1966-01-24

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the right of members to receive in Hansard as faithful as possible a report of the debates taking place in this house.
While speaking on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) stated that, under his government, no death sentence had been commuted without a recommendation for mercy from the court.
Mr. Speaker, I was present when the Leader of the Opposition made his speech and I distinctly heard him make that statement. Other members, with whom I have checked since, also heard him. In addition, in its January 21 issue the Globe and Mail published the statement we heard as having been made by the Leader of the Opposition.
On the other hand, in his speech, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) replied rather formally to that statement, as reported on page 70, right-hand column, of the French version of Hansard.
Now, upon reading the speech of the Leader of the Opposition on the question of capital punishment, on pages 52 and 53 of Hansard, there is no trace of the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition, as a result of which the Prime Minister's reply no longer makes sense.
Under the circumstances, I feel it would be advisable to prevent any such errors of transcription in the future, more especially as the Leader of the Opposition had protested indignantly in the past against such incorrect reports, particularly in a speech made by the present Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), as well as in another made by the former minister of finance, now the member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon).
Hence, Mr. Speaker, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Latulippe):
That the matter of irregularities or mistakes in transcription in the official report of the speech
made by the leader of the official opposition on January 20, 1966 in the House of Commons, be referred to the committee on privileges and elections.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would call the attention of the hon. member for Lapointe to paragraph 5, citation 104 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 4th Edition, under which the Speaker must be satisfied that there is a prima facie case of privilege.
Obviously, an important question was raised by the hon. member. On the other hand, there may be an easy or plausible explanation for what the hon. member for Lapointe has mentioned. I would suggest that for the time being, we let the motion stand, until the Speaker can study the official report and render his decision, unless the hon. Leader of the Opposition cares to comment immediately, which would make it easier for the Speaker-
[DOT] (11:10 ajn.)

Does the Leader of the Opposition wish to comment at this time on the motion which has been proposed? The motion is not before the house, but it will be taken into consideration by the Chair. However, perhaps the right hon. gentleman might care to comment briefly.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, does your ruling mean that I cannot answer at this time? If so, that is perfectly all right with me. I would simply point out that the English edition at page 52 entirely covers the situation as it took place and that I in no way made any change or any alteration whatsoever. I would also say to the hon. member for Lapointe that with his usual lack of courtesy he did not let me know that this was coming up.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition I suggest that there is no question of privilege. Hon. members will, I am sure, be satisfied with the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition. There may be a clerical error, but nothing more than that. I therefore declare there is no question of privilege.

January 24, 1966
Proposed Legislation ESTIMATES, 1965-66
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting main and supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1966, was presented by Hon. E. J. Benson (for the Minister of Finance) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.



FAIR WAGES AND HOURS OF LABOUR ACT


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-2, to amend the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that in answer to a question put to me a few days ago, whether amendments would be introduced to the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act during this session, I assured the house that the matter was under study and that a resolution or legislation would be laid before the house at an early date. This bill is to implement certain assurances given by my predecessor during the debate on the Labour Standards Code during the last parliament.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BANK ACT AND QUEBEC SAVINGS BANKS ACT


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-3, to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Finance.


Mitchell William Sharp: I regret my slowness in rising, Mr. Speaker. This is Monday morning, and sometimes I forget my portfolio has been changed.


Mr. Starr:: You are not the only one.


Mitchell William Sharp: However, I am learning. The purpose of this bill is very simple. It is to extend the charters of the existing banks, which would otherwise expire within the next few weeks. It is also the intention of the government to bring forward as soon as possible substantial amendments to the Bank Act, which will follow in due course.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
PROCEDURE RESPECTING INTRODUCTION OF PUBLIC BILLS ON ORDER PAPER [DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members will have noticed, there are on today's order paper more than 100 public bills listed for introduction by private members. It would be exceedingly difficult if not impossible for the Chair to review the provisions of these bills at this time. May I suggest to the house, therefore, that we adopt the procedure which was agreed upon by the house last year and during each of the past four sessions, namely that we proceed to the introduction and first reading of these bills so that each may be scrutinized between now and the time appointed for second reading in order to determine whether there be any defect therein with respect to the practices and usages of the house.
Therefore, in order to save the time of the house, taking into consideration that perhaps more than two hours would be required to introduce each of these measures separately, it is suggested that by unanimous consent all the bills listed for introduction on today's order paper be deemed to have been introduced, given first reading, and ordered for second reading at the next sitting of the house, subject of course to a subsequent examination as to the regularity of each bill.
Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask that one of the bills appearing on page 6 standing in my name, namely "An act to govern, licence and regulate the operation of rainmaking equipment in Canada" be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: It will be removed from the list at this time.


