1966-01-28

CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table correspondence exchanged between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Quebec concerning the constitutional amendment formula.
Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister have leave to table these documents?
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of these documents and the need to have a record, would it not be a good idea to append them to Hansard?


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For documents referred to above, see appendix.]



PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED IN DEALING WITH AMENDMENT METHOD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the correspondence which has just been tabled between the Prime Minister and the Premier of Quebec indicating that the government of Quebec is not prepared to concur in proceeding with the amending formula known as the Ful-ton-Favreau formula, would the Prime Minister care to indicate to the house what action the government now proposes to take with a view to having a constitution in Canada amendable by Canadians?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Well, Mr. Speaker, the formula in question, as my hon. friend knows, has been approved by the heads of all the provincial governments at a federal-provincial conference. Approval has been confirmed by the governments of all the provinces but one, the province of Quebec. The Premier of that province has said that he is not willing to proceed with this matter at this time. He has postponed consideration.
At the moment we are giving consideration to this matter in the light of our statement in the Speech from the Throne that we intend to proceed to do everything we can to have the constitution of Canada repatriated, or patriat-ed. What is the best way to proceed in the existing circumstances? I do not know. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker-and we have been giving consideration to this-one way of making progress would be to set up a parliamentary committee.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I take it from the Prime Minister's remarks that the government has no intention of proceeding with the Fulton-Favreau formula unless there is unanimous concurrence by all the provinces?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think that would go without saying. Otherwise we would have brought this formula before the House of Commons for consideration in the last session.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I wonder, since the government is considering setting up a committee to deal with the amending formula, whether consideration could not be given to broadening the scope of such a committee in order that it might deal with the whole question of a revised and dynamic constitution of Canada without confining itself solely to the question of amendment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to give consideration to that question, but I am bound to add that if we cannot agree in this country upon a procedure for amending our own constitution within our own boundaries it might be difficult to agree on a totally new constitution.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Does not the Prime Minister consider that it might be easier to arrive at a proper amending formula with the over-all picture than to agree on a formula which imposes a rigidity on something which is perhaps out of date?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is something which a committee of the kind to which I have referred might well consider.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: In view of the desirability of repatriating our constitution, or patriating it, to adopt the word used by the Prime Minister; and in view of the increasing support given from various quarters, including the
January 28, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry young student Liberal body in the province of Quebec only the other night in favour of a national constitutional conference, would the Prime Minister not consider convening such a conference now, bearing in mind that our centenary is just around the corner?


Lester Bowles Pearson: With all respect to the right hon. gentleman I think it would be preferable for this government and this parliament to consider the matter before the calling of a federal-provincial constitutional conference representing, I assume, all parties. I think we had better see whether we can come to some agreement in this parliament first.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the reasoning behind the statement just made by the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that it is the very converse of the course he has so far followed? Is it because of the failure to secure unanimous consent as particularly evidenced by the correspondence tabled today? Is it this which causes him now to place the matter before parliament? He spoke of setting up a committee. Would such a committee be a committee of both houses or just of the House of Commons?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think that could be considered. Consideration could be given to whether it would be a committee of the House of Commons or of both houses. I would point out to the right hon. gentleman that perhaps the first question to go before such a committee would be the particular formula which has already been approved by every government in this country and on which members of this house might like to give their views.
They are not now being given such an opportunity to give their views in this house because of the fact that we cannot now proceed to bring it here in view of the attitude of one province. I am sure my right hon. friend would be anxious to be the first to appear before such a committee and tell it what is wrong with the formula which was first produced by his government, then by this government and confirmed by the government of every province.


John George Diefenbaker: May I suggest to the right hon. gentleman that he read the new formula and see the changes that were made which emasculated parliament.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, in view of that remark I think I should point out that the changes which, according to my right hon. friend, were made, were nevertheless changes that appeared to the hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) to retain exactly the same formula as his.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC-ADDRESS TO HER MAJESTY RESPECTING PROVINCIAL CONSTITUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister let the house know what is the latest information regarding the address passed by the Legislative Assembly of Quebec and transmitted by the government to Her Majesty the Queen for consideration by the United Kingdom parliament? Have there been any communications from the United Kingdom, and what is the expectation that this question will receive attention?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, the matter is before the parliament at Westminster for consideration. I have had no communications with the government at Westminster as to when this question is likely to be reached in their schedule, but I assume it will be considered before long in the present session should that session last more than a few weeks.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caoueffe (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Has the Prime Minister received a brief intended for him from the Junior Chamber of Commerce of Montreal with regard to Montreal harbour?
If so, does he intend to consider these recommendations with a view to making autonomous the harbour of the city of Montreal, like harbours in Ontario, and those of New York or London?
Does the Prime Minister anticipate the creation without delay of an autonomous Montreal harbour commission which would include representatives of the main parties concerned, namely the municipalities in the Montreal area, the government of the province of Quebec, the federal government, the various unions, the Chamber of Commerce and Board of Trade?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to look into the matter referred to by my hon. friend. I am
January 28, 1966

not aware that I received such a communication, but it may have arrived during the morning.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the very real difficulties which he appears to be running into, as described on the front page of the Gazette this morning, does he still intend to press forward with the government's plans for increasing the bank rate at this session?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, of course all the discussions that are reported in the paper are secret. As the hon. member knows, all caucus proceedings are secret, and since I was not there he could not in any event expect me to comment on them. As yet the government has not reached a decision on the amendments to the Bank Act. When it does they will be brought forward and will be open to all members of the house to discuss.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Finance agree with the opinion expressed in the second annual Economic Council report, that the present arbitrary 6 per cent interest rate ceiling forces many small borrowers into loans at much higher interest rates, and therefore the interest ceiling should be removed?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is not a proper question.



CANADIAN PROPOSALS TO GROUP OF TEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask an associated question. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question which is seemingly not related but which I think is related, namely with respect to the meeting of the group of ten next week. Does Canada propose to put forward her own policies as distinct from the policies of the five nations of the common market and the United States proposals, which are now before the group of ten?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to assure my hon. friend that just the day before yesterday I approved the position and the paper that Canada will present to the meeting.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: As a supplementary question, could the minister inform the house who will be attending the meeting on behalf of Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Officials of the Department of Finance.



NANCY GREENE-PERFORMANCE IN SKI COMPETITIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare as the minister responsible for the sports and physical fitness program. Has he been informed of the splendid performance of Miss Nancy Greene of Rossland, B.C., a constituent of mine, at United States and European international ski events, and that on this account she is considered Canada's new sports heroine?
In view of the fact that Canada is becoming a serious contender for world sports honours, is the government giving any consideration to providing financial assistance for the coaching of Canadian skiing and other sports ambassadors?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a very interesting question, but I suggest to the hon. member that it should be placed on the order paper.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would hate to leave the hon. gentleman's curiosity unsatisfied. I have already written to this very distinguished sportswoman from Canada.



DELAY IN PROVISION OF FRENCH COPIES OF PUBLIC BILLS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that the Translation Division of the Department of Agriculture has succeeded in publishing in both languages at the same time the department's annual report, for which it deserves high praise,
376	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry could the Prime Minister not ask them for help so that we might get the French copies of public bills at the same time as the English copies?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will certainly be glad to do what I can, Mr. Speaker.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Has the government made a policy decision on the transfer of the location of television station CKVR from Barrie to Toronto?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: There has been no decision of any kind made on that subject, sir.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister made public statements on this subject?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The only statement I made was in response to a question asked by a newspaperman, in which I said that according to my information I understood channel 3 was the only television channel in the spectrum now being used, if that is the right word, that would be technically available to metropolitan Toronto if there was to be a third station there.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is it a fact that the statement made by the minister gave an indication of government concurrence in this application?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not only have no assurances been given, Mr. Speaker, there have been no discussions whatsoever about this matter, though I was informed a day or two ago that there is an application in my department which has not even been processed as yet.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Might the application in question be an application received from the C.B.C.?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir.
[Mr. Laprise.i
DEBATES	January 28. 1966



AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
milk-delay in subsidy payments
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, sir. In view of the fact that there have been numerous delays in making milk subsidy payments for last year, and because the Minister of Agriculture has indicated that these will all be mailed by the end of January, is the minister in a position to tell the house whether all these cheques have now gone out?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, these cheques are being processed as rapidly as possible by the very efficient officials of the department.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a supplementary question. Can the minister tell us whether they have as yet all gone out, as he has indicated in various announcements?


John James Greene: I am not familiar with any such announcements that I have made, Mr. Speaker, but I will be very glad to check this matter and inform the hon. member.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis).


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I will call upon the hon. member for Northumberland following that hon. member's question.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to that directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In his reply he referred to the efficiency of his department. In view of the fact that a great number of these cheques have been held up for several months, is he satisfied with that degree of efficiency in his department?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address
January 28, 1966	COMMONS
a question to the Minister of Finance. It concerns a large number of women who, because they are working outside the home, must employ household helpers. In view of the fact that these women are now required to pay the 1.8 per cent contribution to the Canada Pension Plan on behalf of persons they employ, is consideration being given to amending the Income Tax Act to make their wages a deductible expense for income tax purposes?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very happy to take the hon. lady's suggestion into account when I am preparing the budget.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs which arises from an answer he gave to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre on orders of the day yesterday. In response to that question with reference to assistance to South Viet Nam in the form of medical supplies and so forth, the minister stated in part:
We have had some discussions in this connection with the Red Cross.
It is my understanding that the International Red Cross do not recognize the Viet Nam war as a declared war and have not prior to this time extended their facilities to those engaged in this conflict. Does the minister's statement indicate that the substance of the discussions held have been an attempt to change the attitude of the Red Cross in this regard, or does it indicate that the attitude has already been changed?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions with the Red Cross to see whether or not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In spite of the fact that the minister appears to be prepared to reply to this question, I am just wondering whether this is not the type of question, again, that might be placed on the order paper, in which case the hon. member will get his reply in due course.
DEBATES	377
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and ask whether he is aware of the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway has decided unilaterally that participation in its pension plan, which has hitherto been a condition of employment, will as of January 1, 1966 be entirely voluntary, and employees who drop out of the plan will not be able to re-enter it at any future time.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the revised plan to which my hon. friend refers is an entirely voluntary one.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether, since employees who withdraw from the existing plan would only be covered by the Canada Pension Plan in the future, which is a situation contrary to the spirit contemplated in the drafting and planning of the Canada Pension Plan, the minister would consider using his good offices to persuade the C.P.R., which is one of Canada's largest employers, to rescind this unilateral decision.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend is aware, arrangements with respect to such pension plans are matters for negotiation between the parties involved, and there is no authority given to the minister under the Canada Pension Plan to intervene in any particular way in this matter.


David Orlikow: I have a further supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister knows that the company has up to now refused to negotiate on this matter.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg Norlh Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question on this matter to the Minister of Finance. Does he not think that the situation which has just been discussed between the hon. member for Winnipeg North and the Minister of National Health and Welfare makes urgent the legislation regulating the pensions of employees under federal labour jurisdiction?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In the reply I made to the hon. gentleman's question the other day I did
January 28, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry not suggest that it was not urgent. I just suggested that it was a little less urgent than some of the other very urgent matters on the order paper, and therefore I could not give any undertaking that the legislation would be introduced immediately.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Last
Monday I asked the Minister of Transport some questions relating to the employees being displaced as a result of the cancellation of a number of Canadian Pacific passenger services. Toward the end of that part of the question period the minister said he would discuss it with his colleague, the Minister of Labour, and also said he would endeavour to get some information as quickly as possible. Will he or the Minister of Labour inform the house whether anything is being done to alleviate the circumstances of the Canadian Pacific employees thus displaced?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, meetings have been held by me, with officials of my department in attendance, with representatives of the railway unions. I have also communicated with the railways, and will meet with some of its officials to discuss the matter on Tuesday and Wednesday of next week. Separate meetings have been arranged, following which there will probably be further meetings with representatives of the unions, and at an appropriate time I hope either the Minister of Transport or myself will have a report to give to the hon. member and other interested members in this house.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Can the minister give us today some information concerning the delay in payments to the municipalities with respect to the winter works program?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, a number of questions were asked, one by the hon. member who has just spoken and one by the hon. member for Charlevoix, about this matter.
May I reply in this way. The federal government does not deal directly with the

municipalities of Quebec or of any other province concerning winter works projects or the methods by which these projects are being financed. The 50 per cent to 60 per cent contribution made by the federal government toward the cost of the labour employed on winter works is paid to municipalities through the medium of the provincial government. Consequently the federal government has no detailed information which would enable it to comment usefully upon the suggestion that Quebec municipalities are encountering difficulties in financing their winter works.
I have discussed the matter of federal grants for winter works with my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and I have been reminded that under the arrangements made by the federal government to pay part of the labour costs of winter works there is a provision whereby the municipalities are able, if they so wish, to keep their interim financing at the banks for purposes of winter works at the minimum possible level so far as the federal portion of the assistance is concerned. That is to say, instead of waiting for the federal grant to be paid to them at the end of the winter, after the winter works projects have been completed and the municipal claim duly audited, municipalities may submit claims for progress or interim payments from the federal government up to 80 per cent of the amount to which they are entitled from time to time. Such claims can be paid by the federal government on the submission of a request by the province.


Mr. Starr:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Ontario wanted to rise, and I assume it was on a point of order to object to the length of the reply which is now being made by the minister. I do agree with the suggestion which the hon. member was about to make. I should like to remind the minister who is now replying to this question that answers to questions should be as brief as possible. It may be that the question could not be answered more briefly. I suggest, however, that as far as possible ministers should limit the length of replies to questions asked.


Mitchell William Sharp: With all due respect I agree, Mr. Speaker, but it was the nature of the question that led to the length of the answer. May I suggest that it might be in order if the hon. member were to put this question on the order paper. Then it could be answered at
January 28, 1966	COMMONS
great length without taking up the time of the house. I felt it was necessary in this case to give a precise and detailed answer, and I am afraid a lengthy one.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance?
Would the minister tell us briefly if the federal government makes payment right away, or within a short time, of the moneys claimed on behalf of the municipalities by the Quebec government under the winter works program?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can say that the amounts with which the hon. gentleman is concerned are very small in relation to the total.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask another supplementary question?
In view of the fact that some amounts have not yet been paid for winter works undertaken in 1964-1965, can the minister assure us that the federal government is not responsible for that?


Mitchell William Sharp: That is right, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Maiapedia-Maiane):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
In the light of the reply just given by the Minister of Finance, would the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration get in touch with the Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs so that the latter might suggest to the Quebec municipalities that are experiencing difficulties with regard to loans, that they take advantage of the clause stipulating that an advance up to 80 per cent of the cost of winter works can be obtained?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I shall get in touch early next week with the Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs to see exactly what is the hitch in the financing of winter works, and then a report may be made to the house.


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to ask a supplementary question.
DEBATES	379
Inquiries of the Ministry
Could the minister also reach an agreement with the Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs so that the municipalities may borrow for two years when the federal payment for the cost of one of the two previous years has not yet been sent to the provincial government, as is the case at the present time?


Jean Marchand: If the Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs has that authority, I will be glad to inform the hon. member for Lapointe.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
I read this morning in a newspaper a report concerning the statement made by the Quebec Premier, Mr. Jean Lesage, that he would table in the house between now and the 10th of February, a supplementary budget for the payment to municipalities which have not yet received them, the amounts they are entitled to for winter works carried out during 1964-65. I would like the Minister to make it clear, since he must be aware that the province of Quebec and the provincial authorities are always telling municipalities that Ottawa has not turned over to the province the necessary amounts to be paid to these municipalities, that Quebec is always blaming the federal government for the nonpayment of amounts due for winter works carried out by municipalities-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member could express his question more briefly. I doubt that this question is in order at the moment but I would at least ask the hon. member to put it forthwith.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It will not take me long. Could the minister see to it that the amounts paid by the federal government are handed over to the municipalities so that the federal Members of Parliament will no longer be involved in this provincial matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the best way of answering that is to say that we have had some recent claims which amounted to $100,000. We have paid to the provincial government for the municipalities in Quebec $24 million. So the amounts involved are extremely small, and there is no holdup as far as Canada is concerned.


David Réal Caouette: I have a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that the
380	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry province of Quebec is using amounts paid by the federal government for other purposes than winter works projects?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: A supplementary question. The Minister of Finance has just made the statement that there is no holdup. I would ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, what delay is he going to investigate?


Jean Marchand: What delay do I need to investigate?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Fraser Valley.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I asked a supplementary question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. What delay is he going to investigate in respect of these payments which the Minister of Finance has just flatly stated are not being held up?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I had understood the question.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT ON ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Can the minister undertake to tell the house when Dr. Donald's report will be completed?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: We expect the report in a few weeks. The Minister of Finance and I are to meet Dr. Donald in a few days.


Malcolm MacInnis: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister make available that portion of the Donald report of which the government has knowledge?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Any report received from Dr. Donald up to now has been in terms of a progress report about what he was doing. I do not believe we have received from him what could be considered as part of the final report, which is still due.


Malcolm MacInnis: May I ask a further supplementary question. Will the minister make known to the U.M.W., district 26, the progress reports he has received already from Dr. Donald, rather than having them hang on indefinitely, as they are now?

DEBATES	January 28, 1966


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not believe this would be the normal course. Dr. Donald may change his mind in the process of the investigation.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: May I ask a supplementary question of the minister for Rio Tinto, or rather the Minister of Trade and Commerce-


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is cheap.


An hon. Member:: Very funny.


Robert Muir: Is it all right to go ahead now, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: No, not after that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. gentleman want to ask a question at this time? I suggest the hon. member should put his question now.


Robert Muir: I did not quite hear Your Honour, but I assume I am to put my question. My question is directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Knowing his interest in the uranium industry, I am sure, as a Nova Scotian, he has an equal interest in the coal industry-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Robert Muir: My question is, will he urge the government to do its utmost, as soon as the Donald report is received, to assist the coal industry in Nova Scotia? I ask this question because the Minister of Labour or, rather, the minister from Nova Scotia has apparently forgotten all about his constituents.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweafher@Royal: have a question for the Prime Minister, of which I have given him notice. I wonder if the Prime Minister agrees that the best way to neutralize the effect of the plans of the U.S. securities and exchange commission to extend United States law into Canadian business affairs would be to give urgent and immediate priority to the establishment of parallel Canadian laws on this subject.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I received this question after I entered the house, but I agree that we should have strong
January 28, 1966	COMMONS
laws on this subject in Canada, both federally and provincially. I would hope that would have the effect my hon. friend thinks it might have.



FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR MEMBERS IN WAR ON POVERTY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Has the Minister of Forestry requested financial support for members of parliament to carry forward the war on poverty in their own constituencies?


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry. It is somewhat similar to the question put to him a short while ago, which I am sure he did not understand.
Would the Minister of Forestry tell us whether he prepared and proposed a special program under which the government would give hon. members some financial assistance to fight poverty in their own riding?


David Réal Caouette: On the Magdalen Islands.


