1966-01-31

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the house that an objection signed by the hon. members for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin); Calgary South (Mr. Ballard); Athabasca (Mr. Bigg); Vegreville (Mr. Fane); Lethbridge (Mr. Gundlock); Calgary North (Mr. Hark-ness); Jasper-Edson (Mr. Horner); Macleod (Mr. Kindt); Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert); Wetaskiwin (Mr. Moore); Edmonton-Strath-cona (Mr. Nugent); Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smallwood); Red Deer (Mr. Thompson); Bow River (Mr. Woolliams); Acadia (Mr. Horner) and Edmonton East (Mr. Skoreyko), has been filed with me pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter 31, Statutes of Canada, 1964-65, to the report of the electoral boundaries commission for the province of Alberta.
If the house will agree, I suggest that the house follow the procedure followed last Tuesday and that the text of the objection be printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings for this day.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, at this time I wish to make a statement with respect to the case of George Victor Spencer.
When this case was disclosed to the public in May, 1965, there was clear evidence in the hands of the government which established that the Soviet officials in question had engaged in activities incompatible with their official status and that their continued presence here was contrary to our national interest. As explained by the Prime Minister at that time, the matter was publicized in order to impress upon Canadians the need for constant vigilance when faced with approaches by foreign officials or agents. The issue of
declaring the Soviet officials persona non grata is quite separate from any question as to what could or should be done in respect to any person who assisted them in Canada.
At the time of the original disclosure the Prime Minister stated that consideration was being given to determine whether charges against Spencer should be laid. The evidence was referred to the law officers of the Department of Justice, who were of the opinion that much of the evidence could not meet the requirements of the rules of evidence in criminal cases. Consequently they recommended against instituting criminal proceedings.
I agreed with this advice and, as Attorney General, saw no purpose to be served in commencing proceedings which not only had no reasonable prospect of success, but would also have resulted in the disclosure, even in in camera proceedings, of counterespionage methods, the secrecy of which is so important to national security. Nevertheless the evidence was of such a nature that it could not be ignored by the government, and some action had to be taken in the case.
It should be borne in mind that in security investigations the primary objectives are always the immediate removal of the security threat, and to ascertain the nature and extent of the information which the suspect has already supplied. Although the possibility of prosecution is not lost sight of throughout these investigations, the achievement of the primary objective may produce evidence which is not admissible under the rules of evidence applicable in our courts. The present case falls into this category.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
As to surveillance, I said, in the course of a television program, that there would be surveillance on this man as long as he remains in Canada. It would be irresponsible not to keep such a man under surveillance fitted to the needs of the case. As already mentioned, security operations are primarily preventive in nature and success must often depend on surveillance. It is for preventive reasons that surveillance, to the extent necessary, will continue in this case.
On this matter of surveillance I wish to add these general remarks. There is nothing
426	COMMONS
Administration of Justice in the law to prevent the reasonable surveillance of persons for the purpose of detecting and preventing the commission of criminal offences. This does not relate only to criminal activity respecting security, but is true of criminal activity generally. To suggest there is anything unlawful or improper in members of police forces undertaking surveillance is to ignore the indisputable fact that reasonable surveillance is essential to law enforcement and is carried out by police forces everywhere in and out of Canada.
The government was not responsible for the public identification of this man. On the contrary, every reasonable precaution was taken to protect his identity. His public identification was brought about by his own behaviour in relation to the press. As for naming the man on a television program, I would point out that the program in question took place on November 28, 1965, which was more than three weeks after he had already been identified publicly by his full name as reported in the press.
As to the circumstances under which this man's name became public knowledge, let me refer you to the transcript of a portion of the television program which preceded my appearance. A Vancouver reporter was described as the man who "broke the story". He was said to have been invited to have coffee with a "mysterious stranger whom he deduced to be the missing spy". This reporter described how he visited the man's home and went on to identify Spencer by name. He also said, and I quote, "he" this is a reference to Spencer "did make certain admissions. He said he was indeed the man accused by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He said that he certainly knew something about the world of international espionage".
I also wish to confirm to the house that which was made public by my colleague the Postmaster General on December 30. I refer to Spencer's dismissal from the public service by the Governor in Council under authority of section 50 of the Civil Service Act. It is said, and correctly, that by invoking section 50 Spencer was deprived of the right of appeal to the Civil Service Commission which he might otherwise have had. This decision was made for reasons of public policy.
I wish to state, however, that in order to ensure that a final decision whether to dismiss Mr. Spencer might be arrived at on the basis of independent and objective advice, the Civil Service Commission was asked to make a full examination of the case from the point

DEBATES	January 31, 1966
of view of employment and to provide its advice. The commission advised the Postmaster General that this was a proper case for removal under the provisions of section 50 of the Civil Service Act, and this advice was accepted.
I want to emphasize that the investigation in this case was handled in the same way as other security investigations were handled prior to the time this government took office in 1963. If this case proves anything, it proves the effectiveness of Royal Canadian Mounted Police counterintelligence. I am satisfied that our security operations are in good hands, and I have seen nothing to suggest there are valid grounds for objecting to the manner in which these operations are being conducted.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the concluding remarks of the minister are concerned, I think there will be general agreement. I have known the activities of the mounted police from the days before they had the descriptive word "royal" placed in front of their name. I know of their activities in connection with counterespionage, and I agree that what they have done generally has been in keeping with the security of the state.
I would, however, like to add one word, not by way of criticism; but I believe the commissioner of the mounted police should not be getting into print as often as he does by the observations that he makes. Recently he criticized the Globe and Mail of Toronto for an allegation that was made in that paper in which the Minister of Justice allegedly had had a conversation with the commissioner. He rushed into print, wrote a letter and stated there was no truth in it, and it turned out in the letter he wrote that the source of his information was the Minister of Justice himself. Well, the source of the information for the Globe and Mail was the Minister of Justice himself. The minister says that is not so, that he was not the source of this information, but that is what the commissioner said in his letter to the press, which bears out the advisability of the head of the mounted police not rushing into print.
Now I come to a discussion of the general purport of the statement just made. First of all, I would think that when statements of this kind are to be made the courtesy of notice should be given, whether or not this has been done in the past, so we can have our files before us. The minister apparently failed to recall that it was a press statement issued in great detail which started the discussion of
January 31, 1966

this matter, a statement giving an amount of detail which should not have been given unless there was foundation for it, and available evidence. It was stated that Spencer had received thousands of dollars, as I recall the press statement, and that he had not assisted the police in the investigation. One alleged wrongdoer had furnished information and assistance, but this man had not. This statement also said that he was compromising female civil servants in order to get the kind of information he was endeavouring to procure.
The only reason for non-prosecution which was given then was that this man was seriously ill, suffering from cancer. That was the only reason. Later on Spencer said the government was afraid to go ahead against him because he would reveal some things which were disturbing. That was the purport of the general remarks he made.
I do not think this matter can be glossed over as simply as was attempted by the Minister of Justice. I have no sympathy of any kind with this type of wrongdoing, but simply to brush the whole thing aside and say there is not sufficient evidence on which to convict is, to my mind, altogether unsatisfactory, bearing in mind the fact that the press had set forth in detail whatever evidence was available and that the Prime Minister had given as his reason for nonprosecution the dangerous illness of this man.
Now the government say "We do not want to reveal these matters because certain information of security importance would become public and we do not want that to happen; and anyway, we have no case." Naturally I do not wish to see anything revealed which would in any way weaken the counterespionage activities of our country. At the same time, there are other means. I think there should be a committee of judges-two or three judges, we will say, of the Supreme Court of Canada-to look into this without publicity being given to it. Always in history, when there has been any desire to do that which is unacceptable, the answer of those doing it has invariably been that what is being done is in the public interest.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
I think this man, regardless of his identity and actions, is entitled to a hearing. Even more so, the Canadian people are entitled to this. The attitude taken by the Minister of Justice is that he has no case; "we have no case but we are going to follow this man wherever he goes". That surely is an unusual position. The excuse given is that always, when there is an endeavour to ascertain 23033-28J
Administration of Justice whether wrongdoing is about to take place, action along that line is taken. That is true. But to continue a course of surveillance of this kind, continuing surveillance, is far removed from the accepted principles of police work. Indeed, it is essentially authoritarian and essentially dangerous.
I ask the minister once more to do something about this. He does not want to give publicity to it. I can understand that. But let Canadians be assured that what has taken place has not been of a nature which will become the pattern for the future. Let them be reassured at the same time that this man will receive the consideration to which every Canadian is entitled.
I should like to know something about him. Apparently he is an immigrant. Whether his name was Spencer when he came to Canada, I do not know. I know nothing of his past except what I have read in the press. Who is he? Where did he come from? How long has he been here? These are things Canadians have the right to know. Set up a judicial inquiry. Let a judicial inquiry look into this matter. There is no reason why the government should not do this. What has been done to date cannot but cause concern to those who believe in the maintenance of freedom within our land.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: The statement which has been made by the Minister of Justice is to my mind astounding in the light of the events which have transpired since May 8. I am sure it will cause many thoughtful persons to be concerned about the way we are administering justice in this country.
I have no brief, nor has any other member of this house, for any person who is guilty of espionage. But under the laws of Canada a man is innocent until proven guilty, and the statement made by the minister this morning is certainly at variance with the statement which was issued by the Department of External Affairs on May 8 last. One paragraph in that statement said that "In one instance a Canadian civil servant was paid thousands of dollars to gather information and documentation in Canada the purpose of which was to assist in the establishment of espionage activities in Canada and in other countries, and to perform economic intelligence tasks including the provision of detailed information on the Trans Mountain Pipe Line system in western Canada."
January 31, 1966

Administration of Justice
That is a clear accusation of espionage and of participation in the setting up of an espionage system in Canada and in other countries. If this is correct the man concerned should certainly be apprehended, tried and, if found guilty, punished. It is significant that this statement was issued by the Department of External Affairs. It is true the department was concerned about the propriety of actions taken by certain Soviet officials and that this was within their proper jurisdiction. But the statement with reference to this particular civil servant makes charges which so far have not been substantiated, and the statement made by the minister today was to the effect that on examination the crown did not have sufficient evidence to stand up in court.
This makes the statement issued by the Department of External Affairs a very strange document indeed. Does it mean that the Department of External Affairs issued its statement without being sure of its ground, or that it released information which had not been carefully documented?
If that is the case, some statement should certainly now be forthcoming from the government to the effect that the accusation against this man was premature and is no longer valid. Instead, what has the government done? First, they fired this man under section 50 of the Civil Service Act so that he has no right of appeal. The minister tells us this morning that this was done after consultation with the Civil Service Commission and on the recommendation of the commission. The body to which this man was to have the right of appeal condemned him before they had even heard him. Was this man permitted to appear before the Civil Service Commission before the commission recommended that he be fired? Or was not this meeting of the Civil Service Commission actually a kangaroo court which made its decision without giving an opportunity to the appellant to appear, leaving a stigma hanging over his head and the heads of his family for the rest of his life?
Is this the way in which justice is to be administered in Canada? Even in wartime we would not permit a man to be stigmatized on the basis of evidence which, as the minister himself claims, would not stand up in court. I say to the government that either they said too much in their statement of May 8, making accusations which they cannot substantiate, or else they are simply making this man a scapegoat for their own ineptitude and inefficiency.

I appeal to the Prime Minister, who has a deep sense of justice in matters of this kind, to reconsider the question. Here is a man who has been accused, first in the statement from the Department of External Affairs and then by the Minister of Justice on a national television program. He has been accused of espionage, but he has been given no chance to prove his innocence. Here is a man who has been dismissed and denied an appeal. In fact he was condemned by the commission before he was given a chance to appeal to the commission. Here is a man who has lost his pension rights; who in all probability will never get another job and who, according to the minister's statement, is to remain under police surveillance as long as he remains in Canada.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)
I ask the Prime Minister if he considers this is how justice ought to be administered in this land of ours. Surely the very least the government can do is to agree to the setting up of a judicial committee composed of one or more judges, who would be prepared to hear the evidence which the minister has and decide, first of all, whether this man has been guilty of espionage; second, whether the government was justified in dismissing him and, third, whether in the course of that dismissal he ought to have been deprived of his pension rights. Surely he is entitled, as any Canadian citizen is entitled, to have his day in court. Surely he is entitled to be heard. Surely he has the right under our laws to be deemed innocent until he can be proven guilty.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the statement of the Minister of Justice is surely of widespread interest, for there has been a great deal of comment since May 8, 1965, about these spying activities which took place here in Canada prior to that date, and in which Mr. Spencer was allegedly involved.
But was he the only one involved? We do not know. Was he the mastermind behind it? Again, we do not know.
I am in complete agreement with the suggestion of the leader of the N.D.P. Mr. Spencer should at least be given an opportunity to be heard and to tell his side of the story as clearly as possible. But he is not afforded the slightest opportunity to do so.
It is a very good thing that this spy ring was uncovered and the R.C.M.P. must be commended for discovering this ring which endangered the security of the country.
January 31, 1966

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) mentioned earlier that in such circumstances, R.C.M.P. authorities should refrain from making statements of a political nature when arrests must be made and the law enforced as in the present case.
It has often happened that some members of the R.C.M.P. have made statements of a political nature regarding such arrests.
We approve the steps taken by the government to ensure the security of the state but not when they are prejudicial to anyone, as in the present case for instance when the accused is allowed to state the motives behind his actions so that we may find out whether some one else is involved. In this case, Spencer is precisely being used as an agent. I do not believe that he was the head of this spy ring. There are surely others and more important ones who should be discovered and prosecuted by the Department of Justice.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, to avoid repetition of what already has been said, surely the Minister of Justice realizes by this time that bungling by the government in the handling of this particular case is not doing very much to establish respect for law and order and confidence in the security of the country. Certainly it is evident that the R.C.M.P. are being made the scapegoat for things over which they have no control. It seems to me that the government owes it to those charged with the responsibility for security in Canada to give them the support that is necessary. No better evidence has been revealed of that need than this particular case which we are talking about.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I come back to this point, that an inquiry is not only essential in this particular case but is also essential in the whole area of security and the enforcement of law and order. This is not just one isolated case. There have been repeated cases to which the public has not had satisfactory answers, cases in which individuals involved have been either let go or charged unfairly.
There should be a full scale inquiry into this particular topic, or at the very minimum the government should issue a white paper on the matter. Over and over again in this house I have urged upon the government the necessity of bringing in some systematic and periodic reports relating to the maintenance of law and order, international crime and espionage activities. Either the mounted police must be given the authority to do so, or
Administration of Justice the government itself, through the Department of Justice, must release this type of information in order that the general public may have the necessary assurance that all is well so far as law and order, international crime and the security of the country are concerned. However, there is no response from the government in this regard.
We as members of the house probably know more about these matters than the general public, but even we are confused because the answers given are not clear. This situation certainly bears out that there is inconsistency and a lack of support from the government to those concerned with law enforcement and security matters.
So, Mr. Speaker, in support of what has already been said, I would urge that an inquiry be made not only into this case but into the whole field, and that some system be devised whereby reports can be given to the country concerning the state of the nation relating to law and order, the inroads being made by international crime, and espionage, and dealing with the whole area of security in the national realm.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to comment at length on the statement made by the Minister of Justice-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -but I am rising on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: On a point of order?


Gordon Minto Churchill: If you do not intend to hear me, Mr. Speaker, then I would raise a point of order to this effect; that I claim the right to be heard on statements made by ministers if that same privilege is going to be granted to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson). I think every member of the house should be treated in the same way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was not my intention to comment at length on the statement made, but I wanted to establish my right to do so if circumstances seemed to me to be appropriate. The point of order I now raise is this. Are you prepared to grant to all the members of the house, on an equal basis, the right to comment on statements made by ministers on motions?
430	COMMONS
Administration of Justice Mr. Speaker: With reference to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre I can only refer him to standing order 15(2)(a) which says:
On motions, as listed in section (2) of this standing order, a minister of the crown may make an announcement or a statement of government policy. Any such announcement or statement should be limited to facts which it is deemed necessary to make known to the house and should not be designed to provoke debate at this stage. A spokesman for each of the parties in opposition to the government may comment briefly, subject to the same limitation.
I would think this would prevent the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre from making a statement at this stage. It is on the basis of the standing order that the Chair has allowed the leaders of the Social Credit party and the Ralliement Creditistes, to make make a statement at this time. If hon. members feel that the matter should be gone into by the Chair at greater length I would be only too pleased to do so, but I have before me at the moment a standing order which limits comments at this stage to leaders of parties.


Some hon. Members:: Spokesmen.


Mr. Speaker:: What a leader of a party is might be difficult to determine.


Some hon. Members:: A spokesman.


Mr. Speaker:: But I think the hon. members who have just spoken had a claim to make a comment at this time, a claim which would not apply to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, could I ask if the same might apply to myself, because I am not the leader of a party, but the man to whom reference has been made happens to be a resident in the constituency of Vancouver East-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Harold Edward Winch: -and I have known him for years.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may have an opportunity on another occasion to make a comment, but obviously if the request that has just been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre were acceded to by the Chair, and the same privilege were granted to the hon. member for Vancouver East, we might have a rather lengthy debate on statements made on motions. I suggest to hon. members that this right as it exists now, as it existed in the last session, and as it was tMr. Churchill.]
DEBATES	January 31. 1966
recognized in the period from 1958 to 1962, should be recognized again with reference to the leaders of the smaller parties-


Some hon. Members:: Spokesmen.


Mr. Speaker:: -and should certainly be limited to these hon. gentleman. However, if on another occasion hon. members want to raise the same point of order, in the meantime I would be pleased to look into the matter further and perhaps be better prepared to render a very wise and learned decision on it.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I only want to make it clear to you that I protest the action being taken in this case without a charge being laid.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)



NATIONAL ANTHEM


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government Notices of
Motion:
January 27-the Prime Minister-the following proposed motion:-
That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to provide that "O Canada" shall be the National Anthem of Canada while "God Save the Queen" shall be the Royal Anthem in Canada.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



SCIENCE COUNCIL OF CANADA


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure for the establishment of a science council of Canada and to define the duties thereof, to provide for the appointment of the chairman and other members of the council and for the payment of the remuneration of the chairman and of travelling expenses of the members and associate members of the council, also for the payment of the remuneration of members of the council for additional duties; to provide further that all expenditures for the purposes of this measure shall be paid out of money appropriated by parliament therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
January 31, 1966

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister in a position to inform the house and the country regarding the decision of the President of the United States to resume the bombing of North Viet Nam? When did the government of Canada receive this information from the United States administration, and what attitude was taken by the government of Canada in advance of that announcement which has led today to the beginning of another series of bombings in that area?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the United States government took the opportunity on January 24 last to inform us that over the period of one month during which the bombing of north Viet Nam had been suspended, and various opportunities taken to explore the possibility of a peaceful solution to the Viet Nam conflict, there had been no response or reciprocal gesture from the other side.
While that message of January 24 did not specifically refer to any decision to resume the bombing, it was made clear that the United States government would regard itself free to review its policies in the light of the failure to elicit a meaningful response from Hanoi. Subsequently-and by subsequently I mean yesterday morning, Sunday-I received a further message indicating the United States government had decided that, in all the circumstances, it had no option but to resume the bombing.
As to the position of the Canadian government, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I have made it clear to this house that the views of the Canadian government on this matter have been fully explained to the United States government through diplomatic channels. The view we took was that we hoped the pause in the bombing might be extended until all reasonable possibilities of bringing this issue from the battlefield to the conference table had been exhausted. We took that position especially in the light of indications that Hanoi might have been giving consideration to the implications of the pause.
However, a message I received this morning from the head of the communist government in North Viet Nam via the Canadian officer in Hanoi, attached to the international
Inquiries of the Ministry commission, indicated that that government was completely intransigent in so far as entering into negotiations was concerned.
The message I received was substantially the same as that which appeared in the press as having been sent to the heads of communist parties throughout the world by the North Vietnamese leaders. It stated, among other things, that there could be no negotiations of any kind until the United States forces withdrew and until they recognized the Viet Cong as the sole government of South Viet Nam.
The position of the United States as stated to us from the beginning has been that they looked upon the pause in the bombing as a step toward peace. As a result of discussions I had on December 29 with the President's special emissary, and as a result of subsequent discussions we have had with United States officials, we believe that the possibility of a further pause is not foreclosed, if and when circumstances suggest that such a pause would be helpful in arriving at a peaceful and fair settlement of this conflict.
I can only say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that I expressed to the United States ambassador yesterday that this government regrets that in the eyes of the United States government a resumption of the bombing is necessary.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the
course of the full statement made by the Prime Minister he said that a resumption of bombing will not foreclose the possibility of a hope that Hanoi may alter its stand. Is there any basis for that hope?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There would not seem to be any basis for that hope, Mr. Speaker, in the light of the documents and statements that have been forthcoming from Hanoi, but there have been indications that the dialogue has not been completely cut off; and as long as any possibility exists, irrespective of what public statements may be made, of a further pause leading to a negotiated settlement, I hope that all those concerned will take full advantage of that possibility. I cannot go further than that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 1
would like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that press statements regarding the message sent out by Hanoi indicate that the condition they are laying down is that the Viet Cong should be included in any peace negotiations, will the Prime Minister clarify his statement to the effect that Hanoi is
January 31, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry insisting that the Viet Cong be recognized as the sole government of South Viet Nam? Is that the condition laid down, and does the Prime Minister contend that in the light of the information he has received it is necessary to resume the bombing of North Viet Nam?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can comment on the United States government's decision to resume the bombing-as to its necessity or otherwise-without having all the information which prompted it to take this action. I do not wish to comment on that action at the present time.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Because I think comment at this time without all the information would be irresponsible.


Mr. Lewis:: What more information is required?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is a good deal of information which is not in our hands. Perhaps this information is in the hands of people who are more directly concerned with this matter. Mr. Speaker, I hope we will all do everything we can to bring about a negotiated settlement, but that does not include irresponsible statements in this house in criticism of United States action.
I refer again to the information from Hanoi which I received just prior to coming into the house. I only had the opportunity to glance at it briefly, but I did notice there were references in it similar to the message to communist leaders, the complete text of which appeared in the New York Times last Saturday. Naturally I will be examining this message from Hanoi very carefully, after which it may be desirable to table it in the house tomorrow.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that a number of senators and congressmen have urged the President of the United States not to resume the bombing, and in view of the fact that daily press reports indicate there has been some diminution of military activity by the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong in recent weeks, would the Prime Minister consider making a direct appeal to the President of the United States to extend the pause in the bombing in order that a search for some peaceful settlement might be continued? Would the Prime Minister make such an appeal, not only as the Prime Minister and

head of the Canadian government, but on behalf of the parliament of Canada and all the members of this house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated to the government of the United States the views of the Canadian government in respect of this matter of bombing. I shall be glad to consider the hon. gentleman's suggestion of another appeal in the light of the information I will be receiving.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I have a further supplementary question, sir. The Prime Minister spoke about irresponsibility in this matter. I wonder whether he thinks that the editorial which appeared in the New York Times yesterday is an irresponsible statement. It states:
Neither the possibilities tor peace nor the exercise of diplomatic ingenuity have been exhausted.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
[Later:}


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I confirm what I said to the hon. member for Burna-by-Coquitlam regarding the message from Ho Chi Minh, which I now have before me. There is a sentence in it which reads, and I am quoting from the statement, "If the United States really wants peace, it must recognize the South Viet Nam national front for liberation-that is the Viet Cong-as the sole, genuine representative of the people of South Viet Nam."



LOTTERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
Seeing that the minister of justice for Quebec, Mr. Claude Wagner, stated Saturday and repeated yesterday that the federal legislation on lotteries is nothing but a sham which makes criminals out of honest citizens, could the Minister of Justice tell the house if the federal government intends to amend that legislation so that it would be less hypocritical? Does the government intend to discuss the matter with the provinces in the near future?
January 31, 1966


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Without commenting in any way on the hypocrisy of the law, I have already stated, in reply to a question, that the Department of Justice is now studying the question of lotteries. We intend to introduce amendments to the Criminal Code some time during this session, and we hope one of them will deal with lotteries.



MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO EXTENSION OF PERIOD On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance having to do with the municipal development and loan fund. A number of questions have been asked as to whether the government intends to extend this financial policy which has been very helpful to a number of municipalities. I should like to again ask him whether the government has made any decision as to whether or not it will extend this loan fund, if not in blanket form at least in respect of specific projects that are not yet completed and which cause the municipalities serious difficulties if the government does not give them that consideration.


Hon. Miichell Sharp (Minisier of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have delayed replying to the hon. gentleman because I received notice that a number of associations wish to make representations to the government on this matter. As I said to the association of municipalities when their representatives appeared before the government at the end of last week, it would require very strong arguments to convince the government of the necessity to extend the application of this act.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldf-Melforf-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture in reference to the high cost of farm machinery, about which the minister spoke when he was out west. What are the intentions of the government in this regard, and what steps does the minister intend to take to alleviate this serious problem in so far as farm machinery costs are concerned?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. While this may be a very important matter, it seems to me that the hon. member might wish to place it on the order paper. I do not believe it is of the urgency that would require a reply today.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to debate this question at ten o'clock.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clemenf Vincent (Nicolef-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Forestry.
Since feed grain prices have increased steadily as from January 1 of last year and the minister has admitted that he was powerless, in a telegram to the president of the Catholic Farmers Union on January 7, could he tell us when he expects to submit a resolution concerning the creation of a feed grain agency for Eastern Canada and British Columbia?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minisier of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne mentioned a bill in that respect. As soon as it is ready it will be submitted to the house.


