1966-01-26

RAINMAKING EQUIPMENT


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-109, to govern, license and regulate the operation of rainmaking equipment in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, following the advent of rainmaking equipment and its commercial use, which may infringe on the rights of others, it appears that licensing and control regulations must be adopted to protect the public and make possible the payment of compensation where damage is deemed to result from such use.
I would beg the indulgence of the house and ask hon. members to give consideration to the second reading of this bill later this day in order to allay the fears of farmers who have been plagued with this problem for some time in many parts of northern Ontario.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE AND PAROLE ACT


Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-110, to amend the Criminal Code (abolition of *capital punishment) and the Parole Act (persons convicted of murder or treason).


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: This is a matter of substantial concern to the public and to this house, and I ask leave of the house to introduce this bill today.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I would direct a question to
the Minister of Veterans Affairs and ask him whether any representations were made by the Royal Canadian Legion for increases in veterans disability pensions and dependants' allowances; and whether in view of the reasonable circumstances in which the request was made the government has decided that this overdue action should be taken, and will be taken, at this session of parliament.


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Representations have been received from the Royal Canadian Legion to this effect. A committee composed of officials and representatives is at work at the present time discussing basic rates of pension. As soon as the report of this committee has been completed I hope to be able to make recommendations to the government. It is not possible for me to indicate now what type of representation it will be.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister tell us what he meant by a committee of civil servants and representatives? Who are the representatives who are meeting together with the civil servants in this regard?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I would hesitate to name them. However, I will gladly get their names for the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and let him have the information.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koolenay Wesi):: Did
the Royal Canadian Legion make recommendations for amendments to other legislation?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: There were recommendations. I do not have the report here, Mr. Speaker, but the main burden of the representations had to do with the pension rates. Of course, as hon. members know, there is also a committee at work under Mr. Justice Woods studying the procedures and organization of the Canadian Pension Commission.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to direct a supplementary question to the minister. Is it the intention of the government to close down the veterans hospital in Quebec and, if so, when will this take place?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
January 26, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY



AUTOMOTIVE PARTS-LOSS OF CONTRACTS BY CANADIAN STAMPING COMPANIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Yes, Mr. Speaker.']
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry regarding the matter I raised yesterday of the metal stamping companies that, according to press reports, are in danger of losing millions of dollars of business. I want to ask him whether he has received any representations from Mr. George Burt, the Canadian director of the United Auto Workers, asking for a tripartite meeting of representatives of the government, the trade unions and management to discuss this whole matter. I also ask the minister, would he be prepared to convene such a meeting in order to alleviate the fears of those in the parts plants who are naturally concerned about their loss of job security?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I have not been in my office since eleven o'clock this morning, and up until that time no such telegram or representations had been received. Yesterday and again today I have been engaged in discussing the particular question, to which the hon. gentleman has made reference, with those concerned in the auto industry. I would also point out that yesterday, in replying to a question which the hon. member asked, I did not intend to give him an assurance that there would be no loss of business to any of the stampers. I merely wished to give an assurance that the government would take energetic action to ensure that any changes which would be carried out would involve a minimum of hardship.
So far as any representation from Mr. Burt is concerned, I shall be glad to give it serious consideration.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question may I ask the minister whether he has received such representations on a number of previous occasions, asking for a tripartite meeting of the three groups I have mentioned, in order to discuss the whole question of making the adjustments under the United States-Canada auto trade agreement as satisfactory as possible. I also wish to ask the minister, is he now prepared to convene such a meeting to deal with the particular problem that is before us?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, we have had tripartite meetings in the past and I am not
(Mr. Speaker.]
sure these have been as productive as rather more informal discussions have been. If, however, it appears that a useful purpose would be served, I would be glad to endeavour to convene such a meeting.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouelte (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of the fact that the United States have announced that they will resume bombings in North Viet Nam, would the minister tell the house whether the government is making representations to the United States for them to respect the 1954 Geneva agreements, since Canada is one of the three countries responsible for the supervision of the truce? Is Canada making constant representations to have the Geneva agreements respected?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of a report which quotes a senior official of the trucking association as having said the other day in Saskatoon that a railway strike was a mortal certainty unless the cabinet intervened, and in view of the effect such a strike would have on the national economy, could the minister inform the house of the progress of negotiations between the railways and the nonoperating unions?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think that would be a more appropriate question for my colleague the Minister of Labour than for me.


Robert Norman Thompson: May I have an answer, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek.
January 26, 1966	COMMONS



CANADA LABOUR CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Labour. In his reply to a question as to what action had been taken regarding requests for deferment under the Canada Labour (Standards) Act, the minister stated that eight applications for deferment of wages had been rejected. Was the Canadian Pacific Railway request for deferment under the act included among the eight rejected? If not, when can we expect him to make his decision on this application by the C.P.R. for exemption under this act?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall offhand and will have to take the question as notice. I will be glad to answer it.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask whether a request was received from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for deferment under any part of the act. If so, what action has been taken?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I should suggest to the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek and the hon. member for York South that this is the type of question that could easily be placed on the order paper.


Robert Norman Thompson: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has suggested that this is the type of question that might well be put on the order paper. Unless the question in the mind of the hon. member for Red Deer is entirely different and has no relation to the two questions asked previously, it should be placed on the order paper.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carlefon):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether, as reported from Paris this morning by the C.B.C., he will be undertaking discussions or negotiations with the government of France in respect of the sale of uranium when he visits Paris on or about February 8.
DEBATES	277
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Roberi Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to visit Paris next month for reasons of trade generally, and other matters.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: Would you enlarge on "other matters"?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker just to avoid any possible misunderstanding, included in the other matters is a speech I intend to make at that time. I also intend to see the appropriate government authorities at the same time for the purpose of keeping the channels open and to maintain contact.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on January 19 I asked the Prime Minister a question in connection with negotiations between Canada and France, and whether there was any substance to the suggestion in the press respecting the views of the Minister of Trade and Commerce last September to the effect that difficulties in the way of sales of uranium to France would no doubt be solved.
Would the Prime Minister now say whether there is any intention on the part of the government of Canada to alter the terms so as to permit sales of uranium to be made for other than peaceful purposes? Does the Prime Minister think that a person so recently and so closely connected with the uranium industry should be the individual to deal with problems, the solution of which could prove so beneficial to the industry?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce of this government will deal appropriately with all matters that come within his field of jurisdiction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I apologize to my right hon. friend for not having dealt with the question he asked the other day regarding uranium export policy. It will be recalled that last June I announced in this house what that policy was. The safeguards aspect of this policy, which I outlined at that time, are in keeping with that support which successive Canadian governments have given to the international safeguard system to ensure that nuclear materials will be used only for peaceful purposes, in so far as that can possibly be done. There have been no developments in recent months relating to the possible sale of uranium to France. Canadian policy on safeguards remains unchanged.
January 26, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry
I should perhaps say that as a result of discussions which the previous minister of trade and commerce held with French ministers last May, I am confident that there is a good reciprocal understanding of our respective positions in this regard.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the Republic of
France agreed in any way to permit inspection to ensure that peaceful purposes shall be maintained in regard to the uranium that is sold, and that it shall not be used for other purposes?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, last May I stated the position in that regard, and there has been no change in that position. There is a difference between the two governments in respect of these matters. That difference has been narrowed as a result of discussions, and I hope that as a result of further discussions it will be removed.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: May I put a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?
Has the government approached the French government in order to complete this uranium sale under the terms already laid down by the Canadian government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I completely understood my hon. friend's question, but I can assure him that sales will be made within the international commitments which we have accepted.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might direct a question to the Solicitor General. To make my question understandable I shall have to preface it by some explanation. A couple of years ago a delegation from the Seafarers International Union converged upon Ottawa. Following from that a number of them were charged under the Criminal Code with contravening a particular section of the Canada Shipping Act and charges were laid against them; charges, incidentally, which are being pushed by the federal government.
My question to the Solicitor General, based on that explanation, is this. Will the Solicitor General and the government look seriously into this matter to see whether there is an element of persecution rather than prosecution involved, and take steps to withdraw the charges?
[Mr. Pearson.)


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the matter of prosecutions falls within the ministerial responsibility of the Minister of Justice. Perhaps my hon. colleague would prefer to deal with that question.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the government of Ontario in the Speech from the Throne yesterday spelled out the specific steps which that government is going to take to protect investors on the Toronto Stock Exchange, specifically full disclosure of the operations of companies trading on the stock exchange and control of inside trading and take-over bids, will the minister advise the house whether, having now considered this matter for a week, he is in a position to recommend to his colleagues the introduction of legislation requiring all companies in Canada trading on any stock exchange to similarly protect the public?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the hon. gentleman-and I am sure he has not forgotten-we are calling a meeting of the provincial ministers and the federal government to discuss how best we can jointly accomplish the ends that he has in mind.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question put to me yesterday by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. The question was about grain movement to the Pacific coast. I am making an announcement today that the grain terminal companies at the Pacific coast, the railway companies and the Canadian Wheat Board have agreed to form a Pacific grain transportation committee. The committee's objective will be to co-ordinate grain movement to the Pacific ports with a view to ensuring maximum possible grain exports through these ports.
January 26, 1966	COMMONS
The committee met yesterday in Vancouver for the first time, and have agreed to conduct their meetings under the chairmanship of Mr. William Riddel who recently retired as assistant chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board. We are indeed fortunate that a man of Mr. Riddel's long experience in the grain industry and in grain movement is available to devote his full time and on the spot efforts to the co-ordination of this grain movement. I am pleased to report that at the first meeting of the committee there was a general feeling of confidence-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mitchell William Sharp: -that there would be a marked improvement-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: They don't want to hear it.


Mr. R. W. Priitie (Burnaby-Richmond):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to ask the minister whether the union grain handlers in Vancouver are represented on that committee, or did they ask for representation at any time?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have not had a full report, Mr. Speaker, but I shall be glad to answer the question later.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: May I ask
a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance. Will this committee be able to ascertain where the bottleneck is so that we can decide, out of all the conflicting statements that have been made, who is responsible for the slow movement of this grain?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think the terms of reference of this committee will enable us to answer this question and promote the movement of grain. May I, in answer to the specific question, point out one or two figures that I know will interest the house?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is simply a means of making a statement that will not be subject to any following statement. If the hon. gentleman wants to revert to motions, I am sure he will be given the opportunity. However, the making of an exculpatory statement at length like this is not in keeping with the rules.



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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of
DEBATES	279
Inquiries of the Ministry Transport and ask him whether he has received a telegram from the farmers' unions at Lomond, Alberta; Arrowwood, Queenstown, Milo, Badger Lake-


Some hon. Members:: All aboard.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: -as well as from the Lions Clubs at Lomond and Milo, and a further telegram from the mayor of Milo? All these telegrams bring to the attention of the minister the dreadful situation farmers are facing with the shortage of box cars to move their grain to market. My question is this. Has the minister communicated with the Canadian Pacific, and has he any information for these people who are waiting patiently for action from his department?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very glad to learn that there are a lot of stations that have not been closed as yet. I shall bring the hon. gentleman's speech to the attention of the railway authorities.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: I have a question for the minister of northern affairs, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister please inform the house when the government intends to reinstate Mr. William Grant? And will he please inform the house what compensation or reward Mr. Grant can expect to receive for his outstanding contribution to the welfare of our native Canadian citizens?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member place that very interesting question on the order paper?