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, under ARDA projects are submitted to the federal government by the provinces.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: On Wednesday last the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek inquired if a request had been received from the Canadian Pacific Railway and if it were one of the eight to which I referred. I am informed by my officials that one of the eight applications for deferment of wages, one which was rejected, as I have said, was a joint application made by the Canadian Pacific Railway and the two other railway companies for the deferment of the minimum wage provision with regard to telegraph messengers only. As I have said, that application was rejected.
I might say that Canadian Pacific Railway was also included in the request for the deferment of hours made by the Railway Association of Canada. Discussions on this
DEBATES	381
Inquiries of the Ministry request have taken place among officials of my department, the railways and the unions, in an endeavour to reach an understanding which might result in a sound settlement of this matter.
In this connection, I may say that yesterday I received from the non-operating railways unions a request for conciliation arising out of breakdowns in their negotiations on wages and working conditions. I am giving consideration to this application to set up a conciliation board. If a conciliation board is set up, undoubtedly the request of the Canadian Pacific Railway for deferment will have to stand for an indefinite period.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  A. B. Patierson@Fraser Valley: Mr. Speaker, it is reported that 500 Turkish Cypriots are being returned to Turkey under arrangements made by the United Nations. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether this could be considered an indication that progress is being made toward a political settlement in Cyprus which would make the continuing presence of the UN peace keeping force unnecessary.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, it could be said that this proposal is designed to assist in promoting a solution to this difficult problem.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State. Can the minister say whether an invitation has been extended or will be extended by the government to Her Majesty the Queen to participate in our confederation centennial celebrations next year, either by way of opening Expo '67, touring the country or making some other type of welcome appearance in our midst?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to answer that question by saying that discussions are already taking place with those concerned in London to ensure that the Queen will be in Canada in our centennial year; and I know that if she can come she will get a very warm welcome.
January 28, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry
HIGHWAY SAFETY	SPEECH FROM THE THRONE



REQUEST OF COUNCIL FOR INCREASED GRANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I direct this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Did the Canadian highway safety council make representations to the government asking for an increase in their grant?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and this request is currently under consideration.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the institution of the new Ontario medical care scheme prevent or delay the institution of a compulsory federal plan in accordance with the recommendations made in the Hall report?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister inform the house whether unemployment insurance benefits will be made available to employees locked out by companies and employees who become unemployed as a result of the international brotherhood of teamsters strike?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act are not payable to persons who have lost their employment due to a stoppage of work arising from a labour dispute, if these persons, or anyone of their grade or class, are directly interested in the dispute or are participating in it or are helping to finance it. Labour disputes, of course, cover both strikes and lock-outs.



CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, January 27, 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.
Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I wish to congratulate you most warmly on your appointment to your present office. In the short time I have had the pleasure of sitting under your chairmanship I have come to recognize the skill of a craftsman in the manner in which you are discharging your functions.
I should also like to extend my warmest congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address. As a new member myself I know some of the apprehensions, doubts and emotions that beset one in one's first speech in the House of Commons. I congratulate them not only for the content of their remarks but for the highly competent and self-assured manner in which they delivered them. I am sure this is in keeping with the best traditions of parliament, and I know they will represent their constituents with distinction for many years to come.
In participating in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly on matters of trade and then say a few words about Expo '67, more by way of review and perhaps in an attempt to put it in its appropriate context.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
Yesterday my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) referred in his excellent presentation to Canada's current account deficit and some of the circumstances surrounding it. My remarks will be addressed particularly to our trade-a key element in our over-all current account-our exports and imports.
The participation of Canadian producers in foreign markets has both broadened and strengthened in recent years. Total exports increased by 10 per cent in 1963 compared with the preceding year and by a remarkable 19 per cent in 1964. Although December figures are not yet available it now appears that a further gain of 5 or 6 per cent was achieved in 1965. In other words, exports have risen by nearly two fifths in the three-year period from 1962 to 1965. All major commodity groups have contributed to this growth. However, the sharpest advance has occurred in the highly manufactured products
January 28, 1966

group. Automotive products have been especially prominent in this expansion, having increased fivefold in the three-year period. Substantial gains have also been realized throughout a broad range of machinery and equipment and consumer items. Farm products also have assumed greater prominence in Canada's exports in recent years.
Sales in each of the major market areas have risen in the past three years. Canada's exports to the United States have maintained a strong upward trend during this period, having increased by 13 per cent in each of the past two years. Imports from the United States have also risen sharply and Canada's trade deficit with this country has been growing. Exports to all overseas markets combined rose strongly from 1962 to 1964 but scarcely held level in 1965. Exports to Britain showed substantial growth from 1962 to 1964 and, despite import surcharges imposed by the United Kingdom, have held close to the 1964 level during the past year. Imports from Britain experienced no significant expansion from 1962 to 1964 but have shown major gains in recent months.
Nor is there any evidence of weakening in the strong underlying upward trend of Canada's foreign sales. Some unevenness in the growth of total exports has occurred, partly because of the irregular movement of a few important commodities. In the first nine months of 1965, for example, total exports were only slightly higher than in the same period of 1964. Factors contributing to this slower pace of growth included lower wheat shipments, the adverse effect of Britain's import surcharges and other restrictive measures aimed at correcting a serious balance of payments situation, and a slower pace of business conditions in several other important overseas markets. However, this slowing in export growth has proved to be temporary. New wheat contracts with Russia and mainland China, together with continuing strong growth in sales to the United States have given new impetus to export trends in recent months. Following the fairly level trend of foreign sales in the first nine months of 1965, the value of Canada's exports shot up to $791 million in October to record $924 million in November. Exports approaching $1 billion a month is very big business indeed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Henry Winters: These figures are 15 per cent and 27 per cent respectively above the levels
The Address-Mr. Winters of the corresponding months one year earlier. Further substantial increases are anticipated in the months to come.
Notwithstanding the current healthy growth in exports, it will not be easy to keep the gap between external payments and receipts from widening in present circumstances of sustained and rapid growth within the Canadian economy. This is one of the problems which Canada traditionally faces in periods of rising prosperity. Imports have risen as sharply as exports over the past three years and the pace of advance has been accelerating. Prospects of a further substantial increase in capital spending in Canada along with steadily rising incomes will entail a continuing upward pressure on purchases from abroad. An all-out effort on the part of all groups in the export community will be needed to meet the mounting exchange requirements of our expanding economy.
In referring to Canada's growing imbalance, the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees) suggests, as reported in Hansard of January 24, page 160:
If the rate of acceleration of 1965 over 1964 continues, we may easily find at the end of the present year that we have spent some $2 billion more outside Canada than we will have taken in.
While this projection is unrealistically gloomy, Canada's current account deficit, which probably approximated $1 billion in 1965, is likely to show some further increase in 1966, especially in the latter part of the year following the completion of presently scheduled wheat shipments to Russia.
I welcomed very much the comments made in this debate by the hon. member for Northumberland. He is one of a number of distinguished ministers who preceded me in this portfolio. I wish to commend him for a job well done during his period of enthusiastic leadership. In this debate he has made a number of suggestions concerning the trade promotional activities of the department and I shall be glad to give them careful consideration. He has advocated a repetition of certain programs undertaken while he was minister and the introduction of what he referred to as an agricultural trade crusade. The sorts of things which were undertaken to stimulate trade during that period were appropriate to the times and circumstances. He rendered a considerable service in awakening real interest in export throughout Canada and in bringing many new exporters into the field. He deserves credit for giving the morale of the department a boost at a time when it was needed. Circumstances have changed a great
January 28, 1966

The Address-Mr. Winters deal since those days and the department's policies have been reoriented and developed under the distinguished guidance of the present Minister of Finance. His contribution has been one of quality and foresight which has been recognized throughout the country. Like him I will be examining the current policies and practices of the department in the light of the needs of today and tomorrow, and the years ahead.
The world market is more and more competitive. We can now count, as was not so much the case in earlier years, on the active support and close co-operation in trade promotion of provincial departments of trade and industry. Today industrial and trade associations are increasingly active, and export trade is recognized as an integral part of more and more business organizations. The department's current efforts are directed on an intensive and selective basis to markets where particular new demands are identified, and to matching up Canada's productive and export capacities with these opportunities. Our export financing and export insurance facilities have been extended and improved. We are more active in the field of export education. Our trade fairs and trade missions programs have been increased and made more purposeful. Agriculture has been given a prominent place in the department's promotional work and good results have been obtained here, and also with respect to the sales of our fisheries products around the globe. The department is constantly refining and adjusting its trade promotional efforts to give improved and up to date service to the export community.
[DOT] (12:00 noon)
Selling abroad requires diligence, application, and teamwork on the part of a great many people. It is not simply a matter of securing adjustments in tariffs and duties. Our trade promotion programs and the best efforts of our trade commissioner service, excellent though they are, will not achieve the desired results unless we have the kind of goods that can be sold on the basis of price, quality and service, and it is on this matter of competitiveness I now wish to say a brief word.
Canadians enjoy many built-in advantages by virtue of our relatively favourable access to many of the resource ingredients that go into finished products. Our wages may give us some advantage over our competitors in the United States, but not in relation to many


other countries. To date, although our productivity is increasing, we have not yet reached the level we must attain if we are to get the export performance that Canada must have.
Some industries have demonstrated a high order of excellence, but there are still many areas in which Canadian manufacturers have a long way to go to achieve the efficiencies necessary to meet world competition. Productivity is the key to success. Every businessman is aware of this and I can only urge that the attention being devoted to this aspect of Canada's industrial life be intensified. In this the business community generally is dynamic and alert to opportunities.
I was interested to read last night where the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees) was quoted in the press as saying-and Mr. Speaker, I hope you will excuse the words, as they are a quote-that he found business "duller than hell," and he went on to say "it is too easy, too polite, and everybody agrees with everybody all the time. Politics is a hopped up life." Mr. Speaker, we all know about politics; but I was surprised by his observations on business. The business environment in which he found himself must be considerably different from the environment in which the commercial and business life of this country is conducted. I know he is as aware as anybody else that it is far from dull if business is to keep abreast and ahead of developments, to meet a payroll, to seek opportunities on an expanding basis for the sale of one's products, and to end up the year with a favourable balance sheet. I think the hon. member would agree that that sort of business life is anything but dull.
The net difference between our external earning and our external spending, in other words the deficit on our current account, is made up by moneys flowing into Canada from abroad. There is, I think, a general apprehension about the degree of utilization of foreign capital in Canada, and it is true that much of our industry is owned abroad. However, I wish to make a distinction here that is well known to all, that there is a difference between ownership and the kind of financing that does not involve ownership. But foreign ownership undoubtedly has connotations perhaps over and above the economic realities.
Personally I would like to see a higher level of ownership of Canadian business in the hands of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
January 28, 1968


Robert Henry Winters: Steps have been taken to encourage this trend and, as Canada grows, and we have within our country more savings to spend on equities, I am sure Canadians will avail themselves of opportunities to increase their ownership interest. This has been the trend, as is evidenced by the fact that a number of companies in which a majority interest was owned abroad are now owned by Canadians.
But equity which controls the ownership of a company, and in which it is desirable to have Canadians participate more fully, is quite different from borrowing through bonds and debentures, and it is important that we maintain in this country a favourable climate for foreign investment in that form. Without it our development would have to be slowed very significantly, with attendant reductions in employment and other consequences. Nobody wishes to see this, nor do most Canadians deem such adjustment necessary in a country as well endowed as ours is.
It will take a long time, even with our best endeavours, to develop a sufficient surplus on trading account to bring our over-all current account in balance. That, of course, raises the question as to how long a country, or a company, can continue borrowing large amounts of money. Many dynamic and expansionist companies are in the same position in this regard as is Canada itself. They approach the problem on the basis that they can continue to accumulate debt as long as they have the capacity to pay the interest and otherwise service their obligations. The same, of course, holds for the country, but in due course the danger point is reached and it is a wise company and a wise country that can avoid this extreme.
Our trading account and our current account are, of course, the accumulation of the activities of all individuals and companies and governments. It is therefore important that all elements in this equation realize the circumstances and bend every effort to improve our exports, while at the same time keeping our imports within reasonable limits and financing in Canada as much of our development as possible.
I intend to keep in close touch with business and its changing needs, as well as with trading opportunities for Canadian products in other countries. To that end I have invited the trade commissioners in Europe to meet with me in Paris next month for an exchange

The Address-Mr. Winters of views and ideas. We will endeavour to leave no stone unturned in developing Canada's trading potential.
I wish to refer briefly to the Kennedy round of negotiations. Our efforts to search out and develop new export markets will be most successful if they are carried forward in a framework of expanding multilateral trade. For more than two years many of the world's trading nations have been seeking in the Kennedy round negotiations to give a new impetus to reduction of trade barriers on a world wide basis. The significance of these negotiations for Canada is illustrated by the fact that the participating countries account for more than four fifths of our total world trade.
From time to time there have been reports in the press about some slippage in the timetable for the Kennedy round, and problems which have arisen in some sectors of the negotiations, notably agriculture. More recently there has been a great deal of discussion about the implications of continuing difficulties in the European Economic Community.
Without ignoring the current uncertainties, it seems to me that there has been some tendency to overlook the ground which has already been covered in the Kennedy round. A great deal has been done to pave the way for the intensive bargaining which is expected to begin this spring, and provided the difficulties within the E.E.C. can be overcome, the outlook is for significant progress. Next month I plan to review the state of play at first hand with the Canadian delegation in Geneva.
It was never expected that this would be an easy negotiation. The objectives have been set higher than in any previous GATT tariff conference, and radically new negotiating techniques have been brought into play. For our part, we do not intend to allow our efforts and interest in these negotiations to be undermined by the delays and difficulties which are bound to arise in an undertaking of this kind. We intend to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by the Kennedy round to make further progress in freeing trade channels, and we assume that our trading partners are approaching the negotiations in the same spirit.
On Friday last the hon. member for Dan-forth (Mr. Scott) asked whether the government had received requests from Britain for co-operation and/or aid in curing its imbalance in trade problems, and about the nature
386	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Winters of the government's response. His question arose from press reports concerning an address to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in London, England, on January 20, by Lord Brown, a joint minister of the British Board of Trade. I have since had an opportunity to review the relevant portions of Lord Brown s statement.
Lord Brown referred to the nature of Canadian anti-dumping law and in this connection referred to last year's amendment to the Customs Act. This change was enacted to deal with certain situations where the British had represented that the valuation provisions of our customs law bore inequitably or unreasonably on British goods by comparison with goods from other countries, by reason of the quantities of goods sold or the trade level at which they were sold in the country of origin.
In announcing this change in the budget of April 26, 1965, the then minister of finance indicated the government's intention to use the new section 37A of the Customs Act to remove any discrimination of this nature against British goods.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
He added:
It Is the government's hope that this proposal will he taken by British exporters as a decisive response to their pleas that Canada give a clear signal that we welcome their goods; we hope, too they will respond by seeking out and serving' the very substantial demand which certainly exists here in Canada for imported goods.
As Lord Brown has said, the British authorities warmly welcomed the amendments made to the Customs Act. He has expressed concern, however, about the speed with which the amendment is being administered. A number of applications for rulings have been received by the Department of National Revenue, and a decision which will be of benefit to all British manufacturers of wire rope has already been rendered. Difficulties were, however, experienced in processing the other applications on the basis of the information supplied by the British firms concerned.
The house will be pleased to know that in order to assist, a senior customs officer was sent to Britain expressly for the purpose of helping the British exporters to develop the information necessary if full advantage is to be taken of the new provision. He has been in British for the past several weeks and I understand that good progress has been made.
We in Canada greatly value the United Kingdom market and our access to it. While 
DEBATES	January 28. 1966
an imbalance of trade is to be expected between a country like Canada, which is a supplier of raw materials, cereals and other foodstuffs as well as of manufactured goods, and a country like Britain, which is chiefly an exporter of manufactures, the government would welcome a greater participation by Britain in our expanding market for imports and a consequent improvement in their balance of trade position vis-a-vis Canada. The chief initiative in this regard must come from the British exporters themselves.
In this connection I have been most interested in the intensified promotional activities of the British trade authorities, designed to encourage a sustained and determined effort to meet the competitive conditions of the Canadian market and to expand British sales. These efforts, which are in many respects similar to the promotional programs of the Department of Trade and Commerce in Britain and other foreign markets, appear to be bearing fruit. British exports to Canada are up 5 per cent for the first ten months of 1965; in September the increase was 23 per cent over September, 1964, and in October the increase was 18 per cent-so the trend is strong.
Recently I had the pleasure of talking with Sir William McFadzean, Chairman of the British National Export Council. While both of us recognize that there are difficulties to be overcome, we are working to remove them. He expressed his satisfaction with the progress being made in British sales to the Canadian market.
Before commenting on Expo '67, I would like to say a general word about tourism because of the impact it has on Canadian trade, and having in mind the remarks made during this debate by the hon. members for Northumberland (Mr. Hees), Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Wadds) and Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse). My association with the tourist industry goes back to the days when I was doing my previous tour of duty as a member of parliament. This government feels strongly that more must be done at all levels not only to attract tourists to Canada, but to see that they find in Canada the sort of attractions and reception, accommodation and service which they seek and deserve. We must do more to ensure that each tourist who leaves Canada takes back with him an impression of his stay that will make him want to return and to pass the good word to his family and friends.
January 28, 1966

Our target for 1967, the centennial year, is tourist income of $1,000 million. With the help of all levels of government and from industry, we are moving at a good rate toward this target. The effort will have to be sustained and expanded if we are to succeed.
I will perhaps have more to say on this subject when the estimates of the department are being considered, but I can add now that in co-operation with the provinces and the private elements making up the industry, we are on the threshold of a concerted forward thrust toward the objective of realizing the real potential of tourism as a major contributor to Canadian prosperity.
Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks I should like to make with regard to Expo '67. In making these remarks, perhaps to put this great Canadian project in proper context I should review briefly some of the steps taken to date. Most of this information is better known to most hon. members than it is to me.
Canada's application to hold a first category universal and international exhibition in 1967 was approved by the Bureau of International Exhibitions in Paris on November 13, 1962. The Canadian corporation for the 1967 world exhibition was set up by an act of parliament on December 20, 1962. A tripartite agreement between the federal government, the government of the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal was signed on January 18, 1963, which provided for cost sharing among the three levels of government-50 per cent federal, 37J per cent Quebec, 124 per cent Montreal. This action was taken by the previous government, and once it was taken Canada became committed to a very high level of expenditure if this was to be the kind of creditable performance most Canadians would expect of a Canadian undertaking.
The decision to proceed with the exhibition was reaffirmed and the present management installed in September, 1963. This is when the project really got into high gear, so we can date most activity from that time; that is, when the management assumed its responsibilities. As required by the act, a master plan was produced and presented to the government on December 20, 1963.
Since becoming responsible to parliament for this operation, I have visited the exhibition site and the corporation office in Montreal. A number of my colleagues in the House of Commons and of the other place were kind enough to visit the site with me on January
The Address-Mr. Winters 22nd. I thank them for accepting my invitation. I have also had close consultations with my predecessor and with Hon. Gerard D. Levesque, the minister responsible in the province of Quebec for the exhibition.
The Canadian corporation is administered by a board of directors who are 16 senior business leaders and citizens from across the country, all serving on the board without compensation, other than expenses. I should also like to add at this point that the membership of the board comprises some of the most outstanding and hard-headed businessmen I know, and I am reminded that for a period of time the hon. member for Northumberland was a member of that board. The executive committee of the board is composed of Mr. Guy Roberge, representing both the board and the government of Canada; Mr. Andre Rousseau, representing the board and the province of Quebec; and Mr. Lucien Saulnier is the representative of the city of Montreal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to inform the minister that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister has the consent of the house to continue beyond his allocated time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Henry Winters: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to all hon. members. I had lost sight of the fact that the time limit for speeches is not as long as it was. I will endeavour to shorten this material.
I do want to say, in order that hon. members will be aware of the controls that are exercised, that the act provides that the corporation's expenditures must be approved by the board, the treasury board of Canada, the governor in council of Canada, as well as the treasury board of the province of Quebec and the lieutenant governor in council of the province of Quebec.
The corporation operates under a master plan which budgets for all expenditures and revenues. Annual capital and operating budgets are approved by the board, the treasury board of Canada, the treasury board of Quebec, and the governor in council and the lieutenant governors of Canada and the province of Quebec. That is quite a gauntlet to run.
In addition, all expenditures of the corporation exceeding $100,000, or $25,000 where property is being acquired, require advance approval of the board, the treasury board of
January 28, 1966

