.
Mr. Speaker, let's not appeal any more to feelings, to the nicest things in Canada, let's try by all possible means to appeal to the reason of the individual, of the human being, in short, to the intelligence of the human being, and then it will be possible to start a dialogue, to hear one another, and to give Canada the best economic system with which a government can endow a country such as ours.
Mr. Speaker, instead of the family allowances and pensions increasing, it is-the cost of living which keeps on rising at a startling 23033-7
DEBATES	97
The Address-Mr. Caouette rate. We just have to look at the news reports to see, on one hand, the price increase which is being felt in all directions-


Mr. Speaker:: I must remind the hon member that his time has expired and that he could not carry on unless he has the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the house to continue his remarks?
Some hon Members: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their courtesy in allowing me to complete my remarks, which should not take much longer anyway.
Personally, I did not hesitate to tell our people during the election campaign that credit would be restricted. In fact, the day after the election, on November 9, credit restrictions were announced from Washington.
With the few proposals outlined in the speech from the throne, the government tries to hoodwink the population into forgetting major problems by promising political sweets, just as one gives a dog a bone to stop him from barking or give a child a biscuit to stop him from crying. How childish of the government.
I am convinced that the Liberals do not believe themselves the promises they clamoured during the election campaign, otherwise they would have written a speech from the throne less disappointing, more dynamic, less costly more profitable for Canada, less socialistic and more stimulating for a realistic economy in Canada.
The population has no need for words to solve its problems. What it needs above all and always is solely adequate financial means.
Mr. Speaker, when we talk about adequate financial means, a lot of people say: "It is always the same thing, the monetary question: The Creditistes are always talking about monetary reform, about the Bank of Canada." For the information of the Liberal members, the new ones in particular, and possibly some of the old ones who may have forgotten, I wish to put on the record a verbatim statement made by a former prime minister of Canada, and a Liberal one at that, Mr. Mackenzie King-


Mr. Guay:: That was a great man.
January 21, 1966

The Address-Mr. Caouette


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I hear my good friend from Levis saying: "That was a great man." Here is what Mackenzie King said about credit and the setting up of a central bank in Canada. I quote:
Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.
That was said on June 17, 1936. It means that it will soon be 30 years that a Liberal Prime Minister stated exactly what the Cred-itistes have been saying for a long time in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister of that day admitted that by losing control over the issuing of money and credit, Canada's sovereignty and democracy were jeopardized.
We are in the same situation which he described at that time.
To regain for the nation what has thus been lost will continue to be the first objective of Liberal effort.
His supporters applauded then saying "Hear. Hear."
The then prime minister continued:
We believe that credit should be a social service to serve the needs of the people.
Credit is not the concern of the bankers only but is of concern to you and me.
Credit is today controlled by the great international money power.
It is Mr. King who said that.
The first step, then, is to establish a national central bank, not another private bank as has been done-*
He was then talking of the Bank of Canada which had been established in 1936.
-but a government bank able to control credit according to the will of the government in matters of great national concern.
The Liberal party believes it is a public matter of direct concern to the average citizen to have a national bank to control currency and credit so that they may serve the public needs.
When the then prime minister said:
We believe that credit should be a social servicewe have only to leave out the word "service" and it could be read: "That credit should be social".
Then, everyone, or at least the Prime Minister, would have been a supporter of social credit.
Mr. Speaker, the Creditistes ask nothing illogical.
They are claiming what has been obvious for a number of years and what both Conservative and Liberal governments have known for 40 years. Some Liberals, like

Gerald McGeer and Arthur Slaght, fought during the period 1934-1937 for monetary reform. At that time we, of the Social Credit party, had been asking for instance, that the Bank of Canada be used to finance our economic development as well as our provinces, our municipalities, our school boards, free of interest.
Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) whether he proposed to make interest-free loans available to provinces, municipalities and school boards. The Minister of Finance answered "no".
On the other hand, when it was necessary on September 9, 1965, two days after the election was called, to loan Jamaica $1,625,000 without interest for the construction of a sewer and a bridge in that country, the government was able to find that amount. The loan was made for a period of 50 years, with 10 years of grace, for a total of 60 years. Taking for granted that the Prime Minister is 65, he will be 125 when Jamaica will start to repay this loan. At that time, he will be pushing daisies, but all the same, the Canadian people will be paying taxes on a loan granted without interest to a foreign country. This does not mean that we are against helping other countries. Far from it, we are happy to help them, but let us begin with our own. Let us help our own people. Our school boards are stagnating. Teachers are on strike in Montreal, Hull and throughout the province.


Some hon. Members:: This is under provincial jurisdiction.


David Réal Caouette: This may be under provincial jurisdiction, but money matters lie with Ottawa. It is Ottawa's responsibility if the money is not available to the provinces, the municipalities, the school boards. This is Ottawa's baby. It is obviously not up to Ottawa to settle the strike, but it should supply the money through the Bank of Canada to ensure proper salaries for the teachers without mortgaging the school boards any further. These strikes are mostly due to the fact that taxpayers cannot pay added taxes to the municipalities.
The situation is the same in the case of municipalities. They cannot profit by winter works because they do not have the 10 per cent necessary to meet the requirements of the governments, both federal and provincial. This is true for the rest of the country.
The Creditistes are not asking the government to perform miracles, but rather to use our financial resources according to facts and
January 21, 1966

to our domestic production potential. And yet, I hear members of various parties say that we need an increased productivity, an increased production. If we want to produce more let us, first of all, create a buying power to purchase the goods. It is the only possible solution, to really solve this far-reaching problem in Canada.
We ask for interest-free loans to provinces, municipalities, school boards by the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance, who is in his seat, should order the Bank of Canada to finance our own institutions, as he finances other countries throughout the world. If we can find money to help Jamaica and foreign countries, money should be found to help Canada as well.
Mr. Speaker, the Creditistes will co-operate with the government as long as it respects human beings in Canada, as long as its first concern is to guarantee to each and every one of us economic security and personal freedoms, and as long as it tries to set up in Canada an economic system which will allow any citizen to enter the economic scene according to his personal aspirations, his capabilities and his talents. I would like to paraphrase at this point the late President of the United States, Mr. Kennedy: Let us not ask ourselves what Canada can do for us; let us ask ourselves what we, as parliamentarians, can do for Canada.
As parliamentarians, let us sincerely ask ourselves whether we are giving Canada an economic system which allows every one of us to develop freely and with complete security.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to join with the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the other party leaders in extending my congratulations to the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer) and the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stan-bury) for their thoughtful contributions in moving and seconding the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Certainly their maiden speeches were worthy of the responsibility that was given to them.
I should also like to extend to you again, Mr. Speaker, my congratulations on your election to the very important position which you hold in the house. In the last few days you have already shown us your ability to handle this important position. A tremendous,
The Address-Mr. Thompson special responsibility rests upon you in a house of minorities such as we have and we are grateful for the unanimity of support that has already been given to you, which is an indication of the respect with which you are held in this house.
I should also like to take this opportunity of welcoming to our ranks in the house all those hon. members who are here for the first time. I note that the changeover of new members is about on a par with previous elections, but I think at this time of the centennial there is a special responsibility resting upon those who have joined us, particularly the younger men. I assure them, Mr. Speaker, that on our part there is a warm welcome for all of them. I think it is only fair that we also extend that same welcome to those hon. members of the house who were here previously.
I think it is also in order to extend a word of congratulation at this time to the new members of the cabinet. In respect of the re-organization of government that has been outlined in the Speech from the Throne and had already been indicated by the government, even though a certain amount of confusion exists in the minds of us all with regard to who is responsible for what particular function a word of congratulation is due to the new members of the cabinet on then-promotion to these positions of responsibility.
Much has been said in this house about the value of parliament, its function, its purpose and its preservation. I agree with what has been said. Last year saw the 750th anniversary of Magna Carta and the 700th anniversary of the first democratic parliament, and as this is the 100th year of this parliament I think it is well that we be reminded of the importance that parliament holds as the heartbeat of the democratic process. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say, God forbid that parliament should ever disappear from the Canadian scene or that its position should ever be weakened by the actions of any of us who make up this twenty seventh parliament.
I would say to those who attempted last night to take away the privilege that has been extended to party leaders of having the opportunity of expressing their party's policy I say this also to the members of the press, because there seems to be some confusion as to what actually was the issue-that it has never been our contention that there should be an equal division of time so far as speaking is concerned amongst the members of the parties in this house, but that time
100	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Thompson should be divided as nearly as possible on a proportionate basis.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
The issue brought up last night was whether a party has the right at this particular time to express its policies before the general participation in the debate by members takes place. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it is our policy to recognize that more equitable distribution of speaking time in general debate is desirable. That was not the issue last night. The issue last night had to do with the privilege of the leaders of the parties to express party policy as it relates in this particular instance to the throne speech.
I think we might take a lesson from the mother of parliaments in Westminster. At the present time the Liberal party has very few members in that parliament and yet certain rights are extended to the members of that party which are part of the right of expression inherent in parliament. We could take Australia where since the end of the second world war there has been a multiparty parliament. In many ways the Australian parliament has recognized and has made sure that the rights of parliament are maintained under this particular situation which apparently reflects the will of the Australian people, as does also this parliament, the will of the Canadian people because the last three parliaments in Canada have been minority parliaments.
It was my privilege, Mr. Speaker, in our first minority parliament to give to it the name of the house of minorities. I think it is imperative that we strengthen and make more effective its operation as a minority parliament than we have in the past in order that we may be assured that the objectives and the purposes of parliament will be maintained. Therefore, I join with the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the remarks he has made in regard to the basic importance of parliament in the democratic process and in regard to our responsibilities to preserve parliament and to preserve those rights that we enjoy in whatever party we are in this house of minorities.
However, Mr. Speaker, I would say that any product, any service, any idea will only live or die according to public opinion. Basically, what I am concerned with is that at present parliament is held in lower esteem by the public, as I interpret the situation, than it has been held for a long time. I fear that if we continue to give the impression that we have been giving to the public and if we continue to behave as we have in the last

DEBATES	January 21, 1966
two parliaments, public opinion will sink to such a low ebb that parliament ultimately will be rejected by the public. This is not because there is anything wrong with parliament in itself. I do not think for a moment that it will happen; but if it should happen it will be only because we in parliament have failed in our own responsibilities. It is we, the members of parliament, who are at fault and we are failing the heritage of our parliamentary government, which is the most important heritage that has been passed on to us by British tradition. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say at this point that it is imperative that we who are members of this house of minorities, who are members of this parliament, make sure that parliament does function effectively and that the esteem and respect and worth of parliament be made clear to the Canadian people whose servants, after all, we are.
We have just gone through an unnecessary election. It was, as has been said over and over again, an exercise in futility. Before the last election was called many of us in the twenty sixth parliament pleaded that the Prime Minister not call an election. He did not heed this advice but accepted rather the words of wisdom of those who, for reasons of political gain or expediency, thought that it was the proper action to take. To the bitter sorrow and chagrin of those advisers and of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), nothing has been gained. What is our alternative now? I maintain that there is only one alternative. As I have already said, we must assure the public and we must assure ourselves that this, the twenty seventh parliament, is going to be a worth-while parliament, that it will be a parliament that will do the job that we who make it up were elected to do.
An election in the immediate future is out of the question, not because I have any fear of another election, which is not the issue at all, but because we must settle down to do the job for which we were elected. I am convinced that this is almost the unanimous voice of the public. If this be true, what are we going to do? Are we to continue playing a hypocritical game of charades where we pretend to do something which we have no intention of doing? Any votes of non-confidence at this particular time intended to overthrow the government are phony motions because that is not really what they are intended to do. They are hypocritical and deceiving. This is apart from any breakdown in the morality of the government or any
January 21, 1966

abdication of responsibility, a possibility which could and should be taken care of by specific votes of non-confidence.
The Leader of the Official Opposition went to great lengths earlier in the debate to justify his intention to move votes of nonconfidence. He challenged the government and he challenged the other parties of the opposition for having changed their tune and for being part of, as he described it, a new concept of parliamentary philosophy. May I remind the hon. gentleman that conditions have changed, that they are vastly different today than they were in 1957 or in 1962 or even in 1964. I say that motions of non-confidence intended at this time to overthrow the government are in direct contradiction to what public opinion expects of us. The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), in recording his reasons for arguing as he did in favour of non-confidence amendments, simply revealed his personal ambition in again aspiring to be Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister stated prior to the November 8 election that if he did not get a majority government we would face another election in a year or a year and a half. Then he added, "Who wants another election?" He did not get his majority. May I ask him if it is his intention to call another election in the next year or year and a half? If the Prime Minister really wants this parliament to function and to survive for a reasonable time and if he remains consistent with what he said prior to November 8, why does he not declare a policy which would welcome amendments from the opposition? Why does he not declare that he would not consider amendments or votes on any issues, save major money bills, as endangering the defeat of his government and that in the event of defeat on any such issue there would be an opportunity to move a specific or direct non-confidence amendment in the government?
Such action would not require any change of the rules. It would not require any constitutional changes. It would be a very logical alternative at this particular time in view of the realities of the situation and would give the assurance to members on both sides of the house and to the people that it is the intention of parliament to bring forth the best possible legislation, from whatever side of the house the ideas or the suggestions may come. This would provide an opportunity for much greater participation by members of the backbenches on both sides of the house. It would make our committee work more effective. Certainly it would produce legislation
The Address-Mr. Thompson far more representative of the cross-section in the House of Commons, which after all does represent a cross-section of public opinion in Canada.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
We now have before us an amendment and subamendment which, if passed, would raise pensions to $100 a month for our senior citizens. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I am in favour of the subject matter of these amendments. In the 1958 election the Social Credit party had as a plank in its platform pensions of $100 a month. This has been our policy ever since. If I had time this morning I could go back and quote statements from both the Liberal and Conservative parties of the day to the effect that such a policy was sheer irresponsibility.
So it is not a question whether we agree or disagree with the subject matter of the amendment. We do agree with it because we believe pensions should be at a level which will ensure all pensioners a respectable standard of living. Last year, when the government introduced the lowering of the minimum age for pensions in annual steps from 70 to 65, we proposed at the same time that pensions should be increased $5 per year so that by 1970 pensions for all senior citizens, widows, invalids and blind citizens would be $100 a month for everyone who was 65 years of age or over. This is actually the subject matter of the amendment to the throne speech motion. The subamendment goes farther and suggests that the pension should be $100 a month now for everyone 65 years of age or over.
More than that, Mr. Speaker, we suggested at that time that military pensions should be adjusted to the cost of living and that all pensions should be adjusted to keep pace with any future increases in the cost of living. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) wisely referred to the cost of an immediate increase in the amount of pensions, and stated that it would amount to $855 million per year. However, as already mentioned in the debate, he failed to recognize some very important facts which, if taken into consideration, would greatly reduce this figure.
There is the recapture of a good part of this pension amount in the form of income tax. There would be a greater tax income to the general treasury simply through the impetus that the payment of such pensions would give to the general turnover of commerce in the country. Not only that, but it would replace many of the welfare payments already made. There would also be fiscal
102	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Thompson savings possible if only we could adopt a system of providing our public capital through the Bank of Canada and lowering the tax load. This year we are paying $1,100 million in interest on our national debt which, if progressively lowered, could provide more than enough money to meet the extra cost of pensions to everyone who deserved pensions, and that at 65 years of age.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are entirely in support of the subject matter of the amendment, and I think this house has as its responsibility the raising of pensions to such a level. However, supporting this particular amendment or subamendment at this particular time will not do anything to assure pensioners that they are going to get $100 a month. It is nothing more nor less than an attempt to defeat the government, much as the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) would seek to convince the public that this is not so. If the government were to be defeated and we were to go into another election, would that mean that we were going to get pensions of $100 a month?