William Arnold Peters: No, Mr. Speaker, I would just like it to stand without being given first reading.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill C-4, to provide for the control of consumer credit-Mr. Scott (Danforth).
Bill C-5, to amend the Canada Elections Act (limiting election expenses)-Mr. Brewin.
Bill C-6, to provide for the length of sessions of parliament-Mr. Ryan.
January 24, 1966
[Stage Direction]
BiU C-7, concerning the exportation of the growth and produce of Canada-Mr. Peters.
C-8, to repeal the British Columbia Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act-Mr. Howard.
Bill C-9, to amend the Criminal Code (a purge for the King's-evil)-Mr. Scott (Dan-forth).
Bill C-10, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, with respect to Representation of the provinces in the Senate and qualifications of Senators-Mr. Caouette.
Bill C-l 1, to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act (hog and egg prices stabilized half-yearly and regionally)-Mr. Rapp.
Bill C-12, to amend the National Capital Act-Mr. Bell (Carleton).
Bill C-13, to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act-Mr. Howard.
Bill C-14, to amend the Criminal Code (abolition of capital punishment)-Mr. Byrne.
Bill C-15, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (abolition of the Senate)-Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-16, to provide in Canada for the dissolution of marriage (additional grounds for divorce)-Mr. Byrne.
Bill C-l7, to amend the Broadcasting Act (community antenna)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-l8, to amend the Railway Act-Mr. Prittie.
Bill C-19, to provide in Canada for the dissolution and the annulment of marriage-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-20, to amend the Judges Act (discontinuation of pension)-Mr. Bell (Carleton).
Bill C-21, to amend the Weights and Measures Act (truth in packaging)-Mr. Or-likow.
Bill C-22, to amend the Criminal Code (family planning)-Mr. Stanbury.
Bill C-23, respecting the flag day of Canada-Mr. Loiselle.
Bill C-24, to amend the Small Loans Act (advertising)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-25, to amend the Immigration Act (racial discrimination)-Mr. Brewin.
Bill C-26, to amend the Criminal Code (safety devices for automotive vehicles)-Mr. Southam.
Bill C-27, to amend the Canada Elections Act (political affiliations of candidates on ballot papers)-Mr. Basford.
Bill C-28, respecting the Canada court of Indian claims-Mr. Barnett.
BiU C-29, to amend the Bankruptcy Act (wage earners' assignments)-Mr. Gilbert.
23033-10*
Introduction of Bills
Bill C-30, to amend the Combines Investigation Act (floor penalties, criminal joint tortfeasors, and moieties)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-31, to provide for a national anthem-Mr. Allard.
Bill C-32, to enable civil servants to engage in political activity-Mr. Scott (Danforth).
Bill	C-33,	to	amend	the	Criminal Code
(wire tapping, etc.)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill	C-34,	to	amend	the	Financial Administration Act (truth in receiving bill)-Mr.. Basford.Bill	C-35,	to	amend	the	Criminal Code-
(prohibiting the oral or written publication or distribution of hate literature)-Mr. Lewis.
Bill C-36, to repeal the Tobacco Restraint Act-Mr. Cowan.
Bill C-37, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (three weeks annual vacation after three years)-Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-38, to amend the Criminal Code (provincial lotteries)-Mr. Valade.
BiU C-39, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act (instalment purchases)-Mr. Peters.
BiU C-40, to amend the Criminal Code (birth control)-Mr. Wahn.
BiU C-41, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, (provincial marriage and divorce laws)-Mr. Prittie.
BiU C-42, to amend the Criminal Code (provincial lotteries)-Mr. Allard.
BiU C-43, to make provision for the retirement of members of the House of Commons-Mr. Basford.
BiU C-44, to provide in Canada for the dissolution of marriage-Mr. Basford.
BiU C-45, to amend the Criminal Code (wire tapping, electronic eavesdropping, etc.) -Mr. Stanbury.
BiU C-46, to amend the Parliamentary Secretaries Act-Mr. Bell (Carleton).
BiU C-47, to amend the House of Commons Act (internal economy autonomy)-Mr. Howard.
BiU C-48, to amend the Railway Act (responsibility for dislocation costs)-Mr. Fawcett.
BiU C-49, to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous motor vehicles)-Mr. Wahn.
BiU C-50, to better assure the pubUc's rights to freedom of access to public documents and information about government administration (administrative disclosure)- Mr. Mather.
BiU C-51, to amend the Income Tax Act- Mr. Howard.
[Stage Direction]
January 24, 1966
Introduction of Bills
Bill C-52, to provide for the establishment of the Canada disaster fund (Canada disaster fund)-Mr. Herridge.
Bill C-53, to amend the Small Loans Act- Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-54, to provide for a Canadian national anthem-Mr. Ryan.
Bill C-55, to provide in Canada for the dissolution of marriage-Mr. Stanbury.
Bill C-56, to amend the Criminal Code (restriction on publication of proceedings)- Mr. Lachance.
Bill C-57, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, (duration of House of Commons)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-58, respecting marriage and divorce -Mr. Wahn.
Bill C-59, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (agricultural employees' coverage)-Mr. Rapp.
Bill C-60, to amend the Immigration Act (mental retardation)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-61, to provide for free transportation on railways of Canada for senior citizens Mr. Scott (Danforth).
Bill C-62, to amend the Criminal Code (nuisance)-Mr. Herridge.
Bill C-63, to amend the Civil Service Act (appeal panel)-Mr. Bell (Carleton).
Bill C-64, to amend the Criminal Code (family planning)-Mr. Basford.
Bill C-65, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act and the Interest Act (off-store instalment sales)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-66, respecting the observance of Leifr Eiriksson Day-Mr. Stefanson.
Bill C-67, to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act-Mr. Howard.
Bill C-68, to amend the Oaths of Allegiance Act (affirmation)-Mr. Howe (Hamilton South).
Bill C-69, to amend the Transport Act and the Railway Act (B.C. water carrier)-Mr. Barnett.
Bill C-70 to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act-Mr. Cashin.
Bill C-71, to amend the Criminal Code- Mr. Prittie.
Bill C-72, to establish the Canada law reform commission-Mr. Bell (Carleton).
Bill C-73, to amend the Criminal Code (abolition of capital punishment)-Mr. Scott (Danforth).
Bill C-74, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (increased minimum hourly wage)-Mr. Knowles.