Clément Vincent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
The minister gave us the same answer last year and the year before, and we have yet to see a resolution in this respect on the order paper. Will there be one during this session?


Mr. Choquette:: If there is not too much filibustering.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice which I consider is probably one of the most important questions I have ever asked. I hope you will bear with me, sir, in this regard.
In view of my responsibility as the member for Vancouver East to protect as far as possible the rights of all my constituents under the laws of Canada, which cannot be interpreted so as to allow an individual to be found guilty of any charge without knowing the charge and without the right to defend himself or herself, will the Minister of Justice

January 31. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry lay charges against Mr. Spencer, who is alleged to have been an espionage agent, or will the minister appoint a judicial committee to examine all the aspects surrounding this matter?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anything I can usefully add to that which I have already said in my statement.


John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister give favourable consideration to the suggestion that a judicial body be set up to look into this matter? Surely we should not have an individual pilloried and condemned without something in the nature of a judicial consideration of this matter.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, having studied all the facts of this case, I do not feel it is necessary or useful to initiate a judicial inquiry into this matter. The procedures that have been followed by the R.C.M.P. are exactly the same procedures that were followed when my right hon. friend was in the government. As far as the decision not to prosecute is concerned, here again I have studied the matter very carefully in concert with the law officers of the department, and I have arrived at the conclusion that there is not sufficient admissible evidence to suggest a conviction.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You sound just like your predecessor.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: For the reasons I have outlined no prosecution was initiated.
There is one thing which is perhaps different in this case. Had Mr. Spencer not identified himself no problem would have arisen. He did identify himself, and any inconvenience he has suffered is the result of his own action and not the result or responsibility of the government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister agree that irrespective of how the man was identified, he was fired and identified by that action?
Second, I would ask the Prime Minister if he would not agree that it is not only necessary that the Minister of Justice shall deem that justice has been done, but it is necessary to convince the Canadian people and this parliament that justice has been done. In the light of this, would the Prime Minister not
[Mr. Winch.)
give the matter further consideration to see that this man is brought before some proper body, if not in open court then at least before a judicial committee?
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minisier):
There is no doubt the man in question was discharged under the Civil Service Act, under a section which has been used before in discharging civil servants.
So far as the second part of the question is concerned, naturally when my hon. friend asks me, as he did, and as the Leader of the Opposition did, to give consideration to any matter, I will give consideration to that matter. Consideration will be given as to whether there should be the kind of inquiry that had been suggested for this particular individual or, indeed, whether that inquiry should be extended to other cases of individuals, examination of which might throw further light on our security methods generally. This is all I can say at the present time.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Justice, since I asked the original question?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: May I ask a
supplementary question of the Minister of Justice in the light of the minister's statement a moment ago that the investigative procedures followed in this case are exactly the same as the procedures followed in investigations in earlier cases. Will the minister not agree, however, with respect to the outcome this is an unprecedented case; because never before has there been a man branded as a spy without either a court trial or royal commission proceedings-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -and sentenced publicly to permanent surveillance. Will the minister not agree that this is absolutely unprecedented?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking for an opinion from the minister as to whether there is a difference in the procedure followed now and the procedure followed previously. I suggest to hon. members that this is now becoming a debate rather than questions seeking information from the government. I should like the opportunity to give other members a chance to ask questions during this period.


Harold Edward Winch: Would you allow me a supplementary question of the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker, since I asked the original question?
January 31, 1966


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver East.


Harold Edward Winch: I know this is a question of opinion, but I am wondering if there is not something more than meets the eye in connection with this matter, and that is why they do not want a judicial inquiry into what has been taking place. Why should one of my constituents be denied the right to justice?


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Has the
Minister of Justice considered his position, and that of the government, with regard to the case of Victor Spencer in the light of the provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Bill of Rights was considered. As the hon. member knows, of course, the main purpose of the bill of rights is to prohibit the interpretation of a statute so as to deprive a person of his rights without a fair hearing. The purpose of the bill of rights is aimed at the statutes to see that by their terms they do not take away the rights and obligations of individuals. There is no such statute involved here, and there is nothing I have said or done which would in any way determine or deny the rights of Mr. Spencer.


John George Diefenbaker: What are the rights of Mr. Spencer which are not denied? That general statement is completely without a basis in fact. What are his rights?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of Justice chose to add gratuitous remarks. He made a statement which is entirely without any basis. I simply asked him what basis he has for that statement. Of course if that question cannot be asked, all I have to say is that the statement is wrong and completely false.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



THE SENATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. O. Bower (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. 1 should like to ask the Prime Minister if he will give a prominent place to the Acadian fact in making an appointment to the other place following the much lamented death of the late Hon. J. Willie Comeau?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: These are matters very much in my mind, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the enormous destruction of wharves, skidways and breakwaters on the eastern seaboard, especially in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, caused by the high winds and heavy seas over the week end, is it the minister's intention to set up a special disaster fund for the replacement of these important facilities which are so urgently needed by the Atlantic coast fishermen?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: There is not sufficient information available to answer a question of that importance at the moment.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: A short time ago, on Friday, January 21, I directed a question to the Minister of Public Works. In reply he said that he had some difficulty hearing the first part of the question, that he would take it as notice and give me a better answer on Monday. I ask my hon. friend if today is the Monday he had in mind.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of National Defence. Over the week end press reports indicated that the R.C.A.F. would be spending some $10 million to buy French jet planes, apparently for the purpose of transporting cabinet ministers and other VIP's. My question is, are these reports accurate, and if so would the minister explain the need for such expenditures and the possible other uses for these planes?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: No decision, Mr. Speaker-
January 31, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr, Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest
that this question be placed on the order paper.


Barry Mather: After ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN COASTGUARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. During the last session the minister advised the house that four new coastguard vessels would be constructed. Could he advise the house now as to when tenders will be called for these much needed vessels?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have had no notice of this question. It does seem to me it is the kind of question of which notice is required.


Mr. Speaker:: This would be the ruling of the Chair, that this question should be put on the order paper.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I will put it on the order paper right now.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the general belief in Canada that before long the Canadian Pacific Railway will withdraw from railway passenger service and seek to unload this on the government, will the government make an early statement on this matter so it will be clear that if the government takes over the C.P.R. it will not be just its uneconomic operations but all its operations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is a very far reaching question, Mr. Speaker. When the appropriate estimates are being considered, perhaps that would be the best time to discuss it.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a supplementary question. The matter of the cancellation of the Dominion is very serious, and it is now before the cabinet, I understand, by way of an appeal from a decision made by the Board of Transport Commissioners. Will the Prime Minister consider turning over to the committee on railways, or whatever the appropriate

committee is, consideration of this question before the government makes its judgment on the appeal so that witnesses may be called? The explanation of the Canadian Pacific is that the operation is completely unprofitable and it is losing money, but the Canadian National Railways president says there has been a vast increase in passenger traffic on the C.N.R. during the last few months. Will the Prime Minister not consider giving members of this house the fullest possible opportunity to make representations, and the only way in which that could be done would be through a committee so that officials could be called from not only the C.N.R. but also the C.P.R.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the appeal in question is now being considered, as my right hon. friend has indicated. In that consideration the government is trying to arrange the best method by which evidence could be heard to help the government in its decision. The right hon. gentleman has raised another question, a very important one, to which we will be glad to give consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. While the government is considering its attitude toward the Canadian Pacific's withdrawal from railway passenger service, will the government make it clear to the house and the country that it is not going to give the Canadian Pacific something else, namely increased air routes at the expense of Air Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, that is another matter, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think we had better have a go at this at ten o'clock.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: should like to ask the Prime Minister if he has had a request from the railway labour unions for a meeting with him to protest the decision of the Board of Transport Commissioners to permit the cancellation of the Canadian Pacific Dominion transcontinental train. If so, has the Prime Minister agreed to meet the delegation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have received such a request. It is one of the appeal representations we have received. We are now considering the best way of receiving the deputation before the government makes its decision on this matter.
January 31, 1966



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a question for the Prime Minister. In the light of the announcement he made on Friday that an invitation has been extended to Her Majesty to participate in our centennial celebrations, can the Prime Minister inform the house whether an invitation has been extended to Prince Charles to preside at the opening of the centennial youth parliament, as has been suggested by the planners of that particular activity?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, so far as the first part of the question is concerned, the question of an invitation to Her Majesty does not arise, since she is the Queen of Canada and does not require an invitation. As I said the other day, discussions are now taking place as to Her Majesty coming here during 1967.
The other part of the question I believe concerned the possibility of Prince Charles coming to Canada to continue his education, presumably at the University of Toronto. I have not been able to give any consideration to this part of that question.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The latter part of my question, Mr. Speaker, was whether Prince Charles had been asked, or whatever the proper protocol is, to preside at the opening of the centennial youth parliament which will take place in the Senate chamber commencing July 1, 1967.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. member's question. This probably results from the fact that a member was good enough to send me notice of a question last week concerning Prince Charles obtaining part of his education in Canada and this accounts for my misunderstanding of the question, which I did not hear clearly. The possibility of Prince Charles coming for the purpose indicated by my hon. friend had not occurred to me, but I will be glad to look into it.



FORESTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I
should like to ask the Prime Minister if he has been able to complete the inquiry which
Inquiries of the Ministry he told me on Thursday last he would make into the question of a research program on pollution control in the forest industry.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I received a note about that just before I came into the house. The inquiry is not yet completed, but I hope it will be tomorrow or the next day.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In view of what appears to have been an informal exchange between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Forestry on pollution research, I am wondering whether the Minister of Forestry is able to answer my question.


Maurice Sauvé: Investigations relating to water pollution control are not included among the functions of the Department of Forestry. Work in this field is undertaken by other federal departments and by provincial government departments and agencies.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to ask the Minister of Industry or the Prime Minister, whoever might be more appropriate, whether the proposed national science council would be able to correlate or inaugurate some research program in this field on the scale which the program requires. I suggest this as a matter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a very wide ranging question, and I suggest to the hon. member that he put it on the order paper.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: On
Wednesday last, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance was going to give me a statement about a committee in Vancouver which was organized to facilitate the movement of grain. There was some dispute about the minister's right to do that, and I wonder if he is ready to make that statement on motions some day soon.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am a little uncertain. Several questions have been asked about this matter, and I think I have answered them all except one. I am not quite sure if this is the question relating to the membership of the committee.
January 31, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert William Prittie: There was that question, but if the minister will check Hansard for last Wednesday he will see that he started to give some explanation about the operation of the committee on the movement of grain in Vancouver, but was prevented from doing so by some objections. There was a suggestion that he should make the statement on motions.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a most serious and urgent question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware of the fact that an interpretation made by the deputy minister of labour under the Canada Labour Standards Act, which was passed last session, is to the effect that an agreement between employees and employers having greater benefits than the minimum the act allows-and certain employers are taking advantage of this-is open for renegotiation by the employer on all clauses that are superior to the minimums established by that act last session? This, sir, is creating a furor across Canada and requires an immediate answer from the Minister of Labour.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Having had no notice of the question, I will have to take it as notice, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of his former promises to this house will the right hon. gentleman tell us what progress is being made by the government with respect to negotiating Canada's commitments as far as the installation of nuclear weapons on Canadian soil is concerned?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not really believe I can answer a question of this kind on the orders of the day. When the defence estimates are before the house there will be an opportunity to discuss all the ramifications of this subject.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Goyer for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre)!
Mr. Speaker, in my first speech in this twenty seventh parliament I am pleased to have the opportunity of joining with all those who have spoken during the debate on the Speech from the Throne in offering to you sincere congratulations on your elevation to your present high position. In your capacity as Deputy Speaker in the twenty sixth parliament you showed a wide knowledge of parliamentary procedure and a deep understanding of the working of parliament. I am sure you will continue to act in the same manner in this parliament. I wish also to congratulate the Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Chairman of Committees. I am sure all members will agree that they are very good choices. I should like also to congratulate the mover (Mr. Goyer) and the seconder (Mr. Stanbury) of the address and wish them both a successful and interesting experience in parliament.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
This is the last day of the debate on the Speech from the Throne. Perhaps it is fitting that the debate should end on such a day of traffic confusion and drifts of snow, because I think those words "confusion" and "drift" well describe the Speech from the Throne outlining the government's legislative program this session. Most of the government's program has drifted into the Speech from the Throne from the last parliament. There appears also to be confusion regarding which legislation will come before us.
There also appears to be a misunderstanding on the part of the public concerning this debate. Many people do not realize that the rules of parliament provide eight days of debate on the Speech from the Throne at the opening of the session. I have tried to inform my constituents at every opportunity that we are not carrying on a time wasting effort but that we are taking a critical look at the program proposed by the government and attempting to offer constructive suggestions for improvement.
Suggestions have been made in various editorial articles and also in the remarks of some hon. members that we should refrain
January 31, 1966
[Stage Direction]
from moving amendments to the address which are considered as being votes of nonconfidence. I cannot agree with these suggestions. If we failed to move amendments in an effort to improve government legislation we would be guilty of avoiding our responsibility as an opposition. I well recall the actions of some of the present occupants of the front bench opposite when they were in opposition during the minority Conservative government of 1962 and 1963. Some of their statements in the house at that time make interesting reading, particularly those of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). I do not have the actual words with me but they were to the effect that it was the duty of the opposition to criticize any government legislation with which it did not agree. If I may recall from memory the words of the Prime Minister-1 was in the house when he said this-he told us it was the duty of the opposition "to try to defeat the government at the earliest opportunity". Nevertheless members opposite now try to say we should not bring in motions of non-confidence.
There is not much one can say on the last day of this debate with regard to the defects of the Speech from the Throne if one is to avoid repetition. But I have a few words to say on a subject of particular interest to my own constituents. This wild day with its drifting snow is a good one on which to bring up the first subject I have in mind. I tried to raise it in the house by means of a question on orders of the day but you ruled me out of order, Mr. Speaker. I trust I can refer to it now. I will begin by reading a statement from the Manitoba Co-Operator. Let me point out that these remarks apply not just to Manitoba but to all parts of the prairies.
The current winter has brought some near record cold spells, plenty of snow, and winds to pile the fluffy white stuff in travel-defying mounds. Individual farmers and municipalities have been hard put to keep their main roads open. Their labors have involved inconvenience, discomfort and expenditures running to the tens of thousands of dollars for snowplowing.
I wish to refer to snowplowing. I have asked the government-there is a question on the subject on the order paper in my name -to consider the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on snowplows. I realize that our motion to have this tax removed entirely on building materials and production machinery was defeated, so I shall not refer to the broader aspect of the question. However, I should like to refer to the 11 per cent sales
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Pascoe tax imposed on snowplows. This year, farmers found it absolutely necessary to co-operate with their neighbours in forming snowplow clubs. They pooled their financial resources to buy plows. Almost every day this winter it has been necessary to plow in order to keep the side roads open. I have received many letters from my constituents asking for the removal of the sales tax on plows, and in support of this plea I should like to impress upon the government the need which exists for these plows. The comfort, health, safety, and the very lives, almost, of some of the people I represent depend on these roads being kept open.
As for the school children, it is true there are buses to take them to school, but the farmers have to plow their roads before the children can reach the buses. I cannot impress upon the government too strongly the need for removing this tax on snowplows completely.
During the question period another problem was raised having to do with the railways, particularly the cancellation of the Dominion. I know there is an appeal under consideration at the present time and that the cabinet is deliberating this appeal. Last week I drew attention to the fact that the mayors and aldermen of the eight cities on the main line from Calgary to Winnipeg, the others being Portage la Prairie, Regina, Swift Current, Medicine Hat, Brandon and Moose Jaw, met in Moose Jaw last Tuesday. I have here a copy of the minutes of that meeting, received in my mail today. I shall not place all of it on record but there is a great deal of evidence here to indicate how concerned the mayors and reeves are about the discontinuance of the Dominion, a matter to which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) referred when he was out west.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
There are one or two points I should like to emphasize. First, the mayors and aldermen referred to the difficulties of getting to Moose Jaw because of the lack of passenger train service. That was the first point they made. Later they passed a resolution which in part read as follows:
Whereas the Board of Transport Commissioners have not realistically nor objectively assessed the case put by the communities by such abandonment-
That is, to discontinue the Dominion.
Whereas it is absolutely clear that the Canadian Pacific Railway is doing all it can to upgrade the fares and downgrade the service on the Canadian to hasten its abandonment;...
January 31, 1366
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Pascoe
Therefore be it resolved that this meeting of the cities of Calgary, Medicine Hat, Swift Current, Moose Jaw, Regina, Brandon, Portage la Prairie, and Winnipeg urge the government of Canada to immediately set up a public committee under the direction of the Canadian National Railway passenger department to make an on-the-road survey of passenger train and commuter requirements in all communities serviced by the Canadian Pacific rail lines in Canada.
Then there is this addition to that resolution:
That this meeting make a personal presentation from the cities taking part to the cabinet at Ottawa at as early as possible a date.
I think this fits in with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition in asking for a full inquiry into the whole matter, and I believe the presentation from these mayors would also fit in with any other presentations which may be made. It was also moved at the meeting that the federal members of parliament who represent the areas affected should be present when the brief is presented to the cabinet. I hope this will be possible and I certainly would wish to be present when the arguments are advanced.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) is not in the chamber but I hope he will take note of what I have to say next. I understand there is the possibility of an Easter recess and I thought it would be advisable to make advance reservations on the Canadian, which serves Moose Jaw. I telephoned last week to do so, but already they have a waiting list for suitable reservations on the Canadian during April. This indicates the need for improving the passenger service and I would ask the Minister of Transport to draw the attention of the C.P.R. to the necessity for putting on extra coaches during peak travel periods such as Easter.
I have one or two questions of local interest to mention and one deals with agriculture. I am sure the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) has the Board of Grain Commissioners under his supervision, as did the previous minister. There has been much talk about providing extra quotas to cover tough and damp grain which can be dried and put in shape for marketing. The Canadian government elevator at Moose Jaw, with a Dominion bushel capacity, has the most efficient drying facilities possible, but they are not being used at present. Some way should be found to have portions of this tough grain dried at the Moose Jaw elevator and put into shape so that it may fetch a higher return when it is marketed; and it should be dried at the lowest possible cost.

Last week the Minister of Agriculture took great pride in referring to the latest wheat board statement on delivery quotas. I agree with him that these are improving somewhat but there are some figures for Saskatchewan, from the latest Canadian Wheat Board report which I would like to put on record.
The minister referred to the fact that there were only three points on a one bushel per specified acre quota. But, Mr. Speaker, last year at this date there were none. This year there are 61 points on a two bushel quota. Last year at this date there were none. This year there are 242 points on a three bushel quota. Last year at this time there were only 33. Jumping now to the six bushel quota points, I was pleased to see that there are 196 points on a six bushel quota but I would point out that at this time last year there were 395 points on a six bushel quota. I agree that the minister is probably doing his best to speed up matters but there is still great need for additional boxcars.
Last week the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) made a most interesting speech on automobile safety devices, and I have received a great many letters from my constituents on this matter. They support his statements and have asked me to endorse them in the house, something I am very pleased to do. I shall not read any of the letters but I wish to let you know, Mr. Speaker, that I have received quite a few on this subject.
In this connection I wish to refer to the latest issue of the Highway Safety News which quotes Mr. Bryce, Executive Director of the Canadian Highway Safety Council as saying:
When society accepts the seriousness of the highway traffic situation and demands action, the accident trend will swing downward.
Mr. Bryce makes two or three suggestions, the first of which is:
Train young drivers for 60 years of resourceful driving. No matter how this is accomplished or who does it or who pays for it, this training is a logical and essential step toward reducing road accidents.	^
He also recommends driver improvement courses, and I think everyone will agree this would be one way to reduce traffic accidents. He also recommends motor vehicle inspections. I believe that if a more careful check were made of all cars on the highways it would result in fewer accidents.
Many serious accidents and fatalities occur at railway crossings and it is my opinion that the railway grade crossing fund should be
January 31. 1966
[Stage Direction]
increased and more latitude used with regard to grants made from the fund. In my city of Moose Jaw an application has been made for the elimination of a level crossing and its replacement with an overhead bridge a mile farther down the line. However, the use of the grade crossing fund has been denied in this case because the replacement bridge would not be located at the original crossing. For that reason I maintain there should be more latitude allowed in connection with the use of this fund. In this particular case the elimination of the level crossing would not harm anybody and it would certainly do a lot of good to have it replaced by an overhead bridge.
The Canada Pension Plan fund will be coming up for discussion later in the session and so I shall not say much about it now. However, I would emphasize the great number of letters I am getting and the number of phone calls I received when I was at home, all dealing with the integration or stacking of private pension plans with the Canada Pension Plan. Last year when I questioned this matter the then minister of national health and welfare said it was absolutely a problem for the private pension plans, but I think some direction should be given by the government to assist in the integrating of these plans.
One other point I wish to make in connection with the Canada Pension Plan has to do with the increase in the cost of living resulting from the compulsory payment of premiums which started on January 1. I understand the price of restaurant meals is going up and I should like to refer to one particular case. One small businessman told me he had five fairly well paid employees and one general handyman to whom he did not pay a great deal in wages. When he started figuring out the compulsory payments he had to make on January 1, he realized that his contributions of 1.8 per cent almost equalled the salary he was paying his general handyman. Without compunction he told me he was letting this man go so that the money he had paid him would pretty well equalize the compulsory payments he had to make under the Canada Pension Plan.
Since I have referred to the cost of living I wish to point out that the latest chart issued by the dominion bureau of statistics shows that the cost of living index stood at 140.8 points in December, the highest level on record. The cost of living has been rising continuously and will continue to increase.
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Pascoe
Hon. members know of the potash developments in my area. The one I am most interested in is only a few miles from Moose Jaw. It is the only one with a solution mining operation whereby water is pumped down and the potash is brought up. I have raised the question on other occasions and I know others have too, but again I emphasize the need for equality of tax treatment for the solution mining method with the treatment that is afforded conventional shaft mining. This is something that has been impressed upon the government on many occasions and I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) will bring in some amendment to this effect in the next budget.
The Minister of Finance requested letters from citizens who have views to offer regarding possible budget proposals. I believe he tried to withdraw his request later when he was almost submerged with letters. I should like to draw to his attention one which was sent to me, and I will put it on the record since the minister is not in the house. It reads:
Another suggestion that you might wish to consider would make for more equitable treatment under the Income Tax Act. At present, when a homeowner wishes to sell his house and has to take part of the sale price by way of mortgage or agreement for sale he must report the interest received on his income tax return. However, if he buys a better house or one in a different community, the interest which he pays on the mortgage on the new residence is not allowable as a deduction against taxable income, not even against his interest income arising from the sale of his former residence. It would seem only fair that the interest expense on the new residence should be claimable as a deduction up to the amount received from the sale of the old residence.
Another letter I have just received will be of interest to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith). I have not yet made a request for an answer concerning it. It is from a man who supplies building materials, and in it he says:
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
-in the case of a public or private job, if the contractor does not pay his subcontractor or suppliers they can place a mechanic's lien.
To collect their money:
However, with regard to a government project we understand that a lien is of no value and we were wondering if there is any other recourse.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I intend to follow this up with the appropriate government department but I should also like to put that on record.
I am just clearing away some of these letters I have received. I will not emphasize
January 31, 1966
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Pascoe the next one too much because it has been dealt with by the government and the answer is no. The letter is from the Federal Superannuates National Association, Regina branch. They ask my support in requesting a revision upwards of the pension for retired civil servants and their widows. I know the government has said no, but we give them fair warning that we are going to carry on the fight in this regard. I think that pretty well clears my desk of letters from constituents, Mr. Speaker.
Now I should like to deal with the major points in the Throne Speech. I have them outlined here. The first is increased grants to universities and a scholarship program for students. We certainly support this program because, as a matter of fact, we started it. The party to which I belong was responsible for the original increase in grants to universities. As I say, we certainly support this program and commend the government for following our example.
The next matter is the extension of crop insurance coverage to make it available to all Canadian farmers. We shall deal further with this question when the estimates of the Department of Agriculture come up for review. Next there is set out in the Throne Speech the federal government's intention to brook no provincial interference in fields of explicit national responsibility. I cannot emphasize this too much, because we are the party that is standing for a strong central government. I am sure we will support this proposal if the government will really live up to their commitments in the Throne Speech.
Next are revisions of the Railway Act. I shall not refer to that question any more because I believe I have impressed upon the house the problems in this connection and what we are going to try to do about them, including the restoration of adequate passenger service.
Next are proposals for the redevelopment of uneconomic farms. This one gives me some cause for concern, because I am a strong advocate of family farms and do not want to see this measure used as a first lever to remove the small family farms. I think some way should be found to increase the earnings of these farmers and leave them on the family farm. I agree that the farms can be redeveloped but I do not want to see the farmers taken off these farms.
Next the government says that it intends to introduce legislation to make "O Canada" the national anthem. I will conclude my remarks

on this topic, Mr. Speaker, because the government seems to have an unhappy ability of dividing this country. They divided it on the flag; they are going to divide it on capital punishment. Now they are going to bring in "O Canada" as the national anthem. I agree with this but believe there should be a national anthem with words that are common to the whole country. 1 do not think we should have two national anthems as we perhaps have two national flags. We should have one national anthem of which we can all be proud and which the people of Canada can sing in all parts of the country. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the house for listening to these few remarks.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, allow me, first of all, to congratulate very warmly my colleagues from the ridings of Dollard and York-Scarborough (Messrs. Goyer and Stanbury) for their speeches as movers of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I take this opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your appointment to the speakership of this house. I think that your appointment is clearly a tribute to your bilingualism, a precious advantage which you acquired at the University of Ottawa, one of our country's great bilingual institutions. It is a spontaneous show of respect, and a choice which was never in doubt in the minds of those who are gathered here today.
I also take this opportunity to congratulate your colleague, the Deputy Speaker, and Deputy Chairman of Committees (Mr. Batten).
Mr. Speaker, if I am able today to express sincerely and freely my personal ideas in this house, I must thank the constituents of the beautiful riding of Gatineau, a hunting and fishing paradise, for this honour. The other day in the house, the hon. member for Vil-leneuve (Mr. Caouette) said that the riding of Villeneuve was the most beautiful. He must have made a mistake, because he decided to come and live in the most beautiful riding, that of Gatineau, to deal with his riding's business.
It is from the bottom of my heart, Mr. Speaker, that I thank my constituents. It is also as their representative, in this assembly, that I shall give my personal views on the medicare program promoted by my government.
Let it be noted, Mr. Speaker, that I am now speaking as an elected member having the
January 31, 1966
right of speech in the parliament of Canada, and not as a member representing the specific interests of a given constituency.
Having been actively engaged for 20 years, in the practice of the medical profession among those who have been, and still are referred to as economically weak, that is the workers and the middle class, and having seen them toil, suffer and die, I think I am qualified to express here a physician's opinion, which is truly Canadian and has little in common with the views of certain paramedical so-called experts, whose only knowledge of sickness and the sick stems from what they read in dusty books found on the shelves of libraries.
If I have often been called to the bedside of a dying man to see him breathe his last after having seen him suffer, it is because people knew that my sympathy extended beyond the physical comfort I could bring. I was aware that illness, for that class of society could mean not only physical decline but hopeless financial ruin.
Our government has already established basic principles which, I think, are quite fair to all the people in Canada. The provinces should adopt them and co-operate with the central government in this respect. Oh, I know quite well that in some circles today people cannot keep from saying no as soon Ottawa has said yes to certain projects.
Such an attitude creates unrest and confusion among the people of certain provinces and it has become a form of snobbery that is in very bad taste from a political standpoint. This should stop, especially when the national welfare is at stake.
It is essential that medicare, as advocated by this government, become a reality in the very near future. People in all walks of life are pressing for it and all are awaiting the implementation of this vast program.
Here, Mr. Speaker, is what we should have in 1967:
First, all Canadians should be looked after and be able to receive equal medical care throughout the country.
Second, the government should assume either complementary or complete responsibility throughout the country with regard to individuals under medical care.
Third, medicare should be instituted not for the benefit of doctors, hospitals, druggists, the government or certain insurance companies, but for the sake of the sick, and that with the full co-operation of those various groups.
The Address-Mr. Isabelle Fourth, such a medicare plan should be portable from one province to another.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.