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


Robert Norman Thompson: The Leader of the Opposition-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. Member permit a question?


Robert Norman Thompson: My time is very short, Mr. Speaker, but I will be glad to grant the privilege of asking any questions after I am through. The Leader of the Official Opposition might think that he should be called to be Prime Minister again, but I do not think this would happen. Let us be honest with ourselves. Any election brought on by the Official Opposition or by any opposition party or by the government itself would at this time cause a complete rejection of that party by the public of Canada, because they are fed up with elections.


Mr. Vincent:: What about the last one?


Robert Norman Thompson: I say this because, if I am able to read public opinion correctly in any way at all, this is what would happen to any party which would even attempt to force an election at this time. So then this amendment has nothing to do with an increase in pensions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Norman Thompson: I deplore, Mr. Speaker, that our pensioners should again be made the

DEBATES	January 21, 1966
subject of political strategy and manoeuvring, because this is what is being done. If we really want to increase pensions to $100 a month we should get down and work co-operatively toward that objective. I am not satisfied with the statement of Liberal policy on this matter yesterday. There could have been and should have been some indication by the government in the Speech from the Throne of their intention to correct this particular situation.
Surely the government is aware of the report to be made by the Senatorial committee on aging. If I have understood correctly what we have all heard, I would expect this committee to recommend that pensions be increased. Why did the government not take the initiative and move to meet this need? They did not do so. But, again I say that just to follow through with the amendment and subamendment now before the house would not mean that we would bring about the objective of increasing our pensions to a proper level. Therefore I again deplore that politicians are once more stooping to the level of making our senior citizens and pensioners in this country the object of their political manoeuvring.
May I say in closing on this particular point, Mr. Speaker, that a vote for the amendment means nothing at all. In the second place, the issues of the recent election have been voted on by the public. Perhaps we do not agree with the results but nevertheless let us get on and do the best we can to correct the deficiencies within our nation, one of the most important of which is a proper increase in pensions, a matter which should have high priority. As the Prime Minister stated so well in his own remarks in the Throne Speech debate, "we will be judged by our deeds, not by our words".
The Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, has laid on the parliamentary table a great mass of proposals, most of which have considerable merit. How many of these projects are ready for submission to parliament by way of legislation and how many are unstudied extracts from after-dinner speeches by various cabinet ministers, only the government knows. But there are a number of points I should like to emphasize here which I think are deserving of priority. I think the government has the responsibility to lay out an order of priority for the tremendous load of work which it has outlined. Certain things must be done now; other things are more controversial and
January 21, 1966

which might be left until later. But unless the government follows some orderly pattern of priority we will never get our work done.
First of all, it is self-evident that the reinstitution of the new rules of procedure is imperative. We are already stalling on this question. If we do not make these new rules operative in this parliament immediately, we will never complete a quarter of the work outlined for us during this present calendar year. The excellent work of the various subcommittees in the last session with relation to procedural reform should be extended and implemented in this house now. I think this has number one priority.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
Second, an urgent priority is the revision of the Bank Act. Already the decennial revision has been twice postponed. Not only must there be a completely new monetary policy spelled out as it relates to the chartered banks and the near banks but a new policy for the Bank of Canada is equally urgent as it relates to public capital. During the present fiscal year we will be paying more than $1,100 million in interest on the national debt. Wisely, the government has chosen to follow the recommendation of the Social Credit party that the Bank of Canada could well be responsible for a good part of this debt. In fact, during this year approximately one eighth of our national debt was assumed by the Bank of Canada. This saved the taxpayers of Canada at least one-eighth of the tremendous load which is being paid in interest alone. It amounted to a saving or an income, shall we say, to the consolidated revenue fund in 1964 of something more than $128 million.
If one eighth of our national debt can be assumed by the Bank of Canada, why cannot one quarter or one half? This debt does not all come due at once; it comes due gradually. With the taking over of the national debt by the Bank of Canada, paying present interest rates this dollar saving would revert into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and representing a direct saving to the taxpayers of Canada. This is just one way in which the responsibilities of the Bank of Canada could be extended.
There is still a tremendous need in this country for the public capital required to develop the public sector of the economy. So far as I can understand, the government is now planning to terminate the municipal development and loan fund. What will happen to the municipalities should this be done?
The Address-Mr. Thompson Where will the provinces get the funds necessary for their capital development, especially now that tight money restrictions are becoming more severe than ever, in accordance with the policies of the United States toward foreign loans? There is no reason why a municipal development bank as an integral part of the Bank of Canada should not be established to provide public capital for use in Canada as is done at present in another field by the Industrial Development Bank. The needs of Canada are such that there is no need to hold back in this sector of the economy; they are such that they will extend throughout the lifetime of all who sit in this house.
According to the Bladen Commission Report, the cost of capital development covering buildings and equipment for our universities alone in the next ten years will amount to something like $5 billion. Where is this money coming from? If it is not forthcoming from a municipal development bank the cost to the taxpayers will likely reach $10 billion before all the money is paid, because the cost of money under present arrangements amounts to more than the cost of the work itself.
There are many projects which might be mentioned. There is one in particular which has interested me a great deal though I have found there is considerable apathy toward it among the eastern members. I refer to the completion of the Alaska highway, so vital to the development of the economy of the northern and western parts of Canada. What better way is there of financing the construction and paving of this highway than through a municipal development bank? I could list a number of such projects and so could every member of the house.
I was surprised that the Speech from the Throne did not make some reference to the Carter Commission Report and the tremendous need for tax reform. It is in this area that the need for financial and economic policy today has grown so urgent.
The third point I would emphasize has relation to the question of co-operative federalism. The increasing interdependence of provincial and federal governments is a fact requiring continuous consultation and co-operation. So important is this in so many areas that I think the only possible way to meet this problem satisfactorily is by setting up a specific department of federal-provincial affairs headed by a minister who would be responsible not just for a closed-door type of negotiation but for continuing liaison between
104	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Thompson the two senior levels of government in this country. Instead of the proliferation of federal-provincial conferences and the growing dissatisfaction with this closed-door policy which often bypasses both parliament and the legislatures we could be developing a truly co-operative federalism in this country. Medicare is only one of the areas which could be effectively dealt with in such a department. No less important is the question of provincial fiscal arrangements. This applies, also, to the whole problem of our constitution and the working out of a basis for its amendment and repatriation in the future. It is not so much a new constitution that we need as a living up to the old constitution. I do not think the government itself is too clear about this. Even the Prime Minister in his television program the other night did not seem to have much idea how this would be brought about.
Fourth, I believe the emphasis which has been placed on the need for further assistance to higher education both in the Speech from the Throne and in the present debate thus far is commendable. The increase in university grants is good. However, there are one or two areas which are not covered by the policy which has been announced. We are moving into an era of specialized education and it seems to me that grants to institutions of higher learning should be made directly on the basis of student attendance rather than on a basis of provincial population. If this were done the needs of these institutions today would be much more closely met.
We have institutions, universities and vocational schools which are of national significance because they are carrying out training over the national area. Such institutions are at present completely omitted from the government's plans. I am speaking of such national institutions which train members of the health professions, chiropracters and optometrists and also in other areas the training of specialists. I think it is wrong to relegate the whole area of university education on the arts level so that private institutions would be omitted. What about the private colleges and the role they have played and are continuing to play? I think that in many cases they are better able to meet the needs of students today than the factory techniques practised in the state universities. On the present basis they are being omitted though I think their need is as important as the needs ot the provincial universities.

DEBATES	January 21, 1966
I notice it is one o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I have only a few more minutes of my speech left, but may I call it one o'clock and continue at 2.30?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must advise the hon. member that although it is one o'clock his time has expired.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have the indulgence of the house for the purpose of making a statement which I hope will commend itself to hon. members?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree that the minister should make this statement now?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Should it be not clear that the hon. member for Red Deer will be allowed the courtesy of additional time to finish his speech as has been done in the case of other hon. members?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree that the hon. member for Red Deer may continue his remarks after 2.30?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEDURAL CHANGES PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED-VARIATIONS FOR PRESENT SESSION

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the house leaders of the other parties represented in the chamber I wish to make a short statement which I think will commend itself to hon. members. It is:
1.	That the procedural changes adopted on a temporary basis on April 20, May 7, June 1 and October 9, 1964, and on June 8 and 11, 1965, as varied hereunder, shall apply during the present session.
2.	That during the throne speech and budget debates the Speaker shall leave the chair during the periods formerly provided for luncheon and dinner.
3.	That the 20 minute limit on speeches during the debate on the resolution stage of a money bill shall not apply to the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)
4.	That a supply motion to enter the main and supplementary estimates for 1965-66 may be called on any day following the end of the throne speech.
5.	That the main and supplementary estimates for 1965-66, except the final sup-plementaries, shall be entered on that one supply motion and, when entered, the house
January 21, 1966	COMMONS
may resolve itself into committee of supply for the purpose of considering such estimates on any day of the week, and for such purpose Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without question put.
6.	That the time used in considering such main and supplementary estimates and interim supply for the fiscal year 1965-66 shall not be counted as part of the time provided by the rules in this session for considering the business of supply.
7.	That the time allocated for the question period by the rules will be extended to 40 minutes on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the foregoing be made an order of the House. 1 think I should add for the information of hon. members that it is the government's intention, once the Throne Speech is concluded, to call the supply motion I have referred to and to proceed immediately to deal with the estimates of this current year in committee of supply, in other words, in committee of the whole.
I should also add for the information of hon. members that the government is prepared to undertake that the new estimates for the new fiscal year 1966-67 will be tabled by February 15. We hope it might be a few days earlier than that.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Government House Leader whether it is correct that the supply motion which the government intends to bring in following the Throne Speech will not be part of the four supply motions that are provided for already?


George James McIlraith: Yes, that is made quite clear in my statement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that it be so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the Chair.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Goyer for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to
DEBATES	105
The Address-Mr. Thompson his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Douglas.
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, to continue the remarks I had begun before the luncheon break, I should like to say as my fifth point that we are pleased to note that the government has decided to transfer the responsibilities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police relating to the investigation of crime, the security of the nation and penal reform to the hands of the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell). Not only do we believe that this new minister is well equipped for his job but also that he should be able to carry it out more effectively than the Minister of Justice because the department for which that minister is responsible is overburdened with many other duties. We in this party believe that the government must take the initiative in this field.
We are happy to receive the white paper on crime revealing the impact of national crime on the Canadian scene and its relationship to security and espionage in this country because it is our belief that unless this house and the public generally are informed as to these areas we can never be strong in national security. Perhaps the ultimate action that will have to be taken in this regard is the setting up of a royal commission. Surely we cannot be content to continue in the present fashion in view of the rumours and evidence that all is not well in these areas in this country. I urge the new minister to take this action as quickly as possible.
If the R.C.M.P. were authorized to publish bulletins periodically in regard to the wellbeing of our nation, this would strengthen the country as a whole. It is unfortunate that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as the situation has been developing, are becoming the whipping boy for many people who are dissatisfied. There has been enough breaking down of law and order without furthering its collapse in this way. I wonder sometimes, Mr. Speaker, whether the reason behind many of the problems confronting the R.C.M.P. relates to the fact that that force does not have sufficient government support. For this reason we should be able to expect the new minister to establish a royal commission to investigate the whole situation.
It is regrettable that the government did not make any mention in the Speech from the Throne regarding the appointment of an ombudsman. The absence of any mention of
106	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Thompson the establishment of a parliamentary commissioner or ombudsman in the Throne Speech is regrettable, particularly because of the general agreement on both the need and the value of such an officer, which was discussed not only during the last parliament but during at least the one before. A committee was set up to study the matter as a result of which the government received a recommendation that this type of legislation should be put forward. The government promised in the Throne Speech last session to set up a royal commission to study the need and value of a parliamentary commissioner or ombudsman. I do not think a royal commission is necessary. It seems to me the government ought to be aware that as bureaucracy becomes more complicated the possibility of innocent people suffering becomes more prevalent.
The appointment of an ombudsman would serve as protection for the public and would also remove a heavy burden from each member of parliament which we must in some way carry at this time. We are constantly being approached by constituents who believe they have a case against some department or official of government. To be able to refer these people to a recognized authority would relieve members of parliament of undue burdens and would assure complainants that their cases would be treated fairly and properly.
I should now like to comment briefly on foreign affairs and that area of the government's responsibility. I am sure we have all been disturbed by the developements that have taken place in Nigeria during the past few days. I know that country well and many of the people who had been involved. It seems to me that what has taken place in Nigeria and the military coups which have occurred during the last few months in other African countries should be a warning to us that the quest for freedom is not always met by the transfer of government to people who on many occasions, through no fault of their own, are not in a position of preparedness to enable them to carry on. I believe what has happened in Nigeria is a sign to which the government might well give heed, particularly in its attitude toward the pressure for military action in the situation which exists today in Rhodesia. Certainly the problems of Africa are not going to be met by a repetition of what happened in the Congo.
Much has been said about Viet Nam and I think there are several things of which we should remind ourselves. I have before me an extract from the Economist of January 1,

DEBATES	January 21, 1966
1966.	In an editorial in that publication under the heading "Three Questions for 1966" a very sound and sensible approach is suggested as to how we should proceed in our efforts to contain the aggressiveness of China. I should like to quote this article very briefly. In part it states:
The past year has shown that the containment of China is going to be an even tougher business than the containment of Russia was in Stalin's time. It will be tougher because Mr. Mao Tse-Tung is playing a sharper game than Stalin ever did.
The article then states:
The need to meet Chinese pressure with armed counter pressure will stop only when Mr. Mao Tse-Tung's successors do what Stalin's successors did.
The article further states:
The only sane sort of competition is for communists and capitalists, each within their own household, to find out what their respective systems can achieve so that the world can judge which of them really does meet men's needs better. Charity does begin at home. China's leaders are likely to recognize this as early as 1966, or
1967.	It will take time. The Americans are buying the time, with blood.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I think it is wrong that the United States at this time, while she is probably guilty of many mistakes of judgment, should be condemned as the bad gangster of the situation over there. Why does North Viet Nam talk so strongly about elections in South Viet Nam when she refuses to talk about free elections in her own country? Few people realize that for the past several years statistics indicate that about 150 murders a week have been committed in South Viet Nam in gradually eliminating the community and government leaders of that country. During the last year, 1965, this figure was stepped up to more than 300 murders a week.
I say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) that what we need in Canada is a national policy which will contain the aggressiveness of the Communist nations, including China, but which at the same time will win them to a new and better approach and will encourage them to become a member of the world family of nations in a peaceful way. Mr. Speaker, time does not permit a debate at length on the question of external affairs, but as we move into 1966 I think Canada should further develop her role as peacemaker by standing firmly but quietly for the things that are right and at the same time giving an example that will convince the developing nations of the world that what we have is the way of life that they need.
January 21, 1966	COMMONS
This is our 100th year of parliament in Canada. The second session of this parliament will be the first session of the second century. During the past several years, and particularly during the past several weeks, I have studied and read the debates of the earlier years of this parliament and also the record of the series of conferences which led up to confederation. From my reading I am convinced that many of the problems we face today are not dissimilar to the problems that were faced 100 years ago. At that time we had political differences as we have now. You cannot say that Brown, the leader of the Liberals, was on very compatible terms, in the normal political sense, with Macdonald, the leader of the Conservatives or that the French or Quebec question was much different from what it is now. But these men had certain common convictions and because they were willing to put aside their partisan politics for these common convictions confederation was able to come out.
I believe there were three major points upon which they stood which were of mutual concern and conviction then. I think it would be well for us to remind ourselves of them now because I believe we need to go back to those major issues. The first was their determination that there should be a nation, Canada, because they were determined in not wanting to become part of the United States or not wanting to revert to the colonialism of France or Great Britain. Therefore they came together to form the nation of which we are a part and whose heritage we share.
Second, Mr. Speaker, they were convinced that the rights of minorities should be preserved for all time and that the most important minority of all was the individual. They set up a system of government that would serve the individual and strongly uphold those minorities, even though we were to function under a system of majority rule in the British parliamentary tradition. I think we need to remind ourselves of that. Above all I would point out to the house that these men shared another common conviction which is illustrated by our Canadian motto that "He shall have dominion from sea to sea". If this were to be our criterion, I think that together with adherence to those things which have been provided for us through our Christian heritage we would solve the problems that we now face.
I agree that our present problems are not the greatest that Canada has ever faced. There have been problems in the past. If our people were to recognize that what we stand 23033-
DEBATES	107
The Address-Mr. H. M. Horner for in this nation of ours is based upon the Christian principles of justice and morality then we would be able to claim God as having dominion from sea to sea when we became a nation. Only on the basis that we come back to these principles will we perpetuate and extend this nation of ours into its second century.
Therefore I would say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that in this 100th year of parliament in Canada we in this house share a very unique responsibility. In the first instance, I believe, this tells us that we must make this house function well, not for the sake of any party or of any individual but for the sake of the nation and the furtherance of that tradition which has been ours in the past and which we hope to pass on to those who follow us in the future. Thus the Prime Minister has said well that in this twenty seventh parliament we shall be judged not by what we say but by what we do.