AIR POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr, Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: My question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and the urgency of the question relates particularly to our large metropolitan areas. My question is the following. Since a recent United States government order has made it mandatory that by 1968 all cars be equipped with anti-pollution and anti-smog devices, can the minister assure the house that by 1968 all cars produced in or imported into Canada will be similarly equipped?
280	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I suggest this question should be placed on the order paper.
I realize the importance of the matter, but I am sure the hon. member will agree with me that this question can wait a few days for a reply.


Mr. Graffiey:: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Industry?


Mr. Speaker:: Not at this time.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him if he has had any recent exchange of views with Premier Lesage which indicated that Mr. Lesage will soon be publicly rejecting the constitutional amending formula, to which there was a complete absence of any reference in the Throne Speech?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If there is any exchange which I have recently had with Mr. Lesage which can be made public, that will be done.



CROP INSURANCE

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO APPLICABILITY TO QUEBEC On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Does the minister intend to recommend amendments, during the present session, to extend the application of the Crop Insurance Act to the province of Quebec?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Any legislation will be announced in the proper manner, but I was pleased to see that, according to the Speech from the Throne, Quebec intends to introduce enabling legislation.



BANKRUPTCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: My
question is for the Minister of Justice. I wanted to ask him if, in the light of the statement by responsible persons that fraudulent bankruptcies in Canada are twentieth [Mr. Grafftey.l
DEBATES	January 26, 1966
century highway robbery on a grand scale, and the fact that the liabilities of bankrupt estates are likely to exceed $500 million this year, the minister can assure the house that legislation to amend the Bankruptcy Act, mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, will be brought before this house at an early date.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: think the government is well aware of the importance of the bankruptcy legislation. The drafting of amendments to the Bankruptcy Act is practically completed, and it is hoped that those amendments will have parliamentary consideration as soon as possible.


Mr. Brewin:: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the proposed legislation be referred to the appropriate committee of the house for study, so that expert witnesses on this important matter can be called before the committee?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I will take that into consideration.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Did he or his department have the visit today of a delegation from the Confederation of National Trade Unions to protest against a recent decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board? Is it the minister's intention to introduce legislation to redefine the negotiation unit?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of this question. I might say that neither my department nor I myself have received any delegation today. However, I am hoping to have the pleasure of a visit from the president and other officials of the organization later this afternoon. They are coming at my invitation, however; they did not seek the appointment.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I should like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and
January 26, 1966	COMMONS
National Resources whether his attention has been directed to a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada reported today, which has the effect of indicating a considerable limitation on the rights of Indians to hunt and fish on their reserves, and whether it is the intention of the government to introduce legislation at this session to make clear that the rights of the Indians to hunt and fish on their reserves are unfettered and remain in accord with the import of their treaties.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker,
I have noted the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Calvin George case. I hesitate to answer the hon. gentleman today, other than to say that this, of course, would be one of those considerations that might normally come within the purview of the Indian Claims Commission.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Arthur Laing: I would think there would be a relationship between the two. I hope there is no interpretation by anyone that the decision of the Supreme Court would imply that the Indian treaties have no validity. Therefore I would prefer to take the substance of the hon. gentleman's question as notice and reply later.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister give the house the assurance, for which I think we should ask in the light of his answer so far, that the government does not take the position that the Migratory Birds Convention Act should continue to abridge the rights of Indians, so as to leave them only a matter for the claims commission, but rather that the government will look into the question of restoring those rights which it appears the court has held have been limited by that act?


Arthur Laing: I thought this was the point I had attempted to make.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will the minister, in the light of this decision which has such serious effects on the Indian people, consider referring either the Indian Claims Commission legislation or other related legislation to a committee, that is referring the subject matter to a committee of the house before the legislation is redrafted, so the government will have the benefit of the views of the members before the legislation is prepared?


Arthur Laing: I thank the hon. member for his suggestion, which is interesting and is probably valuable. However, in order that I may
DEBATES	281
Inquiries of the Ministry be sure that it is valuable as well as interesting, I should like to take it as notice too.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is it correct, as reported in this morning's press, that the Union of South Africa is intending to export oil to Rhodesia?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the reports precisely stated that the government of South Africa was going to take the step that my hon. friend has mentioned.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question. Could the minister tell us, then, exactly what information he has in this regard, and what is actually going to take place?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the government of South Africa stated that they would not stand in the way of such exports.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A further supplementary question. Is the Canadian government now giving consideration to placing a ban on the export of oil to South Africa?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will have to give consideration to that question. I am open to correction, but I do not think we export any oil to South Africa at all.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Industry. What steps does the Minister propose to take in view of the statement in today's Globe and Mail by Mr. Todgham, president of Chrysler of Canada, that he seriously doubts that car prices in Canada will ever be on a par with those of the United States? I ask this question especially in view of the fact that the minister and the government have persistently stated that the prices of Canadian cars will come down in line with United States prices.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I should like to correct what is

January 26, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry perhaps a misunderstanding. The government has never taken the position that car prices in Canada and in the United States will be the same.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The object of the automotive agreement is to produce, as closely as one can, parity of manufacturing costs in the two countries. The program is not designed to eliminate, nor can it affect, the difference in cost of transportation in the two countries, the different modus operandi of retailers in the two countries, or the different provincial and state tax structures of the two countries. It is these additional elements which, imposed upon a narrowing differential in the cost of manufacture in each of the two countries, perhaps makes it difficult to achieve an eventual retail price parity.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question. Did the minister not make an announcement during the election campaign to the effect that the price of Canadian cars had been reduced?


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



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister say whether the Canadian National Railways has the right, as has been the case in Winnipeg this week, to impose an arbitrary and local embargo on the shipping of perishable produce from Winnipeg to other western Canadian communities merely because of extremely cold temperatures?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before answering this question I should like to congratulate the hon. gentleman on representing a constituency in which I once had the pleasure of living. May I say to him that I would not venture to give a legal opinion such as he has sought, but I am grateful to him for giving me notice of the question, and I have already drawn it to the attention of the Board of Transport Commissioners.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Goyer

for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, those who listened to the Throne Speech and those who subsequently read it were more than ever convinced that it was a long litany; that it was a recital of many parts of previous Speeches from the Throne; that it created a situation whereby a tremendous amount of work was given to the Parliament of Canada for this session, this being one of the negative consequences of the rather foolhardy decision of the government last September to call an election. A great deal of time has been lost. For many months the whole rhythm of parliament has been upset, at a time when there are problems facing the country which did not warrant an interruption. If we face difficulties in 1966 and 1967 because of action which has not been taken, then the blame for this must be visited directly upon the shoulders of the government and those who wanted this election.
How silly this foolhardy chase for a majority sounded out in my part of Canada; and certainly the people of Canada replied to the government in a way which showed how silly were the government in going to the country at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May we have order in the chamber, please. It is difficult for the Chair to follow the speech being made by the hon. member who has the floor.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the Speech from the Throne there are references to changes in departmental administration. One is almost reminded of the old tag that you require a program to identify the players. In this case I think we almost have to go not only to the program but to something else in order to identify the game as well as the players. For example, the ministry will have to sort themselves out. It was only the other day, as a result of persistent questioning, that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) admitted that he was still in charge of parks, much to the consternation, may I say, of the people of Jasper and Banff who thought, as a result of certain press reports to the effect that the administration of parks was going to another department, that they might have some more enlightened policy in connection with park leases.
When the minister the other day answered a question from the hon. member for Bow
January 26, 1966

River (Mr. Woolliams), I believe it was, in connection with parks administration and difficulties with the leaseholders, he said that everything was going along swimmingly, or words to the same effect. I would suggest that the minister go right back to the west, because he has indicated so far that he is out of touch with the situation. Somebody has obviously created a wall of complete insulation around the minister concerning the situation which exists there; however, we will have more to say about this during the estimates.


An hon. Member:: How do you know that?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bow River, the hon. member for -Jasper-Edson (Mr. Horner) and myself do have a close affinity with the parks out there. Perhaps people who do have a close relationship with something would get to know about it and would want to say something about it, rather than making long distance observations and reaching conclusions which, frankly, do not meet the situation.
Mention is also made of ARDA in the Speech. There is a promise to make amendments to the act. But when the resolution appears on the order paper, what do we find? We find that in part it is going to change the name of the act. I suppose that this administration and the ministers who have been concerned with it find that the concept of ARDA is becoming too popular; that it brings to mind a previous administration which had the intelligence and imagination to introduce this program. Now we must be reduced to some form of imitative subterfuge and change the name of the ARDA program to something like RDA.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
We also see a reference to the Canadian Development Corporation. This provoked a great deal of astonishment in the minds of certain financial writers and commentators who thought that finally, as a result of inaction, the concept of such a corporation had been abandoned. Having regard to the views of the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), when he was Minister of Trade and Commerce, one would have thought that the concept of a Canadian Development Corporation was not particularly attractive to him. Certainly the statements made prior to and during the election campaign by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) make it difficult to imagine that this administration can bring forward a Canadian Development Corporation, or be serious about bringing it forward at an early date.
The Address-Mr. Lambert
One might almost be tempted to ask the Minister of Finance whether he intends to use the Canadian Development Corporation to counteract the alleged desire for a takeover of the Montreal business community by a certain provincial minister who had in mind the use of a provincial corporation of a similar kind. I am just wondering whether this C.D.C. will be one more tool in the federal armament at the federal-provincial level to resist the somewhat intemperate advances of Mr. Rene Levesque.
There was a great deal said by the Prime Minister about the Canada Assistance Plan. I do not want to rehash any part of the debate which took place prior to last night's vote, but having heard the present Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) speak when she was Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Prime Minister, and a legion of Liberal candidates out in western Canada, I must say that they apparently took for bible truth the contents of a little publication called, I think, "Thirty two Reasons Why" claiming, among other things, that one of the achievements of the Liberal administration was the Canada Assistance Plan. This was going to solve the problems of all those people who werfe over pensionable age and who could not manage on $75 a month.
Maybe this was believed by some Liberal candidates, but the immediate reaction of Premier Roblin of Manitoba was: What is there new in this? Such a plan has been in operation in Manitoba for the past five years. In the province of Alberta-and I am speaking subject to correction-we have had a program for the last four years called the social allowance plan, under which additional payments are made to deserving persons-to the blind, the disabled, the necessitous-according to need. I am informed by my hon. friend from Perth (Mr. Monteith) that throughout Canada there now exists provision for a good deal of the assistance provided for by the Canada Assistance Plan. In effect, the federal government is bound to share on a fifty-fifty basis the cost of any assistance given by provincial administrations in excess of the statutory limits.
What do we find here in the Canada Assistance Plan-this bold, new departure? Pretty well the same thing, though there are some minor modifications. Instead of pensions to the blind, pensions to the disabled and so on, we are to have Canada assistance allowances or something of that kind. This is
January 28. 1966

