1966-02-01

INTERNAL ECONOMY COMMISSION


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask leave to lay before the house an extract of the minutes of a meeting of the commissioners of internal economy held on January 25, 1966 relating to salary revisions and reclassifications affecting a number of positions in the House of Commons.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask leave of the house to table copies in English and in French of the communique of the federal-provincial conference of ministers of health which concluded at noon today in Ottawa.



INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask permission of the house to table copies in English and in French of the interim report of the International Joint Commission concerning pollution of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the international section of the St. Lawrence river.



BANK OF WESTERN CANADA


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the house that in accordance with standing order 103 the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table a copy of a bill entitled "An Act to incorporate Bank of Western Canada". The said bill is now deemed to have been read a first time and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the house.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, as the answer to this question covers several departments I would direct it to the Prime Minister. Because of the growing uneasiness about the rigidity imposed on Canada's economic policies by the latest United States guide lines and the undertaking to hold foreign exchange reserves down to $2.6 billion-this matter was dealt with yesterday by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce-is the government planning to reopen the subject with the United States authorities so that Canada's hands will not be tied in the formulation of economic policies, in the interests of Canada's economy?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance to deal with that question.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it was my pleasure yesterday to receive the delegation from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. They made the presentation to which the right hon. gentleman has referred, and I pointed out to them that it was based upon a mistake of fact. They acknowledged that, and I hope their representations will be changed.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. I am wondering whether the minister is suggesting that the facts which the president of the Royal Bank gives are inaccurate when he says the present figure of $2.6 billion is going to hobble the Canadian economy.


Mitchell William Sharp: I regret to say the president of the Royal Bank of Canada made exactly the same mistake as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in his interpretation of United States rulings.


John George Diefenbaker: Everybody wrong but the government.
February 1, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY



AUTOMOBILE PARTS-TRANSFER OF ORDERS TO U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: The acknowledgement to which the minister referred did not appear in the press. In view of the report in the Financial Times, then, to the effect that some 15 out of 35 auto parts manufacturers have been affected by the transfer of orders to United States firms by the parent companies, what action is being taken to protect the right of Canadian firms to bid on such contracts?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Perhaps I might undertake to answer that question. As a consequence of changes being carried out in the automobile industry, and with a view to preventing the unwarranted transfer of production from Canada to the United States, I have had a series of discussions with automotive manufacturers looking to what I hope will be a successful conclusion in preventing this happening.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister give any indication as to what plans he has in mind, if these discussions have arrived at the point where they can be revealed?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In answer to similar questions I have expressed the hope that this whole plan will be examined in detail by the house at a later date. I do not think I can or should attempt on orders of the day to explain the processes and results of the automotive program.


John George Diefenbaker: To explain the unexplainable.



EXPO '67 CONSIDERATION OF BUDGET BY HOUSE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and in doing so commend him for having asked the world fair directors for a budget showing a breakdown of their expenditures and the loss likely to be occasioned by Expo '67. I wish to ask the minister whether, when this material is received by him, he will consider placing it before an appropriate committee of this house in order that hon. members may be fully aware of the use which is being made of
(Mr. Diefenbaker.)
the money already voted and what further financial commitments this house will be expected to meet.


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: When I spoke briefly on the address the other day I said at the end of my remarks that I would be glad to refer this whole matter to a standing committee set up for this and other purposes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How soon will it be possible for this material to be referred to such a committee? Now that the Speech from the Throne is out of the way it would seem to me urgent to begin the work of this committee as soon as possible.


Robert Henry Winters: When the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce are before the committee, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence and ask him, first of all, whether press reports are correct when they state there is such an acute shortage of technical personnel in the armed forces that certain defence commitments will have to be given up and certain ships are unable to put to sea. If this is so, what steps are being taken by the department and by the armed forces to overcome this problem?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Naiional Defence):: We are having the same trouble competing for manpower as every other organization in the country is experiencing at the present time under boom conditions. I may say that the financial policies of this government in the last two and a half years have been so successful-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -that there is now an acute shortage of manpower, particularly of skilled manpower. This is true in all areas of industry and in the armed forces as well. We are doing our best to compete. We are examining the situation now to see what we can do to put us on a better competitive basis vis-a-vis industry, but our problem today is the same as that which is faced by many manufacturing industries and by industry generally across this country.
February 1, 1966	COMMONS


Mr. D. W. Groos (Vicloria (B.C.)):: As a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, has the minister seen the news story in yesterday's Montreal Star which describes how the United States forces, which are in a similar position, are paying bonuses, in some cases up to $10,000, to those who re-engage for additional service?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question I should like to ask the minister whether it is not a fact that the shortage of technical personnel and other highly trained people, which has caused such difficulties so far as the manning of ships and aircraft is concerned, is primarily due to the fact that personnel have refused to re-engage because of the low state of morale brought on by his integration of the forces?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest this question is out of order because it is argumentative.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: As a
further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's reference to the successful financial policy of the department would he inform the house whether it is correct that members of the armed forces in the Congo have to include in the accounts rendered any bribes they have to pay?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think this is erroneous, Mr. Speaker, but I am having it checked out to make sure.


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, regarding the answer that has just been given the house by the Minister of National Defence, may I ask him whether his department has reconsidered the proposal concerning compulsory training, as advanced by me two sessions ago already.


Mr. Speaker:: This question should be put on the order paper.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my further question to the minister would be, is it true that we are losing more pilots than we are actually training at the present time?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would have to look at the statistics. The competition
DEBATES	493
Inquiries of the Ministry for pilots at the present time is just phenomenal. The expansion and requirements on a world wide basis of commercial air lines are so great that they were unanticipated by anyone. These air lines are making very attractive offers, and they can afford to do so because they do not have to train men; they can just hire fully trained pilots and take advantage of the skills and training for which the taxpayers of both Canada and the United States have paid. But I can assure my hon. friend that at the moment we have no shortage. We will certainly do everything we can to make life in the service for pilots as attractive and as competitive as possible in view of the competition with civilian air lines.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Does the minister intend to tell the house that these competitive conditions forced the department of defence, or the minister, to prematurely release 500 pilots and navigators less than 18 months ago?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker. That was a policy that was recommended by the persons responsible for it at the time on the basis of there being surplus, and as a matter of fact I think there is still justification for that point of view at the time it was held. But in the months and years that lie ahead the opportunities for pilots, with the training that we give our pilots in the R.C.A.F., will increase, and the emoluments and other attractions that will be required to keep them in the service in the required numbers will have to be carefully considered.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As a further supplementary question, is the minister then forecasting pay increases for the personnel in the air force?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I was not making a forecast, Mr. Speaker, but we are realists in the department and we know that if we spend a quarter of a million dollars or half a million dollars training someone, we have to get from them a return on that investment by the Canadian taxpayers, and we will take whatever steps are necessary to make sure we get a proper return.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You will have to finally get your head out of the sand.


Mr. Lee Grills (Hastings South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is it not true that requests for release from the R.C.A.F. services are at an all time high?
494	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Hellyer: I shall have to look into that, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member would like to put that question, which is of a statistical nature, on the order paper, I shall look into it.



NATIONAL ANTHEM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
With regard to the government's proposed resolution on the national anthem, does the Prime Minister intend to divide it in two parts, one for the national anthem of Canada and the other for what is called the royal anthem, and turn it into two distinct and separate resolutions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we can deal with this resolution as a whole.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
If it is asked that this proposed resolution be turned into two distinct ones, will the Prime Minister accept the suggestion so that two resolutions may be put before the house?


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister answered the question a moment ago.
{English]



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Halifax):: I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Did he and other members of the cabinet meet recently with a delegation comprised of the mayors of Halifax and Dartmouth and the warden of the county for the purpose of discussing the designated area program? If so, would he be kind enough to advise us of the results of that discussion?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we did hold an annual meeting with a delegation of the mayors and representatives of the municipalities and a statement was made following that meeting. We did discuss, among other things, that matter referred to by the hon. gentleman.

DEBATES	February 1. 1966


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister give us an assurance that some alternative assistance will be given to these four maritime cities if they do not come within the terms of the government incentive plan? I might state that I asked this question of the Minister of Industry the other day.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, assistance is already being given to these four cities as well as others, apart from that being given under the designated area progam.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have a further supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister realize that in the meantime while these cities are waiting they are losing business because they are excluded from that plan?



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of a news report this morning to the effect that the Canadian government is preparing to make a proposal to the Big Ten with regard to a new unit of international account to overcome problems in respect of international liquidity. In view of that project on the part of the government, would the minister be prepared to refer the bill, for which the resolution is standing in his name as a precursor, to the banking and commerce committee so the various proposals for this type of development can be discussed by that committee?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think that is an excellent idea.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC-SPEECH BY MINES MINISTER RESPECTING SPECIAL STATUS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in relation to a declaration made by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys in Winnipeg on Sunday, in which the minister referred to a special status for the province of Quebec.
February 1. 1966	COMMONS
Was the minister speaking for the government when he stated that if the other provinces decide they want a strong central government the special status for Quebec will be very special?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would not expect me to comment on an excerpt from a minister's speech. I have read that speech, and I think it is an excellent one.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Does the Prime Minister not think that the province of Quebec cannot fulfil its constitutional aspirations as long as the central government remains strong?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that his remarks constitute an argument rather than a proper question.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Since the government of Ontario has demonstrated its ability to produce a medicare plan of first class quality and at a reasonable cost-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: -on a voluntary basis, would the Prime Minister consider-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the desire of a very large number of Canadians that it should be so, would the Prime Minister give consideration to making the federal medicare plan a voluntary one?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is a large question of policy, and my hon. friend ought to know that it is out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the Prime Minister who wants to reply to a particular question, but it seems to me this is a question that requires a broad statement of policy. Perhaps it is out of order on that account.
DEBATES	495
Inquiries of the Ministry REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORT ON HEALTH RESOURCES FUND
On the orders of the day:


Jay Waldo Monteith: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. When is the minister going to table the report of the committee of officials and representatives of the medical professional associations having to do with the $500 million health resources fund?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to table that report at the first opportunity.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister agreed to meet with the mayors of western cities concerning the railway service of the C.P.R., particularly in view of the cancellation of the Dominion? If so, when and where will the meeting take place?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I received a telegram requesting a meeting of this kind, on behalf of the mayors, from the mayor of Moose Jaw. The government will be very glad to make provision for such a meeting.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to an article by Mr. McIntosh, written for the Canadian Press, to the effect that the government made a blunder in purchasing the American F-5 aircraft, which had been rejected by the United States air force after trials in Viet Nam.
Would the Prime Minister make his observations thereon and at the same time advise whether, having regard to the very full statement by this very reputable writer, the whole matter should not be brought before a committee of parliament to inquire into defence matters?
496	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would not care to comment on a statement made by a newspaper reporter without checking into the facts of that statement. So far as the matter itself is concerned, there will be an opportunity very shortly, when the committee on defence is set up, to look into this whole question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question of the Minister of National Defence. Is the company from which the purchases have been made the same company that placed an aircraft at the minister's disposal to convey him to and from speaking engagements during the election campaign?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker. I should like to say first of all with respect to the airplane that the United States requirement is not the same as ours, for our requirement is for a first class airplane and my operators tell me that below 20,000 feet it is the best aircraft in the world and will do the job for the Canadian armed forces in the most satisfactory manner. My right hon. friend should rejoice in that fact.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we have had general observations like that before. I ask the minister this. Is it correct that the United States rejected this aircraft after the experience in Viet Nam?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, their experience in Viet Nam showed that this was one of the most outstanding airplanes, with the lowest attrition rate, the most successful in the number of sorties engaged in, with the lowest operational cost. This just shows what a wonderful airplane it is; and I suggest that my right hon. friend should rejoice in that fact, too.


Douglas Scott Harkness: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In spite of the propaganda the minister has just put out, is it not a fact that the United States defence department has rejected this aircraft and is not going to make any purchases of them?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker, they have not had any intention of buying it for some time-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -because their requirement is not the same. The airplane they are buying, the A-7, is one that in my opinion would not suit our requirements. It might interest my

DEBATES	February 1, 1966
hon. friend to know that as a result of the experience in Viet Nam the United States military assistance program, which involves large numbers of these airplanes, will almost unquestionably introduce the modifications which we intend to make to this airplane in Canada, the CF-5, which will make it a first class airplane for the ground attack role.


Mr. Ricard:: But they don't want to buy it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it correct that the trials carried out to refuel this F-5 aircraft by our Hercules aircraft have been a complete failure? In view of this, what is going to happen to the proposed program as far as refueling this very short range aircraft is concerned?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is no; therefore the second part of the question is hypothetical.


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I ask the minister, is he stating that these trials were satisfactory?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard).



EXPO '67 INVITATION TO POPE PAUL. VI

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: To come back to a less military matter, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Among the important people that the government intends to invite to the world fair during the centennial celebrations, is the Prime Minister thinking about sending an invitation to His Holiness Paul VI, head of the Vatican state and a great defender of peace throughout the world?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate, of course, to intervene at this moment. Perhaps the Prime Minister wants to reply to the question, although at first glance it would seem to be better placed on the order paper. But in view of the fact that the same type of question was allowed during the last few days, the Prime Minister might want to reply to this one.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps a more detailed reply could be given if the question were put on the order paper,
February 1, 1966	COMMONS
but I can say now that undoubtedly a number of heads of state will come to Canada by invitation during our centennial year. There has been no final commitment given by any country or head of state of any country as to such a visit. Certainly a visit to Canada by His Holiness would be very warmly welcomed by all Canadians especially in this ecumenical period.

MONTREAL-REPORTED INCREASE IN PRICE On the orders of the day:


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: I have a question for the Prime Minister arising from a report that the price of milk in the Montreal district is going up a cent a quart beginning today. In view of the hardship on large families with low incomes, the mother of eight children having telephoned me from St. Hubert today, what action can the Prime Minister take to hold down the rising cost of living?


Lester Bowles Pearson: By maintaining, as we have tried to maintain, good financial and economic policies.



INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
REPORTED DECREASE IN PRODUCTIVITY On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the fact that one of the principal reasons for setting up his department was to increase productivity in this country, what reason can he give for a decrease of 30 per cent in productivity last year over the year before, as reported by his own department in the annual report which he tabled yesterday?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a very important question, but it seems to me the hon. member is seeking statistical information. I suggest he place the question on the order paper as I believe this is the type of question to which a reply can be given within the next few days.


George Harris Hees: I will debate it at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.

EXPORT OF MCINTOSH APPLES TO SCOTLAND On the orders of the day:


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. It arises out of a
DEBATES	497
Inquiries of the Ministry story in this morning's Globe and Mail to the effect that the people of Scotland are being denied access to the McIntosh apple, particularly-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a very important question, but again I take the liberty of suggesting to the hon. member that he should place it on the order paper. Perhaps he will want to debate it at ten o'clock.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: have a question for the Prime Minister. I should like to ask him if Victor Spencer was dealt with in accordance with the procedures regarding security outlined by the Prime Minister on October 25, 1963, under which any employee accused of misconduct was to be told the charges against him and given an opportunity to defend himself.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my hon. friend for giving me notice of this question. I would be glad to give the following answer.
The procedure to which the hon. member refers in his question, and about which I was speaking on October 25, 1963, related to the granting or denial of security clearance for people whose employment involves access to secret and confidential information. Mr. Spencer, Mr. Speaker, is not in that category. The problem in his case was one involving activity that rendered him unsuitable to be employed by the government in any capacity whatever. The basic principle involved in the security procedures was, however, applied, and Mr. Spencer was given an opportunity to state his side of the case to a senior officer of the Civil Service Commission, who explained to him the circumstances that led the Post Office Department to recommend his dismissal.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. Do I take it from the Prime Minister's statement that Spencer was given the opportunity to appear before the Civil Service Commission and present his case? If so, was he represented by legal counsel at that hearing?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There was a representative of the Civil Service Commission who interviewed Mr. Spencer last November, and the
498	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry commission concurred in the advice that Mr. Spencer be removed from the civil service. Action was accordingly taken.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is worse; this is terrible.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: May I ask a
supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Does he not feel it is about time that something was done in Canada to protect civil servants from the type of kangaroo court which he has just described?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, last week the hon. members for Matapedia-Matane and Lapointe (Messrs. Tremblay and Gregoire) asked questions about winter works. I now wish to answer them very briefly.
The first question dealt with the delay that the federal government might have brought to the payment of grants under the winter works act.
To that first question I can say that, so far as Quebec is concerned, out of $23.7 million asked for, $23.5 million have been paid to date.
Now, about the delay, I said that I would contact the provincial official concerned, that is Hon. Pierre Laporte. I called him and he told me that this delay was due to the fact that his department had moved in January but that now everything was getting back under control.
Such are the answers I wanted to give the two hon. members.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
He said that Quebec minister Pierre Laporte has informed him that payments owing to municipalities could not be made because the department had moved to another place.
I must point out to the minister that this situation has been prevailing for the past three years-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: My question, Mr. Speaker, is-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should put his question.
[Mr. Pearson.)
DEBATES	February 1. 1966


David Réal Caouette: I will, Mr. Speaker. Is not the true reason that the department concerned in Quebec is using the funds-federal funds, mind you-for other purposes and that there is not enough money to pay the municipalities?


Jean Marchand: All I can say is that payments owing to the province under our agreement have been made.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Has he inquired of the Quebec government whether it will submit a claim without delay to the federal government on behalf of municipalities or whether it is putting off its claim of the amounts due?


Jean Marchand: The hon. member could, in both cases, ask the Quebec government what is going on. We are responsible for paying the provincial government and that has been done. The administration of that act comes under provincial jurisdiction.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Did the minister, at the same time, seek the reason why municipalities can no longer borrow from our chartered banks for the purpose of continuing their winter works?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the federal government has indicated several times and I repeat that it is ready to facilitate financing of winter works up to 80 per cent of the amounts which will eventually be owing to the municipalities. The municipalities availed themselves of this advantage, as they were able to. I think there are some which did not, but it is up to the provincial government to do so.



WATER RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Has any action been taken by the Department of Justice with regard to asking the Supreme Court of Canada for a definite interpretation of the phrase "patented waterlot", which is
February 1, 1966	COMMONS
causing a great deal of trouble to the shore residents of York-Humber and York West on the north side of Lake Ontario?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he place the question on the order paper.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Ten o'clock, sir.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. He has been left out for so long that I feel he ought to have an opportunity to say something. Would he tell the house the degree to which the embargo to Rhodesia is in effect? Is it a 100 per cent embargo both ways?
Second, has his attention been drawn to the fact that personnel of the R.C.A.F. engaged in the transport of oil have allegedly stated that the oil delivered by them is, in part, finding its way into Rhodesia, as a result of transactions between the recipient country and Rhodesia?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of State for External Affairs: I can only say that if my right hon. friend has not been bombarding me with questions, it is because he apparently recognizes that the administration of this department does not warrant continued interrogation by the house.
Respecting the second part of the question,
I shall have to examine that so I can maintain the high record of efficiency which obviously has been established.
With regard to the first part of the question, approximately 90 per cent of Canadian trade between the two countries has been affected by that embargo.


John George Diefenbaker: Has there been any extension of the embargo in any way in the last few days? I understand that in the United Kingdom there has been such an extension. Has there been any extension by Canada? Would the minister be able to answer that in one word, instead of by a speech?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: If I were to answer the question with one word I should not be replying to the question.


John George Diefenbaker: I recognize those limitations on the part of the hon. gentleman.
DEBATES	499
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquelle (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Has he received complaints because the payment of unemployment insurance benefits in the Montreal district was delayed following the disastrous explosion which took place there recently?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, inquiries have been received; I would not say complaints. I can quite understand the hon. member's concern due to the explosion near the office building occupied by the N.E.S. and the unemployment insurance staff. Both staffs had to vacate their offices, and had to obtain new quarters. I am happy to assure the hon. member, however, that by having the staff in their new quarters work over the week end, 6,500 of the 13,000 cheques went out over the week end and the balance will be in the mail in the next day or two.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: I have a supplementary question. Would the minister also tell the house why there is such a delay in making out the cheques in the Thetford Mines area where there has been no explosion?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I should be glad to take that question as notice. I have received no complaints from that area.



BANKRUPTCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Justice, of which I have given him written notice. In view of the widespread concern over personal bankruptcies as well as commercial bankruptcies, and in view of Senate Bill S-2 and the recommendations of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and proposed legislation in the province of Manitoba, dealing with wage-salary exemptions from garnishment orders, has the government given consideration to amendments to the Bankruptcy Act to cover personal bankruptcies as well as commercial bankruptcies?
February 1, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minisler of Justice):: want to thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. I received it shortly before coming into the house, and I should like to have an opportunity to look into this matter a little more closely before replying. I should like to take the question as notice.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. J. W. Fane (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance in his capacity as spokesman for the Canadian Wheat Board. I gave him verbal notice of this question, I believe last Thursday. I should like to ask the minister if he has done anything to inquire into the box car situation along the Canadian Pacific Railway from Edmonton to Lloyd-minster, having particular reference to the delivery point of Andrew, where I am informed that a great number of box cars loaded with wheat have been on the siding since December. May I point out that the minister was given notice of this question.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I took due note of the representations made by the hon. gentleman. May I say that inquiries are already under way.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Are cabinet ministers so hard to reach that it is necessary for backbenchers on the Liberal side to ask questions during the restricted period of time allowed each day for questions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Members of this house have unanimously agreed to the shorter question period. It seems strange that hon. members on the government side of the house have to ask loaded questions during the restricted period, and thereby deny members on this side of the house full opportunity to ask questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, and ask him, following my question of last week regarding the Ontario strike of truckers which is causing tremendous economic hardship, would he not endeavour to bring both parties in the dispute together, on his own personal basis, to bring about some settlement of this prolonged dispute?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my departmental officials and I are following this situation closely. We are in touch with the parties concerned and with the Ontario government, whose interests are perhaps even more direct than our own. However, I do not think it would be opportune for me to intervene at this stage.


Mitchell William Sharp: that the house go into committee of supply.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Cenlre):: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in entering into this debate at the present time is to set the record straight for those serious students of parliament and for historians, political scientists and political pundits.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I should like to draw attention to the fact that this supply motion is a great concession to the pleas of the government. We in the opposition are forgoing what would normally be required, namely, five supply motions before the estimates for the fiscal year 196566 could be passed by the house. Under the regular rules six supply motions are in order and supply can be entered upon and the estimates brought before the house only by that means. The government requested that we telescope the remaining five supply motions and consent to the introduction of all the remaining estimates at the conclusion of this debate.
It is interesting, sir, to note that in the session of 1962-63 this proposal was made by myself as house leader to the house leaders of the parties in the house in that parliament and it was rejected. The same suggestion was put forward to the House of Commons by the Prime Minister of that day and was rejected by the opposition. I point that out to indicate the intransigent attitude that was shown by
February 1, 1966

the Liberal party in 1962-63 and the co-operative attitude of the Conservative party at this particular time. When students of parliament are reviewing the session of 1962-63, which they will occasionally, I hope they will also have a look at this particular period in Canada's history.
There is a great similarity between the two periods, and I should like to indicate the contrast between the attitude of our party now in opposition and the attitude of the Liberal party in 1962-63 when it was in opposition. We were faced then with prolonged and deliberate obstruction of the business of the house and parliament was virtually brought to a standstill. Let us not overlook the fact that the subject of supply is of vital importance to parliament. The control of expenditure is something which has to be viewed with responsibility and there is a danger that parliament is losing its control over expenditures on the part of the government.
This loss of control stems from the attitude of the Liberal party over the last several years. It is a very serious matter and parliament must be cautious in the future to see that the blank cheque which has been given to this government for 10 months now does not become an established practice.
There seems to be an erroneous impression that parliament exists only for the passage of legislation. I suggest that its function with regard to taxation and expenditure is more important although, of course, legislation is vital because of the requirements of changing conditions. Then there is the grand inquest of the nation which is carried on here as we investigate the actions of the executive. But what taxes are to be applied and how that tax money is to be spent are matters that really concern parliament and in the interests of our constituents we must be careful to see that there is no waste of taxpayers' money and no careless expenditure.
Under the situation that has prevailed for the last two or three years control of parliament over the executive has been slackened. We are now in the situation that for the fiscal year 1965-66 not one single estimate of the main estimates has been passed by parliament. This is due to the lack of organization of government business on the part of the government, as I will show when I deal with the session last year from April to June 30, coupled with the failure of the government to summon parliament early after the election
Supply-Mr. Churchill
of November 8, with the consequence that they have now boxed themselves into this position.
I repeat, not a single estimate of the main estimates has been passed by the House of Commons. Two supplementary estimates were passed in the month of June at the request of the government and with the cooperation of the opposition because we realized that they were essential at that time.
Where is the government headed, Mr. Speaker? They have had to come crawling to us cap in hand asking us for assistance which we could have refused. It was refused to us in the session of 1962-63. We could have refused and claimed our right to have five more supply motions. We do not have to pass the estimates for 1965-66 in one day or in a few hours. This is our opportunity to find out how the departments have been administered.
We have not had an accounting to this house by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) for two years. We let him off in 1963 when his estimates were those we had prepared when we formed the government. This is rather strange, but we exhibited some sympathy for the Minister of Transport in 1963 because of a report at that time that his health was not very good and so we did not press him.
In 1964 his estimates came before the House of Commons in November, when we were working under an allocation of time schedule, and were not subject to discussion at all. Throughout the course of the year 1965 we have not had a word from him with regard to the expenditures of the Department of Transport.
That is only one example, Mr. Speaker. I could go down the list and show that we have not had an accounting to this house of the activities of ministers of the government, and this has gone on now for almost two years. It would be interesting to hear a report from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hel-lyer). In 1964 his estimates were subject to the guillotine procedure and were not discussed here on the floor of the House of Commons. We have not had a report from the Minister of National Defence in the year 1965. So you can see, sir, the importance of the discussion of supply upon which we have now entered and the importance of our taking adequate time when the estimates are before us commencing on Thursday to see just what has been going on with regard to the expenditure of the taxpayers' money.

February I, 196S
Supply-Mr. Churchill
That is the present situation. We are not moving any amendment, again by agreement, in order that we may proceed on Wednesday with the passage of this supply motion and the calling of the remaining estimates department by department.
Now let us look at another factor, Mr. Speaker. What has the government been living on in the interval? It had interim supply granted to it, which is quite normal every year. Interim supply is normally granted for the months of April, May, June and July and until the main estimates have been passed by the house. We granted to the government at the end of June a four months' extension of interim supply carrying them to the end of October. Relying on the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on June 27, we expected to be called back in September to complete the work of that particular session.