Mr. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, my first words are to you, sir, to congratulate Your Honour upon election to your present position. On behalf of the backbenchers generally I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer) and the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) and welcome them into the backbenchers' club of our house. I hope they will take their part, as I am sure they will, in maintaining some of the freedoms that have belonged to us as backbenchers over the years and which we must keep if we are to represent properly the people who send us here.
We have heard a dissertation on hypocrisy, and I intend to say something about that in a few minutes. But I want first of all, to say something with regard to the subamendment. In so far as I am concerned, I can support the subamendment wholeheartedly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: We believe that a situation has arisen in Canada in which the cost of living has spiralled and in which our older people are unable to get along on the pensions they are now receiving. It may be all very well for the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) to suggest that the amendment is not going to get them any pension increase. I suggest that there is one man in this house who can get them that increase and that is the hon. member to whom I have referred. He talks about hypocrisy; he talks about parliament. I suggest that there he sits with the balance of power
January 21, 1966

The Address-Mr. H. M. Horner but he does not want an election. He thinks that if the government is defeated on this amendment there will be an election. I suggest to him, Mr. Speaker, that he should have therefore made his position clear a long time ago so that the government could have put into the Throne Speech what we have asked for.
Let the hon. member not try to fool the people of Canada by saying that this is not going to give our older people a larger pension. Let him be responsible to each and every person in this country who is 65 and over for their not receiving $100 a month as the old age pension. The hon. member talks about hypocrisy and he makes a speech with regard to the rights of leaders. Leaders of what? He makes a speech with regard to how parliament works and its efficiency and he says that parliament is losing face in the nation. Why is it losing face and why does it take so long for parliament to pass necessary legislation? It is because we have to sit here as backbenchers and listen to five leaders comment on every motion. We have to sit here as backbenchers and listen to five major speeches on every piece of legislation.


Mr. Leboe:: You are never here anyway.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Perhaps that is why the house becomes a frustrating place for backbenchers, because we have to come here and listen to people who claim they represent somebody and claim also that they are going to be leaders. We could divide our group into 12 sections and we could all be a leader of a little party and all have the right to speak on every motion. Then if we worked it right we might even make an additional amount of money for the party.
If we are going to have a breakdown of our parliamentary system into a house of minorities where every little group is going to be given this right, we will never get any business done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: They talk
about parliament and its effect on the nation. I suggest to them that instead of allowing their egotism to carry them off into little splinter groups they would do Canada a service if they were to organize their political abilities into two parties.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
They have the freedom to join any party they wish. I believe members should forget this idea that because I am the great I am I have to have a party of my own. Parliament cannot function efficiently with such ideas.


I should like now, sir, to say something with regard to other segments of the Speech from the Throne and particularly with regard to some things that are not covered in the Speech from the Throne. I want to say something with regard to the tight money policy that the Liberals have reimposed on this country. I quite agree with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) when he called our two esteemed ministers the gold dust twins. We in western Canada are worried about this action. We have seen this happen before. We know what it does to our part of the country. Only recently I saw a comment of a distinguished gentleman in the Maritimes who also has the same fear. We know what happens when the government institutes a tight money policy. Money is pulled in from the rest of the country to Toronto and Montreal and we are left without anything with which to operate. This has happened before in western Canada. We do not want to see it happen again. It is all very well for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters); they do not have these financial problems. But I have a lot of constituents who are just little businessmen and small farmers and every time a tight money policy is instituted they are the first ones to be hurt.
The bank says, "We will cut off farm improvement loans; we are not making any money on those anyway". That is the first thing that goes. The second thing that goes is the small loan to the small businessman. The big companies that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been associated with have never had this problem, I am sure. But the little people have had it and are having it now. If this great and esteemed government that we have now is going to do something about the economy and continue to keep it rolling, then they had better get rid of this tight money policy because it is going to cause a grave recession in certain areas in this country. It is not enough to say that it is not hurting Toronto and Montreal. It is hurting and it is hurting in our part of the country. It is hurting now. I am going to have something to say to the Minister of Finance in a few moments with regard to the farmers in my area. But I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce the fact that farmers are in serious trouble in that part of the country because the banks are refusing them improvement loans. I do not want the ministers to come back and say that
January 21, 1966	COMMONS
they have been in touch with the head of such and such a chartered bank and this is not true. They cannot pull that kind of nonsense. I have talked to bank managers and they have their instructions. We have had enough of this centralized tight money policy.
If we are going to have national unity in this country, we are going to have to have equality of economic opportunity. How do you attain equality of economic opportunity if you have a tight money policy instituted in central Canada which has no regard whatever for any part of the country outside of central Canada or outside of the moneyed institutions? If we are going to have national unity within all parts of Canada the people have to have economic opportunity and they are not getting it right now.
The government talks of the necessity of amending the Bank Act. I am not stating my party's position; I am stating my own position. I do not think the banks should ever be allowed to increase the 6 per cent rate. I know that the government's position may change now that they have a couple of exvice-presidents of banks in their ranks. But I want to put forward, sir, that governments have become involved in the lending business because the banks have failed to do a job in that area. Governments have had to impose an interest ceiling on the banks to control them for the sake of the people generally. It goes without saying that an increase in the interest rate is part and parcel of a financial policy that would put more power in the hands of a few people who are the heads of our financial institutions so that they would be able to squeeze the rest of the country at will.
I want to go back to something I have brought before this house many times and which has to do with the C.B.C. We have seen in the last election the use of a national broadcasting system to promulgate political opinions. We have seen the C.B.C. spending tremendous amounts of money and then they have asked for more. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) says that we cannot afford $50 million to pay extra pensions. That is all it would cost, if you want to do the arithmetic, if you combine all of the other plans.
Can we afford this nonsensical, arrogant, uncontrollable monster that the C.B.C. has become? Even the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) agrees with me that the C.B.C. could be run on a quarter of its present budget. If we need a C.B.C. to portray Canada to Canadians and if we need a C.B.C. to bring broadcasting facilities to areas
DEBATES	109
The Address-Mr. H. M. Horner of the country that cannot be economically served by private interests, we have no need at all for a C.B.C. with monolithic buildings and corporate surroundings. We need these like we need holes in our heads. We do not need a certain group in this country trying to push their type of culture down our throats and to brainwash our people with this kind of nonsense.
There is no reason at all why we could not sell all the major studios that the C.B.C. now owns. There is no reason at all why we could not combine the C.B.C. with the National Film Board and allow it to produce programs of interest to Canadians. We do not need a biased news media to satisfy the souls of some of the intellectuals who are, indeed, a very small minority in this country and who can get their culture through other means without the government of Canada providing it for them. It is high time we had a look at the C.B.C. The least the government can do is to bring these people before a committee of parliament so that they could be questioned on these expenditures. They are now talking about making millions more available for colour television. Do we need to get the government of Canada involved in the production of colour television? It does not say very much for the industrial part of Canada if we need the government of Canada to do that.
We are all in favour of the increased aid to education which has been announced. We hope that this will be put into effect very quickly.
I want to spend a few minutes now on another question. I want to speak about a minority group which has been publicized across the country. It has even been written about by that great wizard of the press, Blair Fraser. He took a two day jaunt to Jasper, stayed at the Jasper Park Lodge at $50 a day and wrote an article in a magazine. He was an expert. We have been involved in national parks for a long time. I am sorry that the Minister for Northern Affairs and Natural Resources (Mr. Laing) is not here. I should have been happy to have had a discussion with him in regard to the situation in the national parks. We are not complaining about the national parks policy as enunciated. We are complaining about the administration and the disregard of the rights of Canadian citizens who live in two park townsites, one being Jasper and the other being Banff. We are talking about 6,000 Canadians who are second class citizens. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that we are talking about 6,000 Canadians
UO	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. H. M. Horner whom the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources is trying to put under its thumb and control like a commune.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I do not blame the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources too much, but I do blame him for not standing up to the pressures of his senior departmental officials in the parks branch. We had great hopes that we might get a new minister, and in this regard I should like to suggest to the government that we would like to see the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. Member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner), made minister in charge of national parks. We think that with his youth and energy we might get him to see some of the problems which other ministers-and I am sorry to say again that I see only two here-have not been able to see. I say that without prejudice because we had ministers when we formed the government who were not able to see either.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what is the situation? As I said, it is not a question of any quarrel with national parks policy or a question of turning our national parks into Coney Islands or anything else, though some stupid pressmen think it is. It is a question of how to operate two townsites. It is a question of the internal regulation and administration of a town. It is time we looked at this situation. We have to be realistic and accept the fact that there are going to be towns there.
I know that the senior officials in the department want to see everybody out of Banff and Jasper. They want to move out the Banff School of Fine Arts. They do not want permanent residents there, they say. What nonsense. What an unrealistic approach to the problem. We must realize that there are going to be towns there. We need a realistic policy which says that we should set up a program for these towns which is not going to interfere with national parks policy but which will give these people the right to run their own town.
We should establish a townsite in a freehold area in these parks. Jasper has 4,000 square miles of parkland. All we are asking for is a few acres for the townsite, and that these people run their own show. Every other town of that size in Alberta comes under the authority of the Alberta town and villages act. It should not be very hard for our senior civil servants to draft a federal parks and towns act which will outline exactly what these towns can do and what they cannot do;

DEBATES	January 21, 1966
which will allow the people there to run their own businesses without somebody in Ottawa telling them: "You cannot build that privy here". Surely we are advanced enough to say to these peole in Jasper and Banff that they are as entitled as any citizen in Canada to run their own affairs locally.
This argument applies to the parks we have now. It has nothing at all to do with national parks policy in connection with the maintenance of wilderness areas or anything else; it has to do with people and whether or not these people will be treated as first-class Canadian citizens with all their rights and responsibilities. Another thing this would accomplish in one stroke is that it would take the patronage out of our national parks, which would be something.
As I said earlier, I had hoped that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources would be here because I wanted him at least to listen to my plea on behalf of the people of Jasper-and I know I speak for the people of Banff-for a realistic approach to this situation.
Things were kind of hot in this area prior to the election. The Liberal candidate, who supports me in this approach, went rushing into Edmonton to meet the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and told him he had to make a statement on this. The Prime Minister promised us a full inquiry by private individuals into this parks question. I asked the minister the other day about this but he would not give an answer. We want an inquiry. We want a royal commission set up to shape the destiny of our parks so that the people living there know where they are going and what they have to do. We want that royal commission so that these people can be heard.
I now want to say something, very briefly, with regard to agriculture. I am also sorry that the new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) is not here.


Mr. Nielsen:: Bad as the old one.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: The old one we
disposed of in Alberta. One of the reasons we disposed of him was because he did not have any power when he was here. Therefore we extend our felicitations to the new Minister of Agriculture, and we want to say to him that we are not concerned where he comes from as long as he does a job for us.
But to do that job he has to restore the Department of Agriculture, which was emasculated by this government previously because they had no faith in their last minister
January 21, 1966	COMMONS
of agriculture. We want to see this nonsensical troika done away with. We want the Minister of Agriculture to have power so that when he speaks up for the farmers his words will be put into effect and action taken. We are a little leery about what has already happened in this regard. The Minister of Agriculture blames it on the C.P.R. and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) says it is not the C.P.R.'s fault at all. The ministry of finance is a pretty imposing ministry by itself. Surely the Minister of Finance has not the time to look after the affairs of the Canadian Wheat Board, boxcars, etc. He will have enough trouble in the finance department alone without doing this. So we say to the new Minister of Agriculture that he should get his department back together again. Let us get the Wheat Board back where it belongs, which is in the Department of Agriculture. Let us get ARDA back where it belongs, in the Department of Agriculture.
We are very disappointed about one thing he has done so far, but I think this as a matter of ignorance more than anything else and we are willing to overlook it. I am referring to the question of aid to northern Alberta. He suggests that because the people there are in a P.F.A.A. area his government cannot go along with any assistance. I would point out to him, as some of my hon. friends have tried to do in their questions, that P.F.A.A. does not cover all of these farmers. You have to have blocks of them.
There is one problem in my area in connection with P.F.A.A. owing to the fact that one of the directors interpreted the act in his own way and cut off all farmers in the Powell River valley, which was flooded three times this year. These people are not assisted by any body. The Minister says that they are in a P.F.A.A. area, yet the P.F.A.A. people say that they are not going to look after them.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister will have a conference with the director of P.F.A.A. in this area in the immediate future, the next day or two, so that he becomes fully aware of the situation in northern Alberta. Unfortunately, the farming areas in northwest Alberta have not raised the kind of crops which the rest of the prairies have enjoyed over the past several years. It is not just a question of drought; this past year it was a question of excessive rainfall and flooding. As the hon. member for Wetaski-win (Mr. Moore) mentioned in a question to the minister yesterday, there are many farm areas in which farmers will be forced out of
DEBATES	in
The Address-Mr. H. M. Horner business if they do not get some assistance. These are areas where the farmers have not been eligible for P.F.A.A.
I am afraid the new minister has these responsibilities on his shoulders, and he has to decide whether to put these people out of business by buying up uneconomic farms. He has to decide whether this will be the policy of his department. They are not uneconomic farms; they are the farms of the modern day pioneers who are extending the cultivated acreage of Canada by dint of hard work and a lot of ability to get along on a lot less money than most of us. So I hope that the Minister of Agriculture has an immediate conference with the director of P.F.A.A. in Regina and looks into the situation of that organization on the prairies, I am sure there are areas in northern Saskatchewan in the same boat as the areas in Alberta. As I say, P.F.A.A. does not cover them, and they are areas requiring assistance.
The provinces will not go along with granting assistance unless the federal government does also. They now ask for that assistance, and this alone took some doing. Surely we can ask the minister and the government to reconsider their position in this regard so that these farmers will not be forced out of business right now.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
This implies that the tight money policy of the present government has a direct bearing on the situation.
I wish to speak for a minute or two further with regard to this question of inflation and the high cost of living. The high cost of living does not only bother our pensioners; it is bothering the entire economy. It has to be a direct responsibility of the present government, since the additional taxation which it has imposed has a direct relationship to rising prices.
We are hopeful that one of the gold dust twins will be able to see to it that the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials is removed. I am hopeful that this will be done in the next budget. These taxes do nothing except compound inflation. Taxes are raised in order to get more money to pay out still larger sums. It is time we did away with this 11 per cent sales tax, a tax which defeats its very purpose. We in the developing areas of this country are bearing the brunt of the load when we have to buy production machinery in order to produce more wealth for Canada. As far as I am concerned it is rank discrimination when an 11 per cent penalty has
January 21, 1966