The Address-Mr. Lambert another example of the Madison avenue approach with which members opposite tried to bamboozle the people of Canada during the last election campaign. But the public, to its credit, saw through it; it did not work.
While I am on this subject, the field of dominion-provincial relations, let me say I have two questions on the order paper the answers to which will be most interesting. They deal with what is known as Bill C-146-the famous opting out bill. This was to be the breakthrough in dominion-provincial relations. It will be interesting to see, Mr. Speaker, what the answers are. It will be interesting to know how many provincial administrations had entered into supplementary agreements with respect to how many joint programs under this legislation by October 31, 1965.
Never once during the election campaign was mention made of this subject. I am informed that there is only one province which may have taken advantage of this legislation. I say "may have done so"; we do not know, and we do not know to what extent. Certainly none of the provinces outside Quebec have done so, according to information given to me by a number of provincial cabinet ministers. I well remember the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) saying that the government had laboured mightily like a mountain and brought forth a mouse. I do not know that there is even a mouse. It may have been entirely stillborn.
The Speech from the Throne was singularly silent on the subject of veterans affairs. I have only a passing comment to make in this regard. This afternoon the minister mentioned the Woods committee which is studying the workings of the Canadian Pension Commission. We are now near the end of January. I recall some brave words by the minister when last September he announced the formation of the Woods committee and said it would be reporting within three months. I should like to know when this committee will, in fact, be reporting. Of course, it was wrong to suggest that such a committee would report within three months. There is far too much to be done. Yet the country was given this lighthearted assurance by the minister that the work could be completed within that time.
Another question I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet) is this: What about departmental re-organization? We hear rumblings of sweeping changes

in the department. What are they to be? It is true that as time goes on re-organization can be carried out. But there is one thing which no hon. member of this house would wish to see, and that is a re-organization of the department which would result in a decline in the service available to veterans, whether in the field of pensions, in the field of welfare or in the administration of the Veterans Land Act. There is far more involved in the Department of Veterans Affairs than mere efficiency.
I had a few months of experience following my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) in the administration of this department. We certainly came face to face with the concept that a good deal of our veterans legislation cannot be interpreted merely on the basis of the letter of the law. A great deal more understanding is required-a great deal more judicious interpetation in this particular field.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Lan-glois) asked about the hospitals under the administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is some time since we had a report on the progress that is being made in regard to the administration of those hospitals, and we will want to hear about that during discussion of the estimates.
What about the inadequacy of the 10 per cent increase in pension rates, as of November 1964, referred to by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) this afternoon? That again must be attended to by the government. We know that within the last three years there has been almost a 10 per cent increase in the cost of living which, in effect, has wiped out the 10 per cent increase that was granted to pensionable veterans in 1964.
Among the departments the creation of which is being forecast, we have one for manpower. It will be interesting to understand the thinking of the government in organizing this department, in stripping the Department of Labour of many of its functions, in taking immigration into the area of manpower, and saying how the department will plan on dealing with problems of labour mobility and the availability of labour in Canada.
On another occasion I shall want to go into some of the principles that are being used by officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in dealing with self-sponsored
January 26, 1966	COMMONS
immigration, for example, when we are looking for the operators of textile machines. We are told that they must speak either English or French, and must have the equivalent of grade 10 education in Canada. These are the criteria that are being used against the applications of self-sponsored immigrants in certain fields of industry.
Hon. members will readily realize that nowhere in Canada do we have such restrictions for our native born people. Do these restrictions concerning grade 10 education apply to potential workers from the textile areas of Great Britain? Not a bit of it. Do they apply to textile operators coming from Germany? Not a bit of it. This is designed to get at certain people who would come from Italy and Hong Kong, people who are just as fully skilled.
Throughout Canada there is any number of textile plants where the labour forces are made up of people whose ethnic origins are as legion as the colours in Joseph's coat, where there can be 20 different languages used by the members of one work force, and yet they get along. There are no difficulties. These people can be trained just as well as anybody else; in fact in this regard they are better workers than a good many of our own Canadian workers. We will want to find out what is being done in this regard, and also in regard to the highly publicized campaign for getting skilled workers from western European countries. I am sure the former Minister of Immigration, who is now Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson), was literally as popular as the proverbial skunk in a henhouse when he went to those countries, which themselves are extremely short of skilled labour, and said, "We are coming here to take your skilled workers away from you."
There are many areas in Canada that are terribly short of skilled workers. We cannot supply them from our own sources, so we shall have to get them from other countries.
I say we must get the raw material for skilled workers. I venture to say we shall have to inaugurate a program of taking unskilled workers from some European countries, bringing them here and training them in our ways and skills. We shall need to do that if we are to fulfil the requirements for skilled labour.
I shall also want to discuss with the minister some of the problems concerning the transportation of workers within Canada. I have before me a report signed by Miss Ida H. Burns, dealing with a southern Ontario
DEBATES	285
The Address-Mr. Lambert labour problem, the importation of workers from labour surplus areas to handle the tomato and vegetable crops. It is a very interesting report and certainly reflects no credit on our administration in the handling of surplus labour.
I realize that the time at my disposal is limited, Mr. Speaker, but I want to give you notice that it is my intention to propose an amendment. It may be necessary for me to have extended time for that reason, but I trust I shall not use up all the time allotted to me. In any event I now move, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler), that the motion be amended as follows:
That the following be added to the Address: But we respectfully regret that your Excellency's advisers have omitted to provide for the immediate removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on certain building materials and certain machinery and apparatus to be used in manufacture or production.
Another point I wish to mention was referred to this afternoon by my colleague from Northumberland. I am glad the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) has indicated that some sort of conference is going to be held by federal and provincial authorities to deal with the tightening up of security transfers and security loans.
Across Canada during the past year we have had some regrettable incidents concerning fraudulent practices by corporations and individuals acting on their behalf, and I am sure more are going to be disclosed. This has been in the field of securities, and not only does it give a black eye to Canada in the foreign investment market but also causes a great deal of loss and hardship to Canadian investors. As a matter of fact I think in some ways that Canadian investors, who are traditionally accused of shying away from the equity market, are simply scared to go into it because of the practices that have been carried out and that have been permitted to take place.
The minister did not say when this conference will be held but I would hope to see it convened at the earliest possible date. The tightening up of our security regulations would be welcomed by people in the investment field, most certainly by those who have to deal with equity stocks and securities on a day to day basis.
I join my colleague from Northumberland (Mr. Hees) in commending the administration of the province of Ontario for bringing forward certain changes in this field. We have
January 26, 196&

The Address-Mr. Lambert not yet seen the detail of these changes, but I am looking forward to a great improvement. [DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The existence of tight money today is a subject that was certainly not referred to in the Speech from the Throne.


Miss LaMarsh:: Is that like austerity?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. Secretary of State was not here in 1957 so she would not be aware of the implications of tight money in that year.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: What about the days of 1961?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I can assure the hon. lady that the effects it had on the country are precisely the same as those of today.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I remember the days of 1961.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am not trying to be a prophet of gloom in this regard, but I am warning that unless adequate steps are taken and people are made aware of what is happening, we are in for some rough bumps in relation to the maintenance of industrial activity in this country during the next several months.
There has been a very definite tightening up in the money supply. Some of that tightening up has been caused by the Atlantic Acceptance Corporation bubble, together with the British Mortgage and Trust debacle. That was the time of both the Atlantic Acceptance Corporation bubble, as I like to call it, and the failure of the then Minister of Finance to indicate that near banks were going to be taken in under the supervision of the Bank Act. Something must be done in this sector or we are going to see a repetition of that Atlantic Acceptance debacle.
This whole thing was like a large rock being dropped in a pool: It had ripples which travelled all around. I am just wondering whether this is what the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) was referring to at his nomination meeting on September 30, and on a subsequent occasion by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), when they said that the reason they had to have a majority government was that a certain number of restrictions and unpopular measures would have to be brought forward. Was tight money one of the things the Minister of Industry and the Minister of National Defence referred to?
We know for instance, that the interest on prime commercial paper is now at 4f per cent, or higher than it was in April when it

was below 4 per cent. We know that the rate for 90 day treasury bills has gone beyond 4.15 per cent, which is its highest level since 1962. We know that the rate for loans to investment dealers has climbed to almost just under 4 per cent and that in order to ration credit and curb loan demand the chartered banks are raising interest rates. I have a copy of a letter which indicates that this is being done.
Money supply, which had increased 12 per cent over the past 12 months, is now being reduced. There was some danger in that regard, but it is now being reduced. We know there is some difficulty regarding interest rates. We are not free to handle our interest rates because we have an accord with the United States, entered into by the former Minister of Finance, which will not allow our interest rates to go beyond a certain point above the United States rates, because we might cause that country certain foreign balance of payment problems as money comes from the United States to Canada.
We have undertaken to limit our foreign exchange reserves to a certain level. Are we now in Canada caught up in a problem regarding the foreign payments of another country and unable to deal with a situation which exists in Canada?
Let me speak about inflation, which is another thing that was completely disregarded in the Throne Speech. It was completely silent about how the government intends to deal with this problem of inflation, and certainly it is a pressing problem. I have before me a weekly bulletin of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics dated January 14, 1966 which states:
Canada's consumer price index reached 140.8 at the beginning of December, up by 0.4 per cent from the November index of 140.2 and 2.9 per cent higher than the December 1964 index of 136.8.
In other words, it is almost 3 per cent over last year, and we know that in 1964 it was almost 3 per cent higher than in 1963.
We see that the consumer price index in December of 1965 was 140.8, while in December of 1964 it was 136.8. The wholesale price index is just as important, if not more important than the consumer price index. The general wholesale index is as follows: On the basis of the 1935-39 index at 100 per cent, it rose to 253.8 in November, up 0.7 per cent from the October index of 252.0, and 3.6 per cent above the November, 1964 index. This gives an indication of creeping inflation
January 26, 1966
If one refers to the cost of buildings he will see that this is going up. In this regard I can tell you that the tenders coming into the Builders Exchange in Edmonton, and I am sure this is a reflection of what is happening all across the country, were coming in at 16 per cent to 25 per cent higher last October and November than in the year previous. I refer to tenders on long term contracts for 1966-67.
In reference to built-in wage increases, the full impact of wage negotiations involve a 3.6 per cent levy on earnings, up $5,000 by Canada Pension Plan, increases in commodity prices and building materials. We are still feeling some of the effects of the 11 per cent increase in sales tax on building materials and production machinery. In this regard why should we not expect a retrenchment in major capital investment in the building of new factories, offices, highways and all kinds of other enterprises?
The newspapers in the cities of this country are full of reports that various municipal authorities, school board authorities and hospital authorities are receiving bids and estimates far in excess of what they expected. They can have but two alternatives, not build or increase taxes. They must seek more money if they are to go ahead with their plans. Surely this is an indication of inflation.
Can we counter these effects of domestic inflation by our commercial trade as it stands? The answer is no, because if we look at the D.B.S. report of January 7, 1966, we will see that our commodity exports have been declining relative to our imports. Canada's domestic commodity exports were valued at $701 million in September of this year. This reflected a decrease of 3.2 per cent from the September 1964 total of $724 million. This placed the value in the January-September period at $6,058 million, which represents a slight rise of .9 per cent from the comparable year earlier. This decline in the value of commodity exports was due primarily to a drop in volume as that index fell to 206.4 from 216.1 a year earlier.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
If we look at returns for January 14, we will see the picture of commodity imports. Canada's commodity imports in August of 1965 were valued at $660,635,000, an increase of 16.7 per cent from the August, 1964, total of $566,165,000. This placed the value in the January-August period at $5,464,353,000, higher by 11.4 per cent than the corresponding 1964 total of $4,905,710,000. Mr. Speaker,
The Address-Mr. Lambert this is an indication of some of the problems we are facing. There is inflation, not only creeping but steadily advancing to inflation in this country.
Our productivity is down; our costs are up. We are exporting relatively less, and importing more. This is nothing but a foolhardy policy, and the people of Canada look to the government to deal in part with this problem. I will not say that the government is entirely responsible for this situation, but it must share the responsibility. After all, the government claimed the credit when the movement was reversed, so now it must accept part of the blame.
I want to commend to hon. members the steps outlined by my colleague the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees) showing what was done by the previous administration to stimulate international trade a few years ago. Those steps can be repeated; a number of them must be repeated. We in Canada cannot sit back and expect people to come and buy our goods. We have to get out and sell; we have to be keen, hard-nosed, in so far as our selling practices are concerned. People must be prepared to go out, get turned down and go back again-and they must have sharp pencils.
All of us, whether in government, management or labour, must remember that today price competition is really keen. You can talk all you want about the activities of economic councils, productivity councils, planning and incentives, but if you do not sell the goods that you produce, you have engaged in an exercise of national futility. Those goods must be sold. This is something that, unfortunately, far too many Canadians have forgotten.
I am going to advocate in closing, Mr. Speaker, one step to deal with inflation. I do not like price controls; they engender more problems than they cure. I am going to suggest something that it is within the power of the government to do. It is something they did which in part has caused prices to go up.
I refer to the 11 per cent sales tax on certain building materials and production machinery.
I was glad to see that one of the new members, the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner), who comes from a community that is vitally affected by industry, yesterday advocated the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on production machinery.
Ever since this government came into office they have been told on very many occasions that this tax should be removed, and I am