Bill C-75, to amend the Canada Elections Act (age of voters)-Mr. Scott (Danforth).
Bill C-76, to amend the Small Loans Act- Mr. Allard.
Bill C-77, to amend the National Energy Board Act (drainage works)-Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West).
Bill C-78, respecting the national Indian day-Mr. Brown.
Bill C-79, to amend the Dissolution and Annulment of Marriages Act (additional grounds for divorce)-Mr. Byrne.
Bill	C-80,	to	amend	the	Criminal	Code
(contempt of court)-Mr. Cowan.
Bill	C-81,	to	amend	the	Criminal	Code
(company-censored housing)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-82, to amend the Canada Elections Act (publication of straw poll results)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-83, to amend the Canada Elections Act (university students' franchise)-Mr. Hales.
Bill	C-84,	to	amend	the	Criminal	Code
(raffles and bingo for charitable purposes)-Mr. Gray.
Bill C-85, to amend the Canada Elections Act (political affiliations of candidates on ballot papers)-Mr. Patterson.
Bill C-86, to amend the Railway Act (abandonment moratorium)-Mr. Southam.
Bill	C-87,	to	amend	the	Criminal	Code
(impaired driving)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-88, to restrain the use of tobacco-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-89, to amend the Criminal Code-Mr. Stefanson.
Bill C-90, to amend the Railway Act (abandonment)-Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West).
Bill C-91, to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act-Mr. Leblanc (Laurier).
Bill C-92, to amend the Interest Act-Mr. Allard.
Bill C-93, respecting Sir John A. Macdonald day-Mr. Macquarrie.
Bill C-94, to amend the Radio Act (community antenna)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-95, to amend the Post Office Act (hate literature)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-96, to amend the Canada Elections Act (age of voters)-Mr. Brown.
Bill C-97, to amend the Broadcasting Act (political programs)-Mr. Harley.
Bill C-98, to amend the Canada Elections Act (student voting)-Mr. Scott (Danforth).
January 24, 1966	COMMONS
Bill C-99, to amend the Canada Elections Act (advertising during electoral campaign)-Mr. Rynard.
Bill C-100, to amend the Canada Elections Act (students' franchise)-Mr. Deachman.
Bill C-101, to amend the Criminal Code (human rights and fundamental freedoms preserved)-Mr. Scott (Danforth).
Bill C-102, to amend the Canada Elections Act (eighteen year old voters and candidates)-Mr. Basford.
Bill C-103, to preserve and promote native Indian and Eskimo arts and crafts-Mr. Howard.
Bill C-104, to amend the Immigration Act (disclosure of reasons for deportation)-Mr. Brewin.
Bill C-105, to amend the Criminal Code (insanity)-Mr. Brewin.
Bill C-106, to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment, form of sentence)-Mr. Cowan.
Bill C-107, to amend the Immigration Act-Mr. Badanai.
Bill C-108, to approve the ex gratia payment of compensation to persons injured by aiding and assisting the Governor General to preserve and maintain the public peace and order and to dependants of persons killed thereby (Criminal Injuries Compensation Act)-Mr. Ormiston.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to inform the house and the country regarding any representations that Canada has made to the United States for further restraint and a continuation of the pause in the bombing of North Viet Nam. Perhaps he will allow me to point out that Japan and various other countries have made such representations. That is the reason for the question being asked. I think this would be a good course if Canada can follow it.
Second, what attitude does Canada take regarding the broadening of the Saigon government as suggested by Mr. U Thant, which would allow it to take over on behalf of that country at any conference that might be called?
DEBATES	141
Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, to deal with the last part of the question first, the broadening of the Saigon government is of course a matter for the government and the people of that country. I think I might be permitted to say that all those who are directly concerned with this issue, and that includes most countries in the world, would hope that the government of South Viet Nam would be as broadly based as possible on a democratic foundation.
So far as the first part of the question is concerned, I indicated in the House last Thursday the views of the government in respect of the pause in the bombing of North Viet Nam. I hope, as I said then, Mr. Speaker, that the United States would feel that the situation was such that a pause in this bombing could be continued in the hope that this would improve the prospects for early negotiations. These views, as I have expressed them, have already been brought to the attention of the United States government.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the Prime Minister. Both these answers, I think, represent the attitude in general of the Canadian people. Has there been any reaction or indication on the part of the United States to the effect that instead of following the demands, as I say, of certain representatives of that country-and military groups to the contrary-the United States will feel constrained to desist for the time being from any bombing, so as to permit of a feeling being established that might bring about a conference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is not possible for me to speak on behalf of the United States government or to report to the house any views they may have given to us confidentially on this matter. There is a difficulty there.