The Address-Mr. Winters Canada, the Quebec minister on the advice of the Quebec treasury and the governor in council. I found the control procedures to be in keeping with good sound practices. It might interest hon. members to know that the corporation's operating procedures have been patterned on those of government departments and crown corporations and conform to the best practices of private enterprise.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
The corporation's purchasing is handled by the Department of Defence Production and its construction contracts are awarded and processed through Defence Construction (1951) Limited, so as to remove from the corporation the onus of undertaking these very heavy responsibilities. The National Employment Service of Canada and the Quebec Employment Service participate in recruiting. Therefore to the greatest extent that is feasible, Expo '67 leans on well accepted procedures and instrumentalities for service.
The government recognized when considering the master plan in the fall of 1963 that the exhibition faced a major problem in attracting skilled bilingual staff. Seven years of preparation were required for the Brussels Exhibition in 1958. An even bigger job had to be faced in Canada and only 3J years remained to do it. The Commissioner-General and the Deputy Commissioner-General resigned in the summer of 1963 and morale was then at a pretty low ebb. A major rebuilding job had to be undertaken on an urgent basis. The present management was induced to accept the assignment, but it was then getting late in the day.
The master plan set up an organization chart, establishment and salary scales which had been prepared and checked by the Civil Service Commissions of Canada and Quebec, approved by the board of directors and the two treasury boards and then by the governor in council and the lieutenant governor in council. With this establishment the corporation succeeded in attracting a high calibre staff-amazingly high calibre, in my opinion, from what I have seen of them-many of whom gave up successful careers and moved to Montreal with their families for this short term obligation. The staff was recruited from all parts of Canada, as was fitting for an all-Canadian effort of this character. The staff is dedicated and is setting a high standard in working in both official languages of this country.
Where does Expo stand now? When Canada undertook to stage a first category


world exhibition in the centennial year, the master plan assumed that it must be of high quality and that such quality would be necessary to attract the support of participants from Canada and from overseas. The wisdom of this policy is demonstrated by the fact that, to date, we have received official notices of participation from 70 nations, 10 Canadian provinces, one international organization the common market-one city, two states in the United States and 42 private participations representing over 800 Canadian companies. For the purposes of comparison, there were 43 participating countries in Brussels in 1958, compared to the 70 who have indicated that they will participate in our Expo.
In addition, the exhibition corporation is producing some 15 exhibits in seven buildings, and requests for space to exhibit are still coming in. The exhibition corporation is providing all the basic facilities on the site. In addition they have prepared concept designs for several smaller pavilions for prospective participants.
Good progress has also been made with the construction program. All major pavilions and facilities are now under way and the construction program is on target. As a control measure, the corporation controls the construction program through a computer-oriented critical path network system, in the best techniques known to industry. The exhibition is on schedule. Progress has been made with the advance sale of tickets in an outstanding way. I would simply say that when the same time had elapsed there were $1 million worth of sales made by the New York World's Fair, whereas there are now $10 million worth of advance sales for Expo '67.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Henry Winters: Tickets are being issued in the form of "passports", which is a rather unique approach. Visitors can then have their "passports" stamped in each national pavilion they visit and keep them as souvenirs.
Studies of other world exhibitions indicate that no world exhibition has ever operated profitably within its gates, although in every case there were large over-all economic advantages to the host nation. Indeed, for this reason the competition among nations to hold first category world exhibitions has never been keener. Japan has already secured the right from the International Bureau to hold the next exhibition in Osaka in 1970. The
January 28. 1966	COMMONS
bureau already has a record number of applications before it for the exhibition to be held in 1976.
I intend, Mr. Speaker, to see to it that the exhibition will be an instrument to increase Canada's trade. Good progress has already been made with the arrangements for our International Trade Centre sponsored by the Canadian chartered banks and manned by officers of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Businessmen from all over the world will meet Canadians in this International Trade Centre and they will be encouraged to travel across the country to establish new business connections resulting from their introductions at the exhibition. Expo '67, in the eyes of the international business community, can put Canada on the map as never before.
Now I wish to say a few words as to the revenues and expenditures. I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the very sizeable tax revenues which will accrue to the federal treasury as a result of the exhibition. These revenues are presently estimated at $46 million. There will also be sizeable tax returns for our partners in this enterprise, the government of the province of Quebec.
The master plan last approved and announced in August, 1965, estimated a cost of $61.6 million. Under the tripartite agreement between the three participating partners, the federal government provides an underwriting of 50 per cent of the net cost, 37J per cent going to Quebec and 12-J per cent to Montreal. The estimated net cost for the government of Canada at that time was approximately $31 million.
Prices of material and labour have risen since these estimates were made. The services which the corporation is obliged to provide under the International Convention on Exhibitions have also increased as more countries and companies become exhibitors. The estimates which involve capital and operating expenditures, as well as forecasts of revenues to be received in 1967, are constantly under review in accordance with good business practice.
It is likely, in view of rising costs and the increasing number of international and Canadian exhibitors, that the governments on the recommendation of the board will be called on to revise the master plan. The budgets for 1966 have been submitted to the directors, who are today meeting in regular session to consider these recommendations.
DEBATES	388
The Address-Mr. Keays These budgets when approved by the board will be placed before the governments for consideration, and the resulting decisions approved or amended and tabled in the usual way.
My colleague the minister of industry and commerce of the government of Quebec, and I, have asked the board in reviewing the estimates to minimize expenditures and seek all possible avenues for increasing revenues. As hon. members know, a grant of $20 million was made under section 11 of the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation Act, and the balance of the funds required by Expo are being made available through borrowings under section 12 of the same statute.
While the expenditures can be estimated with reasonable accuracy, the revenues depend almost entirely upon the response of the public. Their support will be conditioned by the enthusiasm and involvement of Canadians as good will ambassadors for this outstanding Canadian enterprise which will show the best of our achievements to the world.
There now remains only slightly more than a year until opening day on April 28, 1967. Apart from price escalations and contingencies, I do not foresee major increases in capital expenditures. The final net costs of the exhibition will therefore depend upon its revenues, and this of course is a factor that is open to the vagaries of public response, which I hope will be good and I am sure it will be, if all Canadians become boosters for this great Canadian undertaking.
I was asked by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) whether there would be an opportunity for the house to consider the expenditures and budgets of the corporation. I have looked up the standing orders and found that provision is made under new standing order 65 for the estimates of the department to be considered. I will ask at that time that the budgets of Expo '67 be referred to the committee, and I hope hon. members will avail themselves of the opportunity to give them a good scrutiny.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks, I want to tell you how pleased I was to witness the warm welcome extended to you when you entered this house. I am convinced that with the wisdom you are credited with, you will be able to restrain the hon. members in times of
January 28, 1966

The Address-Mr. Keays sharp disagreement when they often forget to observe as they should the proprieties of this house.
We must also acknowledge the qualities attributed to, and the honour bestowed on, the Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Chairman of committees of the whole house (Messrs. Batten and Rinfret), as well as the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Messrs. Goyer and Stanbury). I congratulate them and wish them a successful career.

Every Speech from the Throne is subject to qualification, and so far in this debate we have heard it referred to in complimentary and not so complimentary terms. I was looking forward to a government program that would be, according to the terms used by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), bold, dynamic, imaginative and daring. Unfortunately, I was disappointed. In my opinion, it was sombrous, dull and soporific. Our main hope was for a daring program that would stimulate the imagination and give hope to the millions of Canadians who awaited these dynamic policies. These Canadians too were disappointed and resigned themselves to barbiturates to induce sleep and await another party that would set Canada upon the path of forming and introducing realistic and positive legislation to ensure the survival of the nation and give a realistic approach to the economic problems which plague us, from spiralling inflation to a shortage of goods and tight money policies.
Such legislation is absent from the Speech from the Throne and if indicated at all is couched in such words as to give it secondary importance. Next to legislation on capital punishment, those matters referred to above should have priority of study because the problems are not those that are to be feared in the future but problems which are with us today. The effect of these problems has meant misery to the larger part of our population. Inflationary costs are depriving our poor people of food, credit restrictions are threatening the survival of the small businessman and tight money policies, coupled with the high cost of production, are writing us off as an exporting nation. The future is grim if we do not face up now to these existing facts and adopt a positive approach to assure the survival of the nation.
The Prime Minister's declaration of intent to preserve the rights and prerogatives of national government are to be commended.

How seriously can this declaration be taken when we look at the haphazard direction we have taken in the last few years? At one time we have been approving a formula for amending the Canadian constitution and then forgoing that formula. Complete ignorance of the prerogatives and rights of the provincial governments has been indicated by proposing legislation in which the provinces are called upon to take part without first having consulted them on the proposed legislation. The Canadian federation has been under severe stress for many years. We do not seem to recognize some of the fundamental reasons. All the fault must not be laid at the feet of the national government. There must be coordination of effort based on an earnest desire for understanding and co-operation.
We must not allow ourselves to infringe on provincial prerogatives any more than we should allow the provinces to infringe on federal rights. Where both levels of government have rights under the constitution, a dialogue must be undertaken in order to understand mutually how best to approach the problem, to get the fullest value and to avoid wrangling and discord. The government must give direction, Mr. Speaker. It must also give leadership by introducing new ideas and formulas to bring our provinces, united and strong, under the one nation concept. It must not appear to the provinces that we are void of ideas and inept in taking the lead in all fields under federal jurisdiction. No more of these patchwork agreements should be evident.
My province might some day be Canada's foremost province. Its wealth and natural resources will be under the administration and control of Quebec people. All the recent attentions to Quebec have encouraged our younger generation to believe in the necessity of an education directed toward economics and the sciences but still retaining the goodness and fruits of a classical education. The economic level of its citizens will rise and they will enjoy equality of opportunity for positions in any commercial, economic or government field of employment. This is the hope for them, but let us agree to allow them to reach this goal. This goal should be accomplished, not to the detriment of other provinces but by mutual consent and by a constitution rewritten in Canada by a government which is aware of the aspirations of its people living under a system of provinces and a central government. The one Canada formula
January 28>
1966	COMMONS
should be completely heeded and its motor put into action.
As a beginning, Mr. Speaker, I should like to see the other provinces of Canada give to their minorities the same privileges and recognition which we, the minority in the province of Quebec, have enjoyed. However, let me not lead those sitting on your right, Mr. Speaker, to believe that I am advocating the policies of our provincial government. A warning should be given here that if that government does not put the brakes on some of Quebec's demands from the central government and on some of their unilateral and insulting actions, then this government will be accused of being the instrument in helping to bring about not a consolidation but a breaking up of confederation.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
I am not advocating a rigid formula which binds governments at all levels to an agreement laid down with no possibility of alteration. A constitution must have flexibility, and when drawn up for our levels of government it must provide the means for meeting special problems at given times. But it must also have a set of ground rules to abide by.
I agree with the government on these principles but we may differ on the means of attaining this objective. Is it true as the government believes now, not as it believed yesterday, that we must wait for the B and B reports, that we must-wait for the provincial studies on the constitution, etc., etc.? After three years during which we have applied priority to this vital problem we have now relegated it to a secondary position.
Why the delay, Mr. Speaker? Does this government not believe that the problem is an urgent one which, if allowed to continue as at present, may well lead to the creation of a situation endangering a possible approach by all levels of government on a co-operative basis and even, may I dare to say, leading to the breaking up of this union which constitutes Canada. It is vital to begin now the dialogue between the provinces and the national government and to rewrite the Canadian constitution in Canada. This dialogue is not, in my opinion, just a few months affair; it is and should be a well tempered and intentioned meeting of minds, and irrespective of when the different reports come in a few years could be saved. But this national conference, Mr. Speaker, must begin now.
DEBATES	391
The Address

Mr. Keays [Translation]
I should now like, Mr. Speaker, to deal with a problem in my riding located 400 to 600 miles from the great communications centres of the province. It involves transportation which is totally inadequate in our area. Basic aims of transportation planning are to meet the immediate needs of an area before providing for future requirements; such planning must be flexible and subject to change according to service demands.
No federal economic policy can be developed without taking regional problems into account. Our means of transportation are very limited: one highway and one railway on the south side of the siding; an obsolete highway on the north side, and a shipping line from Quebec to Gaspe.
As far as the northern part of the riding is concerned, the facts are well understood. In 1962, a bill was enacted by the house as chapter 13 of the revised statutes of Canada providing a certain amount of money for the building of a railroad between Matane and Ste Anne des Monts.
At that time, Mr. Speaker, members of the present government voted with us in favour of the bill because during every election campaign held in the Gaspe peninsula over the past 50 years the Liberal candidate promised to have a railroad built between Matane and Ste Anne des Monts if the people voted for him. No other reason than the promises of Liberal candidates could have justified such a vote. But unfortunately, the Conservative party was voted out, in 1963, and Liberal members were elected to represent the Lower St. Lawrence region.
I wonder what kind of influence they could have exercised within the then ruling party to convince the cabinet not to build this railroad, but rather to spend that amount -under what authority, I do not know-on the construction of a road in the province of Quebec, a provincial highway belonging to the province. Again, that was an example of the federal government tampering with the rights of Quebec. They did not construct that road in the Matane-Ste Anne des Monts section. The first four contracts for the construction of about 17 miles of road were granted in the constituency of the former minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who later became postmaster general (Mr. Tremblay). That road was constructed in a riding which already had a railroad, but in the region where a railroad was a must, nothing was done. Tenders were called for
392	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Keays the construction of roads east of the town of Matane a few months only before the general election. The former postmaster general is a very powerful man, for he managed to convince his government to allocate to one region money which had been voted for another. Last November he was saying that he had obtained money for the construction of a deep sea harbour at Matane in order to encourage a pulp and paper mill to settle in the area. Not satisfied with a deep sea harbour in Matane, his provincial colleague in a broadcast several evenings later, promised that if the federal Liberal candidate were elected, another deep sea harbour would be built four miles from the town of Matane.
I have nothing against the people of Matane getting everything they can from the government, but I do object to the fact that somehow-I do not know how yet-amounts provided for a particular sector or area are spent in another.
We will soon find out whether the full amount of the $16 million appropriation will be spent elsewhere or whether a small part of it will be left for the people of Gaspe.
Mr. Speaker, all kinds of efforts are being made to have the Gaspe peninsula overlooked. All sorts of absurd projects are being planned. Last year when
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)

reading the newspapers I learned that a Montreal corporation undertook the study of a $40 million skiing project in the Gaspe peninsula. For $40 million it must be a grand development. I was curious to know how such a sum would be spent. The report from the Montreal corporation indicated that it was hoped possibly to attract week end skiers from the United States to follow their sport for six or seven months of the year on the mountain slopes of our region.
The assumption was that it was possible to get approximately 544,000 skier days in the region. This represents many skiers. The situation has to be an ideal one involving the arrival of 5,000 skiers every week end for six or seven months of the year. Five thousand skiers represents an expenditure of roughly $10 million to provide accommodation for
5,000	skiers on any given week end.
In order to get these skiers to the area an airport will have to be built in the wilderness on the Gaspe peninsula to accommodate DC-9 air liners. A little arithmetic will show you, Mr. Speaker, that to get 5,000 skiers to the

DEBATES	January 28, 1966
Gaspe peninsula on any given week end would require the use of 10 DC air liners flying a shuttle service to Canada from neighbouring states in the United States. A $10 million chalet would be needed. And what about the preparation of the ski slopes? I do not believe Air Canada would ever be interested in buying ten DC air liners to accommodate skiers in this region. It is therefore preposterous and absurd to entertain such an idea.
The danger is that had we gone ahead with this project we would have scuttled the whole program now under study by the planning board. These are some of the reasons for giving closer consideration in our area to some of these sums of money which we were apparently prepared to vote. Obviously it is possible to spend them in a more intelligent manner. I propose to suggest many possible ways in which money could be spent to the benefit of the largest part of the population.
On the south side of my riding we have a railroad running from Matapedia to Gaspe. It was completed in 1915. To begin no later than 1930, may I say that the service from 1930 to 1940 was better than it is today. Some people have criticized the Canadian Pacific Railway. I wish now to speak about the Canadian National service.
Between 1935 and 1940 the C.N.R. could bring in express goods from Montreal within 24 hours. Now it takes 48 hours. Hon. members can easily understand what an inconvenience this represents to those in our area who are awaiting spare parts for a tractor or a piece of machinery which has broken down. When such breakdowns occur spare parts have to be ordered in the majority of cases because the small population does not justify the building up locally of a large range of spare parts. An additional 24 hours delay can be very costly to the owner of a machine which is broken down. When such an experience is repeated five or six times a year, the delay may well represent the difference between a profit and a loss in the annual account.
Those engaged in industry cannot afford to carry large inventories. They rely on the parts coming in as soon as possible. The extra 24 hours can prove very expensive. So far as the travelling public is concerned, there is a major problem. People leaving Gaspe at two o'clock in the afternoon could not, until a few weeks ago, get a meal before arriving in Montreal the next morning at seven thirty or eight o'clock. This situation has been going on
January 28. 1966