At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Do I need to point out, Mr. Speaker, that if health conditions existing 100 years ago had prevailed today, more than half of us here would not have survived.
One out of five would have died in childhood from colic, whooping-cough and typhoid; one out of ten would have been overcome before adolescence by diphtheria, scarlet fever, smallpox or by some of the other quite common diseases attributed to poor nutrition. Among those reaching manhood, one out of twelve would have died before 30 of tetanus, peritonitis or diabetes, or some other illness for which there was no effective treatment. One out of ten would have been stricken before 50 by pneumonia, tuberculosis or other illnesses, but conditions have been greatly improved thanks to medical and pharmaceutical progress.
Those two professions have existed for a very long time, but systematic research really started only in the middle of the nineteenth century. It was, of course, in the following century that therapeutics and preventive medicine made such great strides. Canadians are more and more conscious of the fact that health preservation is an important factor in making life happier and the nation stronger.
According to the 1961 Canada Year Book, Canadians spent, for health purposes, the staggering amount of $1,652 million, that is a little over twice the corresponding figure for 1953.
The point I have been trying to make here, Mr. Speaker, is that if the average life expectancy in Canada now exceeds 70 years, it is because of the prevention of childhood diseases such as those I have just mentioned, and of old age illnesses.
That is why medicare is needed, Mr. Speaker, and especially for those two great classes of citizens, the young and the old. Those should be the first to benefit fully and without cost from health services. Those

January 31, 1966

The Address-Mr. Isabelle should include medical and surgical care, nursing, dental and eye care, including provision of eyeglasses and dentures, drugs and prosthesis. I would even go as far as to suggest to the proper authorities that those comprehensive health services should be extended to any person temporarily unemployed, to the sick and disabled, to people who have a job but who are unable to look after their own needs or those of their family; indeed, all Canadians in need should be covered by a complete health insurance scheme.
How do you expect low income families with children to get proper care in 1966? It is unthinkable and impossible for them to spend money on health care. They must be content with certain free medical services made available to them by the government, for instance, health units and dispensaries.
It is a shame for a flourishing and prosperous country such as ours, to be burdened by so much misery, so many moral and economic frustrations indirectly caused by lack of care resulting in physical impairments.
A recent survey in a few ridings of Ontario and Quebec neighbouring on the federal capital and concerning poverty in the rural classes has opened many eyes. Did you know that at least 70 per cent of those questioned stated they could not afford medical care by a doctor? It is not surprising that these people have physical handicaps and will never be rehabilitated.
Speaking of complete health services for those who need them, there are categories which should be excluded, for instance: single people, families without children or with children over the age required for family allowances. In my opinion, those last groups assume part of the premium. They would be entitled to the same care but they would have made their small contribution to the larger one made by the federal and provincial governments to enable the latter to play their true role as defender of the weak and the poor, as well as a supplementary role among those who are able to live comfortably on this Canadian soil.
I am sure that this extensive plan will fulfil the needs of all classes. In a way, it would be an improvement on the plan now in operation in Saskatchewan, which in my opinion is one of the best in Canada, with regard to health insurance. That plan seems to be working so well that in its October 1965 issue, the Canadian Medical Journal stated that 70 per cent of doctors in that province will vote for

the maintenance of such a plan, whereas a great number of them were opposed to its creation a few years ago.
If my hon. colleague, the leader of the
N.D.P. (Mr. Douglas) says that it costs $24 per person to administer such a plan, I am sure that the government, with its administrative talent, will undoubtedly be able to lower that rate. I ask my hon. colleagues to read in the Canadian Doctor for December 1965, an article by Dr. E. Thompson, honorary president of the University of Saskatchewan, on the Saskatchewan Medical Program.
If, in 1961, Canada had just a little over
21,000	doctors, that is a doctor per 857 inhabitants, the number of our doctors should increase by at least 20,000 before 1991. To train that many doctors before 1991, we will need room for more than 1,000 medical students; larger schools of medicine, grants such as those which our government intends to make to higher education will be needed to contribute, in the near future, to the creation of a Canada stronger than ever, healthier, more anxious to get an education, to live its Canadianism, as we want to proclaim it in 1967.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, allow me to invite all my fellow Canadians throughout the country, wherever they are, to come at least once in their life to Ottawa-it would be better to come when they are young-to visit the Remembrance Hall in the Peace Tower. There they will see words that will make them think, that might have an influence on their whole life. As a matter of fact, life is so mechanized in 1966 that it is almost impossible to stop and think. There on the walls-
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)

I will read this in English although I do not think there is any literal translation of this quotation:
Head how free men throughout this land Kept faith in the hour of trial, and In the day of battle, remembering the Traditions they had been taught, counting Life nothing without liberty.
No provinces are mentioned, Mr. Speaker, only the expression "this land", which means unity through diversity across Canada, this big land of ours.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I begin by adding my words of congratulation to all the members who have preceded me, particularly those who have taken part in debate in this house for the first
January 31, 1966

time. I add my congratulations to the mover of the Throne Speech, the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer), and the seconder, the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury). The calibre of speeches in this debate has been exceptionally fine. Some very good ideas have been advanced, and I wish those who have brought these ideas forward every success in what is one of their most difficult functions in this house, that of bringing these ideas to fruition. All of us, I believe, come to this house with some wonderful ideas on how things can be improved. The main problem seems to be putting those ideas into effect through legislation. I wish, all members success in seeing their ideas placed on the statute books of Canada.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I wish to congratulate Mr. Speaker on his elevation to the Chair and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with whom I have had a most pleasant association during the years we have been here. My good wishes are extended too to the Deputy Chairman of Committees.
Before moving to the main theme of my address this afternoon I wish to mention two matters briefly. One of these is referred to in the Speech from the Throne; the other is not. I refer, first of all, to the statement that legislative proposals will include amendments to the Area Development Incentives Act. The Speech from the Throne does not indicate how this act is to be amended. I have asked the minister whether he can give us any idea of the lines along which this legislation is to be changed.
In reply the minister said merely that this matter was under consideration. I assume, therefore, that no decision has been made. I hope that when the legislation is drafted it will make provision for an extension of this measure so that it may include other types of industry which create employment in various parts of the country. I refer particularly to the tourist industry and to the service industries related to it. The act which has been passed to provide industrial incentives has been effective in the Georgian Bay region of which Parry Sound-Muskoka is a part. At the moment the prospect is hopeful; it looks as though this act may bring a number of industries into the area to assist in its development. One or two firms have begun to make the move and others are inquiring. But many people feel the act could be extended into the area of the tourist industry and in
The Address-Mr. Aiken particular to those parts of the industry whose activities continue throughout the year.
Operators in many parts of Canada are now beginning to develop a year round tourist trade. They are providing facilities for the enjoyment by tourists of our lakes and rivers in summer by catering to those who go swimming or fishing and they are now beginning to provide facilities for skiing and other winter sports. I would ask the minister to consider including this industry when he is considering amendments to this act.
The second matter, one which is not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne at all, concerns Indian affairs. Within the last few years there has been a tremendous acceleration in the demands made by various groups across the country for an improvement in the status of Indians. This comes from sources which have not formerly raised their voices. It is coming strongly from the Indians themselves, much more strongly than for many years. It is coming from both public and private associations.
I am most disappointed that in the Speech from the Throne the government has given no indication that it intends to cope with this problem, one which has been with us for many years and is still with us even though we have made a little progress in dealing with it. It is true an Indians claim commission is to be set up. But it is my view and the view of many others that rather than assist the Indians this will have the effect of wiping out effectively Indian claims which have been in existence for 100 years, by reason of the statutory limitation imposed on claims against the government. It may, of course, deal with some claims but it will do nothing toward a solution of the long term difficulties.
I believe we have to examine, for example, the position of the Indian agent. The existence of this official among Indian bands is evidence of the paternalistic attitude of the government toward the Indians, an attitude which is now becoming rapidly outdated. Most of the Indian agents are doing their best but in some cases they have too much authority and in others too little. I think their jobs should be changed eventually until they are advisers rather than directors. The ultimate end should be the elimination of the necessity for the job of Indian agent so that the bands may become self-governing communities rather than being run from Ottawa through local agents.
January 31. 1966

The Address-Mr. Aiken
Having said this, I think I should turn to my main theme, one which also arises from an omission in the Speech from the Throne. The Speech from the Throne fails completely to take notice of the fact that for the fourth time in five elections the government party does not have a majority in the House of Commons. Our constitution is based on the Prime Minister being the leader of the party with the majority in the house. This idea is based in turn on a two party system which assumes that one party is bound to have a majority. In a house with an odd number of members this is presumed to be the case.
With the passing of the years and the emergence of third, fourth and fifth parties the balance contemplated under the constitution has been disturbed. I shall not comment today on whether this is right or wrong. The people of Canada decide whom they want to represent them. They decide on the parties and they decide on the members who are to be sent here. But we have to face the fact that there are third, fourth and fifth parties in this house and that the constitutional balance has been disturbed to the point that in five elections we have had four minority governments.
This has been much to the dissatisfaction of the Canadian people and I think it is time we came to grips with the situation. It is one which did not arise early in our development but it is one to which early consideration must now be given. It should be a normal and accepted practice that parliament should have the right to amend or reject legislation proposed by the government, or any other official act, without the risk of a general election. No government is perfect; I think we can say that with particularly loud voices at the present time. The present government is a clear example of that.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
It is necessary for parliament, if it is to be representative of the people, to have the right to amend or change or reject completely legislation that is unacceptable. Parliament should be able to scold, chastise and reverse the executive branch when it has acted hastily and unwisely. In normal administrative practice, Mr. Speaker, this happens. Many times, as a result of questions put on orders of the day or questions raised on the order paper or motions moved the government decides that a certain action it has taken administratively is wrong and members of the government change their minds without any

fear that they are going to have to resign. Indeed, they will change their minds completely on a course that has been set.
Many times during the last parliament we saw ministers rise and say, "This is the policy. This is it. You will have to accept it." But on further probing, further suggestion and consideration, they came to the conclusion that their first decision was wrong and, to their credit, in many cases their actions were reversed and they accepted that they had been wrong.
If we were to have a government that obstinately refused to change its decisions we would come to the same situation as we have presently in regard to legislation. We would have to vote no confidence in such a government in order to get it out, but I feel there ought to be a middle course and it is that middle course which I am going to suggest today.
We as a house, representing the people of Canada, indulge in somewhat of a defiant and empty gesture when we start off the session by having the Prime Minister introduce Bill No. C-l, which is supposed to indicate that the House of Commons is an independent legislative body. We do not immediately take up the business that His Excellency has suggested but rather we go on with another bit of business. We do that every session to maintain in parliament that right of independent action, to maintain that we are independent from the monarchy and also independent from the executive branch, Her Majesty's advisers.
We go through this procedure. But then we knuckle under to the government when it proposes its legislation with the threat that if we do not do what it says the house can be dissolved. This is particularly true in the case of a minority government. We find that the words "subject to approval by parliament", used by ministers in their statements, are thrown in for technical reasons without those ministers being very much afraid that parliament will reverse them because they know that if parliament reverses them parliament will be dissolved and that will be the end of it. We go through these empty gestures of pretending parliament is supreme even though we know it is not.
This is even more the case with a minority position because the people have spoken differently from what they would have if a majority government had been elected. If a majority is elected we can truly say that the people have spoken, that we have to accept
January 31, 1966

the overwhelming support they have given to the government party and that we have to go along with them. We can fight, delay and sometimes reverse but if the government party insists it can overwhelm us.
But, Mr. Speaker, when the people have sent a minority government to parliament they have spoken just as much as when they send a majority government. They have spoken differently. They have said, we do not have confidence in this or that particular party; we choose to elect our members and let them decide as a body what is the best thing for this country. Therefore we have a decision by the people. It is not that we have to knuckle under to a majority in the house but rather that the house should make its own decisions.
When we put this up against the right of the Prime Minister and the cabinet to recommend dissolution of parliament at any time they see fit, then the whole thing becomes a farce. If parliament does not support the government, the government exercises the right of dissolution and we find ourselves going back to the country again; the people find themselves having to try once again to make up their minds to support a party in parliament, something they have not been able to do on four occasions recently.
The evolution of constitutional power from the monarchy to the people has never got beyond a transfer of this right from the monarch to the cabinet. The so-called supremacy of parliament has been stopped dead in its tracks by the dual practice of allowing the Prime Minister to recommend dissolution of parliament whenever he feels like it and at the same time requiring him to resign whenever his legislation is rejected or even amended against his will.
The series of minority governments which we have gone through in the past nine years have surely shown us something of this basic arrest in our constitutional development. The Americans saw this difficulty when they set up their constitution and they provided for regular elections regardless of the composition of congress in relation to the executive.
The United States constitution provided for some balance between the powers of the executive and the powers of congress. In fact, the Americans saw this problem as far back as the time of the drafting of their own constitution due to the high handed attitude of the monarchy at that time. They did not want to place this power of dissolution in the
The Address-Mr. Aiken hands of the chief executive of their country and so they provided for set elections at regular periods.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we do not need to look to the American constitution as the end-all of democracy. It is not by any means, but I am citing it as an example which has worked out fairly well. In Pakistan there is a fixed term of elections and dissolution by the government is practically non-existent. In India we find that the practice of regular four-year elections is the norm, and starting in 1967 I understand their term of parliament will be fixed so that no person can change the timing of an election except under unusual circumstances. In my view we should follow this practice in Canada so far as our constitution permits.
We no longer have an absolute monarchy in Canada but the powers of the monarch to dissolve parliament exist just as strongly now as they did 200 years ago because they are still resting in the hands of the executive branch and of the Prime Minister. I do not suggest, Mr. Speaker, that minority governments are a good thing but under proper constitutional practices they can be made to express the will of the people; they can be the perfect embodiment of the principle of the supremacy of parliament.
Without rejecting the fundamentals of our constitution we can take a long step forward toward freeing ourselves from the last remnants of an absolute monarchy, now held by the cabinet and the Prime Minister, by taking out of the hands of any individual the right to dissolve the people's parliament at will and transferring it to parliament itself. In so doing we would not be casting our constitution into any rigid formula. I am not proposing a system of fixed term elections such as those in the United States, India and Pakistan that I have mentioned but I am proposing that we move to correct this fundamental defect in our constitution. I believe it should take the form of an amendment to the British North America Act. Such an amendment can be made by this parliament without reference to any other authority because it affects merely the sittings of parliament itself.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
In summary, I should like to see an amendment to our constitution with the following objectives in mind: First, as an immediate means for the prevention of any further election in the near future and, second, to provide us with the authority to amend or reject government legislation from
January 31. 1966

The Address-Mr. Aiken time to time without the threat of an election. Third, I should like to see parliament vested with the ability to bring about an election when and if the government has lost the confidence of this house, most especially when there is a minority government in power. Fourth, I should like to see the elimination of the right of the prime minister to recommend dissolution at his own will, thus settling that problem of which all of us are aware, which has been left over since the year 1926.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members will pay particular attention to my last two points. I should like to have a more definite term for the existence of a parliament and finally, all these things should be encompassed within the framework of our constitution.
This may sound like a tall order but I think we can accomplish these objectives by amending section 50 of the British North America Act and adding a subsection 50(a) perhaps which might state that, notwithstanding any custom or usage which now exists, no government shall be deemed to have been defeated in the House of Commons by rejection or amendment of any government legislation or otherwise save by a general vote of non-confidence at times to be established in the rules, and that no prime minister shall recommend to His Excellency the dissolution of parliament within a period of four years after polling day in a general election save as the result of such general vote of non-confidence.
It is my intention to bring in a bill along these lines when my research has been completed and after there has been some discussion of these particular problems. I make these suggestions now because many people in this country have become concerned with these problems and are thinking seriously of how we should correct our constitution to deal with the situation as it exists now in this mid-twentieth century. Perhaps there could be some private and public discussion of these suggestions followed by some direction for future action.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the government itself should make proposals to start the ball rolling in respect of our constitution without concerning itself only with technicalities and problems in respect of English-French relations and provincial-federal relations. We must begin to think more definitely about these problems and


about how they can be solved rather than about philosophies which may lead us nowhere.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, if I may do a disservice to a familiar quotation, this might be one of the days of this session during which an ill wind did nobody any good because if the weather had been finer I would not have been speaking today.
I should like to congratulate you, sir, on your exaltation to the Chair you now occupy. I have had the opportunity of observing your performance in the past parliament and I congratulate you and I congratulate ourselves. In times past I have expressed my view in respect of the eminent qualifications of the Speaker of this parliament. I am delighted that he is living up to the fine predictions so many of us made for him. It is with no perfunctory purpose in mind that I congratulate the hon. members who so eloquently and thoughtfully moved and seconded the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
Once again I find that I have made quite a move in this chamber. During the former parliament I was seated as close as one might get to Mr. Speaker on the far right of the second row. I now find myself on the extreme left of the same row. This would indicate that no man can move as much as I have and progress as little as I have as a result of this move. It also, I may say to my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), would indicate that this "right-left" terminology is utterly meaningless in a Canadian parliament. I have not moved one inch to the left, politically speaking.
The Speech from the Throne, whatever else it may not be, is certainly one of the most lengthy documents that has ever occupied that prime place in any legislative body. Not long ago, for the sake of curiosity I was looking at past Speeches from the Throne. I found that many of them were encompassed in the space of a single column of Hansard and many, indeed most, only required a portion of two columns. Whether we have become more verbose or whether governments are more prolific in their words or whether our problems are becoming multitudinous, I do not know, but we now require five columns of fine print to set forth that prime document.
The Throne Speech is an old document in the sense that much of what is stated in it has been stated many times before. I hope
January 31. 1966	COMMONS DEBATES
that if nothing else is done during this particular session we can sit at least long enough with sufficient government direction and timing so that many of these ancient promises will be enacted, allowing something new to be stated in upcoming Throne Speeches, whoever should write them.
Whatever we have done in recent sessions, and we have begun well this session, we have done something to improve our procedures and their relationship to that large batch of legislative fare now before us. The size of that fare must certainly indicate that we should be aware of the necessity to improve our procedures.
During the last session I made a suggestion which was not acted upon. This does not surprise me because one becomes used to having his good ideas ignored. At that time I thought and said that it was shocking to know that we were wasting so much time not on what we were discussing, because I would never say on listening to any hon. member's views that his utterances were a waste of time, but because I am always impressed by the great time waster in this chamber, the amount of time which we allow to lapse after we decide to vote and the taking of the vote.
I have had a little compilation made in respect of votes taken during the few years I have been a member of this chamber, beginning with the twenty third parliament which now seems to be so long ago. I have had a little table made as to the number of votes that have been taken and the number of hours that have been spent in polling the vote and in waiting for the vote to be polled.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I have discovered that in the time which elapsed before the beginning of the twenty third parliament and the beginning of the final and rather suddenly decapitated session of the other, 125 hours were devoted by hon. members to sitting in the lobby or somewhere else waiting for a vote to be taken. This was the equivalent of 22 sitting days as our days were then structured. This is an appalling waste of time and I suggest again that we consider our system of voting. I am prompted to do so by the fine renovations which have been made in the chamber. Although the Fowler commission was concerned with this matter in regard to radio, one can hardly say that it is a matter of the same concern to a parliamentary body but we are interested in
449
The Address-Mr. Macquarrie housekeeping details. I am prompted to suggest that consideration be given in this electronic age to the installation of voting machines. I think this is not too sweeping a suggestion for people as modern as we are.
Mr. Speaker, it is never my nature nor my desire to be purely negative in discussing public matters but it is difficult at times to be very positive when one is concerned, as one must be, about the performance of the government now in power. I should like to begin my few remarks by commending what was in the Speech from the Throne in reference to education and in particular the way in which that was developed by the specific announcement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) some time later. It is not so long ago at all, Mr. Speaker, that a very small per capita grant was given to the universities. It was a dollar when I came to this parliament. The government which I supported doubled it. Now it has been raised to $5. This is an excellent, worthy move and the beginning, I hope, of a massive consideration of the need for aiding education from whatever level of government such aid can be extracted-and I use the word "extracted" deliberately and advisedly.
The $7 million that was being made available in 1951 and 1952 will now rise to $100 million and beyond. It is just a beginning, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to re-fight the election here, although the last was one of the most pleasant I have been through, not just because of the result but the whole campaign, but our party believed, and said so in the campaign, that the grant should be raised to $5. We also were impressed, as the educational leaders have been impressed, with the need for special assistance to the maritime universities, these fine institutions of learning which have a far greater out-of-area student population than most other institutions in the country.
I am glad that some consideration of this need is being recognized. I believe that our suggested formula was more clearcut and I think the results would have been more helpful, but at this time I do not intend to cavil about the formula.
Grants of this kind, let us recognize it, are but a commencement. I read in a Canadian Press dispatch just the other day a casual review of the problems facing universities, and it was revealed in this item that at the present moment our Canadian universities have actually on their drawing boards or under construction $500 million worth of new buildings. Even when those are completed we
450	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Macquarrie know very well that demands for new space will press upon university leaders, and they must be met. We made a suggestion, one that I think should not be lost sight of, of direct assistance in university construction, somewhat similar to the great assistance which was given under the splendid leadership of the present member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), the former minister of labour, in regard to the erection of vocational training schools across the country. This provided two magnificent buildings in the province of Prince Edward Island which are giving splendid aid to young people who are not desirous of pursuing an academic course but young people whose trained services are sorely needed in our area and throughout the rest of the country.
I hope too that rapid progress will be made in the promised scholarships, that the loan program will be extended and that greater emphasis upon research facilities and the extension of central research facilities will be made.
Our party also had an excellent idea, a compelling, imaginative suggestion, that a ministry of youth be established. It would be a cliche to say, though many economic documents in non-rosy language are bringing this more and more to our attention, that the training and educating of our young people is indeed our number one investment, even in crude economic terms if in none other. The constitution notwithstanding, the federal government has become importantly involved in the field of education, and this must be recognized.
I was delighted with this splendid document, the Second Annual Review of the Economic Council of Canada, one of the most helpful documents I think we have had in a long time. I was delighted and impressed by the way in which this document pointed up and underscored the importance of educational training in the development of our industrial, economic and leadership capacity. This document also impressed me by the perceptive way in which it discussed something which is very, very old and which is very, very close to the hearts of people who live in my part of Canada. I refer to the painful economic disparity in the Atlantic province area which has long endured and continues to endure.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that none of us had to be told that the personal income of the people of the maritimes lags far below that of the rest of Canada. At page 101 of this report

