1966-01-19

UNITED NATIONS


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table two copies in English and two copies in French of the government's statement yesterday to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization pledging contributions for the world food program.



THE MINISTRY


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I should like to table letters of resignation from certain members of the cabinet and my replies thereto; also, a list of members of the government as it now stands in order of precedence by portfolios; also, an order in council appointing Parliamentary Secretaries.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: At the time I assumed my present office there was, and had been, considerable public discussion concerning Mr. Justice Landreville. I have looked into the matter very carefully and I have come to the conclusion that it would be in the public interest to institute an inquiry under the Inquiries Act for the purpose of ascertaining all the relevant facts and circumstances.
I wish to table order in council PC 1966/128 passed under the Inquiries Act appointing Hon. Ivan C. Rand, of Moncton, New Brunswick, formerly a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, to be a commissioner under part I of that act to conduct this inquiry and make his report to the Governor in Council. I am now tabling a copy of that order.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would like permission to table copies of the agreements which have been forwarded to the provinces dealing with community development programs and the extension of provincial services. Both deal with our Indian peoples.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Diefenbaker:: I have a question for the Prime Minister.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, under standing order 26, to move the adjournment of the house to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance.
The motion is as follows:
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) the adjournment of the house to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the suspension of winter works in several municipalities in the Province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, this is a question-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will wait a moment, I must examine the subject he proposes to discuss.
Would the hon. member for Lapointe be kind enough to enlighten the Speaker as to the urgency of the matter he is raising?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I feel my motion meets every requirement of the standing orders, since it is a very definite matter, that is, the suspension of winter works which

January 19, 1966
Labour Conditions
were stopped because the amounts appropriated for carrying out the 1964-65 works by the federal and provincial governments have not yet been paid, thus restricting the credit facilities of municipalities which were unable to borrow the required amounts for the 1965-66 works. As a result, the works for the current season have been suspended.
Such is the specific purpose of my motion. The matter is important. First, because we find that the statute governing winter works has become inoperative; second, it is an important matter since it is impossible to know which government, the federal or the provincial, is responsible for the delay in payments for winter works that were carried out two years ago; third, it is also an important problem because this seems to happen only in the province of Quebec-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but he must, at this time, limit his remarks to the matter of the urgency and not to that of the importance of the issue he would like to have debated.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, here is why the problem is urgent:
First, with each passing day thousands of Canadians in many municipalities are deprived of their livelihood and are thus prevented from enjoying a minimum standard of living in Canada.
Second, in order to point out the urgency of the problem with which we are concerned today, I ask for the support of the new Minister of Manpower for the workers who are most in need, those who have lost their jobs and are waiting for winter works in order to obtain the necessities of life-


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member for Lapointe knows, we should at this time consider, not the importance of the question he raises, but the urgency of the debate.
I would ask him to refer to section 100 (3), in Beauchesne, which reads as follows:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate", when the ordinary opportunities provided iby the rules of the House do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
There is no doubt that the question raised by the hon. member for Lapointe is very important, but I should like to remind him that he will have an opportunity to discuss it during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.

In the circumstances I do not feel that it would be possible for me to accept a motion for the adjournment of the current business of the house at this time.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Prime Minister in connection with the negotiations between Canada and France relative to the alteration of the existing terms regarding uranium sales, that they ought not to be made except for peaceful purposes. Have there been changes made in this regard respecting the sale, or the hoped for sale, between Consolidated Denison Mines and France? When were the changes made, and what are the circumstances connected therewith, in view of the fact that the general desire is to prevent expansion in the field of potential nuclear warfare?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the policy on this matter of using uranium for peaceful purposes only in its application to discussions with France and other countries has been stated in the house, and there has been no change in that policy. In respect of the particular discussions to which my right hon. friend has referred-and I acknowledge the importance of those discussions-I should like to answer in greater detail tomorrow in order that I may have an opportunity of checking exactly what has developed during the last two or three months.
I do not wish that answer to indicate there has been any change in policy, but I would like to give my right hon. friend the details.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister, and suggest that when he is giving that answer he might be able to amplify the statement made by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) in September last, to the effect that changes would be made in existing regulations to permit the sale to be effected.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I must reemphasize that my answer should not be taken as indicating there have been any changes. I should be glad to discuss this matter as well with the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
January 19, 1966	COMMONS


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister with reference to a statement he made a few weeks ago in Jamaica, to the effect that the Canadian government would seriously consider an official invitation to join the Organization of American States. In view of the statement that before long Canada should become a member of the O.A.S., made a few months ago at Banff by the Prime Minister, I should like to ask him whether the government has made the decision that it will accept an invitation to membership in the
O.A.S. if such invitation is proffered.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in my discussions with the Prime Ministers of the two countries to which my friend refers this matter did come up, but in the expression of Canadian policy and attitude toward membership in the
O.A.S. I did not go beyond the statements which had previously been made except in one respect. I suggested to the two Prime Ministers that it might be useful if the three countries, Canada, Jamaica and Trinidad-Tobago, should exchange information and, if possible, try to act in concert if an invitation to join that organization were received.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can give this house the assurance that before any commitment is made by the Canadian government this matter will be referred to parliament.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do agree that in respect of a matter of such importance, before the government takes a final decision it should be discussed in the house.


Mr. G. L. Chalferton (Esquimali-Saanich):: I have a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister assure us that this matter will be referred to the external affairs committee before a final decision is made by the government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to think that the external affairs committee would also be interested in this matter and would have an opportunity of discussing it. So far as my answer is concerned, this matter falls within the responsibility of the government to the House of Commons. I have indicated that the matter should be discussed in the house before a final decision is taken.
DEBATES	15
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caoueiie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh).
In the last few years we have requested repeatedly that the French radio and television network service be extended to Western Canada, that is beyond the Rocky Mountains.
Is the Secretary of State in a position to tell us today whether these services with regard to the C.B.C., will be extended to our people in British Columbia and Alberta?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Stale):: No, Mr. Speaker, I am unable to say yes or no today.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Secretary of State. I should like to ask the hon. lady whether it is the intention of the government to establish a committee on broadcasting to permit the study of the Fowler report with particular reference to the urgent need for broadcasting legislation.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, this matter is under consideration by the government. I am sure all hon. Members will agree that broadcasting is a matter of such moment to all individuals in this country that benefit could be derived from another study by a committee of this house.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. When he made his statement on December 6 last approving the guide lines laid down by the United States government for the operation of American subsidiaries in Canada, was he aware that these guide lines would restrict the operation of these companies in Canada and thereby adversely affect the growth of the Canadian economy?
January 19, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):
Mr. Speaker, I did not approve the guide lines announced by the United States government. That was a decision they made on their own account.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister did not approve these guide lines, which affect Canada, did he disapprove of them, and did he communicate his disapproval on behalf of the Canadian government to the United States?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Nielsen:: The minister did not disapprove of them, either.


Mr. Sharp:: In the discussions that I had on behalf of Canada with the United States government, my main concern was to assure that Canadian industry, provincial governments and municipalities would continue to have access to the United States market for long term funds. That was accomplished, and I think the results have been beneficial to Canada.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is developing into a debate rather than a search for information. I therefore suggest that we give other hon. members an opportunity to ask questions.