for many years. Passengers must put up with an off-on service. The service is taken off, people write to the C.N.R. and then it is put back. Later it is again removed.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out to the hon. member that there are just about two minutes of his time left. He may wish to finish now and the Chair would turn a blind eye to the clock. Is that agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Russell Keays: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have much to say on the subject of transportation but in the circumstances I will leave it for another occasion.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)
I hope the attention of this government will be directed to the economy of the region from which I come. At this moment more than 25 per cent of its labour force are unemployed. This is a most serious situation. I do not believe that unemployment assistance measures will cure all the ills of the unemployed. We need industry and the government must do its share. It can do its share in defence. It can give concessionary help to our present industries to enable them to hire some of the unemployed. If our industries are helped they can give employment and expand production. It is our firm belief that greater productivity will cure some of the ills of inflation.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I extend my congratulations and express my admiration to the new Speaker of the house, to yourself, to the Deputy Speaker and chairman of committees, to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne (Messrs. Goyer and Stanbury), as well as to all re-elected and newly elected members who have come here to Ottawa to earnestly serve the Canadian people both in the house and in committees.
In this chorus of praise, I am not forgetting my genial colleague, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) who earned the approbation of the public because of his personal qualities and his untiring devotion to public affairs for many years.
The Address-Mr. Allard
At the outset of this twenty seventh parliament which, unless it breaks up unexpectedly over political controversy or systematic obstruction, will preside over the centennial celebrations, we must ask ourselves what concerns should move the hearts and the minds of the legislators of our great Canada.
The Speech from the Throne shows two main purposes. First, the war against poverty within and, second, the political future of Canada.
I congratulate the government for emphasizing those two important problems and for having announced a series of legislative measures likely to alleviate them.
I understand that the present government will not limit itself to the legislation announced in the speech from the throne, but that it may suggest other solutions by means of the budget speech and through legislation submitted by the different departments. But, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne does not go far enough; the government does not advance strong enough measures as appropriate solutions.
In fact, if we really wish to reduce misery, poverty and want in this country, we must not be afraid to strike at the very root of the unrest and to take immediate action.
As a general and practical policy, the government should have provided for a more democratic apportionment of the national revenue to further assist the labour and agricultural classes, and Canadians with low income.
To that end, it should revise the tax structure and set it on a basis which would take a greater account of families and social considerations. It should lower personal income tax for small wage earners who are faced with growing family obligations. In my opinion, the government should, in its next budget, provide a basic exemption of $4,000 for heads of families and of $2,000 for single people.
It is realized more and more that taxes foster the evil of poverty. It is becoming impossible for the head of a family with a salary of less than $4,000 to meet his obligations and face the ever increasing cost of living. When a man does not get enough help from the state, he is too often forced, in his distress, to turn to institutions and small loan companies which, without making judicious inquiries, further burden the family budget with excessive interest rates.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
In order to put an end to the exploitation of the small borrower and to make things
394	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Allard easier for him, the government should seriously consider setting a 12 per cent maximum on interest rates and raising the level of small loans from $1,500 to $5,000 at a 1/200 per cent rate of interest.
Family allowances should also be increased. We were very pleased to note at the last federal-provincial conference, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), and several provincial ministers, agreed to review this act in force since 1945 and which no longer meets the needs and requirements of Canadian children, mothers and fathers.
The old age pensions will also have to be increased. I won't make a speech on the subject since an amendment has been moved in this house this session, but I would like to recall, Mr. Speaker, that refusal to increase old age pensions has been a great disappointment for many members and for many Canadians.
On this point, I should like to recall the recent statement by the president of the C.N.T.U., Mr. Marcel Pepin. According to this labour leader, the most significant failure of the present federal government is its refusal to increase old age pensions. Mr. Pepin, who represents thousands of heads of family and workers, also indicated the present level of such pensions is quite inadequate compared to the rate of economic growth of our community, particularly in view of the needs of old people.
It is all very well for each of us to rise and tell the government: You have introduced rather attractive pieces of legislation, but you have not done everything possible to meet present needs.
Of course, we all have suggestions which, at first sight, would lead the government to believe that we want to overtax its budget, destroy it or increase the deficit. But among the seven remedial measures I am pointing out today, there are some which, while allowing us to meet our commitments, would not burden any further the government's adverse budget and would not increase the fiscal burden already too heavy for Canadian taxpayers.
I shall point out two this afternoon. First of all, the government should seriously consider at this very session to reduce its military expenditures.
If Canada's appropriations for national defence are compared to those of other countries with similar national and international responsibilities, we find that they spend about

DEBATES	January 28, 1966
15 per cent of the total budget for national defence, while Canada earmarks almost 25 per cent of its budget for national defence.
I would like to quote a comparative table of national defence budgets for certain countries for the fiscal year 1964-65. Canada earmarks 24.7 per cent of its total budget for national defence; New Zealand, 8 per cent; Australia, 18 per cent; Belgium, 12 per cent; Norway, 17 per cent; Sweden, 17 per cent; Ireland, 5 per cent; Italy, 15 per cent; Spain, 12 per cent; Japan, 8 per cent; Czechoslovakia, 8 per cent; and three other countries, France, 23 per cent; Great Britain, 27 per cent and United States, 52 per cent.
As far as the last three countries are concerned, Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that, in the field of domestic affairs, they are considered large countries which entertain hopes of economic conquests and monopolies often supported by armed forces.
Such is not the case in Canada. I say we are operating above our means and we do not place correctly the priorities concerning the needs of Canadians. Therefore, Canada should review its international policy, restrict further its military expenditures and concentrate the greater part of its efforts on the needs and welfare of its people.
Another way would be to amend section 179 of the Criminal Code so as to allow the operation of national or provincial lotteries.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why this matter has to be brought up every session, as it has been for so many years, when public opinion polls show that Canadians throughout the country want national and provincial lotteries. According to the most recent, held in 1961 I believe, 95 per cent of the people interviewed in Quebec, to mention but one province, were in favour of national and provincial lotteries. Such lotteries exist in many countries. They are to be found in Panama, Mexico, Australia, Ireland, Spain, and I could name about 30 other countries. That such a puritan attitude and contrariness should still exist is beyond me. To prevent governments, including that of Quebec which has wanted one for a long time, from holding lotteries shows a lack of vision. In 1935, the Quebec legislature unanimously passed an act asking that section 179 of the Criminal Code be amended to provide for the establishment of provincial lotteries.
That would enable governments to collect large amounts of money without having to increase the tax burden.
January 28, 19G6

Mr. Speaker, I am proposing that solution to the government today.
We hear that the government had just set up, within the cabinet, a special program committee to co-ordinate the action of the federal government in order to improve the lot of the poor people in Canada, because there are thousands of them, not among us, but among the working and farming communities. The committee will see to it that the poor people of Canada-there are millions of them-take a more active part in the life of the country. I suggest that the committee should study the humble suggestions I am making today as well as those which were made by other hon. members during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, so that its next budget may be a pleasant surprise for all Canadians and reflect more vigour and dynamism in the political and financial administration of our country.
The second matter I want to deal with this afternoon concerns the political future of our great and beautiful Canada. Speeches from the throne reveal a growing tendency on the part of the federal government to take over responsibilities which the Canadian constitution of 1867 had not anticipated or had not granted to the central government. For the time being, I will limit myself to the field of education. In 1952, we saw the central government keep for itself all the fiscal resources it did not want to give back to the provinces -resources which, in fact, it had borrowed because of the war-and move into the field of university grants, contrary to section 93 of the constitution which gives the provinces exclusive jurisdiction in the field of education. In 1964, its range of action increased even more when it got into the field of student loans, and today, in another speech from the throne, it announces its intention to grant scholarships to students.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we, as legislators, will have once and for all to show sincerity of mind and away from the hustings, before everyone else, before the parliamentary correspondents and the third groups, before the troublemakers, assume our responsibilities and consider the problem boldly.
In the last few years, we have witnessed an increase in constitutional conflicts, conflicts which spread distrust throughout the country and push many Canadians further apart.
23033-26J
The Address-Mr. Allard
There are two points of view which must be understood. Personally, I respect both of them. English Canadians consider the fiscal and further constitutional definitions and centralization and uniformity of the economic or social legislation. Those people are satisfied with the political consultations instead of amending the constitution as required. I respect that opinion.
On the other hand, the French Canadian mentality demands the decentralization of powers and taxation fields, it asks for provincial autonomy, the particularism of Quebec and further constitutional definitions and guarantees in writing. Thousands of Quebeckers, thousands of French Canadians outside Quebec-according to the 1961 census, they number 1,298,000-who are also Canadians, are now giving serious thought- this is no joke-to the final direction of our political future.
They will choose between five political alternatives:	the status quo, co-operative
federalism, the formula of associate states, Quebec's independence and finally, a new Canadian constitution establishing throughout the country a positive and bicultural federalism and setting up in Quebec a special status in certain fields.
The status quo will not be accepted by Quebec and French Canada for three main reasons. First-and this is logical-conditions have changed since 1867 in the fields of economics, industry, natural resources and even culture. The fathers of confederation could not anticipate everything: surely, they could not foresee the invention of radio and television, the matter of rights over mining resources, in short they could not anticipate that conditions would change in time.
Second, the status quo is refused by Quebec and by French Canada because our past experience with federal and provincial governments has shown that the 1867 constitution was both weak and abnormal.
A true co-operative federalism should include the following ten features: independent and equal governments, clear and precise sharing of the powers of taxation, balance between the different governments, supremacy of the constitution, a constitutional court, recognition of biethnic and bicultural liberties and securities in the country, an amendment formula on fundamental problems acceptable to all parties, and Senate reform allowing provincial representatives to sit in that house.
396	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Allard
The text of the constitution of 1867 is not in line with the fundamental principles of true federalism which I have outlined. Ottawa's powers over provincial legislation are too great. The attribution of general legislative powers, the surrender to Ottawa of taxation powers, these are serious reasons why Quebec and French Canada want the constitution amended, reshaped and adjusted to immediate problems.
There is also the other option of co-operative federalism which has been tested in the last few years and which has shown that it would be limited to political consultations instead of providing a solution to the amendment of the constitution.
The associate states system is illogical. All Canadians are not prepared to accept this formula.
As far as the formula for Quebec independence is concerned, I think it is defective in three respects. First, no one-neither Mr. Bourgault, Mr. Chaput nor Mr. Jutras-has established that an independent Quebec would obtain more economic advantages on a long or short term basis.
Second, the formula is defective because an independent and separated Quebec would not, in my humble opinion, be in a position to help our 1,300,000 fellow-countrymen who are disseminated in the other Canadian provinces. Finally, a separated and independent Quebec would not be in a position to protect us from American penetration of our country by all possible means, that is, American magazines, television and radio.
What we need is a new Canadian constitution which will maintain what is good and essential and which will be based on necessary characteristics according to the aspirations of the two great nations and cultural groups. As members of parliament elected by the people, we have the responsibility to solve, as soon as possible, those economic, fiscal and constitutional problems.
A special joint parliamentary committee of the House of Commons and Senate should be set up during this session to consider all the reports of the various commissions, including the second report of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission on bilingualism and biculturalism, the reports and conclusions of the Carter and Belanger commission on taxation, and the findings which will be submitted in May, I believe, by the parliamentary committee, in Quebec, on the Canadian constitution. We should, here in this parliament, during this

DEBATES	January 28, 1966
session-1966 is a vital year for our country-look into all those reports, as legislators, and discuss them together.
It is very easy for us, Canadians, to fraternize, to converse nicely and politely with one another, but we should create, in addition feelings of friendship and brotherhood which would transform us into a dynamic nation, an example for all the nations in the world.
These are, Mr. Speaker, the few remarks I wanted to make this afternoon. If we, members of this twenty seventh parliament, act thus, we shall deserve well of the Canadian people, and we will be able to achieve unity in equality.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Fraser Valley, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, Fraser Valley.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I do not doubt that Peace River is a very beautiful part of Canada, Mr. Speaker, but it could hardly be expected I would agree that it was as beautiful as the Fraser Valley. It is a pleasure for me as well as an honour, to represent the people of the Fraser Valley federal riding.
I should like first of all to associate myself with all the other members of the house who have offered congratulations to the Speaker, to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Deputy Chairman of Committees, and to the mover (Mr. Goyer) and seconder (Mr. Stanbury) of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Although these words are uttered rather late in the debate they are none the less sincere.
The Speech from the Throne covers a very wide range of subjects, some of which are exceedingly important and urgent. Then there are other sections of the speech that are very ambiguous and vague in their wording. I recognize the fact, of course, that the Speech from the Throne does not necessarily encompass the whole legislative program of the government but there are some notable omissions to which I will refer in a few moments. However, Mr. Speaker, the important question is not how many legislative items are forecast or not forecast in the Speech from the Throne but whether or not we, as members of the parliament of Canada, are going to have the opportunity of consid-
January 28, 1966

ering and passing judgment on those which are of considerable concern to the people of our nation.
Although I may perhaps be transgressing the rules in referring to the amendment which was voted upon last night, I should like to say that I regret it was not possible, because of the allocation of time, for the Social Credit party to field a speaker, though we recognize of course the validity of that decision. But we considered that that vote was another exercise in futility, which is the reason we took the same position in regard to it that we took on the previous one with regard to old age pensions.
This brings me, Mr. Speaker, to the consideration of one particular issue that 1 believe is of urgent and fundamental importance to us at this particular time. I do not think we can get away from the responsibility of providing adequately for those senior citizens who are unable to provide for themselves in their latter years. This issue is still before us and it will be before us until some positive remedial action is taken on the question of old age pensions.
I do not think anyone could successfully argue against the need for an increase in pension rates. I happened to notice a report in this morning's Globe and Mail under the caption "Elderly Person Needs $138.96 A Month, Conference On Aging Budget Shows". I should like to call attention to the first paragraph:
An elderly person living alone needs a monthly income of at least $138.96, a committee of the Canadian Conference on Aging decided yesterday.


Mr. Beaulieu:: You should have read that before you voted.


Alexander Bell Patterson: If the hon. member understands the situation, he knows that we did not base our decision on the question of an increase in old age pensions.


Mr. Ricard:: What did you base it on then?


Alexander Bell Patterson: I should like to say that those who perpetuate the idea that a vote on a motion of that description is a vote for or against an increase in pensions are clearly ignorant of parliamentary procedure or are deliberately trying to mislead the public. Let it be clearly stated once again for the benefit of those who perhaps have not already caught on that an affirmative vote on that issue would not have increased pensions by one red cent, and these hon. gentlemen who are chiming in now know it just as well as anybody else.
The Address-Mr. Patterson


Mr. Scoff (Victoria (Ont.)):: We did not get
the chance to increase them.


Alexander Bell Patterson: You had your chance and you bungled it.
I believe the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) stated that certain members of this party voted against an increase in pensions. That statement is completely false. I should like to refer to a compromise proposal which I had the opportunity of presenting on March 12, 1965, as reported at page 12304 of Hansard:
-I want to make it quite clear that we in this group are in support of a basic pension of $100 per month for our senior citizens. In view of the fact it is unlikely the government is going to move to make this increase available immediately, we are suggesting that at the same time there is this lowering of the age of eligibility there should be a gradual increase in the pension payable until at the time when the pension is payable at 65 pensioners may receive a basic pension of $100 per month.
Just the other day, as reported at page 270 of Hansard for January 25, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Comtois) advanced what I consider to be identically the same proposal. So far we have had no indication from the government that it is going to move either on the proposal that was made last year or the proposal that was presented by one of the members of the Liberal party in this session. While the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has rejected the idea of $100 per month at 65 years of age and has disregarded these other proposals, I cannot believe that this indicates a lack of concern for our senior citizens on the part of the government. Perhaps we can say that it is a matter of confused priorities.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Believing that half a loaf is better than none I would respectfully and earnestly offer a further compromise, one to which I would request the Prime Minister to give consideration. May I emphasize that this is a compromise proposal? Speaking on behalf of my colleagues in the Social Credit party I make the following suggestion-there may be a more precise manner in which to present it, but I want to spell it out in detail.
Those who are now 70 years of age would receive $100 per month. Those who are now 69 years of age would receive $95 a month. Those who will be 68 next year, in 1967, would receive $90 a month. Those who will be 67 in 1968 would receive $85 a month. Those who will be 66 in 1969 would receive $80 a month and those who will be 65 in 1970
January 28, 1986

The Address-Mr. Patterson would receive $75 a month. Thereafter upon reaching 65 years of age a person would qualify for a basic pension of $75, a pension which would increase yearly until at the age of 70 he would be receiving $100 a month.
This, it will be noted, fits in with the present graduated reduction in the age at which old age pension is payable. It is offered, as I have said, as a compromise formula, the Prime Minister having rejected the idea of a straight $100 a month payable at the age of 65 at the present time. May I add that upward revisions may be necessary in the future, no doubt before the year 1970 is reach? I believe the proposal I have made today would, if adopted, considerably improve the lot of our senior citizens.
I wish also this afternoon to refer to another group of people in our community who are likewise in great need-the superannuated civil servants. There are other members in this house who have made representations in this regard over a long period-some for longer than I have. But considering, as we must, the constantly increasing cost of living it seems highly unfair that these people who have served in the public service should now be denied an adequate standard of living. We must recognize that people in other categories have received consideration.
We all know that wages and salaries are moving upward. The people who are suffering most at the present time are those who are living on pensions and on fixed incomes, and unless we in parliament take the initiative in this respect we shall end up by not being very proud of the treatment accorded to those who have served in the public service of Canada in the years gone by.


Mr. Chatierton:: Would the hon. member permit a question? If the opposition were to move an amendment, say to the supply motion, to increase the pensions of federal superannuates, would the hon. member and his party vote for it, regardless?


Mr.  A. B. Patierson@Fraser Valley: The hon. member knows very well that an amendment presented in that particular manner would not achieve the result we want. It would be yet another exercise in futility. I believe the people of Canada expect us to maintain parliament in operation and present their views, and urge the government to take action to help solve their problems.
There is another omission to which I should like to refer this afternoon, Mr. 

should not hope to get through this parliament without any question being raised with respect to these problems.
My time is rapidly running out but I wish to refer to the agricultural sector of our economy, not only in the broader sense but in the sense that a very large sector of it is located in my constituency. According to a statement prepared by radio station CHWK in Chilliwack, 50 per cent of British Columbia's farm output comes from the Fraser valley. I recognize that my colleagues from B.C. also represent agricultural areas, as do hon. members in other parties, but I repeat that 50 per cent of B.C.'s farm output comes from the Fraser valley. Much of this output is consumed locally in the province but we find canned and frozen products under the labels "Fraser Vale," "Royal City", "Pacific Milk," "Delnor," "Dairy Land" and "York" being enjoyed right across the nation.
Dairy farming, small fruit and field crops, as well as beef, pork, lamb, poultry and most of the hops produced in Canada contribute to a farm income of about $70 million. Food processing valued at $44 million annually, forms the nucleus of a healthy manufacturing industry. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, you can see that the area I have the privilege and honour to represent is doing its best to provide food for the nation.
According to the Speech from the Throne it is intended to set up a National Dairy Commission. This is a very worth-while project. It is one which will receive support across the country. Anything that will assist in the solution of the problems of the dairy industry is worthwhile.
Reference was also made in the Speech from the Throne to crop insurance. This may be working out quite satisfactorily in some parts of the country, but I submit vast improvements in the legislation are required before all farmers can be adequately protected. There are areas of the agricultural industry that are not covered. There are other areas that are covered inadequately. We hope that in the amendments which are presented the government will see to it that every facet of the agricultural industry in all parts of the country receives fair attention and treatment, equal to the benefits which some sectors presently receive.
The Speech from the Throne also makes reference to the ARDA program, and I recognize that this is not something that comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of

The Address-Mr. Patterson Agriculture (Mr. Greene) but is the responsibility of the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve). Much has been said about the ARDA program, but I think its inadequacies have been very obvious since it came into operation. Perhaps that is the reason why new master agreements were drawn up, and the reason why amendments are going to be introduced in this session of parliament.
If ARDA is to accomplish the objectives that we believe it could and should accomplish, substantial amendments must be made to the legislation. I am told that because of the restrictive features of the regulations B.C. can receive only about 50 per cent of its allocation. This is not fair. The allocation itself is unfair, but when coupled with that is the fact that B.C. cannot avail itself of the full allotment, then I suggest this particular deficiency should and must be rectified without delay.
There are many other aspects of the agricultural industry to which I should like to refer this afternoon, but my time is just about up. I wish to impress once again upon the government the importance of the particular issues I have mentioned-adequate assistance to our senior citizens, superannuated civil servants and veterans of our armed forces; and a legislative program to see to it that our agricultural economy receives its fair and adequate share of the national income.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question before he sits down?