The Address-Mr. Laflamme to be paid on purchases such as these and I hope the government will take a really hard look at this situation.
In conclusion, I hope the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) will send a note over to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) before five o'clock suggesting to him that he make a decision with regard to pensions for our older citizens. He could do it; there is still time. Then he would be able to stand up and vote with the courage of his convictions.
I have a little green book here which will become the bible of the Liberal party if members opposite are not careful. It is called Commonsense for Canadians and it was written by the hon. member for Red Deer. I want to quote these words from it:
Except perhaps in times of national emergency, I believe the most obvious characteristic of Canadian federal politics has been a lack of courage, and a lack of effectiveness.
I suggest that never will a man be given greater opportunity to fulfil his words of wisdom and place his name in the history of Canada than will be given the hon. member for Red Deer later on this afternoon to back up his convictions with his vote, which is what parliament is all about.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Quebec-Montmo-rency):: I think it is only fitting, Mr. Speaker, that I begin by telling you how glad I am to see you in the chair.
You belong to that race of men determined, modest, dedicated and capable whose sole ambition is to serve.
To me you represent a valuable product of Canada's biethnical character.
I should like to extend my own congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer) and the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury).
The worthy fashion in which they performed this function highly justifies the confidence put in them by their respective constituents.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people, in less than nine years, have been asked to elect a new Parliament five times, namely in 1957, 1958, 1962, 1963 and 1965.
In 1957, the Conservative party came to power and formed a minority government. I was here at the time. After eight months in power without being defeated, barely a month after our present leader was appointed

head of our party, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), who was prime minister at that time, asked and obtained that Parliament be dissolved, and called an election for March 31, 1958. We could then rightly ask ourselves why those elections were called. I feel we can say it was solely to seek an absolute majority. And so, the interest of the party took precedence over that of the country, for there were indications of an economic recession at the time.
In 1962, after other general elections, regular ones, that time a minority government was to be formed by the present Leader of the Opposition. It would be pointless to recite the consequences of the Conservative regime: unemployment, deficits, decrease in the national production, etc.-not to mention the resignation of several ministers, a lack of leadership, confusion, and a concerted effort of all parties to overthrow the government.
I am not aware that at that time the defeated prime minister ever asked the Governor General to turn over the administration of the country to the Liberal party who had almost as many members. Once again he asked for and was granted the dissolution of parliament, less than nine months after the previous election.
The election that was then called returned to power a minority Liberal government, seven seats short of the majority.
Had not that Liberal government worked for two and a half years in the circumstances we are familiar with, to conduct the business of the country by proposing a host of measures to increase the economic growth, adopting measures to promote a purely Canadian spirit and character, while at the same time pushing for a fiscal decentralization in favour of the provinces, and also for a clear and fruitful orientation toward interdependence of the federal and provincial governments, the very foundation of a new federalism that some politicians stood against, even before knowing what it might achieve.
After two and a half years of systematic obstruction in the house by the opposition, the leader of our party was granted the dissolution of parliament to get a clear mandate, an absolute majority. The people did not unanimously give him that mandate, although he came to within three seats of the majority.
We can say, I think, that during the last general election, the various tendencies have been channelled, and, with of course a few exceptions, we have been able to measure
January 21, 1366

how much ground has been covered toward the outright acceptance of Canadian duality.
How else could the results of the last election be interpreted, Mr. Speaker? A government that had successfully rekindled our economy, balanced budgets, reduced unemployment and increased national production, rightly deserved the confidence of the greatest part of the Canadian electoral body.
The morning after the elections they were said to be useless, to be a throw-back. Some newspapermen commenting upon them, kept saying: Leaders must go. What a childish statement.
I sincerely believe that if, during the last two and a half years, certain newspapers had not looked for "sensationalism", in short, had there been fewer fault finders, and more conscientious citizens intent on explaining to the general public the real objectives of the various measures taken by the government to create, promote and further the dual character of Canada and had there been fewer personal attacks, the confusion existing in the minds of a large number of Canadians, as far as the future of our country is concerned would have been dispelled in no time.
Mr. Speaker, less than a year ago, that is in February 1965, the members of the commission on bilingualism and biculturalism presented a preliminary report.
This commission had been set up by the Canadian parliament, with the unanimous consent of the premiers of the ten Canadian provinces. In this preliminary report we find this:
They have been driven to the conclusion that Canada, without being fully conscious of the fact, is passing through the greatest crisis in its history.
The preamble goes on as follows:
The source of the crisis lies in the province of Quebec; that fact could be established without an extensive inquiry.
And further on:
If it should persist and gather momentum it could destroy Canada. On the other hand, if it is overcome, it will have contributed to the rebirth of a richer and more dynamic Canada. But this will be possible only if we face the reality of the crisis and grapple with it in time.
Mr. Speaker, how can this royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism be and remain the subject of sharp criticism by the Leader of the Opposition, he who should offer a possible alternative in the event of an election.
How can one imagine that for more than three months, the official opposition fought to prevent Canada from getting a distinctive flag at last-[DOT]

The Address-Mr. Laflamme


Clément Vincent: The old story all over again.


Ovide Laflamme: A tangible, essential, paramount symbol, I would add an elementary symbol for a people in search of unity.
How comforting it would have been yesterday-and I ask the hon. member who has just interrupted me to try and explain to his leader that this is essential for the survival of Canada as a nation-to hear the Leader of the Opposition say and affirm at least that the reference in the speech from the throne to a measure to be introduced to recognize "O Canada" as our national anthem was something, a step forward toward the development of a Canadian entity, toward the creation of another national symbol meaning that Canadian citizenship can be sought, with honour, by all Canadian ethnic groups.
Having heard yesterday the speech of the Prime Minister on the dual character of Canada, the sober and courageous statements about his concept of our Canada of today and of tomorrow, I can only state that this man, this leader came in his time to save this country from chaos. The scornful smiles which I detected on the faces of the members of the official opposition force me to say that unless their conception of Canada's ethnic duality is fundamentally modified, they will never come back to this side of the House.
Until 1960 and during 16 years in Quebec our politicians in power have continuously tried to represent the Canadian government as if it were that of a foreign country. It would be just as bad and deplorable to try to make the headlines today through wild statements against the Federal government, whether or not this would be worthwhile for election purposes. I wish and hope that the politicians of my provincial legislature will echo the words of the Canadian Prime Minister with as much broadmindedness, detachment, insight and maturity.
Those who continuously strive to make the headlines by smearing our government must desist; the voice of reason and logic must join in promoting, through cultural diversity, a Canadian identity which unbiased and right-minded individuals will find acceptable.
As a representative of Quebec in the Parliament of Canada, although I rejoice in the positive and dynamic policies of the provincial government and I recognize its role as the main control lever where the French Canadians, their cultural emancipation and control of their economy are concerned, I shall refuse to merely echo the voice of the
January 21, 1966

The Address-Mr. Laflamme Quebec government, every time it threatens the very foundations of what is essential to the maintenance of a united Canada.
It behooves us to define our objectives, to set ourselves the essential priorities that must remain under the jurisdiction of the Canadian government and to have the courage to support them, while remembering that any federal system cannot and must not be rigid or static.
The hon. member for Outremont-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lamontagne) addressing the members of the Richelieu Club of Quebec on September 9, 1964, said the following in a profound and noteworthy speech that, unfortunately, did not get as much attention in some newspapers as the actions and outbursts of temper of wrestler Reggie Chartrand. I quote:
Federalism must always be brought up to date as the functions of the state change and its responsibilities increase. Every time such changes occur, a new problem with regard to the apportionment of functions arises.
That is why no definite form can be given to federalism. Any attempt to confine it within static formulas results in a rigid political structure which cannot be adapted to the changing circumstances of real life.
And he went on to say:
Provincial governments have substantially improved their civil service these last few years. Consequently, they are in a better position than ever to meet their own responsibilities. Besides, they are more determined to take over themselves those responsibilities. In this, Quebec is not going against the trend; indeed, it is at the head of the movement. Then, it cannot be denied that the provinces must have a greater income and that, in the present circumstances, some of their responsibilities have a high priority.
Claude Ryan, editor of Le Devoir, said in an editorial in April 1964, and I quote:
I believe that a political society made up of people of various cultures and religions, far from being non-viable, can, more than a monolithic society, promote the development of liberty and the priority of reason.
There you have a rational, mature, statement. On April 13 last, La Tribune published an editorial saying:
Will opinions voiced in our province for some time now on the future of Quebec and confederation finally produce disastrous results in many regards?
Are extremists of all types, especially those who advocate violence and whose statements only spread fear and uneasiness succeeding in paralysing Quebec? Are those who use high-sounding phrases and fail or refuse to make the proper distinctions risking to do more harm than good to Quebec? We should ask those questions directly, because more and more people are wondering about the consequences of the present hotch-potch where the voice of extremists and irresponsible people is being heard above all others.

What is most disquieting is that those irresponsible people are recruited in various circles, even in high political spheres.
On the same date, these most relevant remarks appeared in Le Soleil:
Unfortunately, it is apparent that certain groups in this country strive with, at times, an unspeakable lack of conscience to exploit the present crisis. The attitude of certain political figures in particular borders on total irresponsibility. Political adroitness is one thing, but beyond a certain point, in special circumstances, such adroitness can become shameless electioneering liable to degenerate into unfortunate mishaps. Racial prejudices never bore healthy fruits. The politicians who make capital out of feelings in that area are taking upon themselves a heavy responsibility before history.
My colleague from Hochelaga, (Mr. Pelletier) in Cite Libre, in April 1964, wrote an analysis of the position of Parti pris, a new publication favouring separatism, secularism and socialism, and I quote:
1 believe, on the contrary, that the action of Parti pris, if it should ever go beyond the stage of mere statements of intentions, would lead French Canadians, individually and collectively, into one of the worse dead ends in our history. I feel that, although the skill they apply is much superior, the men of Parti pris are building a leftist separatism just as unrealistic and probably more utopian than the rightist independence movement of Chaput, Barbeau and Company.
Those words show much greater courage than the purely demagogic statements of some of our Quebec politicians who, instead of trying to speak the language of reason on such vital problems, chose to use flattering and sentimental words.
That is why, for instance, I never understood certain statements made by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) to students of the University of Montreal in 1964, which could only encourage our youth to indulge in the illusion of separatism.
I think it has become necessary to state at this time, that the representatives of the French Canadian people at the federal level sit here in this house.
As for the non-confidence motion put before us by the Leader of the Opposition calling for an increase in old age pensions to $100, I submit that it is not acceptable to any liberal mind with a serious concept of social security.
The basic principle of social security is the redistribution of our wealth to the most needy.
How then, can we conceive such a large increase in old age pensions without considering at the same time an increase in all other security measures, including family allowances.
January 21, 1966

The Address-Mr. Nielsen
I should like to know whether there is a member in this house who would have the courage to say that the mother of a family needs her family allowance less than an old man needs his old age pension.
Under these circumstances I am certainly for a revision and an increase in all security measures, as soon as the economy of the country can afford it without further increasing the heavy burden of taxes resting on the shoulders of Canadian taxpayers.
If, in these fields, priorities must be set up-after all there must be a limit to the government's financial possibilities since it is spending the taxpayers' money-I would say that at the present time those most in need of financial assistance are the family heads with children at school.
It must be remembered that in the last few years the burden of municipal and school taxes has increased considerably, curtailing accordingly the purchasing power of the head of the family.
I am not against an increase in the old age pension if the country's revenue allows it; but I am against this attempt to establish too great a disproportion between the various recipients of social assistance.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I beg to thank the population of the constituency I represent in this house, for having placed great confidence in me at the time of the election on November 8 last, from all parts of this huge constituency.
I have always said that I wanted to deserve this confidence at all times.
I assured them particularly that I would never take advantage of my immunity as a member of the house to make insinuations or to reflect on the honour and integrity of any individual elsewhere or right here in this house.
This is how, in my opinion, we must conceive the part played by a representative, and that is by seeking earnestly true objectivity and by having the strength and the courage to uphold the opinions which are firmly believed in.
[DOT] (3:30 pjn.)


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to congratulate you and the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the Throne Speech. The hon. members for Dollard (Mr. Goyer) and York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) are to be congratulated for their efforts and contributions to this debate.
For a few minutes I should like to deal with the discourses we have heard from the
hon. members sitting to our left. We have heard from the N.D.P. whose members may be, on the face of the situation, confused with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) in their neck and neck race to become the fourth member of the trinity. The hon. member of that party who spoke in a rather statesmanlike manner, in effect, suggested that we should not accept the proposition that the government may be defeated on a non-confidence motion until he is ready, because he wants to become Prime Minister. In listening to the leader of that party, who criticized the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), we should remember his own ambitions.
During the time I have been in this chamber and while the Liberals have formed the government, it has been my impression that they want to make this house a star chamber, that the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) wants to make it a crown corporation, that the hon. member for Red Deer wants to make it a Sunday school debating forum and that the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) wants to make it a three-ring circus. The members of his party displayed their ability to do just that during the last session, and they are following that same course so far this session.
We heard the hon. member for Villeneuve speak about insinuations and innuendoes, as did the hon. member who has just taken his seat. We heard the hon. member for Villeneuve insinuate that I engaged in mere insinuation and innuendo when I brought certain matters before this house.


Gilles Grégoire: Right.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for Lapointe has just said "Right". Those insinuations, as hon. members opposite were so prone to call them when they arose, now have the dignity of official judicial approbation, and I am sure that the hon. members for Villeneuve and Lapointe, as well as others, respect that finding.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) spoke for about two hours during this debate, yet said nothing. Indeed he deserves the prize of the year for fiction. We have a government now in power which campaigned on the sole issue of a need for a majority. In speech after speech the Prime Minister and his supporters, including ministers of the cabinet, went throughout this country expounding the same idea, that the election had been called in order to obtain a majority because they could not carry on without that majority.
January 21, 1966

The Address-Mr. Nielsen [DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
In his television broadcast announcing the election, the Prime Minister repeated over and over again that he must have a majority and that was the sole reason for calling the election. Majority, they said, was the issue. That plea was rejected emphatically by the electorate of this country. Now that government which said that they could not carry on without a majority have simply played musical chairs, shuffled themselves about and attempted to wiggle into a new skin-and here they are again; the same old throne speech, windy, wordy, expounding woolly programs. There is nothing for the people who work; nothing for the farmers; nothing for the average Canadian and nothing for the old age pensioners.


Michael Starr: Shame.


Erik Nielsen: Just the same old windy promises that have appeared in the last three throne speeches.


Michael Starr: The same old bunch.