John George Diefenbaker: I would not ask that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: But I think I can say, without breaking any confidence, that the United States administration has informed us and other governments that they hope to be able to continue the pause in the bombing of North Viet Nam as long as there is any likelihood of that pause assisting in the bringing about of negotiations.


John George Diefenbaker: That is very commendable.
January 24, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a further question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement over the week end by Secretary of State Dean Rusk requesting various European governments to give military aid to the United States in Viet Nam, has any similar request been made at any time to the Canadian government and has the Canadian government made it abundantly clear to the United States government that apart from our membership in the International Control Commission Canada would not be prepared to supply troops in Viet Nam except as part of a peace keeping force under the United Nations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that Mr. Rusk over the week end spoke in exactly the terms that my hon. friend has used. But irrespective of that, I can assure him that no such request has been made to the Canadian government, and I believe that the matter did not come up at the recent NATO meeting in terms of a request for military aid. I can also assure him that there is no possibility of military aid being sent by Canada to Viet Nam.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



SHIPBUILDING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Has the government given any consideration to changing its decision regarding the subsidy to shipbuilding, which decision discriminates against that part of this program which is carried on by provincial governments?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this question should not be directed to me but to one of my colleagues, and probably the appropriate minister to reply would be the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Winch:: I hope it will be a better answer than he gave me on Friday.


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister of Transport answer that question?


Mr. Nielsen:: I doubt it.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I am sorry that I did not hear the hon.

gentleman's question. If he could repeat it, I will endeavour to answer it.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the question is simply this. Has the government given further consideration to reversing its discriminatory decision not to subsidize that part of the shipbuilding industry which is carried on under provincial government sponsorship?


John George Diefenbaker: One good turn deserves another.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, though the government's policy was announced before the opening of the session, it will have to be brought before parliament, and I would think the government would take account of any reasonable representations which might be made with respect to this policy from any authoritative source.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The purpose, of course, of the subsidies-as hon. gentlemen opposite know very well, since they were instituted originally when hon. gentlemen opposite were in office-is to assist the shipbuilding industry, not to provide subsidies to shipping. That factor naturally would have to be taken into account in any consideration that might be given.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I
should like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Has he received a telegram from the associated boards of trade of Vancouver Island protesting the policy announced in the Throne Speech? If so, what was the nature of his reply to this telegram?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be glad to look into that. It is my impression, Mr. Speaker, that I have received that telegram, but I should like to check on that and as to any reply that may have been sent.


Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether the government of British Columbia or any other provincial government has made representations to the federal government with regard to excluding provincial governments from the shipbuilding sudsidy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have not, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, received any direct representations. I would be concealing information from the house if I did not say that I read the very complimentary reference to me attributed to Premier Bennett by the newspapers of British Columbia.
January 24, 1966



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: I should like to ask the Minister of Industry if the labour unrest at Instruments (1951) Limited is affecting the fulfilling of defence contracts which this firm now has with the Department of Defence Production.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: am not aware of the details of this particular transaction. If the hon. member will put his question on the order paper I will be glad to see that he gets an answer.


James Norris Ormiston: I wonder if the minister will inquire whether any delay has taken place in the contracts held by Instruments (1951) Limited.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister has taken note of the hon. gentleman's question, and I suggest the hon. member place it on the order paper.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: May I ask a
supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The ruling of the Chair was that the original question should be placed on the order paper.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caoueite (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry.
In view of the fact that the Villeneuve, Chapleau and Temiscamingue areas were struck off the list of designated areas about a year ago, have representations been made to the minister by this area of northwestern Quebec requesting that they be designated, and this for worthwhile reasons?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker, representations were made to us by people from these areas, but they were told very clearly that the employment situation in this region is not such as to warrant it being made a designated area.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: In view of the answer the minister has given, may I ask him if he is aware of the fact that the