David Réal Caouette: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon.
member for Villeneuve that he ask not a supplementary question, but an ordinary question when his turn comes again a little later.



NOVA SCOTIA-INQUIRY AS TO ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, since no reference to this subject appeared in yesterday's throne speech, may I direct this question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and ask how soon steps will be taken to implement the $25 million assistance program to the Nova Scotia coal industry, as promised by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond [Mr. Hees.)
(Mr. MacEachen) in the recent election campaign.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Muir: On a point of order, sir, could I get an answer from the Minister?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: May I say that this whole question of coal in the Maritimes will be one of my greatest concerns. A report is at present being prepared by Mr. Donald. We should receive the report soon, and I can promise to give it my full attention.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister, when he says "soon", how soon will "soon" be?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Luc Pepin: "Soon" means as soon as possible.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Would the Minister tell the house that portion of the Donald report which the government studied, and indicate whether it shows any favour toward increased aid to the Nova Scotia coal industry?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not believe it has been received yet, so I cannot say what it contains.


Malcolm MacInnis: May I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister, who indicated in late October or early November that he had received a copy of the Donald report, although it was not a complete report. Will the Prime Minister make available to interested parties, especially the U.M.W.A., that part of the Donald report which has been received and studied in October?


Lester Bowles Pearson: To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, no part of that report has yet been received.



CANADA STEAMSHIP LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport who is certainly aware of the intention of Canada Steamship Lines to discontinue its cruises on the Saguenay and on the St. Lawrence River. Considering this decision which is liable to cause a loss of millions of dollars for the tourist industry in the province of Quebec
January 19, 1966	COMMONS
and in Canada, and turn out of their jobs about 300 workers, is it the intention of the Minister of Transport to appeal to the company for carrying on its service at least till 1967, so that our districts may take advantage of the World Fair of 1967?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, several of my colleagues, in addition to the hon. member, have raised this question of the suspension of this service by Canada Steamship Lines. There is no law of which I am aware under which the company could be directed to continue this service, and I have made diligent inquiries to find out.
The only connection my department had with this matter was that we did have the duty of inspecting the ships, and the ships that were in this service were so old that it was generally considered, both by the department and by the company, that they were no longer safe.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Did the United States ask the government of Canada for troops and other military personnel to serve in the war in Viet Nam together with United States troops? If not, for what did they ask?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, no request was made for Canadian troops.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask a supplementary question. I believe certain public statements were attributed to both the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister in this connection. For what did the United States ask and what commitment was made, if any?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No commitment was given. We agreed to continue the kind of economic and financial aid we had already pledged ourselves to give.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question
DEBATES	17
Inquiries of the Ministry to the Minister of Transport. Is it the intention of the government to continue its negotiations with the United States concerning the air agreement made recently, with a view to obtaining rights for Canadian carriers to operate between Winnipeg and points in the United States?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I assume the hon. gentleman is aware that the agreement was signed on Monday and that it is somewhat difficult, therefore, to continue negotiations in respect of that agreement. The agreement does provide that in three years it may be reviewed, and it is the hope of the government that the traffic south from Winnipeg will expand rapidly enough that the case for doubletracking that route will be incontestable in a few years time.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: May I ask a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Minister of Transport when he will give a full report to the house on the recent air agreement affecting Canada and the United States and his complete failure to protect the interests of Winnipeg and western Canada in that connection.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, as soon as the rules will permit it I shall be very happy to give the fullest report of which I am capable. I will explain at that time that under this bilateral agreement we got a direct service to Minneapolis which never existed before and which will be of great benefit to the hon. gentleman's constituents.


Mr. S. J. Enns (Poriage-Neepawa):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the rather unhappy reaction to the recent air agreement with the United States government which was finally signed on Monday last, can the minister assure the house and the country that a national air policy will be developed so that future negotiations will not be at the expense of one part of the country as opposed to another?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the hon. gentleman's speech. So far as his question is concerned, in the opinion of the government the air agreement is in the national interest, notwithstanding the fact that there were bound to be disappointments on both sides of the border. We hope for the development of air traffic which will be such that there will be great expansion within three years.
January 19, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs to inform the house what part, if any, he played in approving the recent air agreement which so adversely affected Winnipeg and Manitoba; or was he even consulted by the Minister of Transport?


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman knows well that I cannot properly reply to that question.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour concerning unemployment insurance for farm labour. Will the Minister give serious consideration to this matter, action upon which is long overdue, so that farm labour eventually will be provided for under the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, suggestions put forward by the hon. member are always given careful and prompt consideration.



GILL REPORT-REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE STUDY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: May I
ask the Minister a related question. Is it his intention during the coming session to have a committee study the Gill report, which study is long overdue?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Reference was made in the Speech from the Throne to proposed legislation dealing with unemployment insurance in this country. I must say that I have not been long enough in this particular portfolio to say just what course will be followed. I certainly think that committee action will follow when the government has proposals to lay before the house.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General.

Could he give instructions to the Civil Service Commission to allow women to apply as candidates for positions of letter carriers?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the Civil Service Commission has already enacted that there should be no discrimination whatsoever concerning the application of women to Civil Service Commission competitions for letter carriers.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to Colonel the honourable and gallant Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have been requested to ask the question of the minister by war widows, parents who lost sons and daughters in the first and second world wars, by veterans, Legion members, various ethnic groups and survivors of concentration camps, trade unionists and other persons who support four parties in this house and who reside in five provinces.
Did the government give any consideration to the feelings or fears of these persons when it consented to the training of German troops in Canada, led by former nazi officers who took part in the invasion of European countries in the second world war?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In this matter, Mr. Speaker, the government took into consideration the understandable reactions and feelings of persons concerned. The government also took into consideration its obligations to a NATO partner.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if the government has received a request that the Governor in Council reverse the decision of the Board of Transport Commissioners which allowed the Canadian Pacific Railway to abandon the passenger service known as The Dominion? If so, will the government grant a hearing to reconsider this decision of the Board of Transport Commissioners?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Governor in Council has a duty
January 19, 1966

under the law to hear any appeal from the decision of the Board on matters of fact. There has been notice that there will be an appeal, and it is the intention of the government to hear any appeal or appeals that may be made as expeditiously as possible.