Erik Nielsen: The Prime Minister was complaining yesterday about the statement that the defeat of the government would not necessarily mean an election. He referred to January, 1958, when he himself made the same proposal. As a matter of fact, the proposal he made at that time was in the form of an amendment. We opposed it. He forgets that during the campaign he said he had to have a majority to carry on the government of this country. He forgets that he said last June he would not call an election, that we were going to come back in September and finish this great program the government had all ready for us to deal with.
Last night we heard the uncertain trumpet of the Prime Minister's challenge to the provinces. All of a sudden he postures as the great defender of parliament and of a central government. This is the same government that has been blown by every wind since assuming office. Now the Prime Minister says "We must be strong; don't try to push us around". This is nothing but fiction. Knowing that there is an impending election in the province of Quebec, he and Mr. Lesage erect a straw man for political expediency, and that only.
Mr. Lesage goes to dinner at 24 Sussex Street. Mr. Lesage holds out the carrots, the Prime Minister passes the plums. The Prime Minister's stance was very reminiscent yesterday of Humpty-Dumpty after the fall. He now says the whole must be greater than the

parts, after having created such a gaping hole in the confederate fabric of this country that you could drive the largest province in the country through. He must have been suffering from an acute guilt complex when he uttered the words of recantation and repudiation of his government's stand in 1963. Last night he said we would be judged by deeds, and not by words. That criterion, if it were to be applied to him and to his government, reveals a government that in the last three years has passively, and at times actively, acquiesced in the dismemberment of the power of the federal government. They have gone to federal-provincial conference after conference like lambs to the slaughter. They made opting out a cornerstone of their policy, with the result that Quebec has opted out of 14 shared programs, receiving compensation, and now wants control of welfare.
He said that a spiral of increasing unilateral demands would endanger confederation. That is precisely what they are in now, through their own fumbling and bumbling, through their own concessionaire attitudes. The Prime Minister slaps the wrist of Quebec for their demands. He and his government held the door open, and in stepped Mr. Lesage. Now he wants to get in further. The Prime Minister is nervous and fretful; he is strangely sensitive on this matter, and for good reason. The government's tactics have not changed one iota. The words in the Prime Minister's speech mean little when weighed against the words which preceded them and those obviously to follow.
On television with Mr. Lynch, the Prime Minister said the other night, and made it plain, that the government was preparing for another concession in the field of social welfare. The Prime Minister said "arrangements" could be made. He, like the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), only in different circumstances, talks tough in parliament and weak on television.


Michael Starr: He thinks Mr. Lesage might be watching.


Erik Nielsen: Now the Prime Minister says -I don't want to go any further. It all has the same, familiar ring. He comes into this house and issues a solemn and serious warning against everything his government has been doing for almost three years. Again, he raised in this house the cry of division and the cry of race. Divide and rule; that has been the philosophy of the Liberal party for over 50 years and never has it been more rigorously applied than by the present government. In spite of his protestations, the
January 21, 1966

Prime Minister and the present government must be very conscious of one vital fact and that is that they have no representation in Alberta or Saskatchewan, and precious little, if any, in Manitoba.


Michael Starr: One.


Erik Nielsen: Nothing in Prince Edward Island, and very little in Nova Scotia.
In their great document, the campaign college, which found its way out of the confidential and secret file, they boldly set forth that they were the only national party with representation from all parts of the country. Well I am sure that they are reflecting on those words now.
During this debate we have heard a good deal about the extent to which international criminal organizations have infiltrated into this country. The R.C.M.P. background report which was tabled by the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) reveals that organized crime is operating on an interprovincial and on an international basis in this country. In order to penetrate the ramifications of the system, an inquiry is required on a national basis that will not stop at provincial or international boundaries. The report of the R.C.M.P. emphasizes the necessity of a royal commission and one which would possess the fullest possible scope.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The Leader of the Opposition has called for a royal commission on the extent to which international criminal organizations have infiltrated into Canada. We also called for it a year ago last November and again last June; and the Prime Minister of this country at that time led the people, over television, to believe that he was going to deal with it. The government has denied the necessity or even the existence of the situation from the very beginning. The Prime Minister during the election campaign made one reference to crime when he said there had been attempts to influence the government, and they failed. Their document, the campaign college, urged Liberal supporters to not even mention the report of Mr. Justice Dorion, to not even mention the possibility that crime may be rampant in this country. They are adopting the same attitude now. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) said morality was not an issue in the election. This illustrated how far wrong he was. Since that time we have had further criticism of federal inactivity by the Minister of Justice in Quebec.
The Address-Mr. Nielsen
I want to say here and now that I do not agree with his attacks on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, one of the finest police forces anywhere in the world. The only regret I have relates to the utter failure of the predecessors of the three ministers of justice at the moment to do anything about the attacks that were made on the character and integrity of that force. If the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) wants to find the source of lethargy and lack of interest in the face of criminal infiltration in this country, he must look a little higher than the R.C.M.P. We have the report which the R.C.M.P. submitted to the crime conference in which it is stated that the situation is urgent.
Criminal organizations have grown tremendously in Canada. They are connected with the octopus of international crime. They are engaged in narcotics, arson, bankruptcies and a host of other illegal activities including organized murder. This alone should be enough to prod this government into moving.
What about bankruptcies? Bankruptcy frauds of tremendous magnitude have taken place across this country. In 1964 these bankruptcy frauds involved a total of $207,971,000 in Quebec and Ontario alone. Not only has the government failed to apprehend the wrongdoers, but they have acted as though the wrongdoing does not even exist. We have gangs of international criminals operating in Canada with impunity, and in some cases with immunity. We have had the solicitude displayed for Rivard. We have Lemay still at large. There has been evidence of a relationship between a narcotics ring headed by Rivard, one of the biggest on the continent, and bank robbery rings operated by others. We have Mr. Darabaner a man possessed of most interesting and exclusive connections in the most interesting places. Indeed, all this makes one wonder about the questions placed on the order paper concerning the printing bureau.
There has been a vast criminal network operating in Canada, by infiltration, engaged in racketeering, narcotics, bankruptcy, arson, fraud and other matters. When we referred to these things, the government denied everything. These charges have been documented by the R.C.M.P., the Minister of Justice for Quebec, by responsible organizations and many individual citizens. The government is in a position where it must do something. The present division of authority in the administration of justice will make it difficult to achieve anything. Crime enforcement and rehabilitation have been turned over to the
January 21, 1966

The Address-Mr. Nielsen Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell). The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau), for some obscure reason, is to deal with companies. Normally, this jurisdiction would include the Bankruptcy Act, and was so included by the Prime Minister in his statement at the time these changes were announced. However, this minister has acquired a new appellation, the minister of trade marks.
The throne speech promised a revision of the Bankruptcy Act, but under which minister will that come? Whatever may be the case, this house cannot take the necessary action to revise and tighten up the Bankruptcy Act without a great deal more information than it has ever had. The only way in which we are going to get that information is through a royal commission which will investigate the whole field of criminal organization in this country. Business is being mulcted of millions upon millions of dollars annually, not only in Quebec but in every province. Narcotics are being pushed in this country, not only in the east but in the west and throughout the country. In Quebec we have witnessed the wholesale extermination of witnesses. In Ontario, Quebec and other provinces there has been evidence of a movement into Canada of individuals who, by their background and record of activities, are well known in the field of crime. But where there is evidence of international criminal conspiracy having links with the international Mafia and engaged in a whole gamut of criminal activities, a situation is created that cannot be met by the activities of individual police forces.
Organized crime must be fought on an organized basis. You cannot destroy an octopus by cutting off the tips of the tentacles. It is for this reason we believe a commission on crime is necessary. If nothing else has convinced the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) of this situation, then surely the Mercier report produced last July for Mr. Kierans should substantiate the extent to which the situation is now urgent in the province of Quebec. I read from page 7 of that report:
On all the facts revealed at the inquiry, the commission acquired the upsetting impression that the administration of the Bankruptcy Act, presently existing in the judicial district of Montreal, more or less resembles a gigantic enterprise over which there exists no internal control and, as a result, the officers or employees at different levels become suspect. One of the profound causes of this state of affairs, and maybe the most important, seems to be due to the fault or bad use of the prerogatives of the Bankruptcy Act, more so the law itself, which, without being perfect, allows a number of ways and means of control which can be
TMr. Nielsen.]
exercised by the creditors, inspectors, trustees and registrars. The Bankruptcy Act also contains the necessary provisions for the application of sanctions to the whole gamut of frauds, as much as we have resource to it.
The report indicates, therefore, that it is not so much amendments that are necessary as the manner in which the Bankruptcy Act is to be administered. A great proportion of that responsibility lies at the federal level.
In the few moments left to me I should like to address myself to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who has spoken throughout this country about the great strides Russia has been making in the north. We have heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) tell us about the duties of the Company of Young Canadians. He is going to send them into the north to do work amongst the Indians and Eskimos. We have that great, self-appointed expert on heraldry, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) saying that we intend to create a penal colony in the north. We have the Prime Minister going to Lagos and posturing as the great peacemaker while saying that it is undemocratic for part of a population to be denied the vote. Here, everyone has the right to vote and yet half the people in the Arctic still have not got the territorial franchise. I hope that when the amendments to the Yukon Act and Northwest Territories Act are introduced, as promised in the Speech from the Throne, these things will be rectified.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I hope the minister will take steps to enlarge the sphere of responsibility in the Yukon, where after 60 years there has been a solid groundwork laid, sufficient upon which to rest the structure of self-government. I hope the minister makes this a centennial project, that he will increase the size of the council to 15 members and pass to it some executive responsibility, instead of making it a mere rubber stamp. That was the reason for the commissioner's resignation: he was being blamed by the department in Ottawa because he could not keep the council in line, and he was being blamed by the council because he was getting nothing out of Ottawa. The council is emasculated, and the minister must convince his colleagues that what he must now do is either to abolish the council or to start building a responsible form of government, not only in that territory but also in the Northwest Territories.
I hope a commissioner is not appointed to replace the one who has resigned. I hope the
January 21, 1966

minister will bring in an amendment to the act which will enlarge that council and create a majority and minority group within the council; that he will pass executive responsibility to the majority. I also hope he increases the size of the advisory committee from three to five, and make that his nucleus of a cabinet, finishing the process begun in 1960 when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) was Prime Minister. Because there was where we embarked upon the road to the creation of the kind of structure in the north which would eventually lead to provincial status.
The Yukon is mature. The population has increased. Tremendous mineral activity, as the minister well knows, is going on now. All sorts of capable people are ready, willing and able to take on the responsibility. I hope that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources will think about this very seriously and that he will not bring in mere pacifying amendments to the act. So far as indemnities for members of the council are concerned, let them make that decision. They are capable of making it.
As far as the Northwest Territories is concerned, make that council wholly-elected. Do not appoint any more civil servants. Do not appoint any more outsiders to go into the Northwest Territories to purport to become experts on the north. The people in both these territories, but more so in the Yukon because of its longer period of becoming acquainted with forms of government and with governmental and legislative responsibilities, are prepared now to accept the executive functions which should be transferred to them gradually-I am not saying all at once. But I am saying that they should have executive responsibility in the field of health, in the field of education, in the field of welfare, in the field of engineering, and in the field of resources, such as game and wildlife.
I do not suggest the transfer of resources in terms of water and in terms of minerals to a recreated executive; but I am suggesting the transfer of a portion of the lands administration so that people do not have to shuffle back and forth for two or three months between Ottawa and the north in order to get a decision on a lease or on the purchase of a piece of land.
I also suggest that you transfer the administration of justice, in the Yukon territory at any rate. You are erecting a massive corrections department there which will cost millions of dollars. This is being set up as part of the territorial government. Give the

The Address-Mr. Nielsen people the responsibility. In this and in other fields the Yukon is ready to assume these responsibilities, and I am sure the same situation exists to a greater or lesser degree in different parts of the Northwest Territories.


Arthur Laing: Would the hon. member mind a question? I thank the hon. member for his suggestions, which will be taken into account.
By way of a question I would ask him to review in his mind whether he thinks it fair to attribute to the commissioner the reason for the commissioner's resignation. I do not think this is right. I do not believe the hon. member has given the correct reason. It was not the reason given to me, and I think on reflection he might think it unwise to make that attribution here in this house.


Erik Nielsen: I am just giving the minister my own assessment. I know that the commissioner, in a speech in Vancouver, said that it was utterly impossible for him, as commissioner in the Yukon, to operate under a system where someone in Ottawa was trying to drive a team in the Yukon with reins 4,000 miles long. I think that this graphically describes the frustration with which the commissioner was confronted. The commissioner in the Northwest territories should live there; and the meetings of the council should be held in the territory, not down here in Ottawa. I certainly will not attribute any motivation for leaving to the commissioner for the Yukon, but that is what we up there believe. I am sure that the minister would only have to read the editorials in the local newspapers in order to come to the same conclusion, even if he says he does not come to that conclusion.
The time for these changes to be made is now. As I say, the minister has spoken at length about the great advances being made in Russia. Let him convince his colleagues that it is time to make the same kind of progress, both material and governmental in our own north. It will not be until you transfer some of these executive functions to the people who live in the north that you are going to achieve any of the progress which we all seek. It is no good, the Prime Minister becoming an expert on retroactive virtue. It is no good, his going to Lagos and speaking about the same ills confronting our own northern Canadians, and then coming back and completely forgetting about them. This great wordy, lengthy throne speech contains 15 words about the need to develop the northern part of our country, which consists of 40 per cent of Canada, with all the vast resources which are only now just beginning
January 21, 1966

The Address-Mr. Harley to produce. In the Yukon alone, as the minister knows, one mine was all that was in existence for almost 30 years. Now tremendous developments are taking place. New mines are opening up. New mines have opened up. More mineral claims were staked in the summer months of last year than in the whole of the 18 months prior, I would venture to say. Our population has risen. It is certainly greater than it was at the time Manitoba entered confederation. The same conditions-


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


Mr. H. C. Harley (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be of congratulation to yourself on your election to your high post. I also wish the mover and seconder of the throne speech a long and successful career in the House of Commons; they made excellent maiden speeches on their first attempt.
Before my first election to parliament, Mr. Speaker, I was a general practitioner of medicine. Therefore my main interests lie in the fields of health and welfare. My job now is to represent the feelings, views and aspirations of some 140,000 constituents-every member here has a similar job-and this now must take precedence over my medical interests. Because of this I am a full-time member of parliament and no longer devote myself to the practice of medicine. I am therefore on the outside of the profession, or at least on the fringes, looking in, which is quite a different view from the inside looking out. I should like to give you an example, Mr. Speaker, a little later on of the different opinions one hears when he is no longer personally involved in such practice.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
In the constituency of Halton which I have the honour to represent we have a very prosperous community. We have many jobs and pleasant homes. The automobile industry is booming. Our largest industry is car manufacture. Residential areas are blossoming in all directions. We have many doctors whose patients for the most part are insured or else can afford to pay their medical bills. Because of this it is interesting to find out what the two main topics of interest were in Halton during the last election campaign.
The first one, logically enough, was education. Everyone is interested in seeing that his children get the best possible education. But

in this relatively well off community the second most important topic was medical care or medicare. In talking to the people I found out some surprising things about my own profession. I was told that the doctors were utterly and completely opposed to medicare. I assured my constituents, and I assure the house now, that the medical profession is not opposed to the basic principle of medicare, that is, that the best of medical care should be available to every Canadian when needed. When the public have such opinions of the medical profession I think it is obvious that the public relations of that profession need improvement. I told my constituents what I feel is the view of the profession-that the doctors are worried about the means by which medicare can by implemented successfully while still retaining the Canadian way and the standards of medical care built up over the years.
I am convinced that medicare is necessary. I am equally convinced that medicare is no longer a political issue. It is accepted by all political parties and approved by them. The argument is now not whether we should have medicare but under what conditions we should have medicare. There are still large areas in Canada where medical care can be improved. There are still people who will not visit their doctors because of the expense involved. There are still many people who will not accept what they regard as medical charity. There are still people who are excepted from medical insurance because of their age of because of some pre-existing medical condition.
The government would, obviously, not move into this field or into any other field unless there was an increasing public demand and an increasing public need. Everyone in this house is aware, I am sure, that the federal government has offered to pay 50 per cent of the cost of a medical care program set up by a province, provided it meets four requirements. These requirements are basic principles and I should like to mention each of them in turn along with what the medical profession has said of them.
First of all, benefits must be portable between the provinces. This is certainly agreeable to all parties concerned. Second, medical care should cover all doctors bills whether from specialists or from general practitioners. Everyone is agreed on this principle. The third principle provides that such a plan has to be administered by a province or by its appointed agency. The basic philosophy here,
January 21, 1966