January 26, 1966

The Address-Mr. Greene sure that in their heart of hearts they would like to do away with it. We give them the opportunity. This is the burden of my amendment. This is the first step that the government can take, namely remove this tax. I am sure if this were done it would remove at least one area of pressure in the inflationary trend in this country.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, first of all might I congratulate you upon the elevation to your new post. I know, as other speakers have said, that I speak for the entire house in assuring you of the confidence that this house has in your ability to carry out the duties of this new post with the high standards to which the house has become accustomed.


Richard Albert Bell: Eastern Ontario standards.


John James Greene: Second, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne for the great distinction and lustre they have added to the proceedings of this house by their contributions. I would also congratulate the many other speakers who have taken part in this debate, and in particular those who were making their maiden speeches. From the calibre of the speeches we have heard, I can only say these new members indicate that they are going to come up to the very high standards of the class of '63 which came into this house.
It was not my original intention to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker. As hon. members know from having heard the Speech from the Throne, the government has an extensive agricultural program to submit to parliament during this session. Having been given this job, I need not say that my leisure hours have been filled up till now. However, I do think that inasmuch as many members have referred in their speeches to agricultural matters, it is the duty of a minister, in so far as time will permit, to answer to the best of his abilities the problems which have been raised by hon. members and the criticisms which have been voiced, and so to the greatest possible extent give full scope to the house to perform its functions in the processes of government as we know them.
At the outset, Mr. Speaker-and I do not like to start on a discordant note-I would say that I was somewhat taken aback by the amendment which has just been moved, in that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who is so very familiar with

the rules of this house, has mistaken, it seems to me, the Throne Speech for the budget. I would suggest to the hon. member that if matters which properly belong in the budget had been raised in the Throne Speech, he along with other learned members across the floor would certainly have been the first to raise the very strongest voice in protest. Yet this amendment certainly lends itself to the budget rather than to the Throne Speech, and I ask the house to take cognizance of this rather grave transgression.


Erik Nielsen: So does the pension increase.


John James Greene: At the outset, in referring to some of the remarks that have been made by hon. members in regard to agricultural matters, might I say that it was somewhat reassuring to find that so many members felt that policies which have been announced in the Throne Speech and which have been declared as government policies with respect to agriculture-such policies as the setting-up of a national dairy commission, and crop insurance-have met with the general approbation of members on all sides of the house. In fact, they have won wide approval even within the provincial aspect of our body politic. I was most pleased to see that both the provinces of Ontario and Quebec indicated in their throne speeches that measures would be brought before their respective houses to bring in legislation respecting crop insurance as initiated through the actions of this government.
I was also most pleased to see that a milk marketing board has been created in the province of Ontario and is to be created in the province of Quebec, to give effect to the general principles of the national dairy commission.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
This week I was most pleased to see a press report from Brandon, Manitoba, indicating that the premier of that great province, who some day may enter this place, was reported as having adopted one of the foundation principles of this government's agriculture policy. I refer to a statement made in this house nearly a year ago, that it was the intention of this government to so direct agriculture policy that the family farm may be able to produce a living akin to that of the average industrial worker, or a net income of some $4,200 per year. It is reassuring to find the premier of the province of Manitoba espousing this principle at this time.
January 26, 1966	COMMONS
Now, Mr. Speaker, in attempting to answer some of the views, criticisms and suggestions that were made by members on all sides of this house, I find that I cannot cover the entire gamut of all the speeches. I shall try, to the best of my ability, to cover what appeared to be some of the salient points raised by hon. members.
First, I should like to refer to the address of the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Horner), who spoke with that restraint for which he is known in this house. The hon. member referred to departmental emasculation, troikas and such other controversial agricultural topics. At my stage of development in this game, I am afraid I am not qualified to reply to these more sophisticated approaches to agriculture. However, I do wish to respond to one point which the hon. member made concerning the question of emergency assistance in the Peace River area. This problem has been mentioned by several other members, including the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) whose presentation of that question was able and forcible.
I may say that other members on both sides of the house, including the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), have drawn this very serious question to my attention.
I should like for a moment to deal with this question. I do not pretend, in the short time I have held this office, that I have become as expert on the question of P.F.A.A. as some members opposite. However, I should like to review momentarily the question of P.F.A.A. and the constitution of P.F.A.A., and to point out to this house the difficulties involved in rendering emergency assistance over and above P.F.A.A. to any P.F.A.A. area.
I point out, first of all, that this act, the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, was first introduced in 1939 and has played a very substantial and important part in the agricultural problems of the prairie provinces. At that time, in 1939, the prairies had just come through nine years of drought and fairly general crop failure. As a result of the reduced income of the prairie farm population, the provinces faced a constitutional responsibility to provide relief assistance to thousands of farm families. I feel this is the essential point we must bear in mind, that this responsibility for relief lay, constitutionally, with the provinces. There was, and is, no authority in the federal government except as envisaged by a program of wide application such as P.F.A.A.
DEBATES	289
The Address-Mr. Greene
Obviously, in this post-1939 era, the provinces could not afford to set up any pervasive program which might help farmers in future situations such as those which had occurred in the past nine years. They therefore came to Ottawa with their program. As I have said, the ^responsibility for direct relief falls to the provinces. It was not appropriate, therefore, for the federal government to make relief payments to farmers on an individual basis. The only proper way that the federal government, constitutionally, could enter into the matter was on the basis of widespread crop failure. Then we came to the area of our constitution which the courts have defined as catastrophe or national calamity. It was, I believe, under this aegis of federal authority that we were able to enter this field at all.
I may say that it was a great pleasure for me to read the speech of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Fane) in Hansard. I must apologize to those members whose speeches with regard to agriculture I did not hear at first hand, but I could not be in the house all the time. I assure them I have read everything that has been said by any member with regard to the topic of agriculture. I was pleased to read the speech of the hon. member for Vegreville who was in the next office to me in the West Block not long ago and with whom, in the traditions of this house, despite our political differences, I have been fortunate enough to reach a very happy degree of friendship. I was, as I say, happy and pleased to read his words, even though I cannot say that I agreed with all of them.
The hon. member pointed out that the townships in western Canada are six miles square and that originally the Prairie Farm Assistance Act provided there must be a crop failure in a minimum of something over 100 townships before the act became operative. We can see that, with a failure on that scale, constitutionally it could be argued that this would be a catastrophe in the nature of a national catastrophe which would give the federal government legislative authority. There were crop failures on the prairies in 1942, for example, but no payments were made under P.F.A.A. because the areas of failure did not reach these minimum requirements. It is interesting to note that the provinces, therefore, absorbed all the cost of any assistance provided. I mention this to emphasize again that the federal government has no constitutional authority to take over this area of relief, unless the crop failure amounted to
290	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Greene a national emergency and the area concerned was such as to amount to a national emergency.
Over the years there have been changes in the act to make it possible for a greater percentage of farmers affected by crop failure to participate in the benefits of this legislation. The minimum size of the crop failure area necessary to qualify for assistance now is 12 sections, or one third of the average township. I believe we have improved the area in which the federal department can be of help to this degree. At what stage we are encroaching upon provincial powers is probably a moot point. Certainly we have made improvements up to this point without receiving any serious constitutional objections.
Again, the hon. member for Vegreville suggested in his speech that these minimum areas should be reduced, possibly to one section which would equal one square mile. Other suggestions have been made, of course, that eligibility for assistance under the act should be provided on an individual farm yield basis. Here again we get to the point that, that while this may be a desirable end, when we reach areas of this small magnitude we are not clearly encroaching upon provincial powers and provincial responsibilities. It would be difficult to argue that areas this small would constitute something in the nature of national tragedy or catastrophe whereby we could constitutionally enter the field.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
This is one of the reasons why the federal government is so anxious to see the provincial governments push ahead with crop insurance. Crop insurance can be made available on an individual farmer basis and the farmer himself can decide just how extensive he wants his production protection to be. Nevertheless, officials of my department have been giving considerable study and thought particularly during the past summer, to possible amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act which would meet criticisms now directed toward it and still be constitutionally acceptable. This is a difficulty, but it is certainly my great hope, as I know it is of most of the members involved in these questions, that crop insurance, when brought forth and pushed to its ultimate limit, will relieve so many of these areas where help at the federal level does not seem to be constitutionally possible. We hope to discuss some of the

DEBATES	January 26, 1966
thoughts which have developed along this line with the provincial and municipal authorities concerned on the prairies.
There has also been some indication from comments during this debate that there is some misunderstanding about the federal government's contribution toward P.F.A.A. payments. Farmers contribute to the cost of this program by putting a 1 per cent levy on the amounts they receive for grain delivered to licensed dealers. This money is put into a fund known as the prairie farm emergency fund. It is from this fund that all P.F.A.A. payments to farmers are made. However, there is also a provision that when the farmers' contributions do not amount to enough to cover P.F.A.A. payments, the federal government will make up the difference.
I think hon. members will be interested to know that in the period from 1939 to July 31, 1965 farmers in the three prairie provinces paid about $164 million into the fund, while during the same period they have collected some $353 million; or, in other words, $189 million more than they have paid in, which, of course, has been contributed by the federal government. That is to say, for every dollar which the prairie farmers have paid into the P.F.A.A. emergency fund up to last July, they have been paid back more than $2. The people of Canada, through the federal government, have thus contributed since 1939 some $189 million to the prairie farmers through P.F.A.A. over and above the contributions made by the farmers.
In the light of this it is very difficult for me to understand the fairness of the criticisms which have been made with respect to our stand in this matter-criticisms that the western farmer has been discriminated against- when payments of this magnitude have come from the federal treasury.