Mr. Vincent:: September 27.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, September 27 was the date that he set. I think the Leader of the House was relying on that word from the Prime Minister. But in the interval the Prime Minister received advice from various sources and made a decision himself, or so he claimed. When he announced the election on the night he appeared on television he said: This is my decision and mine alone. Yet we have had all sorts of apologists subsequently telling us that the Prime Minister was given bad advice and that these people have acted the part of flagellants and taken the blame on their own shoulders. Be this as it may, the Prime Minister, having promised the country that the house would meet on September 27, saw fit to call an election. In the interim the government had supply granted for seven months of the year. Subsequently it used Governor General's warrants.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Now that parliament is reassembled this must come to an end and the government is obliged to get the consent of parliament in order to meet any further expenditures. May I point out that during election years the discussion of estimates has always been restricted because of the intervention of the election. That is normal practice. Following the election the house has proceeded somewhat speedily to deal with the estimates which could not be dealt with earlier. Three years ago almost to the day I drew the attention of the house to a survey I had

made. I think I will put this on Hansard again just for historical purposes. Here are my words:
In the year 1945 the house assembled in the spring. An election was held in June and the house reassembled in the fall. The same was done in 1949 with an election in June. In 1957 there was an election in June and in 1962 there was an election in June. If you look at the way in which the estimates were handled in those four calendar years you will find that parliament passed interim supply for a nine month period in 1945 before the main estimates were dealt with. In 1945 the opposition was a responsible opposition; it was the Conservative party. In December of that year they dealt with the estimates in co-operation with the government very quickly and passed them in a very short time.
In fact, in the last six days of December that year they passed most of the estimates, but they sat long hours late at night past midnight and early in the morning. In 1949 interim supply was granted for eight months. Again there was a responsible opposition, the Conservative party, and that responsible opposition, co-operating with the government of the day, passed the main estimates in the last few days of the session in the fall of that year. They took 15 days to pass the estimates.
That was on February 4, 1963. I went on:
I suggest to you that that situation should have prevailed in the year 1962. There was a spring session, then an election in June, and then a fall session. A responsible opposition would have co-operated with the government and passed the main estimates in the fall of 1962.
This, I suggest, is the method by which interim supply and main estimates were dealt with in the past during election years. But after the election of 1962 the Liberal party, bent on obstruction and on downgrading parliament, refused to follow the practice of former years and declined to pass any estimates in the fall of 1962. We had the normal supply motion. We called six departments and placed them in front of the house. But the Liberal opposition refused to pass a single estimate. In December of that year we asked and were compelled to ask for interim supply for the month of January because the main estimates had not been passed.
The Liberal opposition spent six full days on interim supply in December, 1962. Ninety per cent of the time interim supply is passed in half a day or a day and a half. But in that year the Liberal opposition consumed six full days before granting interim supply for January. During those six days we could have passed and dealt with the main estimates for that fiscal year. But they were bent on destroying the government of the day and on downgrading parliament.
Now let us look at the present situation. Chickens come home to roost. Here we have the Liberal party forming the government.
February 1, 1966

The Liberal party is now faced with the necessity of getting parliamentary approval of the estimates for the fiscal year 1965-66 which runs out on March 31. They have had to come to us and ask for a telescoping of the supply motions, which we have granted. Next week they have to come hat in hand, on bended knee, and ask for interim supply for the month of February. This is the case because we cannot pass these main estimates just on Thursday and Friday of this week. There is too much money involved. The main estimates for the fiscal year 1965-66 run to more than $7 billion. We want to know how the money granted so far has been spent and what is proposed with regard to the balance which is required and with regard to the final supplementary estimates which have been placed before us.
We cannot deal with this in two days. Consequently, some time next week the Leader of the House-it will be the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) actually-will have to ask parliament for interim supply for the month of February. That will be the eleventh month of the fiscal year. Let me point out the dangers which are involved. This is a serious matter. When you reach the point where you have to ask for interim supply at the end of the tenth month of the year you have reached the critical moment. Here is a statement which was made a few years ago when that point had been reached, as found on page 2739 of Hansard for December 17, 1962:
Either the government will come before us with some kind of omnibus bill asking us to vote all the estimates in one swift action because by then the government will argue it is time to start talking about the estimates for 1963-64, or because parliament stands on its feet and because parliament seeks to debate these items there will either be prorogation of the session so the government can use Governor General's warrants or there will be dissolution and an election. I do not know which of these various courses is going to be followed, but I do know that no matter which one of them is pursued we are going to witness the fiscal year 1962-63 as one in which parliament and the House of Commons in particular did not have its traditional, its constitutional right to discuss the items in the estimates as the Minister of Finance on December 12 assured us we would have. Not because there was anything lacking in the assurance he gave, but rather because of the time that has been taken with a long summer interval when there was no session of parliament and the failure of the government to organize the business of this session, we are going to be in the position where one of the main rights that is supposed to belong to parliament will have been lost.
That main right to which I am referring is parliament's control over the purse strings. That is what we are supposed to have, not the kind of government in which the executive makes all the
Supply-Mr. Churchill decisions and spends all the money but the kind of government we are supposed to have is one in which, whatever else the executive may be able to do by order in council, by executive action, control of the purse remains with parliament itself. We are going to lose that control in this fiscal year 1962-63 either by the passage of time or by dissolution and an election.
Then, listen to this:
If we go on, if we get another of these supply bills for an eleventh twelfth and another for a twelfth twelfth, it will be pointed up so that everyone in the country will be able to see that parliament's control of the purse strings has been taken away.
That was the danger in December, 1962, when we were asking for interim supply for the tenth month of the fiscal year. The heavens were to fall. Everything was going to come to an end. Parliament was being destroyed. Those words, I expect, will be repeated now by the hon. member who used them, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I assume he will stand up during the course of this debate and draw parliament's attention to the danger which he saw then and which is compounded now because we are facing interim supply next week for the eleventh month of the fiscal year. In fact, it may well be that we shall have to consider interim supply for the month of March which would be the twelfth month of the fiscal year.
He was not the only one who saw ruin ahead. Listen to this, Mr. Speaker. I refer to page 2834 of Hansard for December 19, 1962:
There is, I believe, no precedent in our parliamentary history for a government asking for the tenth monthly instalment of the total expenditures for a year before one single item of annual expenditure has been voted by parliament-not one. This is something that has not happened before in our parliamentary history . . .
It is a traditional and fundamental right of parliament to vote taxes before they are collected and to approve expenditures before they are made. When these rights are ignored, when they are violated, parliament itself is being violated and we are taking a step towards its destruction. No matter how wide a circulation we give and no matter in what form, to the Bill of Rights, and no matter how much we may talk about Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, no matter how emotionally we may wrap ourselves up in parliamentary or national flags, both these rights I have mentioned are being deliberately and systematically violated by the present government.
I hope those words are again placed on Hansard by the person who used them on December 19, 1962, because, when we were asking at that time for interim supply for the tenth month of the fiscal year, according to him stark ruin lay ahead of us and the rights

February 1, 1966
Supply-Mr. Churchill of parliament were being overridden. I hope that the Prime Minister, whose words I was quoting-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -will instruct the house on this occasion as to what is to be done next week concerning voting a blank cheque for the eleventh month of the fiscal year.
On January 21, 1963, these further words of wisdom were brought to our attention, as found on page 2898 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I do want to point out for this group that the proposals ask for a tremendous surrender by the members of this house of their rights and responsibilities. We still have five supply motions which have a place in our parliamentary system. Except for two or three departments which have been opened, we still have to bring in all the departments. The purpose of going through estimates is not only to pass sums of money but to provide members with an opportunity to question ministers regarding policies and programs, and to ascertain something about the working of each department. What we are being asked to do is to surrender all of this and to pass in a lump sum great quantities of money without any opportunity for a thorough investigation of the work of the departments.
Perhaps the hon. member who spoke those words on January 21, 1963, would like to put them on the record during the course of this debate. I refer to the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas). That is the view he held of the desperate situation that the house faced in being asked for supply for the tenth month of the fiscal year and subsequently being asked in January for the telescoping of the remaining supply motions so that we could get on with the business of the country.
What is the attitude of these hon. gentlemen in February, 1966, three years later? Are the dangers still as apparent to them now as they were then or have things changed? Is the present government to be trusted to the extent of getting a blank cheque for 11 months of the fiscal year, and perhaps for the twelfth month, without reducing the power of parliament to a nonentity? That is the situation, Mr. Speaker.
I would have thought that the Liberal party, having had the experience of the session of 1962-63 and facing a similar situation now in the period 1965-66, would have taken some precautions but its members took no precautions whatsoever. During the last three years that we were in office members of the Liberal party paid scant regard to the function of parliament and during the session of 1962-63 they did their level best to drag parliament down by calculated obstruction.

However, now they are caught in their own trap. Three years have gone by. We could treat them exactly as they treated us but we are much more responsible. We have a higher regard for parliament.
Despite the experience of the past, what was the conduct of business when the house opened last session in April and concluded at the end of June? We spent 53 days in that session and, of course, anticipated resuming on September 27. But how were those 53 days spent? It is rather interesting to look at the record. Seven days were spent on the opening and the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, which is quite normal. Six days were spent on the Budget, which is also quite normal. The Budget resolutions and the bills founded on them took seven days. Nobody can object to that. These are important financial matters affecting the Income Tax Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff Act and so on.
We spent five days on the Bank Act and on the National Housing Act. There can be no objection to that at all. On various other matters affecting the setting up of an Indian Claims Commission and on four or .five items dealing with veterans legislation the house spent four days. There is no objection to that either. That is a sensible use of time.
We had one supply motion which took two days. Nine departments were called, which was a concession on our part. Normally only six are called but we said, "Call nine; let us get on with the business". Following that we spent one day on main estimates. We took the Department of External Affairs, had one day on the first item of that department and then referred the departmental estimates to a committee non-existent at the time but which was set up later.
In June we spent part of a day on interim supply and granted the government four months interim supply. Where did the rest of the time go? Instead of being spent on the main estimates during that period from April to June, how did the government organize its business? Very badly. We spent five days on the subject of the retirement of senators. Important as the other chamber is, I doubt very much that the national interest would have suffered one bit had that bill been postponed or shelved for a year or two and then brought forward. But instead of dealing with the estimates, the expenditure of money, this is what we spent our time on at the instance of the government. It was not at our request whatsoever.
February 1, 1966

Fifteen days were spent by the house on a discussion of rules and procedure. That again was at the instance of the government which wanted to shackle parliament so that it would have control in the future. We agreed on 90 per cent of the changes that were proposed but the government stubbornly insisted on forcing through certain controversial items including a report from the committee and a resolution brought forward by the government.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
On June 3, the thirty fifth day of that particular session, I had this to say as found on page 1938 of Hansard:
-I have suggested, and I repeat it, that we should remove the noncontroversial parts of this resolution-
It referred to rules and procedures. I then continued:
-get the committees set up, get the estimates referred to them and let us get on, as everybody talks about, with the business of the house. This is June 3 and it is the thirty fifth day of this session. Not a single committee has been set up. Not an estimate has been referred to an existing committee. We had an abortive motion the other day referring estimates to a committee that is not in existence.
That is how those days from April to June 3 were spent in this house. The estimates were disregarded as being unimportant and the government asked for a blank cheque through interim supply. Let us see what happened after the election on November 8 last year. Why did the Prime Minister not do what he had done in 1963? In 1963 the election was over on April 8 and we were out and the Liberals were in. The house opened on May 16, 37 days after the election, and the Prime Minister came storming in here with a hastily assembled cabinet and promised us 60 days of decision and plans to excite the daring. Then, of course, thanks to the former minister of finance-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And others.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And others, but chiefly the former minister of finance-that bubble was burst.
What did the Prime Minister do after November 8, 1965? He did not storm in here to open the House of Commons. He had been returned to office but he had lost two cabinet ministers through defeat. I suspect he did not have much to do to replace those two gentlemen. Why did he not call the house together before Christmas and get on with its business? Why did he wait 70 days after the
Supply-Mr. Churchill election until January 18? What did he need 70 days for? He had to shuffle his cabinet because of the number of resignations, and there should have been other resignations placed in his hands. Perhaps he was waiting for them. He did not open the house early and he did not come down here with a program to excite the daring. He held off until January 18 because he was rather ashamed to face the house and rather fearful about coming before parliament with a rather uncertain cabinet assembled.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He had to face his own supporters.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps facing his own supporters was more fearful to him than facing the house.
I say there was failure on the part of the government to deal with the business of the house properly during the session from April to June of 1965. I say there was also failure on the part of the government in not having reassembled the house shortly after the election, for it could have been assembled on December 14 or 15. We could have dealt with the Speech from the Throne before Christmas. We could have come back shortly after Christmas or immediately after the new year. There is precedent for this. Prime Minister St. Laurent graciously consented to adjourn this house on December 21 of 1952 and we were back here in this chamber on December 27. That is the length of time we had off in 1952 and we could have done the same thing this year without that long gap between last July and January of this year. The Prime Minister waited for six and a half months before reassembling parliament.
The Prime Minister has now got himself boxed in. All the estimates of 1965-66 have to be approved and interim supply has to be sought in respect of the eleventh month. It was a tremendously dangerous thing in December of 1962 when we asked for interim supply for the tenth month. That was shocking then but now the government is asking for the same thing for the eleventh month. I hope to be here in my place when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) has to come and beg this house to grant him supply in the form of a blank cheque for the eleventh month.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He will require a blank cheque for expenditures for the eleventh month of the fiscal year.

February 1. 1966
Supply-Mr. Churchill


Some hon. Members:: Shocking.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the Liberal party look back at its experience in 1962-63 and its failure to co-operate then?
We are now in this position, Mr. Speaker. We can accept the advice that was offered by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) to the Liberal party in July, 1962 when he wrote two articles for the Winnipeg Free Press. He showed by those articles that the failure to grant interim supply would bring about the downfall of the government, dissolution and an election.


An hon. Member:: Irresponsible.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That was irresponsible, but that course of action is open to this house right now. A failure to grant interim supply for the month of February would, according to the Minister of Transport, compel the government to relinquish its position and refer the matter to the people. That was the policy advocated by the Liberal party at that time. I am reliably informed that the closest adviser to the Prime Minister at that time told members of the press gallery that it was the purpose of the Liberal party to force us to go to the country when we had to ask for interim supply for the eleventh month. That is the prospect that will face the government next month. Of course, we will hear from some of their supporters who will say that this is not right because we are here to carry out the business of the country.
I heard those words from the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) on February 4, 1963. He said before the supper hour: We are going to co-operate with the government. After the supper hour he had changed his mind, not for the reason that was given by the member at that time for York South. It was not a change of mind because of something he had eaten but because of directions he had received from a higher authority. If the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) would disclose here in the House of Commons so it could be recorded on Hansard what he told us behind the curtains and in the lobby we would then have an accurate account of what happened to the hon. member for Red Deer during the supper interval from six to eight o'clock on February 4, 1963.
This is the tenuous thread on which the government is existing at the present time. When interim supply is asked for next week for the eleventh month, what is the hon. member for Red Deer going to say? He will say that we are here to get on with the

business of the country, that the people have sent us here for that purpose. During the election the people never realized that the balance of power was going to rest in the hands of the hon. member for Red Deer or they certainly would not have acted as they did. A return to the country to get different advice might be very acceptable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before another speaker is heard, perhaps I might ask for the direction of the house as to the way in which they want the business of today conducted. In a statement made by the government house leader last Friday evening he said, as reported at page 420 of Hansard:
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-[DOT]
I should now like to refer the house to citation 234(2) of Beauchesne, page 199, where it is stated:
It often happens, on the motion that the Speaker leave the Chair for committee of supply, that members air grievances without moving amendments.
Later in that same paragraph it is stated:
Once debate is concluded on one matter and another matter intervenes, members cannot again discuss the former.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I should now ask the hon. member who just rose to speak whether he intends to speak on the same topic referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and, if not, I would ask if there are other members who wish to speak on that topic.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, when the members of this party agreed to the limitation of time and to waiving our right to move an amendment we were given the assurance by the Minister of Public Works, the house leader for the government, and I understand it was agreed by the leaders of all the various parties in the house, that the provision which Your Honour has just read, requiring that each speaker follow the subject matter introduced by the previous speaker, should be waived in this particular debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That was certainly our understanding, and I must confess that I am at a loss that Your Honour has not been so informed by the house leader for the government.
February 1, 1966


Mr. Fairwealher:: Favreau forgot.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We would consider that any departure from that practice would be a breach of faith and we would take a very dim view of any attempt to alter what was an arrangement between the parties.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That was the understanding of our party, Mr. Speaker. It has been accurately expressed by the hon. member.


Mr. Benson:: This is quite agreeable to the government, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I now take it that the normal procedure on grievances is not to be followed. If this is the instruction of the house, I shall be very pleased to follow it. Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for York South.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I know that we, in this house, are here to study and try to solve numerous domestic problems as well as problems related to federalism and poverty. There are more than pockets of poverty here and there and everyone knows that millions of Canadians are forced to live in misery in all provinces, in all ridings, in short, in all cities of Canada.
I know also that we must face other domestic problems. Nevertheless, in view of recent events, it is important, in my opinion, to speak today about the dangerous war which is going on in Viet Nam.

Mr. Speaker, my first words on that subject, and I pick them carefully, are to say that we of the New Democratic party regret and condemn the resumption of the bombing of North Viet Nam by the United States. We condemn that action as unfortunate and reckless since it is likely to postpone for many years the possibility of a negotiated settlement.
I have noticed since being in this house and also from reading reports outside the house that every time one seeks to criticize American policy in Viet Nam one is accused by spokesmen for the government of being irresponsible. Indeed, it reminds me of a statement made some months ago in the
Supply-Mr. Lewis
opening words of an article by Professor Hans J. Morgenthau:
It illuminates the many misunderstandings that beset our Viet Nam policy that in order to criticize that policy in public one has first to justify one's right to do so.
I do not propose to justify my right and the right of my colleagues in the New Democratic party to criticize American policy. We consider it a fundamental right of anyone in Canada and particularly those of us who have the opportunity to serve in this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we reject categorically the proposition that friendship toward a powerful neighbour means subservience. We assert that genuine friendship toward any nation shows a much deeper and greater respect when the person showing that friendship has the courage and the wisdom to point out his neighbour's errors.
We know, as every member in this house knows, that Canada's membership in the western alliance is natural and right and that American leadership of that alliance is natural and inevitable. But these facts lead to the conclusion that American actions anywhere are of immediate and direct concern to us in Canada as they are to the people of every other nation of the alliance. To take refuge, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) did yesterday, in the proposition that we are not directly involved in the war in Viet Nam and that we must therefore leave it to them who are is an escape from reality and a disservice to the integrity and purpose of the western alliance.
It has always seemed to me, Mr. Speaker, that there is a very urgent reason why Canada in particular should speak out forthrightly and with determination on these international subjects. We have had a great reservoir of good will among the new nations of the world in Africa and Asia. That good will stems from the fact that we are a nation without the stigma of colonial rule or economic domination over other peoples. This has enabled us to play an invaluable role in international affairs.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, to hon. members and particularly to the ministers of the crown that this reservoir of good will will be depleted if our role in international affairs is merely that of a satellite of one of the big powers. I share the pride which all Canadians share in the part which our Prime Minister played recently in the conference in



February 1, 1966
Supply-Mr. Lewis
Lagos on Rhodesia, a conference which began in division and ended in understanding. It would be a great pity, I suggest, if that good will were dissipated by perpetuating the kind of unnecessary timidity that our government displays in other directions.
Government spokesmen have informed the house that they have let American leaders know Canada's position on the escalation of the war in Viet Nam. All I can say is that if the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and other representatives of Canada expressed themselves in Washington in the same tepid, timid, uninspired and uninspiring tones which they have used in explaining their position on the floor of this house, no wonder Washington paid no attention to what they had to say.
When we are discussing the war in Viet Nam I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that we have to consider and answer the following four questions. First, how did the United States intervention in Viet Nam first occur? Second, what are the purposes and objectives of that intervention? Third, are those purposes, if we can find out what they are, desirable in the total picture? Fourth, are they attainable through military action in Viet Nam?
It is important, sir, to recall the early events because myths have been built up about American participation in Viet Nam. Thus, President Johnson in his State of the Union message in January, 1965, said:
We are there-
That is to say, in Viet Nam:
-first because a friendly nation has asked us for help against Communist aggression. Ten years ago we pledged our help. Three Presidents have supported that pledge. We will not break it.
That is what President Johnson said. On April 7, 1965, he elaborated on that by saying:
Why are we in South Viet Nam? We are there because we have a promise to keep. Since 1954 every American President has offered support to the people of South Viet Nam.
And so on. I say with the greatest respect that this myth enunciated by President Johnson takes liberties with historical fact. The United States entered the picture in Viet Nam away back in 1947 by trying to assist in the war that the French were losing.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
In any case, the first offer of help to South Viet Nam was made by President Eisenhower to the late President Diem and was contained in a letter from the former to the latter dated

October 23, 1954. As set out in the Congressional Record of January 14, 1966, President Eisenhower said the following among other things:
Your recent requests for aid to assist in the formidable project of the movement of several hundred thousand loyal Vietnamese citizens away from areas which are passing under a de facto rule and political ideology which they abhor are being fulfilled. I am glad that the United States is able to assist in this humanitarian effort.
Later in that letter President Eisenhower said:
We have been exploring ways and means to permit our aid to Viet Nam to be more effective and to make a greater contribution to the welfare and stability of the government of Viet Nam.
Still further on the President said:
The purpose of this offer is to assist the government of Viet Nam in developing and maintaining a strong, viable state capable of resisting attempted subversion or aggression through military means.
No suggestion anywhere in that letter, Mr. Speaker, of military participation by the United States. At that time there were only some 300 or 400 United States military advisers in Viet Nam. Indeed, on February 10, 1954, President Eisenhower is reported to have stated that he-
-could conceive no greater tragedy than for the United States to become involved in all-out war in Indochina.
This is the state into which President Johnson said he was invited by a government. Let us see what another President of the United States, the late President Kennedy, said on September 2, 1963. These were his words:
In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it-the people of Viet Nam-against the communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last two months the government has gotten out of touch with the people.
The late President could have added that in the last few years the government of the late Diem had gotten out of touch with the people of Viet Nam. However, President Kennedy had increased the number of military advisers in Viet Nam from some few hundred to about 15,000. There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the mind of any other objective observer, that this build-up of so-called military advisers from the United States to 15,000 or more must have stimulated the build-up of North Vietnamese military help. No doubt about it, this was escalation of the war by the United States.
February X, 1966

Let us leave all the fancy words and invalid myths alone and face what happened in Viet Nam. Despite the expenditure of billions of dollars by the United States the Viet Cong continued to register victory. The government of South Viet Nam became poor and weak. President Diem was assassinated and there followed a period of instability. It was in that context, in that situation of the disintegration of the government of South Viet Nam and the failure of that government to achieve military victory, that the United States entered the war in force. And in February, 1965, the bombing of North Viet Nam began.
I say it is utterly absurd and a misreading of the relevant facts to pretend that the United States military intervention in Viet Nam was the result of an invitation from a friendly government. I have no doubt but that the unstable, fearful government of South Viet Nam was glad to welcome United States military intervention, but the effective demand for it was made by certain quarters in Washington and by the United States military leaders in Saigon rather than the people of Viet Nam. It was, Mr. Speaker, a selfinduced invitation, so tragically characteristic of every Big Power intervention in history.
The United States intervened, and what has it said are its objectives? Its objectives, Mr. Speaker, are stated in various ways and appear to be completely irreconcilable when stated by different members of the President's cabinet. The Secretary of State for the United States has generally taken the position that the United States military mission in Viet Nam is there solely for the purpose of protecting the independence of the people of Viet Nam. The Secretary of Defence of the United States has stated a different objective. He has said:
-the choice is not simply whether to continue our efforts to keep South Viet Nam free and independent, but rather, whether to continue our struggle to halt communist expansion in Asia.
My colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), pointed out these irreconcilable statements to the house the other day. Of course, if you are in Viet Nam merely for the purpose of protecting the independence of the people of Viet Nam, then you have said that you have undertaken a limited war which will be ended immediately some kind of peace settlement is reached in Viet Nam. If you take the second view, that your reason for being in South Viet Nam is to fight communism in Asia, then in effect you have undertaken to retain your forces in
Supply-Mr. Lewis
South Viet Nam indefinitely. The two objectives, therefore, are entirely irreconcilable. Indeed, as Professor Morgenthau has pointed out, this thoughtless, this reckless attempt to contain Chinese communism by peripheral engagement is bound to fail. It may be that in some minds the real intention is to provoke a war with China itself, with all the terrible consequences that would follow therefrom.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, the pretention that the United States is now in South Viet Nam in order to protect the independence of the country is in direct contradiction to the Geneva agreement of 1954. I point this out to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in view of something he said at another time. The Geneva agreement of 1954, and I ask hon. members to bear this in mind when listening to the unhappy propaganda from south of the line as echoed in this house by representatives of the government, states in section 6:
The conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Viet Nam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary.
In section 7 without taking the time to read it, there is provision for a free general election to take place by July, 1956, for the purpose of uniting that country if the people of that country should so wish. When 1956 came the government of South Viet Nam, the United States and the government of North Viet Nam all feared the results of free elections and they were not held.
May I point out also that although the government of the United States was not a signatory to the agreement to which I have just referred, it made a unilateral declaration. Mr. Walter Bedell Smith made a unilateral declaration on behalf of the United States on July 21, 1954, and amongst other things the United States government stood by the declarations of the agreement in paragraph 1, namely, to refrain from the threat of the use of force.
Listen to these words in the light of what has happened and what is happening today in that unhappy part of the world: The United States would-
-view any renewal of the aggression in violation of the aforesaid agreements with grave concern and as seriously threatening international peace and security.

February 1, 1966
Supply-Mr. Lewis
In connection with the statement in the declaration concerning free elections the United States said:
In the case of nations now divided against their will, we shall continue to seek to achieve unity through free elections, supervised by the United Nations to ensure that they are conducted fairly.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
This was the agreement. This was the declaration by the United States in 1954. To take the position now that there is a de facto division which must remain forever in Viet Nam is clearly a contradiction of that undertaking. This cynicism I say, with great respect, Mr. Speaker, is compounded today when it is declared by the President of the United States that that country is prepared to negotiate for peace on the basis of the Geneva agreement in one breath and in the next breath declares that South Viet Nam must remain independent and separate. You cannot have both. You either have the Geneva agreement, in which case there are free elections in both North and South Viet Nam, or you are going to have a completely new agreement, which may well be and in the present situation probably is the only result that can be achieved today, at least for the time being.
The most tragic fact and the main reason why so many of us are unhappy about United States policy, and by that I mean United States policy in Viet Nam, is that all the best information indicates that it is almost certain to fail. Thus we have the famous Mansfield report, a report made after Senator Mansfield, the majority leader in the United States Senate and a number of other senators had spent some weeks investigating the situation on the spot. American intervention and bombing had gone on for more than one year and some 10 months when this report was made, but in it Senator Mansfield states:
-the over-all control of the country remains about the same as it was at the beginning of 1965.
Before United States military intervention, and before the bombing of North Viet Nam-


Mr. Valade:: Is it a majority report?


