1966-01-25

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the house that an objection, signed by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Duquet) and ten others, has been filed with me pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter 31, statutes of Canada, 1964-65, to the report of the electoral boundaries commission for the province of Quebec relating to the proposed electoral district of Limoilou.
If the house will agree, I suggest that the text of the objection be printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings for this day.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)



PRIVILEGE


Hon. Arlhur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yukon asked me whether in fact a distribution had been made to the council of the Northwest Territories, now in session in Ottawa, of a bill, then in draft form, to amend the Northwest Territories Act. My reply was that I would be extremely surprised if this proved to be the case.
I have to acknowledge that I have been more than extremely surprised, and that distribution was made. I think there may be some small extenuating circumstance in the fact that the bill contains provisions which in effect involve amendments to the constitution of the Northwest Territories, but I would ask no consideration of the house on this basis. I make an apology to the house for this distribution, and I assure hon. members that this sort of thing will not happen again.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: On the question of privilege may I simply say that it is always desirable to make the fullest possible
information available to the members of the councils of both territories, a practice which has been followed only too infrequently in the past. However, in this case a distribution was made prematurely. It may even be that the hon. member for the Northwest Territories might have knowledge of the bill. I make no suggestion that he does, but the possibility is ever present.
In the circumstances, and because of the circulation which the bill has received, I think the minister or the Prime Minister or the leader of the house might give hon. members an assurance that this legislation will now be introduced and tabled at the earliest possible moment so that all in this house might have the same information that has been made available to others, because after all it is a federal statute that we are concerned with.



INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
AUTOMOTIVE PARTS-LOSS OF CONTRACTS BY CANADIAN STAMPING COMPANIES On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance and ask him whether the government has received complaints from officials of some 70 Canadian stamping companies relating to the lack of opportunity for Canadian firms to bid on the supply of automobile parts for this year's production, and also whether he has reason to believe that the automobile companies-the big three-are not giving Canadians the right to bid but are in fact transferring this work to American companies in the United States.
What is the government's position in this regard? Will the minister do what he can to assure that the big three, who benefit so greatly from this agreement, will have it made clear to them that Canadian companies should have the opportunity to retain what has been described as millions of dollars worth of contracts as has been the case in the past?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: I have received representations from the automobile parts manufacturers along the lines outlined by the Leader of the Opposition. These representations related to my

January 25, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry portfolio in so far as they would affect the budget. They were among the representations made to me by a large number of people and organizations relating to the budget itself and, as usual, I have promised them the most careful consideration.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: May I address a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry and ask him whether the assessment of the situation as contained in this morning's paper to the effect that 90 per cent of the metal stamping companies in Canada which have done this business in the past are now being deprived of it by the big three. Is this a proper assessment of the situation, and will the minister tell us whether millions of dollars of business will be lost to these Canadian companies. If so, what action does the Department of Industry propose to take, since this is the department largely responsible for preparing and submitting to parliament the United States-Canada auto agreement?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, the house will be aware that there is a resolution on the order paper which will provide a better opportunity than orders of the day for a complete discussion of this question. In reply specifically to the hon. gentleman's question, in my view the newspaper account and the figures he has given are overstated and exaggerated.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a further supplementary question may I ask the minister whether his department is taking any action in order to assure itself and the country that there will be no large scale loss of orders for metal stamping in Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. member that assurance. No one is more concerned than the Department of Industry that the very substantial expansion which is taking place in the automobile manufacturing sector in Canada shall be accomplished with a minimum of dislocation and a minimum of hardship, and daily we are directing all our efforts toward that end.
Inevitably, in a process of change, a process of expansion, there will be some hardship, but it is our intention to keep it to a minimum.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry. Will he undertake to bring the Canada-United States automobile agreement before the house as soon as possible and agree to have it submitted to one of

the committees, such as banking and commerce, to enable the members of the house to get all the facts, or as many facts as possible, on this whole matter?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I would hope this would come before the house at the earliest possible opportunity.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question arising out of the report that President Johnson has asked congress to cancel the proposed reduction in import duties on automobiles and automobile parts. Would this action in any way affect the Canada-United States agreement we heard so much about recently?


Mitchell William Sharp: I would like to take notice of that question, Mr. Speaker.



WINTER WORKS

[Stage Direction]
QUEBEC-DELAY IN PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Can he tell us whether he has completed his inquiry concerning the federal government's delay in paying the amounts due under the winter works program for 1964-65? Would the minister tell us also whether his department is making every effort to pay those sums to the provinces and municipalities as soon as possible?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the inquiries I instituted after the question of privilege was raised by the hon. gentleman are not completed.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister tell us when this inquiry will be completed and when he will report to the house?


Mitchell William Sharp: As soon as possible, sir.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the
January 25. 1966	COMMONS
Minister of Labour in his capacity in charge of the administration of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I realize it also concerns the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Minister of Finance. In view of the announcement that the interest rate on Central Mortgage and Housing loans in the Northwest Territories is now to be 7f per cent, 1 per cent over the new rate recently announced for mortgages elsewhere in Canada, does the minister think the government is encouraging the development of the north by penalizing investors for investing in the Northwest Territories; and is it an equitable policy to raise the interest cost above the 60th parallel as compared with below that parallel?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that at this time the hon. member is asking for an expression of opinion.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, with respect to your ruling with regard to my question, I should like to re-ask the Minister of Labour whether it is government policy to insist on a higher rate of interest for central housing and mortgage loans in the Northwest Territories.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: I am very glad that the hon. member has put his question a second time, because this enables me to assure the house that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation does not have two rates.
There are in fact three types of loans in the Yukon. The first is the normal N.H.A. loan made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In that case, the interest rate is 6f per cent, the same as it is in all parts of Canada. I understand, however, that there are second mortgage loans made by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, on which the maximum is $2,000. The rate in such cases has usually been 1 per cent higher than the rate on central mortgage loans.
There is a third type of first mortgage loan, Mr. Speaker, a loan up to $6,000, together with special grants if the occupant lives in the house for a period of ten years, I believe it is. He then benefits from a forgiveness provision. In that case I believe the rate is also 71 per cent. The N.H.A. rate for all hemes in Canada is uniform, both in the territories as well as the provinces.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the information the minister has given us, but it is not in accordance with a statement made
DEBATES	209
Inquiries of the Ministry by Commissioner Sivertz of the Northwest Territories, who is reported to have stated that the N.H.A. rate on loans for buildings in the Northwest Territories is 1 per cent higher than anywhere else in Canada.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. May I ask the minister whether he could induce the government to make second mortgage loans at 7| per cent available everywhere in Canada?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will consider the hon. gentleman's suggestion, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Does he intend to bring forward early in the session the amendments to the Area Development Incentives Act and, if so, can he indicate in any general way the nature of these amendments?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the amendments will be brought forward in due course. They are currently under consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: As a supplementary question, just before the end of the last session, as I recall it, the minister stated that the criteria used to establish these areas would be tabled in the house when it met again in September. Have those criteria been tabled as yet so that urban areas and all parts of the country will know the basis on which a determination is made?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the criteria are outlined in an order in council which was tabled during the last session. If the right hon. gentleman wishes, I can provide him with a further copy.


John George Diefenbaker: I would simply point out that I think on the last day of last session two of the members of the government undertook that the criteria would be tabled, and that they would be referred to the standing committee on industry, research and energy development for discussion. Does the minister intend to have these criteria brought before that committee for discussion and for consideration by parliament at this session?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, if it is the desire of the committee to examine and discuss

January 25, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry these criteria, I will be glad to see that an opportunity is provided.


Mr. Peters:: But you promised.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask whether any further consideration will be given to including Halifax, Saint John, Fredericton and Dartmouth in the list of designated areas?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, consideration has been given, and the decision has been taken not to include Halifax in the list of designated areas.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: have a supplementary question. Will alternative assistance be brought forward in respect of Halifax, Saint John and Fredericton in the matter of their exclusion?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not think during orders of the day is the most appropriate occasion to attempt to provide an exposition of the philosophy of designating areas under the program. I think it would be more helpful and more informative if hon. members await an examination of testimony before the committee.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, notice of which I have provided. Has the minister been informed of the meeting today in Moose Jaw of the mayors of cities from Calgary to Winnipeg to propose united action to meet the sudden cancellation of the C.P.R. Dominion train service? Will the minister carefully consider government support for proposals from the Moose Jaw meeting which will call for either restoration of the Dominion service or some other form of passenger service to fully protect the interests of the western cities concerned?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the press report about that meeting to which the hon. member alluded and which is to take place today. I think the house is already aware that there is an appeal to the governor in council from the decision of the Board of Transport Commissioners. In the consideration of that appeal, any relevant representations would, I assume, be fully considered.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: have a supplementary question. I pointed out certain facts yesterday in reference to this same subject together with facts in reference to passenger service in Canada, and asked the minister at that time whether he was prepared to set up an inquiry to look into the whole situation. In reply the minister said he would discuss it with his colleagues. Has he now discussed it, and is he now prepared to take some definite steps? This idea of saying you will give something consideration means nothing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE

[Stage Direction]
SEARCH OF OFFICES OF SEAFARERS UNION On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice, notice of which I gave him verbally. Can the minister inform the house why the offices of the Seafarers International Union have been searched on two recent occasions by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This may be a very important matter now raised by the hon. member, but perhaps his question could be placed on the order paper to afford the Minister of Justice an opportunity to reply.



PENITENTIARIES

[Stage Direction]
REQUEST OF GUARDS FOR DANGER PAY On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Did he receive a communication from the guards at Dorchester penitentiary requesting danger pay of $1,000 per year as a result of the commutation of the death sentence imposed on Reginald Colpitts? If so, what action is contemplated in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps this is also the type of question that might be placed on the order paper.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.

January 25, 1966
I should like to ask whether he has received requests for increased pensions to retired employees of the C.N.R. and whether he intends to recommend such an increase in view of the cost of living?


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



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-sioke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, and I have sent him notice. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether it is his opinion that the payment of the $25 increase to the old age security pension will be assured by the house passing the amendment now before it?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to suggest once again that perhaps the hon. member would not object to putting this question on the order paper. This would give the minister an opportunity to consider it.


Mr. Knowles:: He could vote for it and find out.



SALARY INCREASE FOR SECRETARIAL STAFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister undertake to see that the government announced pay increase will be instituted as quickly as possible for the House of Commons secretarial staff?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I will be glad to look into that matter right away, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Now that we have a new parliament and a new Minister of Finance, can we anticipate action this session on the matter of increasing the pensions of retired civil servants?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of that answer I should like to give notice that I will raise this question at ten o'clock tonight.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Can the minister tell us whether conversations or discussions are going on with his opposite number in the province of Ontario concerning the very serious problem of land acquisition around the water conservation projects? It is my understanding that there has been disruption in these projects because of lack of agreement between the federal and provincial governments concerning the terms of purchase of these lands.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: No, Mr. Speaker; but I will consider the urgency of that question.



INQUIRY AS TO SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON TIDAL POWER DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. F. Kennedy (Colchesler-Hanls):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell us how soon we may expect a meeting of the special committee on tidal power development?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This matter is under very active consideration at the moment, and I hope it will not be very long before the committee recommended by the Atlantic Development Board is set up.


Mr. Starr:: The Prime Minister could have said that.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. With reference to aid to B.C. fruit growers following last winter's frost damage to crops, was the formula arrived at and agreed to jointly by the governments of British Columbia and the Dominion of Canada?

January 25, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: This is a very serious and important question, but it seems to me that information is being sought that might be secured by putting the question on the order paper. I do not think any serious harm would result in having to wait a few days for a reply. This is a suggestion that the Chair is making to the hon. member.


David Vaughan Pugh: Then might I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether there is a possibility of the renegotiation of the joint agreement arrived at between the province of British Columbia and the federal government with regard to aid respecting frost damage to last year's crops?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we would be prepared to listen at any time to any further requests or representations that the Minister of Agriculture of the province of British Columbia may wish to make.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask whether he is aware that fund raising campaigns have taken place in Canada to assist the Viet Cong, and that funds have actually been transmitted to and acknowledged by these people. Does he approve of this action; and if his answer is in the negative, what steps are the government taking to see that it does not continue?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such campaigns, but in view of what my hon. friend has said I shall be very glad to look into this matter.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of what I consider to be his rather excellently phrased speech of last evening to the Board of Trade of metropolitan Toronto, and ask when he will be introducing into the house legislation to bring into effect the desirable ends that he outlined to that board.


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I can only say

that when policy matters such as those are decided, they will be announced in the house.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piciou):: May I
ask the Minister of National Defence whether reports are correct that the Canadian airlift to Zambia will be continued. If so, can he assure us that there will be sufficient spare parts and crews to effectively carry out this airlift? I ask this question because of reports that R.C.A.F. crews have been overworked and spare parts have not been made available for the Hercules aircraft?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: The commitment, Mr. Speaker, has been extended until the end of February. I am very happy to report that the R.C.A.F. has been able to meet its full commitment in a most satisfactory manner. This reflects great credit on the organization. It is very difficult to service aircraft in Leopoldville. They are therefore rotated back here for servicing. There have been one or two problems which have arisen, but we have been able to meet our commitment. The hours of flying for pilots are within the limits set by the air force.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. May I ask that question No. 166 appearing on the order paper for this date under the name of the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) be changed to my name.



IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO PRODUCTION OF WHITE PAPER On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Poriage-Neepawa):: May I
ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if, in addition to his responsibility for changing the department to the department of manpower, he is also considering the possibility of tabling a white paper on immigration?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I
January 25, 1966

have already said, in reply to a similar question, that a white paper was being prepared and as soon as it is ready, it will be submitted to the appropriate committee of this house.



ANNIVERSARY OF BIRTHDAY OF ROBERT BURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: have a question I want to ask the Prime Minister. Do the Prime Minister and the government fully appreciate the fact that today is the anniversary of the birth of a most illustrious member of one of our founding races? I refer to Robert Burns.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Begorra, I do, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRIME MINISTER OF BARBADOS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if I might be permitted to call the attention of Your Honour and the house to the presence in the gallery of very distinguished visitors, the Prime Minister of Barbados and two of his colleagues, who are here on a visit. As you know, Mr. Speaker, relations between our countries are close and friendly and we hope that they will become even friendlier.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the course of some questioning about the government's intention concerning legislation regulating private pension plans, the hon. member for Winnipeg North asked me whether consideration was being given to the question as to whether companies such as the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National, which have employees in the provinces which have passed legislation in this regard, will be covered by that legislation or if those employees will have to wait for the implementation of federal legislation.
I am advised, Mr. Speaker, that provincial legislation will not apply to these companies.
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the information the minister has given us now, may we expect early action by the federal government with regard to its commitment in this area?


Mitchell William Sharp: There is such a large number of bills of urgent importance on the order paper, Mr. Speaker, that I would not want to say we intend to introduce this legislation within a few weeks or even the next few months.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister not realize that to the people concerned this is very urgent?



CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouetle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry.
Does he intend to recommend that an official of the national housing and mortgage corporation be appointed permanently in Rouyn to serve all the Quebec northwest?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member for Villeneuve to put his question on the order paper?



AIRPORTS

[Stage Direction]
SHERBROOKE-INQUIRY AS TO DEVELOPMENT On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Does the Minister intend to designate the Sherbrooke airport in addition to St. Hubert airport to handle the increased air traffic, commercial as well as private, in connection with the world fair?


David Réal Caouette: On the
order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I know how urgent that question is, but may 1 suggest to the hon. member to put it on the order paper?



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION

[Stage Direction]
REPORTED SPEECH BY PRIVY COUNCIL PRESIDENT RESPECTING REPATRIATION On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council.
January 25, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry Can the minister tell us why, since the publication of the text of the speech he made in Montreal before the Quebec Liberal Federation of University Students, the members of the Conservative party have not asked him a single question?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Will the minister undertake to see that the payments to constables who served in the last general election are brought up to minimum wage standards?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY INTO DELAYS IN GRAIN SHIPMENTS TO WEST COAST On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister prepared to give a statement about the steps taken to improve the co-ordination of grain movements, as he promised yesterday?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yesterday I said I hoped I would be able to make a statement either today or tomorrow. I can tell the hon. gentleman it will be tomorrow.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CAUSEWAY-EMPLOYMENT OF ISLANDERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the hon. member for Prince asked a question in connection with employment on the Prince Edward Island causeway. The answer to his question as to how many residents of Prince Edward Island are employed in connection with that project is 27. They are employed by the consulting engineering firm.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to [Mr. Gregoire.l
ask the Prime Minister about the house having an opportunity to deal with capital punishment. What is the general idea of the government as to the method by which this matter will be brought before the house? Having regard to the number of those in jail under sentence of death, does he not agree that this matter should be dealt with immediately after the Speech from the Throne? It is a matter of deep consequence and the uncertainty surely should be removed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do indeed agree with the right hon. gentleman that this is a matter which should be decided without delay. I hope that steps to that end can be taken immediately after we get the necessary supply which will come right after the Speech from the Throne has been completed. As to the procedure for dealing with it, I hope that representatives of the parties would get together and decide what procedure would be agreeable to all concerned.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that seven of the bills on the order paper concern the matter of divorce reform, is there a possibility of the government establishing a committee so that some general agreement might be arrived at which would give some guidance to the government in developing new legislation in the divorce field, which appears to be in the interests of everyone and which might be solved by party agreement on the matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is a matter which also could be discussed at a meeting of the house leaders to see whether there could be that kind of agreement.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, January 24, 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.
January 25, 1966
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, last evening I was discussing two aspects of the Throne Speech debate, those dealing with university grants and the question of agriculture. Today I should like to discuss a number of topics, the first of which relates to Expo '67 and requests which I have made, not only in this session but in the last session, regarding the establishment of a parliamentary committee, the deliberations of which would guarantee to the taxpayers of this nation that their tax dollars were being spent in a prudent manner on this great exhibition which will take place during our birthday celebrations in 1967.
At the first opportunity this session I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he would agree to the establishment of such a committee, and he informed me at that time that he had not had sufficient opportunity to determine whether such a committee should be established. But apparently it has not taken him very long to And out that there were very serious problems associated with Expo '67, one of which is the soaring deficit with which all Canadian taxpayers are going to be faced when Expo '67 is completed.
Last year I put a question on the order paper in this connection and was informed that the projected deficit would be in the order of $60 million. I find in the January 22 issue of the Toronto Telegram, a report of an interview with the minister, and that the officials of the fair have now informed him that this deficit will be $80 million. The article says the minister is far from happy with the projected deficit, and he can feel certain that other Canadians will feel exactly the same as he feels.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other matters which are covered in this article which should certainly give the Minister of Trade and Commerce a great deal of concern, not to mention all members of parliament and the taxpayers of this nation. I was somewhat shocked to learn that the Auditor General is anything but happy with what is happening at Expo '67. According to the Toronto Telegram for January 22:
Another man who is deeply concerned with Expo's financial headaches is A. Maxwell Henderson, Canada's Auditor General. His annual report, expected to be tabled in the Commons next week, contains sharp criticism of the fair's financing.
It is certain to cause fireworks in the Commons. In an interview, Mr. Henderson said there has been "a lack of authority" for federal spending on Expo.
The Address-Mr. Coates
In his estimation, there is questionable authority for the federal government giving Expo more than the basic $20 million grant permitted under the 1962 legislation.
Further down the article continues:
Mr. Henderson said his report will also contain much of the same criticism of Expo spending as has already been filed by Quebec Auditor General Gustave Tremblay in his annual report. They act jointly as auditors for Expo.
No one, Mr. Speaker, is blaming the Minister of Trade and Commerce for what has transpired at Expo since it was initiated; and let me emphasize that no one in the Conservative party is opposed to the idea of Expo and what will happen there. It was the Conservative party which was able to convince the world authorities that Expo '67 should be a reality. We were the ones who passed the legislation which provided the original $20 million grant. We are not the least bit concerned about its merits. Indeed, we are as excited as any other Canadians to see this fair going forward, and we are coming close to the date when it will be opened.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we do not want to see any individuals going on a spending binge at the taxpayers' expense, a circumstance which will not only shock us when we learn of it but, if things continue as they are going, will put us in a position where we cannot do anything about it because the money will already have been spent.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
Let me say this, Mr. Speaker. The former Minister of Trade and Commerce, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), has a great deal to answer for in this house for allowing what has happened at Expo to take place without forming a committee of this house to enable hon. members to have an opportunity to scrutinize the kind of spending which has been taking place. Indeed, one of the officials has expressed the opinion that we should not bother them, that we should let them go ahead. Now, apparently, it is a terrible thing for a member of parliament to ask questions about Expo. It would seem that in the minds of these officials it is un-Canadian.


Robert Henry Winters: They welcome it.


Robert Carman Coates: I am glad you welcome it, sir, and I hope you will set up the committee I have asked for so all Canadians will know what is happening.
When I began asking questions about this I anticipated from the letters I had received and the conversations I had had that all was
January 25, 1966

The Address-Mr. Coates not well at Expo. Indeed, when I put questions on the order paper last year and found the then Minister of Trade and Commerce, now Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), answering them a day or two after I had asked them, I anticipated he was less than anxious to have a formal investigation at that time because of some of the things that were happening. I hope the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) will indicate to the Canadian taxpayer that he is as much a guardian of their tax dollars as is any other member of parliament, and will see that this committee is set up and set up properly.
Another matter on which I should like to comment is one which was discussed during the question period, the area incentive program established by the Department of Industry. I was not pleased by the answer the minister gave when he informed the Leader of the Opposition that Halifax, Saint John, Fredericton and Dartmouth would not be included in this program, as they would have been under the policy of the Progressive Conservative party. Indeed, the concept being followed by the Minister of Industry is brand new; certainly not the concept of any economist in this nation worth his salt. How can the minister explain the high unemployment figures in the Atlantic area as compared with the rest of Canada and expect anything to be done about it through his policy if he will not allow the growth areas to increase and send out benefits to the whole region?
Certainly there have to be new concepts produced for the Atlantic area if we are to overcome the high unemployment rate which exists there at the present time, a rate three times as high as that for the rest of Canada. Beyond doubt if we are to get anything done in this regard through the minister's proposals the plan will have to include the growth areas of Halifax, Dartmouth, Saint John and Fredericton, as APEC and every economic organization in the Atlantic area have done. There is no other way in which this program could succeed.
I should like to talk about another aspect of this area development program, this designated area program as the minister calls it. The minister kindly consented to visit my home town one week prior to the election, and on that occasion he told my constituents that four new industries would be coming there. All this was through the designated area program which this department is bring-

ing into effect, a program which would bring great benefits to Cumberland county and especially to Amherst. He gave the impression that almost within the next week Amherst would have so much employment that it could be excluded from the designated area program altogether.
When the minister was questioned closely about these new industries he said "Oh, well, it is top secret". He could not disclose very much about them, but they were coming. They would provide employment for some 165 men; there was going to be $600,000 or $700,000 of capital investment in the area. Wonderful.
So, after the election I thought it proper to write and ask the Minister of Industry to give me some more information about these four new industries, to tell me what they were. My people were most anxious to know. They had not heard anything about them since the day the minister was there. Well, the minister wrote and told me about these new industries. He told me there were four, and he named them. The first two were Amherst Woodworking Maritime Limited and Maritime Pants and Jackets. These are two industries that have been in Amherst for a long time, the latter probably for 25 years, though they had been taken over by another firm. Amherst Woodworking had come in on its own, asking no one for assistance, and had been there for two years before the minister dropped into town.
The third industry, Union Carbide Canada Limited, announced it was going to Amherst a year before the Minister of Industry paid us his visit. The fourth was most significant, a $120,000 industry. Well, we are happy to have a $120,000 industry in Amherst. We will take them any size. But these were the four great new industries which would do so much to create employment in Cumberland county.
What does it all amount to? This is the minister being somewhat less than truthful and honest with the people of Cumberland county when he came in a week before election day. And this is how the Amherst newspaper, the Daily News, treated Mr. Drury's letter. Here is the headline: "Liberal Election Promise is 'Joke'?"
Yes, it is a joke. It is the same kind of joke the party opposite has pulled off or tried to pull off in every constituency in Nova Scotia. But do you know something? The real joke in Nova Scotia was on November 8, when all they had left was the hon. member for In-verness-Richmond. Oh, yes; we had the former Minister of Agriculture down a few
January 25, 1966

times and he did a fine job. I hope he visits us often, because every time he came more votes flowed into the ballot boxes for the Conservative candidates.
There is something wrong with the philosophy of the Liberal party as far as the people of Nova Scotia and the maritime provinces are concerned. I think this is well exemplified by the statements which were made after November 8. Here is one by the Minister of Transport. It is a very good example of the kind of philosophy which comes from the Liberal party, and it is embodied here in a quotation from the Halifax Mail-Star of November 9. It reads:
Transport Minister Pickersgill, the main government spokesman in the cabinet for the Atlantic provinces-
I am sure the Minister of National Health and Welfare is pleased about that, but I think it is true. I think that is a true statement. Here is what the Minister of Transport said:
Too much money on their side and not enough on ours. There was an awful flood of Tory funds in Nova Scotia.
Well, that is a new story for the Liberal party to be telling, "too much money".
[DOT] (12:00 noon)
It is just a matter of dollars and cents so far as the Liberal party is concerned. You put enough money down and you get enough votes. That is not the way the Conservative party treats the voters in Nova Scotia.
The hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough did not quite take the buying attitude of the Minister of Transport. He has a new concept, and I know the people of Nova Scotia are very impressed with it. He says it is the provincial apparatus that destroyed the Liberal party in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and that they must watch out for these provincial apparatuses. He tells people to be careful, to stay in a state of high organization. We had the idea that the Liberal party was in a state of high organization but, according to that hon. member, it is this provincial apparatus which is destroying the Liberal party in the maritimes. When Liberal candidates and the Liberal party smarten up enough to realize it is the people of Nova Scotia who elect the members from Nova Scotia they will have a chance, but until that time comes they will not have any chance.
I now have a few words to say with respect to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The premier of Nova Scotia, Mr. Stanfield, has always proven to be a very
The Address-Mr. Matte reasonable man. The people of Nova Scotia consider him so. He is not the type of premier who goes around trying to pick fights with anyone. His main interest is to try to improve conditions in Nova Scotia. I have never heard of Premier Stanfield and the Prime Minister getting into great fights about what is happening in Nova Scotia or about the federal government's participation in programs in Nova Scotia. But the Minister of National Health and Welfare apparently wants all the credit for everything good that happens in Nova Scotia, and none of the blame for anything that is not good. Therefore he went to Nova Scotia during the election campaign, and prior to that, and tried to pick fights with Premier Stanfield. No matter how picayune the matter, he picked a fight.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired unless he has the unanimous agreement of the house to continue. Has the hon. member the unanimous agreement of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I hear some noes, and I regret very much I cannot permit the hon. member to continue.