John (Jack) McIntosh: How about subsidies to the eastern farmers?


John James Greene: We recognize that there will always be room for improvement. I believe that this act has materially relieved provincial and municipal governments in the three prairie provinces from the burden of crop failure relief to farmers during the 27 years since its inception.
I cannot help but compare the federal relief assistance in this way for so many years to provincial and municipal governments on the prairies with the rarity of this kind of federal farm relief in eastern areas such as the Ottawa valley, where no such
January 26, 1966	COMMONS
program has been available over this period of time. Nevertheless, we in my department have given and are continuing to give every consideration we can to the plight of farmers in certain areas of Alberta at the present time. There are many difficulties involved in the P.F.A.A. program not all of which are the concern of the federal government. Under the act the first responsibility for applying for P.F.A.A. payments rests on the local or provincial government. Counties, municipalities, and in the case of unorganized or local improvement districts, the provincial governments, are required to act under the act to make application for assistance in areas which they consider to have experienced crop failure. These initial applications are to be made before September 15 in each year, and the act becomes operative in areas where expected yields are below eight bushels per acre.
Payments are made on the basis of farm-to-farm inspections, and because it is recognized that harvesting is not always completed by September 15 it is regular practice to set a later cut-off date for final amendments to yield estimates. The date set for such filing was November 19, and written notice was mailed to every governmental body concerned on October 25. In other words, more than three weeks final notice was given to every responsible body that, if they had not made their application for P.F.A.A. payments and thought that they qualified for them, they had better get cracking with their amended estimates.
Yet despite the October 25 notice, several municipalities in Alberta have only recently submitted amended yield estimates, and have requested that now, at this late date, inspections be carried out in townships which up to November 19 were estimated to have wheat yields well above eight bushels per acre, many indeed as high as 18 or 20 bushels per acre. It does not seem justifiable to me that if farmers in these areas are now suffering hardships from lack of P.F.A.A. payments, the main burden of blame should be fobbed' off on the federal government.
I am sure every hon. member from the prairies understands, even better than I am beginning to understand, the problems involved in carrying out P.F.A.A. inspections at this late date. I am sure they know as well as I do how imperative it is that inspections be made as soon as possible after completion of harvest and before grain is fed to livestock or disposed of in other ways than through regular market channels.
23033-19!
DEBATES	291
The Address-Mr. Greene
I have, however, arranged for the director of P.F.A.A. to go to the Peace River area this week and personally investigate the situation in the light of the representations that have been made by municipal and provincial government officials, as well as by members of this house. I hope to have a report from him by the end of this week, and I can assure hon. members that any reasonable solution which can be developed to the present difficulties will certainly have my support.
The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Fane) also complained that the P.F.A.A. board of review had rejected certain areas recommended for payments in 1964. I would point out to him that it is the normal practice for the board of review-a three-man body with a farmer representative from each prairie province-to have the final say in deciding the eligibility of any area. I would also point out that the present members of the board of review, as well as the director and most of the field supervision staff, were appointed while the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) and the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) were the ministers. So I would hardly think that we could be charged with having any nefarious motives in this regard.
These are problems separate from the request of the Alberta government for federal financial assistance in a special relief program over and above P.F.A.A. payments for certain farmers in the Peace River and Rocky Mountain House areas.
It is true that the federal government has entered into arrangements for emergency farm assistance with four other provinces. I realize that this is an area in which no two judgments are likely to be the same. But it is our opinion that there are substantial differences in the circumstances of the aid program in the four other provinces and the proposal by the government of Alberta. In each case, these four provinces have never received P.F.A.A. assistance, with the exception of a very small area in British Columbia's Peace River district, while crop failure assistance has been available in Alberta and the other prairie provinces since 1939, to the extent, as I have indicated, of $189 million by way of federal contributions.
If the federal government contributed to the special assistance proposed by the province of Alberta, it would in effect mean increasing the federal contribution in two P.F.A.A. areas. There are other areas in the prairie provinces which have also had serious
292	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Greene crop losses but which have received only the standard P.F.A.A. payments. Our decision was based on the belief that it would not be equitable for us to add to the payments in one P.F.A.A. area without making the same assistance available everywhere.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The Alberta government has proposed a special assistance program that could cost a total of $2.5 million. This is less than the $2.7 million the federal government has already committed, during the last three years, to farmers in the Peace River and Rocky Mountain House area under P.F.A.A.
The Alberta government has asked that we bear half the cost of assistance for farmers whose average yield over the last three years has not been more than 10 bushels per acre. But I would point out that there are some
7,000	townships under P.F.A.A. on the prairies and in the Peace River district of British Columbia and in approximately 10 per cent of these townships, or about 700, P.F.A.A. payments have been made in at least two out of three years, ever since the act was established in 1939.
If we gave this special treatment to two P.F.A.A. areas, what about the other 698 which have not received special treatment though they have known crop failure problems very similar to those now faced in the Alberta areas under question?
It has been suggested that our decision on this Alberta request is at variance with the assistance program offered in 1959. There is no similarity between the conditions on which the government's decision was based in this case and the conditions on which the government decided to offer assistance over and above P.F.A.A. payments in 1959. In the first place, the 1959 assistance was offered on the same terms to all three prairie provinces. What was offered to one P.F.A.A. area was available to all. In the present case, it would mean giving special treatment to these P.F.A.A. areas which is unavailable to all other P.F.A.A. areas.
In 1959, furthermore, many farmers were unable to harvest their crops in the autumn because of early snow which stayed all winter. As a result they were unable to determine whether they would qualify for P.F.A.A. payments or, if so, for how much, until they were able to complete their harvesting in the spring. The federal aid was offered in 1959 to help carry farmers in this situation through the winter until their P.F.A.A. positions could be determined. The provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan

DEBATES	January 26, 1966
agreed to share the cost of this assistance over and above P.F.A.A. payments eventually available to farmers. I would point out one fact with regard to this question which I think is particularly interesting: The province of Manitoba, however, shared in this assistance only as it affected farmers who could not qualify for P.F.A.A.
It was a firm condition of federal participation with each of these other provinces, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia that this should be the last time such ad hoc assistance was necessary and that they would introduce crop insurance programs, in co-operation with the federal government to deal with such unavoidable production failures in the future.
As hon. members know there are special problems involved in devising a crop insurance program that will cover adequately the kind of mixed farming economy that exists in British Columbia and the eastern provinces. It is with these special problems in mind that the government plans to propose further changes in our crop insurance program during this session of the house.
But since 1960 the prairie province of Manitoba has found the federal crop insurance assistance of use to its farmers and it has found the federal program even more useful to its farmers after the changes introduced by this government in 1963. Yet it was not until last year that the province of Alberta saw fit to introduce crop insurance, and then only on a limited basis.
I think the current situation faced in Alberta, where there is a difference of opinion as to how an unavoidable judgment should best be exercised, is an excellent example of the weakness in continuing to take an ad hoc approach to this kind of farm problem, a farm problem which confronts governments in one form or another, and in some part of the country or other, every year.
I believe this is just one more strong argument for extending crop insurance to all of our farmers as quickly as we can. The farmers will then have available every year a foreknown and reliable means of providing for themselves, with substantial government assistance to relieve the cost of whatever degree of production security they feel is warranted.
There will also be a standard procedure to follow every year and in every farm area when production falters or fails. It will eliminate or at least reduce to a minimum the
January 26, 1966	COMMONS
need for exercising arbitrary judgments impossible of unanimous agreement, as is so obviously the case in the present situation.
That is all I have to say with respect to that subject. I should like to deal now for a moment or two with the speech made yesterday in this house by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) I thank him for the good wishes he expressed in my direction, as, indeed, I thank others for their good wishes including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). I trust I shall be worthy of them. Also of course I wish to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) for giving me this opportunity for wider service to our country.
With regard to the speech made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, may I say first of all that I was disappointed at the slurring words he used in reference to the Prime Minister of our country. I think the services of the hon. member himself have been sufficiently distinguished as to make any reliance upon pettiness of this kind in making his contribution to this house unnecessary, and unworthy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I apologize for interrupting the minister but the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent for the minister to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John James Greene: I will say no more on that score. I merely suggest with the greatest respect that if those words were to be withdrawn by the hon. member it would not only enhance his own stature but lend to the dignity and worthiness of the proceedings in this chamber.
Now I should like to deal briefly with the hon. gentleman's reference to myself. I believe the figure of speech he used was that I was a plucked turkey with my tail between my legs. Apart from the obvious inadequacy of the figure of speech, little as I know of agriculture I suspect that a plucked turkey cannot have a tail between its legs.
The hon. member referred to discussions with respect to the Canadian Pacific Railway in which I have become involved in the past few weeks. He apparently indicated by the figure of speech he used that I had not received sufficient support from my colleagues and that these consultations had been
DEBATES	293
The Address-Mr. Greene futile. I would call the attention of the hon. member to one or two statistics which he may find interesting. First I would remind him that this question of the adequacy of the service to farmers in moving the giant export wheat crop of 600 million bushels was raised by myself during the tour of the west I had the honour to make, and during which the good people of the west received me so kindly. I would point out that as a result of the statements I made, the officials of the C.P.R. hied their way quickly to Ottawa where a meeting took place as the hon. member said, and as was reported in the press.
Let us look at the result since that meeting was held. The points on one-bushel quotas have now been reduced to only three in the entire three provinces. The number of two-bushel quota points has been reduced from 281 to 181. Those on a three-bushel quota have been reduced from 479 to 394. Incidentally, the first date I cite is January 4 and the last is January 24. Those on a four-bushel quota increased from 456 to 482. Those on a five-bushel quota increased from 297 to 351, and those on a six-bushel quota increased from 341 to 487. I would also point out that a further improvement on the low quota points is to be effected tomorrow, and I think that is pretty quick action.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I would also point out that in the first week of January 338 box cars were unloaded on an average five-day week by all railways; in the second week of January, 441; the third week of January, 523; and on January 24, in one day, 600 box cars were unloaded.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John James Greene: I would also point out that in co-operation, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) made their announcement today with respect to the new arrangements at the port terminal of Vancouver, and I would point to the last sentence of that announcement which says;
Indeed I am pleased to report-
This was the Minister of Finance speaking.
-"that at the first meeting of the committee there was a general feeling of confidence that there would be a marked improvement very shortly in the loading of ocean vessels at the Pacific coast."
My purpose in this respect was to do whatever I could to help the farmers in their difficult plight of having sales but not being able to move their wheat. The Department of Transport is not my responsibility, nor is the wheat board, but I think the farmers of all
January 2G, 19BG