DEBATES	January 31. 1966
the level of personal income is set out in a black and white which is disturbing. Personal income per capita in the province of Ontario stands at $2,025, while in Prince Edward Island it is $1,115. This has been a constant and continuing story.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
It is not until you get into the figures of unemployment that we have the big figures and the rest of the country has the small ones. The last report on unemployment statistics indicates a 4 point increase in the Atlantic provinces to 7.1 per cent, while in the rest of Canada the figure stood at 3.1 Our figure is twice as high. This goes on month after month, year after year. Sometimes during the months of the past winter the unemployment figure went as high as 13 per cent, far above the national average.
These two items of statistics, Mr. Speaker, underscore the need for special and renewed consideration as to where the economy of the Atlantic provinces is going and what measures the central government can and should take to bring about an amelioration. Must we always have unemployment twice as bad, must all the indices of economic prosperity be lower? Was that what was in mind when less than 100 years ago there was a union of the then separate communities to form a new and greater whole? If anyone wants to know the main reason the Atlantic regions did not contribute to the Prime Minister's desire for a majority government, he has only to look at the records of the parties when in office. No government has yet seized the initiative in the manner in which the government of 1957 did when it was recognized that special needs required special measures. It was for that reason the people who supported that government were not forgotten by the voters of the Atlantic regions.
These, Mr. Speaker, are difficult times. I read that the Prime Minister said Canada was a hard country to govern. Sir John A. Macdonald said that a long time ago. It was true then and it is true now. These are difficult times. Some of the eld problems recur in forms which appear to be new. Once again, we are concerned in a special way about the separation of the parts from the whole. The centrifugal forces which would draw away the parts from the centre have always been present. Indeed, at the time of confederation there were many well intentioned people who thought that the coalescence of the parts was
January 31, 1966

not a good thing. Nova Scotia was wholeheartedly against confederation. Prince Edward Island was against it as long as it could be. New Brunswick was not enthusiastic. The members from Canada east in the old Canadian legislature were, I believe, split about 50-50. We have, however, survived all the trials.
Our first Prime Minister spent most of his career fighting off the incursions of the provinces and the provincial leaders. I think we are perhaps in more difficult times now than ever before. I say it very simply, and I say it sincerely, that my concern stems from the fact I do not believe that the people who are charged with responsibility for the central government are aware of the danger or, if they are, they are most inept in preserving unimpaired the role of the central government. I have often said in this house, Mr. Speaker, that it used to be considered fair political gain for the provinces to gang up on the dominion government, and that quite often opposition groups in parliament at Ottawa pursued their political advantage as they saw it by siding with the provinces and assaulting those in charge of the dominion government. However, this is the first government in history which itself seems to be on the side of the provinces. At dominion-provincial confrontations, one after another, it would seem that the provinces emerge as the victors.
We have now dominion-provincial conferences of one kind or another practically every day. We have never had so many. Sometimes we find out what went on if the provincial participants, when they get back to their provinces, choose to tell us. The only thing that is disturbing about this is that they do not speak with very much unanimity as to what occurred. I feel that perhaps it would be better, instead of having so many dominion-provincial conferences, if this government took the time to prepare itself for some of them. It is obvious from the little information we do get that our dominion people do not go there very well prepared. I would say to them that the time has come to abandon this secrecy broken only by a belated press release or a sensational utterance from a provincial minister.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Since this government took office we have been developing an almost perpetual governmental performance by dominion-provincial people. Who knows what goes on? We are suffering from a lack of full and frank discussion in this chamber. I read in the newspapers that the government was distressed,
23033-29J
The Address-Mr. Macquarrie surprised and upset over the demise of the so-called Fulton-Favreau formula. The government has always displayed a great incapacity for anticipating anything. Everything of this nature seems to strike them in shocked surprise. If they were surprised, it is obvious that they have not been reading the papers nor the utterances of many people in the province of Quebec.
What is involved when, after a dominion-provincial meeting at which all governments have made a commitment, the commitment is subsequently broken? Who takes the responsibility for organizing some arrangement whereby the pieces are picked up? The legislature of Prince Edward Island and the legislatures of eight other provinces endorsed what their premiers had agreed upon, and so action legislatively was taken. The people's representatives of these provinces had committed themselves. Where do they stand now if, with regard to one of the provinces, the follow-up is not there? Is this co-operative federalism? Is this a new era in dominion-provincial relations? What will be in the minds of other leaders in future gatherings of this kind?
I say that now is the time to look very carefully into this rambling, amorphous framework that is built up, with agreements here, agreements there, gatherings here and meetings there and, if this were not enough, the occasional big two meeting between the Prime Minister and the premier of a province.
I think the whole procedure should be rationalized. I should like to see the government begin to show proof of its belief that Canada needs a central government with a plenitude of powers to deal with many of the national problems which are facing us. I think we are in another age of excessive provincialism, and it is not all confined to the province of Quebec by any means. I am always concerned about the tendencies of provinces which talk about going it alone, because many of the important projects which have brought maximum benefit to Canada were possible only because of dominion participation. Often these projects resulted from dominion initiation. I cite as examples highways and various programs of aid to the people.
I think there is a great danger that if we continue to decentralize, if we continue the emphasis upon agreement with every provincial demand, we wifi end up with provinces going it alone in too many fields. All of this is
January 31. 1966

The Address-Mr. Macquarrie fine if we had a country made up of provinces which had something even close to fiscal equality or equality of fiscal opportunity. I would also say that we are very fortunate that not all the large, populous and wealthy provinces have pressed to the full advantage the opportunities which are theirs in these days of dominion acquiescence in growing provincialism.
I read from time to time of new demands coming from the provinces. I read where Quebec minister Eric Kierans says that the federal ministries of industry, agriculture, fisheries and natural resources have become superfluous so far as Quebec province is concerned. I believe one of his colleagues was going to leave the office of the Prime Minister with us here, and perhaps also the Post Office. It is odd I should mention those two together after the famous failure of mail delivery but the reference to that coincidence was not intentional.
We cannot envisage with equanimity a further dismantling of the dominion structure. Confederation comprised many things. It was a sharing of economic advantage and economic disadvantage. But unless the government of Canada preserves not only its powers but its revenues-and I wonder whether it is impressed with the need for this-we are going to find that the disparities between sections and between peoples, the very thing that the Deutsch report mentions, will be accentuated and exacerbated.
If the recent jolt over the demise of the Fulton-Favreau formula does nothing else than to bring to the government a sense of the great need to look at the matter a little more rationally, then I think they would find great benefit-


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say that the government would derive great benefit from a parliamentary committee set up to examine not only the fields which are involved in the Fulton-Favreau formula but the whole difficult question of dominion-provincial relations. By this means we might


assist the government to go into these conclaves a little better armed and informed. We might even convince them to tell us and the people a little more. They might find they would have far more support and good will from members from all parts of the house if they took us more into their confidence and showed that they were truly concerned about preserving the level of government over which they are now called upon once more to preside.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Hon. Guy Favreau (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of the Speech from the Throne it is customary for each speaker to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. In this case I am convinced-and I know the house will agree with me-that if this rule had not existed, each and every one of the members who made a contribution to the debate would nevertheless have wanted to extend their enthusiastic congratulations to the mover, the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer), and to the seconder, the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury). Indeed, both of them discharged their duty with objectivity and talent and in a conscientious manner. Each made a speech in which seriousness did not exclude zest, but in which zest did not exclude seriousness.
To the House Speaker and to you, I also wish to extend my congratulations-here again, not to respect tradition, but because they come straight from the heart-on your respective elections. Like all the other members, I shah pray God to help you with your decisions and I promise you my full support in the discharge of your duties.
Last Thursday, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) gave us one of the great tragi-comical performances the house has come to expect from him. The press reported that he was at his best and, indeed, he had called upon all his assets as an accomplished actor.
Usually, Mr. Speaker, one does not answer a monologue at the theatre, one merely applauds in recognition of the actor's talent and the beauty of his performance. However, in his monologue of last Thursday, the Leader of the Opposition went further; he claimed to be asserting certain truths which, in fact, were totally distorted. That is why I would be shirking my responsibilities if I did not, before the end of the debate, rise in an attempt to state the case clearly.
January 31, 1966	COMMONS
Feigning anger and indignation, as he often does, the Leader of the Opposition, used as a pretext-and I insist on that word-the speech I gave on the evening of January 22, in Montreal, to a group of Liberal students, to assert, all the while distorting the meaning, that I was in collusion with certain Quebec government authorities, and more specifically with the Quebec premier, to suggest discarding the formula for the amendment of the constitution and to arrange so as to cast the odium of that decision on the Conservative party. To support the theory he was building up that night, he made a great to-do over a letter dated two days earlier, that is January 20, 1966, and addressed to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson) by the Quebec premier, a letter in which the latter stated that his government, and I quote:
-has decided to postpone indefinitely the consideration of the proposal for constitutional amendment.
In other words, the Leader of the Opposition asserted more or less that Mr. Lesage had written to the Prime Minister of Canada on January 20 advising him of the decision of his government to postpone indefinitely consideration of the proposal for constitutional amendment. And aware of this fact, the President of the Privy Council went to Montreal to suggest precisely the same thing and, by doing so, to throw all the blame for it on the Conservatives and their colonial attitude.
Mr. Speaker, I must say very clearly and very strongly that this conclusion, or rather this accusation made by the Leader of the Opposition shows-if you want to use a more charitable expression-an erroneous interpretation of the facts, and the premise on which it is based could not be farther removed from the truth.
Anyone who takes the trouble to read objectively-and without any desire to find fault with it-my speech of January 22, should understand, if he can read, if he puts each sentence in its true context, that this speech has nothing to do with a government's decision, whatever it is, to put off indefinitely examination of the Fulton-Favreau formula.
As a matter of fact-and it is important not only to point it out but also to remember it-the speech did not deal in any way with the formula, its contents, the desirability of adopting or not adopting it, or of postponing it; it dealt essentially with the danger there would be in acting too quickly not in adopting the amending formula, but in amending
DEBATES	4551
The Address-Mr. Favreau or reshaping our constitution. In other words, my speech even presupposed the repatriation of the constitution, because how is it possible to recommend precautions in amending a constitution if one does not already have at its disposal the tool to make those amendments?
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
And this is where an essential distinction arises, of which the Leader of the Opposition is well aware he who claims to be jurist, he who caused a similar formula to be submitted to a federal-provincial conference by his Minister of Justice when he was head of the government, he who is fully aware of the distinction, failed nevertheless to emphasize it when he should have. There is a world of difference between the amending formula of a constitution and the amendment to the constitution.
The amending formula is a device, a tool, an instrument used to operate a revision of the constitution. The amendment itself is the result obtained from the application of the formula I mentioned, that is to say the series of constitutional changes on which agreement can be reached by Canada and the provinces during consideration of the great charter by which we are governed.
The crux of the whole matter I was discussing is to be found on pages 4 and 5 of the document I had distributed at the request of some members of the house. I quote:
I now raise the most difficult question a politician ever had to answer: does the social, economic and cultural progress of Quebec require a revision in depth of the British North America Act? Is it essential, in order to ensure Quebec's development in accordance with its traditions and its own aspirations, to disrupt the whole constitutional system?
There is no reference to the formula here.
The most logical answer I can give is that we still do not know to what extent it is possible to make use of the letter and the spirit of the British North America Act. so as to promote the development of Quebec and the other provinces.
Since 1963, for instance, Mr. Lesage's government has made use of the formulas offered to the provinces by the central government, (opting out of joint programs, fiscal compensations, etc.), but it has made use of them without it being necessary to amend the substance or the form of the constitution.
I do not say that co-operative federalism, by allowing a fruitful dialogue between Ottawa and the provinces, will exempt us forever from the need of amending the British North America Act in some regards. Even an entirely new constitution should provide for and facilitate periodical revisions required by the evolution of contemporary society.
Even the idea of a total revision-
January 31, 1966

The Address-Mr. Favreau
This is not the formula.
-of the British North America Act does not frighten the liberal spirit.
Canada may, indeed, one day have to revise completely its constitutional structure and mechanism. But how, why, and along what lines? Research conducted in this field today will provide landmarks for our reform projects.
I shall now quote what was, in fact, the main point of my thesis and which as yet has nothing to do with the Fulton-Favreau formula:
We shall not be able to determine with full knowledge of the case the scope and depth of the necessary constitutional amendments until an inventory has been drawn up of the social, cultural and fiscal needs and priorities of Canada and of the provinces.
If the Leader of the Opposition took my words to be a discussion leading to the conclusion that the so-called Fulton-Favreau formula should be discarded, in other words aiming at delaying the repatriation of the Canadian constitution, he does not understand what he reads, or he does not read what he should understand, or perhaps he finds it more useful not to understand.
The only reference I could have made in the whole speech to the repatriation of the constitution is found in a joke that several people may not find in the best of taste-that is their business-but in which no listener the least bit attentive could see the expression of a proposal on my part to delay the repatriation. After speaking of the particular character of Quebec, already recognized almost a hundred years before confederation in the Quebec Act of 1774,1 added:

That Quebec cannot grow and prosper within confederation except as the focal point of a special linguistic cultural and social entity.

I added that certain leaders, leaders-I will come back to that in a few moments-of the Conservative party who refuse to recognize that fact and make fun of the principle of the two founding peoples, which is accepted by the Liberals, show that they are men from another age.
I feel it is my duty to point out to the house that the Leader of the Opposition unjustly generalized by seeing in my reference a remark about all Conservatives. That was not the case. I deliberately used-anyone who

reads the text will see thah-not the express-sion "the leader" of the Conservative party, but rather "the leaders" which would have included all the heads of the party, but I remained indefinite: "leaders". If I understand English well, the only translation is "certain leaders" or "leaders". That does not include everyone. If the Leader of the Opposition felt that I had him in mind, that is something between himself and his conscience.
Having so referred to the colonial spirit still prevalent in the thinking of some Conservatives, and for the simple purpose of illustrating to what extent, in my opinion, that state of mind was unacceptable, I uttered that four-line sentence which the Leader of the Opposition, tried for an hour to turn into the main point of my speech, and later used to launch, in a way that I shall call grossly unfair, the series of charges, innuendoes and antics which marked his speech last Thursday. I shall read that sentence over again:
For my part, I would-let it be well understood, I would-rather delay repatriation of the constitution, although I consider it essential, rather than entrust its reform to a parliament which would be-let it be well understood, which would be-dominated by the sentimental colonialism that inspires the Tory conception of national unity.
I used the conditional tense twice, which clearly proves that I was not then expressing my own wish that the repatriation of our constitution should be delayed. What I said is this-and those who read my words carefully understood without any difficulty-those people are so out of touch with the Canadian reality of today that if parliament was dominated by them, I would rather delay the adoption of the formula, that is the repatriation. But, of course, those conditions did not prevail, do not prevail yet, and will not prevail in the future. This parliament is not under the control of the Conservatives as the outcome of the last non-confidence votes clearly shows; they are only a minority-they hold 97 seats out of 265-and, furthermore, a great number of them whom I could name, are not inspired by the colonial spirit for which I have blamed-and I am still blaming-some of their leaders.
The Leader of the Opposition knows it; there is a fundamental difference between repatriating the constitution, which will be done only by the adoption of an amending formula, and amending the constitution, I
January 31, 1966
repeat amending the constitution, which is not the formula, which is very distinct from the formula.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The Leader of the Opposition, I say, did not have the right to create in people's mind on that matter the confusion necessary to the upholding of his argument.
It was his duty, which he did not do, to dissipate any possible confusion and to put things very clearly before parliament, although truth would never have allowed him to make the droll speech he gave us last Thursday.


Mr. Lambert:: All that would have been told in the newspapers beforehand.


Guy Favreau: In any case, Mr. Speaker, I must reaffirm, because it is my duty to do so, that of the evening of January 22, when I made my speech in Montreal, I was totally unaware of the existence or the contents of the January 20 letter from the premier of Quebec.
It is unfair for the leader of the Opposition to even suggest that I knew about it. He had no right to make such insinuations before checking the facts. Of course, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is seeing plots everywhere; he cannot imagine that an opponent can do something on his own without deluding himself or misleading the people of Canada. That is the kind of mentality he has, that is how he looks at things and, I repeat, that is his business. But he should keep his suspicions to himself until he has checked the facts, all the facts.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker-and this is most important, I think-one can see by the words used last Thursday by the Leader of the Opposition in what frame of mind he read and wanted to read this speech he was bent on attacking.
I referred a moment ago to the double conditional I used in my incidental remark on repatriation. But although he had the text of my speech with him, he took care to put everything in the present tense, as if I had clearly and definitely expressed the wish that the repatriation be delayed.
At the top of the second column, on page 364 of Hansard, here is what we read: [English]
But, he says: For my part, my dear friends, I prefer-

Imagine.
The Address-Mr. Favreau [English]
-I prefer-

That is the statement of a positive fact.

I prefer to hold back the repatriation of the constitution.

Well, that present of the indicative, which does away with the two conditionals, evidently changes the whole meaning of the sentence; had I used it when I was speaking in my own tongue, French, before my audience, people might have asked themselves certain questions.
But it is difficult to understand why the Leader of the Opposition allowed himself to stray away from the truth, which he then had before him, by pretending to translate my speech, when a few seconds later, after my intervention, he could read us a translation that also appears in the same column of the same page 364 of Hansard, English version, a translation which was a much more faithful rendition of the French text.
Using a favorite method of his, I too could say in turn:

Why did the Leader of the Opposition choose to read or use a wrong and damning translation when he was in possession of a translation which was more accurate? Why?

Let him answer but let him not tell us, which of course would require too much humility that his knowledge of French is too limited to allow him to give fast and completely accurate translations.
I know it would require humility for him to do so. He knows his French much better than that.
If that was the truth, he was not justified, as he did not understand the exact meaning of what he was reading, to launch into an unwarranted and bold criticism of a speech I had made, and this, in the direction he would have wanted to underline.
That is what he did throughout his speech: endeavour to build a very fragile house of cards followed by an onslaught against it to try to demolish it.
Fortunately, the truth is known. We could read it through his arguments, and today we can speak the truth out loud. On the evening of January 22, I could not have spoken after

456	COMMONS DEBATES	January 31, 1966
The Address-Mr. Favreau
some agreement or understanding with the premier of Quebec to suggest to delay the repatriation of our constitution, because the purpose of my speech that evening, as I said, was not the repatriation, that is the adoption of the amendment formula, but it was essentially to issue a warning against the dangers of remaking or amending our constittuion without full knowledge of the facts, and with the enquiry bodies now studying the matter not having had a chance to draw up an inventory-I repeat-of the provincial and federal priorities and needs.
Of course, the Fulton-Favreau formula-


Gordon Minto Churchill: He is making it worse.


Guy Favreau: In the way you understand things it may be getting worse but in the way we understand things it is not.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Are you going to read from the actual translation as it appears at page 364? Do you accept it?


Guy Favreau: No, I am reading from a text, and this is the official text of my speech.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the minister a question? Does he accept the translation which appears at page 364 in column 2?


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please.


Guy Favreau: I will answer questions later if there is still time.

The amending formula which he actually fathered or very nearly, the so-called Fulton-Favreau formula, is one of the favourite offensive weapons of the Leader of the Opposition. This is rather strange, because he who takes up a great deal of the time of the house to refer to the backtracking and somersaulting of the government, what he calls, himself-

-"somersaults and backtracking"- [Translation]
Well, he does not say to what extent he has changed his mind and whether his words now reflect his true opinion about the matter of the amending formula.
Mr. Speaker, when I reported to the house the happy outcome of the two federal-provincial conferences, that of the attorneys general and the Minister of Justice and that of the
[Mr. Favreau.)
premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada, where agreement had been reached on the amending formula, well, the Leader of the Opposition was already attempting, on October 15, 1964, so as not to let any opportunity go by to take some credit for himself and his former government, to grab all the credit which the adoption of the formula could bring.
And now I am quoting from page 9067 of Hansard of October 15, 1964:

Mr. Speaker, first may I say that Canadians as a whole will be glad to learn that their constitution will hereafter be in the custody and control of Canadians rather than being subject to what was described by the minister as the anachronism that has existed since confederation. We in this party endeavoured to bring about agreement. A formula was advanced by the then minister of justice, Hon. Davie Fulton, on behalf of the government of that day and it was all but accepted, though there were some reservations on the part of Quebec and greater reservations on the part of Saskatchewan which in those days had a C.C.F. government.
Once before I said there would be entire agreement with the objective which the conference had in mind. I have had the opportunity of looking over the draft, and I am not going to make any extended observations at this time. When the matter comes before the house there will be discussion regarding certain sections, but in no way would I want to leave the implication that we, who advanced the process of agreement and the achievement of a formula so far, are now in any way holding back.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Who is now backtracking? Who is holding back? The man who said that, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), on October 15, 1964.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to
interrupt the minister, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Since we must have the unanimous consent of the house for the minister to continue, I ask the house whether it is unanimously agreed that the minister shall continue?


Some hon. Members:: Sure, agreed.


Guy Favreau: I thank the hon. members of the house for showing me the same courtesy as they did to the previous speaker a moment ago.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the adoption of the formula which now bears the name Fulton-Favreau, I am proud to see my name coupled with that of the man under whom I had the privilege of working in the Department of Justice while he was its minister.
January 31, 1966

Soon after the formula was adopted at the federal-provincial conference, the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), who was at the time of the conference, in 1960-61, Minister of Justice, sent his colleagues a brief. Now, mind you, not only did he not object to the formula, not only did he not use the language which his leader is now using, namely that the formula might lead to the balkanization of the country, to its division, that is was placing the constitution in a strait-jacket, but he stated in a detailed study of the Fulton-Favreau formula, that the essence of the formula, what was important, with a few minor changes, was precisely what the Conservative government had, in 1961, submitted to the ten provinces of Canada. And I quote excerpts of this memorandum as reported in the Montreal Gazette, on November 4, 1964:

-Mr. Fulton states bluntly that while the new formula contains minor amendments and a few new provisions "these new provisions do not, however, alter in principle or effect the amending formula as embodied in the 1961 proposal".

And further on he says this, because the part of the formula which was most criticized recently by the Leader of the Opposition is what is called the delegation clause:

It is important to bear in mind that:
(A)	The delegation provisions are thus exactly as they were embodied in the 1961 proposal; and
(B)	That these provisions do not confer any new jurisdiction or power on the provinces, nor do they have the effect of diminishing the federal jurisdiction or power in the slightest.
They provide the only means by which reciprocal delegations of authority to exercise a power may be made. And such delegation of authority cannot be made by mere intergovernmental agreement nor by unilateral act of provincial legislatures; it is expressly provided that there must be a legislative act of the federal parliament in every case.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the same day the man who became the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees) said the same thing, that no government, no Conservative opposition could validly criticize the amending formula which we proposed and had adopted because it was the formula that they themselves when they were in power, had tried without much success to have adopted by the provinces.
The only difference, Mr. Speaker, is that they tried in good faith but in vain to give 23033-30
The Address-Mr. Favreau their country a formula which would have "Canadianized" the constitution.
We proposed to and discussed with the provinces the same basic formula and we reached an agreement with the provinces in respect of this amending formula.


Clément Vincent: Where is it now?


An hon. Member:: That is another story. [English]


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau) has spoken about our attitude. Will he now come down to the crux of the matter? What does Premier Lesage think of this?


An hon. Member:: Ask him.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of my speech was to show how the Leader of the Opposition had distorted the one I delivered in Montreal on the 22nd.
Mr. Lesage expressed his views-he attended the federal-provincial conference which approved the formula-in a letter which has been tabled and in which he says that for certain reasons, the formula was not rejected, that its consideration was postponed indefinitely. What does that mean?


An hon. Member:: At the Greek calends.