David Lewis: There is only one report. There is no majority or minority; there is only one report from all members of the delegation.
Then the report goes further and says:
In general, however, what the Saigon government held in the way of terrain in the early months of 1965-

I ask hon. members to note the following parenthesis:
- (and it was already considerably less than was held at the time of the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem), is still held. What was controlled then by the Viet Cong is still controlled by the Viet Cong. What lay between was contested at the outset of 1965 and is still contested.
In simple English, despite the escalation of the war, despite the bombing of Viet Nam, there has been no progress at all in Viet Nam. The situation was then as bad for the United States side as it had been at the beginning of 1965. And why is that, Mr. Speaker? The report indicates the reason. At another spot the report says:
In so far as the military situation is concerned, the large scale introduction of United States forces and their entry into combat has blunted but not turned back the drive of the Viet Cong. The latter have responded to the increased American role with a further strengthening of their forces by local recruitment in the south and reinforcements from the north and a general stepping up of military activity. As a result the lines remain drawn in South Viet Nam in substantially the same pattern as they were at the outset of the increased U.S. commitment. What has changed basically is the scope and intensity of the struggle and the part which is being played by the forces of the United States and those of North Viet Nam.
And at another spot in the report there is this most important, and significant statement:
In short, such choices as may be open are not simple choices. They are difficult and painful choices and they are beset with many imponderables. The situation, as it now appears, offers only the very slim prospect of a just settlement by negotiations or the alternative prospect of a continuance of the conflict in the direction of a general war on the Asian mainland.
That is where, in the opinion of Senator Mansfield and his associates, the present United States policy in Viet Nam may lead us.
It is clear to me, Mr. Speaker, that the military do not believe either that they can win the war in Viet Nam by using the present forces. It may well be that they deliberately intend a massive escalation that may endanger the whole of Asia.
I want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that not one of us in the New Democratic party has any illusions about the objectives of Communist China or about the objective of Ho Chi Minh in North Viet Nam. Nobody in this house has to tell members of this party of the importance of countering Communist aggressiveness anywhere in the world.
The argument is not whether Communist aims should be appropriately countered but how this can be done most successfully and
February 1, 1966

most effectively. I do not pretend to be an expert any more than anyone else does. However, I respectfully suggest that the escalation of the war in North Viet Nam is a dangerous and probably the most ineffective way of countering Communist expansion in Asia. Indeed, it has even seemed to me, as it has been pointed out by many commentators, that it may be self-defeating as far as that purpose is concerned.
It seems to be clear to me that Chinese leaders must be delighted with the United States escalation. The indignation which Chinese leaders show is in my view entirely contrived. I am confident that the leaders of China greet with joy the opportunity of painting the American "imperialists" in the lurid colours that they delight in painting such accusations in their propaganda.
The Mansfield report in another place points out the apprehension felt in many Asiatic countries and among many Asian peoples as the result of the escalation of the war in Viet Nam. In my view, and I say this with respect and conviction, it is not an exaggeration to say that the United States escalation of the war in Viet Nam is actually assisting the spread of Communism in Asia, and in Africa, rather than containing it.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this United States policy is placing the Soviet Union in an impossible position precisely at a time when the Soviet bloc and the western bloc are drawing closer together, when there is a real opportunity to bring about a thaw in the cold war. It must be obvious to anyone, it seems to me, that the pressures on the Soviet Union to assist North Viet Nam in view of the United States bombing attacks must be tremendous. It is equally obvious that the Soviet Union cannot for long maintain its halfhearted assistance to North Viet Nam without forfeiting to the Chinese Communists leadership in many parts of the world. Is this a wise foreign policy when it results in jeopardizing the first opportunity for some kind of real entente with the Soviet Union? Is this the way to counter an expanding and aggressive Chinese Communism?
These reasons, I submit, are cogent reasons for criticizing the policy of the United States at the present time. I add that it is particularly important to do so at the present time inasmuch as in the United States itself there is growing opposition to the policies of the administration. The revolt of a large group of senators and other political leaders in the United States is of great significance.
Supply-Mr. Lewis
The foreign relations committee chaired by Senator Fulbright questioned the Secretary of State of that country the other day. During the questioning Senator Fulbright said that it had to be determined whether the current United States position in Viet Nam was the result of stepping into a colonial war on the wrong side.
Senator Clarke, at the same session, said: "Personally, I am scared to death that we are on the way to world war three". And Senator Gore added that "many people do not believe, and many members of congress do not believe, that the dangers of nuclear war with China and Russia implicit in the Viet Nam fighting are worth the effort". These Senators spoke for an increasing number of Americans.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
There is a growing understanding among more and more people that the basis for the war in Viet Nam was founded upon a civil war. In a speech to the United States Senate on January 14 last Senator Young of Ohio made the following statement, and I want to quote it verbatim because it seems to me terribly significant. He said:
From September 28 to last October 20-
That would be last year.
-I was in southeast Asia most of the time. I went, looked, and listened. Very soon I learned we are involved in a civil war over there. In South Viet Nam I was at every airbase except one-travelling through the entire area by helicopter, airplane, and jeep. It was my considered judgment that South Viet Nam is of no strategic importance whatever to the defence of the United States. Furthermore, the fact is that the conflict raging in Viet Nam is a civil war. General Westmorland stated to me that the bulk of the Viet Cong fighting in South Viet Nam were born and reared in South Viet Nam. General Stilwell, in Thailand, went further. He stated that 80 per cent of the Viet Cong fighting in the Mekong Delta area south of Saigon, were bom and reared in that area. They were not infiltrators or Communists from the north.
I do not deny that there is not ample evidence that there has been some infiltration from the north. It is the nature of communism to take advantage of every disturbance in every area of discontent, and it would have been silly to expect that North Viet Nam and China would not take advantage of the civil war in Viet Nam. But basically this was a civil war in its beginning and because of that it is impossible for the armies of the United States to win the present war against the Viet Cong. This is the reason the guerilla fighting goes on with such devotion and courage and it is why the Viet Cong, it is almost

February 1, 1966
Supply-Mr. Lewis
universally agreed, has the support of the people on the farms and in the villages of South Viet Nam.
We, Mr. Speaker, like the rest of the world, greeted with relief and hope the pause in the fighting which President Johnson called some time ago. We all hoped that the peace offensive would succeed. But all of us knew that it would not be easy to get the parties to the conference table. No one thought it could be done in the first month of the try. Indeed, Mr. Walter Lippman stated in an article a few days ago that he thought the peace offensive was bound, temporarily, to fail.
I put on record now part of a statement issued on January 16 by the federal council of the New Democratic party on the subject of Viet Nam. We said in that statement that "it would be a tragedy if lack of early success in the search for negotiations were used as an excuse to intensify or to continue the war." That tragedy, Mr. Speaker, has occurred. Bombing of North Viet Nam by the United States has been resumed despite the fact that many responsible people, including the Pope and spokemen in congress in the United States, believed that the search for peace should have continued, and also despite the fact that the President admitted on January 13 at a press conference that military activity in the Vietnamese war by the other side had been reduced some.
The plea for a further search for peace was made with typical restraint in an editorial in the New York Times of January 30, an editorial which concluded, as my friend the hon. member for Greenwood pointed out the other day, with these sentences:
Neither the possibilities for peace nor the exercise of diplomatic ingenuity have been exhausted. The resumption of the bombing of North Viet Nam now would sacrifice still greater diplomatic assets for relatively minor military gains.
This is what the resumption of bombing of North Viet Nam has meant, and this is why I respectfully say that it may well mean a postponement for years of the possibility of a peaceable settlement.
At the same time as the United States has intensified its war effort on North Viet Nam it has brought the matter before the Security Council of the United Nations this morning. Let me suggest in passing that if Russia or China had ever come to the Security Council in a search for peace at the same moment as they had intensified a war, Washington would have been the first to accuse them of insincerity and cynicism. An editorial in today's

Le Devoir states it more politely. The editorial says in part:

It may be assumed that the White House took this second initiative in order to soften the impact felt by the world because of the resumption of bombings, and also to satisfy in part the enemies of escalation. The "hawks" are placated by the resumption of bombings while the "doves" are offered what may in some respects be considered a continuation of the peace offensive.

This kind of cynicism, Mr. Speaker, is unforgiveable in a great country like the United States.
Despite one's fears and doubts, and these are my final words, about the approach to the Security Council, we in the New Democratic party nevertheless hope that the Security Council of the United Nations will utilize this opportunity to take the initiative to seek a settlement before it is too late. I understand from speaking to members of the press that this morning the Soviet and French delegates opposed any action by the Security Council. May I express regret that they did so and suggest that instead of opposing any action by the Security Council of the United Nations they would have better served the world and peace if they had required the United States to stop its bombing of North Viet Nam forthwith as a condition for the United Nations entering into any action to seek a settlement. I hope that this will still be done and that the United Nations will take any and all steps to bring all interested parties, including the National Liberation Front, North Viet Nam and China, to the conference table.
I appeal to the government to be more firm and more forthright, in speaking for this parliament and for this country, in trying to persuade our friend and ally to the south of the folly of its present policies. Such a forthright appeal would strengthen the hands of the responsible elements in the United States and again awaken the respect and the good will in the nations of the world toward Canada, particularly in Asia and Africa.
At all events, whatever may be the immediate results, it is our duty to speak out against the reckless military adventure in Viet Nam, an adventure which not only prolongs and intensifies the suffering of the unfortunate Vietnamese but also menaces the peace of the world and the cause of democracy in Asia. It is impossible, surely, for the Asians to regard the war in Viet Nam as anything other than a war between the whites and the Asians. With the United States armed forces now numbering some
February 1, 1966

200,000	and likely to go to 300,000 or 400,000, the U.S. participation is becoming that of conducting a full-scale war without a declaration of war against North Viet Nam, carrying with it the danger of a world holocaust in the present terrible age of nuclear destruction.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, this is the first statement made by the hon. gentleman since he returned to the membership of this house. We have always admired in the past his capacity for exposition and speech, and we have no less justification for our admiration of these accomplishments today than we have had on other occasions. He is, of course, justified in raising what undoubtedly is one of the important matters facing the world at the present time, and I do not for one moment take issue with his raising this question today, even though shortly there will be a fuller opportunity for doing so.
It seems to me that there are one or two observations which one should make as Secretary of State for External Affairs to obviate any misunderstanding were I not to make some acknowledgement of the speech which has just been made.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
One had the impression as the hon. gentleman was speaking that his indictment had to do not only with the government of the United States but with the government of Canada. One had the impression that the hon. gentleman regarded Canada as a belligerent in the war in Viet Nam.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: There was no interruption when the hon. gentleman was speaking and I am sure I will be given the same treatment. One had the impression that the hon. gentleman was identifying Canadian policy fully with the foreign policy of the United States in this area.
The hon. gentleman will, I hope, do me the honour of examining the statement I made in the External Affairs Committee early in June of last year. If I do not go over all the points the hon. member made it is because many of them were dealt with in considerable detail during the course of that statement.
I rise at this moment, however, to say that the hon. gentleman does Canada, perhaps unintentionally, an injustice when he seems to say that the policy of Canada is no different from that of the United States. There are fundamental differences between the policy
Supply-Hon. P. Martin of Canada and the policy of the United States with regard to this matter. All one has to do is examine the 1962 majority report of the International Commission on which Canada serves with India and Poland in order to find a demonstration of what I have said. Likewise I would recall to the hon. member that on February 17, 1965, Canada appended a minority report to the majority report then proposed by our colleagues on the commission, India and Poland. We submitted this minority report not because we took exception to the majority report but because we thought that since it was confined to air strikes in the north the majority report did not present a balanced picture of the facts. But if anyone wants evidence of our independence of judgment and of decision I ask him to note the findings of the majority report of 1962 wherein Canada joined with India in a citation of acts which we felt were in violation of the Geneva agreement, acts committed not only by the north but by the south and by the country which had been asked under article 51 of the United Nations charter to assist South Viet Nam in defending itself against aggression and against infiltration from the north.
So the record is clear that Canada has passed judgment, a judgment based on 11 years experience in Indochina on three commissions, those in Cambodia and in Laos as well as that in Viet Nam. The hon. gentleman has said that our resistance to some developments in United States foreign policy was lacking in vigour, that it was not as active as it should have been. He is an experienced lawyer. He knows a good bit about international problems. He is among the last in this house who should suggest that the most effective way of expressing disagreement with a neighbour, particularly one associated in an alliance, is necessarily by making wide, unlimited accusations in public. There are more effective ways of expressing one's opinion than by publicly criticizing a country with which Canada is so much in agreement and for which Canada has such great admiration, a country, moreover, with which Canada has such close economic ties and other interests. I suggest we would do disservice to the promulgation of a sound foreign policy by resorting to irresponsible public criticism instead of to the methods by which the government is now making its views known to the government of the United States, views which have been made known even within very recent hours and days.

February 1, 1966
Supply-Hon. P. Martin
I do not want the hon. gentleman's words to be construed as meaning that we have stood by without finding occasion to express disagreement or for expressing the hope that particular policies might be transformed into solutions which have been proposed.
The hon. gentleman said not a word about other friendly governments which give strong support to the position taken by the United States. Not one word was said by the hon. gentleman about the position taken by Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom. Yet the statement made by the government of that country within the last few hours with regard to resumption of bombing was certainly more extended than the expression of regret which was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and likewise by myself when I spoke in Toronto yesterday.
It is important to recall what the Prime Minister said and what I indicated when I spoke before the Canadian Club in Toronto. I indicated we had hoped it would be possible for the United States to continue the pause at any rate until such time as it was clear that a re-assessment was not being made in Hanoi as to the good intentions of the government of the United States. We did so in case there was some reason to believe that Hanoi might begin to entertain an offer of peace negotiations.
We had good reason for taking the positions we took, positions I am reaffirming now. Perhaps they were not the correct positions in the light of all the facts that are coming to light. But this was our view and we unhesitatingly said so.
Another omission in the speech made by the hon. gentleman was this: I do not think he said one word about the efforts of the United States to bring about negotiations. This may have been something which the hon. member forgot to say.


David Lewis: No. I said it.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: The hon. member tells us he said it. I do not recall him doing so. But if he says so, I will accept that he did.


David Lewis: I greeted every effort.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: The hon. gentleman says he greeted every effort at negotiation. But I think it is important to note that after the appeal made by the 17 non-aligned countries the President of the United States did say he welcomed the appeal and was

prepared to negotiate without any preconditions whatsoever. It is also pertinent to observe that Canada was the first to welcome the essentials of that appeal.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Let there be no mistake about what our position has been from the beginning. We urged a ceasefire. We urged that there be peace negotiations. We said that this particular problem could not be solved by military methods alone and we applauded the position taken by the President of the United States in welcoming the appeal that had been made by the 17 non-aligned nations. It is significant that that appeal was responded to by the United States within two days of its having been made public.
Since that time we have been assured by the United States, and they have given evidence of this fact, that they would welcome any initiative, any proposal, any effort that would be made by any country, by any group of countries, by any organization to try and bring about peace talks between the disputants in this situation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And they resumed the bombing to encourage that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says they resumed the bombing, but I ask him to be patient. Whether one fully approves of the method or not, the fact is that when the bombing was stopped the President of the United States asked his Vice President, his Secretary of State, his ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Harriman, an experienced citizen of the United States learned in foreign affairs, and others to engage with friends and with others in seeing if there could not be set in motion a kind of stimulus that would bring about peace talks.
What has been the response to this effort? What has been the response to the efforts of the Secretary General of the United Nations? What has been the response of the 17 nona-ligned nations not tied in with the west in any way and many of them having close ideological communities of interest with some of the countries on the other side? What has been the response to all of these efforts?
What was the response of the British government, one of the co-chairmen of the Geneva conference, to the calling of a conference on Viet Nam, on Laos and on Cambodia? What has been the response to the efforts that this country has made, alone and in concert with others? I can assure my hon.
February I, 1966

friend that our efforts have been considerable. Some of them have been put on the record and others will have to await until the appropriate time for full exposure and explanation.
But my hon. friend said nothing about these efforts at negotiation. My hon. friend criticizes the government of Canada. I am sure he has not forgotten the efforts Canada made at the last General Assembly. There were some countries that were reluctant to see the whole question of Viet Nam discussed in the General Assembly. Canada was not among those countries. Canada said that we had to get down to the business of the United Nations, that we had to forget the procedural difficulty over Article 19 and deal with substantive measures, and we said one of the substantive measures was the situation in Viet Nam. We urged all the countries in the organization to exert whatever pressure they could on the parties concerned in Viet Nam, having as the objective the beginning of peace talks.
My hon. friend made no reference whatsoever to all of these efforts except, as he said a moment ago, and I accept the correction, that he did make a general reference to the fact that there had been welcome efforts at mediation, but his expression of gratification in that particular certainly deserved a more extended and greater place in the plan of his address than some of the other observations he made.
I repeat again that we believe this question cannot be resolved by military means alone. We have said that from the beginning. We welcome the effort of the United States to negotiate without any conditions. When I made this statement last spring, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam denied that the President of the United States had made an offer to negotiate without preconditions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I still do.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: He asked what about the pre-condition of the United States forces continuing in Viet Nam. I agree that that is a condition, but it must be obvious it is the kind of condition the American government could not waive in the face of the situation that now presents itself to Viet Nam as well as to Thailand, and to neighbouring countries like India, and island countries like New Zealand, Australia and the Philippines.
But I feel my hon. friend, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, has reversed his position in that regard, unless I am doing him
Supply-Hon. P. Martin an injustice. He said last spring that the U.S. forces should leave Viet Nam but, if I am correct, during the course of the summer, I think during the course of the election, he said he was not arguing that the United States troops should leave Viet Nam at the present time. I can say to him that there are many countries which are violently opposed to the present escalation but which would not seriously urge that at the present time the forces of the United States should leave.


An hon. Member:: Nor do we.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend
says "Nor do we."


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understand the minister is speaking off the cuff and has not had time to document his remarks but I cannot allow him to put words in my mouth. The pre-condition which I said the President imposed in this matter is not that of United States troops staying in Southeast Asia, but the President insists that South Viet Nam must remain as an independent foreign power and this, of course, would require practically permanent occupation.
May I say also that the minister has quoted me as having said the U.S. troops should leave Viet Nam. If he takes the trouble to read the speech I made in the house last May he will see I pointed out very clearly that, in our opinion, we believe it would be impossible to withdraw U.S. forces until a peace keeping force was put there to supervise free elections.


Mr. Martin (Essex Easl):: I do not propose to take any more time of the house. I welcome that explanation by the leader of the N.D.P. I simply want to state again that there has been a serious offer for negotiation. Every attempt has been made to get a response from the other side. This attempt has been made by friends of the United States, those who belong to the NATO alliance as well as by those who are outside that alliance, many of whom belong to what we call the non-aligned group.
Today as my hon. friend said, the Security Council is seized with this matter as the result of an initiative taken by the United States and the United States has proposed, I presume in answer to the appeal made by the Pope, that neutral nations might be willing to accept the responsibility and the role of adjudicating on the competing claims of those vitally involved in the situation in Viet Nam.

February 1. 1966
Supply-Hon. P. Martin
It may be too much to hope that countries that are not in the United Nations, countries that are not subject to its authority, would be willing to accept the arbitral award of member states of the organization. Nevertheless, if those involved in this situation in Viet Nam were willing to accept the mediation, the good offices of neutral powers, this would be a forward step, and the acceptance of this idea is not only implicit but is explicit in the resolution presented this morning to the Security Council of the United Nations by the United States.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
But, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman does his country an unintentional injustice when he says we are parroting the propaganda line of the United States.


David Lewis: Not my country, my government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Your government is not parroting a line of the United States.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is not proper nor desirable that any government should assume to itself the role of the entire country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. I do not believe there is a point of order in the hon. gentleman's intervention at this time. The minister should be allowed to
of an argument to answer the hon. gentleman, but I say it would be as fair to leave that impression as to suggest to this house in coming to these conclusions on this vital matter, which affects the peace of the world and our relations with the United States, a matter that has such great consequences for the future, that this government was lacking in its responsibilities by simply relying upon the judgment of a friendly neighbour.
The government of Britain has taken a strong position in fully supporting the United States, and that represents an honest conviction and assessment of that government. Our position with regard to this matter, largely because we are on the International Commission, has not been as fully in support of the United States position as that of the government of Britain. Nevertheless, the government of Britain and the government of Canada have a responsibility to look at these situations in the light not only of the particular problem but in the totality of our relationships. How would it serve the cause of peace if we were as a government, without restraint, to ignore completely the rich opportunity of private diplomacy and to publicly condemn in every particular a government of a country-the United States

whose basic purpose and foreign policy are dedicated to the preservation of peace in the world?
Some. hon. Members: Hear, hear.
continue his remarks.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want to assure my hon. friend that I had no malice aforethought in my observation, because I tried to deal with a very serious subject as objectively as I could.
I do want to indicate to him that the government of this country, in respect of the positions it has taken in this matter, has reached its conclusion as a result of its own assessments based upon its contacts with different governments all over the world. We based our judgment on consultations with the United States, with Britain and other countries, of course, but whether right or wrong the judgment we reached, I assure my hon. friend, is a Canadian government judgment.	,	,,
It would be as unfair for the hon. gentleman to persist in a contrary view as it would be for me to say that all utterances which he made today were likewise not expressions of his own views but the views of others who do not agree with the position taken by the United States or by Canada. I am not making that charge. I do not have to make that kind


Paul Joseph James Martin: Even at this date Canada continues along with other countries to do what it can to try to bring about negotiations. An attempt is being made in many quarters, even while the Security Council now sits, not only by members with whom we share the same responsibilities in NATO but other countries which are outside NATO, countries which may be presumed to have a closer association with Hanoi and with Peking, to bring about negotiations. We shall continue, as I am sure they will, in trying to bring about some talks that might lead to some settlement of this regrettable and tragic situation in the divided country of Viet Nam.
I wish there was a role for the United Nations, and I wish there was a greater opportunity for the Secretary General to play even a more productive role in this matter than he has been able to play in spite of heroic efforts.
I want simply to say to this house that the government of Canada will continue to do what it can to bring about discussions which might lead to some settlement of this problem. We have tried to do this through the commis-

February 1, 1966

sion. Last June I instructed the representative of Canada on the commission to go to Hanoi for the very purpose of finding out what its reaction to the pause might be-a pause prompted in large measure by a suggestion made by the Prime Minister of this country when he made a speech at Temple University in Philadelphia last spring. We shall continue this course. I hope that we can continue to try to bring about some negotiation in this matter so that the four points of Hanoi may be discussed, so that the 14 points of the United States may be discussed, so that there can be an end brought to the hostilities in that divided country.
I do feel that I owe to the government and to the people of this country a responsibility to say at the first opportunity that Canada's policy is her own and that Canada's policy is a peace directed policy based upon an understanding of the problems facing the United States. It is all very well for us in this house to take issue with the United States when all the facts are not before us. Let none of us in this house forget that in the uncertain world in which we live, if it were not for the strength of the United States, if it were not for her tremendous military and associated power, we might not have been able to maintain the peace thus far. I hope all of us will recognize that this is a difficult matter. I hope all of us will recognize that while we have the right, indeed the duty, to express our views on this subject, we ought to be able to do so without seeking to monopolize a sincerity of interest in the great objectives that must animate all people in their desire to pursue peace.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard a conference or travelogue on Viet Nam, or a history lesson, so to speak, which gave us the opportunity of hearing the very interesting remarks of the member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and the reply of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin).
Two parties are now fighting each other in Viet Nam: the South and the North. It is not a one-way street. The Vietnamese question confuses many people everywhere in Canada. In fact, we often meet people who know something about history, about war, in short, about everything, who tell us: The situation
Supply-Mr. Caouette
is so muddled up, so vague, there is so much controversy that we don't know what to believe.
Is the United States right? Do the Russians not dabble a little too much in the problems of North Viet Nam? Should we, as the minister said a while ago, always blame the United States because that country maintains armed forces in South Viet Nam?
Is the United States right when it says that it wants to avoid war or a third world war by maintaining forces in South Viet Nam?
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe-and I do not intend to deal at great length with the Vietnamese problem this afternoon-that the United States is not the only country interfering in Viet Nam at the present time.
The Chinese and Russians are also interfering. And when we, of the Canadian parliamentary delegation, visited Russia last July, Russian leaders kept telling us to use our influence so as to have the United States, the Americans, withdraw from South Viet Nam, but no one ever mentioned the fact that their country was helping organize North Viet Nam or the Viet Cong and supplying them with armaments.
That is why we have taken the stand that if the United States must withdraw from Viet Nam, very well, but the other intervening powers must also withdraw at the same time.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker; there is no translation coming through.


An hon. Member:: It is coming now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I have a
report that it is now coming through.

I ask the hon. member for Villeneuve to proceed with his remarks.


David Réal Caouette: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. This system functions like the present government. That is why hon. members cannot understand the translation.