I believe, is that since this would mean the expenditure of general taxpayers' money, the administration should be non-profit in character. This eliminates the commercial carrier and leaves the position of physician-sponsored and administered plans such as PSI open for debate and discussion. I can see no reason why such a plan could not operate within a medicare scheme if that is the wish of a province.
As far as commercial carriers are concerned, I am sure they would expand their services to fill any gap in the medicare program. One has only to look at the Ontario Hospital Services Commission, with its compulsory ward coverage, and at the way in which commercial carriers cover semi-private, private and nursing care, to see why this should be so. Every day we hear advertisements on the radio telling us how various insurance companies plan to augment the Canada Pension Plan, and I am sure it would be done in the same way in the field I have been discussing. Commercial carriers could still cover the cost of drugs and dentists which would not be covered initially by the program.
The fourth criterion laid down is that of universal coverage. On this the medical profession, some of the provinces and the government disagree. Here, coverage has been described as meaning, roughly, compulsory in the same terms as are applicable to the Ontario Hospital Services Commission. The federal cost of the scheme would, of course, be paid out of general taxation and the provincial share would be raised in whatever manner the province wished. Possibly it would wish to do so out of taxation; possibly it would charge a premium. I feel the main consideration here is that medical care must be available to all, regardless of age, regardless of medical condition and regardless of a patient's financial situation.
Discussion is taking place in two other areas. The first concerns the freedom of a doctor to practice outside the plan and allow his patients to be reimbursed by the plan since they have already paid in taxes for the care they are receiving. I do not see a large problem here. This difficulty has been met and worked out in Saskatchewan and I feel sure it could be worked out between the government and the medical profession. The second is the question of extra billing-extra fee? to the patient. If this is not controlled in some way by the profession itself it could mean that a medical care scheme would be

The Address-Mr. Harley worthless. I am sure this question could be worked out, too. It has been worked out already-it is working, now in some cases, that is, a combination of fee schedule and extra billing agreed to privately between the patient and the doctor concerned.
The establishment of a health resources fund has been announced by the government and is to start in January of the present year. This is a fund of $500 million to be spent over the next 15 years to build research centres, teaching hospitals, medical schools and other facilities for training health personnel. The object is to help supply the staff required to take care of the medical needs of Canadians-needs which will be increased by the medicare program. If one were to wait until the availibility of medical personnel was considered completely adequate, there is no question in my mind that a medicare scheme would never become a reality.
This brings up the question of the overutilization of medical services-people going to the doctor too often. This is occurring at the present time among both insured and noninsured patients because of anxieties they have over illness. There is no doubt that insurance of any kind will increase the use of medical services, but surely this would happen whether such a scheme were run by the government or by a private insurance company. It has been suggested there should be a deterrent fee of so much per visit to discourage unnecessary use of the service. I do not believe this is the solution, because it often happens that the patient who needs care most can afford the deterrent fee least.
I did want to say something in passing about drugs. We all know about the increasing cost of drugs in Canada. As I moved around the county I found people were interested in having drugs and dental care covered, sometimes in addition to medicare, sometimes in preference to medicare. During the last parliament I had the honour to chair the Special Committee on Food and Drugs. In 1963 we studied the safety of insecticides and pesticides. In 1964 we studied the question of safety of drugs, and in 1965 we began the study of the cost of drugs. Our reference at that time actually stated that we were to make recommendations to lower the cost of drugs.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The throne speech recommends that that committee be set up again, and I sincerely hope the government moves swiftly to do so. There are methods by which the government
January 21, 1966

The Address-Mr. Harley can influence the cost of drugs indirectly. It is often recommended that the first thing the government should do is remove the 11 per cent sales tax on drugs, but there are two things that should be thought of before that is done. The first is that the removal of such a tax would not reduce the price of drugs by 11 per cent. Because of the methods of taxation and markup it would actually reduce the cost by approximately 8 per cent. The second is that some assurance would have to be given by the pharmacists, in order to be sure that any such reduction would be passed on to the consumer and not taken as part of the profit.
In the area of drug promotion some firms spend large sums of their annual budgets on drug promotion. The government could move in this area by amending the income tax laws to make only a certain percentage of a firm's budget allowable as a deductable expense. If this were done anything spent over that amount would not be deductable.
As has been mentioned in this house on other occasions, I would like to repeat that tuberculosis and mental disease should be covered under the terms of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. We should be at the point in Canada where we must consider tuberculosis and mental illness, just like any other disease.
I should perhaps have said earlier-its omission does not mean it is unimportant, rather that I do not think there is real disagreement in this area-that the freedom of choice of both doctor and patient to choose one another, and the freedom of the doctor to practise where he chooses, are important. The payment of a medical practitioner is expected to be on a fee-for-service basis, and based on provincial fee schedules. If this is carefully worked out I feel the only basic change in the practice of medicine will be the method of payment of the bill, and I am certainly hopeful it will meet with the support of the medical profession.
I hope the federal government, the provincial governments and the medical profession will take a flexible position in these matters, and I would urge continuing consultation between all interested parties.
There are four other matters I would like to discuss briefly and which are related in a way to the medical profession.
First I am sure we are all appalled at the number of Canadians who are being needlessly killed on our highways and streets by the automobile. I have a special interest in this

because not only am I of the medical profession, but one of the largest automobile manufacturers is located in my riding of Halton. We would all like to see the automobile made as safe as possible for its occupants, particularly as the speed and the power of the automobile increases.
There are many other problems that arise in this matter. First of all, most accidents are not caused by the automobile but by the person behind the wheel of the automobile.


Mr. Graffiey:: Completely false.


Harry Cruickshank Harley: The second factor-


William Heward Grafftey: Brainwashed by the industry.


Harry Cruickshank Harley: I am sure we will hear from the hon. member at a later date. The second factor is that there are many safety features now available in automobiles, but people do not avail themselves of them. I would sincerely hope the government would work closely with the car manufacturers regarding this matter, to encourage the production of a safe automobile. We would all hate to think that the cost of such a thing would take precedence over life and death.
I would now like to speak briefly about the privileges of voting accorded to the blind and the otherwise disabled. Generally when they attempt to vote great confusion arises. At least it did in several cases in my riding, because D.R.O.'s have to look up the special rules and this means others are kept waiting in line. Surely the simplest thing to do is to allow the blind and the otherwise disabled to vote in the advance poll, where time is not so important, and there are not long lines of people. No one would be inconvenienced, no one would be harmed by this, and it would allow the blind and the disabled to vote without embarrassment.
There are two other matters that are related because they refer to the interrelationships of people and their personal surroundings. Both have previously been discussed in the house as private members' bills and both have met the usual fate of such bills by being talked out. I believe the time for talking has ceased and that action must be taken on Canada's archaic laws on divorce and the section of the Criminal Code concerning contraception.
I would sincerely ask the government to allow government time for debate on both these matters and to let them come to a free vote. In this way marriages bound only by ancient laws, and which are marriages in name only, may find release from intolerable and inhuman situations. The persons who
January 21, 19G6

suffer most in these situations are usually the ones who are there through no fault of their own.
The portion of the Criminal Code regarding contraception is out of date and is broken daily by very conscientious and law-abiding people. Medical knowledge has attained great heights in this field and the Criminal Code is out of keeping with such knowledge and experience. It is a foolish law and must be abolished.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I thank the house for its courtesy in listening to me.


William Heward Grafftey: First of all, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Lamoureux) on his appointment as Speaker. Like all other members of the last parliament, I am perfectly aware that, in the true sense of the expression, he is quite capable of making an excellent Speaker.
I should also like to extend to him my best wishes and to assure him that I shall do all I can to make his task easier for him.
May I also be allowed to congratulate those members who are sitting in the House of Commons for the first time, as well as the newly-appointed ministers and parliamentary secretaries.

The debate on the Speech from the Throne gives each and every one of us an opportunity not only to discuss its contents but to bring before parliament questions that we collectively and personally feel are of vital importance.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
It is estimated that if, between 1966 and the end of 1970, the present trend continues,
26,000	Canadians will die and over a million will be injured in automobile accidents. As I speak in the House of Commons this afternoon, cars are rolling off the assembly lines of our Canadian factories. Based on past statistics, unless conditions are improved and unless action is taken immediately, every second one of those cars will be involved in a death or injury-producing accident. Those are the figures.
What is more serious, it is my contention, that injury and death-producing accidents can be reduced by over 50 per cent if safer cars are built in or imported into Canada. Scientifically proven safety features should be included as standard equipment in all cars
The Address-Mr. Grafftey built in or imported to our country. These safety features have been known to the automobile industry for years, yet next to nothing has been done in this regard.
I will touch upon this subject a little later, sir, but it is my contention that the federal government here in Ottawa has jurisdiction over food and drugs, over rolling stocks on railways, ships, and the production of safe aircraft. By the same token we here in this federal authority ought to make sure that the simple automobile is immediately brought under the rule of law.
For the interest of all members, I should like to place before this House of Commons the following statistics from research on injury and fatality. The research done by the Accident and Crash Research Institute of Cornell University has shown that the leading instruments of injury, including fatal injury were, in order of descending importance: instrument panel, 25 per cent; steering assembly, 21 per cent; windshield, 15 per cent; door structures, 13 per cent; ejection, 12 per cent; backrest of front seat, 7 per cent; top structures, 3 per cent; front corner posts, 2 per cent and rear view mirror, 2 per cent.
The same study showed that the main causes of death were:

Steering wheel, 17 per cent; panel, 12 per cent; windshield, 12 per cent; door mountings, 9 per cent; front supports, 6 per cent; roof, 6 per cent; front seat and seat rest, 1 per cent; rear view mirror, 1 per cent.

What is even more important, and I point this out to the house, 87 per cent of death and injury-producing accidents occur at speeds under 40 miles per hour. What does this indicate? It indicated one thing to Senator Ribicoff of the United States, former Governor of Connecticut. Senator Ribicoff is one of the foremost legislators on traffic safety in general.
Those of us who are familiar with the state of Connecticut realize that they have done a great deal there in respect of general highway safety. They have built great parkways and have cracked down on unsafe drivers. In spite of that, and much to the dismay of Senator Ribicoff, highway death and injury rates increased. This led him to believe that one of the causes might be associated with the construction of automobiles.
In addition to the recommendations I coauthored as contained in a brief presented to
January 21, 1966

The Address-Mr. Grafftey the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) last July, I should like to place these additional recommendations before the House of Commons. First of all, a house committee on industry and research should be constituted immediately, and experts in automobile safety as well as officials of the automobile industry should be called to testify before this house committee.
Second, the automobile industry in Canada and in the United States should jointly agree to forgo needless and costly style changes in the next production year. Engineering and retooling costs would then be sharply reduced and the millions of dollars thus saved could be devoted to safety research and the incorporation of scientifically proven safety features as standard equipment in all cars.
The government of the state of New York has made a great beginning in the production of a prototype safety car. I would recommend as my third recommendation that the federal government of Canada should seriously investigate the possibility of immediate co-operation with the state of New York in this regard.
Let me now briefly restate the problem. It is merely this: Millions of Canadians have been and are going to be either killed or injured because the automobile industry has neglected to include scientifically proven safety features known to them in automobiles produced in or imported to this country.
I am very glad to see the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) in the house and I should like to take this opportunity to thank him for the co-operative attitude he and his officials have shown at all times in this regard. Before we are going to make any headway in this field we must have public interest and governmental co-operation. The officials he has appointed to draft a code of standards for the purchase of government automobiles certainly represent a beginning and a step in the right direction, and I congratulate the minister.
At this time I should like to deal briefly with a problem, mainly of jurisdiction, which we must nail to the mast as soon as possible. The condition of roads, the building of roads, the operation and maintenance of motor vehicles, the education of drivers-the motor car industry call them the nuts behind the wheels -are admittedly all under provincial jurisdiction. That is an obvious fact and it is important that we continue to implore the driver to be more sensible and more careful.


It is important to continue at the provincial level the proper maintenance and operation of vehicles. It is important to continue to build better and safer highways. However, in. this house today I am talking about one thing and one thing only, and that is the building; of safer cars in Canada and the importation of safer cars into Canada.
Who for a moment could pretend that there is no federal responsibility, and who for a moment could pretend that, circumstances being what they are at the present time, the provinces could get together to initiate beneficial action? The answer to that question was found in the United States by the United States Senate subcommittee last year. Let us move forward in co-operation with many United States state governments and the United States federal government on this; problem.
As I have said, I know at this moment that the automobile industry is going to contact every member of this House of Commons. I know that the industry is trying to show directly and indirectly by every means it can command that this is a provincial responsibility. Let us not be fooled. We in the federal authority have jurisdiction over the construction of safe aircraft and the safe operation of aircraft, and I will have more to say about that in a few minutes. We have jurisdiction over construction of safe rolling stock on our railways, food, drugs and ships.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Just the other day in the question period in this House of Commons the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) related to us in answering a question that certain ships were taken from the waterways because they were not safe. We should not expect the provinces to act in this regard. We should fulfil our own obligations and responsibilities.
Another excuse for lack of action as far as Canada is concerned might be the following. A lot of people have said to me, "Well, Heward, the Canadian automobile market is only between 7 per cent and 10 per cent of the total North American market. What are we going to do here, if production standards are more or less controlled in Washington?" Last year the General Service Administration told the U.S.A. automobile industry that they must make their cars meet certain safety standards within a very short time, and the automobile industry was shaken up; they took notice.
January 21, 1966