Guy Favreau: It means that its consideration has been deferred to another date not yet determined, that is all.
In any case, it does not alter the fact that the Leader of the Opposition did somersaults and backtracked from the stand he had taken on the Fulton-Favreau formula, and it does not alter the fact that his former cabinet colleagues all agree that we were right.
This changes nothing but the fact that he contradicts himself now on what he has proposed. This is frowned upon in many quarters. This changes nothing but the fact that he, the father, tries to disown a child who for once was really beautiful.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the minister said that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. Will the hon. member resume his seat. The time allotted for the speech of the minister has expired. If the hon. member wishes to ask a question, it is understood that the hon. minister will be able to reply. I must now ask
458	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Favreau for the unanimous consent of this house to permit the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) to ask a question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That was the original arrangement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has the unanimous consent of this house to ask a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: And the
minister has the unanimous consent of the house to reply to the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That was the original arrangement, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister, are we to accept as the accurate translation of his speech in Montreal the English that appears on page 364 of Hansard, column 2? Second, if this is an accurate translation will he please explain to this house what he means by that scurrilous reference to what he termed "sentimental colonialism that inspires the Tory conception of national unity" and make an apology to the English speaking people of this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I said a moment ago in my speech-and it was perhaps because of one of his many fits of absentmindedness that the member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) did not hear me-that the Leader of the Opposition started by ascribing to me, in his translation last Thursday, words that I had not said, and which, in his translation, sounded blamable. I added that I did not understand why I had to intervene before the Leader of the Opposition rectified his mistake, because a few seconds later, he could give us another translation, the same one which is to be found in the second column of the page referred to by the hon. member, when a few seconds after, the Leader of the Opposition gave us a much more accurate translation of what I had said.
This means that the translation appearing in the English Hansard, as all translations, may well fail to bring out the various shades of meaning of a speech delivered in the true spirit of another language, but that translation is a great deal less inaccurate than the first one given by the Leader of the Opposition.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret).]
DEBATES	January 31, 1966


Gordon Minto Churchill: It does not matter about all that. Answer my question.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of this session, we have heard many representatives from various parts of the country who have tried, each in his own way, to call the attention of the house to current problems in general and to the problems of their ridings in particular. Without endorsing all the views expressed during this debate, I am most gratified to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne (Messrs. Goyer and Stanbury), and the new members who took part in the debate, all of whom showed much assurance and conviction.
I also wish to congratulate the Speaker. The fact that he was unanimously chosen really shows that he was most competent to carry out those duties. To him and to his associates, I wish every possible success.
After the chorus of praise which is almost a tradition with the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, I think that if the discussion were to last a few more days, we surely would have to find a solution and possibly award stars to other members such as are given attacking and defensive players. In fact, if I were to be guided by the remarks of the previous speaker, when he referred to those who were putting on an act in this house, it might be appropriate to award stars to the outstanding members, both on the offence as well as on the defence.
The Speech from the Throne refers to various items which will be discussed and decided upon in the course of this session and, among others, the choice of a national anthem. Regarding the national anthem, I like to think that the hon. members of the house will show enough maturity and that the adoption of a national anthem will not be as costly as was the adoption of a flag.
Again according to this Speech from the Throne, we will have a free vote on capital punishment. All those who had doubts about the freedom of the vote will have a proof that, generally votes in this house are not free ones. And they call this a democratic system.
Reference is made also to scholarships and loans for students. This will bring experts, or
January 31. 1966

those who believe they are experts in constitutional law to prolong the debates on the legislative powers according to the constitution, with the result that there is still a great deal of concern about the future of the students, as the powers to legislate will be paralysed by technicalities and rules established almost 100 years ago; and then we must resort to immigration to remedy the lack of specialists.
In the course of this debate we heard a very timely speech by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) on the serious problem of traffic accidents.
Government authorities should carefully study suggestions concerning the equipping of new cars with all possible safety devices, so as to ensure that when people buy something as expensive, important and dangerous as a car, they will get the very best protection offered by science and technology.
It is noted that a large sum is provided for health services. Let us hope that appropriate steps will be taken to allow every sick person to obtain the necessary care without too much red tape. We have qualified doctors and drugstores are overflowing with medical supplies, so here again the main problem is how to pay for them.
The Speech from the Throne also refers to programs for the purchase and re-sale of farms which are not viable from the economic viewpoint. That is a problem which could have some advantages and serious drawbacks. The legislation will have to be very flexible, especially in connection with expropriations of all kinds. We shall have to wait for the provisions of the bill before expressing our views on the matter.
There is also the possibility of setting up a dairy commission. There is some hope that the procedure will be fast and simple so that producers get the attention they deserve and the price of dairy products is determined according to production costs.
An important point is the redrafting of the Bank Act; this is an excellent opportunity for the government to regain possession of its rights. The hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) quoted in the house on January 21 last, a former Liberal prime minister who said, and I quote the right hon. Mr. Mackenzie King:
We believe that credit should be a social service to serve the needs of the people. Credit is not the concern of the bankers only but is of concern to you and me.
23033-30a
459'
The Address-Mr. Dionne
It is unthinkable that in a country as rich as ours financial fasting is accepted as a solution to our development.
Why does a sovereign government such as our Canadian government have to borrow from a chartered bank, either to finance war requirements or to foster the prosperity of the country in peacetime? Chartered banks are institutions of the Canadian parliament.
They owe their existence to parliament and they have to apply to parliament every ten years for renewal of their charter without which banks would cease to exist.
They owe all their rights and privileges to parliament, even the exclusive monopoly over production and issuance of money.
And yet, when the government, as a sovereign body representing the whole nation, needs money over and above the amounts secured through taxation or out of the people's savings by loans, it has to beseech the banks in order to get from them the money or credit it gave them the exclusive right to create.
Is such nonsense conceivable? In this regard, let us see what Mr. Graham Towers, former governor of the Bank of Canada, had to say in 1939, before the standing committee of the house on banking and commerce on page 672 of the Votes and Proceedings. I shall give you the questions and answers:
Q. As far as war is concerned, in order to defend the integrity of the nation, there will be no difficulty in securing the financial means, whatever they are?


Mr. Towers:: The possibilities are limited only by the men and the materials.
Q. And if you have plenty of men and materials, you will have no difficulty, under our present banking system, in putting into circulation the necessary exchange means to put the men and the materials to work, for the defence of the kingdom?


Thomas Gordon Towers: That is right.
Q- Then, faced by a problem of domestic disruption why can we not use the same technique?
This question has yet to be answered.
On page 409 of the French version of the report before the same committee Mr. Towers answers this:
Q. Would you tell me why a government which has the power of issuing money hands over this power to a private monopoly and then borrows that which parliament itself can create, paying interest high enough to push the country into bankruptcy?


Thomas Gordon Towers: We realize that the sum paid undoubtedly covers part of the operating costs of the banks and some of the interest on deposits. Now, if parliament wants to change the operation of the banking system, it surely has the power to do so.
Therefore, I wonder why the government does not seriously try to find the solution
460	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Dionne necessary to put an end to the economic and financial disorder in which we flounder hopelessly.


David Réal Caouette: They are not serious.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Charles-Eugène Dionne: In his book entitled Pour etre vraiment maitre chez soi (How to be Master in One's Own Home) the former mayor of the City of Hull and president of the Quebec Union of Municipalities for the 1961-62 term of office, Mr. Armand Turpin said, among other things:
The issuing of money of all kinds, and especially the granting of financial credit, presently the monopoly of banks, must revert to the state and be placed under its absolute control. The state should never have given up such a prerogative. Does it not confer to the one who holds it almost discretionary power on all the control levers, of national activities?
In this connection, we are told that to withdraw that power would be to interfere with individual freedom, with private enterprise. The reply to this is that the same rules apply to the management of a financial system as to the administration of justice or the organization of national defence: it is not normally the business of private enterprise. For instance, what would we think of a country where a certain group of individuals would have the privilege of administering justice to their own benefits?
Again I quote from the same author:
Simple common sense tells us that any economic system cannot be anything else but a means to meet the needs of the people. A country should not produce for the sake of producing, or for the vain glory of outdoing others, or for piling up wealth. No, the economic system should serve the people; it should not be the other way around. If the very nature of man compels him to live in community with other men, it is first of all because, by working with others, he can better meet his own material needs. The economic purpose of such co-operation, and the facts are there to prove it, is to procure material goods more easily and in greater abundance for the whole community. To serve man, every man, so rightly said one of our most experienced sociologists, Father G. H. Levesque, must be the main regulating principle of the economy as a whole. Any economic system which does not serve that purpose is not carrying out the duty justifying its existence and stands to be condemned. If one applies this criterium to the present economic system, can one say that it is achieving its purpose?
Mention is also made in the Speech from the Throne of extending ARDA.
Several projects of general interest have been submitted to governmental authorities by various organizations of the Kamouraska riding. The proposed building of breakwaters,

DEBATES	January 31, 1966
which would allow profitable farming on hundreds of acres of land bordering on the St. Lawrence river, is under study since 1931.
I feel it is high time a decision were made in this connection.
Development work of the Lac de l'Est (East Lake) was carried out under the winter works program, additional monies will be required to build roads to allow easy access to one of the most attractive tourist sites in the area.
This is very important to check unemployment in a practical way and give summer jobs to a fair number of students. Hundreds of students are now anxious to know whether they will be able to find jobs during the summer holidays so that they can help their parents meet the cost of their continuing studies. In our area, reforestation work could be launched.
If there is one thing on which everyone agrees in my area, it is that in many instances our forests were devastated when rational logging operations should have been the rule; they have not been reseeded as they should have been when they were razed by fire.
As a result of this want of foresight, nay, of this carelessness, today our forests worthy of large scale operations are less and less accessible. More often than not preserves are located hundreds of miles from processing centres which increases operating costs.
On the other hand, important forest preserves located near logging areas have been plundered. The supplementary income the farmers got from them for a long time is not coming in any more: the natural resource has disappeared.
Finally, forests which should never have been cleared were sacrificed to colonization with well-known results.
All this shows that a natural and renewable resource, one of the most important at our disposal, did not sufficiently engage our attention with regard to its renewal.
It is high time to restore our forests in the areas which are suited for such a purpose and which are, so to speak, near at hand.
The restoration of the forests means to give the farmers a supplementary income would certainly meet the wishes of the farming community which finds itself now in a very difficult economic situation.
However, we should this time avoid the mistake of allowing such woodlots to become depleted, and we should ensure their rational management.
January 31, 1966	COMMONS
No doubt the costs of such an operation should be considered in the main as capital expenses aimed at rebuilding our national heritage, but it is to be expected the jobs created thereby, while reducing unemployment, would help lower the costs of social assistance in the area.
The implementation of such a plan would require all types of workers but would especially offer an outlet for workers who are unable to qualify for industrial jobs that are becoming more and more technical. At the same time, a most acute social problem would be minimized.
As regards farming problems, and they are many, I hope the government will try to provide logical and practical solutions.
We seem to have forgotten in the past that agriculture was but a part of a much more complex whole. Efforts were made to cure the affected part without bothering to re-establish circulation throughout the system. We failed to go to the heart of the problem by not paying enough attention to the human element. We sacrificed the individual, either the farmer or the worker, in the name of economics, efficiency and technique. There is a great deal of unrest in farming circles because the promotion of efficiency has been done at the expense of the farmer and to the benefit of other classes of society. While the farmer is being asked to double and triple his production, is the doctor looking after more patients than 20 years ago, the lawyer handling more cases than before? Is the newspaperman writing more articles than he did during the depression? Certain trades or professions are not producing more today than in the past, and yet their income has increased substantially. Why apply two different standards?
We are here to try and find, through appropriate legislation, fair solutions to the problems of today. With this in mind, the co-operation of members of this house should be assured.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, as a member of a party which long has been interested in the conservation and proper development of our natural resources by Canadians and for Canadians I was amazed to find no reference to the urgent need for a national water policy in the Speech from the Throne, particularly in view of the public interest in this important question both before and during the election.
DEBATES	461
The Address-Mr. Herridge
Prior to proceeding with my remarks on this issue I wish to make a few comments on the speech made on Thursday, January 27, by the hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) in which he came out in wholehearted support of the New Democratic party's national water policy. Without doubt, during his absence from this house he has had an opportunity for reflecting upon this issue. No doubt he is also aware of the growing public support for the policy announced by this party before and during the election. I must say I congratulate the hon. member for Kamloops on seeing the light with regard to this important question at last. I admit he has informed me that this was his party's policy in 1946. This is why some of the members of his party in Kootenay West have designated his stand on the Columbia treaty as "Fulton's Folly".
The hon. member has followed a tortuous path on this issue. In the first instance he supported the Columbia River Treaty as designed to meet the wishes of Premier Bennett. Later, in his Prince George speech with reference to Premier Bennett's proposed long term sale of downstream benefits, he said this was the greatest sellout since the Indians sold Manhattan island for a bottle of whisky and that accepting such a proposal would make us the laughing stock of the world. But when the same hon. member appeared before the External Affairs committee while it was discussing the Columbia River Treaty he said that he had felt all along that the treaty was an advantageous one for Canada.
I admit the hon. member for Kamloops has been a tortured soul since 1961. It has been a contest between policy, conscience and political expediency. And expediency won. However, once again I congratulate him on his complete conversion to the national water policy of the New Democratic party.
In view of the public interest taken in this issue during the election many people are wondering why this important question was overlooked in the Speech from the Throne. Soon after the Columbia River Treaty was signed the United States authorities revealed the truth about water shortages in the United States as a result of the pollution of rivers and lakes in that country, a situation which has now reached crisis proportions. Egged on by the population upsurge which is now approaching the 200 million mark, there is now a growing interest in that country in Canada's attractive water supplies.
I am one who has always contended that we cannot maintain or improve our standard
January 31, 1966

The Address-Mr. Herridge of living unless we develop and conserve our natural resources. I am sure there is an umbilical connection between the welfare of people and the development of natural resources within any nation.
Seeking to capitalize on the growing water crisis in the United States, an American engineering firm, Ralph M. Parsons Company of Los Angeles, has come up with an imagination-boggling one hundred billion dollar scheme to build interconnecting international waterways so that water would flow from the heartland of western Canadian headwaters in northern British Columbia and the Yukon and also from Alaska southward to the arid parts of the United States and Mexico. This scheme is known as North American Water Power Alliance. To indicate the interest which this proposal has created in the United States and Canada I should like to quote one or two statements which have been published in various periodicals. The first is by J. M. Minifie, from the Commentator of November, 1965, page 22:
Interest in Canadian water is much more acute than interest in Canadian politics. It has only recently come to American attention that God, through some unbelievable lapse into absentmindedness, endowed not God's country but Canada with four fifths of the continent's fresh water. Vast schemes are now being studied to repair God's mishandling of the continental water supply, and re-route streams running into the Arctic, Hudson's bay and Pacific north of the forty ninth parallel, to a more southerly debouchement, to insure that every American kid gets a glass of fresh water.
General McNaughton gave this vision the royal Canadian raspberry by recommending that the United States clean up its own abundant but dirty water before demanding clean Canadian water.
Again, to indicate the interest there is in this question I wish to quote Mr. Kenneth McNaught from Saturday Night of December, 1965, at page 15:
It was unquestionably due to the deliberate blurring of the problems of Canadian-American relations that General McNaughton was able, in one speech, to expose the bankrupt policy underlying the old parties' fear of issues involving nationalism. Pointing directly to the danger of believing the myth of unlimited Canadian natural resources, and to the growing attention being paid to our fresh water reserves by American corporations which have succeeded in polluting billions of gallons of their own water, he issued one of the gravest warnings Canadians have heard in recent years. Noting the proposal to form "a monstrous corporation calling itself NAWAPA" to drain water from the Rocky Mountain trench and distribute it across the continent at a cost of a hundred billion dollars, McNaughton underlined the implications of this kind of continental development. Basically they are that we would hand over water, as we have handed over oil and other resources, to the

planning of giant American companies whose interest in the balanced growth of a Canadian economy is non-existent.
The political implications of selling out our last and greatest resource are no less important than the economic. If, as McNaughton said, our north is to be developed by Canadians, the result will be to add not only economic strength, but a depth arising from the diversity of cultures and political traditions that will enrich as well as strengthen the whole of North America. This to my mind is a true concept of continental development.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Farther on, he continues:
The scandalous lack of clear policy statements on water policy was simply an extreme example of the Issue evading of the whole election. For this, Canadians have paid by electing a parliament whose claim to be truly representative must be at best implausible. Perhaps, just as the election of 1911 followed that of 1908, we will eventually face issues during a campaign.
Neither of the two old parties has a water policy. One has only to look at the maudlin statements made by speakers for both those parties.
The biggest mistake of the major parties was to avoid deliberately live, real issues during the election. However, in spite of their efforts one vital issue, the need for a national water policy, was forcefully injected into the campaign not by a politician but by a private citizen known as General Andrew McNaughton, who is respected as one of the most colourful and dedicated patriots in Canadian history and who has devoted his whole life to building lasting material into the foundations of the Canadian nation.
He has never hesitated to direct his fire at wavering politicians when a national issue was at stake and his current campaign to preserve Canadian water for future generations of Canadians may well rank as the most important of his many contributions to our country. Without a doubt, Mr. Speaker, his dramatic introduction of this issue into the recent election put some significance into what we considered an unnecessary election campaign.
Because of his great concern with this issue General McNaughton made an outstanding address on the need for a national water policy to the annual meeting of the Engineering Institute of Canada last May. Time does not permit me to deal with the contents of this speech but I urge every member of the house who is interested in the problem to obtain a copy from the Journal of the Engineering Institute of Canada. When General McNaughton had concluded his remarks on that occasion he received a standing ovation
January 31, 1966

from all the delegates present at the annual meeting, and since then he has received tremendous support from engineers and organizations interested in the problem.
Later he gave a similar address on October 4 to the Canadian Club at Montreal which brought this subject to the attention of the Canadian people and made it an issue during the election. What was the reaction of the press to this speech? I shall refer to some press comments briefly. I quote from the Victoria Times of October 18:
Prime Minister Pearson must make an early clarification of his comment that he plans to discuss export of Canadian water with United States interests. He should make it very clear that, while he may not be adverse to talking about it, he can have no intention of letting any of this vital resource be diverted out of Canada with or without recompense.
Again, from the Victoria Colonist of October 19:
It is a rather strange spectacle when the leaders of the two largest political parties in Canada are not only at odds with each other on the question of water export, but at variance also with colleagues of their own. Thus we are left in doubt as to the policy of either party, which serves only to emphasize the recent warning of General Mc-Naughton that Canada is proceeding in a political vacuum. His point was that programs shaped by special interest groups can get out of control for lack of a firm national purpose and that Canada should look to its future development before starting international studies. The warning is surely worth heeding.
The Calgary Herald of October 4 shows the nation-wide interest in this question:
It certainly appears that the lack of a formally enunciated Canadian policy on water is encouraging U.S. interests to press for adoption of a vast scheme to divert Canadian water. Until these interests are persuaded by an unequivocal declaration that we have no intention of falling for the continental water-supply proposal, the pressure will increase. Canadians should not be asked to put severe limitations on the potential development of this country because of U.S. inertia in dealing with a problem of cleaning its own house.
The Calgary Albertan of October 7:
If, as General McNaughton says, the U.S. is not short of water but merely short of unpolluted water, there is no need for us to inject neighbourly sentiment into the formulation of our policy.
Then again, the London Free Press of October 14:
The timing of McNaughton's blunt speech was ideal in that it has resulted in a debate on the hustings about a subject too little discussed and too little recognized as one of the most fundamental of all-for the ultimate extent of national development hinges upon the availability of uncontaminated water.

The Address-Mr. Herridge
The Kingston Whig-Standard of October 13 said:
More and more, with some additional help from nature in the form of droughts, people on this continent are coming to realize that water is their most precious resource. In a speech the other day, General McNaughton, one of the few prominent Canadians who has always recognized the great danger of giving away our resources without really knowing their true value or the needs of future generations, advised the Americans to "clean up your own pollution and you'll have plenty of good water." It must be encouraging to General McNaughton to know that finally his views are beginning to receive the attention they deserve in this country-and in the United States.
It was an American who put this whole problem in its right perspective the other day. Abel Wolman was quoted in the St. Louis Post-Disvatch as follows: "The prophets of water shortages fail to grasp the fact that ample water is available (in the U.S.), that it can be collected and transmitted quite inexpensively, and that intelligent conservation and management are the prerequisites to safety. Hysterical recourse to fanciful substitutes and wasteful alternatives is certainly unwarranted for the foreseeable future."
What was the reaction of the political parties to this very important question? Well, this was the first reaction from the Prime Minister on October 15:
We have lots of water___We will be discussing
this with the U.S., who are very anxious to work out arrangements by which some of our water resources are moved down south. This can be one of the most important developments in our history.
The same right hon. gentleman was quoted in the Toronto Star on October 26-no doubt he had time to think the matter over and had heard from some of his own candidates in the election-as follows:
-in the long range future a surplus of water might permit export, but certainly that will not be in the immediate future. Export can be considered only after we have worked out our own national water policy.
He tempered his policy a bit there, I suppose as the result of protests from within his own party.
What did the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) have to say? On October 16 he said:
The government appears willing to pull the plug on one of our most vital resources. The Conservative party will not agree to a continental diversion plan. This would mean the chipping away of Canadian sovereignty.
Then, according to the Globe and Mail of October 25 he said:
The Conservative party's national water policy calls for the diverting of northern rivers to supply southern Canada. Mr. Diefenbaker made this clear Saturday night. He did not explain how, if northern waters are diverted to the great lakes, the U.S. could be prevented from tapping the lakes.
January 31. 1966

The Address-Mr. Herridge
Now we come to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing). On October 18 he said:
Diversion of Canadian water to the U.S. is not negotiable. There is no such thing as a continental resource. We own it.
On October 28 he said:
If (the U.S. should become starved for water) we certainly would not sit idly by when we have 40 per cent of the world's fresh water. It is not our intention to dispose of water without first investigating all alternative uses.
Evidently the minister had a chat with the Prime Minister and they reconciled both their previous statements.
What about the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton)? On October 8, in a press interview at Nelson, he made this statement:
Canada should agree to a U.S. plan to build a series of canals to carry fresh water from northern Canada to parched areas of the U.S. In return, Canada should be guaranteed a 15 per cent annual growth rate for the steel industry, which would eventually give Canada half the North American output.
Could you ever imagine anyone attaching a national water policy to the customs tariff based on the rate of production of steel?
Then, according to the Globe and Mail of October 25:
Instead of selling water, Mr. Hamilton proposed that the industries in the U.S. that use extensive supplies of water and energy should plan their future expansion in Canada where the water already exists.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
No doubt the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) had a chat with his leader and they reconciled their positions. The whole thing is that it is clear that neither the government nor the opposition at this time, with the exception of individual members such as the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) who has come out in strong support of our policy, have a national water policy.
What about this party? Our party has a national water policy which was adopted at our national convention held in Toronto last year. I might say that we had a national water policy when the Columbia River Treaty was before this house and that is why this party opposed it. In addition to that, provincial conferences held in British Columbia and Saskatchewan have adopted resolutions which support the principles enunciated by General McNaughton in his speech to the Engineering Institute of Canada and the Montreal Canadian Club. That has been our stand from the start and particulary since this became a vital issue before this house.