Alexander Bell Patterson: Surely.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder, since he saw the report in the press today to the effect that $138.96 a month is the minimum needed for an elderly person to live on, if in view of that figure the hon. member feels it is proper for a suggestion to be made now, even on a compromise basis, that would settle for anything less than $100 a month?


Alexander Bell Patterson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I did refer to this particular matter and I think I said half a loaf is better than none. If the government adamantly refuses to provide at least the $100, for which requests have been made, then I think we should endeavour to persuade it to do something to alleviate the serious situation in which many of our senior citizens find themselves. Amendments on a future occasion, yes; upward revisions, yes; But let us get what we can at the moment and then move forward from that point.
January 28, 1966

The Address-Mr. Racine
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. J. P. Racine (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, may I first congratulate you very warmly on your election to the office of Deputy Speaker and ask you to convey my congratulations to Mr. Speaker. I also wish to offer my congratulations to the new ministers and parliamentary secretaries.
However, I must admit in all sincerity that I deeply regret two departures from the cabinet, that of the former Secretary of State and that of the former Postmaster General. Having been the victims of a campaign of innuendos, they were tired and gave up their important posts. In losing them, we lost two economists. Fortunately, they will be able to serve their country as private members of the house.
I want to be brief today, because I promised the hon. member who will speak after me that I would give him the opportunity of delivering his speech and of visiting his riding during the week end, like all of us.
Much has been said about the Speech from the Throne in the press in general. It has been termed an important legislative program, which carries no surprises. For some, this document contains nothing new. Should legislation introduced by a government be reduced to surprise gifts? Must a parliamentary session have the suspense of a TV story? It has also been said that the sessional program was extensive, as expected. In my opinion, the volume of this program constitutes its greatest quality; it shows that the government has looked into several problems at a time.
Those who claimed that the speech from the throne contains nothing new probably meant that the legislation it announces has already been discussed. I would say, then, that in introducing these measures again, the government is not coming up with dangerous innovations. To those who say that there were no surprises in the Speech from the Throne, I want to say that there was at least one: the legislation designed to help agriculture in eastern Canada, a thing eastern farmers had long been waiting for.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great surprise and a great satisfaction for us who have read the Speech from the Throne. Let me mention as an example, the establishment of a Canadian Dairy Commission which, like the Canadian Wheat Board, will be invaluable for dairy producers, whether they live in Ontario, Quebec or the Maritimes.

Several pieces of legislation mentioned in the speech from the throne, for instance, the legislation to improve the movement and marketing of feed grain in eastern Canada and British Columbia will also be of great help to our farmers and will contribute to a reduction of their production costs, which will leave them with a much more interesting profit than in the past. Indeed, the eastern farmers and, in particular, the Quebec Catholic Farmers' Union, have long been asking for such grants for the transport of feed grain.
The measures dealing with increased capital for farm credit and unemployment insurance benefits for farm workers will also rejoice all farmers in my opinion. Those most important and necessary measures will be an efficient complement to the agricultural and regional development program which the province of Quebec has itself undertaken. It is the first federal session during which eastern farmers will receive at the same time an attention which seemed to be directed only toward the wheat producers. Indeed, the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Alcide Courcy, is said to be very happy about the proposed farm legislation mentioned in the speech from the throne.
With regard to crop insurance, Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes have, here again, long been asking for the application of that legislation. I recall that when I had the honour of sitting in the house from 1958 to 1962, the government of the day had initiated the crop insurance act. I remember rising in the house at that time to say that I appreciated that legislation, that it would certainly be of benefit to farmers but that, unfortunately, it could not apply in eastern Canada because of our diversified farming, whereas, in some provinces, it would be much easier to apply.
I am happy to see that the government has kept its election promise and that the Crop Insurance Act will be amended so that all farmers, not only those in a favoured region, will benefit from that legislation.
ARDA will also greatly help our farmers, thanks to an agreement reached with the provincial government. In my riding of Beauce we have been able to appreciate that legislation because most of the dredging operations carried out in the Chaudiere river, now famous for its floods, were undertaken under ARDA. According to statistics, the province of Quebec has, thanks to ARDA, completed 170 projects and it is expected that it will
January 28, 1966

continue to benefit from ARDA in the fields of farming and forestry and with respect to the tourist industry.
With regard to the purchase of unproductive and uneconomic farms, Quebec already has its own legislation, but the policy of the present federal government will be an encouragement to pursue its policy of regrouping farms and converting unproductive land to forests.
[DOT] (3:40 p.rn.)
In an election campaign which is still fresh in our memory, we, on this side of the house, on behalf of the government, had said to our people that the policies we were presenting would enable them to conclude that the greatest concern of this government was protection for the farmer.
Now, I believe that those who trusted us then must feel today that we were sincere, because as soon as we returned to parliament, the speech from the throne contained various measures respecting agriculture, which proves that we honoured the commitments made to our constituents in the month of November.
On the other hand, if the people of this country were anxiously awaiting the speech from the throne, I must confess that personally, as a young parliamentarian, I was asking myself the following question: But will the government deliver the products it asked us to sell?
After the speech from the throne, I realized that the government had shipped the goods he had asked us to sell.
In addition, to continue on the subject of agriculture, I was glad, as were, I am sure, the farmers in my riding, when the Minister of Agriculture stated on January 19, while confirming the agreement for the extension of this program between the federal government and the province of Quebec, that farmers who had been hit by crop failures would have to be helped.
In fact, the present government has decided to extend its federal-provincial assistance policy to certain drought areas in Quebec, so that farmers there could benefit from this program.
This extension of the program will continue to increase the assistance provided to the designated areas and will apply to special crop producers who have suffered from bad weather.
Besides, this agreement had been reached in July 1965 between the government of Canada and the Quebec government. It has been
The Address-Mr. Racine agreed, as stipulated by this agreement, that the cost will be shared equally by the two governments. No doubt this will provide considerable help to our farmers whose crop had been damaged by drought, which placed them in an absolutely intolerable financial position.
During the election we talked about medicare. It was easy for us to talk about it. All we had to do was to tell our listeners when we were discussing hospital insurance that even if they were already insured against sickness, they could benefit from this new act. It is necessary, and Canadian families stricken by illness will surely appreciate its advantages.
With regard to the legislation concerning workers, mention was made of unemployment insurance, a Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, and job security.
Another very important matter mentioned in the speech from the throne is that of university grants and student scholarships. I have already had the opportunity of saying here in this house, that our young people should have access to education, whether they are the sons of humble workers or farmers or rich financiers. I have said it is their inalienable right to acquire an education and that we should permit their fondest hopes to come true.
Of course, such legislation will require some co-ordination between the provincial and federal governments. Quebec will no doubt prefer the financial option.
A moment ago I heard the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) speak about "constitutional technicalities". Well, for my part, I say this: Let us grant such scholarships to the province of Quebec subject to option rights, and let us deal with the matter while students are already attending university. It is not desirable to prevent these students from attending university until such legislation is passed.
Should the education of one Quebec citizen or his access to university be delayed because of our- discussions on technicalities and our refusal to pass this legislation, we would cause irreparable harm to young people who are eager to learn and to fulfil their ambitions.
I believe the establishment of a Canada Development Corporation to promote investments in industry and the development of our natural resources is also a good thing. Certain parts of Canada, as we know, have few industries and this lack of organization is one
402	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Racine of the causes of unemployment. I am very pleased that the present government has thought about that important problem. I am sure that that initiative will be an incentive to our industries and that it will create employment for our working class.
Since the beginning of the debate on the Address, all sorts of topics have been discussed. Some members asked for greater benefits under our social legislation, such as in the field of old age pensions; others suggested a raise in family allowances.
Each time such suggestions are put forward in the house, I would like us to be told what estimates, in what department, should be reduced to allow for increased benefits under the social legislation which we hold to be so important.
Yesterday the member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) mentioned that the oldest government system in Canada was municipal government. Now, Mr. Speaker, as mayor of my home town and reeve of the county of Beauce, I know that even such small governments always find it difficult to balance their budget; with all possible integrity and fairness we try to tackle what seems to be important and endeavor to reduce certain expenses in order to increase estimates elsewhere. That is why I sincerely believe that those who make such proposals should also indicate which expenditures should be cut down.
Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting in this house for four years and I think I have broached some problems that seem to interest not only my own riding but the whole area. Before concluding, may I make a few personal remarks which, I believe, are in order in this house.
First of all, rest assured that I could hardly conclude this brief address without extending to my constituents of Beauce my heartiest thanks for the confidence they reposed in me on November 8 last. I know that throughout the province people followed the progress of the electoral campaign in my riding with some curiosity, and I know that in some places my constituents' verdict was a surprise to many.
I also know, on the other hand, that a certain newspaper, I am referring to Le Devoir of Montreal, I make no secret of it, published two editorials telling its subscribers that in the best interests of the Canadian nation, the election of the assistant leader of the New Democratic party in my riding was not only important but absolutely necessary. I

DEBATES	January 28, 1966
also know that this man had more than his share of publicity in the province of Quebec, from some agencies, even from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation where he has constantly appeared since his defeat-a fact to which I have no objection. He took part recently in the program "Cartes sur tables" after his appearance with the "Couche-Tard". He has become as much of a draw with the C.B.C. as one of his predecessors, Mr. Michel Chartrand.
There is something I keep wondering about.
I recall that, in 1958, the year I was elected for the first time, this same newspaper stated in an editorial that, for the good of the French Canadian people my opponent should be elected.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Now, Mr. Speaker, my friends and acquaintances know very well that I am not dangerous either to English speaking or French speaking Canadians.
This reminds me that some newspapermen or agencies consider the Beauce constituency as some kind of a guinea pig. If some constituencies wish to experiment, let them. But where I come from, people seem to have had enough of trying to save Canada and the French Canadian race, and they now are thinking of saving themselves.
I know also, and I wish to make it clear, that the election campaign is not yet completed as far as the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party in Quebec is concerned.
Every week, I regret to say, I read letters in Montreal newspapers-these letters are sent out of town naturally-that are in no way flattering to my constituents of Beauce. They are unsigned, naturally. Their purpose is to make publicity for the assistant leader of the N.D.P. and keep up the popularity he may have in the province.
What I find most regretful, and this is the point I would like to make clear, is that this publicity in favour of the assistant leader of the N.D.P. tends to create the impression that Beauce citizens are very touchy during elections. On behalf of the honest citizens of my constituency, I want to repudiate such publicity. I blame those who make such propaganda that I find deplorable and in bad taste,
I have nothing against the Leader of the New Democratic Party personally, but I beg of him to avoid this kind of disgusting publicity with regard to the people of my riding, even though it might prevent him from explaining his defeat to all the province.
January 28. 1966
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the common good must come before the individual good. The election in Beauce riding, over which much ink has been spilled, enabled my two opponents to size each other up and the results show that the candidate of the Creditistes and the N.D.P. candidate were about the same strength. After the adventure the citizens of Beauce lived through with the Creditistes, it was inevitable that the honest and intelligent voters of my riding should not embark in the same boat they had known from 1962 to 1965.
Beauce was never Creditiste. It gave a protest vote. Nor is Beauce socialist.
People have had their fill of seeing great preachers be capitalists in their office and socialists on the street when they meet their neighbours.
Neither is Beauce Conservative, when we consider that the candidate of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) who, incidentally, gave us yesterday one of the performances we have grown accustomed to, only garnered 338 out of 25,521 votes.
Finally, I say that Beauce has no instructions to receive from the Montreal dailies; when it comes to voting democratically our people know what to do.
Therefore I thank the Beauce voters for the confidence they wanted to show in the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and in his team. I see today that they are not *disappointed since what we said during the election campaign will be carried out by this government, as evidenced in the Speech from the Throne.
Personally, I wish to assure them of my most complete devotion.
Mr. Speaker, I should like very much to put before the house many particular problems concerning my riding but I would rather give one of my friends, the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Latulippe), the opportunity to take the floor. I shall have a chance to deal with my problems when the estimates are before us.


Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compton-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be to thank Providence very sincerely and very humbly for electing you to preside over our deliberations; we heard so many good things about you and your assistants that I hope you all go straight to Heaven.
In this new parliament, like the speakers who have preceded me, I would like to make some remarks on the Speech from the Throne.
The Address-Mr. Latulippe
The speech from the throne contained all kinds of nice things indeed: the same promises, the same benefits, the same regulations or the same improvements contained in it three years ago when we set foot in this chamber.
In the throne speech this year we find exactly the same arguments as two and three years ago. I have therefore come to the conclusion that nothing has been accomplished, since the same things are coming up again.
The throne speech mentioned national unity. Canada will be united provided Canadians have an acceptable standard of living in a country overflowing with riches, and never otherwise.
There is talk of the war on poverty. Why have Canadian citizens become so poor? How come there is so much hardship in Canada when we always have had sound administrations, either Grit or Tory? A sound administration, they brag, it is now stated in the speech from the throne, that our country is enjoying an unprecedented period of prosperity and growth; that production, investment and trade have expanded rapidly; that Canada is making rapid strides; that employment opportunities have increased rapidly and that unemployment has decreased.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that if the people were doing so well, this would not be a topic. Where is the sincerity of those who tell us that the country is prosperous and then declare war on poverty?
This poverty was brought about, and deliberately so, by those who administered our country in the past; it was not wished for by the Creditistes who were not here at the time. It has been willed by those who administered our country in days gone by.
The Liberals governed us for 34 years out of 45 and the rest of the time it was the Conservatives.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, our previous administrations brought about unemployment, dire poverty, debts and bankruptcies of all kinds. Everybody is dissatisfied in Canada, and you have only to look around to see it. Why are the people dissatisfied? Why do people not even have the right to live decently? We empty the pockets of our citizens through taxation, we drain them dry and they are obliged to stay in their hovels; they cannot pay their rent because they have no money left.

January 28, 1966

The Address-Mr. Latulippe
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have had enough of this system. It is fine for those who are well paid. Canada, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) tells us, is prosperous. Prosperous, yes, for about 10 per cent of the population, for those who cater to high finance, who handle the funds. It is prosperous for loan companies. It is prosperous for companies listed on the stock exchange, because on the Montreal Stock Exchange around $2 billion of profits or income are made each month, while all the people in Canada do not make $2 billion of profits or income in a year. Some private citizens have to pay taxes, but not those who speculate.
Our production system is perfect, I congratulate those who administered us in the past for at least having organized well our production system. However, at the present time we are still saying that our production must be financed, that investments must be made to increase production, and in this field only, while we do not have anything to say as far as distribution is concerned. Our production is healthy, in fact, it is so healthy that in 1965 our production was worth $51 billion. Perhaps $35 billion worth has been sold, and it follows that from $15 to $16 billion worth could not be marketed. And yet those products were made for those citizens who need them. No investments are being made to foster distribution or to increase consumption. Then, if we want things to work smoothly, production should certainly be financed, but consumption too. In a country such as Canada where technological advances are commonplace, we will never succeed, Mr. Speaker, in creating unity, if consumption and the needs of our citizens are not taken into account.
At a time when our financial system is failing, we would like to amend it. Some people talk about finance, but Creditistes alone offer ideal solutions. All previous speakers, since the opening of the session, have asked and suggested all kinds of things, but there is no money to pay for them. None of those speakers have asked the government to put the printing press at the disposal of the citizens, none except the Social Credit members.
How shall we finance these things? By incurring debts? By continuing to borrow money and to empty people's pockets that have already been cleaned out? By paying $5 every time we receive $2 from the government? By the government withdrawing money from circulation instead of issuing new money? .

The system is basically wrong. It has to be reformed if we are to preserve our heritage, our family and our institutions. The Creditistes would urge the Bank of Canada to make interest free loans to producers, at a time when financial institutions have us under their heel, when we are fettered by grants, when farm credit puts us deeper into debt. All the government programs, the Industrial Development Bank, the Home Financing Plan, are all plans that put us deeper into debt for periods of 30, 40 even 50 years. Institutional grants tie up credit.
The Social Credit party would finance producers, farmers, public interests by way of interest free loans. We could finance highway construction and university building costs as well as the development of our natural resources. We could make investments intended for the development of our natural resources by means of Canadian credit. At present, Canadians go out of their own country to seek credit on foreign markets, credit that is granted with a stroke of the pen for the development of our institutions, of our natural resources; we pay interest to those foreigners and eventually we hand over the country to them.
It is a well-known fact that 80 per cent of our Canadian industries and natural resources are being developed and operated by foreign interests. So, if there is nothing in the Speech from the Throne to provide for all those things, it is up to us the Canadian people to assume our responsibilities and to reform things that are reformable.
Never mind what is satisfactory; there is not much to say about that. My constituency needs all kinds of things, just as all the other constituencies. It is a poor constituency, where farming is not very good. The government would have to spend several hundred million dollars to place it on equal footing with other constituencies. But if these millions are borrowed from high financial circles, we will get into deeper and deeper water and be in debt up to our necks.
Mr. Speaker, income tax is theft.
The national debt is nothing but deceit; the national debt should be converted into national funds, into social funds, into social credit.
The banks are taking away from Canadians the resources of Canada by entering them under "assets" in their books and under "liabilities" in the country's books. Under
January 28, 1966	COMMONS
their accounting system the banks convert to their own use the credit of society. They steal the social credit.
Interests on debts should be converted to social dividends. Thus, taxes would disappear and would be replaced by social dividends.
No one in the house, including the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker), the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), and all the other members, came forward with solutions to our Canadian problems, nor tried to balance the volume of [DOT]dollars and the volume of products. There is no equipoise; we are completely off-balance, and balance is only found in wartime.
Indeed, when we are at war, when products are needed, the necessary money is found, all budgets are easily balanced, every aspect of the economy is stabilized; but as for stabilizing at present the Canadian economy, it cannot be done.
And so, Mr. Speaker, the old parties system gave us poverty, bad debts, mortgages, mortgaged governments, bankruptcies, transfers of capital, repudiations of debts. Those are the things found in the present system. Instead of distributing the available and abundant production, we are satisfied with maintaining scarcity of money and high interest rates by implementing a money rationing system.
What are the solutions proposed for this problem? The Conservative opposition criticizes but offers no solution. The economy is stagnating instead of being developed. It is not allowed to expand.
We seek a solution from the economists, the best paid people to make plans and more plans to pull the wool over our eyes and lead us down the path of socialism because they claim the people are too ignorant to run things themselves. No one can run things when his pockets are emptied and barriers are raised to prevent money from entering into their pockets. Then, prominent citizens are called upon to solve the problem. This problem is not yet solved in countries where socialism is in power. Under socialism every one is in a quandary, everyone pays taxes, everyone is overtaxed. Most citizens of socialist counties cannot live like human beings. They live like animals.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Is that the system which is being forced upon us? In short, state socialism is advocated; there is a tendency toward the left, which is completely contrary to individual freedom.
DEBATES	405
The Address-Mr. Latulippe
It is suggested to steal from those who have in order to give to those who have not, that is, to rob Peter in order to pay Paul, while the fine realities remain unsolved. Scarcity is simply being spread instead of wealth.
The system is basically wrong since it forces the country to produce more money than the system has created. That is spreading indebtedness everywhere. It is compelling people to fight among themselves to find the money required for an impossible joint operation. It is leaving the weak high and dry and compelling those who want to survive to be exacting; it is forcing public bodies to overtax for the system after taxing the services.
We must accept the evidence that the fault lies with the money system. The system does not work because it does not make the money; go any place where there are human needs.
In addition, what parties in power in this country in the last 50 years have manufactured a funny kind of money which is constantly depreciated and which has sent us from inflation to deflation, from crisis to economic stagnation, from economic depression to financial bankruptcy? Is it Social Credit, the Liberals or the Conservatives? That is what Canadians should know and remember.
Mr. Speaker, one of the great problems facing this government is the international balance of payments.
Reference has been made to this from the start of the session, but no solution was advanced to solve this problem, which arises from the Bretton Woods agreements. This is not surprising, because when the international monetary fund was established in 1944, under the Bretton Woods agreements, the old capitalist formula prevailed. Three big countries held between them a large majority of shares. Instead of creating an agency of control run by a few countries only, a quota of equal value should have been established for each country, or equal voting rights for all the members.
On July 9, 1956, Mr. Solon Low, then leader of the Social Credit party and member for Peace River, made the following statement:
"The Bretton Woods agreement favoured particularly creditor countries such as the United States without imposing on them the obligation of balancing their trade by having to accept products from other countries. However, it imposed this obligation on the debtor countries. It established
406	COMMONS DEBATES	January 28, 196S
The Address-Mr. Latulippe
an international gold standard and gave creditor countries the right to wait and demand gold or American dollars."
Here is the problem. As long as the Bretton Woods agreements remain, so will the problem.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the main cause of the balance of the international accounts problem. Unfortunately, those settlements were approved in 1944 by the Liberals, who were then in office and by the Conservatives and Socialists, who formed the opposition.
The Social Credit party, then headed by Mr. Solon Low, was the only one to be square against those harmful agreements. The developments which followed were to prove that only Social Crediters had known what they were talking about.
Those who, in this house or elsewhere, are saying that Canadians have enough purchasing power and that our monetary system is perfectly balanced are either decent people who are terribly unaware or blind, or men who are distorting the facts.
There are still a great number of officially unemployed people in this country-and by "officially" I mean those who are getting unemployment insurance benefits, heads of families receiving about $35 a week, which is shamefully inadequate considering the ever-increasing cost of living.
We have a lot more than this. Many citizens do not appear in the Unemployment Insurance records, but they are on social welfare. Social allowances are going to account for 25 per cent of the budget that is almost a billion and a half dollars for 1966. So that people are transferred from the Unemployment Insurance lists to social welfare lists. Under social welfare, they have to live on $25.00 to $35.00 per week. This is unthinkable in a country such as Canada which is extremely wealthy. One cannot realize that citizens can be allowed to live on such incomes. It is a shame.
Therefore it is important to do away with austerity programs and launch huge public works in the most affected areas, without levying additional taxes and without borrowing from the financial market. In other words, let us use new money. With this purpose, let us create immediately a social financing bank or a bank of social capitalization, directly connected with the Bank of Canada, but having the same authority to create credit as the chartered banks.