John George Diefenbaker: They don't want to hear it.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)


Mr. Jean-Paul Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with those who have spoken before me in extending to you, sir, my sincere congratulations on your election, which was unanimous, as Speaker of the house.
Your past experience and the manner in which you have discharged your responsibilities as Acting Speaker leave no doubt as to your great ability and qualifications, even if this task is often most delicate. I should also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Acting Speaker and chairman of committees and, also, to extend congratulations to 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. They did it with dignity and I am sure that the whole country will benefit by the knowledge and talent they bring to this house.
The speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, is right to the point and the program outlined for the first session of the twenty seventh par-
January 25, 1966

The Address-Mr. Matte liament could help, through the work of all its members, to maintain the growth of our beautiful Canada for the greater good of all Canadians. In addition, it will bring a ray of hope to the needy through the war on poverty already started under a Liberal government, and the speech from the throne confirms this fact.
This brings me to deal first with the economic poverty to be found within certain classes in this country; second, with the duty of government and all individuals to cope, first of all, with this serious problem; third, what has been done by the new Liberal government; and fourth, what it proposes to do in this state of war.
Although some define poverty as a purely relative fact, depending on the place and the era, to me it is the state of those who are deprived of what they need to live and to play a citizen's role in society.
Most Canadians will agree that no citizen in this country should be, through outside causes, deprived from the benefits of modern civilization. It is our social responsibility to give everybody an opportunity to enjoy a certain degree of comfort.
A great philosopher, reflecting on poverty, has concluded that a modicum of welfare is required to fulfil properly one's religious and, consequently, one's civic duties.
Although all citizens must be considered equal in the eyes of the law, a poor person's shortcomings are always more excusable. A minimum of welfare will make a man a better citizen or simply a true Canadian.
The report on rural poverty in four regions prepared and published for ARDA by the Canadian welfare council in Ottawa should give us food for thought. The discoveries made in these four countries are true, to a varying degree, of almost all the rural and urban regions of the country.
I should like to give you a summary of these conditions as seen by community leaders and by the poor families whose conception of poverty is entirely different.
The former see poverty in its overall aspect, that is, its causes and effects; in other words, they grasp the concept better. The latter define it rather in terms of their own situation and that of their neighbour.
The definition given by community leaders generally bears a close resemblance to the reasons set forth during the case survey. Here are, in order of importance, the common factors most often included by those community leaders in such a definition:

Economic poverty: lack of personal income, too heavy family responsibilities, uneconomic land or farm, chronic unemployment, jobs that do not pay enough or are hard to get.
Personal or family deficiencies: inadequate schooling of children and parents, illness, poor adaptation, irresponsibility, alcoholism, lack of social participation, slums, dire poverty, debts, mentally deficient children and parents, anxiety concerning the future, little opportunity for betterment, unfulfilled desire to improve, laziness, a single trade, old age.
Social deficiencies: unemployment, insufficient school and sanitary equipment, lack of recreational organizations (especially for the young), lack of social cohesion.
The concept of poverty in the family stresses above all the difficulties it experiences: "We are not earning enough to make ends meet", "It's tough going", "We don't know what we will eat to-morrow". Elsewhere, frustrated ambition is more obvious: "We can't give our children any education", "We can't live like others do". The lack of essentials is illustrated in the two following definitions:	"To be poor is to wash your
clothes without soap" and "It is not to have any newspaper with which to light the stove."
Certain moral causes of poverty are expressed as follows: "He is poor because he is too lazy to work." "If So-and-So is poor, it is because he drinks too much; he often goes to the hotel". And then inadequacy steps in to explain poverty; for some "Poverty is lack of education" or "It is lack of intelligence."
Well, that is poverty. And that is what we find too often when we visit our ridings and when our electors pay us a visit.
According to the report from which I have just quoted, it was found that out of 63 families visited, 40 did not earn $50 per week. There were also too many poor families among our agricultural classes. After having made surveys, experts came to the conclusion that a family must earn at least $3,000 per year to be able to survive. According to the 1961 census, 23 per cent of Canadian families did not earn that amount. That is why it seems illogical to set at $2,000 a year the basic deduction for a family.
Poverty can easily prevent an individual from being a good citizen.
Therefore, a tremendous responsibility lies with our governments which must strive for the good of every citizen and particularly of those who are most in need.
January 25, 1966	COMMONS
The object of every piece of legislation must be to wage the great battle against poverty-I am not talking about class struggle-which must be eliminated before it is too late by bending every effort to ensure a higher degree of social justice.
It is very well to make surveys, but action is also needed. I, therefore, commend the government which has not only tackled this problem unceasingly but has intensified the fight in recent years. The government has even created the Department of Rural Development which has already accomplished a great deal and which will carry on the good work, I am sure, to the benefit of all citizens across Canada. I should also like to stress the importance of the federal-provincial conference on poverty held last December 7-10, to find solutions to existing problems.
We would have everything to gain by refraining from wasting precious time in seeking sensationalism or trying to find fault with others and by spending more time on dealing with real problems; in short, let us not fight constitutional battles when stark poverty is the order of the day.
It is not all to propose old age pensions of $100 and family allowances of $25. Why not $150 or $200 for our old people and $40 or more for every child? I should like it myself as well as all the other members, but appropriate means must be found to balance the budget and deal with the other problems: health, education, welfare. However, nobody wants higher taxes and there is no adequate dollar factory. Nevertheless, it is the Liberal government which established pensions, allowances and implemented many other pieces of legislation to help the needy and it is always ready to do more when possible.
Mr. Speaker, in reviewing carefully the speech from the throne, we find that the present government wants to keep on waging an intense fight against poverty. Most measures proposed are big guns ready to fire in this fight.
Of the main points of the legislative program, at least 75 per cent are aimed more or less directly at poverty among individuals, farmers, and rural and urban groups. In addition to the establishment of a Department of Manpower, the following measures are proposed: increased assistance to universities and scholarship plans; a measure to establish a Canadian health insurance plan after consultation with the provinces-with which I agree; the establishment of a $500 million health fund; the establishment of a
DEBATES	219
The Address-Mr. Crouse fund to finance major rural development plans; a program for the redevelopment of uneconomic farm units; a revision of the Crop Insurance Act enabling all farmers to benefit from it; establishment of a Canadian dairy commission; legislation to improve the movement and marketing of feed grain in eastern Canada and British Columbia; increased capital for the farm credit corporation-and, I too, take this opportunity to congratulate the new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene), who comes from the East and is the first bilingual minister holding that portfolio since confederation; extension of unemployment insurance benefits to full-time farm workers; proposal for income support for inshore fishermen in years of catch failure; increased allowances for the training of workers, after agreement with the provinces; increased federal aid to industrial research; establishment of a Canada development corporation to promote industrial investment and develop our natural resources.
I sincerely believe that we should all get together and produce some concrete results. I understand that the opposition must criticize, but I think that it should make constructive criticism and not prolong debates unnecessarily as it tried to do during the last session, an attitude which did not help solve problems but only delayed the enactment of long awaited legislation.
Mr. Speaker, as long as our government's first concern will be to wage a war on poverty, I believe that they will be working toward the achievement of their goal.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr'. Speaker, my first words will be to congratulate you, sir, upon your elevation to your high office. I believe your experience as Deputy Speaker will be invaluable to you, and that you will carry out your duties with dignity and in fairness to every member of this house.
At this time I should like also to congratulate the Deputy Speaker upon his appointment. As a fellow maritimer I wish him well in his new position. Congratulations are also extended to the Deputy Chairman of Committees and to the newly appointed cabinet ministers. Their duties in the months ahead will provide them with the opportunity of proving to the Prime Minister the soundness of his judgment in giving them additional responsibilities.
I should like also to extend my best wishes to the mover and seconder of the address.
220	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Crouse They carried out their duties in keeping with the high traditions established in this house, and in so doing they have brought honour to the constituencies which elected them.
When Charles Dickens viewed the opening of parliament in Nova Scotia in 1842 he wrote down his impressions as follows:
It was like looking at Westminster through the wrong end of the telescope. The Governor delivered the Speech from the Throne. The military band outside struck up God Save The Queen with great vigour; the people shouted; the 'ins' rubbed their hands, the 'outs' shook their heads, the government party said there never was such a good speech; the opposition declared there never was such a bad one; and in short, everything went on, and promised to go on, just as it does at home.
I believe Dickens' observations aptly describe the opening of the twenty seventh parliament, and the Throne Speech introduced by the present minority Liberal administration. This Throne Speech would indicate that the present Liberal government is, to paraphrase Dickens, still looking at some of the problems of the Atlantic provinces through the wrong end of a telescope. This makes them look small, inconsequential and far away when in fact they are very large and of significant importance to the Atlantic region of the nation, and they must be dealt with now if the people of the Atlantic provinces are to rise above the income disparities and lack of employment opportunities that have plagued this area for decades.
Since the recent election members of the Liberal party, meeting in secret and in caucus, have done much soul searching in an attempt to analyse the reasons for their overall loss of federal seats in the Atlantic provinces. When you look at the small number of Liberals elected in Nova Scotia this is understandable. No doubt the party sages have developed some acceptable alibis, but in my opinion the underlying factor leading to the Liberal route in Nova Scotia is the general mistrust by the majority of citizens of the Liberal party and its promises.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
This is understandable when you look at the record. Take for example the answer given by the Prime Minister on June 29, 1965, page 2994 of Hansard, when the Leader of the Opposition asked him if an election would be called in the fall. The Prime Minister replied:
I hope the situation remains such, and that we will be able to come back in September and finish the work we have on the agenda for this session.
DEBATES	January 25, 1966
But what happened? Regenstreif, Gallup and the Liberal go-go boys convinced the Prime Minister that it was politically expedient to call an election in November. "We can win 143 seats," they told him, "so let's go-go. What is $14 or $15 million of the taxpayers' money, if we can get a majority?" Now, with a billion dollars in promises to be fulfilled after the election, the Grits are almost right back where they started from, but not quite. Some of the go-go boys are gone, but the false advice followed by the immature action of the Liberal party and its leaders will long be remembered by many Canadians.
I could go on much longer in a critical way about the political opportunists who presently occupy the government benches, but I believe that five federal elections in eight years, with four of them returning minority governments, have given politics priority over programs too much of the time. There is a mass of unfinished business awaiting government action, and the manner in which this is handled will make the twenty seventh parliament a pride or a disappointment.
"Well," you may say, "where shall we begin?" Speaking as a Nova Scotian I believe that province, which played a major role in founding Canada, has a right to share in the growth and prosperity of this nation. Speaking as a Canadian I would not ask for policies that would be harmful to Canada. However, I know you will agree it is discouraging to learn that in 1966 the amount of money the average man in the Atlantic provinces takes home in pay is almost a third less than that of his equivalent elsewhere in Canada. And this is the position after ten years of enterprise, a period in which we have seen the establishment of a self-help group called the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, the Atlantic Development Board, the New Brunswick Development Corporation, Industrial Estates in Nova Scotia, the Department of Economic Development in Newfoundland, and other government agencies designed to encourage economic growth.
You may well ask what are the results of this effort, for in Halifax, Dartmouth and throughout parts of Nova Scotia new industries are opening up. Well, the answer is that there has been some improvement. In 1956 the income per head in the Atlantic provinces was 65 per cent of the Canadian average, while in 1964 it was 68.4 per cent. This is an improvement of 3.4 per cent, just a tenth of the gap. Now we have to close the balance of the gap, and it is a huge task.
[Mr. Crouse.1
January 25, 1966

We need more secondary industries, but we do not want new industries that require continuing support. In addition to secondary industries we need massive investment by the federal government. For this reason I welcome the statement in the Throne Speech that the government, while respeating the responsibilities of the provinces, is equally resolved to maintain the constitutional responsibilities of the federal authority.
The people of Nova Scotia have already made a good start. Perhaps one of the most important developments of all has been a growing realization among the people that growth and development is possible, that we need not forever remain a have-not area.
Under Industrial Estates new industries are being established and we have made some forward strides. But Nova Scotia and its people can depend only on itself and the federal government for the development necessary to put it in line with the rest of Canada. Therefore a strong central government is necessary if the country is to progress uniformly. I believe it is of the greatest importance to Nova Scotia that the national government have sufficient authority to take the lead in developing Canada as a whole, and I express the hope that this government will take steps to prevent any further erosion of federal powers.
It is not easy for a province like Nova Scotia to catch up with the rest of Canada in material wealth. According to the second annual review of the Economic Council of Canada the per capita income in Nova Scotia was three quarters of the Canadian average. Even to hold our own we have to make the same percentage gains as the rest of Canada. To reduce the gap we have to make greater gains than the rest of Canada. To do this we need the active co-operation of the government of Canada.
One area of assistance that would be helpful to Nova Scotia would be the inclusion of the required expansion of our tourist accommodation and facilities under the incentive grants program as set out in Bill No. C-129. The tourist industry is vitally important to Nova Scotia, and the manner in which this industry is growing is indicated by the fact that our tourist figures for 1965 show that our province had 900,000 visitors as compared with our resident population of 762,000. This many tourists bring an estimated $58 million to $60 million to our province. The further
The Address-Mr. Crouse expansion of this industry is primarily dependent on the change in the federal definition of the act. I believe that changes could be made under clauses 2 (d) and (e). Clause 2(d) reads:
"development grant" means a grant under this act by way of assistance for the establishment of a new facility or the expansion of an existing facility in the designated area;
Then clause 2(e) reads:
"facility" means the structures, machinery and equipment that constitute the necessary components of a manufacturing or processing operation:
Under this new interpretation the policy of recognizing the tourist industry for incentive grants would not only be helpful to Nova Scotia but would become the policy for all Canada.
In fact the federal government has now a golden opportunity to provide Nova Scotia with the funds urgently required for the necessary expansion of our tourist facilities. I can think of no policy change, Mr. Speaker, that would be more helpful, especially in areas where there is no other industry, and I hope the government and the minister will give serious thought to this policy change which would be so helpful not only to the economy of all the Atlantic provinces but to the economy of all Canada.
Almost at the very end of the Throne Speech we were told that other legislative proposals would be placed before us, including amendments to the Atlantic Development Board Act. I would like to suggest that this legislation be placed a little closer to the top of the government's list of priorities so that an early start can be made on the harnessing of the Fundy tides. Power to turn the wheels of industry is needed in ever increasing amounts in Nova Scotia, and it has been estimated that the Bay of Fundy has a potential annual power capacity in excess of 9 million horsepower. This power development is of prime concern to our province. For over 50 years the minds of men have contemplated the idea of harnessing this great natural force to produce electric power. However, the cost of development, plus the problem of transporting this power to distant markets discouraged serious consideration of this project.
I was very pleased today to hear the Minister of Transport state in answer to a question that the matter of setting up a committee to study this project is now under active consideration. Today, modern earth-moving equipment makes the huge dams
222	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Crouse possible and modern technological and engineering advances have virtually solved the power transportation problem. The Atlantic Development Board has already done some work in this field, reviewing the material gathered to date on this subject. However, speed is of the essence, for if reliable estimates of costs and production are not gained soon, other methods of generating electricity via atomic energy may well be developed to the point where tidal generation will be economically unattractive.
Three projects are feasable; one at Shepody Bay, one at Cumberland Basin and one at Minas Basin. The construction of a dam between Cape Split and Parrsboro in Minas Basin would not only increase Nova Scotia's power potential but would also provide immense side benefits in terms of improved road transport and recreation areas. Here I should add, Mr. Speaker, that the development of this power would not only attract new industries to Nova Scotia but would also be helpful to New Brunswick, where the rapid growth of the mining, smelting, chemical, fuel and paper industries has created an unprecedented demand for electric power in recent years.
I am sure that all Canadians welcomed the announcement of increased aid to our universities as contained in the Throne Speech. In Nova Scotia we agree with the report of the Economic Council of Canada that education is a crucially important factor contributing to economic growth and rising living standards. This will enable our universities to continue to provide an educational service for all of Canada. Our universities educate as many outsiders as natives, and while no one objects to this service being performed, it is one of the major reasons why our universities face a financial crisis, e (12:30 p.m.)
A generous federal policy toward higher education in the Atlantic provinces can be supported for national as well as regional reasons. However, in my opinion, the announced increase in per capita grants is just the beginning of the increased federal support that will be needed if provincial governments are to carry out the university expansion programs to which they are committed.
Serving as I do as one of the governors on the board of Waterloo Lutheran University, I am well aware of the capital funds that are required for expansion, not only of that university but of all universities throughout Canada. At the present time over $500 million

DEBATES	January 25, 1966
is pledged in contracts for expansion of Canadian universities, and construction is at various stages. No one will deny the necessity for this expansion, but looking forward some ten years it seems to me the government will have to initiate discussions on all aspects of university financing, especially if they are to have sufficient funds for capital programs and research.
I suggest also that the government give serious consideration to the Bladen commission recommendation that the present limit on gifts to universities that may be deducted from income and corporate taxes be revised upward. An amendment to the Income Tax Act to accommodate larger gifts to universities would encourage greater support from private citizens as well as corporations.
The Speech from the Throne states:
My government will continue to strengthen the capacity of the integrated Canadian Defence Forces to provide for the security of Canada and to contribute abroad to the preservation of peace. Amendments to the National Defence Act will be laid before you.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I propose that the amendments call for the establishment of a Canada wide forest firefighting force. Large provinces with big populations and substantial financial resources like Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia can afford to employ fleets of water bombers and spotter planes to patrol and fight fires over their vast forests. However, in the smaller and poorer Atlantic provinces it is quite a different matter.
Nova Scotia, whose economy depends heavily on its forest resources, can afford to maintain only three spotter aircraft and one small water bomber. During the summer months, during the height of our province's forest fire season, we have to look around desperately for additional aircraft. What has been so galling to Nova Scotians watching the palls of black smoke rise above our valuable forest land while provincial firefighters struggle to control the spread of the fire, has been the fact that R.C.A.F. and Royal Canadian Navy aircraft have been standing by at military airfields in the province or engaging in routine patrols of less apparent urgency. In the past, requests for aid have generally met with the official reply that air force and naval aircraft are not equipped for water bombing, and that pilots and crews are not trained for this dangerous work.
This was the same argument that was advanced by the navy when a coast guard service was proposed. However, today this service, pro-
January 25, 1966

vided by the federal government through the Department of Transport and other integrated departments, is saving valuable shipping and the lives of Canadian seamen whenever disaster strikes. In my opinion a special wing of the R.C.A.F. should be formed, equipped, trained and made instantly ready for work in sny part of Canada where fires are destroying valuable forests, threatening the homes and lives of citizens and wildlife, while at the same time limiting the recreation areas which are an attraction for tourists as well as useful to our citizens.
The Speech from the Throne, which I consider the government's list of good intentions, stated that we would be asked to approve legislation to improve the movement and marketing of feed grain in eastern Canada and British Columbia by creating a livestock feed agency. The establishment of this agency will be watched with interest by the farmers in Nova Scotia, because the availability of feed grain at reasonable prices is vital to some lines of agriculture in our province, especially to those engaged in raising poultry and hogs. The annual bill for feed grain throughout the province is estimated in excess of $6 million. The census figures show that over the last 40 years Nova Scotia has become less and less dependent on its own feed resources. Between 1921 and 1961 wheat acreage shrank from 12,000 to 1,000 acres, while in the same period the acreage of oats shrank from 103,000 acres to 37,000 acres. I quote these figures to show that the province has never been more dependent on western grain than it is at the moment.
While this dependence continues there can be no serious thought of eliminating the present freight assistance policy. At the same time both agriculture and the government have every reason to be interested in the possibility of increasing local production. Every ton of grain produced locally will tend to decrease the cost of the freight assistance policy, and this fact alone would justify some government expenditure to encourage local production.
The federation of agriculture has asked for a subsidy of $8 per ton on locally grown grain. I believe such a request deserves careful consideration. Grain growing requires suitable land and capital. Of the two, capital is the most critical consideration in Nova Scotia. Capital is required for obtaining or opening up additional acreage, and even for temporary investment in fertilizer and feed grain. The subsidy proposed would, in the
The Address-Mr. Crouse words of the Minister of Finance add to the traditional means of fighting poverty. It would provide aid to those who are willing to work in order to improve their own position. It would make a worth-while contribution to the extra capital needs which Nova Scotia farmers require for a major expansion in grain production.
Even if this program were implemented we would still require improvements in the movement of western feed grains to Nova Scotia. This 24 year old federal policy has been based in part on the subsidized shipment of grain by sea, to Halifax, where it is stored and eventually distributed to Nova Scotia farmers. The trouble is that Halifax can only store about 50 per cent of the farmers' feed grain needs. It is evident we need more storage depots throughout the province, and I suggest that the government give serious thought to building grain storage facilities in Bridgewater, in Lunenburg county, which is in the heart of the farm community of both Lunenburg and Queens counties. This depot could serve the entire south shore, and distribution from this point could be administered by the new federal agency.
Following closely on the heels of the feed agency suggested in the Throne Speech, we read that a measure will be proposed for the development of the commercial fisheries of Canada. It is stated that we will be asked also to consider a proposal for income support for inshore fishermen in years of catch failure. These are stirring words for the inshore fisherman whose income is low because he is unable to catch and market the usual run of cod, haddock, halibut, pollock, hake, flounders or lobsters.
While any assistance to the fishing industry of the Atlantic provinces will be most welcome, I believe the fishermen would have preferred another type of announcement. This announcement could have been to this effect: "My government will recommend to parliament further measures calculated to give effect to Bill No. S-17, an act respecting the territorial sea and fishing zones of Canada, which parliament passed in 1964. Our object must be, without undue delay, to protect Canada's fisheries for Canadian fishermen."
This is the statement which should have appeared in the Throne Speech. By drawing base lines from geographical co-ordinates and thereby sealing off the Bay of Fundy and the Gulf of St. Lawrence as Canadian territorial waters, we would secure for our inshore
224	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Crouse fishermen protected areas and spawning areas that would gradually improve their catch and their income. But when questions are asked about the establishment of this 12 mile limit, either the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of Fisheries can only reply that these base lines are under negotiation.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
I believe the minister and his department would go a long way toward increasing the income of the average fisherman by assisting him to secure markets for the tons of fish which he is catching at present and throwing back into the sea as unsaleable. Here I refer to monkfish, skate, dogfish, sharks and mussels which are available in abundance to both our inshore and our offshore fishermen. Other countries have found a commercial value in these species and actively pursue the catching and marketing of them. Why cannot we do the same thing? Perhaps the fisheries minister could enlist the assistance of the Minister of Trade and Commerce who, through his trade representatives around the world, could ascertain the potential markets for these fish that are presently unmarketed.
Experiments conducted this year by the Nova Scotia fisheries development department indicate that both shrimp and crabs may be harvested from the Atlantic in commercial quantities. The Atlantic deep sea crab is found in waters from Greenland to Maine, and some are now being taken by a vessel operating out of Cheticamp, Cape Breton Island. It is similar to the heavily marketed king crab of the Pacific coast, and when mature has a body shell of five inches with legs ranging to ten inches in length. Since many of these shrimp and crab are found in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the catching of these species would be confined entirely to Canadian fishermen if the gulf area were classed as Canada's territorial waters under the terms of Bill S-17.
When the minister is investigating the possibility of securing new markets for all the species of fish caught by Canadian fishermen, I suggest he also inquire about the possibility of selling all of the scallop. The part we use, the muscle, is only a fraction of the total scallop, all of which is edible. In fact in Europe the greatest delicacy is the scallop roe and other parts of the scallop.
We must also carry out further investigations on behalf of our lobster fishermen. This year lobster fishermen are suffering from a small catch in almost every area along the

DEBATES	January 25. 1966
eastern coast. Some of the fishermen believe this is due to the fact that foreign trawlers are catching the seed stock of large lobsters on our offshore banks. Draggers from New Bedford landed over $1 million worth of offshore lobsters from the Georges bank area last year, and we have no record of the quantities taken by the huge Russian fleet operating in this area.
There seems, Mr. Speaker, to be no scientific data as to whether our inshore lobster population has any connection with the population on Georges bank. I therefore suggest to the government that they set up a joint Canadian-United States commission to get at the biological facts and, if necessary, attempt to get agreement on the need for preserving the large lobsters on our offshore banks through the international commission for North Atlantic fisheries. The Russians cooperated this summer in that they allowed United States observers to go on their ships, and they might well co-operate in this instance also.
The world today is searching with increasing anxiety for food for its growing population, while our major scientists in Canada and the United States seem more concerned with the type and quantity of minerals to be found on the moon. I believe we should adopt a series of priorities in our research and do first things first. If the Minister of Fisheries and this government will follow some of the suggestions I have proposed for the fishing industry, they will accomplish three things. There will be less need for catch insurance, there will be more income and a higher standard of living for our fishermen, plus more food for the world's growing population.


Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, as a new member speaking for the first time in this house I am under no delusions that this house awaits my words with bated breath. However, I do feel very privileged and honoured to be able to speak in this chamber, the walls of which have echoed with the great voices of the past. I am still in a state of semi-shock as I wander about corridors frantically searching for officers or officials and trying to untangle the great web of rules and procedure. I suggest that lectures be given new members, and in addition that a committee be formed specifically to assist new members in launching their parliamentary careers. I think if this is done it will enable all of us to take our places in this house with greater facility and ease.
January 25, 1966	COMMONS
Now, Mr. Speaker, I come from Lindsay, Ontario, which is rampant with Toryism. Eventually I settled in the riding of Welland, which was so ably represented by Dr. McMillan for 15 years. Affectionately known as "Doc", all members of this house respected and loved this man. I think at this time the house should pay tribute to his memory, and we all join in wishing him and his wife the very best indeed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Ross Tolmie: As a member, Dr. McMillan worked hard for his constituents. Bereft of all flamboyance, artifice or sham, he never covered the walls of this house with purple prose. Though gentle in manner, he had a tough, inquiring mind and made his presence felt by the reasoned content of his argument. As a member of the Liberal caucus his common sense and quiet wisdom influenced many decisions. Prudence prevailed when Dr. McMillan spoke. As a family man of unblemished character, absolute fairness, devoid of devious ways, false pride, pomp or circumstance, he personified all that is worth while in public life.
In paying tribute to a man who brought dignity to this chamber, and was a fine representative in the best traditions of the house, I do so with a purpose. His example and code of conduct can be a shining beacon to all of us. Personally I will endeavour to emulate this man who graced the House of Commons for years and embodied to a marked degree all that is good in public affairs; gentility of spirit, a real concern for people, complete honesty and quiet dedication.
Physically, Welland riding is urban and rural, including three chief population centres; the town of Thorold, the city of Port Col-borne and the city of Welland. It should be noted that we have the newest city in the Dominion of Canada in Port Colborne, which achieved city status on January 1, 1966. Situated at the entrance to the Welland canal, the city of Port Colborne with a long and honoured past can look forward as a new city with pride and purpose to a glowing and prosperous future. I am sure all hon. members will join with me in wishing this newest city the very best in the years that lie ahead.
The most striking physical feature of our riding is the Welland canal, part of the St. Lawrence seaway. This canal bisects the city of Port Colborne, the city of Welland and the town of Thorold. From an aesthetic and tourist viewpoint it is attractive to have ships from all parts of the world gliding through 23033-15
DEBATES	225
The Address-Mr. Tolmie the centre of your city. In fact we claim a unique breed. We claim a breed of "ship watchers". However, on the other hand the inability to traverse our cities when canal bridges are raised has inflicted grevious economic and traffic hardship.
Shortly after my election, like a veritable bolt from the blue, it was announced by the Minister of Transport that over 4,000 acres of land had been expropriated immediately to the east of Welland for a possible new canal bypass. This would have the effect in one fell swoop of taking the Welland canal out of the city of Welland and placing it elsewhere. The new canal bypass would be about eight miles long, cost around $110 million and take about six years to build.
The extreme need for this bypass is obvious to anyone familiar with the Welland canal and aware of the ever increasing, gigantic shipping traffic.. In Welland, with the delay of many bridges and the tortuous channel, the canal is a bottleneck impeding ship traffic throughout the entire seaway, with a resultant debilitating effect on our entire Canadian economy. By building this canal bypass bridges will be eliminated, wind protection afforded ships and a straighter and wider channel provided, all factors leading to the seaway's essential purpose, the easier, safer, and faster passage of ships.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
If we as Canadians wish to meet the increasing demands of ship traffic; if we wish to see western wheat sale commitments met, directly benefiting the prairie farmer and indirectly helping our entire Canadian economy; if we wish to thwart the challenge of the Americans building a competing canal, then all logic and economic sense dictates that we start this Welland canal bypass immediately.
For Welland itself a canal bypass is the answer to our prayers. The nightmare of traffic congestion will fade away, and Welland can plan its future growth properly and economically. The possibilities for the old canal site fire the imagination. Boating facilities, park areas, dock areas could be made available. An inland harbour, a little Antwerp on the Niagara peninsula is not a wild dream. What city in Canada has a landlocked lake in its very centre, resplendent and glowing with fantastic opportunities for unlimited development?
At this point I inject a sobering note. At the present time, although the land is expropriated, the government has not made a decision as to whether the canal bypass should be
January 25, 1966

The Address-Mr. Tolmie proceeded with. It is of the utmost importance to Welland to know as soon as possible whether the bypass is going to be built. We are in an intolerable situation now. Commerce and business cannot make decisions as to future growth; proposed highways are left in abeyance; expropriated home owners cannot decide to move or stay; construction of a proposed tunnel under the present canal, essential to the very welfare of Welland, will be delayed. In sum Welland, hanging in a state of suspended animation, most anxiously awaits a decision. I am confident that the government, itself faced with much investigation before decision, as its past record indicates will deal with this matter with dispatch and efficiency. May I say that the seaway authority and its officials charged with this matter are an effective and dedicated body which with unfailing courtesy discharge their many duties.
Mr. Speaker, legislation is sometimes passed without any evidence of direct or indirect benefit to the economy. I state categorically that the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement has within a few months of its passage brought increased prosperity and employment to Welland. From my own personal knowledge two plants have expanded as a direct result of this most enlightened piece of legislation. I know that the benefit felt in Welland reflects in only a small way the tremendous success of this auto pact. No doubt these encouraging results will mean the possibility of similar policies in other spheres of our economy.
It should be noted that Lake Erie borders my riding, and the general problem of pollution of the great lakes is convincingly illustrated in this area. Suffice it to say that large sections of Lake Erie are dead, their waters unable to sustain fish life. The shores of Lake Erie are increasingly deluged with evil smelling algae, destroying property value and depriving the people of our area of the right to enjoy some of the greatest sand beaches in the world. The eradication of this menace to our greatest natural resource is a municipal, provincial, federal and international responsibility. Steps have been taken to prevent this pollution, but greater measures are needed.
I mention the problem of pollution of our great lakes to alert members to this insidious danger, so that all parties can acquaint themselves with the background of this situation and in later discussions make contributions to its solution.

Culturally, Welland riding is blessed with people from every racial background, giving us a vibrancy and uniqueness which we deeply cherish. Here the fact is well demonstrated that people though different in origin are the same in their needs and aspirations and can live in peace and harmony, ennobling and enriching themselves and their community.
We are fortunate to have many French speaking people in our area, and at this time in our country's history when words such as extremism, separatism and special status are bandied about, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadians of French extraction in our area reject all clarion fanatic calls to national, historic pride of race or culture. Their wants are simple and legitimate; to be treated as equals; to be accepted as Canadians; to be allowed in dignity to infuse their heritage into the happy blend of polyglot races which adorn our ridings, whose only desire is to move forward together in a common bond of humanity.
May this great nation of ours, fraught with the perils of colossal geographical distance, threatened with the divisive forces inherent in any country with different tongues and traditions, look upon the happy intermingling of people in our area and be reassured that it is possible to live in co-operative harmony and good will.
To achieve greater mutual acceptance and unity between the two founding races the barrier of foreign language must be erased. Our common goal should be to provide for every boy and girl in this nation the rare privilege and distinction of speaking both the English and French languages.
Mr. Speaker, briefly in relation to immigration policy, I believe there is much scope for the clarification and liberalization of policies which have existed for a number of years. At a time in our history when we have the space, when the booming economy requires additional manpower, it would seem logical that increased immigration on a broader basis is not only justified but necessary. I am pleased to see that our government, aware of these factors, is considering immigration policy and will be laying proposals before parliament.
Mr. Speaker, as a new member I am proud to be now part of a crew that has sailed the ship of state through troubled waters to achieve great and lasting reforms; to mention a few, our Canada Pension Plan, the most imaginative and humanitarian piece of legislation ever enacted by mankind; the birth of
January 25. 1966

a new flag; the first federal minimum wage law; the new concept of the U.S.-Canadian automotive trade agreement.
More must be done, much more. From the inexhaustible wealth of this happy land, casting aside petty politics and bickering, we must wrest from the very bowels of this country the means to nourish and foster even greater social reforms such as medicare; greater educational assistance; help for the unfortunate in all spheres of human endeavour. What we have done to date is only the symbol of things to come, only the dawn of a new era of compassionate legislation ministering to the real needs of our peoples.
I say that not one member can rest when in this nation one child wants; not one member can rest when one child suffers from intolerance, bigotry or discrimination; not one member can rest when through suspicion and ignorance forces are at work tearing away the fabric of our constitution and gnawing away the bonds of unity.
Mr. Speaker, as a new member I do not presume to lecture this house. Perhaps I am undergoing an agonizing appraisal of my own worth. I only hope I have enough of that most highly prized, that most rare and precious commodity, courage, to adhere to my principles and make some real contribution to our national life.
I end as I started, Mr. Speaker. In this house, which you so graciously adorn, proud and humble I take my place.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to congratulate you on your election to the high office which you hold and which I know you will fill quite capably. I should also like to congratulate the mover and 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). They are both to be congratulated for the contributions they have made to this debate.
I myself welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate because we find Canada at the crossroads of so many important things that what we do today will, I feel, have a tremendous bearing on Canada's future. It pleases me a great deal, indeed I feel humble, to come back again to Ottawa and try to contribute something to the future growth of Canada.
The Address-Mr. J. H. Horner
Many have called the Speech from the Throne a warm-up of a bunch of leftovers and really that is what it is. Nowhere does it face the basic issues confronting Canada today. No mention is made in it about the cost of living index which has gone up 10 points in the last three years, a tremendous increase of over three points each year. Whom does this affect? It affects those who are on a stationary income that does not increase with the cost of living. Many of these people are retired. They are living on pensions and nothing has been done to compensate them for this sharp increase in the cost of living index. To me this is a gross error. I am pleased to support the amendment before the house, which will be voted on this evening, because I believe it is a worth-while one and the people concerned are in need of what it seeks.
In the Throne Speech we are told that parliament will be judged by its actions rather than its words, but if that speech indicates anything at all it indicates that we are going to have a whole lot of words and very little action. Our old age pensioners are in need of assistance. The Speech from the Throne completely ignores them. Though it goes on to speak about poverty and aid to those in need, nowhere does it outline any concrete steps which will provide aid for anything. It is interesting at this time, shortly after a general election, to note whether or not some of the election promises are contained in the Speech from the Throne. It is also interesting to note how the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) voted in the house the other night compared to what he said during the election campaign. As far back as 1958 the party to which he belongs promised to increase old age pensions to $100 per month but the other night in the house he voted against providing any additional assistance to our senior citizens. I trust that he will prove his intentions tonight by action rather than by words.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The hon. member to whom I referred also stated during the last election campaign that some people believed there was a tremendous vacuum building up in the country which would suck him into the office of Canada's Prime Minister. Some of the stuff-I use that word advisedly-that is being peddled around Alberta during election campaigns is absolutely amazing, particularly when compared with what one hears the same people say in Ottawa. This is a serious situation and we
228	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. J. H. Horner should all be judged by our actions rather than by our words. I am certain the hon. member lor Red Deer will be judged in that way in the next election, whenever it may be, by the people in the province of Alberta. One cannot continue to advocate one thing and vote against it here in Ottawa.
In looking at the Speech from the Throne I also considered it with interest in respect of the aid that will be forthcoming to the agricultural industry. In looking now at the agricultural portfolio I am seriously concerned. Let the Liberals travel throughout western Canada to ascertain what is wrong with the agricultural industry in that area, let them make repeated trips over long distances; I am sure they will in the end find that the difficulty so far as the agricultural industry is concerned has arisen because this government has never considered that industry to have any priority or rank.
Let us consider the poor former Minister of Agriculture from Calgary. He was a fine gentleman who worked hard for the industry but received little or no co-operation from his colleagues. The farmers of western Canada sensed this situation very quickly. The difficulties were obvious to everyone in view of several things that happened, one of which was the removal of part of that individual's portfolio for a period of one month followed by its return after bitter criticism levelled by his predecessor. These things convinced the farmers in western Canada how slight was the concern of the rest of the Liberals with regard to the agricultural industry.
At this time the agricultural industry employs somewhere in the neighbourhood of 11 per cent of the population and contributes over 40 per cent of the gross national product. This is a prime industry in Canada which should not be bandied about in the way it has been in the past. Basically the industry is proud of the way the new minister is attempting to do his job but again he is receiving stiff opposition from his colleagues in the government. We hope he is allowed to do his job and we stand behind him, but how is he to win his battles against the increasing odds? The government has split the agricultural portfolio in three ways. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) is still in the game because the wheat board, according to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), still reports to the Department of Trade and Commerce. The Minister of Finance still keeps in contact with the wheat board, according to what was reported in the Swift Current Sun of January 14, 1966, which is not

DEBATES	January 25, 1966
long ago. According to that press report the the Minister of Finance said:
As Finance Minister, I now will not be responsible for or to the wheat board.
Surely that is a surprising statement in view of the fact that we thought all along he was responsible. He continued and said:
However, I will answer for the wheat board in the house at the new session of parliament, and hope to remain a useful contact with them for the government,-
What kind of a slaughter is this? I suggest it is an example of the old rule of divide and conquer applied to the agriculture department. What has happened? We had a minister who had strong influence in the government. He made his presence felt and brought about beneficial results to the whole agricultural industry of Canada. What has this government now done? I am afraid they have picked the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) as the next goat. The former minister was a hard-working member but he was the goat of the twenty sixth parliament. Will the present Minister of Agriculture be the goat of the twenty seventh parliament?
The present government has divided the Department of Agriculture and taken away a good deal of the responsibility from the new minister. Some of that responsibility has been given to the Minister of Trade and Commerce who, if we believe what is said in the newspapers, is a very able man, perhaps intended to be the next Prime Minister of Canada or at least the next leader of the Liberal Party. That hon. gentleman is not allowed even to speak for his department. The Minister of Finance is the speaker in this house so far as wheat board policy is concerned. This is again an example of the rule of divide and conquer.
We now have a Department of Forestry associated in some way with rural development. That fact points out that the minister holding that portfolio will also have tremendous influence on the agricultural industry. In view of these facts, what are the government's plans for the hon. member for Renfrew South? Surely he is expected to catch the hot potatoes and attempt to throw them back at someone else.
The attitude now taken by the Liberal government in respect of agriculture reflects the Liberal attitude over the years. Even under the Mackenzie King regime the Liberals followed the rule of divide and conquer because it is safer for everyone in that no one knows what is being done or who is responsible. This practice has worked effectively in
January 25, 1966	COMMONS
the case of the C.B.C. I suppose the Liberals have decided to adopt it on behalf of other government departments.
We come to this house at this time not knowing who is responsible for national parks, and I suspect there is so much confusion that not even the members on the government front benches know who is responsible. The situation is the same in respect of agriculture and I know that the farmers all across Canada take a dim view of it. They would rather see one strong man than four weak ones fighting among themselves without any influence in the government. We saw a good example of this inefficiency recently in respect of the transportation of grain. When the situation was brought to light the Minister of Finance met with the Minister of Agriculture and the C.P.R. The two ministers came out of that meeting with very different statements and views. It is obvious to anyone who has read the newspapers since that meeting that the Minister of Agriculture is engaged in a series of conflicts with the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the spokesman for his department, the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Agriculture is apparently involved in conflicts with many of his colleagues in the cabinet. We hope he is the successful one and we are behind him because he has struck at one of the roots of the problems now existing in western Canada. I refer to the inefficient transportation of grain.
I remember the former Minister of Finance stating in his first budget speech that huge sales of grain had been made to communist countries and that they had been the lifesav-er with regard to the balance of payments problem in this country. What is going to happen today to the industry which has pulled Canada out of its balance of payment problems in the past? Surely there is some doubt about the answer in view of the fact that those responsible are fighting among themselves rather than co-operating in an attempt to solve these problems.
What happened at the meeting a day or two ago to which I referred? Apparently the Minister of Agriculture was told that the situation was not the C.P.R.'s fault and that the C.P.R. was doing a tremendous job. The Minister of Finance came out of the meeting and said the whole situation was the fault of the operators at the Vancouver terminal. If anyone cares to read the Calgary Herald of last Friday, he will see there a sharp denial by
DEBATES	229
The Address-Mr. J. H. Horner the Vancouver terminal operators. That article states that the Vancouver port operators deny that any delay was caused by them in respect of grain movement. The article states that sharp protests were sent to the Minister of Finance and that the Vancouver Merchants Exchange, representing the whole coastal operation, stated that the facilities were operating at about half capacity because of the lack of grain. The article also states that the United Grain Growers said that their terminal is half empty and has been half empty since the middle of November.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
What is the existing problem? The difficult situation which now exists has resulted from the shortage of box cars and the inefficiency of the railways in the movement of grain. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Minister of Finance does not say to the railways: Get this grain moving, because the agricultural industry has helped the Canadian economy in the past and will continue to do so in the future. But no. He takes a dog in the manger attitude toward western farmers generally and says, You are well enough off and we will move your grain when we want to. This is the attitude taken by a former Minister of Trade and Commerce, C. D. Howe. We told him to go out and sell Canadian wheat because there was a market for it in the world and he made that famous statement, "If they want to buy it, let them come and get it". A similar attitude was taken by C. D. Howe's deputy minister when he said: "The grain is there. We will get it to the ports eventually. Abide with us." This is what the farmers are being told and it is not good enough.
Many farms in my area are on a one bushel quota. Not too far away the farmers who are on a C.N.R. line are on a six bushel quota. Many farmers in my constituency have been able to move only 20 per cent of their grain although over 50 per cent of the crop year has already passed. You can imagine the rushed and confused state those points will be in during the last two months of the grain year.
This attitude of saying continually that everything is fine, the grain will move, is not good enough. We believe that the Minister of Agriculture is right when he says there should be an investigation into this whole question. The port facilities and the operations of the wheat board have not been investigated at all in the past few years. Until a few years ago the annual report of the
230	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. J. H. Horner wheat board was put before the Agricultural Committee every year but since this government took office they have not given the elected representatives of the people the chance to examine the operations of the board and see how it is handling this commodity. The wheat board should be brought before the agriculture committee. The C.P.R. should be brought before the Transportation Committee. The reports of these two bodies should be fully investigated in order that we may know why box cars have not been available and grain has not been moved.
We should examine statements like that of the United Grain Growers that terminal elevators in Vancouver with a capacity of 3J million bushels have been half empty since November. Surely we should examine these matters and see where the problem is, so that in the years ahead we may benefit from the mistakes that have been made in the past year. The U.G.G. went on to say that they can handle 480 box cars a week and they have only been getting about 270. The port facilities at Vancouver can handle something like 30 million bushels a month but they have only been getting something like 14.7 million bushels a month for the past while.
Where is the problem? It is not, as the Minister of Finance says it is, at the terminals and in the port facilities. It is not at the country elevators because I know the farmers are ready to fill them the minute space is available. Therefore the problem must lie between the elevators and the ports in the transportation field. It is said that the Crowsnest pass rates are perhaps not compensatory and maybe this is so. We in western Canada believe that they are. They are the Magna Carta of western Canada and they will be maintained. But other costs have gone up. We do not doubt for one minute that railroading costs have gone up in the past few years, but what steps have the railways taken to become more efficient in the handling of grain?
Recently we have seen new box cars come into being for the handling of pulp chips and for the transportation of automobiles. But wheat is still transported in the old 2,000 bushel cars. In the movement of wheat there has really been no change. With the use of aluminum alloys in box cars there is no doubt whatever that greater efficiency could be achieved in the handling of this commodity if there was. a desire to serve. The Minister

DEBATES	January 25, 1986
of Agriculture put his finger on the problem the other day. Greater efficiency could be achieved if there was on the part of the C.P.R. the desire to serve and to meet their obligations to Canada, because we all know that the C.P.R. has received compensation far and beyond the services they will be able to provide. This compensation has taken the form of grants of land, mineral rights and so on in western Canada.
To my mind this is a very serious problem, and in the days ahead I hope the cabinet can get together and iron out who is the boss. Does the Minister of Trade and Commerce need the Minister of Finance to be his spokesman? Does the Minister of Agriculture have any influence at all on his colleagues in the cabinet? This is what western Canada will be watching. They will be watching the Minister of Agriculture, not because he is an easterner, not because he is a lawyer, but to see if he can produce the goods and exert any influence at all on his fellow cabinet members. We will be watching him carefully. I am aware of the small measures for agriculture mentioned in the Speech from the Throne: Another 5 per cent on the premium for crop insurance, a national dairy commission, a feed grain marketing agency which will have the power to buy, store and sell. We will be watching these measures too. But the best thing the Minister of Agriculture can do right now for western Canada is move the grain and we hope that he will be successful in this connection. I should like to deal with another subject that is very important in western Canada today. I refer to our relations with other trading nations. Over the week end I had the opportunity to visit the site of Expo '67 and see the preparatory work being carried out there for Canada's centennial and Expo. I was greatly impressed with the groundwork that has been done. We were told that it is on schedule and I hope it is. I know this exposition will be of tremendous benefit to all Canada. I was a little disappointed though, to put it mildly, that on the map showing where the pavilions are to be built by the various countries there were the words "Republic of China" with an arrow running down to a little square box. One would naturally think that this referred to communist China. At least, that is what my knowledge would lead me to believe. But no, it refers to Formosa.
When I questioned one of the officials I was told that invitations were sent out by the
January 25, 1966

Department of External Affairs and no invitation had been sent to communist China. I think this is a grave omission. Canada, a young nation, had an opportunity to invite these people to our trade fair and try to convince them that capitalism and communism can co-exist. This is where the complete hope for world survival lies, in the fact that we must convince communist China that we can live alongside them without fighting with them. Russia under Khrushchev reached this degree of education or civilization, however you want to term it. Russia under Khrushchev realized that she must co-exist with other nations, and said that she could co-exist with them.
China has to be brought along in the same way and to the same degree through education and civilization. How better could Canada play a major part in bringing about co-existence than by inviting China to take part in our trade fair? We have apparently invited Russia, and Yugoslavia. Russia is going to spend $15 million to build their pavil-lion at the Canadian Exposition. Russia and Yugoslavia are communist countries; yet we did not invite communist China. One of the authorities in Montreal said to me-he kind of smiled when he said it-"Which would you rather have, the United States or communist China?" To my mind this was just an empty threat. I am certain that in this case the government is using the United States as a goat because they do not have the intestinal fortitude to be bold, to take the initiative and invite communist China.
The United States was not particularly happy when we continued to trade with Cuba a few years ago. The late President Kennedy was smoking a Cuban cigar but when this was pointed out to him he quickly threw the cigar away. We continued to trade with Cuba. We then started to trade with communist China. The United States was not particularly happy when we traded with Russia. Wheat surpluses started to disappear in this country and in the United States because of our extensive trade with communist countries. We have relieved the wheat surplus of the world to the point where there is almost an equal balance. There is a manageable balance in this commodity at the moment.
The United States was not particularly happy with the steps we took but we proved to them that these steps were in the right direction and they are now trading to some extent with Russia and trying to sell them wheat. There was a golden opportunity and

The Address-Mr. J. H. Horner still is for the Department of External Affairs to send an invitation to communist China. We have traded over a billion dollars worth of goods with them in the past three years. Why can we not invite these people to attend a trade fair? Do we not believe that trade is a two way street, that we must buy from them if we expect them to continue buying our products in the quantities in which they have bought them? We must make overtures to them far greater than we have in the past.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I believe there is still time for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to act in this regard. We are a young and growing country that cannot continue to turn a blind eye to one of our greatest customers, a country with a quarter of the world's population. In my opinion the steps that should be taken are grave and the people of western Canada are watching with interest the government's attitude toward this particular question. Government officials really do not have to take so many trips to the west to ascertain what is wrong. They must know they failed to act during the last three years and that this is what is wrong. If they fail again they can expect little support at the polls in the years ahead.
I have one other recommendation to make with regard to agriculture generally. We all know that the costs of production in the field of agriculture have been rising. One of the first statements that the Minister of Agriculture made after assuming office was that the family farm must be protected. This is an old cliche that farm leaders trot out every once in a while. We will watch what action he is going to take to protect the Canadian family farm.
In 1949, 23 per cent of the price of a loaf of bread went back to the farmer. Today, something less than 7 per cent or 8 per cent of the price of a loaf of bread goes back to the farmer. In 1949 the beef price index stood at 100. In 1965 it was 140 but there was no real change in the price the farmer received for his livestock when he sold it to the packing plant. We say that there must be greater efficiency in the agricultural industry including greater efficiency by farmers. The Speech from the Throne indicates that the government intends to buy uneconomic units and replace inefficient farmers with efficient farmers, men who know how to operate farms. Let them try to buy up the people who are marketing the farmers' goods because in this area lies the greatest inefficiency.
January 25, 1966