Mr. Rapp:: There is no translation.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: You are discriminating against we English.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we honestly believe that all foreign powers should withdraw from Viet Nam and leave it to the Vietnamese people to choose for themselves their

February 1, 1966
Supply-Mr. Caouette
way of life, organize themselves in accordance to their aspirations and their customs, and not according to American, Russian, Chinese or Canadian customs.
As the minister said earlier, I am aware that the government is trying to convince the United States to be patient, not to resume bombings in North Viet Nam, and to attempt by all means to negotiate with the proper authorities.
These are laudable efforts by the Canadian government. They may bring long term results. But at this time, when bombings are being resumed in Viet Nam, I feel the government should insist more on negotiations to start at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Speaker, it is not up to the Americans, the Chinese, the Russians or the Canadians to decide for the Vietnamese. No one has full knowledge of what goes on in Viet Nam. But one thing we can be sure of, and that is that right now, in Viet Nam, old people, women, children, mothers of families die every day. For what? For liberty? For security? For the rights and the dignity of the people of that area, the Vietnamese?
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this war, like all other wars is useless. There is so much room in this world for peace, for understanding, for men of goodwill to get together and discuss their respective problems in the greatest mutual respect for each and everyone. It seems to me that we could stop talking about conflicts, not only in Viet Nam, but in all parts of the world. Nowadays, we do not know; we are building a new Tower of Babel; nobody understands anything any longer. A new Tower of Babel yes, exactly, because pride has replaced good faith. Nations are guided by pride, and the people pay for the pride of certain irresponsible leaders who hold absolute power in a great many countries at this time.
Mr. Speaker, as I said a while ago, I do not intend to deal at length with the Viet Nam question.
Today, at noon, I put a question to the future Minister of Manpower (Mr. Marchand) concerning winter works. The Minister was telling us that the total sum requested by the province of Quebec for winter works was $23.7 million and that of that sum, $23.5 million have already been paid. Only $200,000 more would remain to be paid according to the winter works agreement between the federal and the provincial governments.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell hon. members, who probably have to face similar problems in their respective ridings, what is happening in mine.
I get telephone calls from municipalities that are organized and from others that are not but which, nevertheless, benefit from the winter works program. Now, the mayor of such and such a municipality tells me that, for the past six, seven or eight months-in some cases, for the past two years-he has not received the money to pay for the winter works carried out in his municipality and that he called the Quebec Department of Labour to protest or claim the money. You know that our municipalities have to borrow from the bank or the "caisse populaire" and must pay interest.
Now, the answer from Quebec is sure to be that the government in Ottawa did not send the money and is behind in its payments.
Well, each time I got in touch with the federal Department of Labour, I was told that the government in Ottawa had most certainly paid its share to the province of Quebec.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
But the province does not pay those municipalities. Why? Because it must contribute, in all cases, 40 per cent of the cost of winter works carried out by the municipalities, and since it has no money, the province puts off paying the municipalities for winter works and then puts the blame on the federal government.
That is what we wanted to point out to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: It is true.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we would like to know why the federal government does not make an enquiry, when it gives that money to the province of Quebec, to find out if the province really uses that money to pay the municipalities. In other cases, when the municipality submits its projects to the provincial government, the latter, probably in order to minimize the results or to hide a little what is happening keeps the accounts for a few months because it cannot pay the 40 per cent which it undertook to pay and, consequently, delays the projects. Enquiries are then made to the federal government which answers: "We did not get any account or bill from the province". That is true.
February 1, 1966

However, that constitutes an injustice toward our municipalities, our non-incorporated parishes which benefit from such winter works. They are obliged to pay interests for months because the Quebec ministers of municipal affairs or labour do not tell the truth to the municipal authorities.
Mr. Speaker, there are different ways for the provincial government not to pay but the reason is always the one I gave a while ago, namely that the government does not have the money needed to pay the 40 per cent and, moreover, it uses the 50 or 60 per cent that the federal government pays to Quebec on behalf of the municipalities and for months and months that money is used for other things, without the federal government's knowledge.
The minister tells us that he is not aware of that situation and states: "We pay and after that it is none of our business." The same thing happens when we ask: "Do you help the municipalities when they are obliged to borrow?" The minister then answers: "The municipalities do not know it." But not much publicity is done to tell the municipalities how they can get loans that would help them, when they need them so badly. Why is not more publicity done about the benefits that the municipalities could get under the existing federal legislation?
Mr. Speaker, I set aside the matter of winter works for a few minutes to go back to the speech made yesterday by the member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay) whom I now see in his place. In his constructive speech, he told us among other things that Quebec was a special province, that centralization within the national administration was absolutely necessary, that our labour force was inadequate at the present time if we wanted to increase the country's productivity, that he had become aware that incomes were inadequate in his riding-a rather important point-and that access to the labour market was becoming increasingly difficult for unskilled labour.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to his statement that Quebec is a special province, everyone in this house takes pleasure in repeating it. In fact, all we hear is that Quebec is not like the others; that it must be treated differently; that Quebec is a special province, that Quebec is this, that Quebec is that.
Of course, Quebec mentality is a Latin French Canadian mentality. The whole of Canada, outside Quebec, is Anglo-Saxon and the English language has priority there. In
Supply-Mr. Caouette
this regard, I read in the January 29 issue of the newspaper Le Droit the following statement made in Toronto by the former mayor of Ottawa and I quote:
Miss Charlotte Whitton, the former mayor of Ottawa stated that an independent Quebec would be better than a Canada ruled by the French Canadian minority.
In a speech delivered to the Association for lands and farms improvement of Ontario, Dr. Whitton gave a brief outline of Canada of today and tomorrow.
Next year will be the end of the first and last century of confederation, she stated.
She added that the British North America Act advocates justice and that Canada must abide by the conditions of its contract.
Dr. Whitton pointed out that the Quebec population only made up 12 per cent of the whole Canadian population.
The other 88 per cent cannot be expected to hand over control of public services and private businesses to that minority.
You cannot run a nation that way.
If this thing comes to a head, we would be better off with two independent states rather than have a sham state.
Mr. Speaker, it is inconceivable that in 1966 some people still have it in their heads or still think that the French Canadian Quebec minority would like to run practically the whole country or 88 per cent of the population.
Even though we must accept the fact-we accept it and proclaim it in a loud voice-that Quebec is not a province like the others, nevertheless, when Quebec demands something, people think right away that provinces with English majorities, such as Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, are going to be deprived of something.
Such is not the situation in Quebec. For instance, when some provincial ministers are heard to demand the priority of the French language in Quebec, nobody is against it. But what would be the reaction if the priority of French were required in Toronto, Winnipeg, Hamilton or London? We do not ask for such things; we are only asking for what belongs to us. In our province, we do not discriminate against other people.
When I want to speak English in my riding, I speak English. When I want to speak English in Montreal, I speak English. But the fact remains that Quebec is a French province within confederation and it is the only one.
Ontario is an English province. The other provinces of Canada are also English. Are we

February 1, 1966
Supply-Mr. Caouette
trying to impose Quebec's views on the whole population? No, Mr. Speaker. Such is not the case.
There are still narrow-minded people in the country who hamper understanding and agreement between the two ethnic groups, between French and English speaking Canada. We have never asked tor anything of the kind. It is being stated in Toronto that a 12 per cent minority would like to lord it over 88 per cent of Canada's population.
When the fight British Columbia is waging to control the Columbia river development is considered, has it ever occurred to anyone to represent the British Columbia Social Crediters as separatists? No. But as soon as we demand something for Quebec, a hue and cry is raised.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
There is a limit to everything. There must be an end to those charges. The province of Quebec asks for nothing that belongs to others. The province of Quebec asks for the power to administer itself, to mind its own business, to organize on its own the development of its natural resources; that is what the province of Quebec is asking for. It does not want to get the others out of the province; to the contrary. If others can assist in this development, they are welcome in the province. Is there an hon. member, from east or west, who can state that he has been ill-treated in the province of Quebec? Certainly not. Ideas like that are expressed throughout the land, in the other provinces, to the effect that French Canadians are narrow-minded and that they want to impose the use of their language and to oblige the whole population of Canada to learn French. When the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bicul-turalism held public hearings throughout the country it was said: They want to push French down our throats. We do not want to force anyone to learn French, Mr. Speaker; that is clear. Whether hon. members who do not want to learn French do not learn it, we could not care less. But when we wanted to learn English we learned it. We can speak both languages, not because we were forced to, but because we wanted to learn English in order to try to get to know the other ethnic group living in Canada. That is why we learned English.
The hon. member for Matapedia-Matane was right in saying that Quebec is not a province like the others. But this does not mean that Quebec wants to force herself upon the others; no, it is not that.

We sometimes hear statements from Quebec provincial ministers that are not too easy to swallow. Mind you, I do not share all the views expressed by Quebec provincial ministers, but when a minister makes a well-founded statement and speaks knowingly of things that do exist in our province, then I stand behind him 100 per cent. It is not a question of being a separatist. I was referring a moment ago to the priority of French in the province of Quebec. Who could blame us? If I were to go and open a business in Toronto, do you think I would put up French ads on my store front? No, I would use English signs to attract the local people. We blame certain firms for using English billboards in Montreal, the second largest French city in the world. They forget that the French Canadians are there. They forget there are six million of them in the province of Quebec.
I repeat that we do not wish to impose the use of French in Toronto. But others should at least have the decency of respecting us 100 per cent at home, not only for the fun of doing so, not because circumstances warrant it, but all the time. That is all we demand.
The hon. member for Matapedia-Matane went on to speak of the ever so useful centralization. I do not share his views on that point. I believe in decentralization wherever possible so that the government may be closer to the individual, to the people. Everyone knows, in our province as well as in the others, that the federal government is farther from us than are the provincial, municipal or school authorities. That is common knowledge.
Centralization in such countries as our own means growing estrangement from the people, in every regard, whether administrative or other.
Third, they say the manpower is inadequate. I have dealt rather often with this matter. During the second world war of 1939-45, when they wanted to employ those who had been unemployed for 10 years, who were not educated, who had not attended colleges or universities, because at that time it was the great depression, not one federal minister, not one Canadian economist maintained that the manpower was inadequate to manufacture shells, armaments, destroying devices, etc. At that time, everybody was welcome in war plants. It did not take too long to train them, to give them the required
February 1, 1966

knowledge to sustain a war production, which was tremendous in relation to the small population we had at that time.
There was no question of inadequate manpower to wage war. But today we are told that we have an inadequate manpower, that on the labour market employers are getting more fussy.
Every day, on television, employers are urged to hire 45-year old men who cannot find employment. Are employers so hard to please? No, but they would sooner hire young people just out of high school or university instead of men of 45 who have a family to raise and to support. And it is cheaper to hire a 22, 23 or 24-year old than a father of 45. Members as well as ministers know it is a fact. Today a man of 45 has a hard time to find a job, not because he does not have the experience or the required skill, but because at 40 he is already too old.
Through propaganda and publicity, they are urged, on the one hand, to go back to school, learn a new trade and become a mechanic, an electrician, or improve their knowledge in some other field of the Canadian economy, while, on the other hand, television is shouting "give those men a job"; the man of 45, in the prime of life, is able to render great services to his boss: he is experienced. He is told in some cases: My friend, your education is inadequate, while the young people are told: You are well educated but you lack experience. Nothing can be done with our young people, because in Canada, in 1965, in spite of existing deficiencies, national production has nevertheless increased by 8 or 9 per cent compared to 1964.
The national production may reach $55 billion in 1966. It reached $51 billion in 1965. In addition to this annual production which is renewed each year while showing a sizeable increase, existing inventories in stores and warehouses throughout Canada are not taken into account. This fact is being ignored. There is actually an over-production instead of an under-production, as the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane said last year.
So much so that 85 per cent of our workers, or our farmers-we mean the toiling working class-are involved in financing plans for three, four and five years to purchase our production of perhaps five or ten years ago.
What is lacking then is obviously this purchasing power in the hands of Canadians to
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion purchase existing products, to achieve an economic balance under which production will meet the needs of Canadian consumers.
I said not long ago, that the major problem, the number one problem in Canada is not the production problem, for it is solved. It is the distribution problem. But there are different means of distribution. It can be done by economic planning as suggested by the Socialists. It can also be done according to planning under which the government would decide what is to be distributed to each.
Our solution is to put the buying power in the hands of Canadians, of the Canadian people. It will be the Canadian people who will make their own plans and decide what to buy, who will order new production and direct future production through demand.
There is not a single member, minister or former minister who now fears of being unable to obtain clothing, food, medical care, etc. And yet, several people-none of them members of the house-are in terrible want of the strict minimum. We, Creditistes, are not miracle workers but we precisely want to put some order in the country's finances. The problem is not in the heart of man but in our present monetary system. As long as that system is not adjusted to present-day needs, no matter what legislation comes through, the economic, social and political problem of Canada will never be solved. We have a solution, and we are fighting to have it understood, both inside and outside the House of Commons, and we shall carry on this fight as long as Canadians are not assured of economic security and personal freedom.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: It is my
duty, in conformity with standing order 39A, to inform the house that the following questions will be discussed on the adjournment motion tonight: the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), water rights-inquiry to meaning of "patented water lots"; the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston), apples-alleged denial to people of Scotland; the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees), industry-request for reasons for drop in productivity.

February 1, 1966
Supply-Mr. Thompson
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, in continuing the debate on the supply motion may I say first of all that we have listened with much interest to the remarks made by various spokesmen for the different parties. I noted with special interest the remarks made in regard to Viet Nam and the replies given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin). We accept his statement that time will be allowed at a later date for a full debate on this particular subject and therefore I shall confine my remarks to one or two important factors relating to the whole area of government expenditure of money.
I want to clarify one or two things before doing so just for the sake of the record. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) spoke about entrusting the balance of power in this house to the hon. member for Red Deer. Let me assure him this was not of my own choosing. It so happens that in the 1962 election the people of Canada expressed dissatisfaction with the administration which had been provided by the Conservative party and availed themselves of the opportunity to turn to an alternative. That vote returned a house of minorities and such has been the case following the succeeding elections. If as a result of those elections some responsibility for the stability of this house has been entrusted to our hands, then I trust that history will record that we have acted in a responsible fashion.
However, I must refer to some of the remarks which were made regarding the conduct of affairs in this house in the early weeks of 1963 and to the criticism of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre of the new government for carrying on then in exactly the same fashion in which his own party is at the present time. In this regard he is correct because it was the expressed declaration of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) then that his prime motive and purpose was to throw out the minority government of that day. Everything which could possibly be done was done to achieve that objective. So that the demand at this time for responsible action in this house on the part of all of us should not be illustrated by the example that was set then because two wrongs will never make a right.
One or two of the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret).]
need to be clarified for the sake of the record, because it is obviously his expressed intention to perpetrate an untruth, a statement of events which is not consistent with what actually happened and in accordance with the situation as I have explained it to the press as well as to this house. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask your leave to comment on this topic briefly before continuing with the major part of my remarks this evening.
During the recent election campaign we repeatedly stated to the public that it was the opinion of the Social Credit party that the first and most important issue in the election, an election which we regarded as unnecessary, was to pledge ourselves to a stable parliament. I personally made this pledge to my own electorate because I believe that we have reached a situation, as the result of successive elections, where not only do the people of Canada resent the idea of another election but it is also obvious that nothing will be accomplished by another election. There is also no reason that the house cannot function effectively. Therefore our action during the votes on the non-confidence motions last week in the debate on the Speech from the Throne was based on that pledge which attempted to fulfil and honour them. This was the whole purpose behind our action.
The situation which existed just three years ago during January and the first few days of February was entirely different from the situation today. It does not have to be my remarks alone which provide evidence of that. I should like to refer Your Honour to the July-August 1963 issue of the "Commentator", wherein an article by Mr. Dillon O'Leary had this to say:
The Conservative government might still be in power today with Social Credit support, under George Nowlan as pro tem prime minister, if the planned palace revolt of a group of cabinet ministers against Right Hon. John Diefenbaker had not crumbled because of a failure of nerve. That stillborn revolt is one of the yet untold cloak and dagger epics of recent Canadian history.
Alternatively, Diefenbaker might perhaps be prime minister yet if he had answered a message from Socred leader Robert Thompson the day before his government was overthrown in parliament last February 4. But he hesitated, and was lost. The Socreds combined with the Liberals and New Democratic party to vote him out of office.
But the real decision of that week of political crisis from February 3 to 9 was in the hands of seven of the 22 cabinet ministers: Whether or not to overthrow their chief so that Conservatives might, with Socred support, prolong their term of office by at least a year and, it was hoped, face the electors in more favourable times when a business upswing had become noticeable.
February 1, 1966
Then the writer of the article goes on to say:
There were mutinous murmurs even before that, and hints that a want-of-confidence motion in Diefenbaker might be presented to the annual meeting of the National Progressive Conservative Association in Ottawa, January 17 to 19. The Tory rank and file, however, endorsed Diefenbaker's nuclear policies (without being sure what they were) by a majority of three to one.
Then the writer of the article goes on to amplify the events of those days which pointed to the simple fact that the government of that day was in serious difficulty within itself.
The situation during the last week of January 1963 was rapidly deteriorating. The break could be foreseen; likewise the lack of any defence policy had thrown the government into confusion, as evidenced by the resignation of, the then defence minister, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness). Unless there was some definite change it was obvious the government could not hold the confidence of parliament.
I want to put on record what actually happened, Mr. Speaker. Realizing the situation, on Friday, January 31 I had met informally with the members of the Social Credit party and we decided that an effort should be made once more to see whether some basis for stable operations could not be arrived at. On February 1 I was telephoned by the late Mr. George Nowlan who was then house leader for the government. He asked whether I thought there would be any use in getting together to talk over some basis upon which we might come to an agreement whereby the house could continue in some order.
I agreed and on the next afternoon, February 2, the two of us met in one of our offices. There was no conniving or contriving to defeat the government; it was a serious attempt by one who led a smaller group in this House of Commons, with the house leader for the government, to see whether some basis for agreement could be reached.
I came to that private meeting with four points which were basically these: First of all, that the government should present a definite defence policy. I made no stipulations about what that defence policy was to be but asked that there should be some statement of policy as far as the government was concerned. Second, the estimates were to be introduced into the house immediately because for a year and a half we had gone without estimates and without a budget.
23033-34J
Supply-Mr. Thompson
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Third, I asked that the budget be presented before March 1. Before arriving at this date I asked the then minister of finance whether this was possible and he said it could be done if the estimates had been disposed of. Fourth, I asked that a timetable be laid out so that we could get down to work in an orderly fashion, quit fooling around and get down to business.
Mr. Nowlan agreed to that. He agreed to take it up with the Prime Minister and his colleagues in an effort to "sell them" on this point. I agreed to do the same so far as my colleagues were concerned. We had a meeting of our caucus on February 3 to talk this over. We put our views in the form of a press release which was issued at one o'clock on February 3. A mutual friend of the then prime minister and myself had come to the city the evening before and I asked him to deliver a copy of this press release directly to the right hon. gentleman with a request for an answer.
We went into a sitting of the house that afernoon. I waited all afternoon for an answer to our request. It was a very simple one. We had made no demands other than were reasonable and logical. My turn to speak came at twenty minutes before six. I was still waiting for an answer at six o'clock.
Still awaiting an answer, we held an emergency caucus at seven o'clock. We decided then that if no reply came we had no alternative but to move an amendment which, if passed, would mean the overthrow of the government. I waited until eight o'clock but still no answer had come. And because it had not come I moved an amendment as we had said I would.
Over and over again the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said that I changed my mind during the supper hour. I did not change my mind at all. I am now explaining all these things for the sake of the record since there has been so much misrepresentation concerning the matter.
The answer came the next afternoon after pressure had been brought to bear upon the then prime minister. He gave an answer in his speech to the house on February 4. But it was too late. The die had been cast. Consequently we went on to vote on an amendment which in effect expressed non-confidence and the government of the day was defeated.



February 1, 1966
Supply-Mr. Thompson
That is the story of what happened. It is not secret. It has been told in the press many times, as it has been told in this article in the July-August 1963 issue of the Commentator which bears out what I have said in full detail and in which all these events are more or less correctly reported.
What happened in those days does not justify any action along similar lines at this time. Since those days we have gone through not one but two elections. I think the time has now come when we should settle down and take an objective look at the basis of our operations, get on with the work before us and try to make this house of minorities function effectively, remembering particularly that two wrongs do not make a right.
Having said this, I should like to refer to a number of other points. The votes of nonconfidence taken in connection with the debate on the address have now gone by and as we look forward to the legislation which the government has prepared we must recognize there are some things which could be done quickly. We are happy that the new rules have been accepted. Indeed, we are operating under them at the present time. But I would suggest to the government and to the Prime Minister that responsibility for an effective minority house does not rest upon members of the opposition alone; it rests to a great extent on his own shoulders. The legislation which the government has in mind must, like the budget, be placed before the house soon so it can be dealt with. Some of it is urgent. I think, for instance, of the revision of the Bank Act, of consideration of the Carter report when it comes down in a few months.
I believe the Prime Minister would be doing this parliament and this nation a tremendous service if he would stand up and tell us that the government intends to proceed in this fashion and that he would not regard votes on normal issues as being votes of non-confidence, that such a consideration would apply only to money bills, for example, which are required constitutionally to be regarded in another way. He would, as I say, be doing this nation a service if he were to tell the house that he would regard votes on all other matters as being merely votes on those particular issues and that should a situation arise where it was felt the government might no longer have the confidence of the house he would present a specific motion on which confidence or non-confidence could be expressed.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre dealt with this matter in a very practical way. I disagreed with him at the time but only because I did not think his observations should apply to votes of non-confidence on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. That was a different situation. But now that we have embarked upon the normal operations of the house the observations made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre could, I think, very well be heeded and I hope the Prime Minister will consider them positively. Now that we have passed through the difficulties encountered in the last few days I think the main responsibility rests directly upon the shoulders of the Prime Minister and his government.
I would urge the government, as others have done today, to take steps to set up the house committees immediately. Remember, these will not be just committees for the present session; they are to continue for the life of this parliament under the new rules. Why has this not been done before? What is the reason for the delay? There is need for special committees to be set up. A special committee on broadcasting is required, and the government should take the necessary steps immediately. If there was a little, logical initiative shown by the administration in such fields as these, I believe we could move forward with confidence to pass the legislation on which we can agree and to proceed in the way that the people who have put us here expect of us. May I call it six o'clock?


An hon. Member:: There is no break.


Robert Norman Thompson: I apologize. I forgot the new rules I have just been talking about.
I think there are three important areas with which each one of us must be primarily concerned. The first goes back to the issue which was used as a basis for the first amendment of non-confidence, that of raising the pensions of our senior citizens to $100 a month. We in this group have for a long time advocated that the pension should be $100 a month. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) suggested in the recent debate on the Address that this might well be done in progressive steps. Those who are today 70 years of age or over could receive the $100 pension and then in successive steps those over 65 would receive it in the course of a period of five years.
But we have a responsibility which goes beyond our concern for old age pensioners. What about those who are our special
February 1. 1966

responsibility because of their past military service? Certainly our military pensioners cannot live on the present scales of pension any more than can our old age pensioners. We are concerned not only about military pensioners generally but specifically about those men who are veterans of the horrible prisoner of war camps in Hong Kong. We are also concerned about the situation of civil service pensioners. I happen to know of a case right here in this city of three older ladies who put their savings carefully away at a time when the cost of living was much less than it is now and who are today barely able to exist on their present civil service pensions.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
What are we doing about such pensioners? What are we doing about our widows and the disabled people, with the cost of living going up continuously as it is and increasing to the extent that it has in the last 10 to 15 years? Is it fair to expect them to carry on with pensions which in most cases are lower than those we pay our elderly people? I believe we have a responsibility in this house to make sure that those people who are the special charge and responsibility of the federal government are given a pension that is at least commensurate with the cost of living and is geared to any future increases in the cost of living.
This is bringing us along a line that is inevitable as we move into the machine age, because more and more people at a younger and younger age are going to find themselves without the necessary means of buying those things which they need for a respectable living. I would ask this simple question. Are the machines, the computers, those things which are the inventions of our own hands, going to be our servants or are they going to be our masters? It is in these special areas at the present time that we must move and in a very specific way to meet the needs of our people.
Second, I think we must have legislation that deals in a realistic way with a credit policy for this country. I was interested to note what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) had to say the other day when speaking in Toronto. He stated it was dangerous for Canada to rely too heavily on foreign capital. According to an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal on January 25, the minister said that improvement in productivity of Canadian industry is vital to avoid relying too heavily on foreign capital.
Supply-Mr. Thompson
This merely brings up a point which I think emphasizes the fact that we must establish a financial policy that will provide the necessary capital from our own resources for the development of our country. Why do we have to go to the United States, with our banking policies such as they are, and bring American capital here at the tremendous cost that is involved when we ourselves have ample credit and resources if we would only mobilize them in the fashion that we should use them?
It is in this regard that the Bank of Canada has a very vital role to play in our economy. Soon we shall be discussing the revision of the Bank Act, and when we do we must consider those revisions in the legislation that will let that bank function effectively.
The Bank of Canada in the last year or two has taken the suggestion of the Social Credit party to use its own credit resources in order to assume part of the responsibility of the national debt as it comes due. In fact, last year several hundred millions of dollars were saved for the Canadian taxpayer because of this policy. At the present time approximately one eighth of Canada's national debt is held by the Bank of Canada.
If the Bank of Canada can hold one eighth of the national debt, why can it not hold one half and eventually more as it comes due? It does not come due all at once. Some will not come due until the 1980's. Why can it not eventually assume the entire national debt? If the bank wishes to pay the interest rates that today are paid on our debt as it comes due, it would but pass the money into the consolidated revenue fund. In effect it would be only taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another.
There is another need that is urgently moving upon us. With the prospect of the closing down of the municipal development and loan fund, the municipalities and provinces of this country are going to be in extreme difficulties because when this happens the effect of the development of a tight money policy, now just ahead of us, is going to wreck havoc with municipal and provincial financing.
We have suggested over and over again that, in the same way as the industrial bank has been set up as part of the Bank of Canada, a municipal development bank could be set up so that in accordance with the regulations governing them the provinces and the municipalities could come to that municipal development bank and obtain the credit


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the opportunity of making a few comments in this debate. I have listened with interest to the remarks of several preceding speakers, and particularly to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) in respect of which the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) offered some comment. I was very glad that hon. gentleman was able to bring forward the evidence he placed before the house in support of his description of the way in which the Conservative party has offered its cooperation to all other parties in this house in the promotion of forwarding government business. The party to which I have the honour of belonging has offered its full co-operation from the beginning of this session and throughout the last two sessions.
There has been a great deal of criticism across the country about the way the business of parliament has been conducted. There is a feeling among many of the electorate that there has been too much emphasis placed on partyism with a lack of emphasis on promoting the business of government.
In this regard I should like to say that we require political parties. They fit into our system of government. The business of the government party is to carry on the government business. The responsibility of opposition parties is to criticize constructively to the best of their ability those things the government is attempting to do. I am sure this has been done well. At times the criticism has been somewhat acrimonious on the part of both the former opposition and the
February 1, 1966

Supply-Mr. W. H. A. Thomas present opposition. The Canadian parliament is no worse in that regard than has been the mother of parliaments over the years.
I am very proud to belong to this party. I am pleased that it was possible for the former minister, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who was for several years the house leader of this party in government and in opposition, to point out how this party has offered its co-operation at all times.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot allow the comments of the hon. member for Red Deer to go by without some refutation. I have great respect for the member for Red Deer, who is a good friend of mine, but I also have a loyalty to the party to which I belong. The hon. member for Red Deer was hardly justified in bringing to our attention at this time the so-called revolt in the cabinet during the Die-fenbaker regime in February of 1963. The former member, Pierre Sevigny, in his recently published book points out that this so-called cabinet revolt was much overemphasized and blown up out of all proportion. We know that in any cabinet and in any political party which is composed of individuals with strong minds and strong wills there will be differences of opinion. I am sure the hon. member knows this from his own experience.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
The hon. member knows what happens in parties and he knows what happens to parties when there are strong ideological differences and matters of principle become involved. All parties in the house fully realize what happens. This matter of trouble in the Conservative party has been blown up out of all proportion, and I should like to say that there is in the Conservative party today and has been in the Conservative party all through the years, including February, 1963, a reasonable and abundant degree of unanimity and loyalty.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: I say, Mr. Speaker, that anyone who tries to blow up the Conservative trouble and differences of opinion out of all proportion is not doing a service to this house or to the country.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the hon. member for Middlesex West a question?


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Yes.