I should like to quote the resolution adopted by the last Saskatchewan convention of our party, because this is the one I have at hand. It encompasses the principles that we have been advocating for years. The resolution states:
Resolved that we support the principles of General McNaughton for water control in Canada, which include insistence on Canadian autonomy in development and control of water resources, with Canadian needs receiving priority.
Therefore our leader and our candidates during the election were able to explain clearly and forcefully our approach to this question. There was no hesitation on our part in this regard. We are the only party in this house that has a national water policy and, furthermore, we were able to explain it. We did not arrive at this policy over night. It was arrived at by a democratic procedure. We had committees at provincial and national conventions which discussed this whole problem years ago. As a result of the recommendations of these committees our national water policy was devised and adopted.
There is wide support in the press across the country for General McNaughton's point of view. I pay tribute to the periodicals that have expressed their interest in this important question and supported in principle the suggestion that we should have a national water policy in Canada and that Canadian interests should receive first attention. I mention the Family Herald, the Financial Post, the Financial Times, the Western Producer, the Canadian Wildlife Federation and many other dailies and other periodicals. I have not time to mention them all at this time but I have collected and read most of them and I am glad that many weeklies, dailies and other periodicals are following this question closely.
Canadians have sound reasons to be fearful of the government's lack of policy on this issue; first, because of the recommendations in the report by Mr. A. D. P. Heeney and Mr. Livingston T. Merchant on Canada and the United States, principles in partnership, and I should like to quote section 81:
It is in the abiding interest of both countries that, wherever possible, divergent views between the two governments should be expressed and if possible resolved in private, through diplomatic channels.
What does it mean? It means behind the scenes; it means the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) will again have the opportunity to present to this house and to a committee another treaty and say: Here it
January 31, 1966

The Address-Mr. Herridge
In Vancouver during the election campaign the Prime Minister made a broadcast in which he opposed this arrangement. He also sent a letter to the chairman of the Arrow Lakes Water Resources Committee which stated, and this is fixed in my mind almost like chapters in the Bible:
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
No Liberal government will ever sign a treaty-on the Columbia until it has consulted with the people of the Arrow lakes who are directly concerned.
Did you ever hear of any consultation, Mr. Speaker? We never did. Once again, I often wonder what the late C. D. Howe would say about the signing of this treaty. We knew his attitude; he supported the former coalition government's stand in British Columbia that we should not permit the building of the Libby dam. He also supported General McNaughton on this issue and at General McNaughton's suggestion he introduced the International Rivers bill. There has been a great departure from his policy in recent years.
Competent Saskatchewan authorities have claimed that this water would be worth $20 per acre foot for use in the development of industry for that province. The large-scale consumptive use of water is essential at this time to the development of agriculture and industry in Canada, particularly in the prairie provinces.
We are also concerned to note that water resources will now come under the jurisdiction of the minister of the new department of energy, mines and resources. In this connection I wish to quote from The Reporter of January 27, 1966, an article written by Dillon O'Leary. This is very interesting, and I quote briefly:
And yet there are faint signs in Ottawa of a thaw in water-export policy. During the campaign, Pearson talked of exporting water as a commodity like wheat or oil, though he hedged by adding that this would be considered only after Canada's own requirements were secured. His post-election cabinet and administrative reorganization hinted that there might be a subtle change in the official line. The administration of water was taken out of Laing's Department of Northern Affairs and entrusted to a new department of resources and energy headed by a reputedly bright political novice, Jean-Luc Pepin. In appointing Pepin, Pearson emphasized the need for a national water policy.	.
Pepin displays none of Laing's unyielding approach. In a recent interview he talked of his position on the water-export controversy: "We are going to develop our resources to use them in the national interest, and if in using them in our own


interest we find they can also be used in the American interest as well, we shall do that." Moreover, he does not believe that Canada should reject all American approaches until every last gallon of Canadian water is measured and allocated to some future Canadian use.
We fear the direction in which we are going. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) has now had water resources taken away from him; he is now responsible for Eskimos and northern affairs. Also, his former parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George (Mr. Turner) is now Minister without Portfolio. They have both been neutralized and are out of the way because they are rather difficult to handle. But I give the Minister without Portfolio credit for an excellent speech made in Washington on this issue. I am sure that in his heart he still feels as keenly as we do on the question of Canada-United States relations with respect to water.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to your attention the present situation with respect to the developments on the Columbia River Treaty projects, the destruction of many thousands of acres of land and forests, the destruction of 50 miles of beaches between Castelgar and Revelstoke, and the depletion of our fishlife and other recreational resources that we have to endure as a result of Liberal policy. During the hearings before the External Affairs Committee we were refused any breakdown as to the estimated cost of the construction of the dams, the clearing of the basins and compensation for the property owners affected. We expect this government to be able to give us a progress report on this development at the appropriate time.
There is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the policy of B.C. Hydro-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have the unanimous agreement of hon. members?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree to the hon. member continuing beyond his allotted time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank the house for its courtesy. I said that our party was very
January 31, 1966
concerned about this question, because it is the foundation of all our future prosperity.


An hon. Member:: That is what we believe. That is why we let you go on.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I know there are members of the Liberal party and the Conservative party who also believe this. During the hearings before the External Affairs Committee we were refused, as I have said, any breakdown as to the estimated cost of the construction of the dams, the clearing of the basins and compensation for the property owners affected. We expect this government to be able to give us a progress report on this development at the appropriate time.
There is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the policy of B.C. Hydro with respect to compensation for properties affected, Mr. Speaker. That is the reason for the Arrow Lakes Property Owners Protective Association being formed, with a membership of over 250. A committee representing these owners has met with Hon. Ray Williston, Minister of Lands and Forests of the province of British Columbia, and explained their problems. I might say that this committee is composed of members of all parties. The chairman is a member of the Social Credit party, the secretary is a member of this party, and members of the executive are members of the Conservative and Liberal parties.
Time does not permit me to deal with this issue at the present time, but I just mention it to indicate some of the problems that are already arising as a result of the developments along the Arrow lakes, regardless of what the External Affairs Committee was told.
I have here an editorial written by the Social Credit candidate for Kaslo-Slocan in the last provincial election. He is the owner and editor of the newspaper. He indicates in this article that water resources minister Ray Williston spent an entire morning with the executive members of the Arrow Lakes Property Owners Protective Association. These people were protesting to him. All they want is justice. As a result of that meeting the Social Credit candidate wrote this editorial. I mention this so the house will understand the situation that exists at this time.
We believe that this problem can only be solved by discussions with the provinces concerned and, second, by keeping the people of Canada fully informed of developments. Let the processes of democracy function. Get the
The Address-Mr. Ricard co-operation of the farmers, their organizations and industry who are interested in a national water policy. Third, let us have a debate in this parliament before a national water policy is established so that everything is aboveboard, so we know what is being done and so the Canadian people will be informed.
This water game is not being played for fun but for our survival. The national water policy we adopt will determine within two or three generations which parts of this continent will keep on growing and developing and which will shrivel for lack of water. Much of our control over Canada's water resources has already been given away.
Single-purpose water resource developments are destroying other natural values at an unprecedented rate. In our rush to develop impoundments for water storage and power generation at the lowest possible cost, we seem to be forgetting the permanence of our present decisions. Tomorrow's values are ignored for today's expediency, and in some cases expediency on the part of governments and individual members of this house.
We are in urgent need of a national policy to guide the use of water within our own country so that our water resources will be developed by Canadians for Canadians of this and future generations.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinihe-Bagoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like, at the outset, to congratulate you on your appointment as Speaker of this assembly and to wish you every success.
I should also like to congratulate and offer my best wishes to the member for Humb-er-St. George's (Mr. Batten) and the member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) on their respective appointments as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees, and Deputy Chairman of Committees.
May I also congratulate the mover (Mr. Goyer) and the seconder (Mr. Stanbury) of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne in recognition of their brilliant performance, which is all to the credit of those they represent here in the house.
Before going further in my remarks, Mr. Speaker, may I thank the people of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot who for the fifth time have done me the honour of sending me here as their representative.
The people of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot must also be congratulated for the way in which

January 31. 1966

The Address-Mr. Ricard they voted; they were not influenced by the campaign of demagogy and smear against my leader, my party and myself.
People of my riding are noted for their good judgment and they refused to be misled by the improper arguments used by my opponents. You can rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that if I am here today it is no thanks to the hon. members opposite, for they bent every effort to try and defeat me.
During the election campaign there was an almost uninterrupted parade of the so-called big guns. First of all, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau) came and he was as successful as he has been in all his undertakings since he entered politics; then, the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote), the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Pepin), the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) who came, in turn, in an effort to enrol the people of the Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot riding. But they preached in the desert and on the night of the election, on November 8 last, your humble servant was once more re-elected with a majority of 3,501 votes.
However do not think for a moment that superhuman efforts were not attempted; a defeat of the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, who was considered as the repository of conservatism in the province of Quebec, appeared so desirable, that every possible means were resorted to. Evening dancing parties were organized in my riding, Mr. Speaker, with buffet suppers, and refreshments of the most varied qualities and kinds; luncheon baskets were distributed, oil bills were paid to some people. In short, every possible means was put to use but they proved useless since, as I said before, the people of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot are not to be taken in that way.
I could provide a whole series, a list of addresses whereby one could check all these facts.
There even was a whole network of impersonators; need I say more? Those who might not quite believe this should read the newspaper account of the prosecution of a certain person-as a personal means of protection-by the crown attorney at the suggestion of my opponent's organizers.
To me, the most amusing episode was to hear, on election night, the spontaneous comment of the hon. member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance) who, in answer to the question: "What is your greatest disappointment

regarding the results of this November 8 election?" said, without a moment of hesitation "The re-election of the member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I see that, in that respect, he had the support of his political colleagues. It is true then-it is even truer than I thought- that they really tried to beat me, but they are the ones who were beaten, not me.
Mr. Speaker, I am here to bring to light the aspirations and the needs of my riding. During two week ends since the reading of the Speech from the Throne, I visited my riding to get information, to inquire about the opinions of my constituents.
I must say that the Speech from the Throne has spread not only disappointment but also resentment among the people, especially among older pepole, who thought that the present government would listen to reason and increase old age pensions.
But no, the "Six Buck Boys" once again proved to the people that they are against paying to our senior citizens the reasonable pension to which they are entitled.
Our rural and urban population, workers as well as farmers, were lamentably disappointed to learn that the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, the Liberals' baby, has been carefully maintained. Here again, people thought that the Liberal government would listen to reason and withdraw the 11 per cent tax, giving effect to the suggestion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters). But their ears were completely closed to all sound argument and the tax on production machinery and building materials remain as before.
Mr. Speaker, it is well known that the population has a hard time because the cost of living is higher than it has ever been. It has never reached such a level since Confederation, and that is why the average wage-earner has to tighten his belt.
I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) to take advantage of his next budget to authorize personal income tax exemptions of $3,000, for married people, and $2,000, for single people.
Consideration should also be given to increasing family allowances which have remained unchanged since their establishment.
During the years we were in office, we adjusted them, we lessened the gap between the various classes of society, but the time
January 31, 196$	COMMONS
has come to take action and increase family allowances to help people with large families who depend on those allowances.
During the last election campaign, we promised that the necessary steps would be taken, so that municipal and school taxes would be made deductible for income tax purposes up to $500 per year.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
We shall continue our demands in that respect to help factory workers and city workers, who can hardly make both ends meet.
As the interest rate on term loans is sometimes excessive, the Minister of Finance should see to it that some control is exercised so that people in low income brackets who, from time to time, and on account of bad luck, illness in the family or some sort of hardship, must seek such loans, are not oppressed as they are now.
I urge the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) and the other representatives of the province of Quebec to join forces and to take the necessary steps to launch projects which could curb unemployment in the province of Quebec.
It is sad to think that approximately 39 per cent of all unemployed in the country are to be found in the province of Quebec.
When I think of all the fine speeches made on this subject by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), now Secretary of State for External Affairs, and by his former colleague from Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), now high commissioner in London, speeches which were out of order most of the time, I cannot help but feel that members from the province of Quebec will surely support me and do their utmost to reduce the number of unemployed in the province of Quebec.
During the years 1958, 1959, 1960 and later, five or six people could not be laid off in any given industry without hearing the whining of the present Secretary of State for External Affairs. He should, I feel, exert as much energy to convince the present minister of Labour to do something to eradicate unemployment since full employment was promised to all.
Mr. Speaker, in the area of agriculture, I join with the other members of the house who represent farmers and who complained that milk subsidies have not yet been paid for the year 1964-65. This state of affairs is incredible.
That is a vested right of our farmers and the government should do its utmost-not only
DEBATES	469
The Address-Mr. Ricard make fine statements-to have those subsidies paid in the shortest possible delay.
Since the dairy industry is the cornerstone of agriculture, particularly in the province of Quebec, the necessary action should be taken, as soon as possible, to implement the promise and the program of the Conservative party concerning the payment of $4.00 per cwt. for industrial milk.
I should also like to appeal to the Liberal members from the province of Quebec to work for the extension of the Crop Insurance Act which, if I am not mistaken, was put on our statute books in December 1960, so that it be made available to the farmers of the province of Quebec. That is not much to ask. If it were a question of asking hon. members opposite to initiate something new, I would proceed with caution, but I only ask them to continue and to improve upon what we ourselves have put on our statute books.
Unemployment insurance is another subject which should be given special consideration so that the related legislation may be made available to farmers who experience constant difficulties when looking for workers.
The setting up of a feed grain agency is another step which should be taken very shortly. The Liberals have been in office for two and a half to three years now; there has been some talk along that line but concrete proposals have yet to be made.
Therefore, I would ask hon. members to act in such a way that action is taken in that particular field.
In view of the increasing cost of farm machinery and of livestock, it behooves us to take the measures called for in those two fields.
For instance, when a farmer must have one head of his cattle slaughtered because it has some contagious disease, he is entitled to compensation. However, in view of the constantly increasing price of cattle, I feel the compensation should be increased to $200 for each thoroughbred and to $125 for each crossbred.
As the St. Hilaire beet plant is located in the riding of my hon. friend from Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pilon) and since, after redistribution, it will probably be located in my own constituency, I would ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) to set the price of sugar beets at $16 a ton.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, if there is one subject on which much has been said and written, it is that of national unity and, in the few minutes
January 31, 1966

The Address-Mr. Ricard at my disposal, I should like to bring my contribution and make a few comments on the matter.
As every one knows, it was part of our program to convene a conference on Confederation, in order to examine more particularly certain of its aspects and to give added vigour to national unity.
When that proposal was put forward in this house, it was ridiculed by our friends opposite. But today it is surprising to see that the young Liberals have included in their program an item which is exactly the same as the one proposed at the time by the man who today is the Leader of the Opposition.
Well, I believe it is time to ask our friends opposite to remember that the proposal did not originate with them. They should calmly realize that public opinion is becoming increasingly divided across the country and that, without implementation of the proposal made by the Conservative party in this connection, national unity cannot be achieved.
We propose that the Canadian constitution be drawn up here, in Canada, by Canadians, for Canadians. I do not think there is, here, in the house-
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member who has the floor would permit us to interrupt him? If so, I should like to ask leave of the house to revert to motions for the purpose of allowing the Minister of Trade and Commerce to make an announcement.


Mr. Starr:: That is agreeable provided the time consumed by the making of this announcement will not be included in the speaking time of my hon. friend.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



COPPER-EXPORTS TO OFF-SHORE DESTINATIONS-CHANGE IN ARRANGEMENTS

Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to hon. members and I apologize for the interruption. I wish to make a statement respecting the supply of copper for domestic purposes.

I wish to inform the house of a change in the arrangements for control of exports to offshore destinations of copper scrap, copper alloy scrap and copper bearing scrap. It has become necessary to suspend export quotas effective immediately and withhold further export permits in the interest of orderly marketing and Canadian supply. I am pleased to say that the action being taken is the result of a co-operative effort between the scrap dealers, the consumers of scrap and the department.
In recent weeks, the price for primary copper on the London Metal Exchange has reached all-time high levels. The daily "spot'f quotation on the exchange for January 26 was the equivalent of 89.54 cents, Canadian funds. This compares with the Canadian producers' price to domestic consumers at 45 cents, Canadian funds.
Export prices for copper scrap tend to follow movements of the London market price for primary copper. In Canada the influence of these high and rising prices has been reflected in a steadily widening spread between the value of scrap for export and for the domestic market. This spread reached the point where the market became disorganized. Consumers in Canada were unable to obtain their normal requirements of brass mill and refinery grades of scrap copper even though the actual movement of offshore exports under quota restriction has been small in relation to the rate of generation of scrap in Canada.
In suspending quotas and the issuance of export permits in the interest of stabilizing the market at North American levels, I have been concerned to avoid undue hardship for those who have been trading in the expectation of being permitted to export scrap. In this connection, I have received the assurance of major copper scrap consumers that they will offer to purchase, for prompt delivery, at price levels which would prevent such hardship, inventories of copper scrap acquired in the expectation of exporting under the quotas.
I have also their assurances that thereafter, once the market is stabilized, they will continue to take refinery and brass mill grades of scrap copper at prices which are competitive with those offered by United States consumers.
There may be limited quantities of scrap materials of a type not normally consumed by Canadian industry for which export permits will be considered. Exports to the United
January 31, 1966

States of all forms of copper scrap remain free of control.
As a means of continuing the degree of co-operation which has characterized this arrangement, it is intended to form an industry advisory committee to assist in keeping the copper situation under review while the supply emergency in the world market persists.
This committee will be properly representative of the industry and the trade. It would need to embrace spokesmen from the primary producers, the rod mills, the wire mills, the brass mills, the ingot makers and foundries and the trade handling secondary materials.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to tell us the reason for this action. He said it had become necessary. Second, would he outline for us what is the authorization for this step?


Robert Henry Winters: The authority was established in November by order in council. This action is within the terms of that order in council passed at that time, as I recall it.


John George Diefenbaker: What is that order in council? Can the minister tell us?


Robert Henry Winters: It was an order in council authorizing the department to take control of exports and apply quotas on scrap materials.


John George Diefenbaker: What events have taken place to justify this action on the part of the government?


Robert Henry Winters: May I say that it is the Export and Import Permits Act which gives us authority. The event which has taken place is a worsening of the situation in the domestic supply of copper. There has been a tendency to hold scrap off the market and seek export quotas to export it in order to take advantage of the high price on the London Metal Exchange. At the same time domestic consumers have been experiencing a shortage. This is an endeavour to distribute the available supplies to the best advantage of the domestic consumers of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: It seems to me to be an extraordinary action.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?

At six o'clock the house took recess.
The Address-Mr. Ricard AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at 8 p.m.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before calling on the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) may I make a delayed announcement of the business which will be taken up at ten o'clock tonight. The following questions will then be discussed: the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp), farm machinery-inquiry as to government action respecting prices; the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather), R.C.A.F.-purchase of French planes to transport cabinet ministers; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), C.P.R.-possible assumption of passenger service by government.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Goyer for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, before dinner when I yielded the floor to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) to allow him to make his statement, I was discussing national unity.
In the next few minutes I should like to deal with this subject and in order to prevent any misunderstanding on the interpretation given to national unity on this side of the house, I should like to put on the official record an excerpt from our program entitled "Unity in equality" which reads as follows:
The Canadian confederation was founded and rests on the unity in equality of the two founding races.
Every Canadian regardless of his origin and creed has equal rights and equal opportunities to improve his human and financial standards. There can be no second class citizens. The weakening of Confederation and the disintegration piece by piece of our country must be stopped.
Mr. Speaker, this was part of the Conservative party program during the last general election campaign.
January 31, 1966

The Address-Mr. Ricard
Everyone knows that the Conservative party and especially the Conservative party leader were represented by the Liberals as avowed enemies of national unity.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote a few instances to show that the pure and simple truth is quite different.
You will probably be surprised to learn, Mr. Speaker, that during the last election campaign, I have been blamed by my Liberal opponent for going outside the province of Quebec, for example to Ontario, Alberta and elsewhere, to help my Conservative friends. I have been accused of, and I was blamed for, playing into the hands of Anglo-Saxons and Orangemen. I would very much like to ask Liberal members from Quebec whether they would have the courage of going in the provinces I have just referred to and repeat those charges.
Mr. Speaker, if there ever was a political party which did something to promote and encourage national unity, it is the Conservative party. I should like to give examples and evidence of this.
Who refused in this house, for years and years, simultaneous translation? The people who sit on the other side of the house. They are the ones who refused the motions of their Liberal colleague from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, Mr. Breton. Year after year, they refused to recognize the need for simultaneous translation. They were also opposed to the issuance of bilingual cheques and they refused to grant requests from members of the province of Quebec who wanted to see the French language recognized all across Canada.
When these people accuse us of preventing national unity, well I think they should first examine their own conscience and accept things as they are.


Mr. Laniel:: Tell us about the flag.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: What else have we done, Mr. Speaker, to promote national unity? Who negotiated an agreement on the Trans-Canada highway, which had been refused for years and years by the Liberal government? A Conservative government, just as it was a Conservative government which set up simultaneous translation in the House of Commons, which negotiated the agreement concerning the building of the interprovincial bridge and appointed a French Canadian governor general.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
It is a Conservative government who has done all these things, but this did not prevent some of the Liberal members opposite to

charge us with being anti-Quebec and antiFrench Canadian.
No sooner had a Conservative member dared oppose or disagree with a motion proposed by a member from the province of Quebec, that they yelled and claimed that we simply wished to divide the country.


Mr. Chretien:: What about Mr. Balcer.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, if my good friend the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance wants the floor, he can certainly tell us about a subject no doubt dear to his heart since Mr. Balcer now shares his own political creed.
Mr. Speaker, I am a member from the province of Quebec and I think I am as much a French Canadian as those French Canadian members opposite.
I am convinced that I have neither done nor said anything that could harm the aspirations of the French Canadian people. I am convinced also that the party to which I belong and its present leader have never done anything to prevent French Canadians from realizing their aspirations.
I am proud to be a Conservative, I am proud to be a member of the Conservative party and I challenge any member opposite to mention a single plan or a single gesture made by the Conservative party or by the Leader of the Conservative party to thwart the aspirations of French Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I have been in Ontario and I repeated the same things that I say in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret having to interrupt the member but the time allotted to him has expired; he cannot continue unless he obtains the unanimous consent of the hon.
members.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Yes, two minutes.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Thank you. Only two minutes as the Postmaster General stated.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like all of us, members of this house as well as others, to work toward the making of a better country for our descendants so that they may further appreciate the fruits of our labour. Let us forget our political differences, let us work together so that 1966 may be the beginning of a new era of goodwill across Canada.


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Maiapedia-Malane):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased indeed to add my name to the long list of those who,
January 31. 1966	COMMONS
have taken part in the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne and I take this opportunity to offer you my most sincere congratulations on your appointment to the high office of Speaker.
I am aware of the heavy responsibilities of that position, but I also know, like all members of this house, that the dynamism and competence you have shown during the twenty sixth parliament will enable you to carry out successfully the difficult task you have taken on your shoulders.
I also know that your vitality, your youthful spirit and even your sense of humour will be an asset in the discharge of your responsibilities, not only for enforcing the rules of the house, but also for carrying on the brilliant research work started by your predecessor, as a result of which our parliamentary rules are now much more effective than they have ever been in the past.
Furthermore, I know that the chairman and deputy chairman of the committees (Messrs. Batten and Rinfret) will do their utmost to help you in your task, that all the members will be glad of the choice they made and that the business of the house will be expedited more smoothly.
The traditional congratulations extended to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne (Messrs. Goyer and Stanbury) have been made quite easy this year. Both these young members, newly elected to the house, have showed in their speeches their interest in the problems of their constituencies and also in those facing our country. It is gratifying, after the election, to see new members come and assist the senior ones and perhaps bring into this house that youthful outlook required to solve the problems now confronting us.
Experience is valuable, but youth, with its unlimited hopes and fresh views on ancient problems, is essential to the business being carried on in this house.
1 know that both of these members as well as the others who sit in the house for the first time will be of help in the hard work which awaits us this session.
Mr. Speaker, the riding which I have the honour to represent in the house is located in the most eastern part of the province of Quebec, a region called Gaspe. It is an area whose natural beauties have been praised but which was economically underdeveloped for a long time.
DEBATES	473
The Address-Mr. Tremblay
The people of Gaspe and more particularly those of Matapedia-Matane have long expected from the public authorities measures which would help them to come out of the economic stagnation in which they have lived for too long.
Large investments, designed to give our population the economic impetus it needs, will soon be made in my riding.
Every member of the house knows that the Canadian International Paper has announced the building of a cardboard mill in Matane and of a sawmill in Causapscal, and that Hydro Quebec has already considered the building of a thermal plant in the vicinity of Matane.
It is also known that the federal Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) has announced the construction of a deep water harbour in Matane, designed not only to help those two industries export their products but also for the benefit of other companies which may want to take advantage of the advantages of that area.
The basic resources are agriculture and forests. These, in addition to the tourist industry, will ensure adequate standards of living for our population.
Our region is also in a pilot area for studies carried out under ARDA, a federal-provincial legislation. As a result of that, federal and provincial funds are being invested in large quantities to find out the economic problems of the area and to made recommendations on the best measures to be taken.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
And I am convinced that these surveys will very soon bear fruits, that substantial programs will soon be added to those already announced and will very soon get under way. The special $50 million ARDA fund which will come before the house, will permit the implementation of some of the vast programs recommended by the Eastern Quebec Development Board, the body responsible for surveys and recommendation in that area.
Last Friday the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays) made reference to the Matane-Ste. Anne des Monts railway. I wish to reassure him that the member for Matane will not in any way oppose the application of the legislation passed by this house in 1962 providing for a railway between Matane and Ste. Anne des Monts if evidence shows that such a railway is justified by the economic needs of the area.
We, in the Liberal party, thought that the road, at this time, was the public investment
474	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Tremblay that was going to be the most useful to the economic development of that region. This road is already under construction and it will be continued, and I am convinced that, when it is completed, the entire region of Matane and Gaspe North will have at its disposal a fast and efficient communication system comparable to the rest of the province and the country. In my opinion it is the most useful investment and it will ensure faster economic development in that region.
This does not mean that, if at a specific time due to a major economic development, a railroad is required in the region, it will be impossible to proceed. On the contrary, this act is still on the statute books, and if its usefulness could be proven, I am sure that the government would then implement it. Moreover, it is in accordance with a statement made by the minister of public works of that day during an interview with the Gaspe North Chamber of Commerce to the effect that the construction of a railway had been put aside for the moment but that if, at any time, there should appear an economic justification for it, the railway would be built.
Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne dealt with many questions and I shall mention only a few, each of which could justify a debate during the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. This speech mentions the need to extend bilingualism in the federal services. It mentions the need for a basic revision of Canada's financial system in order to adapt it better to federal, provincial and municipal needs.
The Speech from the Throne mentions many farm assistance measures aiming to boost our farmers' income to a level comparable to that of other classes of society. It mentions also the establishment of a Canada Development Corporation, a corporation that would look somewhat like the Quebec General Investment Corporation set up while I was with the provincial government, which has to its credit several realizations; it has brought considerable benefit to many areas of the province of Quebec.
It mentions programs of medical care, a reference to a policy previously announced and under which the federal government, provided that certain conditions are met by the provincial governments, would be ready to contribute to a federal-provincial program in this field.
In addition, it mentions what, in my opinion, is one of the fundamental changes with regard to the society which we have known