The Address-Hon. Paul Martin
The Price Spreads Commission reported that in 1959 wholesalers' profits were around 15 per cent. They have gone up to nearly 25 per cent today. This represents a 25 per cent profit on the marketing of the farmers' goods. Yet we wonder why there is such a spread between what the farmer receives and what the customer has to pay for these products. This is where the greatest percentage of the difference lies.
We look at the farmers' cost picture. We can look at the whole list and find, according to a recent article in the Family Herald, that in the last ten years the costs of equipment and material have gone up over 20 per cent, that farm wages have gone up over 50 per cent in the last ten years and the cost of fertilizer has gone up over 25 per cent. Gasoline, taxes and all other costs have increased. Yet there has been no real increase in the return to the farmers from the sale of their products. Then we say to ourselves. Is the farmer efficient? He must be tremendously efficient in order to stay afloat. In my opinion this is the problem.
In an earlier speech in this house I suggested that there should be a thorough investigation, a continuation of the work of the Price Spreads Commission. I am certain that the inefficiency in the marketing of the farmers' products is one of the real causes of hardship for many of the farmers. I will continue to watch the legislation which is introduced in the house in the hope that it will meet some of the problems facing agriculture today and in the years ahead. Certainly the Speech from the Throne contains no prediction that any really helpful legislation will be introduced in so far as Canadian agriculture is concerned.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all extend to the Speaker of the house my warmest congratulations on his unanimous election to the high office which has been entrusted to him. To you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I likewise say how proud we are that the members of this house has selected you to associate yourself in a collaborative way with Mr. Speaker. Perhaps as the member of this house who has been here longest I may be permitted to extend special congratulations to the mover (Mr. Goyer) and seconder (Mr. Stanbury) of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, both of whom acquitted themselves with distinction.
I trust, sir, that there will be an opportunity soon for the house to undertake a broad

review of foreign affairs. Today I thought I should like to confine my statement on behalf of the government, to the crucial issue of Viet Nam. No issue has so much preoccupied public opinion in Canada or the members of this house in recent months. No issue has aroused greater misgivings or greater uncertainty about where the right course for Canada lies. Probably no issue has cast a darker shadow on the prospects of peaceful accommodation and peaceful co-operation in the world.
The policy of the government in relation to the Viet Nam problem is now a matter of record. It was stated before the External Affairs Committee on Wednesday and Thursday, June 9 and 10. If I restate it today, it is because I regard it as right to do so at the outset of this new parliament and in the light of recent significant developments in the situation.
In our view the situation in Viet Nam needs to be viewed from three separate perspectives. First, there is what I might call the perspective of internal dissent in South Viet Nam. This is something we must expect in any new country where the people live on the margin of subsistence. It exists because the process of social and economic transformation that is the basis of any significant development is bound to involve dislocation and disruption. It exists in greater degree in a country like South Viet Nam because of the intervention from the outside. This in turn has made it impossible for successive governments in that country to lay a recognizable basis for political stability.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
But let us not on that account equate that outside intervention with the desire for social and economic change. Let us remember that long before the conflict in South Viet Nam erupted into open hostilities it was the agents of change-the administrators, the teachers, the public health workers and others like them-who were the prime targets of terror. Let us remember that whatever the change of government in Saigon, and there have been many, the level of that terror did not abate. And let us also remember that when the government of President Diem was forcibly overthrown in 1963, it was not overthrown by men or groups whose loyalty was pledged to the Viet Cong.
This is not to discount or to downgrade the hold which the Viet Cong has by one means or another been able to establish over sections of South Viet Nam and its people; it is merely to suggest that we would be entirely
January 25, 1966	COMMONS
mistaken if we regarded the Viet Cong as embodying a consensus of dissent in Viet Nam. So far as we know, none of the major groupings in South Viet Nam, the Buddhists, the Catholics, the trade unions, the intellectuals, the students, are significantly represented in the Viet Cong movement. Certainly there is nothing to suggest that there is any basis for the claim of the Viet Cong to be the sole legitimate representative of the people of South Viet Nam.
Second, there is the matter of outside intervention. Admittedly this is a difficult situation to disentangle in a divided country. After all, it is often argued: What is the sense in speaking of intervention in a context where Vietnamese are involved on both sides? I suggest to the house that whatever the circumstances in which these dividing lines were drawn they have come to reflect political realities which it will take time to alter. They neither justify nor diminish the fact of aggression.
What is happening in Viet Nam may not be aggression in the classical sense of the term but it is aggression all the same, and it is aggression carried out in this case under the guise of a war of liberation. The aim of that aggression is to establish in South Viet Nam a form of political organization which we have no evidence to suggest that the people of South Viet Nam would freely choose for themselves.
We have said that in principle we appreciate and support the purposes and objectives of the policy of the United States. This was affirmed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) when the matter was first discussed in this house. We have said that because, as the Prime Minister put it, we cannot in this nuclear world of ours "afford any permissible kinds of international violence" of the kind by which the North Vietnamese are trying to achieve their objectives in the South. We have said this because we are of the view that the people of South Viet Nam must be left to work out their own future free from outside pressure or intervention. We are not disposed to deny to the people of the south the right of self-determination which we have conceded to others in accordance with the solemn principles of the charter of the United Nations.
Third, there is an even more broad perspective, one from which I think the course of developments in Viet Nam has to be viewed.
I do not want to urge on the house the "domino" or any other currently fashionable 2303a-16
DEBATES	233
The Address-Hon. Paul Martin theory. But I do suggest to the house that we cannot look at the situation in Viet Nam in isolation. In neighbouring Laos the country is to all intents and purposes partitioned. The part that is under Pathet Lao control is being freely used for the movement of men and materials from North to South Viet Nam. Members of the armed forces of North Viet Nam have been engaged in open attacks against the armed forces of the royal government of Laos. All this is in clear contravention of the undertakings solemnly given in Geneva in 1962; and Canada was a member of that conference.
In northeastern and southern Thailand there are the beginnings of the same kind of terror which marked the first phase of insurgency in South Viet Nam. As in the case of South Viet Nam this is being aided and abetted from outside but with this difference, that the Thai Patriotic Front, as it is called, is still operating from Peking. It has within the past several weeks been joined by a new clandestine organization, the National Liberation League and Army of Malaysia, which is dedicated to the overthrow by revolutionary means of the government of Malaysia.
Are we, then, seriously to assume that all these movements are coming into being because the legitimate channels of local dissent in these countries have been closed? Or is this part of the pattern of permanent revolution which is being propagated in some quarters? I suggest to the house, on my responsibility as Secretary of State for External Affairs, that these are questions which we must seriously ponder before we condemn United States policy in Viet Nam in the very vigorous terms used by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) in his earlier intervention in this debate.
That is our assessment of the forces that are at work in the present conflict. There are those who would have us alter that assessment for the mere sake of giving the appearance of Canadian independence as though independence consisted only in taking positions which are necessarily against those of one's friends. Our policy in this situation represents our own honest assessment of the position and is not a reflection in any way of pressure imposed on us by the United States or by any other country. In this matter we are as independent as is Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. I say to the house that after more than 11 years of active involvement in the situation in Viet Nam we
January 25, 1966

The Address-Hon. Paul Martin are perfectly capable of arriving at an independent assessment of that situation without having recouse to false credentials. The question we must surely ask ourselves is this: Can we ignore the challenge of the aggression by these communist liberation fronts in Asia?
Were we able to ignore the situation in Europe 20 years ago? I am not saying that the situation in Europe now is comparable with that existing at present in Asia. Undoubtedly there is a detente in effect between the west and the Soviet union in Europe. I am talking about the situation in Asia where a different state of affairs prevails, but where there are some comparisons to the history of the immediate post-war period in Europe. No one will deny that mistakes have been made in Asia and I think some have been made by the United States. But there is, it seems to me, a parallel between the situation in Asia and that in Europe following the end of the war.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
We must ask ourselves what the failure of United States efforts in Asia would mean to us as well as to that country. We must ask ourselves what it would mean to India, to Thailand, to the island countries, the Philippines, New Zealand and Australia. We must ask ourselves what it would mean to many countries in Asia and Africa which, although critical of the United States, would be deeply concerned over a communist victory in Viet Nam. I ask what would be the concern of the Soviet union in these circumstances. I must ask the house whether Canada's real interests would be promoted by a United States defeat. I must ask the house what such a defeat would mean by way of encouragement to an aggressive brand of political action. It is because of these considerations for Canada and other countries that we cannot deny the importance of this conflict in Viet Nam to us all. I have given the house my assessment of the conflict. I shall now turn to the policy which we have thought it right for Canada to follow in relation to this conflict.
In the first place, there is our membership on the International Commission. The house is well aware that this has been an increasingly frustrating commitment. The circumstances facing the Commission today bear little resemblance to those envisaged when the Commission was given its mandate. Nevertheless, we have throught it right to maintain a Canadian presence in Viet Nam. We


have done so because the Commission still has a function to perform in bringing its objective judgment to bear on the facts of the situation, because the Commission continues to maintain, at least in symbolic form, the validity of the Geneva Agreements on which, all the parties seem to agree, any fresh settlement of the Viet Nam conflict must be constructed, and because the Commission may still be able to play a part in the context of such a settlement, if not to serve as a channel of contact between the parties themselves.
The charge is sometimes made that Canada has failed to act impartially in discharging its responsibilities on the Commission. This charge, in my judgment and on my examination and on the advice of my officers in whom I have the fullest confidence, men who have served Canada in Indo-China for 11 years, has no basis in fact. I reject it without any hesitation. We have acted impartially in relation to all the facts and all the evidence which has come before the Commission. Contrary to what is sometimes asserted, we have been associated with findings against South Viet Nam as we have been associated with findings against the North. We subscribed to the Commission's Special Report of June 1962 because it represented a balanced presentation of events in Viet Nam. We also appended a minority report to the Commission's special message of February 1965, not because we disputed the findings of the majority, but because it was our view that there were other factors which it was legitimate to include on the basis of all the evidence available to us at that time. In all this, I think, we need make no apology to our Commission partners for the way in which we have interpreted our responsibilities on the Commission.
To my knowledge, for example-and I state this not by way of criticism but by way of fact-our Polish colleagues on the Commission have never found occasion to support a finding against North Viet Nam and have frequently refused even to participate in an investigation where such a finding was likely to be the outcome. Yet it would be found that Canada as a member of the Commission did not hesitate where this was called for to criticize the actions of the government in the South. The Commission has no authority to criticize any state not a signatory of the Geneva agreement but the implications are there for everyone to read and there was no reservation made in the Canadian position with regard to the Commission's report of 1962.
January 25, 1966	COMMONS
Then there is the matter of sending Canadian troops to Viet Nam. We have made it as clear as it can be made that we would not regard such a course as being compatible with our responsibilities on the International Commission in Viet Nam. This is far from being the frivolous argument as some have professed it to be. The Geneva cease fire agreement which the Commission is there to administer prohibits in its very terms the introduction of military forces into either part of Viet Nam. It would scarcely be right for one of the powers which has been entrusted with the supervision of the agreement to abet one of the parties in an infraction of its terms. Any other position on our part would certainly have the gravest consequences to our ability to carry out peacekeeping functions not only in this area but more generally and in other contexts. I believe we can all take pride in Canada's achievements in this field of international activity and I believe it is imperative in the interests of international peacekeeping not to jeopardize our ability to contribute significantly to such activities.
Altogether apart from membership on the Commission, however, the government's policy, as I have stated it twice in this house and as it was reaffirmed by the Prime Minister the other day, is that the government has no intention to recommend at any time the commitment of our forces to Asia unless pursuant to an obligation under the charter of the United Nations.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the proviso additional to what the Prime Minister said?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, I do not think it is.
My next point is this. Our policy has been directed toward helping to bring the present conflict from the battlefield to the negotiating table. This has always been our position and it remains our objective. We have made it clear, and the Prime Minister did so again only the other day, that we do not look upon the present conflict as being amenable to a military solution alone. We have taken every opportunity available to us to probe the possibilities for peace and, indeed, we are doing that at this very time. We proposed a pause in the bombing of North Viet Nam last April, not because we looked to one side only to make concessions but because we hoped that such a pause might provide a climate in which it would prove easier for the other side
23033-16J
DEBATES	235
The Address-Hon. Paul Martin to respond in a positive way. We have welcomed the current pause, which has now been in effect for an entire month, and the search for a peaceful conclusion of the conflict which has accompanied it. Although the absence of any positive response from the other side has been a matter of deep disappointment to us, we have expressed the hope that the pause might be further extended until all reasonable possibilities have been exhausted. I simply ask: Have all reasonable possibilities been exhausted? I would hope that the pause would continue as long as possible. I would hope that before any final step were taken in this regard the most careful consideration would be given to an examination of any indication that North Viet Nam was now seriously engaged in examining the possibility of negotiations. In the final analysis, however, we must recognize that it is not for Canada to take the crucial decisions which lie immediately ahead since we are not a party to the hostilities. On the other hand, we do think there may well be a contribution which Canada can make to an ultimate settlement because of the long experience we have had of the problems at issue in this whole area.
We have expressed our regret that in a situation which so deeply engages the concern of the international community, the United Nations has been prevented from playing any effective part. We recognize, as the Secretary General did again in his press conference on Thursday last, that there are reasons why the United Nations has been unable to act in the present circumstances.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Because it has been ignored.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: My hon. friend is quite right; it has been ignored. It is clear that China would regard the Secretary General, I regret to say, as persona non grata. It is true that China is not a member of the United Nations. It is true that South and North Viet Nam are not members. It has not been possible to use the United Nations fully and there has been a failure on the part of some nations to appreciate the great role that the office of the Secretary General affords in so delicate a situation.
These are obvious reasons why the United Nations has been unable to act and why the Secretary General himself has not been able to act as fully as he would have liked. But I hope he will continue to explore all the
238	COMMONS
The Address-Hon. Paul Martin possibilities that may be open to him as Secretary General to encourage action that will set this conflict on a course of peace. I would also hope with him that there may yet be a role for the United Nations in securing the terms of any settlement of the present conflict. If and when that time comes, I can assure the Secretary General and the house that the Canadian government will do whatever it can to enable the United Nations to carry out its responsibilities in this area as it has done in similar circumstances elsewhere.
We have also directed our thinking toward the great task of rehabilitation in that whole area that will have to form a part of any durable settlement of the Viet Nam conflict. We have resumed our pledge to participate in the works of the Mekong development committee. We have subscribed to the capital of the Asian Development Bank which has now been established. We are prepared to devote further substantial resources to regional development in Southeast Asia in which I hope both communities in Viet Nam eoukl play their full part and derive their full benefit. Indeed, I would go further and say that I would look toward this whole field of regional development as providing a framework within which these two communities might be able to establish a basis for mutual acceptance and co-operation.
Over the past month, Mr. Speaker, efforts have been made by many countries to explore the opportunities there may be for peace in Viet Nam. Canada alone, and Canada in concert with others, has done what it could do to try and bring about negotiations. The house will be aware of the efforts which have recently been made by the United States to reaffirm its readiness to negotiate an honourable conclusion to the present conflict. We are satisfied beyond any doubt that the efforts of the United States during the past month through its Secretary of State, through its Vice President, through its delegate to the United Nations and through others, have been sincerely directed toward trying to bring about negotiations without any preconditions. It is regrettable that no response has been forthcoming, and I think it is only fair to point out that, whatever some may think of the course of action by our neighbour, the fact is that no one can suggest that the United States has not sincerely sought to achieve negotiations. As I said in the United Nations, those who criticize

DEBATES	January 25, 1966
the United States ought to engage in the same energetic pursuit to persuade North Viet Nam and others that the time has come when we should have negotiations to establish peace.
I cannot predict how much longer the present pause in the bombing of North Viet Nam will last. I can assure the house that our views in this regard have been made known in a way which we believe, in the circumstances, to be the most effective way of presenting our point of view. What has happened in conjunction with this pause was an effort by the United States to seek peace.
In the short run, there may well be an intensification of the level of military activity in Viet Nam. I would hope that even at this hour we could avoid that possibility and that we would have some positive indication from Hanoi, as a result of the efforts that have been made during the course of the last weeks to try and bring about negotiations with the North consistent with the offer to negotiate that has been made.
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the Geneva Agreement is regarded by the parties as a suitable point of departure for any future settlement. I would not want to suggest to the house that there is formal agreement between the parties on this particular formulation. The government of North Viet Nam holds that its four points contain the essence of the military and political provisions agreed to at Geneva and must be accepted publicly by the United States before any political settlement of the Viet Nam problem can be envisaged. What I am concerned to do is to state the minimum common ground on which there appears to be agreement and from which negotiation would necessarily have to proceed.
There would also seem to be agreement between the parties that there should be a withdrawal of foreign military forces and a dismantling of foreign military bases in Viet Nam. This is again a minimum formulation. The government of North Viet Nam would regard this as a prior condition to any settlement. For its part the United States has made it clear that it wants neither a continuing military presence in South Viet Nam nor bases in Southeast Asia. But it has also made it clear that this is on condition that there is peace in the area.
So far as the internal affairs of South Viet Nam are concerned, there is agreement on
January 25, 1966	COMMONS
the basic proposition that these must be settled by the people of South Viet Nam themselves without any foreign interference.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Why didn't you let them do that in the first place?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend asks why didn't we let them do that. My hon. friend is asking a question in the parliament of Canada. As I said a moment ago, Canada as a member of the Commission sought to see to it that the Geneva Agreement was fully implemented by the parties. The record is there to show how the infractions have taken place and how they have been caused. The record has not been one-sided, and I have acknowledged this.
Because of the time limit, Mr. Speaker, I can only say that the government has been following this matter with great concern. As I have indicated, we are not a belligerent-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: Order. I regret to interrupt the minister but the time allotted for his speech has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I understand that there is unanimous consent of the house for the minister to conclude his remarks.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have said that we are not one of the belligerents in this regrettable conflict. We regret that the United Nations is not capable of serving the function for which its charter provides. That is not the fault of a country like Canada or the fault of any one member of the United Nations. This is a situation involving grave issues and the government has had to consider, in its assessment of the problem, the consequences in Asia which in the fullness of time could well provide the same effects as attended the end of the second world war.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I believe that our relations with the Soviet union are now on a much firmer foundation.
I believe that the threat of conflict between the Soviet union and the west has very considerably receded. However, we are now faced with a dangerous situation in Asia. Canada as a member of the International Commission is doing its utmost to discharge its responsibilities. Canada is ready to do what it can to provide resources to help in bringing about economic improvement in this regrettably unstable region if only there can
DEBATES	237
The Address-Mr. Johnston be peace, and peace is possible only if the parties to a dispute are willing to engage in a fruitful discussion. I can assure the house that this government has done everything it could to bring about discussions leading to negotiations which we hope could bring peace in Indo-China.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, before the minister takes his seat I wonder whether I could be permitted to ask a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: Order, please. The time allotted for the minister has expired. However, if there is unanimous consent of the house perhaps the hon. member may ask his question. Does the hon. member have the consent of the house to ask the minister a question and will the house permit the minister to reply?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the minister has been given permission to continue his speech. I merely wish to ask him a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: Order, please. I regret that the hon. member does not have the unanimous consent of the house to pursue the debate on this topic. I recognize the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston).


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you on your election to your high office. In the short time in which you have carried out your duties in this house you have done so with a rare ability that has been a particular reassurance to those members like myself who are newly arrived. I should like also to congratulate the hon. members for Dollard (Mr. Goyer) and York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) for the able way in which they moved and seconded the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
I extend my congratulations too to my colleagues who have preceded me to this house and have been returned again and to our national leader, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), both on his election and his re-endorsation as national leader at the national convention in Edmonton. I should like too to express my congratulations to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). I am sure members will
238	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Johnston appreciate my disadvantage in being pointed out as one of the two new faces from British Columbia when the other is so attractive. I should like also to join in the tributes paid to her late husband, particularly because of the services he rendered to a minority group dear to my heart when, with a courage all too rare in Canadian politics, he spoke out against the treatment accorded Canadians of Japanese origin during the dark days of the last war.
I am deeply concerned about the amendment that is before the house. Throughout the campaign our stand as a minority group was that we would support good legislation when it was brought forward in the house. I should like to state clearly now that our policy has not changed, that we are determined to continue to fight for the old age pensioner and for all the much needed, much delayed legislation that is to come before this house. We are not prepared to throw in the towel and this amendment, no matter how defiantly presented, amounts to just that.
I do not feel that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) in his effort last night proposed any particular way out of the present situation. We have gone through one unnecessary election and it seems to me quite possible that we may have to go through another.
It would be foolish to deny that I resent being caught in the middle between the failure of the government to specify in the Speech from the Throne its intentions toward the old age pensioners qn the one hand and the recklessness of the rest of the opposition in attempting to bring on either an election or a chaotic constitutional crisis on the other. But I am convinced that our course is right and is the one that will most rapidly provide assistance to the old age pensioners.
I am proud to stand in this house as a Social Credit member. It is 30 years ago that the first Social Credit members came to this house and I believe the things they were trying to say then still need to be said today. I am not going to speak at length on Social Credit policy but I would like to quote from a book published in 1962 that some of you will know. I refer to "The Challenge of Abundance" by Robert Theobald and I use it to show that the ideas held by Social Credit since its inception are very much alive.
A government can use three different methods to obtain the funds it requires to meet obligations. First, it can tax its citizens and institutions thus gaining possession of their money. Second, it can borrow money from people and institutions and

DEBATES	January 25, 1966
pay interest on the amount it borrows. Third, tt can simply create money and use the resulting funds to make its purchases.
Later he states:
... if we changed our values it could easily seem appropriate for the government to take over a function now performed by the banks-that of the creation of credit.
Increasingly in years to come we will hear the expression, "the guaranteed annual income". It was used in this house the other day by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) but used in a way that would surprise its inventor. If it is used the guaranteed annual income must be used to break the work-income link for an entire society and not, as was proposed, as a device to level everybody to one grey existence.
I represent a constituency of rare beauty comprising as it does part of the Okanagan Valley and part of the mountains of the Selkirk range, a constituency that was ably represented in the last house by a member who chose not to run again. It will be my task to measure up to the standards of representation set by Mr. Fleming and by the constituency's first representative, the late George McLeod, whom some of you will remember. His death in December was a source of sorrow to the constituency and to me personally. He lived to know that his seat had returned to the ranks of Social Credit and that joy we at least had time to share.
As the new representative for Okanagan-Revelstoke I should like to express the concern of the constituency over recent developments. Many of the residents of Revelstoke must be seriously alarmed over the decision of the Board of Transport Commissioners to allow the C.P.R. to cancel its "Dominion" train. May I urge that the government act swiftly to restore that service on which so many Canadians relied for transportation and employment. At the other end of the constituency the city of Vernon has been disturbed by the proposed redistribution which would further divorce it from the rest of the Okanagan Valley without adding to it any area geographically related. This city has been engaged in a truly remarkable effort of self-improvement in the construction of its civic centre complex and deserves a better fate than to become one end of a constituency that would meander away from it for hundreds of miles to the very end of the province.
The Speech from the Throne is amazing for its length and for the variety of unfinished
January 25, 1966	COMMONS
business. I note that the government has said that this country is enjoying an unprecedented period of prosperity and growth. Perhaps some credit should have been given here to provincial initiative. This prosperity is dependent to a remarkable extent on the surging economies of the western provinces, and I do not recall that the policies of this government have been in advance of those of the provinces. When one thinks of trade and banking and transportation policies the opposite would seem to be true.
The Speech from the Throne has made reference to a good harvest throughout the country. I should like to remind the house that there have been areas in which the harvests have not been good. I want to express my appreciation on behalf of the Okanagan Valley for the efforts that have been made in regard to the fruit industry through rehabilitation payments.
I endorse very heartily that portion of the Speech from the Throne which refers to unemployment insurance for agricultural workers and the extension of crop insurance. These measures are vitally needed in the Okanagan Valley, which will play an increasingly important role in providing this nation's food. These measures must not be delayed.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
That part of the Speech from the Throne which dealt with measures to reduce poverty was encouraging. Two things about it bother me. One is that any attempt to reduce poverty in this nation must be handled to a considerable extent through the Indian Affairs Department. I would congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) on the inclusion of that department within his Northern Affairs portfolio, but I would remind the house that since 1962 this department has been headed by no fewer than six people with terms of office averaging six and a fraction months.
If I may be so bold as to offer some advice to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), I would suggest that he leave the hon. member for Vancouver South with this department for the duration of this parliament. In offering this advice I am echoing the words of an editorial in "The Native Voice", published in my province, which says:
"We hope he will have a chance to stay on and to deal with such issues as the Indian claims commission and the very grave questions raised in the brief on the War on Poverty Conference".
DEBATES	239
The Address

Mr. Johnston
I say this, Mr. Speaker, because a very essential prelude to action and change, and one that the native peoples of this country want, is the knowledge that those in charge of their welfare really care. Nothing does more to add to the prevailing cynicism of these people toward their government than the constant shift of ministerial responsibility for their department. The fact that the Indian is near the bottom in this country does not have to be emphasized by making his department a stepping stone. If I may make a suggestion to the minister, it would be that he occasionally select an issue of his excellent departmental newspaper, "Indian News", and give it a much wider distribution to the general public. This would go far to dispel a far too widely held opinion regarding the capabilities of this group.
If I may make a further suggestion, it is that the department assist in any way possible the pre-school education of Indian children. I know there are reservations keenly interested in introducing something like Operation Headstart-I hate to borrow that phrase but it is more meaningful, I think, than any other phrase we could use-that will enable Indian children to compete at grade one level with a better chance of success. I say this, Mr. Speaker, because it is not good enough just to integrate school systems and take children who are far behind in cultural development and put them with children of the same age who are far ahead. For far too many of them failure begins in grade one and from this initial experience too many of them never recover.
I am a little concerned about the preliminary report on rural poverty and the struggle against poverty. I have read this interesting document. I do not know whether it is necessary to repeat at any length all the case studies involved but it seems to me that once you establish a definition of poverty you know what it means, and it tastes the same, smells the same, and people feel the same cold, and die in the same way regardless of the part of the country in which they live. I wish very, very much that people writing about poverty would stop using a television set as some sort of measure either of poverty or of wealth. I have never quite realized which it is supposed to suggest because I know there are a great many people who are wealthy but do not have a television set, not because of a program of poverty but because of the poverty of the programs.
January 25, 1966