Robert Norman Thompson: The hon. gentleman is a good friend of mine but I should just like to


ask him this question. Does he think I would have raised this matter today if it had not been raised in the house earlier? The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) deliberately made it part of his speech.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Well, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) felt that it was a fitting time, and I am willing to agree with him that in beginning the business of this session the Conservative party are entitled to a great deal of credit for offering their co-operation. As the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre pointed out, the present government are in difficulties. They are in difficulties very similar to those in which the former government found themselves in February, 1963. But the difference between now and 1963 is that now the house is co-operating with the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: We find the Social Credit party, with all respect to them, in the face of a threat that we would have another election, voting with the government although they expressed themselves as being in favour of the opposition's amendment. In 1963 they laid down conditions under which they would support the government. The government of that day declined to accept those conditions. The Social Credit party then joined the other opposition parties in voting against the government. Today they lay down no conditions. However, because the government threatens to call an election, they support the government. It is up to the electors of the country, of course, to decide these things, but I think in fairness to the party to which I have the honour of belonging I should point out these matters.
This is not what I rose to say particularly, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to make a plea, to begin with, for the part time farmers of Canada. We have both large and small farmers in this country and our present legislation is aimed at providing assistance to what are known as economic farm units. Farming is a way of life. There are something like 480,000 farms in Canada according to the 1961 census. Half of these farms are under 70 acres in size. They cannot be classed in most cases as economic farm units.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, farming is a way of life. In fact, it is as much a way of life as it is a business and in some cases it is much more a way of life than it is a business.
February 1, 1966

There are more small farmers in this country than there are large farmers. There are people on farms today who have little aptitude for any other line of work. A farmer practises a variety of skills. At one period he is a carpenter, at another a plumber or a motor mechanic. He improvises, he invents; but he cannot qualify as a professional in anything. He fits into the job he is doing, the job of farming, better than any other job that could be suggested.
Many of these small farmers particularly are unable to make a living from their land holdings and are taking part time jobs in industry to supplement their farm incomes. They and their families enjoy the advantages of rural life and are prepared to accept a comparatively low standard of living rather than leave the farm. To separate them from the way of life they know and love would be both unwise and uneconomic.
Our present rural development legislation, which includes ARDA and the Farm Credit Corporation, discriminates against the part time farmer. There is no use of a part time farmer asking for a loan from the Farm Credit Corporation because he cannot get it. The Farm Credit Corporation has been set up and devised to organize land holdings into economic farm units and for the small, part time farmer it offers no assistance. I think this is wrong.
There is talk of getting these small farmers out of the farm picture but I suggest that any program which separates the farmer from his land and from his farm life should be approached with the greatest caution. I believe the combination of working a small farm and part time industrial work should be recognized as a way of life in our rural communities and that a place for these people should be made under the provisions of the Farm Credit Corporation and ARDA. Loans and assistance should be provided not only for economic farm units but to raise the standard of living of the part time farmer. The smallholding farm operation should be recognized as a new way of life; they are becoming more numerous in all parts of this country.
To stress the atmosphere which surrounds the farmer and his land I am going to borrow some words from a little poem that has been around our home for a long while. I do not

Supply-Mr. W. H. A. Thomas know where it came from and there is no name attached to it. It says:
There's work on a farm from dawn till night. Work by sun and candle light,
But there's health on a farm, and gladness, too, And a pride no city folk ever knew.
A pride in seeing the seed you sow Wake and rise and lift and grow;
A pride in being, when harvest's done,
An equal partner with rain and sun.
I am also going to quote from a speech by Hon. Maurice Sauve, Minister of Forestry, to the Empire club in Toronto. The hon. gentleman gave the history of several farm families in trying to indicate the problems these people have in carrying on. With regard to one family called the Adams family-I believe the names are fictitious but the circumstances are correct-he said:
The Adams family live on a farm in Lanark County, Ontario. They are not yet middle aged and have two young children. Their home is an eight-room log house about one hundred years old and in poor condition. It is heated by a box stove and wood-burning kitchen stove. Water is obtained from an outdoor hand pump, and there are no inside toilet facilities. There is electricity and telephone and the family have a car. They live some distance from town-the high school is twenty miles away, as are the doctor and the hospital.
The income of the family is $35 per person per month. Mrs. Adams has a Grade 12 education and a commercial course, and works for the local township authorities. Her present work involves keeping municipal books and is done in her own home.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
Apparently she is the township clerk or the treasurer.
Mr. Adams has a Grade 6 education and worked as a labourer for about three months last winter in addition to his farm operation. In fact, his earnings from this have helped to support the farm, which showed a loss in 1964. The farm is about one hundred acres, of which only 35 acres are under cultivation and Mr. Adams has to rent pasture. He has fourteen cows and he markets calves and milk. The Adams also raise pigs for their own use. They still have two old horses which are used for cutting hay.
The Adams are not satisfied with their life, owing to the level of income. However, they are doubtful that if the family moved to another area, that Mr. Adams could manage a larger farm operation or support his family adequately in some other employment.
Here you have the point I want to make. In most cases these people on small holdings across this country do not wish to move. They are reluctant to move. They fear they will be worse off than they are at the moment. The article continues:
It would be difficult to sell his present farm and there is no good land available nearby to add to it. The price he would receive if he could sell it would be inadequate as a basis for a new start elsewhere.
February 1, 1966

Supply-Mr. W. H. A. Thomas
Now, I know people of this kind in my own constituency of Middlesex West. I believe there are many such cases scattered across this country. I feel that if we make it possible the administrators of the Farm Credit Corporation will help these people because I know it is the intention to help them. It should be possible to lend such people money which they can repay, of course, to modernize their homes and provide themselves with adequate and satisfactory water supplies as well as to raise the general standards of their lives. This is my special plea today in this house, that the government sponsor action to provide a fuller life for the small farmers, the small land holders throughout this country.
In general, agriculture is going through a cost price squeeze. The costs of farm taxes, equipment, and farm labour have been rising. The farmers are not making the profits they should make. It is impossible for them to make ends meet. This applies particularly to the dairy farmers, most of whom, those who are not on whole milk contracts-find it necessary to make their living by selling milk which goes into industrial uses. The government has indicated it is now undertaking to provide these farmers with $3.50 per hundred pounds for their product. For the last several years they have been getting from $2.90 per hundred pounds up to about $3.25. This is insufficient to pay the costs of their operation and make a living.
There are other ways in which the dairy industry can be helped. The proposal of the government to establish a national dairy council is, I believe, a step in the right direction. The price of dairy products has not kept pace with rising costs but because of the nature of this industry action to assist the dairy producer cannot be taken to the best advantage on a provincial basis. National action is necessary. I shall be glad to lend my support to the government's proposal in this regard.
Dairying is carried on in every province of Canada. I believe, therefore, that a national dairy commission should be organized along the lines of the Canadian Wheat Board, with similar powers to regulate the marketing of dairy products as those which the Canadian Wheat Board has in connection with the marketing of wheat. A place has been left for private enterprise under the Canadian Wheat Board operation and a place should be left for private enterprise to operate in the dairy industry. Because of the broad, coast to coast scope of the dairy industry, because of the

large number of operators in the industry, dairy operators can no more combine to protect themselves than could the grain farmers of the prairies.
Government action is needed to provide this protection and place dairy producers in a position where they can compete with other segments of our economy. Market stability and fair prices for dairy products would do much to raise the living standards of thousands of rural people in all parts of the country. I believe that the stabilized level for the price of milk used for industrial purposes should be raised to $4 per hundredweight. This is not my suggestion. It has been made by others but I strongly back it. The present objective of $3.50 per hundredweight is not sufficient to put the producers of industrial milk in a sound financial position.
An eastern feed grain agency, such as has been proposed on several occasions in this house and which was mentioned in the Throne Speech, should be another step in the right direction. It should assist dairy farmers as well as other producers in the eastern part of Canada and in British Columbia.
Unemployment insurance for farm labour would also assist farmers in their effort to obtain sufficient help on their farms. I can say that in our area in Middlesex county there is hardly a hired man left on any of the farms. You cannot get them. They are not to be had unless they are men who have been on the family farm for years and years and it has become their home, there is an attachment there and their roots are sunk deep. These are the only hired men it is possible to find in that county.
While we are on the subject of agriculture, I may say we have a rather large Indian reservation in West Middlesex with a population of 1,600. There are three bands of Indians occupying the reserve, the Oneidas of the Thames, the Chippewas of the Thames and the Munceys of the Thames. These reserves contain some of the finest land in Middlesex county, and Middlesex county contains some of the finest land in the whole of Canada. There are thousands of acres of agricultural land lying idle on this reserve on which weeds and brush are growing. If this land were all producing, considerable wealth would accrue to the inhabitants of the reserve. [DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
The appearance of the reserve would be much improved and some jobs for the local residents would result. The individual land
February 1, 1966	COMMONS
holdings are in most cases too small to permit economic development. They range from just 4 or 5 acres up to about 40 acres. The reserve was surveyed many years ago into 40 or 50 acre lots and these holdings have been broken up. Some of the 40 or 50 acre lots are now owned by several individuals. Very few of the holdings are large enough to be farmed by one individual.
I suggest that some means must be found to effect the pooling of the smaller individual holdings on the reserve. I believe it would be worth while to consider setting up a band co-operative or band corporation for this purpose. The co-op or the corporation as it is called-I think it is possibly better to call it the co-op because this is more easily understood-could rent the land from individual holders under long term leases and turn over a share of the crop to the owner of the land as rent.
With proper management this excellent land should not only pay for its development over a term of years but should also provide the owners with considerable annual income and should provide an additional profit for the encouragement of the band or co-op or corporation. Development funds for securing drainage and equipment should be made available through the Farm Credit Corporation or through the industrial bank or through development funds provided by the treasury to the Indian affairs branch.
In addition to the economic benefits which could result for many individuals, I would suggest that a great change could be made in the appearance of the Caradoc reservation. The abandoned fields of weeds and brush are depressing not only to the people who drive over the reservation but also to the Indians themselves. I believe that morale on the Caradoc reservation could be lifted by these means of cultivation that I have indicated rather than by abandonment.
Many new homes have been built on the reserve in recent years. A fine new central school has been provided and modern bus facilities for the children are in operation. Roads have been improved and plans are being made jointly with the county and with the province for improved new road construction. The people with new homes are mowing their lawns and otherwise improving the appearance of the whole reservation. I might say too that the agency there has promoted a program of well digging. The water is fairly close to the surface in that area. Some of the Indians there were using
DEBATES	531
Supply-Mr. W. H. A. Thomas poor wells. The agency set up a committee among the Indians themselves and through band funds or otherwise has promoted or set up a program for the provision of good wells on the reserve. This was a great improvement.
The key to the success of such an agricultural development would be management. The basic requirements of a manager should be, I believe, at least a Bachelor of Science degree in agriculture together with a farm background. Machine operators and other help required would very likely be available on the reserve. But if inexperienced management were used on a program of this kind it would be the surest way to destroy it. Management in a case of this kind is all important.
In discussing this matter with some of the residents of the reserve, such as band leaders, they suggested that the leadership in the formation of such a co-op should come through the Indian affairs branch or through the department. The Indians fear that the band councils have not had sufficient experience with this sort of thing to offer the leadership required. I should like to leave this proposal, Mr. Speaker, for the consideration of the Indian affairs branch and for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand). I believe there might be something worth while in it and that it might be worth while to consider.
Another matter of considerable importance not only to the farmers of Canada today but to all segments of our economy is the revision of the Bank Act. It is the recommendation of the Porter Commission that the 6 per cent ceiling on bank interest rates be removed. Newspaper reports have indicated that there is considerable discussion and considerable difference of opinion concerning the removal of the 6 per cent bank interest ceiling.
I have noted a tendency on the part of governments in recent years to take our legislative medicine in too large doses. Instead of deciding in which direction we should go and working our way slowly and surely in that direction, we flop from one direction to the other and a great deal of effort is lost and some mistakes are made. I should like to make this suggestion which I should like the government to consider when they come to decide what they want by way of revision to the Bank Act. Instead of going whole hog on this matter, they could go part way with the Porter Commission in the recommendation that the interest ceiling should be removed.

February 1. 1966
Supply-Mr. McCleave
There is a great deal of support from the financial community for such a measure and the financial community thinks that this ought to be done. But there are those who fear such drastic action. I would suggest that rather than removing the ceiling entirely the interest ceiling should be raised possibly to 7 or per cent, and that the government should try that for a few years to see what the effect would be. The argument for removing the ceiling entirely is that competition will force down interest rates, at least in some segments of our economy. We might well consider this process of raising the ceiling 1 per cent or 1J per cent and seeing what the effect will be before going all the way in the matter.
Nowadays we are hearing a great deal of talk about a medicare program, and we may have a chance to discuss this more fully in the very near future. However, I would suggest to the government that consideration be given to the inclusion of the cost of prescription drugs in any medicare plan that is brought forward. There are quite a number of other subjects that we could cover, Mr. Speaker, but there are other hon. members, no doubt, who have comments that they would like to make while the estimates are being introduced.
I feel that the part time farmers of this country particularly are entitled to a better break and I would urge the government to keep that matter in mind when they are setting up their budget for 1966-67.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, this is a "re-maiden entry" into the House of Commons and, as I felt on the first occasion back in 1957, I enter the house once again still very much in awe and diffidence. Like the bride of the cannibal two things are possible. The bride hopes she accomplishes the first and pleases the cannibal; if not, the second course is too awful to contemplate.

Were I to make a third maiden speech in the house, I would like to be able to make it entirely in French.

My first words, Mr. Speaker, must be to congratulate you for your selection by this chamber as its presiding officer. I also wish to congratulate the Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Chairman of Committees. I think I express the views of all members when I say

that the wisdom of our choice has been borne out even in the few days that we have been meeting.
Returning again after an absence of one parliament I should like to pay particular tribute to two of the great figures of the House of Commons who are with us no longer. These gentlemen were great figures not only in the physical sense of the word but in the qualities of gentlemanliness, ability to get along well in the House of Commons and their facility for bringing fine ideas forward. I refer to the late member for Nipissing, Mr. Garland, a member of the government in the last parliament, and the late George Nowlan from my own province of Nova Scotia.
May I make another personal reference to a man who sat in the last parliament, the former member for Halifax, Mr. John E. Lloyd, who was recently appointed to the National Harbours Board. I make, sir, no comment upon the appointment except to say that it was one affording personal pleasure to me for Mr Lloyd has given the last 25 years at least to public life and has put public life above his own business interests. Knowing how well he does when he becomes enthusiastic about a particular subject, I think he will truly make an excellent member of the National Harbours Board.
I think every parliament should try to leave its house in better order than the parliament that has gone before and in this regard I want to pay my tribute and respects in regard to the changes which have been brought about since I was here last in 1963. For example, there is the extension of the bilingual translation system to the upper seats in the public galleries which I think is a good step. I often wondered before how many people, on coming over from Hull, for example, and finding a debate in progress almost exclusively in the English language, could get any particular enjoyment or derive any education from the operations of the house. I think this is a step on which the government should be complimented.
Significant changes in the rules have also-been brought about. There is a more businesslike appearance to the order paper with the addition on the second page thereof.
The "late, late show" at ten o'clock, which I gather is the irreverent but popular expression for the opportunity to debate a question raised with the minister responsible, is in my opinion another fine addition to our rules. I
February 1, 1966

have some doubts about the suppertime debates, not so much perhaps from the standpoint of members themselves, though I think this can be awkward, but because I think it imposes an extra burden on the Chair, Mr. Speaker, as well as on the staff, the Hansard reporters and the young pageboys who surely should be given some kind of a break. I think this is something which could be examined after a period of time to see whether it really has lived up to the expectations of those who brought it about.
I have some suggestions, sir, for the future. I once told a leading Canadian statesman outside the House of Commons that it was quite likely that the house would be sitting ten months per year and that this would continue indefinitely from year to year. His response to me was: "How then can the government think about anything?" I suppose this might be a quick way of explaining certain failings of government. But I think we should also take a look at this more seriously and ask ourselves whether the procedure could not be changed so as to make it more easy for the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the ministers of his cabinet to have days away from the House of Commons, perhaps by having them sit here three days a week but allowing them to be free the other two days to go about their business, which after all is the country's business. In this regard I think we might take a look at the practice in the United Kingdom.
For over two and a half years, as an unwilling occupant of the outside, I was an interested spectator watching what went on here, and I do not think there was any more exciting figure over those two and a half years than the gentleman who now occupies the position of President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau). I am sure that anything that was done before has been exceeded by what took place the week end before last. Here he was on a Saturday night announcing and even applauding the death of his own baby, the Fulton-Favreau formula, and not only announcing and applauding that demise but I suspect he was guilty of the sin of infanticide when the actual deed came about.
May I comment for a moment on the circumstances surrounding the Victor Spencer case. I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) whether he had reviewed the action taken in the light of the Canadian Bill of Rights and the hon. gentleman assured me that he had. I had in mind, however, the section of the act which says that no law
Supply-Mr. McCleave shall be applied so as to provide cruel and unusual treatment of any Canadian. Yet here is Spencer, a man certainly not convicted of anything, a man who has not been found innocent of anything either for that matter, a man living in the twilight zone between guilt and innocence and condemned to walk in that twilight zone, so far as I can see, the rest of his days with police escorts of some kind watching his every move.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is something that is new, something that is cruel and something that is unusual in the treatment of a person living in Canada. I hope that the Minister of Justice, whose conscience must suffer some serious doubts about the way in which this matter is being handled, will take a look at the question again, and I hope Mr. Spencer will either have his day in court or be allowed to disappear into oblivion.
The program which we deal with this session reminds me of rummaging through an attic and going through old love letters, picking out the pieces and phrases which had an effect upon the loved one on a previous occasion. This Throne Speech is a resurrection of past hopes. I think the weakness of the program that we are facing is its lack of value. We do not seem to have a system of priorities here. There are things we wish to get on with, new programs that can perhaps be exploited politically and profitably.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
This failure to exercise good housekeeping is, I think, one of the serious indictments one can level against the present government. For example, the problem of inflation is facing many Canadians who are little able to deal with it. I have in mind superannuated civil servants, those living on veterans pensions and the elderly in general. And I ask, publicly: Why embark on new and costly things when our house is not in order and when the programs we have now are not really carrying out the purposes intended.
Then, again, in the housecleaning category, there is the question of bringing stability to the careers of servicemen. This, it seems to me, is a most serious problem.
I turn, now, to consideration of another organization, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, which is a valuable addition to the community in which we live and which is doing excellent work to explore the resources of the Atlantic coast.
Geologists will tell you-indeed, they will tell anyone who is willing to listen to them

February 1, 1966
Supply-Mr. McCleave -that there are greater resources on the continental shelf than there are on the moon. The continental shelf, they claim, holds minerals, oil and the like which could be used for the benefit of mankind while the composition of the moon is very much like the composition of the desert and without any value whatsoever. I hope this department will be encouraged. I hope the government will provide it with more funds so that we may take advantage of these offshore riches which need only to be found and properly exploited.
May I say a personal word to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart), a gentleman from the adjoining riding of Antigonish-Guysborough? We Nova Scotians are very pleased to find him in his present position, one for which I have a special regard since once I occupied it myself.
He will be hearing from us with regard to such matters as the need for new post offices at Chezzetcook and Musquodoboit. For the benefit of the Hansard reporter, Chezzetcook is spelled C-h-e-z-z-e-t-c-o-o-k and Musquodoboit is spelled M-u-s-q-u-o-d-o-b-o-i-t.
The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough does not have the interesting portfolio which once attached to Public Works, that is, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Here, I think, I enjoyed my most interesting moments during my time as parliamentary secretary. The C.M.H.C. people are a wonderful group to work with and I should like to throw out a couple of ideas which they can brains-trust around. Then, perhaps, later this session, these ideas could be explored in a debate on housing.
Before I spell out these ideas I should like to say there is one hope for the government There is one graduate from Dalhousie law school among its members. I refer of course to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) and it is he who reports to the house for C.M.H.C. So I would ask the hon. gentleman, who was I believe a classmate of my late father, whether he would take these two ideas to the corporation.
The first concerns public housing. We have three examples of that in Halifax-Mulgrave Park, Westwood Park and Uniacke Square. My thought on this is that our public housing projects are probably approached on too grandiose a scale. When I see housing torn down en masse, some of it good, most of it in poor condition, I am always conscious of the cost, which is probably between $12,000 and

$15,000 in the case of these massive housing schemes. Then new buildings go up and people are moved in at a unit cost of around $30,000 for each family sheltered. This of course requires subsidies. I am sure most of us do not really object to paying subsidies for public housing. But the figures become rather fantastic and there is a limit to what the public purse can stand in this respect.
It may be that the C.M.H.C. should brainstorm this to see whether it could not work on more projects which could be scattered about the community, rather than taking two blocks, tearing everything down and building up something new. I think it is important that this fresh look be taken. Our problems will increase rather than go away, because as a country we are growing older and there are many cities in the same position as Halifax in which large-scale rejuvenation of housing has to occur. One possible answer is that public moneys should only go into areas where city councils themselves have done everything possible by imposing minimum standards ordinances to prevent the decay or blight of housing.
The second point I wish to make, again with regard to housing, concerns the services. It has been the practice in the Halifax area and, I imagine, elsewhere, to take large lots of land and place on them large developments, either row housing or apartments for the exclusive use of service people. I wonder whether this could not be looked into again with a view to giving service people a better opportunity to integrate into the community. Instead of building 16 storey or 20 storey apartment buildings occupying one full block why not build smaller apartment buildings in various parts of the city so that the occupants are not, as they are now, segregated from other citizens of the cities in which they live?
There is another point I should like to make with regard to service housing and it relates to an important problem which at the present time is bothering the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), that is, the building up of the strength of our armed forces. What I have in mind is an incentive scheme for servicemen which would provide a down payment on their houses and ensure that the longer they remained in a particular service the greater the payment would be. The longer they served, the more would be forgiven under this mortgage payment or arrangement. At the end of 20 or 25 years they would find themselves in possession of
February 1, 1966

their own homes. If they then wish to live somewhere else, as they often do, they would be able to sell these homes. This arrangement would, in effect, give them $20,000 or $25,000 in addition to the ordinary earnings accumulated in the service. I believe this idea is worth looking into.
Finally we have had committees of one sort or another in this house, we have had a resolution from my colleague from Halifax (Mr. Forrestall) and we have had a debate, mainly in the form of questions, about the area incentive program.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
You will undoubtedly hear much from Halifax, Dartmouth, Saint John and Fredericton suggesting that the program be extended to cover those cities, which are the only maritime or Atlantic Canada cities left out at the present time.
I suggest to the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury), if he really wants to make the area incentive program work, that he take an area such as Atlantic Canada, which does need a great deal of economic development, and allow the program to apply to that whole area until it comes within reasonable distance of the next poorer section of the country that he would like to build up and develop. If he adopts that approach, if he applies some formula such as that, then the area incentive program will carry out all of the things he hopes it will carry out, and it will make the people of Atlantic Canada aware that the government does mean business in trying to assist them.
It is enjoyable being back, Mr. Speaker. I hope to do my best to get along with colleagues new and old. My own forecast is that we will be here until the spring of 1969, and that the people of Canada will be proud of this parliament.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleagues for acknowledging my presence in this lonely hour, particularly the Liberal members on our side. Inasmuch as we are in a critical period so far as the government is concerned, it is not very difficult for a member on this side of the house to stand and criticize the government and its supporters, in view of their actions during the course of the last few days-as a matter of fact, ever since the house reconvened.
I shall direct my remarks first to the Department of National Health and Welfare, second, to agriculture, and third, to the
Supply-Mr. Winkler
function of this house itself. First of all, when I mention the Department of National Health and Welfare I must, of course, take into account the conference now being held in the nation's capital, dealing with the distribution of funds, the $500 million that has been referred to on a number of occasions, and I must immediately say I think up until this moment the government has failed to recognize the major requirement in this field, namely the necessary supply of hospital beds.
I recall that in 1958 the minister of national health and welfare of the Conservative government increased the per bed grant from $1,000 to $2,000, in other words an increase of 100 per cent. Today I suggest that such consideration is of equal importance. Also at that time the Conservative government saw fit to increase accommodation grants with respect to interns and nurses from $750 to $1,500 per bed, something which is of equal importance to the medical profession.
Today these things become much more important when we realize that the government is going further into the field of socializing the country, and more particularly when we think of medicare. But it is amazing when one returns to his constituency and learns that all of these measures do not have the popular support he might think, including I may say the Canada Pension Plan. I have heard from a number of industrial workers that the time is near when they may well turn their pay cheques over to the government and ask the government how much of those pay cheques they themselves can spend.
When we think in these terms, and when the government is considering advancing $500 million in this field to the provinces, we must be cognizant of the national need. We should not be putting the cart before the horse. We must ask ourselves if we will bring in a further measure of socialization without giving the country the services that are first needed.
In this connection I am thinking of hospital beds. Is the government considering making capital grants to hospitals to take care of this particular need before going on to institute, or try to institute a medicare program? If it is not, as I am informed by a doctor in my constituency who-and this is significant-does not particularly object to the institution of medicare, then we are moving in the wrong direction. We should not institute such a program before supplying the accommodation that is needed, and I say this because of the experience we had when we instituted the