Inquiries of the Ministry Unemployment Insurance Commission do not have up to date figures or figures which can be accepted for these northern areas? I have checked with them and they say they do not have these figures. Is the minister aware of that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that this is not a proper question.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: I
should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made by Dr. O. J. Firestone, as reported in the Canadian Press under an Ottawa dateline of last Friday, and appearing in most Canadian newspapers, to the effect that downward tax adjustments, reasonable credit terms and adequate money supply are necessary to keep our economy buoyant, and in view of the fact that these views are held by most economists and businessmen in Canada, does the Prime Minister agree with those views and does he expect to lead his government along this path?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Miller Bell: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, of which I have given him notice. Has a decision been taken with regard to the refit and repair of the Bonaventurel If not, in order to dispel any fears, will the minister give every consideration to the unique capabilities of the Saint John shipyard, which has always had this work, which needs the employment desperately, and which does the best job in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the reports of the speech made by the President of the
January 24. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry Privy Council last Saturday, is it the intention or the policy of the government to delay or indefinitely suspend the efforts they were making during the course of the last parliament to, as it was called, repatriate the Canadian constitution or make it possible for the constitution to be amended in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council made no such suggestion in his speech, and I have had the pleasure of reading the full text. If there is delay in this matter, Mr. Speaker, it is not delay on the part of the federal government.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Newspaper reports indicate that this was the statement made by the President of the Privy Council. I wonder if the President of the Privy Council could make a copy of this speech available to members so we can see what he did say?


Hon. Guy Favreau (President of the Privy Council):: I will do that with pleasure.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: wonder what aspect of parliamentary courtesy was in the minister's mind when he made a major policy announcement at a political meeting at Montreal, in the light of current discussions on this very subject?


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister agree with the reported view of the President of the Privy Council, that the formula which bears his name is now a dead letter and should not be proceeded with?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I agree with what the minister said. If my hon. friend will read the text which will be submitted to him I think he will agree with it, too.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I ask a further supplementary question in this regard. Is it the Prime Minister's contention that the newspaper reports of this speech are erroneous?


Lester Bowles Pearson: They are in part erroneous.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I bring to the attention of the hon. member the fact that it is not in order to ask the hon. gentleman if a newspaper report is correct or erroneous.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a further supplementary question. Does he agree with the President of the Privy Council that it is proper to delay consideration of the reform of

the Canadian constitution as long as this parliament is dominated by sentimental colonialism?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The statement was not made in that form, as my hon. friend will realize if he reads the text of the speech.


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: This is not a supplementary question, but it is directed to the Prime Minister. It is based on the declaration made this week end by the President of the Privy Council to the effect that the government will not proceed with constitutional reform until the B and B report has been completed. My question of the Prime Minister simply follows that. In preparation for the ultimate meeting with the provinces in this regard, is the government considering the advisability of the establishment here in Ottawa of an all-party parliamentary constitutional committee which, amongst other things, could meet with similar bodies in our provincial capitals?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I agree, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very important matter. I agree, as the President of the Privy Council stated in his speech, that we should proceed with great care. I believe there should be a great deal of preparation before the question of revision comes before any conference. This preparation has already begun in the government.


William Heward Grafftey: May I re-emphasize this aspect. Does the government not feel it would be wise to seriously consider the establishment of such a parliamentary committee?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: I wish to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council regarding this speech which was so misreported. Did the President of the Privy Council receive any advice from the premier of Quebec or any of the ministers in the province of Quebec that in so far as the formula is concerned it is a dead duck, to use that expression? What is the reason for the somersault in the minister's own ideas and in his own thinking, as evidenced by that speech?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, whatever expressions might have been used, I never received any such advice from either the premier of Quebec or any of his ministers, and I have not had occasion to discuss the question of constitutional amendment with him this year.
January 24, 1966


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, what is the reason that the precipitate rush to accept this formula, as evidenced by the remarks of the hon. gentleman when he was Minister of Justice, suddenly changed? What has happened in the interval?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to direct a further question to the President of the Privy Council. Did he or did he not say that the question of amendment of the constitution would have to be delayed until after the report of the B and B commission in 1967?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, I think that in my reply to a question a while ago I promised to table or to put at the disposal of the members of this house a copy of my speech. I even sent the original of my speech a while ago to have photostats made.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister knows what he said. I am not asking him all about the area of quotations, about colonialism-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question was asked a moment ago by the hon. member for Edmonton West about whether a report in the newspapers was correct, and that question was ruled out of order. Then the right hon. Leader of the Opposition asked a question which is not the same, a question which the President of the Privy Council says he has answered, and that is as far as he can go. The Leader of the Opposition may not be satisfied with the reply, but he has to accept it according to the rules.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, I know that when ministers make statements, however far removed from the truth they may be, they must be accepted.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition cannot say or suggest that a reply is not true. He can say it is incorrect. There may be a slight distinction. [Later:]


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to that question just answered by the President
Inquiries of the Ministry of the Privy Council with reference to the B and B commission. I should like to ask him or the Prime Minister whether this house will have an opportunity to debate the final report of that Commission when it is received.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes indeed, Mr. Speaker; this house will have that opportunity.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, of which I have given him notice. Is the minister aware that a considerable number of employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway have been dismissed as a result of the cancellation of C.P.R. trains between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, and that some of these employees have had as many as 20 years service with the railway? Will the minister inform the house whether the government has taken steps to find alternative employment for such employees or assist them in any way to re-establish themselves in employment?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The appropriate official of the union was good enough to send me a copy of the letter he addressed to the Prime Minister on the subject of the effect on employment of the discontinuance of C.P.R. passenger trains to Toronto. The matter is being looked into very actively at the moment.
Up until now the Prime Minister has not had an opportunity to make a reply.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether anything has been done for the employees who will be displaced within the next few weeks, because they are exceedingly anxious to know what is going to happen to them. Some of them have reached an age where it will be difficult to find employment elsewhere. Have any steps been taken to assist them in getting alternative employment, and will this question be given further consideration?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before attempting to make any reply I would have to have some discussions with my colleague the Minister of Labour, and I think it would be more appropriate for him to reply. However, I will endeavour to get some information to satisfy the hon. member as quickly as possible.
January 24, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORTATION



REPORTED DIFFICULTIES RESPECTING TRANSCONTINENTAL TRAVEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This is a question of service to the people themselves. I was glad to hear the question put by the other hon. member with reference to labour unions. In view of the fact that it is almost impossible to get reservations on transcontinental trains out of the major cities of Canada, and also in view of the near impossibility of getting reservations on Air Canada, has the government given any consideration to asking the railways to continue with their responsibility of supplying transportation service, and has the government considered enlarging the scope of jurisdiction of C.P.A. so they can fly passengers between points in this country?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, both those matters are receiving very active consideration at the moment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question. We would like to know how long this consideration will take. Would the government be prepared to set up a special inquiry to determine the situation which has been raised by the hon. member with reference to unions, and the question of the service which is given to passengers in this country?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I can say on behalf of all my colleagues that the government will be prepared to do anything possible to improve the transportation services in this country.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton Souih):: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to get the floor with respect to another question, but the last reply of the minister brings to mind a supplementary question which I wish to ask. Speaking of transportation, how many aircraft were laid on by the Department of Transport on Friday night following the vote in order to take care of ministers going about the country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a proper question. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to get the floor to ask the Minister of Labour a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The hon. member will have a chance again.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Were draft chapters of the report of the Carter royal commission on taxation made available to officers of the Department of Finance even though this report has not yet been presented to His Excellency the Governor General?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is yes. Indeed, when I spoke to the Canadian Club on January 3 of this year I made the following remarks:
In view of the delay in the completion of the report, arrangements have been made for officers of the Department of Finance to see, on a confidential basis, not only the research studies prepared for the commission but also more recently the draft chapters as they were approved for translation. This is enabling the department, with the aid of its expert full-time consultants, to do technical and analytical work necessary to prepare for implementation of whatever decisions the government may take on the report after it has been published and properly considered and discussed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. By what authority was this done, in view of the established practice that royal commission reports are secret to the commission until such time as they are actually presented to His Excellency the Governor General? Does not this question have particular force in view of the fact that these were draft chapters and could, perhaps, be changed if influence was brought to bear?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am quite confident that the members of this royal commission, who were not appointed by this government, would not be subject to any such pressure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not answered my supplementary question. By what authority was this done?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not think it required any special authority, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps it was different from the practice which has been followed in the past, but so is this royal commission of rather a different character. This is going to be the most extensive review
January 24, 1966	COMMONS
of taxation policy ever undertaken in this country, and it was considered of great importance, so as to minimize the delay in dealing with this matter, that officers of the department should be able to see some of the draft chapters. I have not seen any of them, *but they were made available to the officers *of the department so that the public interest in these matters would be served by a minimum of delay.
Mr. Speaker, as I have said in Toronto, and I think also in this house, it is not the intention of the government to incorporate in the forthcoming budget any of the recommendations of the commission. The commission's findings will be available for study by the public and by the members of this house foi some time, even before the government makes up its mind. But the matters are of *such great complexity that to wait until the report is laid on the table before the government officials have an opportunity of seeing it would only delay the implementation of the .government's decisions-which have not yet been made, of course; indeed, we have not seen the report. It is most important that as soon as this report has been studied both by the government and by the public there should be the minimum of delay before the government makes up its mind how it is going to act.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could we have some assurance from the Prime Minister that this is not to be a continuing practice? There may be, as the minister has said, some special circumstances, although I am not completely convinced yet; but can we have some assurance from the Prime Minister that it is not going to be a continuing practice that draft copies of reports of royal commissions are going to be submitted privately to the government prior to the reports being presented to His Excellency the Governor General?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I agree that it should not be a continuing or a normal practice.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. I apologize for not giving
DEBATES	147
Inquiries of the Ministry him notice, but until the division bells rang I thought I had until 2.30 this afternoon. However, I hope to catch on before long.
The announcement the Prime Minister made on Thursday last in connection with grants to education was certainly most welcome, I know, in Canada and particularly in the maritime provinces. Having just returned from the maritime provinces this week end I should like to ask whether the supplemental grants and the per capita grants he referred to will mean that the universities in the maritime provinces, which have a higher proportion of out of province students, will receive more than the $5 per capita.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the application of the various criteria, including the number of out of province students in universities, to ensure that the average across the country would be $5, has resulted in a very complicated formula. Offhand I cannot give my hon. friend the information as to how it would apply to each separate province.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I appreciate that this is a complicated formula, but does it mean there is to be a ceiling of $5 per capita?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, there will be some universities receiving more than that figure.