If you look further for statistics, Mr. Speaker, you will see that the federal government of the United States only purchases approximately 50,000 vehicles per year. Just think what we could do in Canada if we took action, with the Canadian market representing 7 per cent to 10 per cent of the total. Again I repeat that we have the power to act here in Ottawa. We must live up to our responsibilities and bring the family car, the ordinary, everyday automobile under the rule of law, like all other vehicles.
As I proceed, Mr. Speaker, I should like to discuss with you what approach we should take to this whole general problem. During 1952, the worst year of the polio epidemic, the number of people killed by polio was less than 4 per cent of those killed in automobile accidents; yet the efforts made to combat polio exceeded by several hundred times the efforts made to reduce highway deaths. Furthermore, the efforts to reduce highway deaths continued in the same old groove. Surely if the problem was as simple as the safe driving slogans indicate, we would by now be on the way to a solution. But we are actually moving in the opposite direction.
The time is long past for the abandonment of useless and dangerous presumptions. In this age, when on an average downtown street in an average North American city on any week day an average driver has to make a decision about every 50 seconds that could result in his or someone else's death, the traditional approaches to this serious problem are obviously inadequate and it is necessary to move in new directions. A slow evolution has no value when its cost is paid daily in pain and death.
Seventy two per cent of all deaths are the result of head injuries sustained. Dr. Theodore Rasmussen, Director of the Montreal Neurological Institute of the Montreal Neurological Hospital, who replaced the famous Dr. Penfield in this Institute, said to me last year, at the International Conference on Neurology and Neurosurgery that car injuries and deaths was the major subject treated by all doctors attending this international conference. They recognize it as an epidemic of massive proportions and a problem that must be treated as such with massive public funds and massive public support.
I should like to ask, then, a few questions which we might go on to answer as we proceed in this discussion. Why, for instance, did General Motors, when it was brought to their attention before final production by the
The Address-Mr. Grafftey safety engineers, permit the placing of the dangerous tail fin on Cadillac cars, which resulted in young children being killed as they drove their bicycles into the back of these stationary vehicles. What about the Corvair, when the engineering department warned the stylists that it was so suspended that it could fly out of control under certain speeds and conditions? What about the scandal of the 1953 Buick Roadmaster-and what about the Mustang?
Let me for a brief moment, Mr. Speaker, read the testimony of John Swearingen, physiologist and chief of the protection and survival laboratory at the Civil Aeromedical Research Institute, as reported in the book "Unsafe at any Speed" written by Ralph Nader who is attorney of the United States committee which deals with this problem:
Swearingen says the padding that has gone on autos in this decade has made very little difference in the safety the motorist gets. He concurs with Cornell's finding that the protection is primarily in the very low impacts; but he adds to it a more ominous finding; that "adding a padded lip to some panels has actually about doubled the hazard by using heavy reinforced channel iron to attach the pad." Other panels have a heavy brace beneath the metal which raises the "g" force to as much as one hundred. The so-called padded dash-provided only at extra cost-was offering, in some ways, pressure points far exceeding the unpadded dashboard designs.
The outcome of Swearingen's study was a specific list of design standards for the dashboard panel that will protect the knees and legs as well as the head:
1.	No portion of the dashboard panel should be less than ten inches in radius of curvature. (A flat surface would be the best.)
2.	The dashboard panel must be entirely covered with at least one-inch-thick, firm slow-return padding.
3.	The thickness of the metal in the dashboard panel should not exceed .030 inch.
4.	There should be no metal bracing within three inches of the inside surface of the panel.
5.	The glove compartment door along with its rigid frame should be eliminated.
6.	All knobs, controls, etc., should be eliminated from the middle and right dashboard sections.
7.	Heavy instruments such as the radio, speedometer and clock must be recessed at least three inches with lightweight yokes connecting them to the instrument panel.
Why, at speeds under 35 miles an hour do doors fly open, causing people to be killed or injured? The answer is that doors are fitted with cheap locks. Why do cars roll over and the roofs cave in unnecessarily? It is because roll-over bars are not installed in automobiles.
Frank Crandall, the safety engineer of Liberty Mutual of the United States of America has said that if there is one thing he
12G	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Grafitey would like to see removed from the automobile it is the bayonet in the front seat-the steering column. The automobile industry has done little, if any, research in this regard. Why, in crashes at speeds of under 45 miles an hour do seats become detached, causing people to be injured or killed unnecessarily? It is because they are not built into the frame of the automobile. Why in rear end accidents, do instruments come through the trunk, becoming lethal weapons which kill and injure human beings? It is because between the trunk and the rear seat there is cardboard in cars. What has been done in this regard? The same conditions exist now. Then we have the tires scandal, which we certainly cannot go into at the present time.
I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the automobile industry tells us time and time again, as the hon. member who has just spoken has declared, that the primary reason for deaths and injuries is human failure in judgment. Of course there is human failure in judgment in almost every accident; but because I make a human error of judgment at 35 miles an hour between my home in the village and the post office, and strike a tree at 35 miles an hour, do I deserve to die, because some well-paid executive in the automobile industry calls me a nut behind the wheel? I say no, Mr. Speaker, and I say they are delinquent in this regard.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
It is not my desire to start a one-man war against the automobile industry. Last July I co-authored a brief on this subject which was submitted to the Prime Minister. I should like to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) for the constructive reply he gave me after the presentation of this brief. Since this brief was presented to the government last year I have had no contact directly or indirectly, verbally, by visit, or by letter from any official of the automobile industry. And contrary to a statement made by the president of one of the large Canadian automobile industries recently, I have never been invited to their research proving grounds.
I will tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker. Legislators to whom I have spoken in the United States and legislators to whom I have spoken in New York say that it is almost a waste of time. They will wine you and dine you and put you into the best hotels, but they can show very little because next to no research has been done.

DEBATES	January 21, 1966
I will also say this: That we can expect in. this session a great lobby from the automobile industry, in the weeks and in the months ahead, for the government not to act. Some of the legislators I spoke to in the United States, told me that one needs only to go to Senators Robert Kennedy, Nelson, Ribicoff and legislators of the State of New York, and they will tell you, Mr. Speaker, something about the automobile lobby in the United States when they started to act.
It has been inferred, Mr. Speaker, by officials of the industry that I am just a young politician seeking publicity. I do not want publicity, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned, with action as are all members of parliament.
Why has nothing been done up to now? Nothing has been done, sir, because the style experts and designers overrule, time and time again, the engineering departments of the automobile industry on such safety measures. As one Detroit vice president said, $10 worth of chrome will sell many more automobiles than $100 worth of safety. They say, "People will not buy safety". That is ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. The automobile industry in the past has done little if anything about safety.
Suppose that tomorrow morning at nine o'clock I were to see my doctor. I would have to place myself into the doctor's hands. I would assume, under the oath that the doctor had taken, that he would treat me with the latest scientific findings to improve my health. Should we not expect the same thing from the automobile industry? They do not have to sell safety; but should they not include in automobiles as standard equipment safety features which are scientifically proven? It would save several hundreds of thousands, and their families, from loss of life and injuries. And the added cost of such units is very small.
If the motor car companies took all their responsibilities seriously the added costs per unit would be approximately $150, to say nothing of the reduced costs in insurance. Why has nothing been done?-because gover-ments and the automobile industry have done next to nothing in regard to research. The chairman and president of General Motors went before the United States subcommittee. Mr. Donner, the Chairman of General Motors and Mr. Roche, the President, testified:
Kennedy: What was the profit of General Motors last year?
Roche: I don't think that has anything to do-
Kennedy: I would like to have that answer if I may. I think I am entitled to know that figure. I
January 21, 1966

think it has been published. You spend a million and a quarter dollars, as I understand it, on this aspect of safety. I would like to know what the profit is.
Donner: The one aspect we are talking about is safety.
Kennedy: What was the profit of General Motors last year?
Donner: I will have to ask one of my associates.
Kennedy: Could you, please?
Roche: $1,700,000,000.
We can also say that nothing has been done because what I refer to as the safety establishments, the automobile associations and highway safety councils, have not lived up to their responsibilities as they should. They have pressed for better roads. They have exhorted us, as automobile owners, and called us nuts behind the wheel. They talk about the proper maintenance and operation of cars, but nothing about the building of safer cars. None of them like to speak about building safer automobiles. Why is this, Mr. Speaker? It is because these associations, by and large, receive a large portion of their annual budgets from the automobile industry and are controlled by the automobile industry. I maintain that the same situation holds true, incredible as it may seem, with regard to the presidential council on highway safety in the United States of America.
We must face our responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, in this country. I should like to thank all members of parliament who sponsored my brief last year. I should like to thank Alex Brown and Rheal Casavant, the co-authors of the brief with me. I should like to thank the members of the government and officials of the government who have been so co-operative. I should like to congratulate so many of those inadequately staffed and inadequately financed private research institutes in the United States that are doing something in this regard.
I should like to thank many members of the press, radio and television who have taken a serious view of this situation, and who have helped to get public opinion off the ground. Let us in this session of parliament do more than get public opinion off the ground, Mr. Speaker. Let us act. Let us not give up our responsibilities. At the dawn of the industrial revolution in the last century, factory owners exploited human misery. Charles Dickens told us about children cleaning chimney pots, and he told us of poor labour conditions in the old world textile mills. How will future historians speak of a generation and a society that permitted the needless slaughter of our citizens on the highway of
The Address-Mr. Knowles the nation, because scientifically proven safety features known to the automobile industry were not included as standard equipment in our cars. The government, the automobile industry, and the public must co-operate, sir, and act in this regard. The hour is late.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, at the end of the speech which the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) made yesterday he said that we of this parliament would be judged by our deeds and not by our words. His last sentence was this:
I hope that on this basis the judgment will be a favourable one for the twenty seventh parliament.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that we all share that sentiment, and I hope that we will do something about it. Indeed, I hope and trust that this twenty seventh parliament will produce many good deeds. But I make the assertion that no matter how many good deeds are performed, the judgment on this parliament will not be favourable unless this parliament does something to improve the lot of our senior citizens who have retired, and those who will be retiring in the next few years. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that there is now before this house a proposition concerning old age security pensions, moved in part by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and in part by the leader of the New Democratic party.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
In 45 minutes or so a vote will be taken on our subamendment which asks for the immediate lowering of the eligible age under the Old Age Security Act to the age of 65. On Tuesday there will be a vote on the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) calling for the immediate increase of the amount of the pension from $75 to $100 a month. My leader made clear last night, Mr. Speaker, that we shall be voting for both of these propositions, and it is our hope that they will commend themselves to members on all sides of the house and that both of these amendments will carry and will therefore be added to the address to be delivered to His Excellency the Governor General.
The leader of this party last evening dealt, effectively I thought, with the arguments which are raised against an increase in the old age security pension, arguments based on the problem of finance. In fact he dealt with that matter so well that at one point the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) thought that if he went much further we would be making a profit for the treasury of Canada by raising
X28	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Knowles the old age security pension. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) pointed out that we would certainly be making a profit for the lives of our older people in this country if we were to take this action, and we insist that it is the first good deed that this twenty seventh parliament must do.
I should like to add to what my leader said last night, concerning the financing of an increase in old age security, a point which I sought to make in the last parliament. When in 1963, due to pressure from the opposition side of the house, the government agreed to raise the old age security pension from $65 to $75 a month, it insisted that it had to accompany that increase with an increase in the personal income tax which is levied for old age security. The increase was made, from 3 to 4 per cent.
During the months that followed we argued very strongly both for an increase in the amount of the pension to $100 and for the lowering of the eligible age to 65. Through all of the discussions on those points both in the House of Commons and in the Canada Pension Plan committee, government spokesmen insisted that if either of these courses was taken there would have to be another increase in taxation at one point or another. However, after the government members on the Canada Pension Plan committee had turned down our motions in respect to these two propositions, the government came back into the house, showed a change of heart, and announced through the Prime Minister that the eligible age would be brought down to 65 a year at a time. This same government which told the Canada Pension Plan committee that that step could not be taken without an increase in taxation, when it took the step on its own accord, said it had sharpened its pencils, had looked at the growing productivity and at the results of the tax rates already in effect, and had decided that no further increase in taxation was necessary to effect that desirable change.
I suggest that the old adage "Where there's a will there's a way" applies in this case, and if this government can be persuaded as to the necessity of increasing the old age security pension, a way will be found to finance that increase. We call upon this parliament in these first votes which are going to take place in this House of Commons to express its clear and unequivocal opinion that this increase should be made, and that it should be made right away.

DEBATES	January 21, 1966
I shall come in a few moments to some of the arguments that are put up as to why parliament should not pass amendments of this kind, but before I do so may I refer briefly to one or two other matters in the social security field that I feel must have high priority in this parliament.
Along with the need to increase the old age security pension, we feel that we simply must get medicare in this parliament; indeed, that we must get legislation on this subject at this session of parliament. I was pleased to see the Prime Minister take a stance yesterday on this subject which was a little firmer than the one he took in Alberta during the election campaign. But even so I was greatly disturbed by some of the things he said on this subject, as recorded at page 72 of yesterday's Hansard.
Let me quote these words of the Prime Minister:
Surely that means that in the future the federal government should exercise great care in agreeing on joint programs with the provinces in which all the provinces do not participate.
I could read the rest of the paragraph, but the gist of the paragraph is in that sentence.
The Prime Minister seems to be telling us that there are programs-and medicare seems to be one of those he had in his mind-which it is not desirable to proceed with until all the provinces are ready to come in. My leader pointed out last night that if that position had been held to we probably would not have hospitalization across this country today, as we now have. We deplore that stand which the Prime Minister took yesterday. It is too much like the stand he took in Alberta during the election campaign.
We call upon the government to bring in legislation along the lines of the Hall Commission report, along the lines of the four cardinal principles which the Prime Minister announced last summer; to put that legislation on the statute books and to make it available forthwith to those provinces that wish to come in, even if they come in one by one. If we try to do it the other way it is going to take years and years before something is done. It is already almost 47 years since the Liberals first promised to do something in the field of health care. We think there should be no further delay.
Another item I feel we must start working on in this parliament is the question of finding a way to establish for our people a guaranteed annual income. We have long held in general terms in this country to the view that there should be a level of income
January 21, 1966

below which none of our people should be permitted to fall. We have tried to approach this ideal by establishing minimum wages and fair wage rates. We have tried to approach it by our social security legislation. But I believe the next step in this field has got to be an actual guarantee of a minimum total income for everyone.
I invite those members who may not have already done so to read the literature on this subject written by experts in the social welfare field, by sociologists and others who are telling us that this is the next step in social welfare, particularly in an affluent society, a society which is moving at a great pace in the direction of automation.
There are various ways to consider this proposition. We could increase the number of goods and services provided for our people-education is an example-on what is sometimes called a free basis. There is also the whole question of looking at the income tax structure and deciding whether, having arrived at a level of income below which people should not pay tax, people below that level should get something out of the tax funds so that the incomes of all our people are brought up to a minimum below which no one should be allowed to fall.
We hear talk sometimes about other parties taking some of the planks out of our platform and leaving nothing for us. We would be quite happy if they would do that and really act on them; and we would suggest that if they want to look for an area in which to do real work and establish justice and security for all our people, this is the next and now terribly important step, namely a guaranteed level of income below which none of our people should be allowed to fall.
I now want to say something, Mr. Speaker, about the position of the members of this house in relation to the kind of vote which will be taken at a quarter to six this afternoon, and in relation to any other votes which will be taken during the course of the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. We intend this afternoon to vote for my leader's amendment calling for old age security to be paid immediately at age 65; and we intend to vote on Tuesday night for the amendment that calls for old age security to be raised to $100 a month. In casting these votes, Mr. Speaker, we are not voting for an election. We are not saying that dissolution must necessarily follow. We are voting for what the words say, a pension of $100 a month at age 65.
The Address-Mr. Knowles If anyone wants to bring before parliament at any time the issue of an election, the issue of dissolution, and if it stands by itself, we will take our stand on this issue. But, Mr. Speaker, we think it is sheer and utter nonsense for 265 grown men and women to come here to decide the issues of this country and to be told that there are times without number when we cannot separate two things, that we must be caught on the horns of a dilemma. Most hon. members in the house are aware of the fact that I find recreation not in reading James Bond but in reading Beau-chesne, Bourinot and other tomes in the library, which are really much more interesting, and much more exciting. I have, in fact, done a little reading on this very question. The reading I have done makes the kind of thing I hear and read on the radio and in the press about the present situation sound like so much nonsense. I suggest that the radio and the press are joining with others in helping to keep alive the notion that every time an opposition party moves an amendment on a specific subject it is threatening the country with an election. That is what we are hearing about the amendments now before the house.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Let us look at some of the facts and statistics. There are only three occasions in the history of this Canadian parliament upon which an election has been asked as a result of an adverse vote in parliament-just three occasions in 99 years. One of them was in 1963 and the other two were in 1926. The first occasion in 1926 was when Mr. King's government had met with an adverse vote on an amendment and when a vote on the Speaker's ruling had also gone against the government's wishes. Mr. King asked for a dissolution. We all know that this request was refused by the Governor General of that day. A few days later the Meighen government was beaten on the floor of parliament by the passing of a motion of censure introduced by the Liberals of that day. As a result, dissolution was requested and granted and an election was held. The other occasion was in February, 1963, when the Diefenbaker government was beaten on an amendment to a supply motion, whereupon dissolution was requested and an election was held. But that is all. Those are the only three occasions in Canadian history when an adverse vote resulted even in a request for a dissolution of parliament.
130	COMMONS DEBATES
The Address-Mr. Knowles On the other side of the picture is the fact that the governments of Canada throughout those 99 years have received adverse votes dozens, perhaps scores, of times. It depends, of course, upon the definition of what is an adverse vote, for many a time a government has had to change its position because of debate or because of a defeat on the floor of the house. But I am sticking to occasions when votes went against the wishes of the government without resulting in any suggestion of an election or request for dissolution.
I might point out first of all that in the very first Parliament of this country of ours, the parliament in which Sir John A. Macdonald was prime minister, there were in the first four sessions nine occasions on which the government was beaten-five times on government bills, twice on resolutions preceding government bills and twice on supply. Yet on none of those occasions did Sir John A.
Macdonald seek the dissolution of parliament.
In 1899 the government of that day brought before the house a speech from the throne.
In the course of a debate on the address in reply, an amendment was moved by an opposition member. Then there was a subamendment which softened the language of the amendment. Both carried, and when the address was engrossed and delivered to the Governor General of that day it was not just the motion which the government had brought in in the first place; it was the motion brought in by the government, plus the things which had been added on the floor of parliament. No one suggested in 1899 that there should be a dissolution and an election.
It was treated as an expression of opinion by the parliament of that day.
Let me give one other instance of a similar situation which arose in connection with the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne in 1951, in the days of the St. Laurent administration. It was the second session of 1951 and in December of that year an amendment was moved to the address. It contained words which the government did not like to vote against and which it could not vote for. So it had one of its own members move a subamendment to add some favourable words at the end of the amendment. The result was that everything carried-the subamendment carried, the amendment carried and the motion as amended carried. So what was engrossed and delivered to His Excellency on that occasion was not simply the motion of thanks, but a motion of