The Address-Mr. Johnston


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Earl Johnston: Another thing that concerns me about the struggle against poverty, and which to my knowledge has been repeated three times already in the house, is the comparison of the salaries of members of this house with either the old age pension or the definition of poverty, because I can assure hon. members that when I retire from the house I will not go to $75 a month. Recent salary agreements have been arrived at with the school teachers in my province of British Columbia. The salary for some school principals now extends to $16,000 a year and this is not a bit too high. By the time this house gets around to raising the stipend of its members, the salary paid to teachers will have gone past the stipend of hon. members, and even then it will not be a bit too high either. In addition, Mr. Speaker, it would give me the advantage of living in the province of British Columbia all the year round, which is in itself worth a great deal.
We cannot win a war on poverty by joining the enemy. It would not do a thing for the economic situation of the country if we all took this attitude with regard to poverty. I am convinced that every one of us can be worthy of his hire, and as a new member I would say that I welcomed the measure to raise the stipend of the members of the House of Commons to a realistic level a few years ago and I resent the suggestion that somehow we should feel guilty about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Earl Johnston: I trust that the government is serious about its announced intention of "bringing this nation's existing resources and growing industrial capacities to the attention of the world". I hope they will apply this project particularly to that area of the world known as the Pacific rim, where our trade opportunities have been great and will grow and will grow more rapidly if the government modifies some of its attitudes toward trade with oriental nations and allows them the same access to Canadian markets that is allowed to other nations.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I see no mention of the Canada Elections Act in the Speech from the Throne. In my opinion the act is long overdue for reform. All the members of this house have just fought their way through an election in which their problems were greatly added to by that anachronistic piece of legislation. It is strange that in a world where

everything is being made easier-communication, automation, instant foods-the one thing that becomes increasingly harder to do is get on a voters' list and vote. The voting age needs urgently to be reduced. How many members have recently knocked on a door and been greeted by a young mother with several children who had no interest in the election whatsoever because she was not yet 21?
By retaining 21 as the voting age we will fly in the face of all that science tells us about our early-developing youth. It is not much wonder that we find amongst the young people of this country a growing interest in protest movements and in the philosophy that leads to picketing and the bypassing of this parliament, because the level set for the voting age is not a realistic one. As long as we allow our young people to marry, to start raising families, to make so many extremely important decisions for which they are then responsible for the rest of their lives, while saying that they must wait until they are 21 before they can make a decision that they would at least have the opportunity of reversing probably within six months or a year, not reducing the age for voting seems to me rather foolish.
We need a permanent voters' list and we need a commission to investigate improved methods of voting. One has only to consider what took place during the last election to realize that improved methods of voting are necessary. When people voted in the last election the ballot was hardly secret when they were crowded behind those bits of cardboard provided for this purpose. We have a commission on election expenses. It would be better to set up a commission to examine the whole system and ensure a better use of the money spent. We are the only people who can alter this situation. We should bring our election machinery into this century. People marvel at the speed with which the votes are counted. They marvel at all the electronic devices which go into action when the votes are counted whereby all the counting is over in an hour or so. It is time we looked at some of the marvels of this age and used them in our electoral system.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Some of us visited the site of Expo '67 in Montreal last Saturday. One of its theme buildings will show man in control. How ironical it will be if we refuse to change here
January 25, 1966

while a short distance away is the world of tomorrow where man in control is unveiled. If we fail we shall find some day that someone will throw a geodesic dome over this entire hill and someone will be standing at the gate selling tickets to what will be, in some ways, a sideshow while the real life of Canada will have bypassed it. We are here to lead this country. We are here to produce the legislation that this country needs. Let us get on with the job.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to convey my congratulations to the Speaker of the house. I hope, sir, you will convey my congratulations and best wishes to the Speaker in his very difficult task of being our defender in this House of Commons. I should like to say a word of commendation to the mover (Mr. Goyer) and seconder (Mr. Stanbury) of the Address in Reply to the Speech from Throne. They represent two great urban constituencies. I hope that some day their voices will be voices that follow policies for the people as enunciated on this side of the house.
I ask one question in this debate, Mr. Speaker. What is this debate all about? Is it about the glories and beauties of our constituencies? The answer to that question is self-evident. Is it about the standpat nature of the Speech from the Throne itself? Obviously the answer is no. There is only one thing that is of real concern in this debate. The amendment makes the issue brutally clear. The issue on which we shall vote tonight is whether or not approximately one million Canadian citizens who have borne the brunt of bringing this nation from the pioneer stage to a rapidly growing industrial nation shall have the standard of living that they deserve in the cost structure which exists in Canada today. There is no other issue.
During the last election campaign the Progressive Conservative party pledged itself to support an immediate pension of $100 per month to those on old age security. This was our pledge and this is the reason for our first motion in this house. The New Democratic party pledged itself not only to the $100 per month but to reduce the eligible age under old age security legislation to 65. They have stood up in this house and moved their motion. We supported it because we were morally and intellectually bound to do something for a group of people for whom we must never shirk responsibility.
The Address-Mr. Hamilton
Even a pension of $100 does not reach the minimum levels recommended by those who know the effect of the cost of living on those who are alone and single in the great cities of Canada. From the time I first heard the music of the mellifluous voices of Social Credit members in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia, they have stood for one thing, namely, to give purchasing power to those who needed it. This is the one thing above all else for which the Social Credit party has stood in the minds of the people who have voted for that party.
The Creditistes are in favour of this motion. Some individual members of parliament who carry the Liberal label claim that they are for it. This claim was made during the campaign. No mention was made in their claims about a means test. There was no talk of establishing a certain age or some mysterious line such as was found to be unworkable when we had the means test before. This pledge has been made by individual members in this house. If the motion that will be voted upon tonight is given a majority, that will throw this government out of office. This will happen if these men honour their pledge to their constituents and to their immortal souls.
You do not make such pledges to the senior citizens of your country without fighting tooth and nail to honour them. It is the cruelest form of chicanery one could ever imagine if men ask people to vote for them on the basis of supporting a pension of $100 per month and then come into this house and vote against that. I have put the issue bluntly and brutally before you, sir, and before this house. We will stand in this House of Commons to vote while thousands of people will listen to their radios, watch television or rush to the newstands to find out how each one of us votes tonight. Many hundreds of thousands of people are in desperate need as a result of the rising cost of living. They wait for this house to do justice tonight. It must be done, Mr. Speaker, and it must be done tonight or let us forever hold our peace.
During the election campaign Premier Bennett of British Columbia asked the people of that province over and over again, and through the press and other news media the people of Canada, to vote any way they liked but not Liberal. I repeat that loudly and clearly now. Three of the members sitting in this house who will be voting tonight are supporters of the British Columbia Social Credit party. They received the assistance of Premier Bennett in their election. I ask them
January 25, 1966

The Address-Mr. Hamilton now to honour the pledge that Premier Bennett implied when he asked the people of his province to vote Social Credit, namely, that they vote any way they like but not Liberal.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Premier Manning of Alberta repeated this statement in various forms. His cabinet ministers entered the federal election campaign and put the matter to the people. Nowhere was there any evidence in the speeches of these Social Credit provincial speakers that they were opposed to the $100 per month. In fact, the contrary was the case. Two Alberta Social Credit members were elected and they must stand in their places tonight and declare themselves. If you want to cut the throats of Premier Bennett and Premier Manning, keep voting with the Liberals. If you want to cut their throats as part of your own self-security, do so. But I plead with you: Please do not sacrifice the one million people who want your support tonight, not later this session or later in this parliament.


Mr. Leboe:: Play politics with the poor old pensioner, would you?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Tonight you have a choice of hanging the albatross of betrayal around your necks and the neck of your party, which will stay there until you disappear, or you have the choice of voting for what you have already said to the people and, by so doing, helping these helpless people. The five Social Credit members alone, Mr. Speaker, stand between the pensioners of Canada and $100 a month pension in the very near future.


Bert Raymond Leboe: That is a lie.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: They alone must bear the brunt of the evil deed that they can pull off tonight.


Michael Starr: It does not bother their conscience one bit.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I know that they are concerned, Mr. Speaker. I heard the question asked this morning on the orders of the day by the newly-elected member for Okana-gan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston). I listened to his speech a few minutes ago. I know that he is concerned. He is concerned because he is being asked by his leader to betray the elder people in his constituency. I know he is being asked by his leader to betray everything that Social Credit has stood for since we first heard about it in 1933 and 1934.


Bert Raymond Leboe: You do not know anything of the kind.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I did think from the statements of the New Democratic party before the house met that they were going to waver but they have demonstrated by their motion and by their declared intention of voting with us on the amendment tonight that they are going to stick by those in need and stick by what they have stood for. I expect the Creditistes will do the same thing. I cannot speak for the absentees or the independents.
But how about the Liberals, Mr. Speaker? I know too that some of the members across the way pledged themselves just as much as I pledged myself to bring some sort of justice to our old age pensioners in Canada. They swore this by all that was holy. They put ads in the papers, they wrote speeches and delivered them, and they give their word that they would not betray the senior citizens of their constituencies.
I have in my hand a Canadian Press dispatch written following the announcement of the election. This particular dispatch originated from a Brantford newspaper. It says:
James E. Brown, Liberal Member of Parliament for Brantford, said it was un-Liberal of Prime Minister Pearson to call an election before redistribution.
He says why in a written statement:
Mr. Brown, first elected to the Commons in 1953, said he will seek re-election November 8 as a Liberal "but I will not fight to be a rubberstamp yes-man for any government".
He said he made his views known to Mr. Pearson six weeks ago in a letter after sampling opinion in Brantford riding and "finding no support whatever for an election at this time".
I give you this quotation from the Canadian Press which appeared in several papers across Canada as evidence that not all Liberals lack soul, that there was at least one who knew what being a rubberstamp was like. He pledged himself to his riding, the constituency of Brantford, not to be a rubber-stamp. He is now in the house. He also put an ad in the Brantford paper with his picture, and it is headed:
The fighter for you!
James E. Brown, Liberal.
Here's proof that James E. Brown backs up the statement not only for Youth-"But Everyone!"
Senior citizens' retirement without fear. Liberals believe that everyone should be able to retire with a sense of security. I am supporting an increase in the flat rate old age pension, to $100 per month.
James E. Brown
Even an envelope was prepared with this statement on the front of the envelope:
I have decided to support an increase in the flat-rate old age pension to $100 per month . . .
January 25, 19S6	COMMONS
No mention was made of a means test. There was no mention of responsibility, of the fear of another election. It was just a straightforward statement that he was not going to be a rubberstamp for any whip. He was not going to be a yes man; he was going to support $100 a month. He knows that he would not be here today had he not made that statement. He knows right now that he will not be back in this house unless he backs up that statement tonight.
I also listened to the speech of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz). I know he wants $100 a month pension for those in his constituency. Others too know that if they betray the people in their cities they will not be back here the next time, but they have swallowed the guff that they must vote with the government to avoid an election.
There is one particular member, the member for Brantford, who has tried to save his conscience by putting a resolution on the order paper. Notice of motion No. 50 says that the government should take into consideration the desirability of introducing legislation providing for an increase in the flat-rate old age pension to a minimum of $100 a month per person. So he does not necessarily stop at $100. What a subterfuge, Mr. Speaker. Does he think that this motion, which will never be reached, is going to get him off the hook on which he put himself by this advertisement to which I have referred? It is not just a question of getting oneself out of an impossible political situation. We are dealing with the lives of over one million people on this motion tonight who may only have a few years to enjoy what we could decide to do for them tonight but which we can take away by making supercilious arguments that do not hold water.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Tonight the roll will be called in the House of Commons. I am asking each hon. member who does not want to be called a rubber-stamp and who will not betray his principles and convictions to meet the roll call up yonder. But their statements made in this house make it very difficult for them to meet that final roll call up yonder. The only argument advanced against giving to these people on old age security the increased pension, is that there might be an election. What nonsense. What bluff. Can you imagine a rabbit ever going to this country again? Members opposite forget that the Governor General still has a place in our constitutional system.
DEBATES	243
The Address-Mr. Hamilton Just imagine the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) going to the Governor General after a defeat in this house and saying: "I want to have another election because I want to try for a majority again." Can you imagine the Governor General saying in reply: "It seems to me I have heard that before". And he will know by that time that there are sufficient votes in this house to combine in a majority who want to pay $100 a month to our old people now. In his wisdom the Governor General will probably ask someone else to form a government and the members who support that government will know that immediately there will be a payment of $100 a month to all those on old age security.
Which one of us will vote against such a measure? Even Liberals will vote for it because they will be converted. With the formation of that government they will know there will be a policy on eastern farm matters as well as measures designed to help western farmers. They will know there will be a radical, far-reaching urban policy to reduce the cost of living to those in our cities. They will know there will be a practical policy with regard to our human resources. They will know that the second stage of the national development policy will go forward. They will know there will be a regional development policy to suit special needs in the light of the over-all national policy. They will know there will be a policy of keeping this country on the narrow path between the pressures pushing us toward inflation and the pressures pushing us toward recession. Hon. members know instinctively that the present government has no policy to keep this government on that path, the path on which we the Conservatives, placed the country in 1961.
Who would want to vote against policies of growth of that type? Who would want to vote against honesty and integrity in government? Who would want to vote against the preservation of confederation by bringing about unity in the only real way, namely, by true equality. The country knows now that we on this side of the house can govern effectively. The country knows now that we can bring stability to this country without the smell of the stables. The country knows now that we can go forward with our "policies for people" because they are practical and proven.
I ask hon. members this: Can you trust this Liberal government? Look at the mistakes which have been made in the last three years. Look at the promises which have been broken, the pledges which have been made
January 25, 1966

The Address-Mr. Hamilton both in this chamber and across the country only to be left undone. Can you trust the Government after what happened during the past week to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene)? Here was a member of parliament from eastern Canada, the first time a member from the east had held such an office for half a century. He took on the difficult task of raising farm income in marginal areas, of trying to solve the problems of the dairy industry. This man received my pledge on his appointment that I would give him all the assistance I could. This man made an effort to go through western Canada and find out what the complaints of western farmers were. He announced those views loudly and clearly. For the first time he got them past the sensitivity of some of those who find them hard to understand. We looked forward in this party to backing this new minister to the limit because, as one of my hon. friends said earlier, we do not care where a man comes from as long as he does a good job.
What happened to him? He came back here with a number of policies in his mind. One of them was to try to get one of our railroad companies to move more box cars. All the facts can easily be ascertained. What happened to him? A meeting was called with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) on one side of him and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) on the other. That in itself would be a warning to an experienced minister of agriculture that he was in dangerous waters. Then he looked across the table and saw the President of the C.P.R. together with the Vice President, men who are skilled at pulling the wool over the eyes of members of the government, civil servants and all those who try to understand transportation matters. Oh, brother.
When that conference was over, out trotted the Minister of Finance to say he thought the Minister of Agriculture might be misinformed. The railways were not to blame. The fault lay out on the west coast; it involved the terminals, the port facilities, the shipping federation. And the poor Minister of Agriculture walked back to his office with his tail between his legs. Mr. Speaker, they took him into that meeting and they plucked him like a turkey. Can you trust a government which would take a man who is trying to do his best and put him before those wolves without the support of somebody who would know how to contend with them?

You cannot trust this government. Look at this phony fight which has been going on between Lesage and the Prime Minister. It reminds me of a story that I cannot tell in this very proper place though my people in the country would understand it. They know what is going on. You cannot tell whether two cats are fighting or doing other things by the sound of the racket that is coming out of them.
There will be no election, Mr. Speaker. This government does not dare go back to the people. They saw their support going down before the last election was over. They would not dare risk another. They are bluffing and they have been trying to fool a small group of innocents from Alberta and British Columbia into betraying their party and their people.
I have only a few minutes left in which to speak. The final question is this: Can we afford the $290 million which the increase in pensions would cost us? The answer is very simple. If we wish to be responsible we cannot afford to do anything else. Today there exists in Canada an economic situation which needs to be watched most carefully. We need to keep on the straight path. Yes, there are inflationary pressures on one side trying to push us off that path. But on the other side there are people who wish to apply anti-inflationary measures so strong that, with the help of some of those who now sit on the front benches opposite, they may push us right back into a recession.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
One of the ways in which we can meet this threat, and I know whereof I speak on this subject, one of the ways we can meet this pressure that is going to put us right back into recession, this pressure by these experts who got frightened at birth and who have been frightened ever since, is to make sure that the spending power of our people, which is the greatest stabilizing factor the world has ever known, is maintained. With the rising cost of living you must maintain the living standards of those who are helpless.
So, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks with a simple plea. Vote according to your conscience tonight. Vote for the people who need your help. It is no good saying we will do it next year or the year after or next parliament. This is the time to stand up and be counted. If you want to be responsible, if you want people to respect this parliament there must be moral and intellectual honesty, but there cannot be that on an issue like this
January 25, 196G	COMMONS
when men come up with flimsy arguments that there is going to be an election and therefore you must vote against what you promised. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. J. E. Brown (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to congratulate you on having been appointed Deputy Chairman of the Committees of the House and to express our great satisfaction on seeing you preside over the debate this afternoon. I should also like to congratulate the Speaker of the House of Commons, who has just assumed the Chair, on being elected to his position of high responsibility, which I know he will fill with great effectiveness. That was one of the reasons why his nomination was received so enthusiastically on both sides of the house. I also wish to offer my congratulations to the Deputy Speaker who likewise is a most highly respected and hon. member of the House.
I am very glad, Mr. Speaker, to follow the previous speaker, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), and I hope I shall give a reply to some of his remarks which will be satisfactory to the house. However, first I shall go ahead with what I intended to say originally.
I desire to take part in this debate because involved in the want of confidence motion that is before us in a statement of policy affecting the whole nation, as it concerns a social measure of great magnitude. I, of course, am referring to the old age security pension now being paid to all who can claim it upon attaining the age of 69 years, the pension of $75 per month. The government is being condemned through the want of confidence amendment for not increasing this pension to $100 a month and the debate on this matter has caused me considerable concern for reasons which I shall give to the house.
As a Liberal member of parliament the matter of pensions for individuals has been a constant subject of study and thought for me.
I should like to refer to the Canada Pension Plan passed by the house last year, which is often confused, and improperly so, with the old age security pension that has figured greatly in this debate.
Reference to the Canada Pension Plan is quite relevant in this debate because it has been referred to by many speakers, including the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). He stated that he felt the government could make use of the people's savings under the Canada Pension
DEBATES	245
The Address-Mr. Brown Plan as a source of revenue for increasing the old age security pension to $100 a month. I am very much opposed to tampering with the people's savings in this way. The Canada Pension Plan, without doubt, was the most important piece of social legislation introduced in this house since confederation. As such I am strongly of the opinion that the savings provided under that legislation should never be tampered with simply as an excuse to implement a change in another pension scheme which has nothing to do with the Canada Pension Plan.
It might interest you, Mr. Speaker, to know that the main provisions of the Canada Pension Plan were first proposed a number of years ago in a resolution passed by the Brantford Liberal Association. I had something to do with the drafting of that resolution and subsequently had quite a bit to do with it in bringing before the National Liberal Convention a resolution that urged the implementation of a retirement pension plan for all Canadians. I moved this resolution in a committee of the national convention of the Liberal party, under the heading of "Other Social Security". The resolution was passed by the committee but due to lack of adequate time was never debated on the floor of the convention. However, subsequently it became incorporated in the general policies of the Liberal party and today the Canada Pension Plan is in full force and effect from one end of Canada to the other.
With this background I have strong feelings respecting the Canada Pension Plan. I know it has many enemies who wish to wreck it at the earliest possible date. I am not talking about members of this house but across the country there are persons who are bound and set upon a campaign to wreck and destroy the Canada Pension Plan.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The opposition may be sincere in its desire to use the accumulated savings of the people under the Canada Pension Plan as a method to raise funds for increasing payments under the old age security plan. I do not doubt that, nor do I doubt the sincerity of the opposition in this regard. However, they have created a danger to the Canada Pension Plan and have done so in their remarks made during this debate, particularly in the remarks of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) who is not now in his seat.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle made a lot of accusations against me and wondered whether I would be there when the roll was
January 25, 1966

The Address-Mr. Brown called up yonder. He used those words. I want to assure him that I hope when that time arrives he for one will be called and counted in that number. But I can also assure him that I am going to fight to my last breath to get there as well in order that I may fight it out with that hon. member at that place and time.
This danger and menace to the Canada Pension Plan is being welcomed as a means to destroy it forever. I consider it one of the greatest plans that has ever been implemented.


An hon. Member:: For whom?


James Elisha Brown: For the people who contribute to it and receive the returns from it, the working people of Canada. For these reasons I regard this plan as the cornerstone of Canadian economic life. This is one of the reasons I cannot support the Conservative amendment.
This brings me to the generalized subject of the amendment which has condemned the government for not increasing the rate of the old age security pension. If it stood by itself and its promoters had shown better means which should be employed to make this increase possible which they say is necessary, I might find considerable difficulty in not supporting it. However, there is one other reason which will not allow me to support the amendment and I intend to put that reason to Your Honour.
If this amendment should carry, there is no doubt that we would have another general election. No matter what anyone says, we would have a general election if this amendment, which most assuredly is a non-confidence measure, were passed by the house at this time. It is my belief that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) very clearly stated that if the amendment was passed by the house he would immediately attend upon His Excellency and ask for dissolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He did not say that.


James Elisha Brown: I thought he did make that statement. Some hon. members opposite have suggested that His Excellency might not have to accept the advice of his advisers. I have read statements to that effect, and I heard it said in this house a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. Since 1926 it has been an undisputed and recognized fact that His Excellency always accepts the advice of his ministers. I thought that became abundantly clear following the general election of 1926.


Mr. Bigg:: It was wrong then and it is wrong now.


James Elisha Brown: Never mind, it has been followed ever since. Surely one could not expect a Governor General of this country to refuse to follow the advice of his ministers. However, Mr. Speaker, it is highly improper for any of us, including myself, to drag His Excellency into this debate as though he might call on anyone to form a ministry, particularly a party which has not got the support of the people of this country.
I have stated that should I vote for this amendment I would be voting for a general election. I believe that to be absolutely true. A general election at this time would result in nothing short of a calamity to the democratic processes of government.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: It would be a calamity for the Liberal party. They would be wiped out.


James Elisha Brown: That is what the hon. member thinks, but the people of Canada have just spoken and the people of this country have elected this parliament as it is now constituted.
We have met to conduct the affairs of Canada and I believe it is our duty to act in accordance with the expressed wishes of the electorate who want us to decide what is to be done with issues as and when they are brought forward. That electorate wants this parliament to transact this nation's business and I believe we should all have regard for those wishes.
There are some hon. members who watch the political picture very carefully. One of those members is the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. He was very much interested in certain statements I have made. I am happy that he read some of them. He has relieved me from putting certain of them on the record at this time which I intended to place on the record to justify my intervention in this debate.
At the time the Prime Minister announced that His Excellency had dissolved the twenty sixth parliament and that a general election would be held on November 8, 1965, I spoke out and took issue with the Prime Minister for having taken this action. I suggested that an election was absolutely needless and wholly unwarranted. That is what I thought at the time and I said so.
I took the action of which the hon. member has complained because I feel it is always good Liberal policy to speak up when one is not satisfied with that which is being done
January 25, 1966

even though one's own party is in power. I did not think a reference to the people was necessary on November 8, 1965. I most assuredly do not think that a reference to the people is necessary at this time. The electorate has spoken. As a result we are here to discharge our duties. It is for us to settle the question in respect of old age security and its provisions at this time and to do so during this session of parliament.
For the information of you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the house I placed a motion on the order paper asking the government to give immediate consideration to increasing the rate of the old age security pension to $100 per month. I did so because I sincerely believe that we should support an increase in the old age security pension.
The motion to which I have referred was belittled by the member for Qu'Appelle who stated that I could not get away with this type of action. He has belittled the method by which a private member can take action in this house for the benefit of the people of this country.
There are many ways by which old age security pensions can be increased during the term of this parliament and I hope that these ways will be used. I know that my motion will likely be talked out in the same way as nearly all private members' bills are talked out. When that motion finally comes before this house I intend to speak for only one minute and then sit down and watch to see which members on which side of the house talk out the motion.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
It will be very interesting to me to see what happens to that motion, because I believe in it. However, I wish that the minority government would listen to parliament and listen to this house because I must say that if the members of this house gave their opinion on increasing the rate of the old age security pension it would be increased to $100 a month.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Elisha Brown: I believe that. It is for this reason that I hope the minority government will consult parliament and be moved to action as a result of the opinions of the members of the house. The Conservatives say they are going to finance this increase from the Canada Pension Plan, and I have said I am very much opposed to that.


Some hon. Members:: Why?
The Address-Mr. Brown


James Elisha Brown: I say that the government can raise the money in another way. I should now like to say something about the speech of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. He said, "Oh, they can raise the money" and he again referred to robbing the Canada Pension Plan fund, robbing the savings of working people in order to pour them into another pension plan for those already retired. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this money can be raised but it should not be raised in that way. If the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was as serious, devout and dedicated as he said he was, he would know there are many ways in which this money could be raised. It could be raised by invoking a capital gains tax.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


James Elisha Brown: Where does the hon. member for Qu'Appelle stand on that? We are one of the few democratic countries in the world that has not a capital gains tax.


Mr. Ricard:: Move it and we will vote for it.


Mr. Vincent:: Where does Bob Winters stand on that?


James Elisha Brown: There is nothing to stop parliament putting on a capital gains tax, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Elisha Brown: I am only one member and it is not my business to say where a government will raise money. All we do is ask them to raise the money and they have to find it. This is one way of raising the money, because incomes today are not providing people with a great deal of money. Incomes are taxed. But in this country for some reason or other capital gains are not taxed. Therefore this is the way that the rich in Canada keep getting richer and richer, the middle classes keep being pressed down-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Elisha Brown: -and the poor are dispossessed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is Liberal policy.