George Louis Chatterton: Can the Prime Minister advise us whether the program with regard to bursaries and scholarships will be implemented early enough for students to know before they enrol that this help will be available?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to think this could be done, but I am informed that if it were to be done the legislation would have to be passed within the next few weeks. I can assure hon. members that the legislation will be brought in as quickly as possible, and I hope it will be passed as quickly as possible. Whether this will be done in time for the next academic year, I cannot be sure.



POSSIBILITY OF JOINING EDUCATION ORGANIZATION UNDER UNESCO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: I am
most grateful, Mr. Speaker, that you have recognized me on my fourteenth rising. I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs; it is one which has aroused national and current interest in certain circles.
January 24, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry
In view of the government's increased interest in all aspects of education, is consideration being given to Canada joining the international education organization sponsored by UNESCO rather than continuing to send an observer who has neither voice nor vote, at about the same cost?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Yes.



MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Under the terms of the municipal development loan fund, projects must be completed by March 31 if they are to qualify for grants. Would the minister consider extending this date, since some of the smaller municipalities through no fault of their own have had to conduct protracted processes before obtaining approval and will not be able to finish their projects in time to qualify? This means a great deal to them.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I say to the hon. member that I will take his representations into account when I reply to the hon. member for Red Deer, who asked a similar question the other day.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of conflicting statements made by the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Vancouver Board of Trade and other interested parties on the movement of grain to the west coast. Has the government initiated any action to ascertain the facts in this matter so the bottleneck which is obstructing this movement can be located? Certainly the statements made on behalf of the C.P.R., the Board of Trade in Vancouver, the terminal elevators and other interested parties do not agree.


Mitchell William Sharp: I expect that at the opening of the house tomorrow or perhaps the next day I shall be able to announce some steps which have been taken to improve the co-ordination of grain movements to the west coast.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: wonder whether the Minister of Finance could verify the figures which were given to the press by an aide to the Minister of Agriculture and reported in last Friday's Globe and Mail to the effect that the C.P.R. was some 8,000 box cars behind and the C.N.R. 6,500 cars behind. Would the minister in giving his reply ascertain whether these figures are correct and, if so, tell us what is the reason for this very large backlog?


Mitchell William Sharp: I did suggest to the hon. gentleman that this is a question he should put on the order paper, and I have been expecting it to appear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a question of privilege, the minister has just said he was prepared to make a statement with reference to box cars. All I am asking is whether figures which were given by an aide to the Minister of Agriculture are correct. Surely he does not need a question on the order paper to tell us whether figures issued by a government official are right. As a matter of fact he ought to be able to tell us now.



SECOND FERRY BETWEEN NOVA SCOTIA AND NEW ENGLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: have a question for the Minister of Transport. The announced lay-up for refit of the ferry Bluenose again accentuates the need for a second ferry between Nova Scotia and New England. Would the minister inform the house, and especially the people of Nova Scotia, of the progress being made in this matter and whether we can expect an announcement soon from his department indicating that this necessary transportation link will be started or provided this year?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think it would be possible for me to make any statement at this time but I will endeavour, when the estimates are up for consideration to be in a position to discuss the matter.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance or to the Minister of Labour.
January 24, 1966

Can the minister tell us who is to blame for the long delay in paying to the municipalities amounts due under the winter works program? Is it the federal government, the provincial government or the municipal corporations?


Mitchell William Sharp: I undertook to inquire into this the other day in response to a similar question.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: On Thursday last, the hon. member for York South inquired as to what action had been taken with regard to requests for deferment under the Canadian Labour (Standards) Act, and I assured him I would look into the matter and give him the information at a later date.
Eight applications for deferment of wages have been rejected while none have, as yet, been granted. This of course, was under the previous minister. With respect to hours, one request for deferment has been granted. In this case both the employer and the union requested the deferment.
The department has several other requests under investigation. I hope to deal with some of them before the end of the month. The department is encouraging the parties in a number of instances to arrive at a suitable accommodation and present their joint views.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him to tell us, if he knows, when we may expect the second annual report, or the second report, of the maritime transportation union trustees.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I hope to be able to table it in or about the early part of February.



PENAL REFORM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Porfage-Neepawa):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Justice; in his absence perhaps I could direct it to the
Inquiries of the Ministry Prime Minister. It arises out of a documentary yesterday on the C.B.C. network dealing with penitentiaries and the alarming, blatant, frankly unrepentant attitude of certain inmates portrayed and reflected in that documentary. This, together with the increase in crime, prompts me to ask whether the government is contemplating the possibility of setting up a parliamentary committee on the whole broad question of penal reform.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There will be a committee of the house, a standing committee, I believe, which will be able to go into this question. I would add that I saw the program in question and was as disturbed by some parts of it as I am sure the hon. member was.