That bank of social financing should only lend money at a rate high enough to take care of administration costs.
Those are problems which should be dealt with in the house. As long as we do not settle the problem of finance, we will always witness the same disorder, the same disadvantages, debt restrictions, bankruptcies, debt increases for the taxpayers and for the government.
Only drastic measures will curb unemployment; the remedy is simple and painless. We must spend more; which is even more necessary, is increased expenditures in what is called the public sector that is, expenditures for public education, health, recreation, as well as for a variety of other services and facilities of which there is a great need in Canada.
Recently, I read in a magazine that within three years 20 per cent of our labour force will be laid off on account of automation and that the proportion will reach 30 per cent within five years.
We hear people talk about full employment but how can we provide jobs for everyone when mechanization and automation replace man. Full employment has become impossible. To that effect, I am going to tell you about an industry where production amounts to $15,000 a week and wages $1,500 a week.
Do you figure that the $1,500 wages will purchase the $15,000 production? Never, and that is the root of the problem. That is where those who talk of full-employment are talking through their hats because they do not realize the present situation. They do not realize that automation, mechanical and technical development are accepted in every field, and that they supersede manpower.
Men are born with needs. They must eat, learn, dress, find lodging, and that is the problem. That problem could only be settled through credit created by the Bank of Canada, or a board of control, or by balancing our financial resources, with our total marketed production available to our citizens.
The Federal Bureau of Statistics announced that the total debt of Canadian consumers reached, at the end of 1964, $4,552 million as against $4,422 million the previous year.
When those figures were released many newspapers explained that the increase in private debts stemmed from easy credit. It may be. This running into debt proves three things; Canadian consumers have needs; products exist to meet those needs; no money is
January 28, 1966	COMMONS
available to satisfy the existing needs. No matter how numerous they may be, no economists, of our home-grown variety or graduated from the London School of Economics, can deny this assertion.
Since Canadians had to resort to borrowing, it also proves that they cannot live without the permission of those who control money and credit.
If lenders want to create credit or money, needs can be met. But, on the contrary, if they refuse, consumers must tighten their belts. Therefore, they are faced with the following dilemma: either they run into debt or starve.
On the other hand, some people believe that consumers are in debt to finance companies, businesses and stores selling on an instalment system.
A small part of those debts is really due to finance companies, but most of the loans granted by finance companies or sales made on an instalment plan by businesses are financed by bank loans. Canadians are thus owing some billions of dollars to bankers who create credit.
To these billions owed by the Canadian consumers, we must add the billions owed by the Federal Government, the billions owed by the provincial governments, the billions owed by the municipalities, the billions owed by the school boards, the billions owed by those who mortgaged their homes and their farms. All in all, Canadians owe $86 billion which is equal to $4,600 per capita or $20,600 for the average family. And this, when the legal money issued by the Bank of Canada totals only $2,490,833,000. How is it that only $2 billion of legal money is put in circulation while we have a debt of $86 billion? This proves, Mr. Speaker, that somewhere there are false moneymakers who are as guilty as any counterfeiters of $20 or $10 notes. And nobody is doing anything about it. Laws protect those counterfeiters.
Financiers and masters of credit thus control governments. They are the ones who rule them with a rod of iron and who appoint their own creatures, like Kierans, to the key positions. There are many of them that I could name in this government. Those same financiers control the provinces, municipalities, towns, school boards, institutions, universities and schools.
Those who thus have the right of life and death over all institutions did nothing at all in order to build this country; nevertheless, the country belongs to them.
DEBATES	407
The Address-Mr. Regimbal
Those who toiled or are toiling, those who are building this country, who are manufacturing the products, the goods to meet our needs, they are enslaved, indebted and controlled.
The affluent people, the "controllers", the debt makers, are those who control credit, who manufacture credit in the form of debts.
It is the worst form of dictatorship. There is no need to go to Russia to find a dictatorship. We have one in Canada, a country which is supposed to be a democracy; a dictatorship controls all man's activities, holds the right of life or death over each one of us-
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must
advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. R. E. Regimbal (Argenleuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, before beginning my first speech in the House of Commons, may I express, within my humble means, the very deep feelings of pride and joy that your unanimous election to this responsible post and your gracious acceptance stirred in the hearts of all French Canadians, particularly among the French speaking minorities throughout Canada, and among the French people of Ontario who share with you the marks of respect and honour which have been bestowed upon you and which, everyone agrees, you fully deserve.
All the previous speakers pointed out your mastery of our two official languages. The success which has come to you because of your courage, determination and competence, should serve as an example and encourage all our French speaking compatriots to increase their efforts to maintain and develop that precious heritage, our French culture, and all our English speaking compatriots to increase their efforts to acquire, improve and master the French language, also their heritage as Canadians.
Maiden speech. Most of the members of this house have been through this experience, all can understand and relive the emotions and agitation I feel at this time.
I hasten to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am just like the others who speak here for the first time. Yes, I am impressed; yes, I am
January 28. 1966

The Address-Mr. Regimbal moved; yes, I am somewhat frightened. But having said this and being understood I shall proceed with my remarks.
First of all, let me congratulate the members for Dollard (Mr. Goyer) and for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) respectively mover and seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
I, too, am a newcomer. I only hope to survive this maiden speech with as much assurance and if I achieve half as much brilliance, it will be a great success indeed.

Everyone seems to agree that the Speech from the Throne underlines two facts very clearly. The first is that we have a lot of work to do in the months ahead, and I don't doubt for a minute that all of us intend to put our best efforts forward to do so in a commendable, efficient manner.
The second fact is that we are faced with a government which has failed once again to secure a majority. I intend to touch upon some of the possible reasons for this situation, but in the meantime, out of all this comes the very obvious note that the government does not have general support across the nation; that outside of Ontario and Quebec the Liberal party has 24 seats across Canada. Therein lies a heavy responsibility.
I suspect, from reading the Speech from the Throne, that the government, which received 40 per cent of the popular vote, as compared to the 32 per cent which the official opposition gathered, realizes that responsibility, and realizes that it must pay particular attention to the recommendations of the official opposition, and proportionately to those of the third party and the other parties.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The opposition was gratified to find indications of forthcoming legislation which was part and parcel of our program, for instance the increase of per capita grants to universities from $2 to $5. We trust that likewise the government must give due consideration to, and we will continue to press for, other urgent needs of the Canadian people as expressed by the opposition, such as the following:
First, $100 a month pension benefits to the aged. Even though the amendments went down to defeat, it is more and more obvious that most of the government members are as convinced as we are that the $100 pensions are the wish and the will of the very vast

majority of Canadians and that no government can expect to carry on if it deliberately ignores the will of the people.
Second, the same situation applies in our request for immediate recall of the 11 per cent tax on building materials and production machinery, and this too went down to defeat. In refusing to act on this, the government ignores the wishes of all the opposition and most of its own members.
Third, long overdue relief and attention to eastern farmers as pointed out by several hon. members in the past few days.
Fourth, deduction of property and school taxes up to $500 from taxable income. There again, government members have come out and joined in our request, and we intend to continue to press for this.
Fifth, the same applies to our policy of making old homes available for mortgages under the C.M.H.A. Surely the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), in his future role of minister of manpower will realize that in this day and age, more and more industrial employees, senior clerks, and junior executives are being transferred to other parts of the country and that the first effect of their move is to take a financial loss on their homes because, in spite of our great prosperity, there is no one around to buy who has the necessary down payment to cover the amounts which they have already poured into those homes.
Sixth, how can the government ignore the reasons behind our suggestion of a consumer loans act which would protect wage earners against the exorbitant interest rates having to be paid on loans directed to home improvements?
Seventh, if I can draw a page from my business background, I feel very strongly that this is the right time to introduce tax relief on personal income and on corporate income because the strait-jacket is beginning to hurt. The wage and salary earners cannot cope with further inflation and are forced to live beyond their means, and corporations do not have the proper incentive to conquer new fields and meet new challenges.
All of these, Mr. Speaker, are points which were in our program of policies for people, and were lacking in the Liberal party platform, which explains why 60 per cent of the people voted against that party. I think these policies are a credit to the Progressive Conservative party, and to our leader, who made
January 28, 1966

such an outstanding effort in bringing them home to Canadians in all corners of the country.
The opposition will also bring out the fact that two thirds of the government members represent urban and big city ridings and interests, so that particular care must be given by the government to agricultural and rural problems which might not get their fair share of attention. This could explain, for instance, why so many small towns have still not received their grants for 1964 winter works. Small towns = small problems = little or no attention.
At this point, however, I would like to insist on another job which has to be done, and which is every bit as important as all the legislation which will be introduced because it has something to do with the fact that this country has decided on another minority government. I insist, because we are all equally involved, and should all be interested, that there is an urgent need to restore the respect and prestige of parliament, and the image which we reflect in the minds of our citizens.
Before the election fever tapers off completely, while the thoughts and the qualms of our electors are still fresh in our minds, why do we not take into immediate account those few very timely pointers which all of our constituents have ever so humbly whispered into our ears, with the hope that we could do something about them, and that we should all agree that it should be done.
Throughout the campaign, in every nook and cranny, our people have talked and complained about morals, dignity and Canadian unity or the lack thereof. We owe it to ourselves and to all Canadians to give concrete evidence of our intention to improve our performance on all three points and, in so doing, restore the public confidence in parliament and parliamentarians.
Nobody expects miracles, but our whole population-our youth especially-is looking to us to set an example and to follow up words with action. Please do not judge my remarks as those of a do-gooder who cannot distinguish between fact and fiction. Besides, if ever any preaching has to be done, I would rather rely on my colleague, the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald), who is an expert in this field. I repeat, these are points which our constituents have brought up and which deserve our attention.

Under the heading of morality, I am under the very clear impression, after this recent
The Address

Mr. Regimbal campaign and the profusion of scandals which preceded it, that our fellow citizens ardently wish that we would take specific action to show, in a practical way, not only a moral concern, but morality in our activities.
I am sure, for instance, that the majority of Canadians are unaware of the fact that we do have prayers at the opening of our sittings. Let us first say so to everyone.
I am sure that the majority of the members of this house are unaware of the contents of that prayer. Let us first learn it.
I am also sure that the great majority of our citizens do not know that we have in the parliament buildings a quiet place where the members can go to meditate, and I am sure that a great many members would not know how to find this place. Let us mention it, and then let us go there once in a while. Moreover, I am confident that if we do we will soon make up our minds to improve its surroundings for, frankly, it is neither suitable nor adequate. Now let us try to go one step further. Each one of us in his personal, family or professional life, sometimes feels the need for moral counsel. And yet here, where after all we are responsible for giving leadership to a whole country, this same need does not seem to be acknowledged. And yet, all the services necessary to discharge our duties are available to us.
May I make a digression here, Mr. Speaker, to insist on the excellent service we obtain from civil servants, security officers, secretaries, messengers, kitchen attendants, waitresses and staff members, and to pay homage to them all. However, I would suggest right now the establishment in the parliament buildings, on behalf of the members of the house and the whole personnel, of a padre service or chaplaincy, which institution proves so valuable in other fields of human endeavour. It will indeed be a new feature to have on the spot ministers whom everybody may fully and equally trust.

Under the heading of dignity, there are several areas where our performance is underscored, rightly or wrongly. I refer to such things as absenteeism, where I suggest that a roll call could be established as proper incentive for individual effort. In this connection one must consider the reading of newspapers during speeches and deliberations. I was happy to discover that in our party efforts are being made to tone down the practice. Finally
410	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Regimbal I would mention the practice of desk-thumping as a form of applause. I do not know where the solution lies, perhaps marble-top desks would be an idea; but I know that if we do find a solution, in the public eye we would come out of it ten feet tall.
Finally, as regards Canadian unity, most Canadians who have had the wonderful opportunity of visiting Canada from coast to coast, agree that the only thing wrong with Canadians is that they do not know Canada and do not know Canadians. I suggest that legislation be introduced which would provide direct financial encouragement to make It possible during centennial year for Canadians to see Canada by travelling throughout our beautiful country. A Canadian who has known the determination of Newfoundlanders, the industry of mari-timers, the colourful Latin character and charm of Quebec, the progressiveness of Ontario, those solid citizens of the prairies and the breathtaking grandeur of the Rockies, cannot help but feel big and proud for being an essential part of it all.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
So while the legislators, the intellectuals, the constitutional experts, are hammering out the legal, technical and inspirational problems involved in updating and Winging home our constitution, the average Canadian will be finding his own level on the basis of personal experience and knowledge, which after all is what the constitution is all about.
Where language differences exist, we will learn to understand these differences and to use them, cultivate them and preserve them, because these differences are what make us great and can be used to complement each other, to broaden our minds, to increase our knowledge and ripen our judgment. Our differences, like those between man and woman, can be used as an element of unity, of rapprochement, rather than divisiveness, so that we can all say-as was suggested two days ago-"Vive la difference".

In closing, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to say that there is another tradition that at this time I wish to respect. I refer to the one whereby a new member making his first speech may praise the beauties and assets of his riding. But it would take too long to do justice to Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes in this respect. Let us say that, like the riding of York-Scarborough, we have a bit of everything to be found in Canada as a whole, except the

DEBATES	January 28, 1966
oceans. We have farmers, workers, businessmen, professionals, old and needy people, bold young people, minorities, new Canadians and Indians. We have fishing and hunting, lakes and mountains, farming, primary and secondary industries, mines, excellent schools and people of every faith. We have urban, rural, metropolitan citizens, and so many more classes.
Unfortunately, we have also poor people and underdeveloped areas that require our sympathy and urgent consideration. We have modest programs which command intelligent support, and I hope the various departments concerned will be in a position to welcome us positively when we knock at their doors. Everywhere we have peace and harmony that could set an example for every section of the country. We also have our full quota of glorious sons who served their country well either by fulfilling their daily duties, or in our armed forces, and of the latter many died in action.
Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes has had more than its share of great politicians. I should like to mention Hon. J. C. Abbott, the first of our Canadian-born prime ministers; Sir George Perley, who was acting prime minister, high commissioner in England and secretary of state; Hon. Arthur Sauve, postmaster general, famous father of a famous son, Hon. Paul Sauve, premier of Quebec and one of our great historical figures.
Finally, I should like to mention two faithful servants of this venerable house who passed away during the last year and who are still remembered by many here:	James
McGibbon, the Liberal member, and George Heon, the Conservative member.
Those are the shoes the member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes will have to fill. I am not so presumptuous as to think that I can imitate such great men. My only hope, my only wish, my only promise is that during my humble term they will never be ashamed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in this debate again. However, this morning there was tabled in the house the correspondence between the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the premier of the province of Quebec with respect to the proposed amending formula for the constitution. Therefore I thought it advisable that I should take this opportunity to place before
January 28, 1966
the house the views of the New Democratic party with respect to this amending formula and what action we think should be taken, now that it is clearly apparent that the government will not be able to proceed with the legislation which it had intended to introduce.
We in this party agree with the position of the premier of Quebec in objecting to the implementation of the Fulton-Favreau formula for amending the Canadian constitution. We have been opposed to it ever since it was first suggested back in 1960 and we have remained opposed to it, in spite of its various minor amendments from time to time, because we think it is wrong in principle.
This does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that we are opposed to any amendment of the constitution. On the contrary, our party has taken the position throughout the years that we must have a constitution in this country that is domiciled in Canada and is capable of being amended by Canadians. Such a step is long overdue.
The present British North America Act, which is the constitution of Canada, was designed to meet the needs of the nineteenth century at a time when Canada was emerging from its status as a colony of the United Kingdom. We believe, as we think most Canadians believe, that it is no longer in keeping with the dignity of a self-governing nation that we should be required to go to New Westminster in order to amend our constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are really a British Columbian.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I meant Westminster, of course. I would accept New Westminster as a place to amend our constitution, but I think there would be great difficulty in persuading the government to move the parliament buildings out to that marvellous area.
I had the privilege of attending the conference which was convened by Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent in Quebec City in 1950, at which time Quebec was represented by Premier Duplessis. The attempt was being made at that time to work out the steps necessary to patriate the Canadian constitution, and a fairly large area of agreement was reached. As a matter of fact, we were on the verge of agreeing on a formula that would have been much more flexible than one which
The Address-Mr. Douglas the present government has been recommending. The discussions broke down on whether or not section 92 (13), which has to do with property and civil rights, should be entrenched.
Some of us took the position then-and I take the position still-that in view of the various court decisions relating matters of the marketing of agricultural products, labour legislation and social security measures to section 92(13), covering property and civil rights, it would be hamstringing Canada to agree to entrench that particular clause.
We believe that a Canadian constitution must be sufficiently flexible to give the federal government the necessary power to provide for equality of treatment and equality of opportunity for all Canadians, while at the same time recognizing a special status for the province of Quebec in terms of language, culture and the civil code, in keeping with the principle of the equal partnership of the two founding races.
We believe that a revision of the constitution should be based on four general principles, the first being that federal powers must be clearly defined to enable the central government to deal with the problems of economic growth, unemployment and economic dislocation. Some provinces may think they have the economic power to deal with these problems, and perhaps they are right, although I doubt it.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
There is no doubt about the fact that many provinces cannot cope with these problems. The federal government must have the power to equalize opportunity as between the various areas of Canada and remove, in so far as it is economically possible, regional disparities. It is an old saying that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If there is any part of Canada which is economically depressed, that will do more to destroy national unity than any other thing that might happen in Canada.
Second, we say that there must be a clear delineation of the provincial fields of jurisdiction, and the allocation of the necessary taxing powers to enable the provinces to discharge their responsibilities. The responsibilities which were given to the provinces under the British North America Act by the Fathers of Confederation, seemed to be relatively unimportant responsibilities in 1867. Today they are tremendous responsibilities, and with the growth in the demand for education,

412	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Douglas health and welfare services, roads, the development of resources, the provinces have added responsibilities without having added sources of provincial income. This is a matter to which attention must be given in delineating not only the powers of provincial governments but the tax sources which they must have to discharge those responsibilities.
We say, third, that there must be a clear recognition of the special status of Quebec in respect of its language, culture and traditions. We think that such a status must be entrenched, but not in its present limited form. I envisage the day when our constitution will guarantee and ensure equal status of both languages throughout Canada. I look forward to the day when the constitution will guarantee the right of education in either English or French to every Canadian in any part of Canada. The status of Quebec, in terms of its culture, must be recognized as an expanding area, just as the cultural freedom of English speaking Canadians must be similarly recognized.
Fourth, we believe that a bill of rights should be written into the constitution and should also be entrenched. This bill of rights would guarantee to all groups of Canadians the basic freedoms-freedom of speech, the right of assembly, freedom of religious worship, freedom from arbitrary arrest, and all the other basic freedoms which we have come to associate with being part of British justice. We in this party, therefore, want to see a revised constitution. We want to see it domiciled in Canada. We want to see it have a flexible amending procedure. But, we have opposed the so-called Fulton-Favreau formula. Apparently we are now getting a great many supporters in this regard.
Last night the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) said that repentance is always welcome. I should only like to say that his jubilation over sinners being brought to repentance ought not to be too vociferously expressed by one who is so recent a convert.