SHORTAGE OF BOX CARS ON C.P.R. WESTERN LINES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May
I ask the Minister of Transport a related question. Is the minister taking any steps to carry out the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture with regard to the shortage of box cars on the Canadian Pacific lines in the province of Alberta?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has arranged for a meeting with the president of the Canadian Pacific, I believe tomorrow, at which I am to be present and at which I believe the Minister of Agriculture is to be present also, to discuss this very important question.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask a question concerning the statement made by the Minister of Justice with regard to Mr. Justice Landreville. He informed us that an inquiry has been set up under the law in that regard and that there would be a report made to him. Is it not a fact that, whatever that report may be, this matter would have to come before parliament and would have to be looked into either by a committee of the House of Commons or a joint committee? It does not seem clear, as a result of looking at the three previous cases, or attempts at cases, which method should be followed. Why was the method chosen of setting up an inquiry rather than having parliament act and thus bring finality to this matter one way or the other?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, it was felt that in the case of a judge it would perhaps be far more suitable to have an inquiry under the Inquiries Act, whereby a commissioner might be able to report to the Governor in Council, rather than have the activities of a judge decided upon in parliament. Had it not been possible to follow this course under the Inquiries Act or had the

Inquiries of the Ministry investigation under the Inquiries Act been unduly delayed, then we would have considered what was contemplated at one time, namely, a motion for an address to both houses. However, it has been possible to set up an inquiry under the Inquiries Act and I feel this is the proper and fair way to conduct this inquiry. Once the commissioner has completed his inquiry he will report to the government and the government will take whatever action is necessary at that time.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the Minister if there is one precedent in Canadian history for following the course that he has now placed before the house and the country?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether there is any precedent, but I am convinced that this is a proper course to take in these circumstances.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of Justice inform the house whether Mr. Justice Rand is empowered to hear witnesses and call for documents, and will these hearings be public?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, he has all the usual powers, as the hon. member will see from the order in council.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. I do not think he intended to mislead the house on this matter but, as he knows, the Inquiries Act is silent on the question of whether inquiries must be public. They may be private. Second, the order in council is absolutely silent as to whether Mr. Justice Rand's inquiry should be public. Will the Minister assure the house that the hearings which Mr. Justice Rand will be holding will in fact be public and that his report, when completed and presented to the Governor in Council, will be tabled?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I think I can assure the hon. member that there was no intention on my part to mislead the house at this time or on any other occasion. However, so far as the question is concerned whether or not the inquiry should be made public, if the hon. member reads the second paragraph of the order in council-I understand he has a copy of it-he will see we leave the commissioner full discretion:
... to adopt such procedures and methods as he may from time to time deem expedient for the full, proper and fair conduct of the inquiry, including authority to sit at such times and at such places as he may decide from time to time.
January 19, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry
My suggestion, Mr. Speaker, is that the judge would be able to decide whether the hearings should be in camera or in public.


Erik Nielsen: As a supplementary question, the Minister has not answered the last part of my question as to whether the report, when presented to the Governor in Council, will be tabled. May I suggest to him that it is completely unsatisfactory to leave it to the discretion of the judge-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: -whether there should be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: -a public inquiry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the Minister take the house and Canadian fishermen into his confidence and tell us when his department or the government plans to name the geographical coordinates so that base lines can be drawn which will establish the 12-mile limit as set out in the legislation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, the government has already introduced this legislation, which has already been accepted by the house, to establish a 12-mile fishing zone limit based on the straight base-line system. Before these straight base lines can be determined agreement has to be reached between Canada and several other countries. These negotiations have not yet been completed but just as quickly as these difficult negotiations have been completed I will be in a position to give a more definitive answer.


Mr. Richard Cashin (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question. Would the Minister tell the house whether or not the government might entertain other suggestions regarding ways and means to cope with this situation, particularly as it affects inshore fishermen, pending the eventual outcome of the negotiations to which he made reference?
(Mr. Cardin.]


Paul Joseph James Martin: The government would be very glad to look into any suggestions which any hon. member wishes to make, and in view of the character of the negotiations the hon. gentleman will be able to determine how these representations should be put forward.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: A supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. May I ask the minister how he reconciles the statement that the drawing of straight base lines will depend upon negotiations with what he told the marine and fisheries committee in 1964?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easi):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there is any problem of reconciliation.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, there is a question I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) concerning an item in the speech from the throne.
I feel this is an important matter. I should like to ask the minister whether the government intends to amend the Family Allowances Act within the next three months and to raise the rates substantially.
LEnglish]



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Because of the serious situation with regard to the continuing rise in the cost of living and because no mention was made of this in the Speech from the Throne, can the Prime Minister say if and when he intends to alleviate the critical situation by increasing old age security payments to $100 a month?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope to deal with some of these matters tomorrow.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Perhaps in doing so I might take a
January 19, 1966	COMMONS
moment to congratulate him on his appointment to an office involving an important task. Can the Minister tell the house whether the government proposes to bring in a white paper on immigration, refer it to a committee of the house, and subsequently introduce a thoroughgoing revision of the Immigration Act, as I think was indicated or promised by his predecessor in this house at the last session?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) for his congratulations.
It is definitely the intention of the department to carry on preparatory work to bring in a white paper on immigration. However, it will be readily understood that I am not in a position to do so very quickly because of present circumstances, and this is not only due to the fact that I am the new head of this department, but also because the department is undergoing structural and administrative changes. In any case, we shall do everything we can to speed up the preparatory work of this white paper and we will try to see to it that any delay is justifiable before the house.
On the other hand, we would not want any flaw to be attributed to too much haste in the preparation of this white paper. As soon as it is ready I think it would be perfectly normal to refer it to an appropriate committee of the house.
[English!



THE CABINET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulion (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether, consequent upon the reorganization of the cabinet, the usual orders in council dealing with the transfer of duties have been passed. If so, will the Prime Minister be good enough to table them for the information of the house, and are they now in effect?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the orders in council have been passed and they have been tabled.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, there must be some misunderstanding. The Prime Minister informed us that he was tabling copies of letters offering and accepting resignations, but I do not recall anything being said with respect to the orders in council transferring
DEBATES	21
Inquiries of the Ministry the duties, and I think that is what parliament would like to know about. What are the precise duties of the new ministers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think my hon. friend is right. They were not referred to when I rose on motions and tabled certain orders and statements but they were tabled earlier under the new procedure. It is not necessary now under the new rules to table them in the way we formerly tabled them.


An hon. Member:: What new rules?


Lester Bowles Pearson: These are rules which are new only in the sense that they were passed last session.


Malcolm MacInnis: Nonsense.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the Prime Minister be good enough to have a check made of the records of the Privy Council office? I do not wish to embarrass anyone, but I am informed that they are unable to locate the orders in council downstairs, and they have not been tabled.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I certainly will, and if I was wrong in my statement I will apologize to my hon. friend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Did the government not agree during the last parliament, at the time certain functions were moved in or out of the Department of Agriculture, to publish in the Canada Gazette, Part II, orders in council passed under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act? If so, is not that course still being followed by the government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to look into that matter and reply tomorrow.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry in relation to the program to encourage industry to locate in specific areas of Canada. Is it the intention of the government to extend or enlarge these areas in the near future, particularly in regard to the inclusion of the northern areas of provinces where there is a very high degree of unemployment among the Indian people?
January 19, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, this program is turning out to be remarkably successful, and has resulted in very large investment providing a great number of jobs in areas which have been designated. There is some hope that in the not too distant future some of the areas currently designated will come off the list by reason of a reduction in chronic unemployment, and as this is done and as unemployment shows itself to reach the specified level in other areas, the areas so qualifying will be included.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid we have reached a crossroad at this moment. The question period this afternoon has now gone on for about thirty minutes-a full thirty minutes, I understand. The Chair realizes full well, of course, that if we were to be guided by the amended standing orders approved last session this would be the end of the question period. My suggestion to hon. members, though of course I am here to follow their advice and guidance, is that we should abide for the time being with the changes agreed to at the last session without prejudice to the right of members-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: -to debate this question or to submit representations on a more appropriate occasion. There is to be a formal debate this afternoon, and it may be it would be more appropriate to have such a discussion tomorrow or at some other time, depending on the wishes of hon. members.
My suggestion would be that we call orders of the day subject, as I said, to the right of hon. members to submit arguments tomorrow. If this is not agreeable, the Chair will hear arguments on the subject. I understand from discussions I have overheard that there are views both for and against the applicability of these rules in the current session. However, the suggestion of the Chair at the moment is that we call orders of the day and that we consider this matter tomorrow or at some time which may be agreed upon between the various parties.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I feel this is a form of closure. I have been up and down several times in the last half hour. Whether you have seen me or not does not matter, but I have tried to exercise my duty as a member of the house and I have as much right as any other member to ask a question under the rules as