James Elisha Brown: I do not know about that. I never thought it was.


Howard Russell MacEwan: You will never get the call.


James Elisha Brown: Mr. Speaker, I am, as I indicated, very sensitive about this whole subject because I have been an active, working Liberal in this country since I was 16 years of age when I first took an office in a Liberal organization. For 36 years I have stood in the Liberal ranks and fought for every piece of progressive legislation for which I could fight.
248	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Brown


An hon. Member:: You haven't seen the light yet.


James Elisha Brown: And now, Mr. Speaker, I happen to be sitting as a member in this house. I remember a speech, back in those days when I first started to work for the Liberal party, of that great leader of this party, Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King.
He came to the town where I lived as a young man and made a speech in which he gave a definition of what is Liberalism. He said that Liberalism stood for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. I have never forgotten that. I thought, if that is what it stands for I am all for it, and I have been working for that party ever since.


Mr. Winkler:: You will be with us tonight then.


James Elisha Brown: I still believe that to be a true definition, borrowed as the words were from the immortal John Stuart Mill. I know the situation in Brantford, Ontario; I know that Brantford is representative of the prevailing situation in this country and that there is great need amongst older people at the present time.
One woman I know has been a widow for 45 years. She was employed in a factory in Brantford. When she reached retirement age there was no pension for her, so she subsists on $75 a month old age security pension. There are a great many people like her. One man I know came to this country from the Near East. He has two sons. He worked all his life too and ended up with no pension; so he has to subsist on the old age security pension. His two sons served this country in world war II in the armed forces. This man is still living in Brantford. He has a small, supplemental income from self-employment which nets him $1 a day. That is what he subsists on together with the $75 old age pension.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is a shame.


James Elisha Brown: There are a great many people like that man. I could go on and on in this vein, Mr. Speaker, but there is little use becoming emotional on this subject. If I wanted to, I could tear the air in the chamber on the subject of the old age pension because it is a serious, critical thing. There is no hon. member big enough or good enough to be able to point to any other member and say he is not doing his duty or that he is fraudulently representing the wishes of the

DEBATES	January 25, 1966
electorate. No such thing exists in this chamber. I would not make that accusation against anyone else.
I was quite interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle about myself. I did not know I was so important.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Elisha Brown: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Prime Minister is consulting with his advisers and pondering over the scope and content of the Canada Assistance Plan which is to be entered into with the provinces. We hope this plan will meet the needs of the population. Let me tell the house about another woman in my constituency who grew up at a time when women were not educated for anything except keeping house. Her father was a very distinguished man but in the course of chance and circumstance he became impoverished when quite close to death. That girl very prudently and wisely rushed out, took a secretarial course and works to this very day in a medical doctor's office.
She is not complaining but she did tell me when the Canada Pension Plan was passed, "Mr. Brown, there is nothing in the plan for me." We did not talk about her age but I took it that she had reached the age of 70. But she is still working. As I say, she does not complain, but I wonder whether the Canada Assistance Plan in its scope and magnitude will include that woman. I know she will never ask for relief or welfare under a means test plan because she is too good a Presbyterian for that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Elisha Brown: I look forward, I must say with scepticism but of course with hope, to the passage of the Canada Assistance Plan. I also look forward to it with trepidation.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A little fear, too.


James Elisha Brown: I believe that the Prime
Minister of Canada is a person with a big enough mind to take this whole situation into account. I feel that if the Canada assistance plan does not make adequate provision for the needy, elderly people of Canada, the Prime Minister will see to it that his ministry introduces a proper increase in the old age security plan adequate for these changing times in which we live.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Before I resume my seat, I may say that I was told by one Liberal member of this house whom I hold in highest regard that if we increased the old age security pension to $100
January 25, 1966	COMMONS
per month in no time there would be a terrible howl and somebody would be trying to make it $150 per month. There would be no end to it. I must admit that there is evidence favouring this point of view, particularly in the light of the rising prices with which we are faced today.
In order to prevent this, if this is to be done by a Liberal government and in order to meet the definition of Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King to which I have referred, then a Liberal government may have to impose controls on the prices of food and the necessities of life. This action would be taken to protect the retired people in our population from the grafters, the profiteers and others who might fatten on the small pensions of these Canadian people. So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to oppose the amendment before the house, important as the principles involved in it are, and they most assuredly are very important.


Mr. Paul Beaulieu (Saini-Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: Mr. Speaker, I want my first words in this house to be addressed to you.
I admire the fluency with which you speak the two official languages of our country.
I must admit that I was very proud when you were unanimously chosen to preside over the discussions of the House of Commons of Canada. Your competence, your experience and your patience have been tried, I think, but you have shown that you were the proper man to hold this high office.
I also wish to congratulate 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).
Both made excellent speeches. Obviously, they could not find inspiration in the Speech from the Throne which was read, since there was hardly enough in it to inspire young speakers making their debut in politics.
Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the Prime Minister. Speaking on the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) he stated that if we gave pensions of $100 a month to all pensioners and to everyone 70 and up, an expenditure of $850 million dollars would be involved.
The leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) after the Prime Minister, also broke down this figure of $850 millions to such a point that he made it disappear as if by magic. At one time, he brought it down to
DEBATES	249
The Address-Mr. Beaulieu $300 million, then to $200 million, finally only $100 million remained. He said: It is a surplus. But reality is something else.
During the election campaign, we stated to the people of the province of Quebec, for our part, and to the population of Canada, that we would be in favour of a $100 a month pension for every retired person and for people of 70 and over. We knew exactly, at that time, what it would cost, and that is not $850 million. One million retired persons would get an annual increase of $300, which means $300 million. Now, the income of the federal government normally increases by about 5 to 10 per cent a year. And if that income is $7 to $8 billion a year, and you multiply that figure by 5 per cent and 7 per cent, you get $500 to $600 million, that is more than enough to pay $100 a month to all retired persons in Canada, without having to increase taxes in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Paul Beaulieu: A member from the province of Quebec told us that we should give priority to family allowances. Indeed, family allowances are vitally important to education; they enable the provinces and the federal government to work jointly without intrusions. But that does not change the situation. Priority must be given to the aged, in Canada as in the province of Quebec. I have never understood how a single Liberal member, especially one from the province of Quebec, could be opposed to it when they all promised, in my riding and elsewhere, that if the Liberal party were elected, and notwithstanding the promises made across the country by the Leader of the Opposition, it would give them $100 a month. Otherwise, half the Liberal members from Quebec would not be sitting here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Paul Beaulieu: We asked that the Family Allowances Act be revised. We want the youth of our country to be able to go to school. Our families cannot afford in some cases to send their children to school. Therefore, a revision is needed. That matter rests with the federal treasury and hinges on agreements with the provinces.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
We also requested during the election campaign-that is for the information of those who think that our party has no platform -that crop insurance be granted to the eastern farmers, in Ontario, the maritimes and in Quebec, as is being done in the western provinces.
January 25, 1966

The Address-Mr. Beaulieu
We asked and we are still asking that an insurance program be set up to protect our farmers. It is most unfair that men who work 12 months a year to earn a living are not covered by any insurance, like the workers in our cities, when, through an act of God, they lose without warning a full year's work and are driven to bankruptcy.
In my riding, during the election campaign, a claim of more than $1 million was made on behalf of farmers whose crops had been ruined by hail, bad weather, floods and frost. The federal minister of agriculture (Mr. Hays) was asked to intervene. Quebec was also contacted.
Well, now we ask the house to please examine the matter. I think it is only fair to establish crop insurance where the premium would be paid both by the federal and provincial governments, if need be, and not just by the farmer himself. Such protection must be given to our farm people if we want our sons to remain on the farm.
We promised also that the 11 per cent tax on building materials would be abolished. There is in my riding of Saint-Jean a designated area. Industries started leaving the city of Saint-Jean. In three years we lost four or five important industries in a city of 30,000 to
35,000	people. Then the federal government stepped in and granted tax exemptions and special depreciation allowances. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, in less than a year three new industries, representing millions of dollars in capital settled in the city of Saint-Jean.
In my opinion, the Canadian government should realize the danger of maintaining that 11 per cent tax on building materials and machinery, at a time when our workers are asked to build their own houses.
A bonus of $500 is offered to those who build during the winter months but, on the other hand, an 11 per cent tax is levied on the building materials that go into a property worth from $10,000 to $12,000.
Everyone knows that the cost of building materials make up approximately half the total cost of a house. That means that people pay between $600 and $700 in taxes-and they get a bonus of $500. And those who build during better seasons do not get that $500 bonus but still have to pay that 11 per cent penalty.
During the election campaign we asked that this tax be abolished and the leader of our party will keep on asking for that.

We also remembered the farmers-my riding is half urban and half rural and dairy production is of vital importance to our families-and asked that the minimum price for industrial milk be set at $4.
Why, Mr. Speaker? Because $5, $6 and $7 is paid for fluid milk. On the other hand, when a farmer brings several cans of milk to the dairy, he is told: That much is industrial milk-and he is paid $2.50, $2.60. The average price paid to the farmers is so low that they have trouble making ends meet.
A short while ago I heard an hon. member explain away charges made against him. He had promised to vote in favour of increasing the pension to $100 a month and has now changed his mind, and for various reasons is trying to bring up the matter of the universal pension. However, Mr. Speaker, the universal pension will not apply before ten more years or so, whereas our old people, they are 70 now, want their cheques immediately, not in five or ten years when they are dead and buried.
The people understand. I favour the principle of this pension; it is excellent for our workers.
Workers in our cities will pay 3.6 per cent but half of this will be paid back by the employer. In the case of the worker; it will not be too painful, but the employers have already started jacking up their prices, enough to make us pay twice again for the increase, and tomorrow workers will be asking their employers to increase their salaries in order to get back the 1.8 per cent.
That is when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) should do something about the reaction to such a law as this. Indeed, the cost of living, in general, will increase by more than 5 per cent across Canada.
The law is not fair in the case of our farmers. What happens to the farmer who earns only an average of $2,000 whereas the city worker gets an average income of $4,000? The city worker who earns $4,000 is going to pay 1.8 per cent, whereas the farmer, with his $2,000 average income, will pay 3.6 per cent because he is an employer. He cannot have anyone paying half of his contribution.
Moreover, if the farmer has one or two sons working for him, he will have to pay half of their 3.6 per cent contribution for they are his employees. Now, Mr. Speaker, the farmer earns $2,000 a year. You can imagine what this represents for him. And this is not payable in consumer goods but in cash.
January 25, 196S	COMMONS
When the Leader of the Opposition came to speak in our ridings, he told us, I remember that in order to help the farmers, we would enable them, by means of an amendment to the Income Tax Act, to deduct, just like city owners, the amount of their municipal and school taxes for income tax purposes.
We have a show going on today, especially in the province of Quebec. It concerns the development of education. What have we found? Such a lack of preparedness that today the school tax in a town, which used to be 1 per cent is raised to 4 per cent. People are trying to get rid of their property. There is no organization and taxes are ruining our people.
The Liberal party lost the riding of Saint Jean, and it knows why. I don't have to say any more about it. The Liberal party lost the riding of Saint-Jean for many reasons other than those you have in mind. The riding of Saint-Jean has been neglected.
The airport at Saint-Jean was built a number of years ago. It is close to both Dorval and St. Hubert. We asked for the extension of its airstrip. Three years ago the federal government purchased and expropriated the necessary land but property owners have been paid nothing yet and work has not started on the airstrip. People are complaining. The opening of Expo '67 is drawing near and our airport would relieve part of the traffic load on Dorval. I would request the government to take this matter into consideration.
The federal government is the owner of the St. John boating club but never uses it. The clubhouse is falling apart. The city wants to take over the property to convert it into a recreation centre where young people could go swimming in the Richelieu whose waters have not yet been polluted. But the federal government does nothing about it. That is one of the reasons why the Liberal party lost the county of Saint-Jean.
In the field of education, I heard the Prime Minister say the other night that we could not afford to pay $100 to the aged because it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, then he added that $500 million would be made available to the provinces to launch the new medicare program.
In fact, everyone is in favour of assisting hospitals and helping the poor, but after a project is undertaken it should be completed before other projects are launched. All the present government does, is to initiate projects without ever completing any of them.
DEBATES	251
The Address-Mr. Beaulieu
As far as education is concerned, Mr. Speaker, we recognize that constitutional rights and all that come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. That is not even disputed, but every now and then the federal government takes roundabout means to introduce plans which, it knows beforehand, will be rejected by the province of Quebec because the latter will tolerate no interference in the field of education.
The province of Quebec is sometimes "accused" of receiving preferential treatment. Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec has never asked for preferential treatment and never will. I have been in provincial politics for 20 years. What we have been asking for is justice and equality, under the terms of the Canadian constitution. The present government of the province of Quebec is forced to use the same methods as we did in the past. The province cannot, of couse, refuse grants from the federal government because those are what is called tax equivalents for the provinces. That creates problems. It gives the country a false impression.
People are under the impression that Quebec wants to obtain a preferential treatment and that its claims are not warranted. This is not true. Quebec merely wants to assert its rights. The province of Quebec has six million inhabitants. Its financial position is secure, its credit is excellent throughout the world and only has to be maintained. We are now asking the federal government to take the necessary action in this regard.
The Prime Minister of Canada has some influence in the United States. We are the best customer of the Americans and in the financial field, when the United States deny our request and tell us: "During a certain period, we will no longer invest or buy your bonds and we will no longer lend to provinces, municipalities and school boards", it is bad for Canada and it is certainly not good for the United States. I think the Prime Minister of Canada would be well-advised, if he does not have a plane, to borrow that of the premier of the province of Quebec. He should then go to Washington and come back, as I know he would, with the assurance that Washington will solve the Canadian problem.
Even if this is my first speech in this house, I must protest against the new boundaries given to my constituency. I am satisfied with the additions, but I am against the removal from the county of Iberville of those parishes
January 25, 196&

The Address-Mr. Beaulieu located a mere four or five miles from the county seat, Saint-Jean. I think this is ridiculous. In the course of this session, I shall ask that the subdivision of my riding be revised.
Mr. Speaker, in 1955, when I was trade minister at Quebec, I made a statement at a conference on Canadianism held in our province and I do not believe that statement came from a fanatic. I am reading it as published in a newspaper in January of 1955. This is what I said:
The Canadians of Quebec are perhaps the most Canadian of all Canadians. We want our place, but also we want everyone to benefit from it. We want the Canadians of Quebec to have the same advantages as those of every other province. We want to be recognized, but we also want to be worthy of this recognition through our competence, and we want to win the respect of our culture. We now have five universities in the province of Quebec. There are more students in our universities than in any other province of the Canadian confederation. We stretch out our hand, we wish to live as brothers in this vast country, respectful of others' rights, but asking in return that our language and traditions be respected. It is a matter of justice without any meanness. And, today, in Quebec, we have the money, the schools and the bodies which are required to live and hold our own.
Mr. Speaker, at a time when we wish to live in peace, harmony, unity and equality, I feel the situation might better be understood if Hon. George Marler's statement, made out west, were read once again with great care.
Mr. Marler is a Liberal with whom I sat for years in the Quebec legislature. Speaking about the treatment of minorities in the province of Quebec, here is what he had to say: "English speaking citizens in the province of Quebec represent 13 per cent of the population and get 37 per cent of university grants." This generous treatment he mentioned shows abundantly that the province of Quebec is not a narrow-minded province, and when we ask for the province of Quebec the chance to assert itself, to give its youth the opportunity to get education and training, that is not fanaticism.
We simply ask other Canadian citizens to understand the province of Quebec, because, after all, Quebec is not a province like the others, even though it is one of the ten provinces in confederation. As a matter of fact, it is the only place where 90 per cent of the population speaks French, and where everybody learns the English language which is needed.
Let English speaking Canadians alone, they are happy where they are; let our own people alone to live in peace and harmony and there

wil be in Canada no such scenes as the one we have just witnessed, where the Prime Minister made a tour one day and had to send his assistant the next day to blot out what he said the day before.
To-day, one must be cautious. The people of the province of Quebec are glad to find that there is room for a French Canadian in the Conservative party, although it was stated that this was not the case. As a matter of fact, I came back to politics because I felt, that that was an unfortunate statement. Nobody has the right to say that because in all parties, Social Credit, N.D.P., Liberal and Conservative, there must be room for the representatives of the six million French speaking Canadians.
I accepted to stand for parliament, because I believe I can serve my country, not because I have a vast experience, but the experience I acquired in politics showed me that we could maintain and preserve the Canadian confederation in full concord and harmony and respecting the rights of everyone. I believe it would be unfortunate for the province of Quebec, as for the rest of the country, if Canada should divide into parts. If the province of Quebec remained in confederation, it is because confederation guaranteed the use of its own language.
It must always be kept in mind that without the French language, the material and economic interests of the province of Quebec would be much closer to the United States than to the Commonwealth.
Admittedly, the French Canadian would not be happy in the American melting pot and he prefers to keep his language, his institutions and thus, remain in confederation at any cost, provided, however, that he is welcomed and treated as a true child of the country, as a descendent of the pioneers who built Canada. I feel at home in the Conservative party because it is the party which gave us confederation.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. Ian Grant Wahn (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, may I first congratulate you most sincerely upon your election as Speaker of this house. The rights and privileges of individual members of parliament as well as the successful conduct of our country's business will depend largely upon you. All of us know that your office demands from you firmness, intelligence and knowledge of the rules allied with fairness, tact and sometimes
January 25, 1966

possibly a sense of humour. We know you possess these qualifications. We know also that something is demanded from us, namely, our full co-operation with you. I am sure you will have that co-operation.
Next I wish to extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Goyer) and seconder (Mr. Stanbury) of the address for the distinguished manner in which they have carried out their traditional task. As we listened to these two new members, one speaking in French and the other in English but both expressing a common faith in our country, all of us felt happy and proud of our country and confident in its future.
We have a right to be proud and confident. Despite great dangers and almost impossible obstacles our people have created a nation extending not just from sea to sea but from sea to seas, not just from the Atlantic to the Pacific but to the Arctic as well. We must never forget our northern frontier. Contrary to the gloomy predictions of many, our country has endured for almost 100 years. It is one of the few successful examples of a federal nation with two official languages and many unofficial languages and diverse cultures.
Frankly I am bothered when I hear people talking constantly about differences and even hostility between French and English speaking Canadians. I cannot help thinking of the disturbed lady who rushed into the office of a psychiatrist in the physicians and surgeons building in my riding crying out: "Doctor, doctor, help me!" The doctor asked the lady to calm herself and tell him what was wrong with her. She said: "It is not me, it is my husband. He has gone completely crazy. He believes he is the manager of the Toronto Maple Leafs. Every night he sets up a net in the recreation room, puts me in the net and practices hockey shots." The doctor commented: "Dear lady, there is nothing wrong with that. Just tell him to stop." "I cannot do that" replied the lady distractedly "he may trade me to the Montreal Canadiens." The moral of this story is that it is sometimes hard to tell who is crazy.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Certainly in St. Paul's riding in the centre of Toronto there will be found no hostility to French Canada. In St. Paul's we are proud of the great history of Canada and the French contribution to it. We do not forget the names of the men who worked and fought and were martyred and died to establish here in Canada a great Christian and European

The Address-Mr. Wahn civilization, to establish a civilization on the banks of the St. Lawrence, on the shores of Georgian bay, in the Red river and Saskatchewan river country of the prairies. Nor do we forget the nation builders who followed these men, famous names like Cartier, Champlain, Frontenac, Montcalm, La Salle, Father Brebeuf, Father Lallemant, La Veren-drye, Georges Etienne Cartier, Laurier, St. Laurent and our well beloved Governor General Vanier and Madame Vanier.
During the last war I had the honour to serve with the Queen's Own Rifles in one of the great brigades of the Canadian army which also included the North Shore Regiment and Le Regiment de La Chaudiere. My respect for the great contribution made by French Canada to our Canadian nation was increased even more by my association in war with these comrades in arms.
In St. Paul's we are proud that our fellow Canadians in Quebec and in other provinces as well have maintained their French language and have made such a profound contribution to Canadian life and culture. They serve as a living reminder that, after all, there is a difference between Canadians and our American friends to the south, and we say vive la difference. So when we hear this constant talk of hostility between French and English Canadians I cannot help wondering whether some boys somewhere are not calling "wolf". We all know what happened to the boy in the fable who kept calling "wolf". One day help did not come and he died a sticky death in the belly of the wolf.
Since the war Toronto has been happy and proud to welcome far more citizens from other parts of Ontario, other parts of Canada and, indeed, from other countries than any other Canadian city. These people have made a tremendous contribution to the growth and wealth of our city. Perhaps even more important has been their contribution to the richness and diversity of our cultural life. Our entertainment, our restaurants, our arts and crafts, our concert halls and our theatres have all profited immensely. Largely because of their contribution Toronto is today unquestionably one of the most cosmopolitan and most interesting cities on this continent.
St. Paul's riding, which I have the honour to represent, is in the very centre of Toronto. It is a riding and will continue to be one that includes within its boundaries peoples of every religion, race and colour. Its problems and its opportunities are typical of the problems and opportunities of every rapidly
January 25, 1966

The Address-Mr. Wahn growing urban area in our country which itself is becoming more and more urban in character. It is literally true, therefore, that what is good for Canada is good for St. Paul's riding.
Since I was first elected to represent St. Paul's in 1962, I have been constantly urged by my constituents to express their views and mine with independence. I have tried to do this in speaking with members of the government, in caucus, in this house and in public debate. I propose to continue to do this. I am proud that I belong to a party which welcomes and indeed encourages the independent expression of opinion even when it differs in some respects from the official policy of the party at a particular time.
In Toronto and in St. Paul's riding we know at first hand the value of immigration. We believe it is vitally important to Canada to increase immigration, but this will not happen by itself. It will require wise and decisive action by the government. For years all governments have promised changes in the Immigration Act and immigration regulations but nothing has happened. We hope this government will act.
We are delighted that work on the white paper on immigration will proceed. We welcome the increased prestige for the department which will result from the proposed administrative changes. We welcome the new minister to his office and we sincerely hope that there will be a greater continuity in that office than there has been in the past. The department must not be regarded or treated as a stepping stone department. It is much too important for that.
The influx to Toronto and to my riding of St. Paul's of people from all parts of Canada and all countries in the world has been of great benefit to us. Naturally it has also brought with it certain problems. The new arrivals have flocked to the centre of the city while at the same time our city's rapid growth has resulted in business and commercial buildings replacing older housing units in this same area. The result has been a massive and continuing shortage of housing in the centre of the city for newcomers and people of low income.
I will not take the time of the house on this occasion to review the housing statistics in detail. It is sufficient to say that they are shocking. Considering the amount of housing required, the statistics reveal an almost complete failure to provide public housing in the

metropolitan Toronto area. The same is probably true of every rapidly growing urban area in Canada. The extent of the crisis was emphasized by the recent demand in Toronto for a housing czar, but no housing czar can provide the houses required.
All responsible people who have studied the problem agree on the pressing need for thousands of new housing units in Toronto. They also agree they cannot be provided profitably by private industry. In this wealthy country we may be reluctant to admit this fact but the truth is clear. We do need public housing in great quantity for our low income urban families and we need it quickly. Over the years the demand has been building up steadily. In proportion to need Canada has less public housing than any other civilized country in the western world.
The changes made last year in the National Housing Act were most welcome. Further changes are indicated in the Throne Speech and we hope these may help to meet the problem which I have outlined. However, it is unlikely that the problem can be met completely by changes in the National Housing Act or even by changes in the operations of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
That corporation has performed well the job entrusted to it by parliament. However, it holds firmly to the belief that its function is essentially that of a friendly banker charged with the responsibility for financing housing construction and urban renewal. It does not accept direct responsibility for providing the public housing which is required in our cities. Its view is that this is a welfare function and is no part of the function of any banker, friendly or otherwise.
Therefore the solution is to recognize that the provision of public housing, where required throughout Canada, is an essential part of the war on poverty declared by the government. We welcome the action forecast to attack the problem of rural poverty in Canada. We must remember, however, that poverty just as extreme, just as brutal, and perhaps even harder to bear, exists in the crowded central areas of our cities. Yet it is clear that we cannot wage anything better than a paper war against poverty in our cities unless we are first prepared to launch a real attack on the problem of providing public housing for low income families in the central areas of our great cities.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
By declaring war on poverty in Canada we have declared that the elimination of poverty
January 25, 196G	COMMONS
is a matter of national concern, and indeed it is. Once this is admitted it must also be admitted that the provision of public housing is a matter of national concern, a national responsibility which must be assumed by this government as part of its continuing war on poverty in Canada.
The first essential step, however, is for the federal government to accept its responsibility in this field. It will be expensive, it will involve a financial burden which cannot possibly be borne by the municipal taxpayer and which experience has clearly shown will not be assumed by him. Public housing is necessary in Toronto and other great cities because they are receiving people from all parts of Canada and from all countries in the world. The problem, therefore, is essentially a problem for the federal government as part of its war on poverty.
Clearly a national program of public housing must be carried out in close co-operation with the provinces and cities involved. There was no problem in achieving this co-operation when wartime housing was required in great quantities during the last war. We can be equally successful in providing public housing for those who need it in time of peace.
In wartime when we had a big new job to do we did not leave it to the civil service or to departmental heads. We established public corporations and put in charge men accustomed to getting things done. There were more than 20 of these corporations. They included the Wartime Housing Corporation, Research Enterprises, Eldorado Mining, Park Steamships, Toronto Shipbuilding, Victory Aircraft, Polymer Corporation and many others. Very few of these corporations remain but they did their job.
Ontario now has its Ontario Housing Corporation. In order to provide housing in Ontario why should we not form a public housing corporation jointly financed by Ottawa and Ontario with a small, effective board of directors on which the federal government, the provincial government and the community are represented? There could be such a public corporation for every province with a public housing problem.
So far public housing has been a game of passing the buck played by the municipal, provincial and federal governments. Perhaps over the desk of the president of this public corporation could be inscribed the inspiring motto "This is where the buck stops". If such a federal-provincial housing corporation
DEBATES	255
The Address-Mr. Wahn worked, it might be a long sought breakthrough in solving many federal-provincial problems. Some civil service heads might not like it. Some ministers might not like it. There would be less power for them but, more important, this program might work.
One thing is certain. The present technique of dealing with these federal-provincial problems in camera at federal-provincial conferences is not satisfactory to members of parliament, including many members on this side of the house. We were not sent here by our constituents to rubberstamp decisions on matters not previously discussed here and sometimes made in fact by officials over whom we have no effective control. I think particularly of the so-called Fulton-Favreau constitutional amending formula which resulted from one of these federal-provincial conferences. I was delighted when the Premier of Quebec indicated it was a dead issue. I trust that the Prime Minister's remarks with reference to it were merely a diplomatic but not a regretful farewell.
I have spoken often and with fervour on this subject in the past. I do not propose to repeat myself again but merely wish to say, with the greatest respect to the two mismatched parents, that theirs was an unnatural child; indeed, it was born dead and I hope there will be no further attempt to breathe life into it.
One thing surely is clear. The present government should be wary of entering into negotiations or long term commitments with the provinces at the present time. The large provinces have governments with strong majorities and mandates. Our government is weakened by its minority position. Anyone with any experience in negotiations knows that good will and diplomatic skill are no substitutes for power and a strong bargaining position. By all means let us co-operate with the provinces but let us limit negotiations until we have a government with a strong majority.
The government should be particularly careful about the so-called tax structure conferences with the provinces. Sometimes it seems to me that there is a great deal of talk about giving the provinces the tax revenues they need to carry out their functions without stopping to ask whether the functions which they are carrying on have ceased to be local and provincial and have in fact become of national importance and, therefore, subject to
January 25, 1966

The Address-Mr. Wahn federal jurisdiction. Certainly it is a sound general principle that he who pays the piper should call the tune.
The great men who founded our nation intended Canada to have a strong central government possessing all the great powers of legislation. The provincial governments were set up to protect the language, the religion and the culture of our French compatriots but otherwise their function was to attend to matters of purely provincial or local eoncern. Intentionally their taxation powers were limited accordingly. Our negotiators should remember this.
In St. Paul's, with so many educational institutions, we are delighted with the immediate response of the government to the second report of the Economic Council and the earlier Bladen report, as shown by the Prime Minister's announcement of the increase in the federal grant for university operating expenses and in the decision to proceed with the Canada scholarship program. However, events move so rapidly now and our educational needs are so great, that while the scholarship program is no doubt a step in the right direction I believe it is becoming increasingly clear that we should move much further and definitely accept the principle of free university tuition. Until such time as physical facilities and teaching staffs can be expanded, free university tuition would no doubt mean that university admission standards might have to be raised slightly.
This and all other arguments against free university tuition have from time to time in the past been made against free high school and even free public school education. In our more complex society, with its higher educational requirements, the arguments for free university tuition are now as valid as they were in the past for free high school and public school tuition.
The report of the Economic Council established clearly the financial benefits our entire country will derive from higher education. The increased tax revenue alone from higher incomes earned by university graduates will pay the cost of their university tuition many times over. The benefits of higher education are felt by everyone in the community. Yet at the present time a large part of the cost of university education falls upon the shoulders of the parents, who are often the least able to pay, rather than upon the community as a whole.