The Address-Hon. M. Asselin Canada are my responsibility and I thought it was my duty to speak up on finding them in this plight. I think the results speak for themselves.
The C.P.R. officials also undertook, subsequent to our conversation, that they would carry out their commitment and move that wheat, in accord with their commitment, by July 31. I suggest these are the results of our negotiations with these officials, of my statements, and of their attending here to discuss matters with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport, and I can only say that with these results, if I were a man of greater stature, I might have the temerity to say, "Some plucking-some turkey."
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that in all these matters I feel that we have an agricultural program which can enable the farmers of Canada both east and west-I make no distinctions because I think both should be treated equally-that can enable the family farmer to find his place in the economic sun, which he has not yet been able to do. I sincerely trust our government will give leadership in this regard and, with the co-operation of the house, we may do for the farmers of Canada what we all wish to do, namely enable them to face better the cost-price squeeze with which they have been confronted of late years, and enable them to share, with their brothers in the industrial world, in the abounding economy of this great country, fTranslation]


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like, first of all, to congratulate you, as well as Mr. Speaker, on your appointment to such high offices. I should also like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer) and the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury). In particular, I wish to say that the remarks on national unity made by the hon. member for Dollard were courageous.
I have just heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) complain about a speech made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) and about certain references to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson).
I suggest that the Minister of Agriculture look up in Hansard for 1961 and 1962 where he will find a speech by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) against the then prime minister (Mr. Diefenbaker).

He will see that the remarks of the member for Qu'Appelle against the present Prime Minister cannot compare with those made by the present Minister of Justice when he attacked the reputation of the then prime minister of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, at the last session the government introduced a measure to fight poverty in all its forms. We strongly supported that initiative because we feel that the working classes of our society have too long been neglected and that it it high time positive action were taken by governments to help them.
However, areas which should have priority in this field are undoubtedly the so-called designated areas, those which have not kept pace with our economic development.
I represent one of those many regions in Canada where people are still fighting poverty and hunger every day, a region where agriculture is in complete stagnation. A few moments ago, I heard the Minister of Agriculture set forth his agricultural policy and I hope that he will have a kind thought for the farmers in Quebec, where they still have an average income of $3,000 per year. If the Minister of Agriculture is short of programs or projects to improve the lot of the Quebec farmer, I suggest that he take a look at the program of the Conservative party in the last election. He will find there everything necessary to come to the help of farmers in the province of Quebec.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I live in an area where industrial development is at a standstill, because it lacks sufficient means of communication and is removed from great urban centers. Indeed, it is an area which needs help from the higher levels of government to ensure its economic survival. Our people saw a ray of hope in the war on poverty announced by the government. They thought that immediate measures would be presented to strengthen existing industries, set up industrial complexes and develop to the full our tourist industry which is the only important source of income for most of my fellow citizens. But how disappointed they were.
The great statements made about the war on poverty were more an election manifesto for the Liberal party than the announcement of energetic and efficient steps to solve our many problems.
One must admit that in my riding we were given Mont Ste. Anne for which a grant of approximately $200,000 was made under
January 26, 1966

ARDA. I am grateful to the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) for that, but that amount is certainly not enough when one knows that the Mont Ste. Anne project will cost almost $3 million. It is thanks to the initiative of my predecessor, the former member for Charlevoix and present mayor of the city of Beaupre, Mr. Belanger and of his municipal council that this happened, because the council has invested until now almost $1,500,000 in the Mont Ste. Anne project. That is a lot of money for a city like Beaupre with a population of about 3,000.
However, Mr. Speaker, the population of the province of Quebec and, in particular, the people of the ridings of Charlevoix, Saguenay and Chicoutimi, were greatly disappointed when they heard that the Canada Steamship Lines cruises on the St. Lawrence and the Saguenay would be discontinued.
The Canada Steamship Lines had been running cruises between Montreal, Quebec City, Pointe au Pic, Tadoussac and Bagotville for the last 30 years. During all those years, that company's big white ships were part of the picturesque and touristic appeal of the province of Quebec. The people of the province of Quebec had become used to those cruise ships coming down the St. Lawrence and the Saguenay. Canadian and American tourists had grown used to book passage for cruises on the St. Lawrence and the Saguenay.
I am told that the company's ships transported as many as 90,000 passengers in a single tourist season and that last year, Canada Steamship Lines carried approximately 60,000 passengers from Montreal to Bagotville.
Now, Mr. Speaker, supposing that a tourist travelling from Montreal to the Saguenay spends about $300 on his trip, it would mean that discontinuation of those cruises, this year, will cause the tourist industry in that region of the province of Quebec, including Charlevoix and Saguenay, to lose something like $18 million.
Of course, they will say it is a tremendous amount, but it has been proved that about 80 per cent of American tourists make reservations for the Saguenay cruises. Some time last fall the company decided to discontinue its cruises without notifying either municipal councils, county councils or boards of trade.
The Address-Hon. M. Asselin
Town councils as well as tourist agencies approached the Minister of Tourism of the province of Quebec. He told us it was none of his business, it was a federal matter.
We approached the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and we were accompanied by the present member for Saguenay (Mr. Blouin) and the member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Langlois). He told us that he did not see which act could force him to appeal to a company with a view to asking it to maintain its operations, its cruises.
The minister may be right, of course; there may be no specific legislation forcing him to intervene with the company. But we have been given to understand that, for the safety of passengers on board those ships, about $1 million would have to be spent on repairs. So, we have suggested that the minister provide, up to 1967 at least, grants which would enable Canada Steamship Lines to make those repairs so that our regions may also benefit from the legions of tourists which will be visiting the province of Quebec and Canada during the world fair.
Should the government refuse to intervene and should the company discontinue its cruises, it will of course be the end of the tourist industry in the Charlevoix and Saguenay areas and also in a large part of the district of Chicoutimi.
The representatives of municipal councils were so concerned about the matter that they wrote the following in a brief submitted to the authorities. I quote:
To cancel cruise ships in Charlevoix is to deprive the area of half of its tourist attraction, it is to deprive it of irreplaceable touristic publicity, it is to condemn it to touristic oblivion, and this, on the eve of the International Exposition on which we had pinned all our hopes.
In addition to the loss in tourist revenue, I must also point out that if those cruises are not resumed, from 500 to 600 persons will be laid off.
I think it would be one way for the Minister of Transport to launch his war on poverty to help settle this important problem.
During the election campaign Liberal speakers were telling us that the country was most prosperous and that there was nothing wrong with the country's economy. Immediately after the election came credit restrictions. Politicians, even those from Quebec, told us after restrictions were imposed on credit, that we had to tighten our belts, that times were hard.
January 26, 1966

The Address-Hon. M. Asselin
Municipal councils are greatly affected by these restrictions on credit imposed by the present government. I have already pointed this out in a question I put to the Minister of Finance, and he was supposed to inquire into the matter, but we have not yet received an answer.
Before the federal election, for instance, municipal councils had already obtained permission from the provincial and federal governments to go ahead with their winter works programs. They bought the materials and the projects got under way. But after the election, because of credit restrictions, chartered banks refused to lend them money to finance winter works on the excuse that they could not borrow from the Bank of Canada.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Some municipalities asked the government of the province of Quebec and even the federal government to deal with the problem, because a number of municipalities in the province of Quebec were forced to suspend their projects. Furthermore, while the members facing us say: "We are going through a period of great prosperity", some municipalities in the province of Quebec have to borrow from individuals in order to pay the people employed on winter works.
There are also municipalities in the province of Quebec which have not been able to carry out winter works this year because the federal government had not paid them the money which was due for last year. Mr. Speaker, that is the situation in our municipalities at present.
Because people in our areas are having a hard time and must work during the winter, I would ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), on behalf of our workers, to look into this situation as soon as possible in order to settle the matter without delay.
I should like to refer briefly to our amendment designed to raise old age pensions from $75 to $100 a month. Mr. Speaker, I did not expect that such an amendment would meet with any objections from government members.
During the election campaign, when our party proposed to increase the pensions, our opponents went one better on radio and television and on the hustings and said: "If the Conservatives can give you $100, then the Liberals can give you $125."
After all these fiery statements, how has it been possible for Liberal members, especially those from Quebec, to reverse their opinions

so rapidly? How will these members stand again at the elections and justify their sincerity? How will they be able to explain that the present federal government sends millions of dollars to underdeveloped countries, assigns millions to the storage of nuclear heads now obsolete, but refuses, on the other hand, an increase of $25 a month to our senior citizens, which would allow them to finish their lives in peace?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Malapedia-Malane):: believe the hon. member is dealing with a motion which the house has already rejected. I think he has no right to make remarks on this motion which has been dealt with.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I am under the impression that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think there is some merit in the point of order which has been raised. Maybe in the comments which the hon. member is now making he is getting pretty close to commenting on a decision which has already been made by this house.


Martial Asselin: I shall not discuss your ruling and I was finished anyway. I shall continue with another subject.
The government did not introduce any measure in the speech from the throne which would show its determination to seriously launch an attack on poverty. Not a word about family allowances, when it is common knowledge that the cost of living has risen by about four times since family allowances were set up. The cost of education also is exorbitant in the province of Quebec, and the amounts paid as family allowances are clearly insufficient to permit heads of families with modest means to give their children the education required nowadays.
I do wish that our Liberals from Quebec will make the necessary representations for a revision of the family allowances scheme. It will be an excellent way for our colleagues to show us that they are really sincere when they talked about this famous war on poverty.
A question of current interest, Mr. Speaker, and one which has been referred to in the Throne Speech is that of federal-provincial relations.
During the past three years the federal and provincial authorities have met more than a hundred times to discuss the pension
January 26. 1966

plan, taxation, medicare and the war on organized crime. After each meeting press releases have been issued which, according to circumstances, reaffirmed either the firmness of the federal government or the autonomy of certain provinces in the fields of their respective jurisdiction.
But we must deplore, Mr. Speaker, that those meetings were used most of the time as a springboard for electioneering, blackmail and horse-trading, while dealing with such important matters as education, health insurance, and the fight against organized crime.
That those meetings be used to define the objectives, the aspirations and the rights of the parties concerned, this is understandable, but that they be used to make political capital, to make accusations and throw invectives against each other, such as those made by the Quebec Minister of Justice against the federal ministers and officials, when he called them spineless, such an atmosphere hardly contributes to strengthen national unity.
I know that all this is only a smokescreen, that after the provincial election, the relations between federal ministers and those of the province of Quebec will be friendlier than ever.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, to be hard on Ottawa, to appear as unbending autonomists is a profitable attitude to take in Quebec with provincial elections coming up. This is a kind of electioneering unacceptable in federal-provincial relations.
Let us then stop ad libbing and forging full steam ahead on constitutional matters of such tremendous importance for the future of our two ethnic groups.
Our constitution, Mr. Speaker, will soon be 100 years old. No one can claim it is doing well, that it is in excellent health. It is high time it were studied, revised, even altered and adjusted to the economic, political and cultural requirements of our two people. To that end, it is urgent that a national conference be called soon, so that the grievances some Canadians have against the constitution can quickly be given all the attention they deserve.
As for us, French Canadians from Quebec, we want to live with English Canadians as equal partners. We do not want to be considered as second class Canadians any longer, but as full Canadians. To that end, it is necessary that the French fact in the federal parliament, as in all crown corporations, be recognized and accepted by all Canada, and in this we are not asking for privileges, for 23033-20
The Address-Mr. Simard preferential treatment, but we are claiming vested rights guaranteed by our constitution.
This government must continue to abide by the attitude of the Conservative party in this field, of the party which was the first national party to provide simultaneous translation and bilingual cheques.
Naturally, my colleagues on the other side say that is something in the past. But this goes to prove that, by accusing the Conservative party of being against French Canadians, those people were dishonest.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Choquelte:: Mr. Balcer said so.