they stand. There should be no restriction to 20 minutes, 30 minutes or 34 minutes. The fact that the question period has already lasted more than 30 minutes led me to believe that Your Honour intended to allow us to continue to ask our questions, and I am going to object to your ruling.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: I too would ask the house to consider whether discussion of the rules could not be delayed until some more appropriate time than today.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is six and a half months since parliament last met.


George James McIlraith: Naturally there seems to be a great desire today, since it is several months since the house last met-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Six and a half.


George James McIlraith: -to ask questions, and perhaps we could postpone a discussion of what the period should be until a more suitable occasion. In the meantime, without prejudice to the position at all, a few more questions might be permitted. I think this would be agreeable.
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the minister has taken the position of Solomon with such wisdom as to be convincing. I think if his suggestion were accepted we should get along very much faster. As a matter of fact it is almost seven months since the house last sat, and naturally there are many questions to be asked. I think the suggestion of the minister should receive general support, for in that way no one would be incommoded.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the understanding of the Chair that we should proceed on the basis that there is to be no limitation on the length of the question period this afternoon, or is the opposite view to be taken.


George James McIlraith: Well, my proposition was that there should be no determination as to what the length of the question period should be today but that the matter be postponed for decision. I suggested that today, in view of the fact that many members seem to have questions, we might be a little lenient in enforcing the half hour rule.


Some hon. Members:: As a right.


Robert Simpson: I have a question to ask the Minister of Industry in relation to my previous question. The minister indicated that when a certain rate of unemployment is
January 19, 1966	COMMONS
reached in these areas they would be considered for inclusion in the program. Does the hon. gentleman not realize that in these northern areas the rate of unemployment among the Indian people is extremely high, much higher than in other areas which have been included in the program to date?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am not sure whether the hon. member is in possession of the national statistics on unemployment. I can assure him that where we have statistical evidence that unemployment is high and chronic and meets the criteria, an area is designated. I shall be glad to see that the hon. member is furnished with the national statistics which form the basis of our judgment.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple
Creek): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Has the Canadian Pacific Railway approached or consulted the government in any manner with a view to the taking over of the passenger service of that company, in other words that the government take over the passenger service from the company?
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I did not hear the last part of the hon. member's question.


John (Jack) McIntosh: My question to the minister is this: Has the Canadian Pacific Railway approached the government in any manner with a request that the government take over the passenger service on its lines across Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not to my knowledge, sir.


John (Jack) McIntosh: To anyone's knowledge?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can only speak for my own knowledge.


An hon. Member:: That is not much help.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is it the intention of the government to implement any further
DEBATES	23
Inquiries of the Ministry sanctions or other punitive measures against the present government of Rhodesia?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
member knows, the government has already embarked on a series of measures to bring the illegal government in Southern Rhodesia to an end. This matter is continually under review and is now being considered in the course of consultations which are taking place with other countries.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In view of the minister's answer, may the house assume that further measures are in fact intended against the present government of Rhodesia?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member will have to take my answer as given.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. The government laid down the principle of Canadian ownership when negotations were first undertaken for the production of heavy water. What is the intention of the government now in dealing with an American-owned company and arbitrarily ignoring the principle of Canadian ownership that applied in the case of Deuterium of Canada Limited in Nova Scotia?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as the premise of the question is false perhaps I should not bother to answer the second part. However, I might point out-


Malcolm MacInnis: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I indicated in my remarks that the government had laid down the principle of Canadian ownership. That was my premise. The minister referred to this as a false premise. What he is trying to say now is that the statement I have made in respect of Canadian ownership is a lie. I would ask the minister to withdraw that statement completely.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. An hon. member can disagree with another member without there being imputations that a falsehood was uttered. I suggest to the hon. member for Cape Breton South that in the first instance perhaps his question was not entirely in order inasmuch as it contained what he might consider to be a statement of fact. In any event I suggest we give the minister an opportunity now to reply.
January 19, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Brelon Soulh):: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as you indicated my question was not proper I will put it to the minister this way. Has the government ignored the principle of Canadian ownership which was established when it first negotiated for the production of heavy water?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker.


Donald MacInnis: Then it is false, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald MacInnis: On a
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would now ask the minister to withdraw the statement that he originally made in respect of Canadian ownership as being a falsehood.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no question of privilege.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill).
Is he aware that in its advertisements for air stewardesses, Air Canada stipulates that a knowledge of French is not required, but is merely an additional asset?
Is this new policy of Air Canada and does the Minister of Transport intend to take action in this connection?
[Enalishl


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the advertisement I saw said that French was an asset, and I would not quarrel with that statement at all. Indeed, I have always found it to be a great asset, and I shall do my best to convince Air Canada that it is a steadily growing asset.


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) seems to have read the advertisement I mentioned, in which it is said that a knowledge of English is required, but that French is only an added asset, is it the intention of the Minister of Transport to see that knowledge of the two official languages be required, not only in games and witticisms, but as a matter of hard fact?

[English!


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will convey the hon. gentleman's views to the attention of the company.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the desperate nature of the situation would the minister review the decision of the government to refuse co-operation with the government of the province of Alberta in providing assistance to the hard-pressed farmers of northern Alberta?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I might point out to the hon. member that we have reviewed this question in considerable depth. I attended and had useful and cordial discussions with the officials of the province of Alberta in this regard. The situation is that the area is a P.F.A.A. area and in the past three years they have already received some $5.4 million in P.F.A.A. payments of which $2.7 million were provided by the federal treasury. As a result they do not come into the same category as the other provinces which had received no federal aid in the past and to which we therefore were able to contribute on a 50-50 basis with the provinces.
If we stepped into this area we would not only jeopardize the whole premises of P.F.A.A. which has served the western provinces so well but I think we would also be preferring Alberta over other provinces in granting them money on a further 50-50 basis of contributions on top of our P.F.A.A. payments. However, I am deeply concerned about these people and I share the concern of the hon. member for his constituents who I know are very hard-pressed in this regard. We will certainly continue to review the matter and, if it can be equitably done, as soon as the province has met the contributions we have made to date so that they are on a 50-50 basis we could consider further contributions on the same basis as those granted to other provinces.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I preface my supplementary question by extending my best wishes to the minister and congratulating him upon his escape and safe return after a mad dash across western Canada. In making this review would he read with some care
January IS, 1966

and, I hope, profit from the eloquent words which the hon. Member for Renfrew South (Mr. Green) used in this house when reviewing the drought situation in the Ottawa valley, and the public comments made by the defeated Liberal candidate in Peace River, quoted in the daily Herald-Tribune of January 13, 1966, when he said:
My understanding in this respect was that Ottawa would match dollar for dollar any assistance plans, aside from P.F.A.A., as they did in Alberta in 1959 and Ontario and Quebec in 1964 and 1965.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly be pleased to consider these two authorities.