February 1, 1966
Supply-Mr. Winkler
hospitalization program, which was the first step in this field. The government should take notice of that experience.
I have had an opportunity to learn some of the methods that will be used. As a matter of fact I have had an opportunity to learn, in a very personal way, some of the projections which the provinces have placed before the government. I might say that one of the conversations I heard took place amid the laughter of people in high places, and for that reason I think the government, for the sake of votes, should not confuse the need that exists with what it may achieve politically.
Let us take account of what the present circumstances are. Let us realize the way in which the funds are raised. I am not speaking politically. I can quote figures from the city of Toronto, where we do not have a Conservative member, but where the circumstances are exactly the same as they are in many other parts of the country. In this connection I have with me an editorial from the Toronto Daily Star, as well as one from the Toronto Telegram, both dealing with exactly the same subject matter, and on investigation I note that the realty taxpayers of this country still contribute to a community to a greater extent than do both levels of government. Surely this is a regrettable state of affairs when, as it seems, we are moving into an era in which the federal government wishes to socialize medical treatment.
I have before me personal, private statements from two hospital boards in western Ontario which indicate beyond a shadow of doubt that the municipality concerned, and its residents, will have to raise the lion's share of money in order to meet the needs of the community. If we are in any way going to burden the facilities of hospitals, without first supplying the accommodation required, then we are going to make a great mistake and the government will have to bear the responsibility.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
I have these two statements with me which indicate that the communities concerned in each case are having difficulty financing these programs. I will give the percentages in respect of one case. The local funds required for the construction of a hospital at this time, and these figures do not represent a five-year projection, is 63.9 per cent of the total funds required and the funds available from both sources of government is 35.9 per cent. There

seems to be some discrepancy there but these figures have been supplied by the boards concerned.
I say to you and the house, Mr. Speaker, that if there is indeed a national need, it is high time the federal government realized this need and acted accordingly. As the doctor who has written me explains in his letter, every doctor in Canada has had the experience of patients dying because there were no patient facilities available at the time of the patients' needs.
This letter then continues and explains about people who have had to wait three months for a gall bladder operation, and how critical a situation this can be at certain stages of this malady. He specifically writes about a young boy who has suffered a deformity since birth, He states that this deformity could be cured by surgery, but that the boy cannot get into the hospital for that surgery because of a backlog of patients. He states that it will be at least three months before this young lad can be taken care of. The doctor then proceeds to say that medicare is only the concern of politicians because it is a better vote-getter, but that hospital beds in actual fact are much more important to the health of this nation. It is easy to say that under medicare, there will be $50 extra per capita in the pockets of the taxpayers at the end of the year, but medicare will be no good unless services and proper institutions are available. Once again I must wholeheartedly agree with what the doctor has said.
While it is true that in the case of one municipality 50 per cent of patients come from that municipality, in respect of the other one only 48 per cent live there. I am aware of this situation and know that the ratepayers had to borrow the money to build that institution, because I was president of the board on the occasion of the building of that particular hospital. The other municipality contributed only a very small percentage of the cost.
We have known of many interested individuals in communities who have on bended knee or with hats in hand begged different levels of government, municipal councils, adjoining municipal councils and county councils for funds to build planned hospital institutions. In view of that and the plan which is to be instituted by the government, surely the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) could come out at the conference now being held in Ottawa and assure these
February 1, 1966

municipalities that the cost of taking care of these citizens will be shared in a responsible way by the government.
As I have said, I have had personal experience in this regard. I have quoted a few figures regarding the raising of money. In respect of the second hospital to which I referred, I should like again to quote from figures supplied by the doctor who wrote me on January 17. He states that funds available from the provincial government for the new program amount to 24 per cent, that funds available from the federal government amount to 11 per cent and that those which have to be raised from local sources amount to 65 per cent.
I suggest to you and the Minister of National Health and Welfare that this is a very regrettable state of affairs. The government should examine its stand before introducing any program which will increase taxes and over-burden these services. Indeed, an editorial to be found in the Toronto Star of December 13, 1965 under the heading "Hospitals can no longer count on charity" points out certain figures in relation to this fundraising problem. I quoted some figures in respect of programs that were in existence at the time to which I referred, and you may be assured that the people of that great city find themselves in exactly the same position as the people in smaller municipalities.
I should like to quote the following from the Toronto Star;
Fund raisers in Etobicoke found that since June they had raised $41,000 toward their $4,750,000 new hospital and that it cost $42,000 in organizing expenses to get it, a loss of $1,000.
If there is going to be public reaction to socialization by the Liberal government then it is high time the Minister of National Health and Welfare stood up on his feet in this house to indicate that he is interested in the development of a program which will enable the hospital facilities required to be available prior to the institution of any such program which will spread $500 million around the country.
In a second editorial which appeared in the Toronto Star, again in December of 1965, there is an indication that the federal government, because of certain arrangements in regard to funds, is behind in its capital grants payments to eight hospitals here in the city of Ottawa, as a result of which the boards of
Supply-Mr. Winkler
these institutions have had to carry a fantastic weight of debt until such time as the federal government sees fit to catch up on these payments.
The chairman of the Ontario Hospital Services Commission of that day, Mr. Nielson, said:
And I expect the situation will get worse as time goes on. Everybody has to be backed up in chronological order and federal grants may be longer and longer in coming-
The situation will become especially critical in the Toronto area, where a number of major hospital projects are planned-
If this is the situation as we move into a discussion of a medicare program for this country, surely this Liberal government, which has seen fit to abdicate its position with regard to senior citizens and its position as far as production machinery for manufacturers is concerned, should once and for all stand up and announce its position. We are now in the middle of the winter, and there is some advantage gained as a result of a slow down in construction, but as we approach spring those individuals in the municipalities concerned, as well as in the many municipalities in this country, will be looking forward to a policy announcement by the government which will ease their minds and their concern for the people in their areas. At this date the government has not seen fit to make such an announcement.
I wish to turn now to the question of agriculture, and again I am sorry that the minister is not here. I am aware that he has other duties.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
I regret very much that because the hon. member who was speaking prior to the last hon. member was in the course of a dissertation on agriculture, the minister saw fit to walk out of the chamber. I know the minister quite well. I had the opportunity of spending some time with him as part of a delegation of the House of Commons at an international conference and I realize his ability to represent Canada in a good and true fashion. On that occasion I think he deported himself very well in the interests of the country and I was proud to be a member of the same delegation. But now with the reins of office, I hope this minister does not change his mind about his status. I hope he does not become another minister of the cabinet who seeks the leadership of his party and uses his political experience to this end, as others are doing.
Mr. Speaker, I refer to one day back in June, 1965, June 23 to be specific, where the

February 1, 1966
Supply-Mr. Winkler
minister's words as reported in Hansard at page 2821 stand out and demonstrate what I am asking for the people of the agricultural constituency I have the honour to represent. At that time he had this to say on behalf of his own constituents with regard to a very critical situation that had developed at that time, and was being dealt with in this house. I refer to the drought situation that existed in the Ottawa valley:
I think this is a desperate and dark hour in the lives of these people, most of whom have lived in this area of eastern Ontario for many generations. I do not think these are people who come running to government every time something gets a little tough. I do not think they come to us on their knees, and they never will, because these are proud people. But I do suggest that if we have any function here whatsoever-
I think this is important, Mr. Speaker:
But I do suggest that if we have any function here whatsoever it surely is to see to it that we use every measure and every available facet of governmental action that is available to us in order to alleviate this desperate situation of the farmers of eastern Ontario.
Those were very honourable words, Mr. Speaker, because I know the seriousness of the situation with which he was dealing at that time. One of his suggestions was this:
There should be a moratorium with respect to principal and interest on mortgages pending the alleviation of drought conditions.
He went on to say later on:
I am sure that in conjunction with the chartered banks we can make some arrangement whereby farmers will not be squeezed out of existence because this year they will not be able to pay interest on bank loans or make repayments of principal.
I could go on at great length quoting the minister, but that is not necessary because I think this gives the house the basis and foundation for what I am now going to say. I wrote to the minister shortly after he took [DOT]office in connection with the drastic situation that existed in western Ontario due to the inability of farmers to harvest their crops, through no fault of their own but because of wet and early winter conditions.
This critical situation exists in the counties of Bruce, Grey, Dufferin, Simcoe, Wellington and, I suggest, a host of others. I believe this situation exists in Huron as well. It is equally as disastrous as the drought situation that existed, in the Ottawa valley last spring with which the minister's own constituents were concerned. The only reply that I received- and it may be constitutionally, the reply that 
any minister would send-with that he could not interfere because he thought it was a totally provincial matter.
This may be so, Mr. Speaker, but at that particular time he was asking the minister of the day to take the leadership in the problem that existed in his own constituency-and this is what I ask the minister to consider doing tonight, tomorrow or the next day. These farmers in western Ontario took their cattle to sales, the same as the farmers did early in the spring of last year, and offered them for sale at 11, 12 or 14 cents a pound in order to get rid of them, because they had no feed for them.
The minister of agriculture of that day went to bat for the constituents of the present minister. He saw to it that certain feed situations were brought about which meant that these farmers could stay in business and could weather the storm. The present minister saw to it that his own thinking was put into action by the minister of that day. That is all I am asking him to do today, namely take the leadership in this situation so that the farmers of the counties I have mentioned can weather the winter and start afresh next spring without taking the weight of government debt, bank debt, or having the shortage of feed create the necessity for them to get rid of their cattle through the winter months.
If the minister does not think this is a serious matter-and I hope he will read these words tomorrow in Hansard-I would ask him only to re-read the brief that was forwarded to him by quite a large assembly of farmers' representatives of all these counties, which meeting many members attended during the course of the winter months. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I recall the meeting very well, and regrettably perhaps-and I say this advisedly-no Liberal member of the federal government was able to attend. However, there were two from the provincial authority. Although I received a great promise of cooperation in effort, up to today I have received none.
In other words, I assume that the provincial representatives who attended that meeting were not interested in the well-being of those farmers. Though I have petitioned the minister on more than one occasion since then to come to the rescue and assistance of the farmers to whom I have referred, to this day the minister has not seen fit to offer suggestion, help or any kind of moratorium
February 1, 1966

in seeing that these farmers are very properly assisted in their plight. In other words, let us not have once again here in Hansard words that a minister will speak as a private member and which he fails to back up when he becomes a minister of the crown. I would ask the minister in the days that lie ahead to come to the fore, to stand on his two feet in this house and say that he has the same degree of responsibility and the same degree of respect for these farmers-and sympathy, I might add-that he showed for the farmers of his own constituency before he became a minister of the crown.


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Yes, by all means.


David James Walker: What type of response did the hon. member get in this connection from the minister of agriculture of the provincial government?


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is a very fair question, Mr. Speaker. I happen to be a federal member of parliament, and I consult the authority represented here to come to the aid of the people that I represent, in the fashion in which I believe they should. When I decide to be a member of the provincial legislature, I believe I will then be able to consult the provincial minister of agriculture.
I do not have the copy of Hansard immediately before me, Mr. Speaker, but the next matter I wish to bring to the notice of the house is the situation that existed at the beginning of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. One evening I found it necessary to rise-I might say rather hurriedly-to move a motion against the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) taking the floor. Had it been the hon. member for Villeneuve or the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) I would have acted in exactly the same way.
However, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Villeneuve saw fit to launch a personal attack against me that evening. This was totally unjustified. No French Canadian member of this House of Commons or from anywhere else in this country can say that I deny him the right to be a Canadian, or every right that he has to be a Canadian within the terms of our constitution. Therefore the words the hon. member for Villeneuve spoke that evening were entirely false, and nobody in this house knows better than he that what I say is true.
Supply-Mr. Winkler
It was mentioned this afternoon in the house that because the country has seen fit tc return us as a house of minorities we should act in a certain way, and should contribute in a certain way. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, in all honesty, that I learned from listening to people in the last election campaign that there is only one thing wrong with this House of Commons, and that is the fact that there are five parties sitting here.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
Nobody can deny that. What is more damning to the rules of this house, what is more damning to the efficiency of this house, what is more damning to the legislation of this house, than to have five parties sitting here? It is my belief, Mr. Speaker, that when the government introduces measures there cannot be five points of view. You are either for them or you are against them. There cannot be four divisions of opinion against a subject.
Mind you, I recognize the need of the government to woo some of these people. I recognize the need of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), just as I recognized the need of Mackenzie King in 1926 to woo a little support for what is being done. Were I in his position, it may be that I would do precisely the same thing. I do believe that in so far as the dispatch of business and the orderly conduct of this house are concerned-perhaps the members of the press gallery have a degree of responsibility here-there is too much time absorbed by having all these people speak in a kind of official or semi-official way. This is one of the things that has caused a deterioration in the prestige of parliament in Canada. I think I am right when I say that.
The government today has moved in the direction of recognizing parties if certain criteria are met. Since that is the case, we must recognize the situation and we must act accordingly. This we have done. You will notice from the records of the house that I did not intervene when the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) took the floor. However, I did when the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) took the floor. The objection was a technical one. It was not a bicultural thing as the hon. member tried to imply. When the hon. member imputes motives to me and tries to indicate how I feel about Canada and Canadians, he is so totally wrong he only demonstrates his own ignorance. As I look over the list of speakers who participated in the Throne Speech debate, I am quite fascinated to see the position in

February 1. 1966
Supply-Mr. Winkler
which the Conservative party finds itself. Although there was some degree of understanding, we find ourselves in a position of prejudice. In cases of this kind, the members of this party are always willing to bend.
In so far as the rule changes are concerned, who in this house agreed more than the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) with those rule changes? There was no fuss and everything went smoothly. As a matter of fact, four or five of the suggestions that were adopted were suggestions made by the Leader of the Opposition. There were no complaints from this party. However, we find some manoeuvring taking place. We find the members of the Conservative party have been put in a position of prejudice. I find this is exactly the way the government operates across this country. They endeavour, with the assistance of their friends, to put us in a position of prejudice. Although the Liberals may sit there, they do not have the full reins of government. I may say that there was an increase in the membership of this party when it returned to the house. I feel these things are significant when we are determining what course to follow in this house.
In looking through the list of those who participated in the Throne Speech debate I find, that, with the exception of one day, we were in a position of prejudice in relation to our numerical position in this house. I feel this situation has to change. I say that to you, Mr. Speaker, with all deference to those people who sit to our left. There is not one of them whom I cannot call my friend. However, we have to be realistic. When they go out to the country and paint the picture black, when they tell the people of Canada they are being obstructed in the house by the Conservative party, they are being deceitful. Let us be honest, let us recognize the position of the members in the House of Commons. I grant you that we are all here as members of parliament, we all have our own position. We have our own people to represent and our views to put forward, and we have the legislation of the government with which to deal. Surely, however, it is not necessary to give the people of Canada a false impression of what happens in this chamber.
Were it not for the fact that the Liberal party will need the support of the splinter groups on a continuing basis, I am convinced that some of the things that have been said about the support the government receives cannot be blamed on the intestinal fortitude of the people in the official opposition. As a

matter of fact, I will mention the N.D.P. and the Ralliement Creditiste. They had the courage of their convictions and the intestinal fortitude to say they knew the government was wrong with regard to the subamendment and the amendment. This was not true of the Social Credit because they are the boys who are being wooed. Perhaps other terms are equally applicable. If this house is going to function, I think it is high time we were realistic. Those who desire to go over and join the government should do so and give them the majority they desire. Then, let us get on with the business of this house.
Certainly, the members of the Conservative party have deported themselves in a manner to indicate they are quite co-operative. They are in agreement to get along with the business of the house. We have adopted the same attitude with regard to the changing of the rules. We will honour those changes. Let us not be put in a position of prejudice.


Mr.   Pailerson@: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Yes.


Mr. Patterson:: Would the hon. member not agree that the people of Canada have a right to elect whomsoever they will to be their representatives whether they be members of the Conservative party, the Liberal party, the N.D.P., Social Credit or the Ralliement? Would he not agree that the electors in any constituency have the right to choose their representative and have that representative present their case here in the House of Commons?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made that quite clear in the course of my remarks. I do not deny that. However, there are not five points of view on a question; there are two. When the government introduces legislation, you are either for it or against it. This is not true of that group.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Listening to the whip of the Conservative party, I have come to the conclusion that I must be one of those who did not have the opportunity to participate in the Throne Speech debate, because of the large number on members in this house supporting our party. This being so, I am grateful that we have the opportunity on this occasion to say some of the things that we might have said, had it been possible to participate in what is sometimes regarded as the state-of-the-nation debate.
February 1, 1966

I am sure we are all aware that on any motion to go into supply every member has a basic right, as a member of a democratic parliament, to express grievances as he understands them on behalf of the constituency he represents, and also on behalf of the broader interests of Canada as a whole. Certainly there are plenty of grievances that can be brought to the attention of this administration. We are meeting following a long recess to put together the scattered events which have occurred during that period.
[DOT] (7:50 p.ra.)
Then again as was mentioned many times during the course of the unnecessary election campaign last fall, we are confronted with an accident prone government-which I think is the euphemistic way of describing a government that has been somewhat erratic and confused in the administration of the affairs of this nation. The very method that was used to disrupt the events of parliament last fall is indicative of this fact. Just when we were all preparing to return to parliament, in September last, to continue our deliberations, we were thrust into the unnecessary election campaign, with the result that events have accumulated, and problems have grown apace.
We now find ourselves in the position where we must deal with estimates which concern a fiscal year that is almost past. As we review the events which have taken place in this house, just in the short time parliament has been sitting, I think we have to agree that the same accusations that could be made against the administration in the last parliament prevail again. This has been demonstrated in the situation that has developed with respect to the much vaunted formula of co-operative federalism, and the discussions which have arisen in the house involving the mishandling of the Spencer case, when this parliament is hardly one week old.
I think the essential problem the administration faces, and I am speaking here as a member of parliament among colleagues who are all equal in this house, is the fact that to far too great an extent the Liberal government has depended upon bureaucratic influence for administering the affairs of this nation. Any democracy requires a highly trained and skilled bureaucratic body to carry on the permanent basis for that democracy. The difficulty arises when we find politicians, or those charged with the responsibilities
Supply-Mr. Dinsdale
of carrying power in a nation, using the backdoor method of bringing bureaucrats into positions of political responsibility.
Experts are fine in their place. In one of many definitions of experts they are defined as people who know more and more about less and less. That is a definition that is popularly used, and of course refers to the fact that in an industrialized and urbanized society which is becoming increasingly complex, we must have men and women in an advisory capacity who are thoroughly familiar with certain aspects of a complex economic and social situation. However, when these experts are translated into the seats of political authority by means of the back door technique of finding safe constituencies in various parts of the nation, and when they come immediately to positions of power on the treasury benches, then it is inevitable that such an administration or such a government should get out of touch with the fundamental wishes of the people.
I think that this was one of the main things evidenced in the election last fall. If there had been politicians in charge of administering affairs of the country, an election would never have been called. It amazed me, as an old politician of some 14 years experience in this house, that after a great travail of soul, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) finally made the decision to precipitate this country into an election. That is one evidence, I think, that the influence of bureaucrats trying to act as politicians is too strong in the affairs of the nation.
Another indication, of course, is the tendency of those with intensive rather than extensive expertise to resort to the techniques of hidden persuasion. Vance Packard has done a lot of research into this field, and points out how, by using the knowledge that has been accumulated by modern psychologists, it is possible to brainwash great numbers of people, even in a democratic society. This is the work of the man in the grey flannel suit, the public relations expert which is characterized by what I term sloganeering. This government, of course, has been a past-master at slogans, some of which have had the effect of persuading large numbers of people, particularly those who live in urban communities, to vote for them. People in urban communities are exposed to the intensive campaigns that are possible by reason of the mass media of communication which, by continuous repetition of slogans such as: "Let us get the country going again" or "War on

February 1, 1966
Supply-Mr. Dinsdale
poverty" or things of this kind, persuade them that there is something in the program offered by the government. I am reminded of the words of a wise man who summed it up in this fashion: Some are born great; some have greatness thrust upon them; some achieve greatness, and some hire press agents.
Unfortunately, far too frequently in many walks of life today we depend upon press agents and upon the techniques of the hidden persuader in trying to bring a message to the people, rather than getting down to the grass roots and dealing with the fundamental problems of the people. I think this was demonstrated in the experience of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon) who recognized that he had been out of touch with the people of Canada, and as a result tendered his resignation from the administration. As that distinguished journalist who writes in the Toronto Telegram said, and I refer to Mr. Lubor Zink, "the hon. member for Davenport should have been the Pied Piper to lead the way to other exits of this kind".
Mr. Speaker, there is another aspect of this tendency to transfer bureaucrats and experts to positions of political power which has had a very debilitating influence on the parliament of Canada, and that is that it has tended to destroy the prestige and the influence of parliament. Now the Prime Minister himself is becoming aware of this difficulty. In a speech before the National Press Club just a short time ago, in fact immediately after the election of November 8th, his position is described thus in the headline which is over the by-line of the story written by Mr. George Brimmell:
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
Inform, don't excite public, P.M. asks press, politicians.
The article goes on to indicate that the Prime Minister suggested there was nothing more important either for politicians or for the news media than to remove by our actions this feeling of cynicism and disillusionment about politics.
I should like to ask, Mr. Speaker, this question: Where does this feeling of cynicism and disillusionment come from if it does not come from the sloganeering and the tactics that have been used by the Liberal administration over the past three years? My colleague from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) referred this afternoon to the tactics that were used in defeating the Conservative minority government of 1962. Since he

brought up that subject I have dug into the files and found many, many headlines to the same effect as this one extracted from the Toronto Daily Star for September 19, 1962: Won't ease all-out attack until the P.C.'s fall- Pearson.
So the Prime Minister, now aware of the cynical attacks and sloganeering of his party when it was in opposition, has produced across the nation this situation. If a politician makes a statement, that statement must be reported whether it is accurate or not. One has to go to the editorial page for the explanation. It is something like the problem faced by the press of the United States when McCarthy was on the rampage: McCarthy would make a statement; it was reported in the press, and only those who read the editorial comment would be able to sort out fact from fiction. If there is one reason more than any other why parliament has fallen in prestige and influence, it is because of the bureaucrats in politics who have failed to respond to the wishes of the people and have used parliament as a vehicle for getting their own ideas across, rather than using it as the highest court of public opinion in the nation where hon. members from every part of the country can come and speak on behalf of the needs of their constituents.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, if we wanted to carry this theme a little farther forward we could talk about the same ministers who love to sit behind closed doors in federal-provincial conferences and iron out the difficulties according to their superior knowledge. We could talk about the transfer of power from the floor of the House of Commons to the offices of the bureaucrats, and so forth and so on.
The point I want to make in putting forward these reflections tonight, Mr. Speaker, is that the functions of this parliament will not be carried out with efficiency and effectiveness unless the government is willing to listen and to pay some heed to the many excellent speeches which are made, and the excellent recommendations and ideas which are brought forward in this House of Commons.
In the remaining part of the time available to me I want to deal with one or two specific points in this respect. We all have our own special interests, and I should like first of all to make some brief reference to a statement made last night by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) in
February 1, 1966
connection with national parks and also water resource policy in the nation. The minister is not a bureaucrat in so far as national resources are concerned; he is a politician. But he has demonstrated during his term of office that he has come under the influence of the bureaucrats who surround him in the cabinet. Otherwise he would not be constantly quarrelling with such democratic groups as the advisory councils for the Banff and Jasper national parks.
The minister and these advisory groups, which are duly elected bodies, have been in a state of armed truce ever since the hon. gentleman took over responsibility for national parks. I had many meetings with the advisory councils of both these parks when I was the minister responsible for parks, and I always found them to be a very strong-minded and forceful group, yet willing to listen to any reasonable explanations which might be put before them.
In dealing with the statement made by the minister last evening, he pointed out that the new leasing policy which is going to be put before this parliament in due course is quite a reasonable one and in line with the fundamental purposes of national parks. As a former minister I have no quarrel with that. It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it that counts most. I asked him last evening whether they were still carrying out the zoning policy which we enunciated in 1961 and he said yes.
If this is so, then there is no reason at all why the quarrel and the conflict between the minister and these advisory groups should exist; because the zoning policy approach was designed over a reasonable period of time to deal with the problems of preserving the wilderness area and conserving these museums of the flora and fauna of Canada for all future generations. The trouble is that if you attempt to unscramble the yolk too quickly you are bound to run into difficulty.
The point that the advisory council have constantly put forward is, in effect, that commitments previously made by the government of Canada are now being violated. The zoning policy was designed to raise over a reasonable period of time the standards of the town-sites in these mountain and prairie national parks; to provide an area to meet the recreational needs of the Canadian public and also the growing tourist industry, referred to by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) as of great economic significance to
Supply-Mr. Dinsdale
Canada; and further, to prevent any additional encroachment on the wilderness areas of these important national parks.
The townsites were to be administered by a town manager rather than by a national parks superintendent. Two comprehensive studies on town planning have been placed before the government. These are the Ob-erlander reports in respect of Banff and Jasper. If they are carried out and implemented-and it is now some three years since they were brought down-there will be no need for all this bickering and backbiting which is now going on with reference to our national parks.
I should like to point out that the national parks of western Canada are quite different from those of eastern Canada. The national parks of eastern Canada never carried out a leasing policy owing to the fact that there were recreational areas available in abundance along the sea coast. But on the prairies and in the mountains in the early days, with a small population and a lack of alternative recreational areas, the government deliberately encouraged settlement of these parks and cannot repudiate overnight policies once established. I recommend to the minister that, he follow the zoning plan that was very carefully laid out.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
There is another matter that would help resolve this difficulty. The former Conservative administration had put before the provincial governments a comprehensive recreational park development program to take the pressure off these national parks. There has been no attempt to implement this program by the Liberal administration over the past three years. We also set up a federal-provincial ministers park conference to aid in the co-ordination of these policies. This is the way in which the problem will be dealt with, not by some out-of-the-blue bureaucratic dicta t.
One word on water resources. The subject has been mentioned several times already in this parliament by the hon. member for Kootenay East-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Kootenay West, please. Don't get me mixed up.


An hon. Member:: Heaven forbid.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: By the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) and by



February 1, 1966
Supply-Mr. Dinsdale
the minister last evening. The hon. member for Kootenay West indicated that the New Democratic party was the only party with a water resources program. The minister made the same claim on behalf of his party, and of course the hon. member for Kamloops says the same for the party to which I belong.
I should like to review one or two of the statements made by the minister last night. The first administration to get to grips with this question was the Conservative party through the resources for tomorrow conference held in 1961. Out of that conference came the resource ministers council to continue this co-operative federal-provincial arrangement so that a comprehensive program for the wise management and multiple use of our resources could be devised. As an adjunct to that council we have a secretariat which is to sponsor a conference on water pollution in the city of Montreal next fall. Here is a major problem in the wise management of renewable resources and it will not be solved in one fell swoop. It has to be done by a series of programs and continuing negotiations so that a policy which is constantly up to date can be worked out.
This was the program followed with respect to the Columbia redevelopment. Notwithstanding what the minister said last night I think he will agree that during the long period when this treaty was debated in the External Affairs Committee it became clear there had been no major or fundamental change made in the treaty which was finalized by the former administration-that it was in substantially the same form as that finally signed by the Liberal administration and the province of British Columbia. The difference of opinion related to the handling of downstream benefits. The Liberal solution was somewhat different from ours, as the minister well knows.
With reference to the Nelson river, I think the minister said last evening that this program was undertaken by his administration. But I think he will remember that it was initiated by the former administration. Indeed, I had the pleasure of signing the original agreement, together with our friends in Manitoba. The South Saskatchewan dam is, I think, one of the major breakthroughs in the wise management of water resources, and this was one of the early Conservative projects.