John George Diefenbaker: It is the hon. gentleman who has turned a somersault following i960.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is always true that the most zealous members of the faith are those who have most recently become proselytes. As a matter of fact the Leader of the Opposition was prime minister when the Fulton formula was drafted. He was prime minister of the government which presented it to the provinces in 1960-61. This formula, except for some minor details with reference to the

DEBATES	January 28, 1966
delegation of powers, is substantially the same as the formula the present government is now proposing. Certainly, with reference to the entrenching of section 92, it is entirely the same as the present formula which is. being suggested. I was associated at that time with the government of Saskatchewan and that province, along with the province of Quebec, were the only two provinces that objected to the implementation of the Fulton formula. We objected, not as I said-


Mr. Fulton:: Did my hon. friend not say, in a public statement, that while his government did not agree with the formula in detail, and had made their disagreement clear, nevertheless if all the other provinces went along with it, Saskatchewan would not stand in the way of its implementation?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Not to the best of my recollection.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It was so reported in the press.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My recollection of the position the Saskatchewan government took was that we would never, under any circumstances whatever, agree to any formula which entrenched section 92, and particularly clause 13, which is the entrenching of the property and civil rights provision.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend should look to his press relations, because that is the way you were reported.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think the statements made by the attorney general attending that conference were abundantly clear. We objected to the formula at that time because we believed it would put Canada in a constitutional strait-jacket. We contended then, as I contend now, that we need a constitution in which there is sufficient flexibility to deal with the problems of agricultural marketing, labour relations and the growing field of social security; that we must have the flexibility to deal with problems which will undoubtedly arise out of automation and technological change.
We were agreeable then, and we agree now, that some sections of the constitution, as I have already indicated, ought to be entrenched. The particular prerogatives and privileges that were given to the province of Quebec as part of the partnership in confederation, of course, have to be entrenched. The bill of rights ought to be entrenched. There are provisions which we agree should be entrenched; but the parts of the constitution
January 28, 1966	COMMONS
which have to do with the country's adaptability to meet changing, modern conditions, ought to be capable of amendment by at least two thirds of the provinces, provided they represent over 50 per cent of the population. We believe that the cultural dualism of this country demands the necessary flexibility to enlarge the cultural freedom of both English speaking and French speaking Canadians.
This, of course, would be impossible if any one province had the right to veto an amendment. It seems to me it is absurd to suggest that in a country as diverse as Canada, some amendment which is concurred in by both houses of the parliament of Canada and nine provincial legislatures could be prevented from coming into effect merely because one provincial legislature refused to agree.
When the present government came into office in 1963, the Quebec government of Premier Lesage apparently withdrew their objections to this formula. Now they dissent, but at that time they agreed. Saskatchewan was the only province objecting, and in 1964 when a Liberal government was elected in Saskatchewan they concurred. So that up until recently, and certainly since the Charlottetown conference, it looked as though all provinces would concur. Now Quebec has withdrawn its concurrence.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Apparently the premier of Quebec now recognizes that we were right in opposing the formula which would place Canada in a constitutional strait-jacket. Apparently he now recognizes that unanimity cuts both ways. It is significant that in his letter to the Prime Minister of January 20, this statement appears on page 2:
Thus I have always assumed that, as regards the amendment of legislative powers, any diminution of provincial power required unanimity, whereas any increase of such power called for the concurrence of only two thirds of the provinces representing one half of the population. This view, however, is not shared by everyone, even the specialists. It is contended, in fact, that under the formula any province could prevent the extension of the powers of another province.
I am rather surprised, Mr. Speaker, that it has taken Mr. Lesage so long to get around to reading part I of the proposed formula, section 3, clause 1, which distinctly states:
No law made under the authority of this Part [DOT]affecting any provision of the constitution of *Canada that refers to one or more, but not all the provinces shall go into force unless it is concurred in by the legislature of every province to which the provision referred.
DEBATES	413
The Address-Mr. Douglas
It is now clear to Mr. Lesage that if Quebec is to have cultural status and the cultural freedom to develop its traditions, then it must have a more flexible formula, just as some of the English speaking provinces recognize that if we are to cope with the economic problems of a technological age we must also have a flexible constitution.
However, Mr. Speaker, the most amazing conversion of all is that of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau), who has been proposing this amending procedure. His name is now attached to it, along with that of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). He has been its chief protagonist. But last week, speaking in the city of Montreal, as reported in the Globe and Mail for January 22, he said:
I would rather delay the repatriation of the constitution-although, as everybody knows, I consider it essential-than see the reform of the constitution entrusted to a parliament dominated by the sentimental colonialism from which the Tories draw their conception of "national unity".
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I think it is a sad commentary that the President of the Privy Council, the man who has been charged by the Prime Minister with the task of heading federal-provincial relations, when addressing a group of students, instead of pointing out to them the serious problems which confront Canada and the tremendous task ahead of us in trying to forge a new constitution to meet the needs of our day and generation, hides behind a cheap political gibe in which he sought to make the Conservatives the scapegoat for the fact that he had not been able to sell his formula even to his own native province.
As a matter of fact, what the President of the Privy Council was doing on January 21 in Montreal was simply administering the last rites to the Fulton-Favreau formula. But they had already been administered five days before by the premier of Quebec. Speaking in Montreal on January 17 Mr. Lesage said that things were moving so quickly in the country that a new constitution would be obsolete by the time it was written; and he considered that it would be dangerous for French Canada to insist that such a revamping be undertaken now.
So that on the 17th the premier of Quebec had already said that the Fulton-Favreau formula was dead; and on the 21st the President of the Privy Council administered the last rites to it. But on the 24th, three days later, the Prime Minister still did not know
January 28, 1966

The Address-Mr. Douglas that there had been a death in the family and proceeded to assure the house last Monday morning that the government intended to proceed with the amending formula.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong when the Prime Minister is not informed by his chief Quebec lieutenant that the latter, along with the premier of Quebec, have already decided that the Fulton-Favreau formula has been scuttled. And what is even more amazing is that the letter from Premier Lesage dated January 20 has apparently not been drawn to the Prime Minister's attention when he addresses this house on January 24. Surely, Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing government by trial and error, with error in the ascendancy. Surely there is something wrong when the Prime Minister of Canada stands before the House of Commons on a Monday to say that we are proceeding with an amending formula, and already three days before his chief Quebec lieutenant has said that it has gone out of the window, and three days before that the premier of Quebec has already indicated that he is not going to concur in it.
This government has become like a ship without a rudder. It is like a great ship wallowing in heavy seas with no one at the wheel. It reminds one of the old saying "Captain, art thou sleeping down below?"
The question now, Mr. Speaker, is: What is the government going to do in the light of what is happening? We in this party do not gloat over the scuttling of the formula, but we do believe we have been vindicated. We believe that the decision of the province of Quebec not to concur has saved Canada from taking a retrograde step. But this should not deter us from seeking to do what needs to be done and what the great bulk of Canadians want us to do, and that is to revise the Canadian constitution, to get it domiciled in Canada and capable of being amended in this country by the governing bodies of this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are two theories about the constitution. There are those who have the "Let sleeping dogs lie" theory, those who say "Don't let's raise these thorny problems; if things get bad enough we will put another patch on the constitution and make another little amendment". This is the policy which has been followed for years. The result is that we have an outworn and obsolete constitution still domiciled in the United Kingdom.

The other concept is that we ought to revise our constitution in the light of modern needs and in keeping with the spirit of present day Canada; that a constitution ought to be a dynamic framework in which the people can work out their social, economic and cultural destiny.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
We in this party have been pleading with the government for a long time to have this whole question of revising the constitution referred to an all-party committee of the house. The constitution is not the sole prerogative of the heads of federal and provincial governments. We believe there is a need to ascertain the wishes of the people. We claim that parliament deserves something more than to be presented with a fait accompli after the federal government at a federal-provincial conference has worked out certain amendments and passed them on to the house without there being any opportunity for revision and change.
We believe that an all-party committee set up by this house should hear representations from people in all walks of life, all of whom will be affected by this constitutional question. It could consult with constitutional experts, meet with similar committees of the provincial legislatures, decide what things need to be revised and what things ought to be entrenched. Such a committee could isolate the points on which there continues to be disagreement.
It seems to us there is little value in talking about an amending formula until we revise the constitution. Until this is done we do not know what items parliament wishes to entrench and what items should be more flexible. Only when such a committee as I have suggested has reviewed the situation, worked out the areas of agreement and isolated the points of disagreement, would a national constitutional conference make sense. An all-party committee of this house would represent not only all the provinces of Canada but all the political parties in the provinces. There is in our opinion great value to be attached to the work which could be done by such a committee.
The view is sometimes held that constitutional arguments are for lawyers and that constitutions are not a matter of concern to the average citizen. We believe the constitution is a framework within which our society lives, moves and has its being. Again and again in our history our people have been
January 28, 1966

frustrated by restrictions and inhibitions placed upon them either by the constitution or by gaps in the constitution. All of us have had experience in days gone by of responsibility being passed from one government to another with regard to unemployment and a host of other questions, simply because responsibility for these matters was not clearly spelled out.
The people are concerned about the constitution. They should have an opportunity to express their opinions. Workers, farmers, university groups, businessmen, the legal profession-all these should have a part in revising the constitution, so that if this is to be a Canadian document to serve the future needs of Canada it will be forged by Canadians, as it ought to be, out of their experience and out of their history.
We do not think the dead hand of the past should be allowed to stay the onward march of progress. Human rights are sacred but constitutions are not. We believe it is possible under the direction of a parliamentary committee, followed by a constitutional conference on which all governments and parties would be represented, to work out a constitution which will serve the needs of the Canadian people. We believe it is not beyond the ingenuity of the Canadian people to safeguard and protect the rights which they now enjoy, and at the same time mould a constitution which will have sufficient flexibility as to make possible the onward march of our people toward a destiny which I believe is greater than any of us can possibly foresee at this time.


Mr. Viateur Eihier (Glengarry-Prescoli):: Mr. Speaker, allow me first of all to extend to you my heartiest congratulations. It is with much respect and feeling that I express my pleasure at seeing you in the Chair, because in addition to representing the riding next to yours, I had the opportunity on many occasions to appreciate your exceptional qualities: your competence, your authority and your tact make of you the right man to hold this high office. I admire you very much for the faultless way in which you carry out those duties.
The constituents of the Stormont riding whom I often meet and whose feelings I share, are rightly proud of you, because you deserve all their admiration.
I should like also to congratulate the Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Chairman of the committees who will assist you in your
The Address-Mr. fithier task. It is also in order to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the speech from the throne, the new members for Dollard and for York-Scarborough (Messrs. Goyer and Stanbury), who expressed themselves with eloquence and intelligence, and it is my pleasure to join with the other members of the house in wishing them good luck during this twenty seventh Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I should like also to congratulate the members newly elected to this house. I hope that they will consider as favorably as I do the many pieces of legislation contained in the speech from the throne.
I am sure that they will see in them the opportunity to improve the social and economic situation of our country. Among the excellent bills proposed to us, some are of great significance for the beautiful riding which I have the honour to represent. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal at some length with the matters of interest to the constituents of Glengarry-Prescott.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
This riding is generally considered as mostly rural, but there is also an urban region which includes Hawkesbury.
When I speak of Hawkesbury, I immediately think of the recently proposed Department of Manpower, and I rejoice in the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) had the happy thought to entrust it to a man whose value and competence cannot be doubted.
The vast experience of the new minister and his knowledge of labour problems will be a great asset in the discharge of his duties, and I wish to congratulate him on his appointment.
I should now like to draw the minister's attention to the situation in the town of Hawkesbury at the present time.
In my opinion, this industrial community greatly needs assistance, for even if the number of unemployed registered at the local unemployment insurance office has decreased considerably in the last few years, it must be realized that the number of families under social welfare rose very sharply from year to year.
The situation has become such that last year the town of Hawkesbury had to pay over $220,000 in social security allowances for a population of 8,000 people. That is a very bad omen for the development of this area, but I believe that there is a cure for the situation.

January 28, 1966
The Address-Mr. Ethier
If the Minister of Manpower is kind enough to give consideration to my request, I am confident that he could approach the Department of Industry requesting that they consider the possibility of including the town of Hawkesbury in the designated areas for purposes of tax exemptions as an incentive for new industries to settle in that town.
I am sure that with that federal aid, the town of Hawkesbury will enjoy an economic development which will do honour to that eastern tip of Ontario and thus to the whole country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, since I represent a large agricultural constituency and almost all my electors are dairy farmers, I would like to speak on their behalf.
I must extend in the first place my sincere congratulations to the new Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Greene). It is an honour and a pleasure for us to have a Minister of Agriculture from eastern Canada and we trust that the hon. member for Renfrew South will take a deep interest in the problems facing our eastern farmers.
Our new minister has the required qualifications to administer his department and I am convinced that with his eagerness to perform his work and his understanding of human problems, he will do an excellent job. Therefore, I share his interest in a portion of the Speech from the Throne which reads as follows:
In order that farmers of this country may enjoy living and working standards comparable with those of Canadians engaged in other occupations, measures designed to raise and safeguard farm incomes will be introduced.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to economic development there are two projects, in particular, which are in direct relationship with this goal. It is the establishment of a Canadian dairy commission and an increase of the farm credit corporation capital.
If this Canadian dairy commission is to really help the dairy farmers, I believe it is very important that the farmers be assured of at least $4 per cwt. of milk, based on a quota of 150,000 pounds a year for each producer. For according to the income requirements set out by the farm credit corporation before a loan to a farmer is considered, the farmer must have a gross income between $6,000 and $10,000 per year.
Mr. Speaker, until the Canadian dairy commission legislation is implemented, I

think the new dairy policy for 1966-67 should be based upon a gross income of $6,000 for each dairy producer.
At present the price of milk is based on a fat content of 3.5 per cent. In bygone days, a farmer with an ordinary herd used to consider an average yield of 5,000 pounds of milk per cow as suitable but nowadays, dairy producers would not even think of keeping a cow that would produce less than 7,000 pounds of milk per year.
So, if a cow gives from 30 to 35 per cent more milk, the percentage of butter fat will be less. Even if 3.5 per cent constituted a good basic average to set the price 50 years ago, it is no longer so to-day. On the average, manufacturing milk, excluding liquid milk for consumption, bought in a number of eastern Canada counties, namely, Glengarry-Prescott, Stormont, Peel, Grenville-Dundas, Carleton, Renfrew-North and Renfrew-South, Russell, Vaudreuil-Soulanges, and many others, has a butter fat content of 3 to 3.1 per cent.
Farmers are told they will be guaranteed $3.50 per cwt. but in 1965 most producers have only received from $3.05 to $3.15 per cwt. because the butter fat percentage was around 3.1 per cent.
[DOT] [5:30 p.m.)
If the Minister of Agriculture, together with the provincial ministers could achieve a change in the milk purchase system by adapting a basis of 3 per cent fat content average instead of 3.5 per cent, I think milk producers would be happier even if the farmer were to be paid only $3.75 per cwt. based on 3 per cent fat content instead of $4 per cwt. based on 3.5 per cent fat average.
Mr. Speaker, for my second proposition I would suggest to the minister of Finance, (Mr. Sharp) and I regret he is not in his seat, that he seriously consider the position of the milk producers of Canada and that he double the budget earmarked for agriculture during the last few years. Whether the minister of Agriculture is from the East or the West, whether he is the greatest agricultural expert in the world, unless he is given the tools to help the farmer, he will never achieve anything.
The Minister of Finance may take as an example countries such as Australia and New Zealand, where the problem of our cold winters does not exist and where farmers can produce milk much more cheaply than in Canada; he will see that these countries
January 28, 196G
nevertheless find a way to devote 4, 5, 6 and even 7 per cent of their budget to farm assistance, where as in Canada we scarcely put aside 2J per cent of our budget for agriculture.
Knowing the sound judgment of our minister of Finance, I am sure he will deem it appropriate to put aside for agriculture in his 1966-1967 budget much more than in the past, for the main objective of our government is to wage war on poverty and, according to statistics, poverty in the main stems among our farmers.
If the proposals I just mentioned are taken into consideration, I believe it possible to raise the economic standard of living of our farmers.
I appreciate very much the work done by the former minister of agriculture in order to get Ontario and Quebec interested in crop insurance and the fact that we shall be called upon shortly to amend this act to make it acceptable to eastern farmers.
Following the drought suffered in 1964-65, millions of dollars were paid by our federal and provincial governments in order to assist the farmers affected, but all the same, the financial assistance received by our farmers did not compensate them as much as if they could have availed themselves of crop insurance.
Mr. Speaker, there is another matter I should like to deal with and this is the amendment put forward by the opposition calling for an increase in the old age pension. We, on the government side, all voted against this amendment, because we have the Canada assistance plan which was proposed to the provinces last year and accepted in principle by all of them.
We believe that the implementation of such plan will be of much more assistance to persons in need than a $25 a month increase to all pensioners.
Mr. Speaker, I renew my request concerning family allowances. I am convinced that, in view of the increase in the cost of living, in the last few years, an adjustment of family allowances would be justified.
I am pleased to note that the students loans program will be amended in such a way as to be much more efficient and that our scholarships program will soon be implemented.
I also look favourably upon the broadening of the Department of Forestry into a Department of Forestry and Rural Development.
417
The Address-Mr. Yanakis
I read with pleasure recently part of the speech made by Hon. Maurice Sauve in Toronto on the 20th of January, in which he gave many details concerning this new program. I should now like to mention several aspects which will interest my constituents.
When the minister mentioned that the government would be called upon to spend $25 million a year for the next five years, he also mentioned that this was to fight poverty in parts of the country where some farms are not viable economic units.
This program would enable the government to provide $15,000 per family to help them enlarge their unit or their farm or, again, if those people do not wish to remain on their farm, the government would buy farms not viable economically and turn them into common pastures.
It was also stated that that $15,000 could be spent in the case of every farmer who had abandoned his farm, to retrain him or place him where he would have the best chance to earn a good living.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as regards national unity and bilingualism in Canada, at this time I should like to offer my most sincere congratulations to our Prime Minister for all he has done in this field for the past three years.
Mr. Speaker, I see in the Speech from the Throne that we will be asked to officially recognize "O Canada" as our national anthem. It is with pride that I support this proposal. At last, we shall have a national anthem which will establish closer ties among Canadians all across the country.
Mr. Speaker, that is the humble contribution I wanted to make to the first session of this twenty seventh Parliament.