Gerald William Baldwin: I quoted them with scepticism.


John James Greene: I am not so sure about the hon. member's latter authority, but his first is beyond doubt the very highest.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if it is not true that the contribution which the federal government has made to the farmers of northern Alberta is paid out of the P.F.A.A. fund, which is made up of the contributions of the farmers themselves from the one per cent levy on grain sold and therefore is not a grant from the federal government in the same sense as the other grants to which he referred?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, this is correct, but while 50 per cent of the $5.4 million in payments that have been made came from the farmers' contributions, $2.7 million came from the federal treasury. Therefore the farmers in this area have already benefited from federal contributions, whereas in the provinces where drought assistance was given there had been no previous federal contribution.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As a
supplementary question, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture how he reconciles this present action with the repeated statements made by the federal government that it would participate in any assistance program of this kind so long as the provincial governments made a request?



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the Prime Minister whether the government will be prepared at this session of parliament to recommend to
Inquiries of the Ministry the house and to the other place that a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be established to study the activities of the National Capital Commission and, in particular, what additional may be done on an emergent basis to prepare the national capital for the centennial of Confederation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will take the hon. gentleman's question under consideration, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he can indicate to the House the status of what I understand was a departmental study on juvenile delinquency. If that study has been completed, when will the report be published?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, the study has been completed. The report is now being published and it will be available shortly.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Since this is the appropriate time of the year and I know the Minister is expecting the question, I should like to ask that loveable minister from the east coast whether there has been any change in icebreaking policy in respect of the St. Lawrence? If there has been no change in that policy, why is the government assisting Russian and other foreign ships in the St. Lawrence in the way it is now doing?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government with respect to icebreaking is the same as it was when the hon. gentleman's friends were over on this side. We are endeavouring to keep the ice broken in the St. Lawrence so there will not be flooding in the city and harbour of Montreal. We have been reasonably but, I am sorry to say, not totally successful. We will make every endeavour to see that there is no jeopardy to the safety of the port or city of Montreal or any other settlement along the St. Lawrence.
January 19, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Bell (Saini John-Alberl): Will the min- cent sales tax on building materials for ister obtain a detailed report in respect of the Y.M.C.A. buildings, churches and other civic particular situation and make a report to the structures financed by donations? house to alleviate the fears which exist in
Halifax and Saint John?	NATIONAL PARKS


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the minister will do everything he can to alleviate any justifiable fears.



EXPO '67 CONSIDERATION OF FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT BY SPECIAL COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is it the minister's intention to refer all aspects of Expo '67 in which the federal government is involved to a special committee of the house?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have only had a brief opportunity to look into the federal government's jurisdiction over Expo '67. It will be a wonderful asset. I find it to be a creditable performance and a great tribute to what Canada can do. I am sure it will reflect the best of Canada in the eyes of the world, and I am proud to be associated with it. To the extent that I have observed the situation I can say this will be a very creditable operation, and I will take under consideration the matter of whether in my opinion it should be referred to a committee of the house.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington Souih):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister or the government contemplated or given consideration to the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, which has proved to be very burdensome and inflationary?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, although I have only been Minister of Finance for a very short period of time I have already learned that it is dangerous to disclose budget secrets.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I have a supplementary question. While the minister is reflecting and giving consideration to this suggestion, will he seriously consider removing the 11 per
[Mr. Pickersgill.1



BANFF AND JASPER-CONSIDERATION OF GRIEVANCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, who I understand has taken over the responsibilities in respect of national parks, for which the people in Jasper and Banff gave a sigh of relief. Is the minister now ready to set up a board of inquiry, as promised by the Prime Minister in Calgary during the election campaign, to hear the grievances of the people in these two townsites in our national parks?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure the people of Canada will be pleased to learn that there has been no change in respect of our parks.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: If there has been no change perhaps I should direct my question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National resources. Is that hon. gentleman ready to set up a committee of inquiry to study the whole question of the government's approach to leasing and its treatment of the people in Jasper and Banff, as the Prime Minister promised during the election campaign?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, we have had a continuing series of discussions with the people living in our national parks and have arrived at certain understandings. I cannot accept for one minute the statement made by the hon. gentleman in his question that there is great consternation in those areas.


Mr. Lambert:: Come off it.


Arthur Laing: I am stating the facts, and I am in touch with the people living in those parts.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. I am sure the hon. lady
January 19, 1966

will provide us with many exciting moments when the house begins to dabble in culture this session. Will the minister pass along to the senior officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the suggestion that it provide a course of humour more advanced than smart alec reports of writers such as occurred last night on television?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I should like to welcome the hon. member back to this chamber. Knowing of his wide interests in the field of broadcasting, as we all do, I am very happy to say that I shall pass along his remarks. I cannot indicate how they will be received but I shall be happy to pass them along.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct [DOT]a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister give an assurance that Air Canada's overhaul and maintenance operation will be retained in Winnipeg without further transfers or reductions in personnel in accordance with commitments made by the Prime Minister one or two years ago?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I will give the assurance that assurances given previously by the government will be kept.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the Minister of Industry. Can the minister indicate to the house and to the nation what the requirements for heavy water are now and will be within the next few years? Has the government commenced any negotiations with Deuterium of Canada Limited, the Nova Scotia company?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as this requires a detailed answer I suggest that the hon. member's question might be more properly answered if it was placed on the order paper. The hon. member might also like to address this question to the minister of energy whose responsibility this now is.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. The Minister of Industry has indicated that this is the responsibility of another minister. As I understand the situation, the appropriate legislation has not been passed which would transfer this jurisdiction. As far as I am concerned my question should be directed to the Minister of Industry, who must accept responsibility in this field.


Robert Carman Coates: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister indicate to the house what the heavy water situation is as it relates to the province of Nova Scotia and Deuterium of Canada, particularly in view of the fact that the Premier of Nova Scotia made the statement yesterday that neither the government of Canada nor Atomic Energy had contacted himself, his government or Deuterium of Canada in respect of any further orders that this plant in Glace Bay may receive?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I agree that there should be a full statement on this matter, and one will be made within a few days.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice. Is the Minister of Justice continuing the surveillance of Mr. Spencer, who was recently dismissed by the Post Office Department? If that surveillance is being continued, under what law is this extraordinary conduct being carried on?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, surveillance is being carried on in this particular case to the extent that circumstances warrant such surveillance. It is unusual to advise that surveillance is being carried on, but in this particular case I think it is in the interests of the public to know that this man is under surveillance.