An hon. Member:: The Diefenbaker dam.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes. I am sure, too, the minister is aware that while the Canada Water Conservation Act was placed on the statute books in 1954 there was no agreement carried out until the national development program of the former Conservative administration was launched in 1957. Incidentally, the January issue of the magazine Executive in an article on its editorial page entitled "Outlook" said this program had led to six consecutive years of unprecedented expansion in the economy of this nation.
I should like to place this suggestion before the minister. One of the recommendations which came out of the resources for tomorrow conference was that an advisory committee on water resource policy for Canada should be set up. Up to the present time no action has been taken in this regard. Now that responsibility for water resources has passed to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Pepin), attention can perhaps be given to what I regard as a fundamental step if we are to move toward a comprehensive water resource policy and implement the recommendations of the conference to which I have referred.
There are two other matters I wish to deal with. I do not know how much time remains to me at this stage, but I should like to refer to them briefly. First I would point out that in the long run what takes place in the House of Commons and what is done by government is of little avail in improving the economy and helping to solve the social problems of the nation, unless the people we represent are inspired to take action at the local, grass roots level.
This concerns the department of northern affairs in relation to the reorganization which is now pending in various government departments. We are all aware that the Glassco Royal Commission dealt in a comprehensive way with the need for government reorganization. We are only now about to implement some of the concrete recommendations which were made in this area. However it has already been suggested that responsibility for Indians should be placed in the hands of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources so that there might be a parallel program in dealing with our two indigenous peoples whose problems are basically the same. I know that a few years ago the Indian affairs branch was always anxious to get the people who had been working in the department of northern affairs and who were responsible for the excellent education
February 1, 1966

and welfare programs which mark the activities of the department of northern affairs with respect to the Eskimos. I think this is a wise move in the right direction.
Senator Gladstone in the other place has long recommended that the two groups be brought together. But I should like to issue a warning that you cannot handle this problem in an arbitrary way. You cannot ignore the wishes of these people as you endeavour to initiate programs and policies for their benefit. The government has had problems with respect to Eskimos in northern Quebec which indicate there has been a tendency to neglect the basic human right of self determination. More recently the minister has quarrelled with Ontario in this field. In the final analysis it is the people themselves who will decide how far they want to go in the direction of integration. We can provide the facilities. I believe, for example, the program of education which makes it possible for many young people to attend the regular public schools has been one of the great forward steps in dealing with this problem.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Another development which takes me right to the heart of my thesis is the establishment of friendship centres in urban communities across the nation. This has been done by the action of people at the local community level, anxious to come to grips with a social problem that had been becoming increasingly intense.
I remember a few years ago getting a very strong letter from one of my constituents, a lady who is active in community programs, accusing the government for its failure to take any interest in the problems of the Indians. I replied by letter to her and later on had a discussion with her and a group of friends, in which I pointed out that there were many excellent programs, on behalf of our first Canadians, on the statute books, but before they could be given flesh and blood local community action would be necessary. This lady, along with others, succeeded in establishing a friendship centre which is a focal point for much better contact with the Indian community in my constituency than had been the case previously.
Since we should listen to the voice of the grassroots perhaps I should mention the names of these persons who have provided that leadership. One is Mrs. Audrey Siluius and another lady Mrs. Maurice Godmaire. Also, since we are on the eve of the celebration of Brotherhood Week in Canada I should make reference to the Canadian Council of
Supply-Mr. Dinsdale
Christians and Jews and its regional director, Mr. Fraser Earle, who have given outstanding leadership in dealing with this problem at the local community level.
I think my time has expired, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Davis:: Read another page.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I notice some hon. gentleman suggests that I am reading my speech. I think it is one of the members from a Vancouver riding, an expert on water resources, and if he would care to examine the notes I have in my hand he is welcome.
The subject of education is of basic importance in this country, and I am glad to see that the administration is accepting the recommendation of the Premier of Manitoba in giving it top priority among the many programs that are necessary. An increase in grants is, of course, basic if we are going to ease the crisis created by the upsurge in university population, but other aspects of the problem have not been dealt with, by the government. However, they are pointed out in the Bladen Commission report. One is the necessity for expanding capital grants. The program of the Conservative government in making loans available through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to provide residences for universities was a very useful one and should be expanded.
Another recommendation I would like to make is in respect to the manpower retraining program. A broad educational program is basic to any successful manpower retraining program, and I was amazed to find that teacher training was not included in the subsidized manpower retraining. I think this is an oversight because how can you have any educational program if you have not got a group of well trained teachers to carry it out? Perhaps the excuse is that the assistance program deals largely with the area of technical schools and technical instruction, an area in which the former administration launched a very worth-while program. But again, before anyone is qualified to attend a technical school he must have a basic educational background. Therefore, if this program is to be successful it is most essential that teacher training courses be made available to adults who wish to upgrade themselves and take part in retraining of this kind.
We talk a great deal about the war on poverty. Education is essential to success in any war on poverty. It is not only economic and financial poverty that places a large num-

February 1. 1966
Supply-Mr. Nasserden ber of Canadians in an inferior position. It is also the lack of a sense of community. It is also the existence of spiritual and psychological poverty, and if we are going to tackle the problem it has got to be done by more than just issuing cheques. You can have psychological and spiritual poverty in the midst of financial affluence.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the time you have allowed me. I wanted to make this my last point. Education is everybody's business. H. G. Wells has said civilization is a race between education and catastrophe and I welcome the government's intention to give priority to this basic human need.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, when we rise to take part in this debate we cannot help but realize that we in the House of Commons are meeting during one of the most critical periods in the history of our country. In this connection one need only think back to the recent events that led to the election campaign, an election that was called by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) because he said he needed a majority to be able to carry on the business of government.
One also thinks of what has happened during the last week or two with regard to the all important matter of national unity, and he realizes that the boasts with regard to the Fulton-Favreau formula, made by the Prime Minister and those surrounding him during the last several months, and even years, now lie in ruins.
Today the government is asking the House of Commons for supply, for the things that are necessary to provide for the day to day work of government. I do not see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) present tonight. He has hardly been present at all during this debate. True, the Postmaster General (Mr. C6td) has been here during a great part of the debate. He is a new appointee, but judging from the heritage attached by the Liberal party to that portfolio, we know something of that particular situation.
When I look at those empty treasury benches opposite and realize the critical situation in the country, realize that the government is asking us tonight to vote money after wasting so much of the time of the House of Commons, after having a recess that lasted over 6i months, yet with its members failing to be present for a debate in which the opposition has agreed not to move a motion or an amendment, a debate which the opposition has said would be wide ranging over many

matters, I cannot help but think that this is an arrogance, and an unforgivable one on the part of the government.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I remember not so many years ago, when they sat on this side, that they utilized every weapon at their disposal at that time in order to bring down a government which was trying to do something for the good of the people of this country. Let us look at what has transpired during the years that have passed since then. In doing so I am sure we will realize that the living costs in this country have risen as they have never risen before, particularly in the last few months, largely because of actions deliberately taken by hon. gentlemen opposite. We must realize also that the cumulative effects of the increased cost of living is having a devastating effect on those with fixed incomes and pensions. The lack of action proposed by this government in the early part of this session need not be referred to at this time, except to say that it must have forgotten the plight of the thousands of Canadians who need help more than anyone else at this time.
Mr. Speaker, all these things, or lack thereof, belong to a government led by a prime minister who his followers say, is a man who cares. What does this Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) care about if not about these people who find themselves in this position of need? This is the Prime Minister who said he was declaring war on poverty. His followers are the candidates who travelled around from one end of Canada to the other saying they were going to fight for the poor, fight for the needy and fight for people on fixed incomes. They said they were going to fight for the people in this country earning less than $3,000 a year. That is what they said during the election campaign but where were they when the votes were called in this house and where are they tonight at this time when we in Canada must face these existing problems?
I realize that there are many factors which enter into the present situation, and that one of the most important is the delay in taking action to do something about the devastating effects of the cost of consumer credit in Canada today. I know the government will say that it has set up a joint committee of the House of Commons and the other place to study this problem, but everyone on both sides of this house knows there are measures that could have been taken before now to alleviate existing conditions.
February 1, 1966

Once again we have witnessed a failure on the part of this government at the head of which we have this man who cares. I ask again, what does he care about at this critical time in the history of our nation, a time when the nations of the world are trying to seek out answers to their problems, a time when Canada should be trying to set an example for these other nations of the world?
What have we experienced since the election? I suggest we have experienced only the re-shuffling of a soiled deck of cards, in spite of the difficult problems facing Canada at this time.
In the province of Saskatchewan, from which I come, we are enjoying perhaps a measure of prosperity we have not enjoyed for many years. Much of this prosperity is the result of the economic position of the agricultural industry. Much of it is derived from exploration now taking place in our province both for potash and for oil. The province of Saskatchewan cannot look to the present federal government for an answer to any of its problems.
The Prime Minister came to our province during the election campaign. He was surrounded there by cabinet ministers of the Liberal government, by candidates from every part of the province of Saskatchewan and constituency executive members. At the only meeting he held in Saskatchewan he turned thumbs down on everything the premier asked for and on everything that the Liberal party of our province asked for in regard to the necessity of providing an immediate opportunity for the development of industry now taking the forefront in the province. That is perhaps one of the reasons hon. gentlemen opposite were not able to make any headway in the prairies. They do not seem to know what people out there need or want, and they do not even seem to care. Yet this Prime Minister was referred to by hon. gentlemen opposite as a man who cares. Again I must ask, what does he care about?
The prairies, almost one quarter of the area of the Dominion of Canada, are to be left out of government plans in so far as legislation and statutes to be brought forward from time to time here in the House of Commons are concerned. I cannot help but think of the tremendous problem in Saskatchewan in relation to the railway readjustments which will have to be made in the next few years. I must also think about what is taking place at the present time with regard to passenger service on C.P.R. lines. You will remember,
23033-35i
Supply-Mr. Nasserden sir, that this situation began before the election campaign. The Prime Minister could have called the House of Commons together and asked for some parliamentary action to meet this situation. The Prime Minister of this country failed to do that, in spite of the fact there was a time lag which could have provided an opportunity to deal with these problems.
Across this country of ours today more people are working perhaps than ever before. Hon. gentlemen opposite like to take credit for this fact, but they fail to remember or realize that this is the result of tremendous effort, ingenuity and foresight on the part of a former minister of labour, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) who, as the minister of labour, brought in co-operative ventures with the provinces to provide Canadians with the greatest technical training program embarked upon by any country anywhere in the world.
Mr. Speaker, when hon. gentlemen opposite are considering the rising employment picture in Canada today they ought to remember some of the facts I have outlined. Many people can work today because they can meet the qualifications demanded by today's employer.
I cannot help but remember that during the period when the leader of my party, the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Dief-enbaker) was prime minister of Canada there was started in the province of Saskatchewan, in co-operation with the provincial government then in power, the south Saskatchewan river project. This gave to our province the first hope it has in almost a quarter of a century for an increased economy. During most of that quarter of a century we had a Liberal government here in Ottawa. That Liberal government promised Saskatchewan almost everything it asked for, but it never gave them. We are rapidly approaching that time when the south Saskatchewan river project will be a living reality. Because of it, industry will be able to come to the province of Saskatchewan and wealth will come to Canada.
Saskatchewan and Canada will benefit from the potash development that is taking place in Saskatchewan at the present time. This development in the potash industry will place Canada in a premium position in regard to satisfying the world markets and needs for this product.

February 1, 1966
Supply-Mr. Nasserden
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I think of hon. gentlemen opposite who went to the province of Saskatchewan realizing the peculiar circumstances in regard to solution mining, their utter failure to comprehend what was needed and their utter failure to show even a sympathetic appreciation of that problem, in the words of our premier, who is a member of the party opposite.
Now, sir, you have heard a great deal about the need of restoring parliament, of giving some of that dignity to this institution that will inspire all Canadians, including those of us on this side of the house and those on the other side. But when we look back to what happened in the last parliament, what do we see? We see the way the business of the House of Commons was handled, not only to frustrate those of us who sat in opposition and had a job to do but to frustrate those of you who sit in the backbenches opposite, and also have a job to do in the House of Commons. The tremendous impression that I get in this particular debate is that you have been told to keep quiet-I am speaking now of what you have been told by your front benchers-so that the government can try to sneak these things past the opposition at the present time. "Don't do anything to irritate them"-this is the kind of tactic being employed at the present time.
We have only to look back to what happened during the last parliament and remember the plea that was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) for a majority, then see those empty cabinet benches and the government asking for supply today, to realize that there is still the same arrogance across the way. When we see this attitude on the part of the government, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but feel that we are indeed facing one of the most critical periods in the history of this country.
This is a house of minorities, and when we see hon. gentlemen opposite so sure and so smug that some segment of this house _ is going to support them regardless of the circumstances, it cannot help but make one wonder whether we are going to be able to restore to parliament that dignity of which I spoke only a few minutes ago.
It is one thing to say-as some say in this house-that we have been sent here to get on with the business of government; but the business of government in 1966, as it has been down through the years, is that there should be proposals from the government side

of the house and there should be constructive opposition from the opposition side of the house, giving the people of the country a choice in that particular context. Those who say that we should deny this practice in the House of Commons are asking us to turn our backs on every tradition that is understood and appreciated under the British system of democratic government.
During these last six and a half months we have had an abdication of responsibility by the Prime Minister and the government. We will have the estimates brought before us in a few days time. We have this supply motion before us at the present time. We are asked to rush it through in as great a hurry as we can. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but return to the constitutional question, because I have always believed it to be one of the most important facing this country at the present time.
I cannot help but wonder what position the provinces are in after being led down the garden path, as they have been, by the Prime Minister. I know that the premier of the province of Quebec took a trip across the country last fall and saw some of the beauties, some of the greatness-and some of the handicaps, too, I would imagine-of the western plains. He went on to British Columbia as well. I cannot help remembering that when he came back to the province of Quebec, he came back a different man. He came back convinced-as many of us were at that particular time and in the months before-that Canadians had not reached the stage where we were ready to sit down and hammer out the problems that exist in regard to our constitution.
That does not mean there cannot be discussions, and certainly we in western Canada, and in the province of Saskatchewan in particular, would not only welcome but urge that there be a conference of people from every province in this country to search out not only the differences-which has been the primary purpose of this government-but those things that they have in common, those things toward which they can strive, those things upon which they can build a common community not only in one province but in all provinces of Canada.
That is one of the great challenges that faces us in this parliament and Canadians across the country today. It is one of the reasons I cannot help asking the question, which I have asked in this house before: What does this Prime Minister care about?
February 1, 1966

One cannot help asking this question when he considers some of the actions that have been taken by this government under the personal supervision of the Prime Minister, during the last two years in particular, with regard to the important question of national unity.
Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should say a word or two about agriculture because, after all, Rosthern constituency is one of the great agricultural areas of Canada. I am always proud to be able to say a word on this subject because Rosthern was one of the first constituencies to bring the grain championship of the world to Canada. The late Dr. Seager Wheeler did it three times in a row many years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edward Nasserden: Rosthern constituency also had another tradition, which was that it was a Liberal fortress from the time it was first formed until 1958. One of the astounding things that I find in my riding at the present time is that the really good Liberals will not work for the Liberal party today. They are fed up with the leadership of the Liberal party today; they are fed up with the type of government we have had in Canada during the last two and a half or three years. One did not have to go around Rosthern constituency or Saskatchewan to tell them that. All they had to do was look at the sorry record of this government during the two and a half years preceding the election campaign, and there it was evident to them. Page by page there is a record unequalled in the entire history of this country in the example set by those who sit on the treasury benches and in the front row of those benches.
It does not give us in Rosthern constituency great encouragement to see the same old tired faces back there on the treasury benches again.


Mr. Laing:: Careful now.


Edward Nasserden: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that there is one exception and it is the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing). We like to look at his face. I would say that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources could make himself even more popular if he would realize the great tourist potential that exists today in the province of Saskatchewan and if he did much more than his government has yet done in this regard in that province.
Supply-Mr. Nasserden
I remember, sir, the minister saying at one time that he thought he should have visited my riding during the election campaign. I would welcome him coming to my riding at any time, and assure him that we can show him the great potential that exists in the tourist industry in the province of Saskatchewan.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister on the fact he appointed, as Minister of Agriculture, a man of the soil, a man with a grasp of these problems that are so near to the men and women who pioneered this country. I say to hon. members on the treasury benches that they should listen to this man. He went to western Canada and grasped some of the needs that existed there. Surely he should get a hearing from hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches on these important matters. I hope he does.
However, I notice the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) taking off his glasses and bowing his head. This distresses me because he was an agricultural expert. I wonder if he may be jealous of the new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) and the pronouncements he has made in western Canada. I will confide in you, Mr. Speaker, and say that the new Minister of Agriculture has come a lot closer to understanding the needs of western Canada in relation to agricultural matters than did the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I recall hon. gentlemen opposite putting into their literature a statement to the effect they were going to do something about unemployment insurance for farm labour. This promise is so old and so shop-worn that no one in western Canada or anywhere in Canada believes the government is going to do anything about it. I challenge hon. gentlemen opposite to put something on the statute books in that regard which will give some hope to the farm population in this country. Farmers cannot hire labour because they have not got any stamps to give these people. This is one of the things the government should do, and I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs realizes this.
I have had a number of letters from my riding asking if we could find farm labour anywhere in Canada or anywhere in the world. I plead with the government tonight, and I say this most sincerely, to develop an immigration policy that will bring to Canada men and women who are willing to take their

February 1, 1966
Supply-Mr. Nasserden place in the agricultural areas ol our country in answer to this need which exists today in such great measure.
I should like also to say a word or two about the need of the government to remember that there was a small businesses branch of government set up; this is one of the things that has been forgotten during the last two and a half or three years. The small businessman in this country is the forgotten man in so far as this government is concerned. Thousands of small communities have been forgotten because of the way the designated areas have been set up in an attempt to build up the bigger areas at the expense of the smaller communities. We have a very good example of this in the province of Saskatchewan. Part of my riding, and part of the riding of the hon. member for Hum-boldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) have been left out of a designated area that has been set up in one of the most heavily populated areas of the province. Many people who are searching for year round employment are today living half the year on seasonal employment and half the year on unemployment insurance.
These people have been left out of consideration entirely. I have a question I intend to ask the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) when his estimates come before the house concerning how these national employment districts have been set up. Is there any provision for them in a statute of Canada at the present time? Hon. members on the treasury benches know that the outlines of these districts are very vague indeed today, if they have ever been defined by law. This is one of the things about which they should be thinking when they try to set up designated areas.
There is another favourite problem of mine which I want to mention. I refer to the development of local airports in the smaller centres. The government could do something for those people who have found it necessary or desirable to purchase small aircraft. Many of these areas have 10 or 12 aircraft and they receive little assistance from the government. I see the hon. gentleman is leaving, so I suppose he finds airports an uninteresting subject. Perhaps he finds it a little less interesting than agricultural matters.
These airports have 10 or 12 aircraft and there are perhaps another 10 or 12 people who would like to purchase pleasure aircraft. There is an urgent need for a government policy with regard to airstrips and a few other little improvements that could be made

to stimulate interest in these aircraft, and thus in the aircraft industry of this country. At the same time, we would be taking some of the load off our highways, a load that is becoming increasingly burdensome in almost every part of the country. I think we are back in the eighteenth century in this regard. The time is long past when the government of Canada should give some attention to this matter. I only regret that there does not appear to be anybody on the treasury benches really interested in this particular problem.
There is one other matter I should like to mention and that is the question raised by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) both inside and outside of this house during the last year or so. I refer to the safety features for automobiles. I do not believe there has been a question that has received more public attention than the proposition put forward by the hon. gentleman that there should be something done to assure that more of these safety features become standard equipment on our automobiles. I have received a good number of letters in this regard, and I know that other members have as well. Perhaps there is not too much that this government can do about it. However, I believe some agency of the government should be given an opportunity to study the matter more intensely than has been done so far. Perhaps in a year or two or perhaps sooner, some major breakthrough may be made in this regard.
I should say a word or two about another matter which I feel would be of interest to the agricultural industry, particularly when I think of the tremendous qualities of our Minister of Agriculture. Surely the Prime Minister can now return responsibility for the Canadian Wheat Board to the Minister of Agriculture where it rightly belongs. We all know what a heavy load the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) carries. The Prime Minister has asked him to carry the additional responsibility of reporting for the Canadian Wheat Board. The interest of the Minister of Agriculture in this regard cannot help but be more intense, so I cannot emphasize too greatly how happy I believe the vast majority of people in western Canada would be if the government were to return responsibility for this agency to its rightful place, the Minister of Agriculture.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I cannot help but say before I conclude, sir, that it is nice to see old faces, whether they are on this side of the house or on the other
February 1, 1966

side of the house. It is nice to see them back in the House of Commons again. It is a pleasure always to come back. There are many in this house who have come back a number of times. There are new members in the House of Commons and, today, perhaps more than at any other time in our history we have the responsibility and the necessity because of the critical situation in this country of trying to give to those new members the inspiration that will reserve unto them the idealism that brought them here in the first place. We have seen that idealism die in the faces of so many who have come to the House of Commons over the years. I say to members on the government benches and on the back benches, do not let that idealism die in your faces because you have treasury benches that have taken unto themselves so many of the decisions that are being made on that side of the house. You have a responsibility not only to yourselves but to the people of Canada as well. If you utilize that responsibility in this house of minorities, your voice may be felt.
This is one of the challenges that faces members, particularly on the government side of the house at the present time. To those new faces sitting on the opposition side of the house I say this: They were sent to the parliament of Canada to present the views on which they were elected. Since we sit in opposition it is our responsibility and our duty to present those views in contrast to the policies or lack of policies put forward by hon. gentlemen sitting opposite. May I say that during the last three and a half years it has been largely a case of lack of policies. That is one of the reasons why the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) thought it necessary to go to the country seeking a majority.
Our responsibility is to oppose constructively, putting forward our program in contrast to the program that we feel is inadequate to meet the needs of Canadians in this year of 1966 and in the years that follow. May I say that in the business of the House of Commons we would like to hear more from the members of the back benches on the government side voicing their views in debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edward Nasserden: We want to have our own fair share of representation in debate, despite the fact that there are those few in number who today claim that they constitute a party, here in the House of Commons.
Supply-Mr. Gauthier
When we think of the waste of time, and perhaps it is not altogether a waste of time, on motions and many things of that sort where many people are presenting their points of view, Mr. Speaker, how many times has the house grown restless from hearing a repetition of those points of view that have been put forward under the guise of a viewpoint of another party.
I cannot think of any really good reason why the government should be given supply at this time, except that it is the generosity of Her Majesty's loyal opposition that wants to get on with the business of this country.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the few minutes at my disposal to point out to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene), who is occupying his seat, and to the minister responsible for ARDA, Mr. Sauve, that it is urgent to take steps to improve the farming situation in Quebec, particularly in the riding of Roberval.
I welcome the appointment of the hon. member for Renfrew South as Minister of Agriculture. We are all the happier because it has been over 50 years since Ontario was given such an honour. Without being jealous of Ontario, we ask the government to think a little about the province of Quebec when making the next appointment.
I am sorry I cannot go as far as the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) who stated, as reported in Hansard on page 42, that the new minister was the first bilingual minister of agriculture since confederation:


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, who is the first bilingual holder of the portfolio since confederation.
It is not that I do not have great respect for the new Minister of Agriculture, but my hon. friend probably wanted to make a little joke in the interest of his party. But he does not have the right to alter historical facts. Last year, I asked the minister of agriculture to give me a list of the agriculture ministers since confederation. I did not want to find out if there had been a bilingual minister of agriculture since confederation, because I was sure of that, but to find out how long it had been since Quebec had been given her share of ministers. I therefore ask the hon. member for Lotbiniere to listen, because he will learn some surprising things.
In fact, that list shows that the first minister of agriculture for Canada was Hon. J. C.

February 1, 1966
Supply-Mr. Gauthier
Chapais of Quebec; the second, Hon. C. Dun-kin, from Brome, P.Q.; the third, a Quebecer also, Hon. J. H. Pope; the fourth, a senator, Hon. Letellier de St-Just; the fifth, also a Quebecer, Hon. C. A. P. Pelletier; the sixth, from Ontario; the seventh, from Quebec; the eighth, from Ontario. And so it was, by turn, until up to about 50 years ago. I notice that among those ministers, several were bilingual. It is not the first time, therefore, that we have a bilingual Minister of Agriculture But one fact cannot be overlooked. In the last half of the century, when we had for the first time a minister of agriculture from British Columbia, the western provinces never stopped supplying ministers of agriculture. There are ministers from British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
We have not had, in the last 50 years, the opportunity of having a minister of agriculture from Quebec in the federal government. If, during the last 50 years, the ministers who came from the west worked mainly for western interests, we are going to put up a fight so that our eastern minister, while he works in Ontario's interest, does not forget the province of Quebec.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Indeed, the last 50 years were what I would call the half century of wheat. Ministers of agriculture only had ears for wheat, ministers of trade and commerce only had eyes for wheat. All in all, Canadian agriculture during the last 50 years can be summed up in one single word: Wheat. And we still hear the members from Saskatchewan complain, like the one who has just resumed his place, along with those from the west in general; yet, for 40 years now, we have been paying for those provinces, we have deprived, we have bled ourselves for them and they still have not had enough. And hear the questions which are being asked even today:
Will we be able to sow? Will that wheat grow? Will it ripen? Will we be able to reap it? Will we get paid? And so on.
It will have to be understood, Mr. Speaker, that there are other farm products in Canada and that the Minister of Agriculture, as well as the Minister of Trade and Commerce, must concern themselves with the diversified farm products of the province of Quebec. In my opinion, those products deserve special consideration from our new Minister of Agriculture.

I will mention only one category, dairy products. I think they are the most important and those which require immediate attention.
I hope that the request Quebec farmers made through their organization, the C.F.U., to the effect that the price of industrial milk be set at $4 per hundredweight will be granted within the next few days.
It is also the responsibility of your department to correct an injustice which has existed for several years with regard to the producers of milk for consumption and for processing. A great many farmers sell part of their milk production to the dairies for consumption, while the other part is directed to milk processing factories. Because they are compelled to play this dual role, they are deprived of the benefits enjoyed by those who deliver all their production for consumption.
I have always felt that this was a kind of discrimination and the Minister of Agriculture owes it to himself to deal with all milk producers on the same basis.
The Minister of Agriculture should supply the farmers of the Roberval area with seed grains, since last year's crop has been nil, as is evidenced by grants of $30 per head of wintered-over dairy cows, in order to maintain our dairy herds.
I also rely upon the influence of the department as regards the close control of operations related to the seeding of clouds in my constituency during the next summer months.
For three years our farmers have seen their fields literally flooded on account of these chemical experiments that have brought about their precarious condition.
There must not be a fourth successive year of induced downpours. I shall go further: If the Quebec government turns a deaf ear, if it prefers the advice of its "Hydro" to the advice of thousands of farmers, if it still allows the Weather Engineering Company to carry on in the sky above our area, then I will ask the minister to exert his authority as regards air pollution, and to forbid those infernal machines to darken the skies above Roberval.
I would not wish to close my remarks without referring to ARDA, since, where I come from, this is the one word we hear whenever solutions to farm problems are mentioned. One could say it is the magic word
February 1, 1966

used by the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve) to move farms into the forest and the forest on the farms.
ARDA is supposed to solve all the problems, when in fact it only creates new ones.
Under ARDA, Mr. Speaker, study groups were set up to determine how poor people actually were and have farms analysed by a group of students called technicians.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Under ARDA, political committees were set up, such as the one in the Mistassini valley, in which an amount of $50,000 was sunk in the last election to conduct a so-called social-economic survey. It is unthinkable that such a movement should be used to play politics during an election campaign.
During the last election campaign, as I said earlier, ARDA provided an amount of $50,000 for a survey. Some survey. Young girls and women were hired at $15 per day to go from door to door and inquire in all families, especially Creditiste families, and promise anything, to set up a factory here, a factory there. And this was called a social-economic survey.