January 21, 1966
thanks plus some other words regretting the difficulties the farmers were facing in western Canada.
My point is that these were two occasions upon which the house was debating the Address in Reply from the Speech from the Throne, and what the government placed before parliament was not the form of the words delivered to the Governor General. What did this mean? It meant that on these two occasions the house had expressed its opinion, and the government accepted that opinion as an opinion of the house. But it did not seek dissolution.
There are other occasions when a similar course was followed-not on motions for an address, but similar in other respects. In 1944 we held a special session of that year's session of parliament to deal with the conscription issue. Those who were here on that occasion^-not many of us, now-will recall that Mr. King asked parliament to make its decision with respect to the order in council he had brought in by placing before the house a motion of confidence in the war policy of the government. The motion was debated at length. Six or eight different amendments were tried, most of them being ruled out of order. But in the end an amendment moved by Mr. Coldwell, a very simple one which just took out three words, was carried on a division.
True, the government accepted it. But the result was that the motion of confidence which was passed by the house was in language different from that which the government had used in introducing it. Did Mr. King say that this represented non-confidence in the government, because the House had not accepted what was placed before it? Did he ask for dissolution? Not at all. He accepted this as an expression of the opinion of the house on that occasion.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Let me remind hon. members of at least three occasions in my experience here when supply motions were amended and got through the house without the government being brought down. The most striking one occurred on August 27, 1946, when we moved an amendment to a supply motion, calling on the government to consider keeping in effect the subsidies on milk which were in effect at the end of world war II. There was quite a debate on that, followed by a recorded vote with the Speaker in the chair. Our amendment carried, but was the government defeated? Was there an election? No; the government accepted it as an expression of the
January 21, 1966

opinion of the house. I regret to say it did not follow that opinion but immediately, under the rules of the house, brought in another supply motion to test confidence in the government, and so we carried on. But this was a supply motion-even more a test of confidence in the government than a motion on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne-which was amended by the house without an election being the result.
On June 12, 1951, again in supply, Mr. Drew moved an amendment calling for the setting up of a special committee on procedure. This is standard practice in these halls. There was quite a debate. The government decided that the arguments put forward by the opposition were effective and valid, and so at the end the amendment was accepted. There was no vote, but the original supply motion brought in by the government was passed as amended, and so there had to be another supply motion in order to carry on.
This happened again on May 6, 1953, when Mr. Fleming moved an amendment calling on Mr. St. Laurent, when he went to Washington on that occasion, to use a little more vigour in connection with the negotiations he was to have with the Americans. After discussion Mr. St. Laurent agreed it was good to have this expression of opinion from the floor of the house, saw no reason to oppose it, and so the supply motion, as amended, was carried, to put it out of the way; and we had another supply motion in order to carry on with the business of parliament.
Therefore I suggest that, against only three occasions when an adverse vote of the House of Commons brought on the question of an election, there have been these many occasions when an adverse vote did not have that result, but was an expression of opinion of the house and left it free to carry on.
In recent years there have been several cases in this same category. There are still many members of the house here who were present in 1955 for the debate on the Defence Production bill. For the record let it be clear that our party did not share in the kind of criticisms the Conservatives were making of that legislation, so, I have to give the credit to the Conservatives for the fight they put up. The fact is that as a result of the efforts of the official opposition on that occasion serious and drastic changes were made by the government in the Defence Production bill. These were changes which the government initially said it could not possibly make-that the bill had to go through as it was. But the
23033-9J

The Address-Mr. Knowles bill was changed. Did this mean the government was defeated? No, the government paid some attention to the opinions expressed on the floor of the house, and parliament carried on.
In 1963 there was a comparable situation. In the part of that session held before the summer recess we had before the house the first resolution concerning the Canada Pension Plan. There was a portion in it having to do with the old age security pension. An amendment was moved to that resolution calling for an increase from $65 to $75 a month to take place right away. Actually that amendment never came to a vote. We had a summer recess. The feeling in the country was pretty strong. The opposition parties were expressing that feeling very vigorously, and when the house came back in September the government came before us with a proposal to increase the old age security pension from $65 to $75 a month.
I suggest this present matter is in the same category. In 1963 it was a case of the government being made aware of the opinion of the House and bowing to that opinion, bowing to what amounted to an adverse judgment of the house itself; and yet parliament carried on.
We had the same thing last year when we had before us the government's legislation known as the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. We were in committee on the clause providing for seven statutory holidays. Most hon. members will well remember my amendment to add an eighth one, November 11, to that list. We had a vote in committee of the whole on the appropriate clause, and my amendment carried in spite of the very strong position the then minister of labour had taken that the amendment should be defeated. Was there a call for an election on that occasion because of an adverse vote, a vote against the government? No. The government accepted it as an opinion of the house, and went along with it. Indeed it became law.
We are 265 grown men and women. I think we should be in that position more often than we are. We should be able to vote separately on an issue by itself, such as raising the old age pension to $100 a month, and then the question of whether or not there should be a dissolution and an election.
Some people are trying to say that because of the position we are taking we are asking that all of the traditions of parliament be abandoned, that we are asking to have it two ways-that we want to express an opinion, want to be able to vote against the
The Address-Mr. Knowles government and yet not take the consequences of an election. Not at all, Mr. Speaker.
I say, divide it into two parts. Put the substance in the motion as we have done, and eve will vote on that. Then if that motion carries it is up to the government to decide whether it wants to go to the country on the issue of $100 a month at age 65, or whether it wants to come and ask parliament whether we should stay here and do our job. If that position is put before us we will take our stand and let the chips fall where they may.
I suggest what is happening is that the government wants it two ways. The government wants to stay here, wants to be the government for two, three or four years, but it does not want to pay attention to the wishes of the house. It does not want to give us the chance to express our opinion, and it tries to keep us from expressing that opinion by saying if we vote for this amendment and it is carried we are asking for dissolution, and that there will be an election. So far as we are concerned that is a bluff which we shall call. I believe the government would not dare call an election at this stage or on this issue.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we feel our amendment is one-but, sir, I see you at the edge of your chair.


Mitchell William Sharp: Could I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am very interested in the research he has done-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I hesitate to interrupt the minister and the hon. member who has the floor, but I understand there is another hon. member who expects to speak. This will now give him about 15 minutes and, in fairness to him, I think he should be allowed to begin his remarks now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I finish the sentence I was starting?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired, unless he has unanimous agreement of the house to complete his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I just want to say I believe this parliament did itself proud at one o'clock today when it reached agreement on the rules so that we can get on with our work. The other step we should take to get into an effective position in this session, and the sessions that lie ahead, is to make it clear we

January 21, 1966
have the right to vote on issues of substance separate from the question of an election. This is what we are doing on this vote. We can vote on the other matter any time the government wishes. We are voting today for $100 a month for everyone at age 65.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity in this first session of the twenty seventh parliament to congratulate the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer) and the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) who have moved and seconded the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, and to tell them that the fresh way in which they approached their task was appreciated, as we have seen, by all members of the house. I am sure their eloquent performance will bring honour to themselves and to their constituents.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
As one of those who have admired your tact and skill in presiding over the deliberations of this legislative chamber, I would like to join with all hon. members in offering to you my congratulations and best wishes on your elevation to the high post you hold in this House of Commons. I would also like to congratulate the Deputy Speaker and the Chairman of Committees upon their appointments, and I wish them every success in assisting you in your onerous duties.
We have just heard once again an eloquent parliamentary piece of rhetoric from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Many of us are very much accustomed to this type of speech covering the history of the procedures of previous governments and the difficulties they have encountered in this place.
I am afraid, however, that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is forgetting that there is also a great battle of practical politics being waged by the right hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Die-fenbaker). I might say that the Leader of the Opposition has perhaps attempted to set a trap, in putting forth his amendment, to catch and overthrow the government. It is regrettable that some of the members opposite, especially those of the N.D.P., are naive enough to be led into this trap. By doing so they could be assisting the Leader of the Opposition who wants again to be successful in his ambition to become Prime Minister of this

January 21, 1966

country. Surely no one in the other opposition parties want that to happen. I therefore urge the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and his followers to be very careful of whatever the Leader of the Opposition attempts to do in this parliament. Otherwise they might help him to precipitate another election, which I am sure the people of Canada do not want.
I am grateful to the fine people of Parkdale who have sent me again to represent them in the House of Commons. I consider it a great privilege to serve them, above all, in the federal field, and I believe that even though I have accepted the additional duties of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing), I will be able to assist them in all or most of their problems. It is my belief that I can assist them by co-operating with the government and by giving my support to its impressive program as announced in the Speech from the Throne.
The bold and progressive measures forecast in the Speech from the Throne, when passed by parliament, will no doubt directly or indirectly benefit Canadians in all sections of this vast country and in every strata of our society.
The proposals we have heard in the Speech from the Throne will also help my constituents in Parkdale who form a representative cross-section of a typical cosmopolitan Canadian metropolis. In addition to the Canadian citizens of Anglo-Saxon extraction, virtually all the ethnic groups of the old world are represented in Parkdale, including French, Polish, Ukrainian, German, Hungarian, Italian, Slovak, Lithuanian, Latvian, Croatian, Slovenian, Chinese, Japanese and other groups.
Many of these constituents of mine are recent immigrants. These new Canadians are acquainted with the official languages-one or the other-as well as the history and political system of Canada through the media of the ethnic weekly press, and the services of the education field. These people are making a great contribution as a result of their training, industriousness, and cultural background to Canada's development and they are eager to participate in its forward movement toward a great future. They cherish above all the freedom and unlimited opportunities which this young country offers to all who are willing to work for self-improvement. Having found freedom and opportunity they have a firm determination to preserve it. Consequently
m
The Address-Mr. Haidasz they have understandable concern about people in other lands who do not share these blessings or who have lost them.
In that context I should like to refer to part of the text of the speech delivered in September, 1965, by our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), to the 20th General Assembly of the United Nations. In part he said:
We cannot, however, concentrate only on material progress as if this were the only key to human welfare. The dignity and the unique value of the human spirit are even more fundamental and cam flourish only under conditions of equality and* freedom.
The determination we therefore express in the Charter "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights" is a vital part of the total crusade in which we are engaged. Canadians attach particular importance to the maintenance and extension of individual rights, to the protection of the institutions of family and faith, and to removal of all forms of discrimination based on race, colour, sex or religion.
Our concern for human rights arises also from our diverse national origins. Many Canadians still retain a profound interest in the lives of their kinsmen in other lands. Where respect for human rights, freedom and self-determination is not fully assured or where it is deliberately denied, Canadians deplore these conditions-believing as we do that those rights and freedoms must be of universal application.
Because of these convictions we are particularly concerned that the role of the UN in the human rights fields should be enhanced and that the recent proposals to this effect should be pursued. We support the appointment of a High Commissioner for Human Rights as proposed by Costa Rica and will join in co-sponsoring any resolution to this effect. Human rights are of universal significance: their violation must be of universal concern.
In this context, Mr. Speaker, I should like to add that it is my fervent wish that Canada play a leading role in the forthcoming conference on human rights to be held in 1968. If it is possible, I should like to see that conference held in Canada, perhaps even at the site of Expo '67. I believe we could set a great example to the world by showing how Canadians cherish the fundamental principles of human rights.
At this time, I should like to pay special tribute to Canadians of Polish descent who have already commenced this year to solemnly commemorate the one thousandth anniversary or millennium of the Christianization of Poland, the land of their forefathers. Possessing the rich heritage of a culture one thousand years old, they will celebrate the historic day in the year 966 when the Polish ruler, Mieszko I, embraced the Christian faith. From that moment in world history, Poland was launched into the orbit of western civilization and democracy.
January 21. 1966

The Address-Mr. Haidasz
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
This country has given the world scientists like Copernicus and Nobel prize-winner Marie Sklodowska Curie, musicians like Chopin, Moniuszko and Paderewski, writers and poets like Mickiewicz, Slowacki and Sienkiewicz, another Nobel prize-winner.
It has given also many thousands of immigrants to this country of ours who have enriched Canadian culture and developed its resources. Today there are in Canada nearly
400,000	Canadians of Polish origin who are working with their fellow Canadians to develop this vast country. The first settlers of Polish origin came to Canada's shores at the end of the eighteenth century, with men like Globensky whose grandson became a member of the federal parliament for the constituency of Deux-Montagnes, Quebec, 1875; and Kleczkowski, who sat as Liberal member of parliament in 1867 representing the constituency of St. Hyacinthe. Toronto's first Polish immigrant, Gzowski, was knighted by Queen Victoria in 1890 as Sir Casimir for his numerous engineering, educational and social contributions.
During the last war, Mr. Speaker, a Canadian airman of Polish descent, Mynarski, from Winnipeg, was awarded posthumously the Victoria Cross for valour. At this time there are a few members of parliament who are descendants of immigrants from Poland. I wish to say I am happy to be with them in this house during the twenty seventh parliament of Canada.
Throughout the past 100 years, during the successive waves of Polish immigrants to this country, Canada has gained more than 200 professors, engineers, lawyers, doctors, artists and architects who have made great achievements in their professions and have also contributed to the development of this great country.
In May of this year, on the eve of the centenary of Canada's confederation, Canadians of Polish extraction will be inviting fellow Canadians to celebrate with them in a most solemn and festive manner the millenium of Christianity in the land of their ancestors. In this way, they wish to demonstrate their relationship with the democratic ideals of western civilization and also their loyalty to Canada.
At this point in Canada's history, Canadians of Polish origin and Canadians of other ethnic origins should, more than ever before, co-operate with Canadians of English and

French extractions to join together in that great effort to develop further the good life in Canada, to promote the principles upon which our confederation is based and help develop further a Canadian identity and strengthen Canadian unity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being 5.45 o'clock in the afternoon, it is my duty, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 38, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on the subamendment now before the house.


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


Mr. Fairweather:: I was paired with the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. McLean). Had I voted I would have voted in support of the subamendment.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I move the
adjournment of the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after six o'clock this house stands adjourned until eleven o'clock on Monday morning.
At 6.17 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Monday, January 24, 1966