Mr. Speaker:: May I bring to the attention of hon. members that questions have now been asked for about an hour. Therefore perhaps I should be allowed to see the clock at this time and call orders of the day.
28	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Goyer [DOT] (3:50 p.m.)



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of the speech delivered by His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the session.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to congratulate you on your election and to express the hope that the qualities you have shown in the past will remain with you in the discharge of your new duties. I have not had the chance to get to know you very well yet, but you certainly have every reason to be proud of the reputation you have made for yourself among the members of this house. To prove it, I have only to recall the support you received yesterday.
I had been told that discussions in this house often were long and hard. Perhaps I may be allowed to question such an assertion, in view of the fact that, since yesterday, all motions have been accepted with an amazing degree of unanimity and dispatch. But now I feel a bit reassured, if I may put it that way. The question period indicated that, from now on, that unanimity might not be quite so strong.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) for the honour he has extended to the constituents of Dollard in asking me to move the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I should also like to join with my electors in congratulating the Prime Minister for having once again led the Liberal party to victory.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, in the last few years, federal-provincial relations, and more particularly, the relations with the province of Quebec have given rise to many problems. Those problems have revived the question of the relations that should exist between French speaking and English speaking Canadians within confederation.
Some people are anchored in extreme positions which greatly threaten to aggravate the situation beyond hope. I loathe those extremists, whether they be French speaking or

DEBATES	January 19, 1966
English speaking Canadians, whether they act openly or prefer to resort to passive resistance, which is just as blameworthy. But that is not enough.
There is in our country a majority of citizens who sincerely hope for the advent of a general consensus and such a majority should normally be represented within the Canadian parliament.
With this majority in mind, the government should without delay take positive action to implement what to this day seemed only desirable. This positive action need not wait for the report of the Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, nor for the passing of a generation to become operative. Even if new findings require adjustments, the federal government should stay ahead of public opinion and this implies concrete measures.
Already the government has reset in motion-and this time full ahead-the mechanics of federal-provincial conferences. It was high time the federal government realized that the requirements of the war effort could no longer be justified after 20 years.
Hence, the necessity of developing areas of jurisdiction against an obsolete status quo. This proves the necessity of studying together the problems arising from joint jurisdictions. Dialogue has now started; it may be painful but it is sustained. What better proof that negotiation is not abdication, in spite of what some people maintain.
While on that point, Mr. Speaker, let us not any longer believe or encourage the belief that Quebec's claims are always inspired by tenets of isolationism and realize, for a change, that other provinces too are asserting their rights.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the provinces are endeavouring to take over management of those fields of jurisdiction which are rightfully theirs and which, the federal government has taken over by setting out its own policies, for lack of appropriate provincial policies and due to the war effort which had drained revenues into the federal coffers.
It is true that the provinces are often better equipped to meet some of the needs of the people. Why then should there be vain struggles, when, in the final analysis, the citizens are the only ones to suffer from the ensuing delays.
For the common good, it is preferable to hand over to the provinces those spheres of
January 19, 1966

jurisdiction, which, at any rate, are theirs under the constitution.
Moreover, French Canada makes sure of having safety-catches, especially in the field of their language and culture, and that is normal.
But, in doing so, they are not advocating isolationism. On the contrary, this action, in my view, reflects the will to have vested rights respected and to claim the means by which those rights can blossom out to benefit national unity.
On the other hand, in matters of joint jurisdiction each government should agree to co-operate closely and constantly.
Let us take the case of the St. Lawrence river, for instance. It has, of course, lost nothing of its majesty over the years but, to-day, its waters are polluted and this spoils any pleasure which the riverside population, particularly the people of Montreal, could enjoy. The province and the municipal governments can certainly help lessen water pollution in the St. Lawrence by providing a sewage disposal plant. But what will the result be if the federal government does not shoulder its responsibilities? It falls to the government to ensure observance of the required sanitary measures all along this river which starts at the Great Lakes.
That is practically a new field of endeavour which calls for concerted action by all levels of government.
What about the Ottawa River, one side of which is polluted by factories while the other is kept clean for summer vacationers?
Many examples could be given to prove beyond doubt the interdependence of the different governments.
Finally, there are matters which fall exclusively under the federal jurisdiction and about which there could not be any agreements with one or more provinces without jeopardizing the national unity and throwing the general interest of the country out of balance.
This does not rule out consultation, always possible and often useful, between governments, but such consultation could not lead to specific agreements without the entire approval of the federal government.
What I deplore is the fact that the federal government has often lacked originality, not above all, in the preparation of new policies, -quite to the contrary-but in the modernization of its existing policies and in the expression of the positions it adopts. We seem to be lulled by red tape and to be delighted by past experiences, in contrast to the dynamic and adaptable nature of a modern government.
The Address-Mr. Goyer
For instance, transportation in general comes within the federal jurisdiction. How come there is hardly more than a start on the co-ordination of the various means of transportation in Canada? While it is not proof in itself, this example could be multiplied and lead to the conclusion that there is, in areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction, room for improvement of current laws and corresponding services and for the elaboration of a new act, and all this for many parliaments to come.
[English1
I should like to refer now to a field which is exclusively federal. The Speech from the Throne contains an announcement concerning a bill to give our country a national anthem, "O Canada". I hope that this debate, relating to a very distinctive sign of our national entity, will be pursued in a constructive manner. Personally, as a French Canadian I have no objection to the preservation of certain ties with the Crown, ties that can be depicted by external signs. I have no objection even if the only reason for this were the recognition of the historical role British institutions played with regard to the survival of the French fact in Canada.
I will add a more fundamental reason. This action would be an appeal to the feeling of mutual understanding which should inspire all of us if we wish to live together as partners. If a number of Canadians deem it necessary to retain certain external signs of attachment to the Crown, we should be ready to accept them. It is my fervent hope that we may show deference to the Crown while accentuating more and more our national identity.

Mr. Speaker, although I have discussed at length the problem of provincial-federal relations and of strictly federal jurisdiction, I would not like to leave hon. members under the impression that this is the only high priority question in Canada. It seems to me equally urgent to adjust our economy to changing conditions and to new techniques, to maintain our continuing growth, to quickly balance the rate of economic development in the various areas of Canada and to restore human dignity to those who wallow in poverty; our responsibility to share in a peace offensive throughout the world and to raise the living standards of the hungry.
Upon reading the second annual report of the Economic Council of Canada, I noticed in