An hon. Member:: Policy of grandeur.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: This stopped two days before the vote. I want to make this clear and inform the government of what went on.
They went into homes to ask questions. They claimed to be asking questions on the family budget to determine the state of poverty of a family but, in fact, the questions were to, determine whether they were Conservative, Liberal or Creditistes.
During the last week they went to work. More than 1,000 people worked day and night, in all counties, probably to finish their survey.
Under ARDA, $3 million were spent to destroy tens of millions of dollars in forestry resources.
I refer now to those famous blueberry "farms" that were established, only to become wastelands. Fifteen and 20 year-old timber stands were burned down. All the timber were cut down to make way for those blueberry "farms". Where blueberries were supposed to grow, you have only a desert, for nothing remains. And to think that two years before, if a settler dared to cut down a tree, it cost him $10 each time. But there thousands of acres have been ruined. Over 11 of those blueberry fields were established. Often, thousands of acres were destroyed to allow a patronage-handling contractor to get the contract and have the settlers work for nothing. And, you can take my word for it, they will never raise a crop of blueberries there.
Supply-Mr. Gauthier
Under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, there was petty politics which was detrimental to economy, there was patronage to make everybody work, not for society, but for the party. Under ARDA, the minister visits the constituencies. He came to Roberval to brag about his achievements. However, when asked about the programs developed in various provinces, he replies that it is not his concern. In other words, he accepts undeserved praise, but not responsibility.
Please stop your fireworks that are blinding everybody.
If the administration of ARDA is the responsibility of the provinces, why is the federal minister roaming about the provinces to suggest that he is the great magician, that he is the man that does everything.
The subsidies promised to the provinces under joint programs are statutory subsidies to provinces, and the federal government has not crossed this barrier; otherwise, it jeopardizes the economy of the provinces.
What we expect from ARDA, under which the federal government places funds at the disposal of the provinces, an act for the improvement of farm lands, is surely not work performed exclusively on crown land.
What we expect from ARDA are subsidies for real improvement of farmlands. We have not yet received any and we are still waiting.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, there is work going on all the time on crown lands. They are deforested and farmland is retimbered. Subsidies are said to be given to farmers that they may improve their land. Let us instead grant subsidies for zoning and for classification of production.
We are still waiting for the drainage subsidies. Since the law came into force we have been begging the Quebec government and, through it, the central government, for drainage in our regions.
We have wonderful farm lands. If they were drained, they could produce a hundred times as much as Western farms, because in western Canada, the land does not contain humus as ours which guarantees the fertility of our pasture land. Our land is very fertile but it has to be drained; this seems impossible.
We got in touch with the Minister of Agriculture, but he told us it was the responsibility of the Quebec minister of agriculture: "Let him submit projects to us and we will see whether we can approve them."

February 1. 1966
Supply-Mr. Gauthier
They have been passing the buck for four years, and for four years, the minister has been visiting my riding saying: We will see to it that you have drainage. We are still waiting for it.
We have land that is completely flat: no mountains, no hills. We simply need sufficient drainage to put this land into production.
It is said today that we must be up to date. Of course, we must be up to date, and this is the reason why we are asking for drainage because, in the past, when we had light machinery, we did not need that drainage; but today, the soil which is left gets parched down to about two, three or four inches, and you cannot use modem machinery there, because it is going to get bogged down. This is the reason why we think that we should have more subsidies, and it is the first thing the minister responsible for ARDA should have done; besides, I asked him and advised him to do so.
As for the blueberry patches, why not start things the right way? Every farmer has a blueberry patch on his farm. If those farmers had been given grants, their farms would have been prosperous and the blueberry patches alone would have brought their owners a return of $1,000 to $1,500 a year with no trouble at all. But no, they let it go to nothing. As for the blueberry farm co-operatives of the area, they got no grants either. No, they will do nothing for the development of farm land even if that is the aim of ARDA; they cannot touch that; one has to work crown land.
So, they work crown land. Can you imagine such nonsense, Mr. Speaker? We only ask that the amount of $3 million spent in our area under ARDA be used for farm drainage, to guarantee the sale of their products, to build potato cellars and cold storage plants.
We have marvellous soil for vegetables and when it is realized that the four ridings of Saguenay-Lake Saint John produce only 12 per cent of the vegetables we eat, I say it is a major scandal.
If those millions had been spent on cold storage plants or potato cellars or secondary farm industries in an effort to produce at least what we need to feed ourselves, half the problem would have been solved. Imagine, only 12 per cent of the vegetables we eat are home grown, while the rest come from outside. And we are a farm region.
It seems to me that you do not have to be endowed with above average intelligence to

see those facts and find an implementing method that would be more rational, more concrete and better adjusted to local needs.
Mr. Speaker, even after having spent all this money in the area-and I agree with the minister responsible for ARDA that he has spent much money-we have to admit that this money has served no purpose.
A good administrator is judged by the constructive results he achieves with the money he was handed over. The minister responsible for the administration of ARDA had $3 million to spend. And what is left of it? Not a cent for the economy of this area.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Forestry would be well advised to examine first the farm needs, before asking people to study and lecturing them right and left. Let him see the needs, go out into the field and above all, speak to the farmers, because the farmers are the ones who will help organize agriculture in a given area so that it can be profitable.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, though the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development is away this evening, that he will take note of these remarks. If he comes and sees for himself in order to learn-and not to conduct a political campaign-he will see the amount of patronage in each and every parish, and understand that it is not in the interest of agriculture.
By the way, when a farm organization or a blueberry workers union is established and 95 per cent of union members are from the city and secretaries and treasurers are notaries, and everything else accordingly, at $2 per hour, I tell you that the farmers do not like it. During the last election campaign, five federal ministers canvassed in my riding from door to door. They went to all building sites and yet, they did not manage too well and will never get anywhere, because the people in my riding know that they are being fooled and are dealing with men who are play-acting.
Until the minister goes to meet the local people and talk with them in order to establish thriving industries that will enable every farmer to earn more than $3,000 or $3,500 a year, that is to come closer to catching up with the average income of western farmers, who are complaining although they earn from $4,500 to $5,000, while our farmers have to be satisfied with an annual income of $1,200 per year, he will not accomplish much.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Minister of Agriculture, the new Minister of Agriculture,
February 1, 1966



will do something. I hope also that he will be able to convince the minister responsible for ARDA to work more seriously.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Mr. G. L. Chalterton (Esquimali-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I did not have a chance to say anything in the Throne Speech debate so may I take this opportunity, sir, of congratulating you on your appointment to your high office and, as has been expressed so frequently before, we all know you will fill your assignment with honour and adequacy.
Earlier today the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) pointed out the difference in the attitude of the Liberal party when they were in the position that we are now. In 1962 and 1963 when they were in opposition and we were in government they were obstructionists. They did not co-operate in any way. But as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre said today we, the present opposition, are going out of our way to be co-operative in an effort to make parliament work in spite of the inadequacies and fumbling of the government. We are today in effect extending the Throne Speech debate.
The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nas-serden) has spoken about the small businessman as being the forgotten man. There was nothing in the Throne Speech to indicate any hope for the small businessman. When we were in government we took at least two important steps to encourage the small businessman, the backbone of the country, to help put him in a more competitive position.
There is another group that in reference to the present government I would call the forgotten people of Canada. When I first heard the Throne Speech in the other place I listened with interest to see what there might be in it to give encouragement and hope to the veterans of Canada. Part of the speech was in French which, unfortunately, I do not understand. I subsequently read and reread the Throne Speech but found there wasn't one single word, not even a passing reference, to the veterans of Canada. This, Mr. Speaker, is typical of the attitude of the present government toward those worthy people who fought for Canada in the last two world wars.
I say it is typical of the attitude of this government because I call to mind when the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet) in 1964 announced the policy of the government with regard to the transfer of jurisdiction over veterans hospitals to local authorities, his
23033-36J
Supply-Mr. Chatterton announcement was made at 2.30 in the afternoon. He had an appointment at three thirty or four o'clock that same afternoon with the veterans organizations from various parts of Canada, but he made the announcement before he met those organizations.
To refresh my mind I referred today to the minutes of the standing committee on veterans affairs of 1964, volume 1 of the minutes of the proceedings and evidence, dated Tuesday, September 29, 1964. At that time we asked the minister when he proposed to introduce amendments to existing veterans legislation, and on many occasions during that hearing of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs he said he felt sure and confident that the amendments to the various pieces of legislation would be introduced in the house before the end of 1964. Well, Mr. Speaker, it was within the last four days of the last parliament that the minister introduced four pieces of legislation.
The two most important of those four were the amendments to the Veterans Land Act and to the War Veterans Allowance Act. There was a strong feeling among the members of our party that, as has been the standing practice regarding legislation introduced by our government, all veterans legislation should be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. There was not any particular urgency to refer the War Veterans Allowance Act to the standing committee because the increases had already been implemented some time previously.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
In any event, this legislation was introduced three days before the end of last session. When we asked the minister if he would agree to referring these pieces of legislation to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs on the understanding that we would pass that legislation in the last few days, he agreed. I shall not quote him exactly, but I want to refer you to his statement made before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and again as recorded at page 2971 of Hansard for June 28, 1965. I hope the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet) will recognize the promise he made at that time, that these two pieces of legislation, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Veterans Land Act, which were amended on June 28, 1965, would be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs at its next sitting.

February 1, 1966
Supply-Mr. Chatterton
When the Minister oi Veterans Affairs appeared before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in 1964 he clearly intimated, and perhaps we could say he promised, that the Pension Act would also be referred to parliament with an amendment by the end of 1964. As of today we have seen no evidence that even in the early part of this session the Minister of Veterans Affairs intends to submit proposed amendments to the Pension Act to parliament.
It is true that he has appointed Hon. Mr. Justice Woods to investigate the operation of the Pension Act, but there is so much concern among the veterans and their dependants across Canada as to the total inadequacies of the Pension Act, that it is incumbent upon the minister to introduce into this house, within the next month or so, proposed amendments to that act.
Without going into detail, I should like to refer the minister to an issue of the Legionary of January, 1966 wherein it is set forth very clearly the extent to which disability pensions have fallen behind the original criteria which had been set for establishing disability pension rates. I will quote one figure from this article which appeared in that issue of the Legionary, having regard to single rates for disability pensions.
In 1920 the single rate for a disability pension was $900, and the salary for a cleaning serviceman was $900, the same amount. By 1965 the rate for a single pensioner was $2,400. That is an increase of 166.7 per cent from 1920. The salary for a cleaning serviceman for 1965 was $3,800, an increase of
331.1	per cent. No more need be said as to the absolute necessity for the government to bring in very early in this session the long promised amendments to the Pension Act. I shall deal to a greater extent with veterans affairs when the estimates come before parliament.
I want to refer at the moment to a different question, that of ship construction subsidies. The previous government after thorough research and study of this question of shipbuilding in Canada came to the conclusion that in order to encourage the building of Canadian ships in Canadian shipyards it was necessary to provide a direct subsidy to the cost of constructing these ships in Canada. According to our survey we found that in order to make the cost of constructing a ship in a Canadian shipyard comparable to the cost of constructing the same ship in a foreign shipyard, where generally the cost of

labour is lower, it required a subsidy of 35 per cent.
Our policy in this regard was extremely successful, and acknowledged as such even by members of the present government; yet on February 2, 1965 the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) announced that the ship construction subsidies were to be frozen. They became frozen as of February 2, 1965 and remained that way until about a week ago.
The Minister of Transport announced about a week ago the new policy of the government, to the effect that ship construction subsidies will be re-introduced but at a reduced rate of 25 per cent. In the first place, if the government wanted to review the effectiveness of ship construction subsidies, it was perfectly entitled to do so. Certainly after the operation of this new policy for some two years the government was entitled to review the effectiveness of it, but there was no necessity at all to freeze the subsidies while such a review was being undertaken. This action has caused great consternation, dissatisfaction and uncertainty in the shipbuilding and ship operating industries, particularly because the government would not agree, in spite of the requests of the industry, to ensure that if the subsidy was reinstated it would be retroactive to the time at which the freezing became operative.
The Minister of Transport announced about ten days ago that the subsidy would be reinstated, but the fact is that a ship that was started on December 31, 1965 is not eligible for the subsidy; yet a ship that was started on January 1, 1966 is eligible for that subsidy. It is true that when any new program of a government is introduced there must be a cut-off date, and there is bound to be some inequity or dissatisfaction between that which applied before that cut-off date and what applied after. Here is a program which has been in operation for two years. There was absolutely no need for the government to freeze and suspend the subsidies, and then re-introduce them without making ships constructed from that freezing period eligible for subsidy.
When we set the subsidy at 35 per cent we considered that as the amount required to make the cost of building ships in Canada comparable to building ships in foreign shipyards. The government has given no indication that the 25 per cent, which has now been established instead of 35 per cent, will accomplish the same objective. Speaking parochially for the moment, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I
February 1, 1966

disagree very strongly with the new provisions for ship construction subsidy, in that the subsidy will not apply to ships built by provincial governments.
If the initial intent and the present intent of providing ship construction subsidies is to encourage the building of ships in Canadian shipyards rather than having them built at a lower cost in foreign shipyards, and if this is still the objective-there has been no denial by the present government that this is the sole objective-surely this applies whether a ship is to be built by a private company or by a provincial government. I can understand the rightful wrath of the premier of the province of British Columbia at what he would call rank discrimination. I do not really think it is discrimination specifically designed, or intentionally designed for British Columbia, although many people in B.C. feel that way; but I do think that apart from the arguments I have used there is a special consideration as to why such a subsidy should apply to ships built by the government of the province of British Columbia.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
One thing hon. members may not know is that there is a large body of water dividing Vancouver island, which is part of British Columbia, from the mainland of that province. Also, Mr. Speaker, hon. members may not know that there is absolutely no contribution by the federal government toward the cost of transportation between that great island and the rest of Canada. It is true that Mr. Bennett and the government of British Columbia have established a very large fleet of ferries in this connection, which I understand Mr. Bennett claims to be the largest such fleet in the world. But the fact is that in other parts of Canada on the east coast there is a very substantial subsidy paid by the federal government toward the operation of ferries, not only from within one part of a province to another part of the same province but as between one province and another on the Atlantic coast.
For example, with regard to the Newfoundland ferry service between Port aux Basques and North Sydney, Nova Scotia, in the year 1963-64 the federal government paid something like $8.5 million toward the operational deficit. With regard to the ferry system operating between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick they paid a subsidy of something like $3.3 million. With regard to the ferry service operating between Nova Scotia
Supply-Mr. Chatterton and New England, the federal government paid the sum of $217,000. Yet there is not one penny paid by the federal government toward the operational costs of the ferry service between Vancouver island and the rest of Canada. This is even more reason why the ship construction subsidy should apply not only to ships built by private companies but those built by governments of the provinces.
I have but a few minutes left, Mr. Speaker. I could have spoken at great length during the Throne Speech debate on the amendment and the subamendment made with regard to the old age security pension. To refresh the memory of hon. members, there was a subamendment that the old age security be paid at the rate of $100 per month at age 65. We moved an amendment that the old age security should be increased from $75 to $100 a month. Both the subamendment and the amendment were defeated with the unanimous vote of Liberal members and, of course, the expected help of the Social Credit party.
Speaking for the moment about pensions, the government has announced its intention of bringing in amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act in order to integrate that act with the Canada Pension Plan. I hope I can prevail on the government to refer the amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act to a standing committee of the house because, Mr. Speaker, in case they have not become aware of the fact, there is grave dissatisfaction among civil servants about the proposed amendments as announced by the government. Furthermore, in case the government is not aware of it, I have by personal calculation established that there are very grave anomalies in the amendments proposed by the government. I can quote examples if necessary to indicate, for instance, that in certain cases a widow of a veteran will receive a widow's pension of a greater amount than her husband had been earning.
There is a large group of Canadians who are retired government employees. The Federal Civil Service Superannuation Association represents ex-employees of government. They feel very strongly that they have a stake in the pension fund of federal government superannuates, and they believe that any amendment to the Public Service Superannuation Act should be such that they are given a chance to at least establish whether their rights under this act are affected or not.

February 1, 1966
Business of the House
I want to reiterate what I have said, Mr. Speaker, and urge on the government-and we shall continue to do this-that the proposed amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act be referred to a standing committee of the house and that ex-employees of the government be given the chance to appear before that committee and state their views with regard to their claims as to the effect of such amendments on their pensions. This type of thing requires very careful examination, and I merely urge on the government that the amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act be referred to such a standing committee.
I see the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Groos) sitting in his place, for a change.
I know he spoke very volubly and very effectively last year about the position of these ex-employees of the government, and I hope he will use his good offices to prevail upon the government at least to go that far and refer the amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act to a standing committee of the house.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall continue the supply motion and. when it is concluded we shall call the estimates of the various departments. We shall at that stage proceed to consider the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, Trade and Commerce, Transportation, National Defence, Agriculture, Finance, Industry and Defence Production, Secretary of State, Post Office, Public Works, Mines and Technical Surveys, Fisheries, Forestry, Veterans Affairs, Justice, Labour, National Health and Welfare, Northern Affairs and National Resources, National Revenue, Citizenship and Immigration, Legislation, and the Privy Council.
In indicating the sequence of calling the departments, I want to make a reservation that we might possibly have to ask for some slight adjustment, but we hope it will not be necessary to do so. I thought it would be useful to put on record the sequence in which we propose to call the departments.
I might also take advantage of this opportunity to add that at some convenient point we shall have to call interim supply. That matter will be discussed with the house leaders.
I should also, I think, advise the house that I believe today is the last day for the striking committee set up under standing order 65 to
[Mr. Chatterton.l
report to the house as to the personnel of the committees. The members of the committee have been meeting this afternoon, and we would ask that the limitation of time for making that report to the house be extended until next Monday, if that is agreeable to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, at this time I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether the government has any specific dates set aside for the Easter recess, and whether they have any plans formulated at this time-although I do not ask for specific dates-as to a summer recess.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, that is always a very pleasant idea and the government has been giving consideration to this problem. I am not at the moment ready to put it in the form of a motion, but our plans were to have an Easter recess starting with the close of business of the Wednesday before Good Friday and reconvening on the second Tuesday after Good Friday.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
It is too far away to give specific dates for a summer recess but our planning did envisage a two month summer recess. This will have to be dealt with at a later stage. I should make it clear that in making an announcement at such an early stage, we would have to add some kind of reservation about an emergency arising, or some unforeseen event.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Such as an election.


George James McIlraith: Well, I hope not so soon.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I inquired of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) if any action had been taken on a suggestion I made in May of last year with regard to the legal definition of the term waterlots or patented waterlots. Next Friday will be nine months since I raised the question in this house. I received an answer from the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice to the
February 1, 1966

effect that the legal definition of waterlot was one of urgency and great importance, and should be looked into by the Minister of Justice.
I simply asked the Minister of Justice to have a reference made to the Supreme Court of Canada for a definite interpretation of the meaning of the term, as we find it in legal documents, claiming to confer ownership of waterlots on certain individuals. This problem has been brought to the fore in the two ridings of York-Humber and York West by the action of land developers who are making land for themselves off the shore of Lake Ontario, without any consent from the Department of Public Works or the Department of External Affairs. The land developers, not having permission to fill in the lake, simply claim they have the right to fill a waterlot.
The legal authorities have been consulted on the matter by the residents of the village of Long Branch, the town of New Toronto, the town of Mimico and the town of Etobicoke. They simply claim there is no legal right to fill a waterlot. The only legal authority vested in the owner is that he may tie up his boats to piles in the lake. He cannot fill it in unless he has received prior consent from the Department of Public Works, or the International Joint Commission where it affects international boundary waters.
At the present time, we have the ridiculous situation of a developer filling in waterlots off the village of Long Branch without the prior consent of the Department of Public Works. Now he is applying for a permit to build a retaining wall around the fill he has illegally placed in the lake. The question now arises, is this government going to grant a permit to a developer to build cribwork around an illegally filled waterlot, the definition of which is not known to either the Ontario government legal authorities or the federal government legal authorities. Numerous questions have been addressed to the Ontario department of lands and forests as to what the legal rights of a waterlot owner are, and similar questions have been addressed to the federal government. No definite ruling can be obtained.
I ask, on behalf of the owners of lakeshore lots in Etobicoke, New Toronto, Mimico and Long Branch, if the Minister of Justice of the federal government will not submit a question to the Supreme Court of Canada asking for a definite statement of the property rights of those who claim to own waterlots in international waters such as Lake Ontario.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I will be discussing the matter in greater detail when the estimates of the Departments of External Affairs and Public Works are under discussion. Surely, having waited nine months, the full period of gestation, we are entitled to some action on the part of the Department of Justice in connection with this matter which, if it is allowed to continue, will create confusion for property owners on both sides of the Great Lakes from Kingston right through to Duluth, Minnesota.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan). I know that he has been concerned with this problem of waterlots on the Great Lakes for some considerable period of time. The hon. member broached this subject with me at the time I was minister of public works. There seems definitely to be a problem concerning these lots. However, the problem seems to be more or less concerning two groups of individual land developers. It was quite difficult for the Department of Public Works at the time to give the hon. member any other answer to his question, other than that the Department of Public Works was concerned only with the navigational aspects of the waterway in conformity with Navigable Waters Protection Act. This, of course, is still the case. The federal government has sole responsibility for the navigational aspect of the Great Lakes. It has very little to do with the ownership of or property in the land below the lake.
The hon. member asks that this question be submitted to the Supreme Court for determination, but he is a little vague in what he wants to know. Does he want to know who is the owner of the land, or who is authorized to give the rights for the construction of retaining walls?
Before a question can be submitted, or is submitted to the Supreme Court, there must be a specific problem, and it must be quite clear as to what information is required. The question must not be hypothetical. Of course there must at least be some indication of what the actual situation is.
It would appear to me that the land under the Great Lakes is clearly a provincial matter, that the ownership of that land would be a provincial matter, and that all responsibility for it would be provincial. Therefore, largely, the responsibility would be that of the provinces.
February 1, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
So far as the problem which the hon. member seems to bring forward every time, which is the question of filling in the water-lots and directing that retaining walls be put around them, the federal government is responsible to give permission for these types of projects in connection with navigation. If the federal government feels that the construction in question is going to hinder navigation, then it will not give the appropriate authorization for the construction of these fill-ins.
In the case to which the hon. member refers there was no obstruction of navigation; and that is about as far as the federal government can go.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has exhausted his time.



TRADE-EXPORT OF McINTOSH APPLES TO SCOTLAND

Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I raised this earlier in the day. I asked a fairly direct question this morning. I should like, with the advantage of a little more time this evening, to expand on its urgency and its relevancy to the constituency that I represent. This constituency has a very important apple industry, and that industry is experiencing troubled times owing to frost damage. The problem of replanting damaged or destroyed orchards is an important one in the area at the present time.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
In relation to this problem I should like to read a resolution presented by the Vernon growers to the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association at its seventy seventh annual convention in Penticton in January. This is a resolution regarding varieties of apples:
Whereas Duchess and Wealthies are unprofitable in some years and are not recommended for planting, and furthermore Tydeman's and soft fruits are uneconomical because of the geographic location and the pooling regulations, and
Whereas it has been recommended that no further planting of Spartans or Red Delicious be made, which will leave our area just McIntosh-
Then it goes on to request aid for research in developing a new variety.
In looking through this morning's Globe and Mail I came across a fairly extensive article dealing with the market for this particular variety of apple in Scotland and an attempt there to have the importing system changed to allow importers to buy apples from abroad under a system of open licences instead of the current system of rigid controls and restricted licence holders. Then there is

further explanatory material as to the favourable regard which the people of Scotland have for this particular variety of apple.
It would seem that there is a severe restriction on the importation of apples into Britain during the months from July 1 to December 31; and those months are, of course, crucial to the apple industry in the Okanagan valley. I spent a year in London, and I agree with the article in that it is very difficult to find in London apples from the Okanagan valley, though one can find them from almost any other part of the world.
My question was whether the Minister of Agriculture-and I suppose this also involves the Minister of Trade and Commerce-could assure this house and my constituency that they were making all possible representations to maintain and to enlarge the market for McIntosh apples in Scotland.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, coming from new Scotland as I do-


Mr. Knowles:: Order.


George Harris Hees: Sit in your own seat.


Robert Henry Winters: I apologize again for a breach of the rules, Mr. Speaker. Coming from new Scotland as I do I can sympathize with the hon. member in his plea to have more McIntosh apples sold in Scotland. I intend to make just a brief comment about this important matter.
As the house knows, there have been restrictions on the importation of apples into Britain since 1959. The import quota allotted to the sources of supply in Europe and North America is 1.7 million hundredweight. This represents approximately 4.7 million 40-lb. boxes. Twenty per cent of the total quota only may be imported in the pre-Christmas period August to December; the other 80 per cent must be shipped after Chirstmas.
The British are well aware of Canada's concern about the lack of opportunity to export to Britain a product which is of such great importance to British Columbia, Nova Scotia and other parts of Canada as well. The last approach seeking relief from the controls was made early last year. The British advised us in September that in view of their then exchange difficulties they could not see their way clear to make changes in the regulations.
I can assure the hon. member that there is close co-operation with the trade and that everything possible is being done, and will be done, to ensure that this matter is pressed on every appropriate occasion.
February 1, 1966	COMMONS



INDUSTRY-REPORTED DECREASE IN PRODUCTIVITY

George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I asked the Minister of Industry to comment on the falling off by 30 per cent in the yearly rate of increase in productivity between 1964 and 1965. My question was based on a statement in the annual report of his department dated January 28, 1966 and tabled by him yesterday. The statement begins at line 5 of page 45 of the report and reads as follows:
Between 1963 and 1964 output per man-hour in manufacturing rose by 2.8 per cent. Figures of employment, output, and man-hours for the first nine months of 1965 suggest that the increase in output per man-hour for 1965 was below 2 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, that represents a decrease in the rate of increase of productivity amounting to 30 per cent in the last 12 months. The average yearly rate of increase in productivity between 1960 and 1964 was 2.9 per cent per year. Therefore the 1965 rate of increase over 1964 was 32 per cent less than the four year average of the years 1960 to 1964. This means that the rate of increase last year was one third less than the average of the previous four years.
This is a sad state of affairs for a department which was set up to increase productivity. I suggest to the minister that he immediately reappoint the productivity council which we established, and which his government has completely disregarded, and ask that council to aid in a task which obviously is a little too big for him to tackle.
I would ask the minister to let the house know what he intends to do, at least to restore the yearly rate of increase in productivity to what it was before his department was established with so much fanfare and at such great expense to the Canadian taxpayer; and also, not just to restore this yearly rate of increase, but greatly to increase it this year and in the years ahead.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: am sorry the hon. member began on page 45 of the annual report, from which he read the conclusions. Had he read page 44, one page
DEBATES	561
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion preceding it, he would have seen an explanation in fairly simple terms of the phenomenon he has just reported.
What has been happening in Canada is this: After a number of years of considerable slackness in the economy, and capacity to manufacture in excess of what was being utilized, we now see the manufacturing industry in Canada operating in the year 1965, at capacity in most industries, or close to it.


George Harris Hees: And peak efficiency.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: This is described on page 44 of the report.
With a strong demand for almost all types of manufactured goods the major indicators of manufacturing activity were well above the levels of the previous year-
Practically all sectors of manufacturing showed production advances in 1965 .... In a number of industries, physical capacity limited the extent of the increase in output since, by year-end, production was at or near capacity in spite of the additional facilities brought into operation during the year.
Also in 1965, Canadian manufacturers in increasing numbers encountered a shortage of skilled workers and professional personnel.
This obviously tended to reduce the rate of expansion and the output per worker.
Had the hon. member taken the trouble to read the previous 43 pages of the report he would have learned the steps being taken by the Department of Industry to increase productivity. One of the major steps I might mention is the automobile agreement designed to rationalize the automobile industry and, as a direct consequence, increase its productivity manyfold.
Steps leading to the same result will be taken with regard, for example, to the shipbuilding industry and the furniture industry. I do not have time to read the annual report because this is not possible in three minutes, but I would commend its reading to the hon. member for Northumberland who, apparently, has not had time to give the document the kind of study which in my view it so obviously warrants.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.23 p.m.


Wednesday, February 2, 1966