In any election, Mr. Speaker, I find that the candidates usually learn more from their constituents than the constituents learn from the candidates. In this last election campaign I learned that the interests of the people of St. Paul's were beginning to shift from economic reforms to reform of what might be termed our social legislation. This is not strange. While much remains to be done, many of the grave economic problems which beset Canada a few years ago have been largely solved. In particular, we have achieved almost full employment in Toronto and indeed in most areas of our country.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Accordingly, after discussion with members of our riding association of every belief and religious denomination I have sponsored bills providing for reform in our divorce laws extending the grounds for divorce and for reform in our laws relating to birth control, including therapeutic abortions, that is to say, abortions necessary for the physical or mem-tal health of the mother. I have also sponsored a bill designed to stop the slaughter on our highways by making it a criminal offence for any corporation or its executive officers or directors to manufacture or assemble and sell motor vehicles intended for highway use which do not contain reasonable safety devices.
These and many other bills sponsored by private members will come up in private members' hour. I hope that this session worth-while legislation will not be talked out as it has been in the past but that some real attempt will be made to make private members' hour the very useful hour that it could well become.
There is one other point on which I am sure the government will welcome an expression of independent opinion from a member on this side of the house. I refer, of course, to the 11 per cent sales tax on equipment used in production. The new Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) is now considering his budget. I urge him to remove this sales tax immediately-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ian Grant Wahn: The sales tax on production equipment quite clearly involves a double tax. The price of the products of the business includes an allowance for the capital cost of the production equipment and also, of course, the capital cost of the building materials used in constructing the factory buildings. If the goods are sold in Canada the 11 per cent sales tax is applied against their full selling price,
January 25, 1966
including the allowance for the capital cost of the production equipment and building materials. To levy a sales tax against the production equipment and building materials as well as against the manufactured article is to levy the same tax twice on the same item. This is clearly unjust; it also penalizes Canadian manufacturers in their attempts to sell in highly competitive markets.
Like all members on this side of the house, Mr. Speaker, I am most anxious that the government should proceed rapidly with the medicare program which we emphasized during the last election campaign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ian Grant Wahn: It should be given the utmost priority so that it may become effective by July 1, 1967, as we promised. As always there will be those who oppose bitterly further social security programs. Such protests are rightly suspect since they are usually made by those who have a definite financial interest in preventing or delaying the introduction of social security programs which the great majority of the people want and need.
I would agree that a nation cannot become great merely by adopting a Robin Hood policy of taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Nevertheless, for hundreds of years it has been recognized that a well-governed state will seek to avoid extremes of wealth and poverty and will encourage the growth of a large middle class.
In his "Great Works on Politics", written over 2,000 years ago, Aristotle said:
A state ought to be composed, as far as possible, of equals and similars; and these are generally the middle classes. Wherefore the state which is composed of middle class citizens is necessarily best constituted ... it is manifest that the best political community is formed by citizens of the middle class, and that those states are likely to be well administered, in which the middle class is large . . . Great then is the good fortune of a state in which the citizens have a moderate and sufficient property.
In Canada the social security legislation and transfer payments initiated by various federal Liberal governments are in fact well designed to achieve the objective referred to in this quotation. Indeed, as members on both sides of the house know, it is the proud boast of members of our party that all the major social legislation in the federal field has been introduced by this party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ian Grant Wahn: Mr. Speaker, may I conclude by saying that we on this side of the house are determined to act so that we can continue to
257
The Address-Mr. Irvine make that boast and make good the promises which were made to our constituents in the last election.


Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to extend my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne as is the custom but not necessarily because it is the custom. I should like to extend that courtesy to the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer) and the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) because of the manner in which they discharged their responsibilities. Of course, not by any means being a veteran member of this house I cannot help but recognize their efforts and it is refreshing to me to see two new members make such worth-while contributions.
I seize this opportunity also, Mr. Speaker, to offer my congratulations to you and your staff. Those of us who were here in the twenty sixth parliament, have come to know you as a man of great ability, a man with a great deal of tact, a man with a great store of knowledge and a champion of fair play. I would like to say, sir, that I personally pledge to you my co-operation and wish you the best for much time to come.
I have reviewed the Speech from the Throne; I have gone over it many times. I have tried to find something in this speech that might be somewhat concrete. However, I find it to be almost a photostat of the one that was presented on April 6, 1965. But I do recognize in the speech a couple of things, warmed up though they may be, that appear to have some serious import.
First of all, I should like to mention increased grants to universities. I believe this is a very, very important item, not because the University of Western Ontario is located in London, not because it is generally recognized, I am sure, by everybody here and throughout this country as being the finest university in Canada-


Mr. Rynard:: Just one.


John Alfred Irvine: -but because I believe education is a very important factor in the lives of all young people. This is a giant step forward but I would say, let us go on from here. I do not think this is the place for us to stop. We should go a little farther, perhaps a good deal farther, in this regard.
Every person who has the potential qualities, or ability to benefit from academic training must have an opportunity regardless of his financial position to obtain an education. Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?

2S8
January 25, 1966

The Address-Mr. Irvine PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION



SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTION TO BE DEBATED UNDER ADJOURNMENT MOTION

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the following question will be raised at the time of adjournment: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles); public service-superannuated federal employees-request for increased pensions.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. 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.
John Alfred Irvine: Mr. Speaker, when we recessed for dinner I was speaking on the subject of education. I cannot help going back to the election campaign of 1963 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) promised some 10,000 scholarships. I believe the total cost was to run in the neighbourhood of $10 million. This promise of course never did come to fruition. Instead we did receive legislation setting up the student loan fund. I am wondering why this promise was swept under the rug. The student loans make it very difficult for a young man getting out of university because he is saddled with a great debt which he has to pay and upon which he has to pay interest. Perhaps this scheme did serve a purpose, but there was a great deal of propaganda about it.
It is my understanding we are going to expend roughly $40 million for scholarships now. This, of course, is four times as much as the promised expenditure on scholarships in 1963. If we receive this amount on a pro rata basis in the same manner as we received the promised amount in 1963, we should receive four times as much. Four times nothing, of course, still remains nothing. I am just wondering if this promise will be forgotten, as so many other promises have been from time to

time. I feel we should have some action in this field. This is something that is very necessary, very worth while. I feel the government should honour the promises they made during the recent election campaign.
Another subject I am rather duty bound to mention in this house is that of job training. We have either to train these people in some skills, or fail to keep pace with the new era of automation into which we have already entered. Either we equip these people to live with some semblance of dignity and selfrespect or we will have to look after them through some of our social services.
This training program would have a tendency to make these people become good citizens. Otherwise they will just become charges upon their own municipalities, as well as the provincial and federal governments. I say that this is a must program. According to the press a statement was made here in September that the immigration department was desirous of bringing into Canada some 180,000 skilled workers. Immigration is very important, but I should like to ask this question: What about our own Canadians? I feel we ought to think that charity generally begins at home, and that it is our responsibility to help every individual fill a worth-while job. I know that when I make this statement I am speaking for every person in this house, regardless of party, somehow or other we must do something to protect the dignity of the individual.
I had intended to speak at great length on the subject of trade and commerce. Yesterday the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees) mentioned several of the subjects I had in mind. If I were to recapitulate those things it would be redundant. However, there are one or two subjects upon which I must touch. He spoke rather briefly of the balance of payments, and of the shortcomings of our Department of Trade and Commerce. He mentioned that this year total imports might be something in the neighbourhood of $1 billion over exports. I must refer to an item that appeared in the London Free Press on September 4, 1965. The heading on this article reads, "Imports up 16.4 per cent in June". This article states:
Imports rose in June this year to $798,600,000, up 16.4 per cent from the June, 1964 total of $686 million, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports.
Farther along in this article I read:
The bureau reported earlier that exports in June foil 7.4 per cent from June, 1964 to $737,200,000.
January 25, 1966

With regard to our exports to Great Britain the article reports:
Exports fell 11.9 per cent in the month to $99,300,000.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious picture. I am just wondering if perhaps there is something wrong with our general economy. What is the answer? Is this one of the reasons an election was called? Is there something wrong internally with our economy about which we should know? Certainly the signs are here.
In 1962 the government, then the official opposition, blasted us because of the devaluation of the Canadian dollar. However, they have not seen fit to change it. I am just wondering if a further devaluation is the answer to our problem. I think this is something that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) along with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) might seriously consider. Should we drop the value of the dollar to the 90 cent level? These are very important times, very serious times in this country of ours.
I must say something once again, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the retarded people, and not just retarded children, in relation to our present immigration laws. I knew of an individual in this country who received an offer of a much better position in the United States. He went to the southern United States, arranged for the rental of a home and moved his furniture. When he went to cross the border the officials refused permission for his 20 year old son to enter the country. I made it my business to meet this boy. He is mildly retarded, having an I.Q. of approximately 60 to 70. He did go through grade 6. In my estimation he was a nice lad and he does perform a daily labouring task. This was a great privation for this particular family and I believe that something should be done about our immigration laws, and in a fashion which would be reciprocal with the United States, to meet situations of this kind.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I believe a bill was recently introduced into Congress to amend their laws, and I feel that a similar bill should be introduced here. But I should like to see such a bill come from the government side of the house, because it would have a much greater chance of passing in that event than if it were to be introduced in the form of a private member's bill. However, I propose to introduce such a bill, but I should like not to get credit for the bill. I should like to see the people who need it get the credit.
23033-17J
The Address-Mr. Irvine
I must make reference, Mr. Speaker, to a meeting which I attended in July of this year of the Association of Retarded Children. We who have been fortunate and who have families which are not mentally retarded should be very happy to come to the aid of others less fortunate, because mental retardation could happen in any family. This meeting, attended by Congressman John Fogarty of Rhode Island, was held in the Royal York hotel, Toronto. We discussed many of these aspects, and I am now going to quote one of the items in a brochure which was presented at that time. According to section 5 of the Canada Immigration Act of 1952, the following are prohibited entry to Canada as immigrants or as visitors: Persons who (1) are idiots, imbeciles or morons; (2) are insane or have been insane; (3) have constitutional psychopathic personalities; and (4) are afflicted with epilepsy. Whatever the original intent of this act it is now out of date both in its implications and in the very language it employs.
The words "idiot", "imbecile" and "moron" have not been found in modern medical literature for many years. They are considered repulsive as well as outdated. The same can be said of the word "insane"; and medicine has yet to define the word "psychopathic".
There are many other cases than the one I cited, Mr. Speaker. Many are related in this brochure which I am sure everyone in this house should read. One short item in the brochure makes this whole act, I think, ridiculous. It says:
Our records contain the case of a retarded boy whose mother attempted to take him to New York state on urgent business of her own. When she discovered that the boy would be refused she made arrangements for his care and attempted to continue her journey alone. She also was refused admission as "an alien accompanying an inad-missable alien".
I am very much concerned over these people, Mr. Speaker. It is a matter which should be corrected, and corrected immediately or as soon as we can make the necessary arrangements with the United States immigration department. If there is worry that these children or grown up people would become charges either on a state or on this country at some future time, then I should like to suggest that should those born in Canada become charges on the state of their choice then they would be our responsibility. And, vice-versa,, those coming from the United States to Canada would be the charges of their respective states from which they happened'
January 25, 1966

The Address-Mr. Irvine to come. I say that because of the great number who would come here compared with the number who would go to the United States.
I must say something with regard to the small businessman who, at one time, was considered the backbone of this great country of ours. The small businessman, however, is getting smaller all the time. Some of them are even going out of business, as evidenced by the great number of bankruptcies we have had. The large ones are getting larger. For the independent businessman the cost of doing business with our high cost of living, which has gone up 15 points over the last three years, makes survival difficult. There is also the cost of administration of such things as deductions which employers make on behalf of their employees. Other matters are income tax and unemployment insurance, federal matters for which they receive no compensation for work done. Such things as compensation for employees and sales tax are provincial matters, but certainly income tax is a federal matter, as is unemployment insurance and deductions under the Canada Pension Plan. As I say, these employers receive no compensation for doing this work.
I have here an item from the Toronto Daily Star for January 3 in which the following appeared:
Employers were taking a hard look at employee payroll deductions as the Canada Pension Plan came into effect. With nine deductions from a pay cheque not uncommon, the administration cost of mandatory deductions has become more than just a nuisance to industry.
Further on in the article this statement appears:
M. M. Dillon Ltd. of London, Ont., an engineering firm with about 235 employees, will go to payroll data processing to help cope with the paper work.
"We felt that the inception of the Canada Pension Plan would be a good time to swing over to data processing," said W. G. M. Wilson, personnel manager for Dillon.
Usual payroll deductions here are Ontario hospital, income tax, unemployment insurance, pension plan, medical insurance, salary continuation insurance and voluntary group life insurance."
These are matters with which they are faced, Mr. Speaker.
One big company has indicated that their administration cost in connection with these matters was about 1 per cent of their gross income. This being a large firm with some 900 employees, it is quite easy to see that the cost to a smaller firm with 10, 20 or 30 employees might well run to 3 per cent, which might represent its total net profit.


I have a note here which I received from the Canadian Tax Foundation. Provision for remuneration is made provincially in many cases. In British Columbia it is 3 per cent on the first $2,500 and then 1 per cent. In Saskatchewan it is 3 per cent on the first $600 and then 2 per cent. In Ontario it is one half to 4 per cent with a 50 cents minimum. In Quebec it is 2 per cent, and in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland it is 3 per cent.
I should like to ask what we are going to do to assist these people, because something must be done. Some of these firms find they must hire somebody, a man or a lady, simply to look after this particular procedure alone as far as the firm is concerned. In many cases if these returns are filed late there is a penalty. If there is an overpayment it is not always refunded, which I think is grossly unfair. These employers should receive something by way of remuneration for the bookkeeping services which they are doing for us.
I also object, Mr. Speaker, to another matter of grave importance. Just before the recent election campaign, ads appeared in many papers across Canada in connection with the Canada pension plan. A beautiful picture was drawn depicting someone working in a mine, and the ad stated how much he was going to pay into the plan and how much he would receive at age 65. But there was confusion; it was confused with the old age security plan in that the two items were added together. However, that is not the point I am making. Think of the number of papers in which these ads were run.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I do not know whether the party in power would want us to think that public money was used for election purposes. But, Mr. Speaker, it would look like it. Let us consider for a moment the amount of money which was spent in advertising redistribution across this country. In the Toronto Daily Star on June 15, 1965, there were ten pages of advertising at approximately $1,000 a page-$10,000 in one paper on one day. These advertisements were run in every paper of any size right across Canada-maybe on not quite so many pages; I did not check all the papers. But if one multiplies the cost of this one insertion by hundreds the total figure runs into hundreds of thousands of dollars, possibly into millions.
Why? Was this running an election campaign on public money? Was this a softening
January 25, 1966

up process intended to make the news media sympathetic? If not, why was it done just before a federal election?
It is all over now. We have had that election. The people have spoken. But the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is reported to have said in September, 1965, that if he did not have a majority he did not want to form a government. He also said, I understand, that if there was no majority there would be an election within six months. Today I am wondering just what his intentions are.
He is further reported to have said in regard to the old age security payment that it would be raised to $100 a month, or even more for those who were in need. I am led to assume by this that he meant a means test. I know this was mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) but I have to admire the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown) because he has a conscience and because he wants to serve the people according to the dictates of that conscience. I congratulate him for having placed notice of motion number 50 on our order paper. I should like to say that this hon. member is a good friend of mine.
I should also like to say this that there is no suggestion in the amendment before us that this money should be taken from the Canada Pension Plan. It was mentioned incidentally by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) that this is a possible source, but the amendment itself contains no suggestion that this money should come from the pension plan. On this basis I feel the hon. member for Brantford should be able to vote according to the dictates of his conscience. I hope his notice of motion indicates that on the government side of the house there is to be a free vote on this issue. It would be refreshingly new and different if there were. It is time hon. members opposite considered their position closely before casting their votes tonight. Would it not be an excellent thing if we could all get together and make this a unanimous decision?
Judging from the notices of motions on the order paper, if members opposite do not agree to it now, they intend to bring in this increase later, anyway. Would it not be an odd coincidence if this were to happen just before another election, always supposing of course they have notice that another election is coming.
Where do we go from here? The Prime Minister told us that he did not want to form a government unless he had a majority. Then
The Address-Mr. Guay he made the other statement I have already mentioned. Is the right hon. gentleman prepared to resign? We are waiting for him. Does he want us to form a government? We are waiting for that, too: We can do it. Does he want another election?


An hon. Member:: Do you?


John Alfred Irvine: Personally I do not care. We are ready for that, too. But I should like the Prime Minister to make up his mind, now.


An hon. Member:: He has.


John Alfred Irvine: Then let us do whatever is proper, whatever is the right thing to do. Let us be Canadians. Let us put our country first and put our parties second, and get on with the running of Canada's business.


Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, following several of my colleagues who made their contribution to this debate, I am pleased to congratulate you and the Deputy Speaker of this house upon your election to those respective offices. I also congratulate the mover and the seconder for performing their duty with so much eloquence and ease.
My speech will deal mainly with one particular paragraph of the speech from the throne, as reported on page 8 of Hansard of January 18, 1966, and I quote:
My government will propose a vigorous program, in co-operation with the provinces, to foster the training of workers and to assist in bringing into productive employment those who are now unemployed or inadequately employed. You will be asked to consider a measure to improve the system of training allowances provided under federal-provincial agreements.
Mr. Speaker, here are the main problems that must be dealt with regarding poverty. First of all, ways must be found to offer at all times a sufficient number of jobs to those who are prepared and able to work and then to make sure that all citizens are qualified to take advantage of available jobs.
Although many other problems must be solved, if we want to avoid poverty, we must create enough jobs for all our able-bodied citizens.
Today, full employment is the main goal of most countries. In Canada, since the end of the war the government has been openly pursuing that goal.
Full employment, as it is generally understood, does not guarantee prosperity or satisfactory living standards for all. This well-known fact has now become for the community an increasing worry.

January 25, 1966
The Address-Mr. Guay
It is felt that full employment has been reached when 97 per cent of the labour force is working. However, that average can be reached even if there is a higher proportion of unemployed in some age groups, in some localities and in some periods of the year.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Last summer less than 3 per cent of our labour force was unemployed, and this, for the first time in almost ten years. Even then, unemployment was higher, namely 4 per cent, in the province of Quebec and in the Atlantic region, and possibly two or three times higher in certain areas; the rate was 6.4 per cent for the 15- to 19-year age group, 8.1 per cent for labourers and 5.5 per cent in the building industry. A full employment policy must be concerned not only with the number of jobs but also with the distribution of these jobs.
Mr. Speaker, such a policy must also take into account the quality or the productivity of the jobs, i.e. the case of the worker who, although he works full time, earns an insufficient income.
In rural areas this problem gave rise to suggestions likely to increase agricultural production, to foster rural development and the merging of marginal farms. In urban centres, traditional solutions shaped themselves into minimum wages and other labour standards. More recently the emphasis has been put to a greater extent on the research of incentives that will provide employment in secondary industries located in areas where the percentage of unemployed is greater.
The most serious problems caused by poverty can be found in groups of people cut off from the labour market. I am thinking of pensioners, persons lacking in vocational training, school drop-outs and problem-ridden families.
Steady periods of full employment would alleviate the economic problems facing those people, but the real solution would be to provide funds to promote the interest, the education and the professional guidance of the small wage earners and their children so that they become more efficient, more independent and get higher wages through their own efforts. The problem in establishing a policy regarding those people, is to set up assistance programs to encourage their quest for independence, while protecting their income and preserving their dignity.
Poverty appears in many guises, but the most usual and surest test is the amount of cash income.