January 19, 1966
The Address-Mr. Goyer particular a recommendation for increased research work in Canada and I quote:
To reach a satisfactory rate of increase in productivity and to improve our competitive position in the world.
At the present time we spend almost $350 million on research in Canada, a quarter of which is allocated to the Department of National Defence. In view of the full amount of the budget, the share granted to the Department of National Defence seems rather surprising to me.
I note that the Speech from the Throne mentions that matter and I quote:
Legislation to encourage research and development, which will enlarge and improve upon the present taxation incentive.
Industries which will take advantage of this tax exemption will direct their research in very precise fields-at least I would think so. That leads me to the following question: Would it not be that we have tried to develop our research and our industries in all fields at the same time, instead of specializing in some of them. Should the applied research done outside of our industries not be specialized in order to develop and improve our finished products.
That, to my mind, would be one way to help our industry, to give additional support to the Development Corporation of Canada, without for all that putting a stop to the inflow of foreign capital. Today research is no longer carried out on a blackboard. Research projects require a lot of personnel and equipment worth millions of dollars which soon becomes obsolete. If we do not concentrate our investments to give our researchers adequate equipment and salaries, we will be running the risk of falling behind the times and of seeing a greater outflow of our scientists toward places with better prospects.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I have been struck by a finding of the Economic Council of Canada concerning the disparity of the average income per capita and by province, in Canada. In 1963, Ontario headed the list with an average income of $2,025, followed by the Western Provinces. Quebec took sixth place with $1,521, followed by the Atlantic provinces, Newfoundland coming last with only $1,009. In other words, there was a gap of 100 per cent between Ontario and Newfoundland.
Considering this discrepancy according to each area, the Atlantic provinces show a discrepancy of 86 per cent as compared to Ontario. This discrepancy has existed with practically no change since 1926.

This is the situation which can be readily described as tragic and unacceptable. This is a challenge which we have to accept. And this must be possible.
In the United States, the difference in income per capita by area shows only a discrepancy of 55 per cent between the Far East and the Southeast; this discrepancy was more than two times greater in 1929. Hence a significant improvement. It must be noted that this gain was recorded mainly in the immediate post-war period.
To correct this situation we should authorize large investments. The wealthy provinces should agree to help those with low incomes. This is the price of our unity; it is a rule of social justice.
Is it possible not to make brief mention of the announcement by the government concerning the creation of the Department of Manpower under the direction of the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Marchand). A few days ago we were informed of the development of the allowances programs for the training of unemployed workers or handicapped persons, a generous plan to complete the program of unemployment insurance which lacked this element, indispensable to human dignity.
I am happy to note that the speech from the throne deals at length with world peace and assistance to underdeveloped countries. To raise the standard of living of needy people is surely the worthiest and noblest contribution to the maintenance of world peace. It is essential in this era of interdependence. And it is at the same time and above all to achieve a humane purpose. Are these not sufficient reasons to prompt us to an even greater contribution?
Mr. Speaker, it is on this most peaceful note that I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury):
That the following address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To His Excellency General the Right Honourable Georges P. Vanier, Companion of the Distinguished Service Order, upon whom has been conferred the Military Cross and the Canadian Forces' Decoration, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.
May it please Your Excellency:
We, Her Majesty's most loyal and dutiful subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. Roberi Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, it is for me a moving and
January 19, 1966	COMMONS
memorable experience to have been so warmly greeted by my colleagues on both sides of the house and to share with my colleague from Dollard (Mr. Goyer) the rare honour of speaking for the first time at the very beginning of this twenty seventh parliament.
As he did, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you and the other officials of the house, the new ministers, the new parliamentary secretaries and all the new members with whom it is my pleasure to sit in this house.

Mr. Speaker, it was with a feeling compounded of admiration and envy that I listened to my colleague, the mover of the Address, speak so fluently and eloquently in both official languages of our country. His facility with my native tongue makes me all the more determined to master his. With the help and patience of my French speaking colleagues I hope I may be able to do greater justice to their beautiful language, which is my second language, before many sessions of this parliament have passed into history.
On entering this house, as I did yesterday,
I could not help but be inspired by the noble example of His Excellency the Governor General, that ideal embodiment of all that is fine and good and unique in the Canadian people. I am confident that I speak for all members when I say that his distinguished presence in the office of Governor General enriches this nation and our pride in it.
We have real cause for pride, too, in the person of our Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), to whom I offer the warmest congratulations on his well earned return to his accustomed place in this house. His high statesmanship, his courage in tackling tough problems and his genius for finding solutions, his integrity nonpareil-these qualities have served and now serve Canada and the world well at an hour when no less would have been enough. I pray that they will serve us still for many years to come.
A newly elected member of parliament, I suppose-and even his family-aspires to some degree of sophistication and aplomb in keeping with the dignity of his office. However, I assure you, Sir, that there is precious little left of one's aplomb when the Prime Minister calls one's home between the meat loaf and the ice cream. I must say it does wonders by way of quieting the clatter of children, and my wife has asked me to request that the Prime Minister call every night at dinner time, particularly while their father is away at Ottawa.
DEBATES	31
The Address-Mr. Stanbury
I thank the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues most sincerely on behalf of my constituents as well as myself for the honour they have done us in asking me to second the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. It is an appropriate tribute to York-Scarborough, Canada's most populous constituency and in many ways a Canada in miniature, although not very miniature at that. It is, most importantly, the birthplace of our Prime Minister. It has drawn its people from all parts of Canada and the world. The site of many Indian villages in past centuries, first explored by Etienne Brule, settled by families of both French and British stock and now enriched by every race, York-Scarborough is a thick slice of Canada, a very thick slice indeed.
Today it is mainly suburban but embraces city and farm, industry and commerce large and small, people of great wealth and little means. It comprises roughly the northeast quadrant of metropolitan Toronto, including large parts of the township of North York and the town of Leaside as well as most of the township of Scarborough. Beyond to the north it takes in parts of the township and the village of Markham. It was represented in the last house by Maurice J. Moreau, who made an outstanding contribution to the work of parliament. I feel honoured to succeed him.
The present riding was created in 1953, a product of the last redistribution, and an uncommonly healthy child it has been. I will be careful to avoid saying, as one of my predecessors in another party incautiously said in this house, that York-Scarborough is inadequately represented here. Such a statement is open to dangerous misinterpretation. Perhaps I should say that quantitatively the parliamentary representation of the people of York-Scarborough is wildly inequitable.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
It is impossible to avoid comparisons when speaking of York-Scarborough. I know my colleagues will understand that when I draw comparisons it is with no intent to minimize the importance of other ridings and regions but only to do some small measure of justice to my own. It would be difficult for me to exaggerate, because York-Scarborough is a living exaggeration of the flaws in our existing electoral machinery. I am grateful that it will not outlive this parliament.
Meanwhile, it is gargantuan and growing at a pace probably unexcelled in North America. There are those who, with good cause if no constitutional basis, refer to my
January 19, 1966

The Address-Mr. Stanbury constituency as the province of York-Scarborough. On its last voters list-and I trust it will be its last-there were almost 191,000 electors. With a population of well over 300,000 it is truly a province among ridings. For its representative it is rather sobering to realize that York-Scarborough has twice as many residents as live in one province and the territories combined, and about as many people as are represented in this house by a dozen members together.
Mine is not the only part of Canada which has had to endure, still endures, and must endure until the end of this parliament, increasingly acute under-representation. It is just the most hideous example. I understand we are to receive imminently the report of the Representation Commissioner. I sincerely hope it is farsighted enough to ensure that areas of rapid growth such as York-Scar-borough have fair representation between the next election and the next redistribution. At least we know, as a result of the Government's action in the last parliament, that redistribution hereafter will follow quickly on the heels of each decennial census. So there is never likely to be another riding like the York-Scarborough of today. But meanwhile York-Scarborough and the inequity of its representation will continue to grow by leaps and bounds, a grotesque distortion of the democratic process.
In the circumstances, it would not surprise me to hear rumblings of an unquiet revolution in the province of York-Scarborough- that the concession roads of Markham are blocked by tractors, that the acting treasurer of North York has been dispatching notes to foreign powers, that the lovely lady Mayor of Leaside craves a bank of her own, and that the Scarborough township solicitor has sharp words prepared for the next Federal-Provincial conference.
I trust these things will not come to pass. But if they did it would not be the first time the people of my constituency have risen up in defence of their right to representative and responsible government. The history of the area rings with the clamour of William Lyon Mackenzie's rebels marching into muddy York to beard the Family Compact. York-Scarborough shares with adjoining ridings of today the Liberal heritage of Mackenzie, Mulock and King. From Thornhill and Markham at the north to Lake Ontario's majestic bluffs, from historic Yonge Street on the west to Pickering township on the east, York-Scarborough is rich in its past, its present and, most of all, its future.