Mr. Anfonio Yanakis (Berlhier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me, as a new member, to speak on behalf of the constituents of Berthier-Maski-nonge-Delanaudiere, my riding.
First, I should like to add my voice to the chorus of tributes which have been bestowed upon you since the beginning of this session and to congratulate you on your appointment. After hearing those who have the privilege of knowing you well, I am sure that you will discharge your duty with tact and judgment.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
To the Deputy Speaker and chairman of committees, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten), to the acting chairman of committees, I offer my most sincere congratulations.

418	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Yanakis
I also want to congratulate the movers ol the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. members for Dollard and York-Scarborough (Messrs. Goyer and Stanbury) who did a magnificent job, thus proving that the faith their constituents placed in them is justified.

Mr. Speaker, I should like at this time to pause for a moment to thank very warmly the Greek communities of Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto, the order of Ahepa, for having sent me their congratulations and best wishes for success on the occasion of my election to this House of Commons. As you are probably aware, it happens that I am the first Canadian of Greek descent ever to be elected to the parliament of Canada, and this happened in a constituency which is almost 100 per cent French Canadian. This would indicate that in Quebec we are far from this fanaticism of which we have been accused. This is to the credit of my electors, whom I have the honour to represent.
Allow me to pay tribute particularly to the thousands of Canadians of Greek origin, and to the immigrants who add to our Canadian culture and contribute to the development of our resources.
Cradle of civilization and democracy, Greece has given to the world such great men as Socrates, Aristotle, Demosthenes and others who were famous philosophers and moralists. Canada is indeed justified in its pride of their contribution to the cultural and economic progress of the country.

Mr. Speaker, the riding of Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere is located on the north shore of the great St. Lawrence River, between the ridings of Joliette and Trois Rivieres. The inhabited portion covers an area 100 miles long and 50 miles wide and includes, at the northern end, an Indian reservation about which I will speak later on.
Mr. Speaker, it would not be exaggerated to say that approximately 75 per cent of the inhabitants of the riding are farmers. On their behalf, I would like to make known to the government the vital needs of the farmers who face enormous difficulties in the hard years we are going through now.
The uncertain weather of the last season only added to their misfortune. I know that the government intends to take a step in the right direction and adopt legislation to remedy that situation.
[Mr. Yanakis.l
DEBATES	January 28, 1966
I hail with great satisfaction the appointment of the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) as Minister of Agriculture for the East. He is dynamic, a man whom we will be able to approach with our grievances. As we will soon be studying hopefully expected legislation to assist agriculture, mention of which was made in the speech from the throne, I should like to tell the house what suggestions farmers have made, the implementation of which would give them a ray of hope.
First, that farmers be granted more assistance with a view to increasing agricultural production, opening greater markets for their products and maintaining price levels which would enable them to reach a living standard comparable to that of the average worker, that is earnings of $4,200 a year.
Second, that a Canadian Dairy Board be set up to secure for our farmers an average income of $4 per cwt. for industrial milk, thus enabling producers of milk for processing to keep a close eye on prices, quotas, quality and exports of their products.
Third, that feed grain be supplied to farmers at reasonable prices through the storing of feed grain in eastern Canada.
Fourth, that a crop insurance program be set up to protect farmers against bad weather which sometimes ruins their crops.
Fifth, that a family head be allowed to pass on his farm to his children more easily when he retires; that his son or a close relative be given assistance for the purchase of a farm of his own and that the establishment of young farmers be made easier.
Sixth, that a larger number of development projects be subsidized through ARDA in the poorest rural areas to improve the welfare of those who depend on rural resources.
Seventh, that greater inducements be given to exhibitors of Canadian cattle. In that respect, Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to a very praiseworthy initiative of the young Canadian cattle breeders of Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere who hold an annual fair in the constituency. They should be allowed to stage class B exhibitions. To that end, a drive has already been launched to build an arena with all the required facilities for a regional fair. Provision should be made for long term loans for the construction of that building. That would be the best way to encourage those young breeders, to create a great deal of interest in this field and to have agricultural fairs play their part once again as the main educational centres for farmers.
January 28. 1966

Eighth, that the world food program be promoted through the purchase of powdered eggs by the government in order to maintain egg prices at a reasonable level.
Ninth and last, that the scope of unemployment insurance be enlarged so the main groups of full time farm workers could benefit from it.
Mr. Speaker, those are some of the challenges we will have to meet during this session. Farmers now find themselves in a tragic situation and it is our duty to get them out of the slump in which they have been for too long because of stagnant policies, both federal and provincial.
I promised them that I would take care of their problems during this session and I do not intend to go back to my riding with empty hands. By the way, I should like to tell the Minister of Agriculture that I accept with pleasure his invitation, which I received this week, to sit on the committee on agriculture. I think that perhaps that is where I can best serve the interests of my farming constituents.
Mr. Speaker, since my time is almost up, X should like also to point out the importance of my two counties from a tourist's standpoint. I may add that after agriculture, the tourist industry plays the most important part in the economy of the constituency.
The north of the county of Berthier, that is, the parishes of St. Gabriel de Brandon, St. Charles de Mandeville, St. Damien, St. Zenon, Ste Emilie, and St. Michel des Saints have beautiful scenery and ideal sites for vacationers. The same is true for the Maskinonge section, from St. Didace to St. Alexis des Monts.
Divine Providence gave this region magnificent mountains, entrancing panoramas, immense forests; hundreds of lakes dot the area for sportsmen and outdoorsmen to play and rest in an enchanting atmosphere.
The riding of Berthier-Maskinonge-De-lanaudiere, is located within 40 minutes of the metropolis, and can accommodate thousands upon thousands of summer residents. It is easily accessible by the Mont-real-Quebec Autoroute. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, these centers are not yet developed as they should be due to prohibitive costs of building parks, suitable vacation spots, camping grounds and access roads to the lakes. It would be timely, Mr. Speaker, to provide a tourist development plan and grants to municipalities that are anxious to develop their areas. This would provide employment
23033-27J
The Address-Mr. Yanakis and well-being to thousands of people who only earn a seasonal income. I feel this would be a good way to fight poverty, a project much talked about these days.
Another field which greatly affects the people is consumer credit. One only has to study the inquiry conducted last year in many families by the Caisses populaires and their representative, Mr. Laurin, to realize that several heads of families are in a very sorry plight, because when in financial difficulties, they grabbed the first hand held out to them by the finance companies, the loan shark outfits who, in the absence of proper legislation, exploit the consumer to the hilt.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, it is most urgent that we bring those exploiters back to reason by limiting their interest rates to the rates charged by banks and by prohibiting hidden costs, if we do not want to see the whole social fabric of our society ripped asunder.
Mr Speaker, I said a few moments ago that I would come back to the question of Indians. Indeed, my constituency includes an Indian reserve called "Manowan", which is a small village located 50 miles from the closest centre. Although the department sees to their education by providing schools and hospital services, those Indians live in a deplorable situation, having to share their houses with another family.
They do not have enough houses for the people living there. There are not more than 50 houses for a community of 600 people. Furthermore, there are no practical means of transportation, except by air. Hence the department should be authorized to build a road giving access to St. Michel des Saints, which is the locality nearest to their territory.
Mr. Speaker, before this twenty seventh parliament comes to an end, the Canadian confederation will have seen its hundredth anniversary. We are aware of the many problems dividing this nation at present and it is up to us to solve them.
The new dynamic Quebec of today wants to play a leading part in the development of a new and proud Canada. Canadians want us to speak in the name of Canada while fully respecting the rights of our two official ethnic groups, the English and the French. We must not be afraid to speak up and act with neither ambiguity nor provocation on the great problems of national unity and on the role that we, French Canadians from Quebec, must play in the running of the business of the nation. We must build a country which
420	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Yanakis will plan to meet the challenge of the twentieth century. I fully agree with Sir Wilfrid Laurier when he said, and I quote:
The twentieth century belongs to Canada; therefore it is imperative for us all during the coming year, to build up our country, while safeguarding our moral values and our traditions, if we want to realize the great destiny which will be that of Canada on the eve of her centennial.
I would like to add, Mr. Speaker, that it is almost providential that we should have at this time as our leader, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, a great diplomat who, faced with the serious problems of our time, has made tremendous achievements in the field of national unity. I am sure that his name will pass into history as one of the great prime ministers who has so well served his country.
I thank you for your patience, Mr. Speaker, and I hope these few remarks will receive from the government the consideration they deserve for the well-being of my constituents in Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere, whom I am proud to represent in this house.

May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; does the house agree to calling it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the leave of the house to revert to motions for the purpose of tabling the orders in council requested by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree to revert to motions at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
DEBATES	January 28, 1966


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I request the leave of the house to table copies of orders in council P.C. 1965/1394 and P.C. 1965/1395, relating to designated areas.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: In view of the fact that the amendments to the Throne Speech have been disposed of, Mr. Speaker, I feel it would be in order for me to indicate the proposed business for next week. It is our intention, in accordance with an order made on Friday last, to move on Tuesday that the house resolve itself into Committee of Supply for the purpose of considering all the estimates of the current fiscal year. All the departments will be put in and we would proceed immediately when that motion is carried with a consideration of those estimates in Committee of Supply.
The house leaders had a further meeting today and it was agreed that when the motion is made that the Speaker do leave the Chair for the house to resolve itself into Committee of Supply, there will be no amendments moved and that the debate on the supply motion will terminate not later than Wednesday at six o'clock. If that is agreeable, I should like that made an order of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: I might add, Mr. Speaker, that we propose to call the Department of External Affairs first when we are in Committee of Supply, and the Department of Trade and Commerce second.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that this be made an order of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
January 28, 1968


[Stage Direction]
Province of Quebec
January 20, 1966.
The Right Honourable
Lester B. Pearson, P.C.
Prime Minister of Canada Parliament Buildings Ottawa
My dear Prime Minister,
As is fitting upon the eve of a new session of the Legislature, the Quebec cabinet recently reviewed the principal items likely to be considered thereat. Among them are the draft bills entitled "Quebec Parliament Act" and "An act to provide for the amendment in Canada of the Constitution of Canada".
At the last regular session, the Legislative Assembly voted an address to Her Majesty, praying her to cause to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom the bill entitled: "Quebec Parliament Act". This is linked up with the proposed constitutional amendment bill since the latter would have the effect of ensuring definitively to the only provincial upper House still in existence an absolute right of veto over any amendment of its own powers. Since the British parliament has not yet been seized of the request of the Legislative Assembly, the latter has not been called upon to consider the proposed formula for Eimending our constitution.
Many events have occurred since this formula was elaborated, and it would not be proper to ignore them. Among them should be mentioned the country-wide debate which has taken place respecting the formula itself, the continued dialogue between Quebec and the rest of the country, a constant and sustained evolution toward a new relationship between Quebec, the other provinces and the Government of Canada, the progress of the studies and discussions undertaken by the Tax Structure Committee, the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Bilingualism and Bi-culturalism and our own Special Committee on the Constitution.
You are also aware that the proposed formula for amending our constitution has caused some anxiety in Quebec. Whatever the cause of this feeling, it is a factor which should not be ignored. For instance, I personally am struck by the fact that, as early as last spring, the formula was not being interpreted everywhere in the same way. Thus I had always assumed that, as regards the amendment of legislative powers, any diminution of provincial power required unanimity, whereas any increase of such power called for the concurrence of only two-thirds of the provinces representing one-half of the population. This view, however, is not shared by everyone, even the specialists. It is contended, in fact, that under the formula any province could prevent the extension of the powers of another province. Needless to say, if that interpretation were to prevail, the evolution of our constitutional system in the direction desired by Quebec might become very difficult.
The visit which I recently had occasion to make to Western Canada also made me aware of the considerable difference between the manner in which Quebec wishes to see our constitutional system develop and the views held on this subject by many Canadians in other provinces. This difference of opinion, moreover, was confirmed to some extent by statements made after that visit by authorized representatives of other provinces. My feeling is that after this interval for everyone to ponder our country's future, we shall be in a better position to know what to aim for. It will also be most useful, in that regard, to reflect upon the work of the Tax Structure Committee and the forthcoming report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. By then, I imagine, each of the governments in the country will have had an opportunity to define its policy, not only in the field of federal-provincial relations, but also respecting the relations between French speaking Canadians and English speaking Canadians.
[Stage Direction]
January 28, 1966
In the circumstances, the government of Quebec has decided to postpone indefinitely the consideration of the proposal for constitutional amendment.
Trusting that you will consider this decision as an indication of our sincere solicitude for the present and future progress of Canada, I remain, my dear Prime Minister, Yours sincerely,
Jean Lesage.
Ottawa, January 24, 1966 The Honourable Jean Lesage,
Prime Minister of Quebec,
Parliament Building,
Quebec, Que.
I have seen only today your letter of January 20 concerning t he Constitutional Amendment Formula. Stop. It raises a number of important and far-reaching problems of concern to the federal government and affects the situation relating to the action sought in London. Stop. My reply to your letter will have to be tabled immediately, yours is made public. Stop. In the circumstances you might think it best to defer making the contents of your letter public until you have had a chance to consider my reply which I shall try to send you immediately after consultation with my colleagues on Thursday. Stop. Best regards,
Lester B. Pearson.
Ottawa, January 26, 1966 The Honourable Jean Lesage,
Prime Minister of Quebec,
Parliament Building,
Quebec, Que.
My dear Prime Minister:
As I pointed out in the telegram which I then immediately sent you, I saw only in the afternoon of January 24 your letter of January 20, 1966, concerning the constitutional amendment formula. The irony of it is that I had indicated that very morning, in reply to questions by the Leader of the Opposition and other members in the House of Commons, that the federal government had every intention to submit the constitutional amendment formula to Parliament as soon as it had been concurred in by all the provincial legislatures. I had thus implied that I remained of the opinion that Quebec would in due course endorse the proposed procedure to amend in Canada the Constitution of Canada.
My view was based on a number of positive factors which I could not but interpret in a positive and encouraging way, even though I was as you know fully aware of the difficulties.
First among those factors, of course, was the fact that the constitutional amendment formula was agreed unanimously by the heads of the federal and of the ten provincial governments at the Federal-Provincial Conference on October 14, 1964. We all then undertook to submit the proposed amendment procedure to our respective governments for formal approval following whatever procedure each thought appropriate. Secondly the White Paper which the federal government published on the subject in March 1965 had been endorsed without qualification by the ten provincial governments. Indeed, the Quebec authorities actively participated in the preparation of the French texts of both the amendment formula and the White Paper, and accepted them officially. The White Paper contained a detailed explanation of the various clauses of the amendment formula which was not questioned at the time.
Thirdly the Speech from the Throne, at the opening of the last session of your legislature, stated that: "So that the repatriation of the Constitution shall not have the effect of entrenching the powers of the Legislative Council over bills passed by the Legislative Assembly, you will be asked to restrict those powers". As a result, the Legislative Assembly eventually approved an Address to Her Majesty, praying Her to cause to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom the bill entitled: "Quebec Parliament Act". For its part, the federal government has made a clear distinction, in deciding on the procedure that it should follow in advising the Governor General, between the Address approved by the Legislative Assembly of Quebec which relates only to the Constitution of Quebec, and the Address concerning the constitutional amendment procedure which relates to the Constitution of Canada. Your government, however, as confirmed in your letter of January 20, 1966, has maintained a direct link between the two proposals. Therefore I have to ask myself whether, as a matter of policy, the Legislative Assembly and the Government of Quebec would still wish the "Quebec Parliament Act" to be introduced in the United Kingdom Parliament.
January 28, 1988	COMMONS DEBATES	423
Fourthly all the provinces, except Quebec, have formally notified the federal government of their formal concurrence in the proposed amendment formula. Undoubtedly in seeking the approval of their respective legislatures and in giving formal approval to the formula they shared my confidence that the Government of Quebec would take a similar step.
Finally, the federal government has all along been conscious of the potential relationship which exists between the amendment procedure and eventual revision of the Constitution itself. The studies mentioned in your letter as likely to have important implications for the constitutional development of Canada, were initiated before or concurrently with the approval of the amendment formula. The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was established in July 1963; the Special Committee on the Constitution of the Legislative Assembly of Quebec was created in June 1963: and the terms of reference of the Tax Structure Committee were agreed on October 14, 1964, immediately before the Federal-Provincial Conference also unanimously approved the constitutional amendment formula itself. Those are not therefore entirely new developments. Frankly, I had assumed that since the constitutional amendment formula represented, from the point of view of both the federal government and the provincial governments, such a marked improvement over the existing procedure in enabling us at last to amend our Constitution in Canada without having to go to the Parliament of another country, that the eleven governments would be prepared to accept it. But I certainly never excluded the possibility that, as part of an eventual revision of the Constitution, the amendment
procedure itself might then have to be modified to respond more effectively to any new federal-provincial relationship that might by then seem wiser or sounder for the achievement of constitutional change in the future.
In conclusion, I am bound to express my great disappointment with the decision of your government to postpone indefinitely the consideration of the proposal for constitutional amendment. I venture to hope that the Government of Quebec might be prepared to reconsider its decision in the light of the hopeful circumstances to which I have referred and of the many developments in the last three years in the field of Federal-Provincial relations. At the same time, I fully accept, of course, the expression of your "sincere solicitude for the present and future progress of Canada" contained in the closing paragraph of your letter of January 20, 1966. It is as a step in that progress and as an instrument for its continuance that the Government of Canada had hoped to see the amendment formula approved.
It is clear that, if your government does not consider that it can alter its position, we shall have to discuss the whole matter again at a future meeting of the Federal-Provincial Conference. Meanwhile, the position of my government remains as stated in that part of the Speech from the Throne opening the current session of Parliament, which reads: "It remains the objective of the federal government to provide that the Constitution of Canada may be amended in Canada".
Yours sincerely,
L. B. Pearson
[Stage Direction]
Monday, January 31, 1966