A method of determining the spread of poverty would be to draw a dividing line of poverty, and then figure out, for instance, the number of unmarried persons earning less than $1,500; the number of married couples with an income below $2,500; the number of four member families with a income inferior to $3,000, and so on. This calculation would help measure the true difference between an adequate income and the actual one. For many reasons, however, such a calculation is not enough to lay down a government policy. First of all, the actual income index does not take into account a number of factors affecting the welfare of the family, such as income in kind, fringe benefits, property ownership or tenancy, food requirements of workers doing different types of work, and so on.
In other words, income may be an incomplete or biased indication of poverty. Second, poverty is not an absolute condition in itself. As Galbraith said "People feel destitute when their income, even if it is sufficient as a means of livelihood, is markedly lower than that of people around them." This would lead us to believe that income in relation to the community average would make a better index.
Third, knowledge limited to income levels is not a sufficient basis to establish a plan. The cause of low income must be sought to formulate certain policies such as for instance, unemployment insurance, winter works programs, manpower mobility programs.
For other types of programs, such as old age pensions and unemployment assistance, it is essential that we know the particular features of low income brackets. Therefore, in addition to the breakdown of income, it is necessary to determine various complementary aspects of poverty, such as unemployment of rural and urban workers, the degree of education of the unemployed, the extent to which health and housing have affected education and employment, etc.
Mr. Speaker, considering underemployment, the number of unemployed people in a country does not alone give the exact picture of poverty or of a lack of manpower utilization. In a way, it is a matter of definition.
On the one hand, official unemployment statistics disregard the unemployed who may want to work but cannot for physical or psychological reasons. On the other hand, these figures do not take into account those who work but do not earn enough to provide a decent standard of living for their families.
January 25, 1966
These people are usually classified with the inadequately employed. This category includes people who, through no fault of their own, hold an occasional or part time job, those who have a regular job only during part of the year, and those who are employed all year round but in low production fields. The last are often found in the agriculture and fishing industries.
To achieve a high rate of national growth and have price stability, we must be able to determine, even if only approximately, the labour markets where there are not enough jobs, their geographical distribution and the change in size they might undergo from one period to another. Such information is also important to eliminate poverty.
However, underemployment is a complex phenomenon both hard to define and evaluate, and opinions generally differ on one and the other, except in a very broad sense. Experts brought together by the international labour organization have defined two kinds of underemployment:	visible underemployment,
where you have people who, through no fault of their own, have shorter than average working periods. Hidden underemployment, that is what we have where full time workers earn abnormally low wages or else where jobs do not allow them the fullest use of their capabilities or knowledge. Satisfactory means have yet to be found to evaluate this last category of underemployment. Low income has been chosen as a determining factor, because underemployment is one of its main causes, although, admittedly, not the only one.
Using what figures are available, the extent of the obvious underemployment in Canada may be arrived at through various methods. The decennial census is the most detailed source of information on underemployment during part of the year, for it gives information on the apportionment of salaries earned in various jobs during the year under review.
In 1961, 3.6 million male wage earners declared how their income was distributed during the year preceding the census. Of these, 2.8 million worked for 40 weeks and 2.7 million of them averaged more than 35 hours a week. This means that no more than three quarters of all male wage earners in Canada worked full time the whole year through. One quarter of all wage earners,
780.000,	worked for less than nine months,
460.000,	for less than six, and almost 200,000 worked for less than three months.
Mr. Speaker, according to the census definition of a family, 23 per cent of all Canadian
The Address-Mr. Guay families earned less than $3,000 in 1961. Of those whose breadwinner is a woman, more than half earned less than $3,000 and two fifths earned less than $2,000. Three out of every five families living on fishing, one out of every two families living on woodcutting or farming, and one labourer out of three earned less than $3,000.
[DOT] (8:40 p.ra.)
Problems with regard to poverty can be subdivided as follows: (1) those of people clearly cut off from the labour market; (2) those of the unemployed; (3) those of people whose present production is too low to provide an adequate family income.
The first group includes retired people, widowed people with dependant children, permanently handicapped people and others who cannot possibly be on the labour market. The solution to be adopted towards this group is to set up assistance programs providing adequate help and ensuring that their dignity be respected, while continuing to promote some sort of independence wherever possible.
The group of the unemployed is extremely diversified. On the whole, seasonal variations of activities account for roughly one third of the unemployment. In many areas, it is the main cause of poverty.
The hardest unemployment problems to solve include those concerning handicapped persons at the occupational level and school drop-outs. The unemployment rate among workers under 20 is more than double the national average. But, proportionately speaking, even if the unemployed are less numerous among older workers, they are more likely to suffer longer from unemployment once they lose a job.
Included in the third group are people affected by underemployment. Those are the persons working less than they would like to at part time or casual jobs or jobs with a low return or income. In this sense underemployment forms an important part of the problem of poverty and especially rural poverty.
Unemployment and underemployment are problems which must be considered in the context of a society whose industrial and employment structures are now undergoing rapid changes. That evolution calls for greater adaptability on the part of the labour force. The distribution of jobs has changed and more and more jobs require better training. Technological changes are now happening at such a rate that many workers will have to get additional training several times to fill new jobs.



January 25, 1966
The Address-Mr. Guay
Under the present circumstances a manpower program directed toward a high level of employment and a highly productive economy requires such things as increased mobility, effective training methods, youth orientation, services to foster a desire for accomplishment and regional development programs.
Those are the very measures that must be adopted to solve the particular problems resulting from poverty. In other words, a great number of programs needed to alleviate poverty must not be concerned exclusively with low income people. They must also apply to the labour force in general.
Mr. Speaker, to consider various solutions, I refer to the newspaper Le Soleil, of June 11, 1965, and I quote an article entitled "Jean Marchand opens up."
The President of the C.N.T.U. deplores the lack of an employment program. According to him, man's right to work is not recognized under our economic system. In his opinion, that right has become a commodity, submitted in that respect to the law of supply and demand, a situation which is unacceptable because it destroys the worker's personality. There is no doubt, he added, that through their sustained efforts, labour unions have forced the enactment of legislation to correct the immediate results of unemployment, although full employment is not considered by most North American economists as a goal to strive for and attain. The solution to the employment problem, according to Mr. Marchand, is economic; the right to work cannot be respected unless new jobs are created as a matter of deliberate policy. He stated that that is all the more imperative and urgent that the progress of productivity or even automation tend to reduce the amount of human labour needed for a given production.
The distribution of the working population between the various sectors of economic activity is not unalterable, but subject to changes which result mostly from technical progress and productivity; fewer people are employed in primary industries and agriculture; then the number of people employed in secondary industries increases, steadies down and decreases; and, finally, the number of jobs in the third sector increases very rapidly. Such trends seem to be the general law and any realistic employment program must accept it as such.
Mr. Marchand goes farther than that.
According to him, efforts to maintain the present spread of employment would be to no avail. When the number of jobs is cut down to reduce production costs, the steps taken for this purpose are even desirable, provided the workers involved are sure to find suitable employment enabling them to keep up their standard of living. For Mr. Marchand, such a program would imply concerted action in the various sectors of the economy, a collective effort to cover manpower reconversion costs or create new jobs in depressed areas.

Second, I would like to quote from the same newspaper and the same series of articles by Mr. Roland Parenteau who said;
The need for increased participation of the state in the economic and social life of the province is a fact recognized by everybody.
He does not mean, however, that the state must assume all responsibilities. The state, as such, is suited to assume certain responsibilities; in other fields, it is better to leave things to private enterprise.
The main responsibility of the state, according to Mr. Parenteau, is to draw up the master plan. This does not mean, however, that the state should not call upon the services of representatives of private enterprise. But once this plan is drawn up and duties have been assigned to everyone, it can be said then that the greater part of the work of the state is done. The latter does not have to substitute itself to individuals.
Mr. Parenteau concludes that the state will more readily accept the role of co-ordinator and referee when it is itself relieved of the production and distribution of this wealth.
Then, said Mr. Parenteau, we do not forget, in the province of Quebec, that one of the objects of planning is to bring about a better geographical balance.
During the federal-provincial conference of last July, the federal government emphasized not only the necessity of increasing training but also the necessity of carrying out thorough research in the field of training needs and the problems of motivation, in order to contribute to the development of more efficient techniques for adult education. It was suggested, then agreed in principle, to set up a number of special pilot projects which would serve as a practical and thorough investigation on the best means to meet the training needs of adults, especially those who have been unemployed for long periods of time or who have been engaged in activities of a low productive nature.
The results of such an experience and test will be of practical value not only in the areas concerned but in all parts of the country and in all provinces. We all recognize, I think, the need for greatly increased adult training- We all know that the problems and needs of such training are of a special nature and differ greatly and in many respects from the problems of education at the school level. We still have a lot to learn on means to ensure its efficiency. That will be the usefulness of the pilot projects.
January 25, 1966

The federal proposals were more thoroughly discussed last September, at a meeting of federal officials and representatives of the Canadian Education Association and of the Canadian Association of Administrators of Labour Legislation.
At the time, the minister said:
The revised proposal which resulted from that meeting is the first item on today's agenda and the main reason for this meeting.
Those pilot projects are a preliminary and necessary step of this major effort for adult training which, I feel, is one of the main elements of manpower policies in Canada.
I am convinced that one of the most important jobs for the government today is to give leadership in the development of our manpower resources. I use the word "government" on purpose. I do not mean the federal or provincial government. I mean both together. It is only through co-operation that we will be able to meet the needs of those that such governments have a responsibility to serve.
I noted with pleasure that, in its second report, the Economic Council of Canada strongly supported our viewpoint concerning the vital importance of a manpower policy. Our human resources are the key to economic progress and sustained prosperity, and the full development of our human resources calls for high levels of education and training, and also first class employment services.
The tasks, both immediate and future, are manifold. The present lack of skilled manpower must be filled, partly through immigration, but mostly by training further the workers which we already have. We must see that available skills are used at the right time and at the right place. We must take new steps to lessen useless seasonal unemployment and eliminate pockets of underemployed manpower. But above all we must bend our efforts toward raising the level of practical knowledge of those who have left school and who make up the present or the potential working force.
The Economic Council has pointed out that in spite of the greatly increased opportunities for technical training open in the last few years to students in vocational training schools, "no marked progress has been made in the training or re-education of the present labour force".
For adult training to be truly successful, techniques are needed, and the required techniques are neither known nor tested enough. We must study them and adopt special schemes to make training more acceptable to adults; we must find new ways of increasing motivation in the individual and improving community attitude toward training. To ensure the success of training, there must be a general feeling that the adult who attends a training school is not retrograding but that, on the contrary, he is actively engaged in living, that what he is doing is normal, productive, in a buoyant economy.
The Address-Mr. David MacDonald
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this, my first occasion to address the house, with great fear and trepidation. I have had some experience of standing behind a pulpit, somewhat higher than the one I am standing behind at this moment, but I am not used to addressing a congregation that is also seated behind their own pulpits. For that and many other reasons I think there is some cause for fear on my part.
Mr. Speaker, I should begin by congratulating you on your election as Speaker of this house. I for one was very impressed, when I congratulated you personally during the reception, to see the warmth and friendship which you offered to all members of the house, even on that day when I am sure you shook hands with many hundreds of people. I wish you, sir, good health and much success in this role, and I am sure you will be a great credit to this house and to yourself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I should also like to congratulate the mover of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne-unfortunately I am not able to address the hon. member in his native language-who confronted us so well with the issues that face him from his own particular viewpoint. I congratulate, also, the seconder of this motion, the hon. member who spoke to us of his constituency and his dreams in such an eloquent manner.
I should like to spend a few moments, if I may, in dealing with some aspects of this most recent in a series of Speeches from the Throne. One of the things that it speaks of in a variety of different ways is the question of poverty. Recently we had emanating from one of the many federal-provincial conferences the enunciation that there is to be a poverty line of some $3,000, I believe it is, for a family of a husband, wife and two children.
I only wish that an average yearly income of $3,000 was enjoyed by the people of Prince Edward Island, for if this figure is to be taken as any kind of an average, we in my province do not nearly measure up to even what is called the poverty line. It is important to me that great, worth-while and effective steps be taken by the house to deal with this serious question of poverty as it expresses itself in many different forms across this country.
January 25, 1966

The Address-Mr. David MacDonald
I can speak very feelingly on this question because I think in large measure I am here in the house this evening because I have been sent here by people who through personal experience and association are deeply concerned with poverty. They know the face of poverty well, and many of them have worn this face for an extremely long time.
On of the things that interests me greatly in the Speech from the Throne, is the suggestion that there will be a review of the tax structure and a reconsideration of the fiscal relationships between the federal government and the provincial governments, for on this question hangs a great deal of the hope, or lack of it, in the province of Prince Edward Island. As is well known through the many statistics that are published from time to time, we in Prince Edward Island have a very low standard of living. This is expressed in a number of ways. One way, of course, is the number of people who emigrate frequently from Prince Edward Island. It is also expressed in the continual story of chronic unemployment, low education standards, and so on.
Year after year we have our provincial ministers-and this has been true no matter which party they have represented-coming to Ottawa to ask for some kind of adjustment, in light of this serious situation. It was one of the important achievements of the previous administration in this house that great things began to happen not only for Prince Edward Island but the maritimes, and the special needs of the maritimes region were finally taken into account.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: It is somewhat tragic that since 1963 we have seen a loss of interest in this most vital problem. Maybe it is true, as one person remarked recently somewhat facetiously, that we should start our own kind of separatism down in Prince Edward Island. Perhaps we should think of joining the "Boston States". Whether or not the answer does go back to the proposition that we would have been better off in union with the New England seaboard and that great area known as Megopolis, I am not sure; but I do know there is a tremendous economic discrepancy between much of the maritimes region and the so-called heartland of Canada wherein we are situated at the present moment.
We must begin to deal with the needs that exist in this particular area and we must deal

with them realistically. It is not enough for a federal authority to just recognize the needs of a province and its population; other things must be taken into account as well. You must remember that the province of Prince Edward Island must maintain a full provincial government and civil service to administer a population not much larger than that of a small city. There are special expenses that must be met if the province is to maintain its own identity.
One must realize the educational needs which we must provide. If we are to overcome this serious situation, we must provide teachers and the proper support for educational institutions that are not at the average or below average, but are above average.
I found it interesting to learn that Prince county has one of the highest proportions of people of school age of any geographic area in Canada. Some 47 per cent of our population in Prince county is under the age of 19 and is thus eligible for some kind of academic training. I was glad to see mention made in the Speech from the Throne of some kind of training allowance being made available to those who are past school age and wish to further their education.
We have been quite willing year after year to spend money for certain kinds of welfare and unemployment insurance. We must be willing to invest heavily in the field of supporting adults in their 40's, 50's and, yes, even their 60's while they seek to obtain an education they were unable to get during their school years.
When one considers the matter of agriculture and fisheries in this Speech from the Throne, really much more is said about agriculture than one could almost expect, and you are inclined to suspect a guilt complex was at work here because so little has taken place in this field during the last two and a half years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: 
Mr. J. R. Comtois (Jolielle-L'Assomplion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take this, my first opportunity to speak in this house, to congratulate you most sincerely on your election to the high office of Speaker of this house.
I have only been seeing you perform for a few days, but I cannot help but admire your great qualities, which in any case have already been adequately described by all the previous speakers.
January 25, 19G6	COMMONS
I also extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer) and the hon. member for York-Sear borough (Mr. Stanbury) for the faultless manner in which they delivered their first speeches in this house, on the occasion of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
They have set a high standard of quality which the new members will endeavour to attain in their speeches.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister for having again lead the Liberal party to victory. I also congratulate from the bottom of my heart my constituents from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm for having sent a Liberal to parliament. I hope we will have from now on, many years of prosperity, social security, industrial, agricultural and tourist development in this beautiful region on the north shore of the St. Lawrence.
The riding of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm will be represented in Ottawa with dignity, clear-headedness and drive.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members, this is the new voice of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. All my life I wanted and I tried to be a builder in the largest sense of the word, and I think I have succeeded in becoming one. In my riding of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm I have built houses by the hundreds, schools, public and industrial buildings, sewers, water mains, streets, roads, and I have contributed to many other plans of public and civic movements. To achieve all of this I had very limited means of action, so it took a lot of work, courage and ambition. If today I am in federal politics it is because I think it is the strongest lever I can use to continue in my endeavour to help as much as I can to build a better Canada for all Canadians and for all French Canadians.
The duty of all of us here is to keep Canada united and to assure equal partnership to English Canadians and French Canadians, the two founding races of our country. For this we must succeed in making each and every Canadian feel secure and at home anywhere in Canada, and especially here in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, many hon. members have heard speeches in the past about the constituency of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, but I should like to give a brief account of this county as seen through the eyes of a new
DEBATES	269
The Address-Mr. Comtois member. My constituency is about 210 miles long, about 36 miles wide and encompasses more than 7,500 square miles. On the southern side it is bordered by the St. Lawrence River and on the northern side by the county of Abitibi. The county of Berthier bounds it on the eastern side and the county of Terrebonne on the western side. There are over 51 municipalities spread out over this huge territory which has a population of more than
135,000	people. Within its boundaries can be found a great number of rivers, and a still greater number of lakes, mountains, an abundance of natural resources and landscapes of a rare beauty. The people are hardworking, intelligent and courageous.
You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that in such a riding the needs are many. Allow me to name a few that I should like my government to take into consideration.
The riding of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is made up of three very distinct areas: a tourist area in the north, a farming area in the centre and an industrial and residential area in the south.
I would be very happy if highway 18 were considered as an access road to the tourist area of unequaled beauty to the north of St. Donat de Montcalm, which would become a real paradise for the people of the Montreal area.
In addition, the building of a dam at St. Donat de Montcalm, between Lake Ar-chambault and lake Ouareau, would allow pleasure boating on a huge inland body of water.
I commend my government for including in the speech from the throne the proposed establishment of a fund for financing major rural developments projects and agricultural rehabilitation, as well as for other measures to raise and protect farm incomes in order to ensure adequate incomes to our farmers.
I hope this parliament will enable eastern farmers, particularly those in my riding, to benefit from crop insurance, from the Canadian dairy commission and from the livestock feed grain agency.
I shall do my utmost, Mr. Speaker, to attract small or secondary industry to our area specially to those where they are most needed to balance the economy.
Therefore, I hope that the regions of Re-pentigny, L'Epiphanie, L'Assomption, St. Jacques, Rawdon and Joliette will be favoured in the near future.
January 25, 1966

The Address-Mr. Comtois
The construction of the throughway on the north shore with access roads to L'Epi-phanie, St. Paul l'Ermite and Joliette will be a determining factor in this industrial growth. The construction of the new highway 29 from Ste. Therese to Charlemagne will put my riding directly between the General Motors plant and the steel complex at Becancour, with a link to the north shore through the Trois Rivieres bridge.
I am sure that this industrial growth will be followed by a housing boom, particularly in the region of St. Charles de Lachenaie and St. Henri de Mascouche.
The establishment of the Canada Development Corporation will encourage the birth of new industries and the development of existing industries.
I think it would be quite proper to build a large airport between Joliette and L'Assomp-tion, where the land is well suited. Also, I would like to see the dredging of the Back River and the Thousand Islands River to make them navigable and less polluted; the dredging of the small channel in Repentigny, which is needed from a sanitary, aesthetic and touristic point of view; also, the cleaning up of the mouth of the Assomption river, which has been needed for a number of years.
There is a pressing need of hospitals in Joliette, L'Assomption and Rawdon. New technical schools are also required in that area. A bridge across the St. Lawrence between Sorel and Berthier would be a great economic asset to Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm.
All these needs, and many more, Mr. Speaker, stress the importance of healthy federal-provincial relations, and I am pleased to note that the speech from the throne took this into consideration, in a realistic and intelligent fashion, through legislation intended to encourage job training and increases in training subsidies; legislation ensuring to all Canadians, whether they can afford to pay them or not, all necessary health services; legislation setting up a $500 million fund for health services.
There are still many other projects that could be carried out for the well-being of our people. I shall have the opportunity to come back to this in the house in the near future.
I am convinced that the government will consider seriously the following remarks in the preparation of its budget for the year 1966-67.

After having made a serious study of the finances of this country and the possibilities for additional income, I think the problem of the old age pension increase would be settled if we increase these pensions by $5 a year during five years in order to reach $100 per month by 1970, at which time the eligibility will be reduced to age 65. In this way, as early as 1966, people of 69 and more could get $80 per month and so on until 1970, when they would receive $100 at age 65.
Mr. Speaker, our national pride will be strengthened the day this parliament votes for giving our country a truly national anthem, that is "O Canada".
Our social security system will be improved when this parliament votes for the medicare plan.
The young Canadians who wish to get an education will derive benefit from legislation promoting the expansion of institutions of higher learning, from a national bursaries and scholarships program for students, and from increased financial assistance to universities for the 1966-67 academic year.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)

Mr. Speaker, I had to work hard and study hard to become a professional engineer. I had to fight even harder to represent the riding of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm in this house. I was elected to do a job and I intend to do it.

It goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, and you could see that for yourself, that my constituency of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, after experiencing seven lean years, from 1958 to 1965, unquestionably deserves the immediate attention of the government.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of your election last week I expressed my sentiments and I think it would perhaps be in poor taste to repeat the words of congratulation I used then.

I should also, Mr. Speaker, like to congratulate the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer) on the peformance of his duty in moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I have not had the same experience, it is true, but I made my maiden speech, so to speak, in this house, in somewhat similar circumstances.
January 25, 1966

Even when we are experienced and ready speakers there is always, of course, a certain nervousness. The hon. member performed his duty almost with the ease of a professional. We shall probably have the opportunity to hear him again in the following months.

In so far as the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) is concerned, he comes from a riding I had hoped would return one of my former colleagues, a man whose abilities are missed a great deal in this house. But these are the fortunes of political warfare. I wish to extend to the hon. member I have mentioned my congratulations on the method he used and his deportment, in presenting his first speech in this house. This is not the easiest of places in which to speak.
When I say this, a word of caution must be added. In this word of caution I wish to extend my sincere congratulations for the fine example set by the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald) who followed a most commendable practice in that he delivered his speech not from a prepared text but extemporaneously. For a freshman member, this is most commendable.
Hon. members know my view in this regard. I, personally, would banish the use of texts from this house. After all, hon. members have used sufficient eloquence on various political platforms to satisfy the people of their constituencies of their ability to express themselves. So why come to the House of Commons and serve us up with a lengthy speech from a closely prepared text?
It reminds me of an incident of which I read in some book about the British House of Commons. A minister who was not noted for brief speeches or for illuminating speeches entered the house with a whole sheaf of documents. One of the members of the opposition, a leading British parliamentarian of the times, said: "I trust the hon. gentleman will not read us all those documents and bore us with an equally long speech as well." May I therefore commend to the house the salutary example set by the hon. member for Prince this afternoon?
Now, Mr. Speaker, the clock will soon catch up with me as far as the time available for this debate is concerned. I would like to say that I found it somewhat touching the other afternoon to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) spend a great deal of time laboriously talking about the cost of the
The Address-Mr. Lambert amendment which is now before the house. He was wasting his breath. After all, did he and all his cohorts on the election trail not spend the same time and the same effort trying to convince the Canadian electorate of the justice of their cause? Their arguments were in the main rejected. They came out to western Canada, legions of them, and they all went back-but not as members of the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being nine thirty o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to section 4 of standing order 38, to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put the question on the amendment now before the house.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I adjourn the debate?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on the orders of the day this morning I put a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp). My question was in these words: "Now that we have a new parliament and a new Minister of Finance, can we expect action in this session on the matter of increasing the pensions of retired civil servants?" The minister replied with one word, and that one word was, "No". I posted my question for this overtime period tonight because I found that answer of the Minister of Finance a severe shock.
It seems to me that for the .minister to attempt to close off this issue even before this session of parliament gets started is high handed, to say the least. I believe that there are in this House of Commons more members than there have been in any previous house who believe that the pensions of civil servants already retired should be increased. I notice across the way my friend, the hon. member for Victoria, British Columbia (Mr. Groos), who has spoken on this issue and supported our case in previous sessions. I know that the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) has shown an interest in it, as has the

January 25, 1966	COMMONS
hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Chatterton), members to my left in the other two parties, and many members in my own party. I believe there are other members across the way in the minister's party who are interested in the subject. For him to say no, before this issue can be debated at all, is a high handed way of dealing with our retired civil servants.
I do not believe it is necessary for me to spell out the need of retired civil servants, especially those retired some years ago, for an increase in their pensions. The figures which the government brings down from year to year in response to questions I put on the order paper demonstrate this need. I make the point also that the principle of increasing the pensions of persons already in retirement has been established in a good many jurisdictions. Several of the provinces of this country already do it as well as a number of municipalities. My own city of Winnipeg has an arrangement under which the pensions of civic employees already retired can be increased.
I point out also, Mr. Speaker, that we have accepted the principle of escalating pensions that have already been put into effect under the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act. In a short period of time these pensions will start to go up if the cost of living index goes up.
I suggest, therefore, that this is a principle that has been established, and that the government could apply this principle to its own retired employees, even as the previous government did in 1959. One of the main arguments that the government uses against this plea is that it has done things for old people generally, that retired civil servants share in those benefits, and that the government, therefore, does not need to do anything further. What the government has done for retired civil servants by increasing old age security pensions from $65 to $75 per month a couple of years ago, what it has done by a number of other measures, was simply a case of doing for them what has been done for everyone. The government has a responsibility to its employees, not just akin to the responsibility it has to all Canadians, but it has a special responsibility as an employer.
Indeed, it has the responsibility to be a good employer. To say that something must not be done for these people because the same things for which we are asking are not
DEBATES	273
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion being done for all other retired employees is to suggest that it would be in order for the government to discriminate against its civil servants in various other ways. This is a doctrine which cannot possibly be substantiated. The government has the responsibility, as I say, not only to be concerned about retired and older people generally, but it has a responsibility to its own former employees, namely the responsibility of an employer.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that despite the cavalier and arrogant way in which the Minister of Finance simply said "No" this morning, this issue is not finished. I believe the members of this House of Commons, even though they did not stay for this debate in the same numbers that were here for the drama of the vote, will not let this session go very far before insisting on a better consideration being given to this matter than that given by the minister on the orders of the day this morning.
Perhaps the whole question can be subjected to further research and divided into its various parts-those who retired a long time ago, those who are retiring at the present time and those retiring in the future. But the issue is a serious one. We in this parliament of Canada are jointly responsible with the government as employers of these people. This is not good enough. I insist that whoever answers for the Minister of Finance tonight in this first overtime period should give a much better answer than the "No" which was given this morning. These people are our responsibility. We have an obligation to them, and there are members of this House of Commons in all parties who are determined to see that that obligation is met.


Mr. Jean Chretien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we are happy to see that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has not lost his habit of expressing his point of view on that matter, as was done by the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) (Mr. Groos) during the previous sessions.
Over the last two years, on many occasions the government considered the possibility of increasing pensions, not only for retired federal civil servants but also for retired members of the armed forces and the R.C.M.P. However, it was decided not to amend that legislation.
January 25, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Before reaching that decision, the government studied very closely the various arguments made by those who want those amendments, and it came to the conclusion that any step taken to improve the lot of retired people must be of a general character and not be limited to former employees of the government of Canada.
In addition to thinking about the security of its now retired employees, the government must worry about protecting a greater number of Canadians who are in the same situation. Although they never worked for the government, they also need help and protection against the dwindling of their savings and other factors liable to play havoc with their standard of living.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The government considers that in this connection its efforts must be directed toward a fair sharing among all Canadian citizens, whether or not they are civil servants. For
that purpose, the authorities are endeavouring to stabilize the cost of living and to take adequate action to protect the people at every level.

The amendments to the Old Age Security Act which were approved since this government came into office provide illustrations of the way in which this policy is being applied.
Under these amendments, as hon. members know, the amount of the old age security benefit has been increased by $10 a month, the age of eligibility has been lowered this year to 69 and will be progressively lowered thereafter to age 65, while provision is made for the escalation of these benefits-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.15 p.m.

Wednesday, January 26, 1966