As much as any other part of this nation, perhaps, York-Scarborough represents the shape of Canada's future. It is a laboratory of the break-neck urbanization which is so changing the face of our nation that by the end of this century almost half of all Canadians will probably live in nine large cities and 90 per cent of our people will be urban dwellers. Today the complex forces of explosive population growth and urbanization can be seen at work in our metropolitan areas. Tomorrow these local growing pains may be a national malady if they are not studied and mastered on a national scale. Might it not soon be time for a department of urban affairs to define national objectives for urban development, redevelopment and housing, to expand research and establish policies and programs for all Canada which will mould the best physical, fiscal and human qualities into our evolving communities? I feel that a concentrated federal effort may be needed to ensure for future generations a meaningful environment in the urban Canada or tomorrow.
The quality of life for our children and our children's children must surely be the prime concern of government. I believe the people of York-Scarborough are concerned with this above all and in that way as in many others they are typical of Canadians everywhere. Of all York-Scarborough's wealth the greatest is its children. No part of Canada, I am sure, is more generously endowed with this most precious natural resource. Ours is a riding, generally speaking, of young families much like my own, with several small children and at least one large mortgage. To us in York-Scarborough, therefore, education is of paramount interest. I am convinced that it must now be a paramount concern of the nation, and I am delighted that the Throne Speech indicates that the Government so regards it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Although education in
Canada is primarily a provincial responsibility, it has become clearer and clearer in recent years that both the provincial and the national interests demand active federal participation in this field. I am happy that great strides have been made and are being made to bring the federal and provincial governments into close partnership for the advancement of educational opportunity for all Canadians. No federal Government has interested itself so sincerely or committed itself so deeply to the task of meeting the nation's educational needs as has the present one. Provincial governments, by and large, seem
January 19, 19G6

to be recognizing the need for partnership and welcoming federal participation in the assault on the country's educational problems. Any other attitude would, I suggest, be criminally self-centred in the Canada of today whose very future as a nation is hitched to the education star.
I feel strongly that there should be a coordinated and concentrated national effort, fully recognizing the priority of the provinces but focusing the nation's attention and resources on education as the most basic and vital of factors in our national growth and well-being. I believe an office of education in a federal department would serve this purpose, co-ordinating the many existing federal education functions, and working closely with the provinces in establishing national goals and standards. Many new programs of national value could be undertaken jointly under the stimulus of such an office. The government has recognized, and we must face the fact, that Canada is still an underdeveloped country in the field of human resources. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that Canada has suffered too long from the lack of sharp national focus on education. Without it we may suffer tragically as a nation in the crucial years immediately ahead.
Ahead, just over the horizon, lies the dawn of Canada's second century. It is a century which will belong to the youth of today, the young people of Canada who, I believe, must be better prepared and motivated to mould it, move it and improve it than has been any previous generation. I believe they are. Perhaps my view of the recent election was distorted by my personal involvement. However, I was impressed with the avid interest of young people as I had never been aware of it before.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
It may be partly a product of parental example, because in York-Scarborough there has always been a high degree of interest in public affairs. Generally, about 80 per cent of the electorate there vote in federal elections. But I think more likely it is indicative of a general interest and concern among young Canadians. I am glad they will have the opportunity for service in the Company of Young Canadians which I believe they will eagerly welcome. I hope many more of them, aged 18 and over, will have the opportunity to vote in the next federal election.
If youth's interest in politics is growing, so is its concern, and rightly so. I believe there is cause for concern that our politics have not kept pace with the times, that retention or
The Address-Mr. Stanbury attainment of office is no longer an adequate goal of a political party, that Parliament has too much to do to be embroiled constantly in fractious partisan infighting, that if we practice stagecoach politics in the space age we will ourselves be regarded as tragic anachronisms.
I am encouraged by the evident general acceptance of the need for further reforming the procedures of this House to make it a more productive instrument of the public will and the public good. But the real and meaningful reform must surely be in our attitudes and actions. If they are constructive we will restore and justify Canadians' confidence in the ancient and hallowed institution of parliament. If they are not we could irrevocably damage it. We all want to guard jealously our rights and privileges, to speak and be heard, to support and oppose, but I hope we will keep firmly in mind the duty and the responsibility which accompany those rights and privileges.
Young people, and all Canadians, have a right to expect that this will be a parliament which will get things done. We have much to do. I am glad we will be asked to press ahead with an ever wider-ranging attack on poverty in this nation of plenty, to adopt a distinctively Canadian national anthem, to commit massive funds to increase educational opportunity and stimulate research, to advance toward a national medicare plan in co-operation with the provinces, to shoulder our fair share of international responsibilities, to establish a Canada Development Corporation to give Canadians fresh means and new incentive to invest in our own future.
All the things which need doing cannot be done in this session. But if I may offer my personal capsule speech from the backbench, I hope we can soon accomplish reform of our archaic divorce and birth control laws; that we can abolish capital punishment; that we can take giant steps toward full justice for our first citizens, our Indians and Eskimos; that we can continue to work toward the freest possible access to the best possible education at all levels for all Canadians.
Our nation's problems are not small nor few. But neither are its resources. No country in the world is more fortunate in its geography, its gifts of nature, its friends and its people. What we see today as Canada's central problems are also its unique advantages: a rich continent to be shared and a diverse, distinctive culture to be cherished. These are challenges to be faced and met, not calamities
January 19, 1966

The Address-Mr. Stanbury to bemoan. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister I know we will rise to these challenges and nourish our unique Canadian identity while strengthening our national unity.
The program which has been placed before us in the Speech from the Throne is a challenging and creative one, one which looks over the horizon and beyond to create new and broader opportunities for all Canadians. It is a program of new horizons, a worthy blueprint for the first session of a centennial parliament which will carry our country out
of its first century and into a new one glowing with promise. It will be our duty, our challenge, our mission, to build from this blueprint a better Canada in a better world.
So, Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in seconding the motion of my hon. friend, the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer), and commending it to your consideration.
On motion of Mr. Diefenbaker the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mcllraith the house adjourned at 4.40 p.m.

Thursday, January 20, 19G6