DEBATES	January 31. 1966
so far, namely the need to speed up the war on poverty, in all the areas where it is found today in Canada. Some of these measures we already know but they could not be implemented because the dissolution of Parliament and general elections prevented the adoption of the legislative program which could have been included in last year's speech from the throne.
Other measures are new and tonight I would like to point out a measure which in my opinion, is fundamental, and meets the present needs of Canada; it is the reform in depth of some federal departments, and in particular the creation of a Department of Manpower which goes to the core of the economic programs which we must set up today in Canada.
Before going on to that administrative reform and indicating the two fundamental matters which I feel it is important to mention, I would like to recall in passing two statements found in the Speech from the Throne which seem very significant. I feel that they led to interpretations which do not correspond, I am sure of that, to the spirit of the party which has in fact supported them. Here they are. The first one deals with the need to maintain the fundamental powers of the central government, the federal government.
We believe that to preserve a country which deserves to be protected, a country in which we will be happy to live, it is important to have a strong and efficient central government, and, on the other hand, that bilingualism and biculturalism spread more and more in Canada, not only at the federal level, which is the responsibility of this parliament, but also in provincial fields, other than those of Quebec.
I feel that balance should be maintained between those two fundamentals of our country. On the one hand, the need for strong provincial governments and, in the case of Quebec, the provincial government certainly has a special responsibility, that of being the stronghold of French culture in Canada. On the other hand, federalists who are to be found in all schools of thought, do not want this provincial autonomy to be achieved at the cost of the existence and development of our country as a whole.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
In my opinion, this is fair, and we have taken it into consideration in the opting out formula; it is fair to allow the provinces and particularly Quebec to exercise their authority in fields allotted to them by virtue of the
January 31, 1966	COMMONS
constitution. At the same time this tendency must not go so far that the expansion of a province should be detrimental to the country as a whole or detrimental to the development of a culture, the French culture, which cannot be conceived solely in terms of a single province but in terms of the whole country. I am convinced that the government in office at present wishes to maintain the policy it established since it came to power, that is to offer the provinces the opting out formula with regard to the fields allotted to them by virtue of the constitution. At the same time, I think that the Speech from the Throne showed, as stated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), that this measure should not be interpreted as an indication that provincial powers are granted to the detriment of the essential powers of our federal state.
Another matter of national urgency is increased help for universities. This is a field that comes under provincial jurisdiction, but as it happens, the central government is pursuing a policy which has already been applied in the past. The Prime Minister has announced recently that grants to universities would be increased from $2 to $5 per capita in each province. In providing such a wide measure of special assistance, the government recognizes the urgency of the situation, as indicated at the end of the report of the economic council of Canada about which I intend to speak. I see two main reasons for the administrative reforms applied in some departments: first, administrative efficiency; I think that all modern states face the dilemma, on the one hand, of efficiency justifying more and more decentralization in public administration and, on the other hand, complex international, national and local problems requiring the administration to become constantly better co-ordinated and more centralized.
How can those two different phenomena be reconciled? Administrative policies should then be sufficiently flexible to permit efficient control and administration, yet broad enough to allow the necessary co-ordination between the various policies.
The establishment of a department of manpower should tend to solve this twofold problem by having one department deal with the essential development services and the manpower essential to the national development of the economy, on the one hand, and a central administration just large enough to exercise efficient control over administrative services, on the other.
DEBATES	475
The Address-Mr. Tremblay
The same principles seem to warrant the creation of the new department of energy. Activities are spread over several departments and their co-ordination is becoming increasingly more difficult because no practical policies can be worked out as long as sources of energy cannot be substituted for one another. With one single department, such sources of energy, whether it be electricity, coal or atomic energy, can be coordinated in one administrative unit.
It would be advisable that this example given by the government in a few fields be followed in other areas of public administration.
The second reason in favour of the creation of this department of manpower, or reorganization of others, is the necessity of meeting important needs at present within our community. The creation of a new department shows that the government recognizes the existence of important problems and the need for new and efficient policies.
No one will deny, especially after the magnificent report just submitted by the economic council, that one of the basic problems of Canada today is that of manpower. That fact is brilliantly illustrated in the report and I want to congratulate the chairman, Dr. Deutsch, and all the senior officials of the economic council who have rendered a great service not only to the house and to the government but to the whole population of Canada by analysing the present economic needs and by showing exactly to the public the necessity for basic reforms at various indicated levels. Every page of the report bears witness to the importance attached by the council to a labour force adapted to current economic problems. The consequence of inadequate manpower is depressed incomes. That incomes are too low is obvious when one makes comparison with the United States and also between various parts of Canada.
This is seen when one economic sector is compared to another. Insufficient income, a slower growth rate, disparities in economic structures, we find a manpower that is not adjusted, not prepared to today's economic tasks.
The establishment of a department of manpower is therefore a first response. I think we will have to have more and more important measures in this field. I think it is a first response, in the mind of the government, to this need pointed out in the report of the economic council.
476	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Tremblay
In the field of energy and resources, I simply point out the immense work carried out by the Canadian resources council in the last few years, precisely to make the Canadian population and government conscious of the necessity of an energy and resources policy well adjusted to present problems. It is a problem in which the provinces have large responsibilities. It comes under the jurisdiction of the central government because these energy resources go from one province to another, even from one country to another and because the central government has a very important role to play particularly in the matter of co-ordination.
This department of energy will be, in my opinion, the nucleus that will allow us a more efficient approach to the problems arising in that field.
I want to point out that those administrative reforms answer the present needs of our society.
I also want to mention the establishment of a new department, the department of the solicitor general, which will be responsible from now on for organizing the whole police force and for helping in the war which the government intends to wage against organized crime. I do want to praise the government very sincerely for entering this field with determination.
I remember how, a few weeks only after I was appointed minister of citizenship and immigration, police authorities advised me of the alarming situation in Canada and even in the United States with regard to the infiltration of subversive forces in our society. At that time, I agreed, as minister of immigration-and I am happy to see the present minister is following and even developing that policy-to set up a special division responsible for co-operating with police authorities in tracking down those elements which continued, by all possible means, to defy law and order in Canada. That co-operation paid off in the high number of deportations of people considered as undesirable in our country.
Finally, one other fundamental reform is that of the transfer of Indian affairs to the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Doubtless we will need, in the field of Indian affairs, a democratic policy which has already been initiated some time ago. In this regard, I recall a federal-provincial conference at which I advised the provincial authorities that it was the wish of the government at that time to bring about a system

DEBATES	January 31, 1966
of community development that would allow the Indians themselves to take their fate into their own hands and the provincial authorities to extend provincial services to Indian communities so that Indians might feel more and more part of the same society as the other citizens of the country. Now that the Indian affairs branch is merged with the Eskimo affairs branch, I hope that those citizens of our society can feel, on the occasion of our centennial, that the government really wants to give them the chance they had long been waiting for.
This department of manpower will have the tremendous responsibility of enabling the young people to be better prepared to compete on the labour market. The labour market has become increasingly diversified. The requirements of industry, business and agriculture are greater and greater.
Therefore, people who want to earn their own living and provide their families with an adequate income must be better prepared than our fathers were to enter the labour market. That is why a bold program is needed as regards the training of our young people.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
That task can only be accomplished in co-operation with the provincial authorities, because education is of the utmost importance in this respect. But measures of assistance to specialized training already exist and they should provide not only for an even greater development of specialized institutions to train that labour force, but also for the training of the teaching staff and the preparation of courses better suited to the present requirements of the labour market.
Another extremely important factor is the need for a better exchange of information between those who are offering work and those who are looking for a job. Our services will have to be renovated.
New and more practical techniques will have to be developed to facilitate communication with the workers. Industry and business will have to get used to closer co-operation with government services. In any case, in a field where technical requirements are increasingly more difficult to meet and often constantly changing, in a field where workers have to be easily and economically relocated anywhere across the country, information on market conditions will have to be more adequate than it has been up to now. Technical mobility policies will have to be supplemented by geographic mobility policies.
January 31, 1366	COMMONS
I was happy to note that during a recent federal-provincial conference, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) informed the provincial governments that the federal government, in order to increase the mobility of workers, was implementing financial measures, more generous than those existing up to now, so that the worker wishing to move to another city or another area would be able to do so without resulting hardships for himself or his family, and that an adequate financial compensation would prompt him to go where the needs exist.
Finally, these general measures will have to be related-and this is the first step in the creation of this department-to a rational policy of emigration which will have to be implemented according to labour conditions.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that an immigration policy has other levels, a human level, a national level, a social level. But it is essential that an immigration policy, if it is to be efficient and sensible, be related to economic conditions which prevail in a country, not on a short but on a long term basis.
This government should not revert to discarded policies and alter the immigration volume according to specific conditions on the labour market because no economic policy could ever be adapted to the economic situation, but it would be easy in the future-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is authorized to continue his remarks.


René Tremblay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to the hon. members. I have only one thing to add in connection with immigration before concluding my remarks.
Never, in the past, could an immigration policy be fully adapted to changing economic conditions. Reducing this immigration when there was unemployment and increasing it when short term economic conditions improved never worked out satisfactorily due to the inevitable delays in the application of such variations in immigration policies.
Even if we must reject in the immediate future an immigration policy adapted to particular situations, on the other hand, it is fair, when we set the long term purposes of the immigration policies with regard to categories
DEBATES	477
The Address-Mr. Vincent of immigrants from countries where we select them, to take into consideration particular conditions of long term agreements.
Since immigration will now come under the manpower department, I see there an effort for a more rational integration of immigration policies.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to mention tonight these administrative reforms because, in my opinion, they are significant, on the one hand, as an answer to very real administrative problems, and, on the other hand, as an answer or at least a partial one to the very important problems of our society.
I know that they are only structural reforms and that, if they are to be productive, they will need qualified and spirited men to implement them. But there is no doubt, in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that with the men heading those various departments and especially with the Liberal government in office, these men and that spirit will ever lack.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in the Throne Speech debate, but I decided at the last minute to add my contribution to that of all my colleagues in this house on the occasion of this great debate.
But, first of all, I take great pleasure in joining my colleagues, in their praise and congratulations, and I first want to congratulate you on your elevation to the chair and I wish you also much courage in guiding us in our discussions.
I would like to offer somewhat special congratulations to the deputy speaker of the house and to the deputy chairman of committees, who is a personal friend of mine.
I would also like to congratulate very sincerely the mover (Mr. Goyer) and the seconder (Mr. Stanbury) of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
In 1962, I had the honour of moving the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. The hon. members who moved and seconded the address will, in future, be able to follow the road they have set for themselves. The words they used and the advice they gave were appreciated by all members. We wish them a long and successful career in the house.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking part in this debate until this afternoon when I heard the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau) attack once again, and in his usual way, the leader of the Conservative party.
January 31, 196$

The Address-Mr. Vincent
Once more, we saw the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Favreau) who, a few years ago, seemed to be the fair-haired boy of the Liberal party in the province of Quebec, show once again his talent by attacking a man instead of a political program or ideas expressed freely in all confidence by the leader of a party which wants unity in equality in this country.
We remember, Mr. Speaker, that at the beginning of his career, the hon. member for Papineau made the headlines in all Canadian newspapers. The President of the Privy Council had become the heir presumptive to the throne, that is to the Liberal succession.
The President of the Privy Council had begun in the province of Quebec with resounding speeches to assert himself in the best tradition of the Liberal leaders, by trying to destroy by every available means the men who were leading the Conservative party.
I have waited for this opportunity to talk in this house about the speech which the President of the Privy Council made in Quebec city on February 10, 1965, when he pulled all the stops in his attack against the leader of the Conservative party. Words fail me to say that this is not the way to build unity in this country.
Though we have seen the leader of the Quebec Liberals reach great heights, we now see him lose his prestige in the eyes of the public. When he spoke of the success achieved by those who had reached the pina-cle of public popularity-the President of the Privy Council compared it to that of the beautiful but coarse woman who aroused great hopes until she opened her mouth.
Since the President of the Privy Council has started opening his mouth, whether to defend the formula known as the Fulton-Favreau formula, to attack the Leader of the Conservative party, or to attack the representatives of that party now sitting in the house, we realize that he is not qualified to be the leader which the province of Quebec needs.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I will show you that the Quebec Liberals have not changed when they put forward their political program through the President of the Privy Council. The latter stated that a leader was needed, that a program was needed, that an organization was needed.
They wanted to give the people of Quebec that leader, that program, that organization.

Who was this leader? How did he lead the Liberals of the province of Quebec? To what extent does he now have confidence of his Quebec colleagues? What was his program and how did he lead the organization?
In the first place, the Liberal party leader is saying so, not us. Does he still have the confidence of his Quebec colleagues?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: No.


Clément Vincent: I hear some applause.
Let me quote, for instance, a former colleague of the present Quebec wing leader, Mr. Yvon Dupuis, who says:
The whole thing is settled. I have just returned from Ottawa with fresh news there it is: in three months, Guy Favreau will resign and Jean Marchand, at the request of the Liberal members, will be appointed by Mr. Pearson as leader of the Quebec wing of the national Liberal party. A few days ago I was saying that (on second thought) I would appoint Guy Favreau to the Senate, but Mr. Pearson decided otherwise.
I am told that it is to the Supreme Court, nowhere else that the weak politician will be promoted.
This is a former colleague of the President of the Privy Council who stated further:
A Liberal member was telling me yesterday about this matter: "It is not too great a risk ... At the Supreme Court, several judges always sit at the same time on the same case ... If one of them shows a lack of judgment, the others will save the day."
This is the one who came in the house to attack the Leader of the Opposition once again. I suggest that this leader has lost the confidence of his colleagues.
He is trying today by every means, to put the onus on the Conservatives. He will go into the province of Quebec shortly and say: It is the naughty Conservatives' fault if I had to resign, if I had to go into the penalty box.
For instance, you have the member for Hochelaga who said, in July, in he Devoir:
The fact that Mr. Pearson kept Mr. Favreau in his cabinet shows very clearly that he failed to understand-Mr. Favreau is a valuable manand this I believe
-still capable of considerable usefulness to his fellow countrymen, but not in the political field.
That is the man who came this very morning to state that it was the nasty Conservatives' fault if the unity of the country could not freely be discussed in the house.
The President of the Privy Council also mentioned a program. What is this program? Since 1962, time and again, both inside and outside the house, the program of our
January 31, 1966

friends facing us, has always been to discredit the Conservatives, to criticize their gestures, their actions and their words, to try to make Quebec think that they are dead set against French Canadians.


An hon. Member:: It is true.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Clément Vincent: And now, Mr. Speaker, there is clapping. Is that how we will bring unity and equality to the country?
Not in that way. The President of the Privy Council will have to make up his mind as soon as possible. He is no longer trusted by the people from Quebec. He is no longer trusted by the house. He is no longer trusted by the Liberal members who sit with him.
The President of the Privy Council also spoke of organization


An hon. Member:: Say something about your own problems.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Clément Vincent: We have seen the results of that kind of organization in the province of Quebec, but how is the organization advocated by the President of the Privy Council as seen by his colleagues and especially by the hon. member for Hochelaga? According to Le Devoir of May 25, 1965, he stated:
It is nobody's secret that neither him-
-he was referring to the President of the Privy Council-
-nor Mr. Tremblay are particularly gifted for concrete and daily action at the organization level. On the contrary, they have proven to be clumsy and ingenuous in that respect.
All this, Mr. Speaker, brings me to the Fulton-Favreau formula.
During a speech given in the province of Quebec, on February 10, 1965, the President of the Privy Council dealt with the great landmarks of that quest for a Canadian Canada and especially of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. He also spoke of co-operative federalism, of education programs, and he concluded by saying:
-finally-with all due respect to John and Johnson-the repatriation of the constitution.
At that time, Mr. Speaker, in February 1965, despite what the minister tried to insinuate this afternoon, he did not give the Conservatives credit for the formula. He claimed it as his own and his government's. Indeed, one must not forget the attitude of the President of the Privy Council: When things go bad, the Conservatives are to
The Address-Mr. Vincent blame, but when things go well, it is because of him. On October 20, 1964, he stated before the Montreal District Chamber of Commerce:
The present federal government congratulates Itself, and rightly so, on having initiated the discussions, and also, let it be known, the plan which cleared the way out of a 30-year old dead-end. In fact, for three years now, the deadlock was believed to be hopeless; but the committee I have had the honour of chairing, tackled its job in a great spirit of patriotic unity, accomplishing in a few weeks what others had failed to do in several years.
He made the same statement on February 7, 1965, to the Matane Chamber of Commerce. Now, this is what he said in Montreal on January 22, 1966:
For my part, my dear friends, I would rather delay the repatriation of the constitution, although I consider it essential, than entrust its reform to a parliament which would be dominated by the sentimental colonialism that inspires the Tory conception of national unity.
On February 10, speaking to those who at the time opposed the famous formula whose preparation he supervised, he said:
Preferring not to influence their prejudices against the formula by reading the official text, these great thinkers in constitutional law lavish upon us far fetched interpretations. Sometimes they warn us that the formula will enslave French Canada. Sometimes they regret that it forecasts the subservience of English Canada. Sometimes they are shocked by what they consider the alternating jurisdictional strip-tease of Ottawa and the provinces.
As usual, petty provincial chauvinists instinctively join with centralizing reactionaries to destroy a fair solution worked out by fair men.
When the President of the Privy Council spoke of "petty provincial chauvinists", he did not know that Mr. Lesage would flatly turn down that famous formula and put it off for an indefinite period. The President of the Privy Council continued his attacks on John, Johnson and the Conservatives:
Basically, for those who voice this kind of criticism, contradictory statements are but a negligible element of the opportunist ignorance.
Nowadays, when Mr. Lesage writes to the Prime Minister of Canada to tell him that the formula is no longer acceptable, it is not the same, things have changed a great deal. They try to hold the Conservative party responsible and back in Quebec, it will be suggested once again that those Conservatives are against the province of Quebec.
The President of the Privy Council added-it is interesting to read this speech into
January 31, 1966

The Address-Mr. Vincent
the official record of the house, because unfortunately, not every Canadian had the opportunity to read the words of the President of the Privy Council and I quote:
For those who go beyond an easy phrase-making, however, the formula appears as a triumph of common sense ennobled by a realist and courageous patriotism.
I am proud to have presided over the discussions which have at long last, liquidated that unacceptable anachronism and I am proud to have been associated with statesmen from all provinces among whom our own Quebec premier and the brilliant constitutional lawyer Mr. Paul Gerin-Lajoie who approached this problem with commendable generosity and clear mindedness.
And he added:
The government recognizes in all this progress that Canada is a two-nation state that henceforth the spirit and the framework of our country can be nothing but Canadian.
And here is another very important paragraph:
It is obvious that this transformation was not achieved by any single individual.
The co-operation and vision of all provincial leaders were also necessary. And among these men, none showed more nobility of character, courage and devotion than the man who presides today over the destinies of this province, the hon. Jean Lesage.
And here is what Hon. Jean Lesage said in his letter of January 20, 1966:
My dear Prime Minister,
You are also aware that the proposed formula for amending our constitution has caused some anxiety in Quebec. Whatever the cause of this feeling, it is a factor which should not be ignored. For instance, I personally am struck by the fact that, as early as last spring, the formula was not being interpreted everywhere in the same way.
Thus I had always assumed that, as regards the amendment of legislative powers, any diminution of provincial power required unanimity, whereas any increase of such power called for the concurrence of only two thirds of the provinces representing one half of the population. This view, however, is not shared by everyone, even the specialists. It is contended, in fact, that under the formula any province could prevent the extension of the powers of another province. Needless to say, if that interpretation were to prevail, the evolution of our constitutional system in the direction desired by Quebec might become very difficult.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I will now skip a paragraph. The provincial Premier then said:
In the circumstances, the government of Quebec has decided to postpone indefinitely the consideration of the proposal for constitutional amendment.
This is a polite way of saying that it will be put oil until the Greek calends and nobody will hear any more about it. When we read this letter and add thereto the criticism of the President of the Privy Council concerning those who, until now, had shared Mr. IMr. Vincent.]
Lesage's views, we wonder why the same words no longer apply. Is this provincialism and chauvinism, for those who do not understand the scope of the formula.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we heard another story today from the President of the Queen's Privy Council, who attacked once more the leader of the Conservative party.
Since 1962 our program has comprised a very important proposal requested not only by the Conservative party but also by some Liberal members. I myself heard them, as well as members from other parties, requesting it in the house on behalf of the people of the province of Quebec and of all the population of Canada. We made such concrete proposal in 1962, 1963 and 1965, and we shall continue to ask that the present government call as soon as possible a conference the task of which will be to make our constitution truly Canadian, a constitution meeting the present demands of the Canadian people, while keeping as a basis equality and unity of the two main races which presided over the birth of this country.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the fact that this debate is drawing to a close is not going to prevent me from being repetitious in extending to you, individually, and to our Speaker, that first commoner of this house, my congratulations upon your appointments. I join with the concerted unanimity of opinion as to your ability, which in itself indicates that there is on all sides of this house the intention to co-operate with you in your judgments, and in your control of the activities of this house.
I should like also to extend my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, because when I came here first in 1949 I had that very great privilege, and then very terrible task; so I am somewhat of an authority. I want to tell those two hon. members that it has been a long time since we have heard their equal in this house.
I enter this debate tonight because I want to deal with a problem of concern to me and, at the same time, as evidenced by the speeches of the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Horner) and Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), to other western members. This subject has reference to the administration of our national parks.
January 31. 1966



At the outset I should like to say there is today no greater national asset in this country than our national parks. Those parks today are extremely popular and are being visited by millions of Canadians, as well as others. One of our problems relates to the citizens who live in one or two of our national parks, and the relationship of this situation to the fact that several other provinces are considering the establishment of more national parks.
The hon. member for Jasper-Edson at page 109 of Hansard said:
We are not complaining about the national parks policy as enunciated.
I am not quite certain what the hon. member for Edmonton West is not complaining about. The hon. member for Jasper-Edson stated:
We are not complaining about the national parks policy as enunciated. We are complaining about the administration and the disregard of the rights of Canadian citizens who live in two part townships, one being Jasper and the other being Banff.
I think that is a fair enough statement, and I think that justice should be done in respect of any minority in Canada, even though it be a minority of one. I think justice has a responsibility to be all pervading, and the majority is entitled to justice too.
Perhaps I should suggest that a portion of our trouble in respect of parks administration relates to the time when parks were first established. In this regard I am reminded of the comments made by the first prime minister of Canada in 1887, 78 years ago. In a debate in this House of Commons Sir John A. Macdonald said:
We can sell or lease. I have the strong inclination to lease so that we can retain absolute control over the character of our parks.
Sir Richard Cartwright, of the opposition, said:
I think a limit ought to be fixed for these leases.
Sir John A. replied:
Twenty one years are suggested as sufficient, but people will not build handsome houses on a 21 year lease. If there is to be a limit at all there must be the right of renewal. I think the hon. gentleman and the house may trust any government with the settlement of that question in the interest of the property.
When he spoke of the interest of the property no doubt Sir John was referring to the governmental retained absolute control over the character of parks.
When Sir John answered Sir Richard, there was no difficulty envisaged such as we are
The Address-Mr. Laing faced with today. We have arrived at the point today where park business is big business. Our annual budget in respect of parks amounts to approximately $23 million, yet our annual total receipts are in the neighbourhood of only $3 million. I do not think anyone suggests that we should try to balance our receipts and disbursements in respect of parks.
Our difficulties and problems arise from an attempt to retain by restrictive and protectionist control the conditions and traffic in our parks. Surely it is the opinion at this time of the department responsible, as well as those who have obtained leases in parks, that the maintenance and efficiency of operation is of uppermost importance. We have had difficulties with leaseholders, and I shall not identify them. Perhaps I should give this house one or two examples. The first example involved three leasehold lots on which the department received a total of $45 annually. The leases were assigned for a consideration of $141,000. The second case involves a lot upon which we received $30 per year rent. This lease was assigned for a consideration of $1200 per year; the sublessee undertook to invest $30,000 in a building, the whole property to return to the assignor after 18 years.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
So on September 18, 1964, I made a pronouncement in respect of park policy in the house and the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Horner) said that he agreed with the policy. Well, I hope he has read it, because I said this, among other things:
A change in policy toward residence in national parks has long been required...
For this reason, we have adopted a policy that will eventually exclude private residential occupation of park land unless it is required by persons who provide services to the park and its visitors. No new uses of park land for summer homes, cottages, or permanent residence will be allowed unless it ^ is clear that the permanent or temporary resident is providing some essential service to park visitors, or engaged in the administration, operation and protection of the national parks. Such improper occupation of park land by individuals as now exists will be eliminated gradually.
This was part of the policy, because we are coming to the point where we have a small number of Canadians enjoying permanent residence in the parks that is denied to all other Canadians, and we speak of justice. I am quite certain that the hon. member for Jasper-Edson, and probably the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), are thinking in terms of private enterprise. I want to make it as emphatic as I can that
482	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Laing we are dealing here with a national trust, and because it is a national trust some, but not all, of the ordinary principles of private enterprise can prevail.
We have to ensure that we maintain the parks for the purposes for which they were set up, namely the enjoyment and the recreation of the Canadian people. We have an amazing increase in attendance at our parks.
I could give the house some very interesting figures, but I do not want to bother hon. members with these at the moment. However, at the present time we have increases that are nothing short of spectacular. The most spectacular of all was at Terra Nova park, in our newest province of Newfoundland, where attendance in the parks last year was 62 per cent over the previous year; and we are running at a rate of increase of 8 per cent, 10 per cent and 12 per cent in other parks.
In the fiscal year 1962-63 we had 7,426,000 visitors to the parks. In the nine months ending December 31 last we had 9,349,000 visitors. Since I came to office we have added some 7,000 separate camping sites in the parks, and we find in our western parks that people are lined up for 24 hours waiting to get into them-that is, waiting for someone to move out.
Therefore I am quite certain that we have to take the action that is necessary to service the increase and maintain the purposes for which the parks were set out. We will see to it that no injustice is done to those who are resident in the parks. We have said that if their tasks require their constant presence in the parks, then no change whatsoever will be made. At the present time all we have done is say to those who want to assign leases that we will not assign the lease as it stands, but they will turn over the lease and we will give them a 42-year terminal lease.
With regard to leases that are in vogue on that basis at the present time, if they have 17 or 18 years to run, when the 17 or 18 years is terminated they will get a full 42-year lease thereafter. We have undertaken at the end of that 42-year period to pay compensation for the residual value that the lessee has in the property. I think nothing can be fairer than that. I have had my department make a review of what is the practice in other provinces and other states in their parks and what they are doing there, and without question ours is the most generous lessee condition that we have been able to find anywhere.
In the province of British Columbia the term of lease is 21 years. In the province of

DEBATES	January 31. 1966
Alberta concessions and permits are granted up to five years. In Saskatchewan leases at commercial sites are granted for 10 years. In Manitoba leases at commercial sites are granted for 21 years. In Ontario they are granted for 21 years, and very, very few of them have been granted. In the United States they are granted up to a maximum of 30 years.
In the United States, for example, in the state of Maryland these leases are granted up to 20 years, and in the national parks in Canada we grant a 42-year lease. We have had a great many complaints and statements have been made that we are going to force everybody out of the parks, that we are going to take everything from everybody and give them nothing. These statements have not been true.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make the position of our parks policy as clear as I possibly could tonight. As I say, we are dealing with a national trust that can be handled only as a national trust, and we will see to it in the future that responsibility for maintaining these great places is kept at the highest order.
Now, Mr. Speaker, before I sit down I wish to deal with some of the statements that were made by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) in respect of the resources of Canada, and particularly our water resources. I want to make it clear that this particular department-


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, before the minister leaves the subject of parks I wonder if he would permit a question.