Mr. Ricard:: He is as much of a liberal as you are.


Martial Asselin: To do something in that respect, the government must not wait for the recommendations of this or that royal commission's report. It must do something right away if we are to celebrate our centennial as Canadians who live in unity and equality.


Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: I want
to add my voice to that of my colleagues who spoke before me to offer you and Mr. Speaker my most sincere congratulations on the occasion of your appointment. Your wide knowledge of parliamentary procedure, your tact and your courtesy had something to do of course with the unanimous choice of the hon. members who put on your shoulders the heavy task of presiding over the debates this session.
I also want to congratulate the movers of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. members for Dollard and York-Scarborough (Messrs. Goyer and Stanbury), who fulfilled that difficult and delicate task in a brilliant and masterful fashion worthy of the greatest parliamentarians. I would also like to point out to the house the thoughtfulness of the hon. member for York-Scarborough who spoke in French at the very beginning of his speech. I congratulate him on his grasp of the French language and, believe me, he will be the first one to benefit from the advantages of a sincere and disinterested biculturalism.
On April 5, 1965, in the speech he made as seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the Liberal member for Saint-Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) plainly said that the Liberals were heading toward collectivism. What is collectivism? We
January 26, 1966


Mr. E. R. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all offer congratulations to you on your election to that post, important as it is to the function of this House of Commons. May I offer to you, sir, as Mr. Deputy Speaker, congratulations upon your election to that office. May I also take this opportunity to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer) and the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury).
It is with some reluctance, Mr. Speaker, even trepidation, that I rise for the first time to speak in this chamber, which has been referred to on different occasions as being the grand debating forum, the "grand inquest", of this nation. One who is new to this parliament must surely be impressed with its mere physical setting, its physical presence. One must also be impressed by the spirit which it seeks to represent and foster, the spirit of democracy, liberty, equality of opportunity, and so on, all of which can be synthesized into the overriding concept of justice, to the
300	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Schreyer end that this freedom, this equality of opportunity shall be made meaningful for all Canadians, or at least for the largest number of Canadians, rather than for a privileged few only. I presume that this is the ultimate objective of our efforts in this House of Commons.
Why do I take the time of this house, Mr. Speaker, to assert something which seems almost trite to say? I take the time to assert this because it is my feeling that such was not always the case in this chamber, only a few years or decades ago. We have made considerable progress, in my opinion, toward the objectives I have just mentioned. We have made this progress, by and large, in the economic sense at least, in the past two decades, with the advent of the modern, positive state in the post-war era. There has been growing acceptance of the idea or the practice that government is, and ought to be, used by the people, by the citizenry, by society, as an instrument to achieve certain social and economic programs, using the government to intercede in the economy to prevent specific abuses.
I refer, for example, to using government, through legislation, to reduce exploitation of the consumer by misleading advertising and packaging; to reduce wage earner exploitation by safeguarding the rights of employees through collective bargaining; and by legislating fair minimum wage laws which have substance and meaning.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
In the same way government can be used to enable farmers and other primary producers in this country to achieve fair prices relative to costs by means of farm price support programs, federal provincial marketing boards, crop insurance legislation, and so on.
This outlook on the role of government is finding increasing acceptance in our time, even though certain special privilege groups and, indeed, some well meaning individuals choose to attack it as creeping socialism, using that term of course as a term of opprobrium. It is ironic that often the very people who attack greater government involvement and responsibility on the philosophical plane are among the first to demand special payments, subventions, and the like, for depressed industries in their areas or for their constituents. It would seem that their philosophy of government depends on whose ox is being gored at any given time.

DEBATES	January 26, 1966
The process is a creeping and gradual one, admittedly, but it is a creeping forward of social awareness of and responsibility for individuals and groups of individuals who have in some way or another suffered dislocation because of changing economic conditions, illness, inadequate education, depressed sector prices and so on.
When one looks at this government's Speech from the Throne, its declaration of legislative intent, one must in fairness admit that it embodies much of the position of those who support the positive state idea-the idea of social democracy. But whether this government really wants to transform its intentions as set out in the Speech from the Throne, intentions which are presumably genuine, into actual law is another question. There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip. We shall see in the course of the next few months what degree of success the government achieves in implementing its intentions and turning them into statutes. We shall see how steady is its hand.
Then too, there are some omissions and ambiguities in this Throne Speech which are remarkable, coming from a government which purports to be concerned with poverty, with low income regions and with low farm income. We heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) tell us this afternoon how much he wished that family farms would take their place in the economic sun. As I was saying, this is a government which purports to be up to date in its economic thinking and concerned with all these matters. But there are omissions. As an example I would refer to old age pensions.
There is increasing agreement in this country that $75 a month is really not sufficient in the light of present cost of living figures. Why does the government not agree to meet this problem head on? Apparently it is of the opinion either that the money is lacking or that an increase would somehow be inflationary.
The first opinion in my estimation reflects depression era economics. As to the second, that an increase might be inflationary, this comes even more strangely. What a strange way in which to fight inflation-by reducing the purchasing power of people on $75 a month. These people are already restricted enough in terms of what they are able to purchase.
Before I go on to other specific matters of criticism I should like to express agreement with this administration's reasserted intention
January 26, 1966

to make "O Canada" the national anthem. Drawing a distinction between national and royal anthems is done even in some kingdoms where the monarchy is indigenous. For Canada this is even more logical. I support it without equivocation and hope that the resolution of this question will not be used by any group to work ethnically divisive mischief, as was done during the flag filibuster.
Some words of commendation are also in order with respect to this government's intention to assume a larger share of the rising costs of education, particularly higher education. This can hardly be regarded as surprising. What is the alternative in the light of the soaring enrolment of students and the accompanying need for large scale construction projects on our campuses? If the government's statements about its desire to provide equal opportunity for all are to have any impact, could it do anything less than expand its educational assistance program so as to keep pace with the rising student population? Indeed it could be asked whether the size and scope of the federal aid recently announced is adequate.
I ask this question in the context of the current estimates of financial requirements in the field of education over the next ten years. It is expected that full time enrolment in our universities will treble in the coming decade. This will mean an increase of tremendous proportions in the number of university teachers, in teaching aids, laboratory equipment, lecture room space and so on. Those who are intimately connected with higher education, as I have had the privilege of being for a short period of time, have studied the problem in the past few years and estimated that the operating costs to universities in the current year alone will prove to be in the area of $420 million. Further, these sources estimate a capital expenditure amounting to about $800 million in relation to construction already under way or on the drawing board.
It is to these figures that the government's per capita operating grant must be compared. The increase in the grant from $2 to $5 is, of course, welcome. But it is evident that the approach taken toward the support of universities by the present administration is still, to quote from a brief to the federal government by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, "a series of ad hoc expedients" and without a sense of proportion. I submit that the federal government should adopt as its responsibility up to one third of the operating
The Address-Mr. Schreyer and capital costs of higher education. This need not and should not be considered as an impingement on provincial jurisdiction. It is consistent with the concept of co-operative federalism about which we have heard so much, particularly from senior ministers of this government.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Here is a golden opportunity to practise co-operative federalism in a field where there is some urgency that this be done, namely in higher education. In any case, Mr. Speaker, higher educational institutions like universities have, or should have the broader outlook, the broader goals that transcend provincial boundaries and jurisdictions. There is cause therefore for greater federal financial support, and I would think that there might be less opposition to this from the provinces than many on the opposite side may think.
I sat here this afternoon listening to the new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) and since I am a representative for a constituency which includes a very large farming community, naturally I was interested in what he had to say. He spoke at some length about P.F.A.A., about its shortcomings, and about the extent to which it has been beneficial over the course of the past two decades. He seemed to know what he was talking about and he said what he had to say well.
The minister also made some reference to crop insurance and mentioned that it was going to be expanded. In that connection I would like to say that the crop insurance legislation which was enacted several years ago by the previous government was certainly much needed, and long needed by the farmers of western Canada. For that matter, it is needed by farmers in all parts of Canada. It was enacted by the previous government and they deserve credit for it. There can be no question about that.
However, it should also be said that the legislation as enacted then was not of much immediate value or benefit to the farmers of western Canada. It was not until the present Liberal administration passed certain amendments, which made it necessary for the provinces to reinsure back with the federal government, that crop insurance became really meaningful in western Canada, and it is now being expanded and made available to more and more farmers.
Earlier I said that there were some glaring omissions and ambiguities in the Speech from the Throne, and this is especially true as it
January 26, 1966