Arthur Laing: Yes.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Would the minister inform the house whether the zoning policy that was instituted a few years ago is going to be carried out in the western parks to which he has referred?


Arthur Laing: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the reference the hon. member, my predecessor, makes is to the zoning policy that eventuated out of the reports made to the government. It is the intention to proceed with the zoning policy, yes.
I should like to deal with the question of water, because the hon. member for Kamloops who comes from an area of aridity that would cause him to think a great deal of water, suggested that we have been doing very little to build what he described as a very necessary national policy on water. He
January 31, 1966

also said we had not had appropriate conversations with the provinces in our endeavour to bring them along to a national policy. I object to this, Mr. Speaker, because I think in the last two and a half years more has been done in this particular area than ever before.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Laing: The responsibility for the water resources branch is now that of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Pepin). However, I believe that in the last two and a half years we have built up an understanding with the provinces which will ensure that great progress will be made, and successful progress, toward evolving a national water policy for Canada.
First of all I should refer to the consummation of the Columbia River Treaty. It was not of this government but of the government of which he was a part, that a premier of one province in Canada said that he was not able to co-operate with the government of the day. We did bring to a satisfactory solution the Columbia River Treaty; and I think, with the probable exception of the hon. member for Kootenay East, who is an adamant dissident of that treaty in this house-


Some hon. Members:: "Kootenay West".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Attaboy, Jim.


Arthur Laing: Apart from the views of that hon. member, I think there is a general assumption that it is a pretty good treaty for Canada.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Arthur Laing: The hon. member would have done something else. I think the hon. member would have done nothing, and if he had done nothing, the water of the Columbia would have continued to fall down the Columbia and within the next 15 or 20 years we in Canada would have been required to put certain dams upon the portion of the Columbia within Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We proposed that.


Arthur Laing: Then we would have been asked, were we going to pay that water down to the United States in such a manner that we would want to flood them, or were we going to pay it down the way in which they asked for it? If he were confronted with those two choices, the hon. member knows as well as I how it would have been paid out.
23033-31J
The Address-Mr. Laing But at that time we would not have obtained the $501 million on the basis of 1971 that we did obtain.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is specious reasoning.


Arthur Laing: Well, it is fairly good economic reasoning.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Did you criticize this treaty?


Arthur Laing: Yes, sir, and we amended it accordingly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You mean you whitewashed it.


Arthur Laing: In addition to consummating the Columbia River Treaty, we have been engaged with the province of Manitoba in what are termed the Nelson river studies. We have contributed half of a $3 million fund to the study of the Nelson river, and the possibility of placing upon it a dam to produce what some engineers estimate might be a total in excess of five million kilowatts of on-site power.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: For the United States.


Arthur Laing: Sir, I think it is the policy of Canada, as I believe the hon. member knows, that so long as we retain for Canada for all time to come sufficient power within Canada, then power should be one of those things that is exported from Canada, and it is the policy of the government to so export it.
It is calculated that this power may reach Ontario, if it were in demand in Ontario. In addition to some of it being used by Ontario it could be sent to the twin cities in the United States. It is the responsibility of Manitoba Hydro to find markets for this power. I believe that at the present time they are giving a great deal of attention to finding these markets. I know the government of Canada has expended with the province of Manitoba some $3 million on this study.
In so far as Saskatchewan is concerned, and this may placate my socialist friends over here, I may say that this study in respect of the three prairie provinces originated with the then premier of the province of Saskatchewan, Mr. Lloyd, who called a conference in Regina, in December, 1963, with the object of discussing the development of the entire Saskatchewan river system, on a basis where all three provinces would sit down together. This I consider to be one of the most significant advances that has come to the fore in Canada in the consideration of this water problem.

January 31, 1966
The Address-Mr. Laing
We went to Regina in December, 1963. We have offered to put up 50 per cent of the cost of a study of the entire Saskatchewan system, even involving anticipated, if feasible, diversions of northern rivers into the Saskatchewan system.
Our prairie provinces are one of the more relative arid areas of this country. I am of the opinion, and probably I am speaking out of the enthusiasm of a westerner, that the great new industrial explosion is going to occur in that area. We are going to require definitely assured quantities of water across the Canadian prairies.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You had better require the water in Canada.


Arthur Laing: I am speaking of Canada. I am speaking of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, who have sat down together, with our encouragement, with a view to building up protection for all time for their water needs. With this tremendous development of the potash industry in Saskatchewan today, I want to remind this house that it is expected in 1970 Saskatchewan will be producing in potash a value equivalent to half of its total grain production, and great quantities of water are required in the development of these mines, whichever type they may be.
Then, we have contacted the provinces of Ontario and Quebec proposing a study of these northern rivers which some people say uselessly dump themselves into Hudson and James bays. I am speaking of rivers like the Harricanaw, and we intend to study the feasibility of the southern diversion of those rivers and the use of the water in maintaining the levels of the great lakes. We have been in touch with the province of Ontario, which has agreed. We have been in touch with the province of Quebec and intend to be again, so that the study of these rivers might be undertaken jointly between us.
In addition to that we have studies at the present time with the province of New Brunswick on the Saint John river, and there an interesting circumstance arises because we have the principle of downstream benefits in reverse. The United States is proposing to build a dam in their adjacent state on the Saint John river which would have the effect of transmitting some additional power to the Saint John river when it flows through Canada.
Finally, we are working with the maritime provinces on studies of the tidal power in the

Minas and Shepody basins. These are studies initiated by this government on the basis of our accepting half of the cost of them, and working toward a national water policy. I am quite certain that under the extremely vigorous direction of the new minister, whose task it is to carry these forward, with his capabilities in working with the provinces, which indeed may be greater than mine, we can look forward to a very great deal of common outlook in respect of the maintenance of supplies of water in Canada and a Canada water policy.
I have said that of all the resources of Canada, fresh water is the greatest. We have in this nation over 30 per cent of the fresh water on the face of the earth. Now, with exploding population, with declining resources of other kinds in other countries, it seems to me that if we be not hasty, if we reserve as long as we possibly can a final commitment of them, then this nation is going to experience a tremendous national capital gain in the improved value of these resources.
Finally, the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) suggested I was acting as a dog in the manger.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I did not.


Arthur Laing: I thought the hon. member did.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I said you cannot act as a dog in the manger.


Arthur Laing: Here we are: Page 343 of Hansard, I find this:
It seems to me that we cannot take a dog in the manger attitude.
There is a period after that. And then I read this:
I am as concerned as the Minister of Northern Affairs about the preservation of Canadian interests but I do not think it is possible that we can just sit here and say: No, we won't even discuss it with you, and maintain that position forever.
I want to remind the hon. member that some United States authorities, as well as the hon. member and I, as a half authority, have been talking about this water problem. Not very long ago Mr. Raymond Nace of the United States water resources division, was reported to have made a statement which was conveyed to our United States friends by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Turner) who was at that time my parliamentary secretary, when he spoke rather notably I thought in the city of Washington not very long ago. Mr. January 31, 1966

Raymond Nace said this-and this is a man from the United States water resources branch:
We in the United States are not running out of water but we are running out of ways to avoid paying the bill for adequate water works and rational management.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is what General
McNaughton says.


Arthur Laing: Well, that is very good; that is very nice. Senator Jackson, who is a senator who comes from the state of Washington, which is in the general area from which the hon. member for Kamloops and I both come, where generally speaking we have no shortage of water, also made a statement. Senator Jackson made a point of going to Antioch, California, not very long ago to tell the people of the southwestern United States what he thought of their demands that some of this northern water should be sent down to California.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Columbia water.


Arthur Laing: It was Columbia water that they had in mind.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Our water.


Arthur Laing: Well, let us not get mixed up. It was the Americans in the southwestern United States who wanted Columbia water. Let me quote Senator Jackson, who was speaking at the time at Antioch. He said:
I want to tell you why, as one who is concerned with the welfare of his state and his country, I am disturbed by the demands for hasty commitment to a massive program for transporting vast quantities of water over long distances at great expense.
If Senator Jackson is concerned about making final commitments, then I think both I and the hon. member for Kamloops ought to be concerned too. He continues:
Let me talk first about the reaction in the northwest to proposals for diverting water from the Columbia river-this being the most apparent goal of any studies or plans to import water into the Colorado.
It should come as no shock to anyone here that the immediate reaction of the northwest is considerably less than enthusiastic.


David Orlikow: That is what your attitude should have been.


Arthur Laing: He continues:
It occurs to me that some of you may have experienced similar emotions when confronted with a proposal for taking water from an area in which you reside and shipping it to another area.
The Address-Mr. Laing
Some people in the northwest have charged that the diversion proposals amount to an attempted "raid" or "steal" of northwest resources.
Then he pointed out the arguments of the southwesterners that it was, after all, only a tiny bit of water, water which could be returned to the northwest when they wanted it; and he dashed all of those arguments.
My only suggestion, Mr. Speaker, is this, that when we are dealing with our greatest resource then we, as a growing nation, should remember this: that it is the history of every nation to put its best foot forward. Our "best foot" on this continent today is the fact that we have the greatest store of natural resources in this hemisphere. I think we should remember that these resources are increasing in value all the time. In the United States we see prudent interest, vis-a-vis the states of the United States; then how much more is it in our interests as a nation to consider their importance when we are dealing with the United States of America or with any other nation?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You should have awakened sooner.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 9.45 o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 5 of standing order 38, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the main motion.
Motion (Mr. Goyer) agreed to.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That the Address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this house as are of the honourable the privy council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

George James McIlraith: That this house at the next sitting will resolve itself into a committee to consider of the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


George James McIlraith: That this house will at the next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways
486	COMMONS
Internal Economy Commission and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

George James McIlraith: That the messages of His Excellency, together with the main estimates 1965-66 and the supplementary estimates (B) and (D) 1965-66 presented to this house on Monday, January 24, 1966 be referred to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker:: May I ask leave to read and lay before the house extracts of the minutes of a meeting of the Commissioners of Internal Economy held on January 25, 1966. This is as follows:
The Commissioners decided to accept an offer made recently to extend to the House of Commons, on the same basis as applies to departments of government, the terms of the arrangements entered into last year between the Department of Transport on behalf of the Government as a whole and the Trans-Canada Telephone System, under which, in return for an over-all monthly payment apportioned among departments, special long distance telephone service is provided to all departments and agencies to all points in Canada available on the direct distance dialing system through leased circuits, without individual call charges being assessed.
The Commissioners also decided:
(a)	That this direct long distance telephone service will be available to all members of the House of Commons on a 24 hour basis for outgoing calls originating in Ottawa to points which are served by the direct distance dialing system, when such calls are made through the special operator over the leased circuits;
(b)	that, with a view to treating all members equitably, the members of the House of Commons will hereafter be reimbursed for charges in connection with their telephone calls originating in Ottawa to places in their own constituencies which are not available on the direct distance dialing system.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, if I have unanimous consent I move, seconded by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill):
That the report of the Commissioners of Internal Economy relating to telephone communications, laid before the house by Mr. Speaker this day, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

DEBATES	January 31, 1966
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)

Mr. Speaker:: Is it the desire of the house that I call it ten o'clock?


Michael Starr: Before we do so I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether he would supply us at once with a list of the departments he wishes to call and the sequence in which he wishes to call them, so that we may know how the government wishes to proceed.


George James McIlraith: Yes, I would be glad to do that. I can indicate immediately that we intend to start with the Department of External Affairs, then the Department of Trade and Commerce, then the Department of Transport. I am sorry I do not have the other departments in sequence. We shall have the list tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, this morning I raised a question on the orders of the day concerning the reported expenditure by the Royal Canadian Air Force of $20 million for the purchase of eight French jet aircraft which, according to the press, are to be used for the transport of cabinet ministers and VIP's. My point in raising this question was that if these planes are to be used mainly for this purpose the people of Canada will surely question the need for the expenditure of such a large amount of money.
The expenditure of $10 million on these planes would mean approximately 50 cents for every man, woman and child in the country. If the planes are to be bought for some other purpose in addition to the transport of cabinet ministers and VIP's I think it would be well to clarify the situation so as to present a proper picture to the people of this country. Otherwise, as I suggested, the spending of $10 million for the transport of cabinet ministers and VIP's would surely result in a
January 31, 1966	COMMONS
further diminution of the present government's position in the public esteem, something which it would almost certainly wish to avoid.
I asked the Minister of National Defence this morning to make a statement clarifying the situation. At that time Mr. Speaker ruled it was a question which might be better placed on the order paper. However, feeling the matter was more urgent and that it would be well to clarify it more quickly than can usually be done when we wait for answers to questions placed on the order paper, I decided to raise it this evening in the hope that the minister or someone speaking for him would tell us the real story about these planes and their purchase.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, no decision has yet been taken by the government on the matter raised by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather) although the question is now under active consideration. The requirement is actually a service requirement. It is not meant for cabinet ministers or VIP's. This is a requirement to replace a large number of airplanes presently in the
R.C.A.F. inventory, including about half the present fleet of Cosmopolitan aircraft, with a small number of airplanes capable of providing faster and more economical transportation.
It may be of interest to hon. members to know that the cost of operating a Falcon is just over half the cost of operating a Cosmopolitan. This proposal, if it is approved by the government, will result in substantial savings to the Canadian taxpayer.



FARM MACHINERY-INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT ACTION RESPECTING PRICES

Reynold Rapp: I welcome this opportunity to debate the issue of farm machinery prices. I know the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) is interested in this matter because he indicated when he was out in the west that farm machinery prices were away out of proportion to the price the farmer receives for his products.
It is no secret that one reason so many farmers are forced out of the farming industry is the high cost of farm machinery, and other services of which they must avail themselves. I base my argument on personal experience and on statistics from the dominion bureau of statistics tables which I hold in my hand.
DEBATES	487
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
For instance, according to the selected index numbers of prices of commodities and services used by farmers, based on 1935-39 equalling 100, farm machinery in 1949 stood at 158.3. But during the 15 years to 1964 it rose to 279.6. The composite index excluding cost of living expenses rose during the same period from 204.1 to 308.6-a tremendous rise in the cost which farmers had to pay for farm machinery.
Index numbers of wholesale prices of Canadian farm products based on 1935-39 equalling 100 are as follows: In 1949, the index for all farm products stood at 228.7. In 1964 it dropped 10 points to 218.3. For field products it stood in 1949 at 191.9, dropping 22 points to 169.4, in 1964. For animal products it stood at 265.4 in 1949 rising only 2 points to 267.2 in 1964.
Using the same basic index figure we find that in 1949 the index number for wheat, oats and barley was 255.4. In 1964-15 years later-it stood at only 258, a mere 3 point increase. It is no wonder that the machinery companies have made such a tremendous profit.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I only have the statistics for the last ten years, from 1954 to 1964. Value of farm implement and equipment sales rose from $146 million in 1954 to $366 million in 1964, a tremendous increase. What a sad story this is.
I would like to direct the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to these statistics. They tell the real story of why farmers must leave their farms and seek employment in some other industry. It is my hope that the Minister of Agriculture will study these statistics which I have been able to present to him, so that he can base his decision on these figures which tell the story of the dilemma in which farmers all across Canada find themselves at present.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, to submit these tables which were received from the d.b.s. for printing in Hansard. Could I get this permission, please?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this is not a public document and it would be a departure from practice if he were allowed to put these figures on Hansard when they are not actually part of his speech. Perhaps he will have an opportunity to do this on another occasion. I would also bring to his attention that this is a question period, or an extension of the question period, and
January 31. 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion really not the time to table any document or to suggest that tables might be included in the transcript of the debates.


Reynold Rapp: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a good idea if this were included in Hansard because the farmers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest that the hon. member find another more suitable opportunity to do this.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the hon. member's interest in this very important agricultural issue. I certainly share his concern about the increasing cost of farm machinery, a concern I have already expressed since becoming Minister of Agriculture.
I would remind the hon. member that the standing committee on agriculture and colonization spent two sessions in 1960 and 1961 examining this question of farm machinery prices without completing its work or arriving at any definite conclusions. Evidence given before the committee did indicate, however, that the price of farm machinery is certainly one of several factors affecting farm income, and contributing to the cost-price squeeze with which the farmer is faced today.
I believe it is unfortunate that the committee was unable to complete its work, and I have asked officials in my department to examine the material presented to the committee, as well as its interim reports on its studies, to see whether further action should be taken. It may be useful, for example, to consider asking the standing committee to reopen its study of farm machinery pieces, and I hope that within a few weeks I shall be in a position to reach a decision on this possibility.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY-POSSIBLE ASSUMPTION OF PASSENGER SERVICE BY GOVERNMENT

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on orders of the day this morning I addressed two questions to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) expressing the hope that at an early date the government might make a statement as to its position with respect to the Canadian Pacific Railway, in the light of certain developments that are taking place in this country.
Everyone in Canada is aware of the fact that the C.P.R. is reneging on some of its obligations. Across the west in particular

there is a hue and cry concerning the dropping of certain railway services. The dropping of the Dominion is a case in point, and there are others.
Not only is the C.P.R. cutting back on its service to the people of this country but some of us think this is in violation of the agreements entered into by that railway in the last century. Certainly it shows a lack of appreciation of the tremendous grants made to that company. In addition we feel the C.P.R. is reneging on its obligations to its employees.
References have been made a number of times this session to the lay-offs of employees that are taking place. In addition to that I should like to mention just briefly that in 1965 this parliament passed what, in my view, are two very valuable pieces of legislation, the Canada Pension Plan and the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. I draw attention to the fact that the C.P.R. is flouting the intent as well as the provisions of both of these pieces of legislation. It is denying to its employees consultation with regard to the effect of the Canada Pension Plan on their private pension rights, and it is also denying the benefits which that plan was intended to provide. Likewise, with respect to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code it is quarreling over every little detail it possibly can. This can only lead to a very serious situation on the C.P.R., and I feel that parliament cannot sit idly by while this sort of thing goes on.
I do not pretend to be a prophet or the son of a prophet, but I see certain things as almost sure to happen in this country if a firm stand is not taken. The Canadian Pacific Railway, because it wants to get out of the passenger service business on its railway lines, has taken this attitude. On the other hand, that same organization, with respect to its Canadian Pacific Airlines, is endeavouring to get more air routes and more opportunities to make money in that field of transportation.
What bothers some of us is that the government of the day seems to be condoning both of these approaches by the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is reneging as far as its obligations with regard to railway passenger service is concerned, yet is trying to get more profits from passenger service in the air.
I am concerned about the attitude of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) who, instead of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), is here to answer the question, because of his
January 31, 1966	COMMONS
announcement last July concerning the appointment of Mr. Wheatcroft, who was assigned the task of investigating air line services in this country.
When I read the terms of reference under which Mr. Wheatcroft was appointed I saw the possibility of a report coming down, with the suggestion that it might be wise to increase the competition on main lines in this country. Surely this is not the kind of reward to be given to the Canadian Pacific Railway for having welshed on its responsibility in railway services. Surely this company should not be given greater opportunities in air transportation.
It is my feeling that we should have a clear statement with respect to government intention regarding transportation, and I support the view in this country today that the time has come to take over the Canadian Pacific Railway. I hope we will not be faced with the situation at the time of take-over under which the government will merely take over its unprofitable operations, and that is a situation which could develop. This company may discontimue its passenger services. This country will of necessity need a continuation of these services. This will require a shift of responsibility in which the government will be involved, and a necessity to provide some sort of an establishment to maintain these passenger services.
When the time comes for the government to take over the Canadian Pacific operation it must take it over in its entirety. This will have to be done, not just with respect to the uneconomical or unprofitable operations, but with respect to all its operations.
There are some who will condone the taking over by the government of the unprofitable operations of the Canadian Pacific Railway, but I believe, as do my colleagues, that we should be concerned as to whether or not we have a right in this country to expect and obtain from the operations of the Canadian Pacific Railway that service which is necessary. On the other hand I am concerned that the government not condone the direction of operations which this company is inclined to adopt.
When we take over the Canadian Pacific Railway we can well afford to pay for its properties at their fair market value, less the value of the land and money grants made to this company.


Some hon. Members:: What would be left?
DEBATES	489
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Stanley Howard Knowles: We can leave that to the bookkeepers. Let us not allow the Canadian Pacific Railway to take us over. Let Canada take over the Canadian Pacific Railway and operate it as a public enterprise for the good of the whole country.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the extraordinary contradiction in the hon. gentleman's question. When he was advocating that the Dominion be continued, he said he did not want to be taken for a ride by the C.P.R. I would have thought that most of those advocating the retention of the Dominion would argue that they did want to be taken for a ride on the C.P.R.
However, Mr. Speaker, I might point out that the hon. gentleman managed to smuggle in his interesting propaganda effort on the basis of a question which I submit is totally out of order because it is completely hypothetical. Every part of it is hypothetical, and hypothetical questions, as the hon. gentleman knows, are out of order in this house and on the orders of the day. But his hypothesis is completely contrary to the position of the present government.
It is not our intention and it is not our desire to take over the C.P.R. at all. It is our intention to do our utmost to see that the C.P.R. is obliged to carry out every statutory function that it has and every statutory obligation that it has.


Mr. McIntosh:: How about service to the public?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should also recall to hon. members that, I believe in 1903, a very salutary provision was put on the statute books when the original board of railway commissioners was established, and I think it would be quite impossible to enforce these obligations if they were not enforceable in a proper kind of court, such as the Board of Transport Commissioners is, with the proper kind of appeal on questions of law to the supreme court, and with the appeal that exists under the present law to the privy council on questions of fact.
I,	and any other member of the government, would be under some limitation, I think, in making a premature reply about the particular question of the Dominion, because we must surely consider the case ourselves before pre-judging it. Well, indeed we should not pre-judge it; we should make a judgment only after hearing both sides of the case.
January 31. 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


John (Jack) McIntosh: Why didn't that apply to the Montreal-Ottawa line?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It applies to any matter on which the Board of Transport Commissioners has made an adjudication. I must say I was rather attracted by something like the suggestion made today by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). I think I should like to get a little advice about it, but it did seem to me there might be a great deal to be said, if it could be arranged without the members of the government in any way prejudging any question. I refer to the setting up of the house committee on transportation, or a joint committee of both houses and having the railways come before them and other parties who are interested, not just in this narrow question of the Dominion-though it is
important enough-but in the whole question of the future of passenger service on the railways, and letting everyone who would like to be heard, be heard on this matter, and be heard before we go on with the railway legislation that the government has in contemplation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I an not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether this would be satisfactory.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair would inform the hon. minister that his time has expired. Pursuant to the terms of provisional standing order 39A, the motion is deemed to have been adopted at this time.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.15 p.m.

Tuesday, February 1, 1966