The Address-Mr. Schreyer relates to agriculture. In the ten page Throne Speech, this ten page declaration of legislative intent, there are to be found eight sentences about the Canadian farm scene. We are to understand that the government is going to expand the work of ARDA and increase its efforts to combat rural poverty. According to recent data it appears that about 40 per cent of Canada's rural population earns less than $3,000 a year, and these people are therefore regarded as living in poverty, if not deprivation.
That there should be such maldistribution of this nation's wealth, that there should be existing to this very day such obvious inequality of opportunity and purchasing power, is indeed a sad commentary on the past efforts or, rather, lack of efforts, on the part of successive Canadian governments.
So far we have been merely studying the problem of poverty-spending more on expertise than on the actual work of rehabilitation, retraining, up-grading, and providing farm product price supports. If the problem of poverty, and I am thinking now more particularly of rural poverty, is to be attacked in any meaningful way, it must include the idea of rural rehabilitation, of retraining programs for the displaced in rural Canada. It must also include at one and the same time a more meaningful farm commodity price support program than we have at present.
It was interesting to note that the other day the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), the minister responsible for rural development, and responsible also for ARDA, spoke on rural poverty to a luncheon meeting of business executives in Toronto. He was reported in the press as having shocked the honourable gentlemen at the luncheon with his forceful descriptions of the meaning of poverty in individual case studies that had been made.
It is not surprising that the minister should have been able to impress these people. I am sure he is quite capable of impressing people; I have heard him previously. But what is surprising is that these businessmen, these adult Canadians, should have been shocked by those accounts of poverty and its real meaning to individuals. Surely any adult active in public or business affairs has an awareness, has some knowledge of the existence of poverty

pockets of it, belts of it, regions of it, too much of it. Surely he has an awareness, indirect as it may be, of what this means in human terms to individuals caught up in the syndrome of poverty. Or, Mr. Speaker, are the upper income people in this

country so insulated and isolated from the way 40 per cent of their fellow Canadians live that they are shocked when they hear accurate descriptions of it?
Perhaps if the minister does some more shocking in the right places, this program of rural development and anti-poverty can go beyond the study phase toward actual combat of grievous income deficiency, and the causes of it.
But it would be wrong to think that all of this rural poverty problem can be eradicated through ARDA type programs, that is, through land use changes, land purchase and resale projects and so on, helpful as they may be. I maintain such projects can be effective, but only as an ancillary to an up to date price support program and marketing system for the agricultural industry. Without more adequate farm commodity price supports the task of reducing rural poverty facing ARDA is simply too immense, too overwhelming to be undertaken realistically.
There are too many Canadians with the misapprehension that low income farm operations are the result of improper land use, or smallness of size, or just plain inefficiency on the part of the farm operator. From my experience in provincial politics and provincial governments it seems to me that this misapprehension even permeates into the ranks of those connected with government, and therefore confusion is compounded.
Not enough attention has been focused by government people in the past-I am certainly not referring to farm organization people-on the issue of farm prices as being one major cause of rural poverty on the farms, as distinct from rural non-farm poverty. A more equitable pricing system and price support program for farm products would remove from the ranks of poverty, or from the brink of poverty, many farm families presently living on medium sized holdings.
I am not trying to say that all farm families can be brought up to desirable levels of income and standards of living by increased farm commodity prices, but many of them could be, and that is the point. Those whose farm operation is simply too small or too marginal to be aided materially could be rescued from their plight by the ARDA program proper.
It is difficult to quantify just what proportion of Canada's 95,000 low income brink-of-poverty families could be brought up to desirable living standards by means of more
January 26. 1966

realistic price supports, but it could be substantial. The more achieved in this way through the Department of Agriculture, the smaller and therefore the more manageable will be the task facing the department of rural development and its anti-poverty program.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The tempo of change in the techniques of production has caused a dislocative social and economic impact on the lives of many people, particularly on this continent and in this country. In some industries this dislocation and potential dislocation has been eased by wise, sometimes altruistic, company management, by collective bargaining or by timely government legislation.
An excellent case in point can be found in the Freedman Industrial Inquiry report on C.N.R. run-throughs. This is a report submitted by Mr. Justice Samuel Freedman, a native son of Manitoba, of whom I think most Manitoba residents should be very proud. I will quote only one paragraph of this eminent jurist's report. Paragraph six of the summary states.
The commission is of the view that an obligation rests upon the company to take reasonable steps toward minimizing the adverse effects which a run-through-
I pause here to add parenthetically, or any other technological change. To continue the paragraph:
-may have upon its employees.
That obligation has its root in the principle that when a technological change is introduced the cost of reasonable proposals to protect employees from its adverse consequences is a proper charge against its benefits and savings.
In other words, what is being recommended here is that the cost of technological change be borne by those who benefit from it and not exclusively by those who suffer from it.
The same principle should be applied to our agricultural industry. Up to now this principle has not been honoured with respect to our farm people and the agricultural industry. In farming, technological change has been equally rapid. It has increased the productivity of Canadian agriculture with considerable benefit to the country. It is up to the rest of the population to reciprocate by supporting policies designed to ease the dislocation caused within the industry by this increased productivity and changes in technique.
The Address-Mr. Schreyer
I say in a somewhat bantering manner that perhaps this government should commission another Freedman inquiry-this time into the effects of technological change on the economics of family farm operations and the social responsibility arising therefrom. With his majestic command of language, perhaps this man and many others could see the problem in its true perspective. Thus far it seems obvious that very few men in power have either seen this problem or, having seen it, refused to acknowledge it.
Farm organization spokesmen and individual farmers in the past have been articulate in their explanations of the ills of their industry, and they have on many occasions advanced some possible solutions. Yet they have not succeeded in making much progress in impressing government. It is difficult to understand why, because they are not asking for unlimited price supports, or gigantic handouts from the public purse. One need only look at the briefs of the past few years and it becomes clear that they are asking for support on a limited or basic volume basis. They are asking for price supports, but on basic volumes of commodity production per farm operation. Surely this is the via media, the middle way, the golden mean-call it what you like, but it is the middle course they are asking for between the extremes of the price support policy in the United States-and it is extreme in many ways-and the extreme in Canada. In the United States there is no effective limit on the amount of price supports payable. The result is that big fat factory farms benefit more than those who need help most, the small and medium sized operator.
In Canada the extreme is in the other direction; a system of price supports that is almost entirely inadequate in every sense of the word. It seems clear to me and to anyone else who wishes to take a good look at the farming communities in Canada, including those in western Canada, that the standards of living of these farm families have not improved appreciably in the course of the past ten years. There are fewer farm families and there has been more consolidation, so it would seem to follow, or should follow, that the incomes of those left should be higher and better because they are larger in their operation. This is not true.
Ever since 1952 successive Canadian governments have either ignored the problems in agriculture or have tried to do something in a minor way, but have failed. There can be no
January 26, 1966

The Address-Mr. Schreyer other word but failure, because data collected by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics shows that the whole of agriculture has languished as a sector of low net income, while the rest of the economy of this country has grown, and it has grown at twice the rate.
Do members of this government seriously think that they will grapple successfully with the problem of farm income, as was the expressed hope of the new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) this afternoon? Do they think they will grapple successfully with the problem of rural rehabilitation? Do they think the can do this successfully on the basis of an anti-poverty approach alone? I shudder at the prospect, because if this government tries to approach the problem of low farm income through anti-poverty programming, through purchases and resales of land, then there will simply be too many people who will then have to be retrained, too many units of land that will have to be bought up and resold for consolidation purposes; and this is too much.


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


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, if I have the indulgence of the house I can complete my remarks in two minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give its unanimous consent to the hon. member to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank hon. members for their courtesy, or should I say for their grace.
In my opinion, if this government is serious in its intent, to quote from the Throne Speech, "that farmers of this country may enjoy living and working standards comparable with those of Canadians engaged in other occupations", it must begin to act simultaneously on two fronts. It must implement the rural rehabilitation concept by reselling farm lands and retraining the people who are then moved. It must at the same time implement meaningful farm price legislation to cover basic volumes of farm production per unit. Only thus can the problem be attacked in a successful way. I believe this to be the prevailing opinion of the people I represent, and it is certainly my opinion.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
[Mr. Schreyer.l
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place to speak in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. I wish I could say that we had started this new session of parliament with a dynamic program put forward by the government, in order to show that a minority government need not be a weak government, that a minority government might take the example of the minority government that we had in 1957, which put forward for the whole of Canada and its people the most dynamic program of development that this country had seen in 100 years.
I read through the Speech from the Throne carefully, looking for this kind of guidance. All I find is a collection of pious wishes, worn out cliches, talk of unity, brotherhood and co-operation. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this government has during the past three years done less for unity and more for division than any government we have had in 100 years.
So rather than going piecemeal through this list of empty, pious wishes, I should like this parliament and the people of this nation to return to that hopeful program of 1957, carried on through to 1963, when the government of the day had ideas, and the courage and the know-how to put those ideas into action.
Mr. Harry Hays, the late lamented Minister of Agriculture, had nothing to say on agriculture except that the previous administration had not gone far enough in its dynamic program for bettering Canadian agriculture. I am not going to take up too much of the time of the house in going through the long list of things that we did-but we made breakthroughs. I would remind the house particularly of our sales of agricultural products abroad. The "crimes" of 1959 and 1960 have now become the major virtues and claims for greatness of the Liberal administration. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) can get up and say, "We have doubled the sale of wheat" or, "We have tripled the sale of wheat"; but in 1959 and 1960 this was called treason.
They talk about improving crop insurance. Who put in crop insurance and made it available to the provinces? The Conservative government did. It is my lament that our own province of Alberta has not as yet taken full advantage of the federal laws regarding crop insurance, and although it is five years since they took it on in Manitoba, we still await
January 26, 1966	COMMONS
some program of adequate protection for the small farmers, the family farmers of western Canada and particularly of Alberta. Mr. Manning is not unaware of the problem, and just a few weeks ago he made what I thought was a fairly statesmanlike offer to the present administration to give some relief to the farmers of Peace River, Athabasca, Jasper-Edson and other constituencies in Alberta for their very serious and recurring crop damage. He has met so far with a stone wall; the federal government refused to co-operate. Yet they say we can look forward to renewed efforts on the part of the Liberal government to look after all people everywhere.
Although I am not at all against federal aid to undeveloped countries, help to our underprivileged friends in the commonwealth or in other parts of the world where they need help, I think it might well be time that we first looked at home to see whether or not our own people, the taxpayers and citizens of Canada, are being given adequate protection where they need it most. The way western Canadian farmers have been cynically neglected by the present administration is absolutely inexcusable. I believe the people of western Canada expressed undeniably their opinion of the present administration in the returns at the polls. However, this does not seem to have changed the government.
I should like to suggest to our new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene), who comes from the east, that we in the west take no sectional view of the problems of agriculture. We welcome a minister of agriculture from any part of Canada, Mr. Speaker, who will listen to the farm organizations and to those people who are well able to assist him in his onerous task. If he does this, there is no reason at all why a minister of agriculture from the Ottawa valley, from the Annapolis valley or from any other productive valley in Canada cannot make a worth-while contribution to the welfare of this country.
There are many people who are ready to put agriculture on one side, throw up their
DEBATES	305
The Address-Mr. Bigg hands and say nothing can be done about it, and there is a great deal of talk today about making efficient family farms or enlarging acreages by buying up unproductive land, lending the farmers more money, enlarging their operation. Some say this will solve all the farm problems in Canada. It will not. It will add to all farm problems in Canada unless something else is done; that is, as my hon. friend over here in the corner just said, make sure that farm prices are stabilized, that the farmer who borrows money will have the opportunity to pay that money back, and that after he has paid it back he will still have enough left over to maintain the kind of living standard that we think Canada is well able to achieve.
This does not require socialism of any kind, and it does not require paternalism of any kind. It requires an administration that first sees that we have adequate markets both abroad and at home and then sees that it is possible for these farmers to get an adequate share of those markets. Nothing that the government has done, neither the Liberal administration nor the previous administration, has really had much effect upon agriculture beyond the fact that we established large and firm markets for our agricultural products. This is where we should put in our major effort. The farmers of western and eastern Canada are well able to supply these markets if we find the markets for them. Then they will be able to borrow money on their own, not from the government, not from the farm loan board but from any bank with any common sense; because if the farmer can make the money, they will be willing to make him a loan in order that he may make more money.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, January 27, 1966