TEXTILES-POSSIBLE QUOTAS FOR CHINESE WORSTED FABRICS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue arising out of an article in the Ottawa Journal of January 21, under the by-line of Victor Mackie and headlined "Mainland China's Exporters Unhappy". Does the government intend to provide a quota for Chinese worsted fabrics instead of retaining dumping duties, which force up the price of this cloth so that it cannot compete with similar material from Japan? The Chinese are quite disturbed, and I am sure the western farmer, who depends on that market for his wheat, is also quite disturbed.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the particular article referred to by the hon. member. If he would allow me I would like
to look at it and then make comments concerning it.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I will pass the article on to the minister, but I would like him to keep in mind that the Minister of Finance, then Minister of Trade and Commerce, in 1964 promised the Chinese trade mission that there would be no barriers put up against Chinese imports.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the
January 24, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry Secretary of State which arises out of another Victor Mackie article. Perhaps in her absence her Parliamentary Secretary could draw it to her attention. Would the minister consider setting up an informal group of members, drawn from all parties in the house, to operate on an experimental basis for this session, which could act as a repository of suggestions and criticisms regarding television and radio programs, and hold informal meetings with C.B.C. management?


Mr. Speaker:: That question might be
placed on the order paper.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to direct to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. It is based on the minister's announcement to the house last April that the federal government would develop a second national park in Saskatchewan. What progress has been made toward fulfilling this proposal, and can the minister assure me that the Moose Mountain parkland area will receive the fullest consideration before any final decision is made as to the ultimate location of this park in Saskatchewan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question cannot be asked at this time. It should be placed on the order paper.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of statements to the effect that the minister will soon have responsibility for a department of northern affairs and Indian affairs, will he look into the situation regarding high unemployment in northern areas, of which the U.I.C. has no accurate records, in order that these areas may be included in the list of designated areas?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to accept the premise on which the question is based, but all these matters are under constant review by the department.
[Mr. McCleave.l



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reg Canielon (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Last evening on C.B.C. we heard that basic research in this country is one third financed by United States foundations. I am sure we all appreciate this aid, but in view of the importance of research to the continued prosperity of the country is it wise that there should be this dependency? Has the Prime Minister reached a decision to substantially increase university research grants this session and, if he has not, when will he do so?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I listened to that statement by a very distinguished scientist in B.C. who has been honoured with a very distinguished award, and I was much surprised at the figures he used. I have already taken steps to inquire if those figures are correct, and the policy of the government in regard to assistance for research will be made known before long.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether the bill to amend the Northwest Territories Act and the Yukon Act has yet been drafted.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, it is in process; yes.


Erik Nielsen: As a supplementary question are we to understand from the minister's reply that the Northwest Territories Act amendments and the Yukon Act amendments are in process of being drafted, and that only?


Arthur Laing: Well, Mr. Speaker, I did not delineate the extent of the progress.


Erik Nielsen: May I put this supplementary question to the minister. Has the bill itself, with respect to these amendments to the Yukon and Northwest Territories Acts, been printed?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
January 24, 1966


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have the minister's reply to that question.


Arthur Laing: I would be very surprised if this was a question I had to answer or, indeed, one that was proper.


Donald MacInnis: Another Speaker.


Arthur Laing: The preparation of the bill has been in hand for some time, and more than one draft has been printed.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a further question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and ask him whether any of the drafts of the bills effecting amendments to the Yukon Act and the Northwest Territories Act, to which he has referred, have received distribution outside the members of this house or the members of his department?


Arthur Laing: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister specifically have copies of this bill, that has not been tabled in the house, been placed in the hands of members of the Yukon council, and are they at the moment-


Erik Nielsen: The Northwest Territories council.


John George Diefenbaker: The Northwest Territories council. I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker; I know that I have to be that specific to get the truth. Is it not a fact that there has been a completely wrong course followed here, and that the bill has been placed in the hands of these council members before being tabled in the house?


Arthur Laing: I would be surprised to know this. I shall make inquiries.


John George Diefenbaker: All right. You will find it is true.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can he tell us whether the report of the Thompson inquiry concerning the Air Canada maintenance and overhaul base at Winnipeg has been received and, if so, when it will be published?

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have been so scrupulous to avoid any suggestion of interference with the commission that I have not even communicated with the commissioner about the date at which the report will be received, but rumour tells me it will be quite soon.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on Friday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked me a question about the government's intention concerning legislation relating to private pension plans. In answer may I say to him that the situation remains as it was when my predecessor answered a similar question on March 10. The progress of the provinces in adopting legislation along these lines has been slower than was then anticipated, and we are taking this into account in preparing our own legislation.
He also asked me about the content of the legislation. I think it would be out of place for me to endeavour to answer a question of that kind at this stage, or to go beyond what was indicated by the former Minister of Finance, who described the general nature of the bill to the hon. member on that same date, March 10, and in a subsequent answer to question No. 2871.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand from what the minister has just said that federal legislation in this field will have to wait until all the provinces have adopted such legislation?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, that is not the situation, Mr. Speaker. We are going ahead with the preparation of our legislation, but because of the relative slowness of the provinces in dealing with theirs, and the desire of the federal government to propose legislation of a similar character, the drafting of our legislation has been affected.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether consideration was given to the question as to whether companies such as the C.P.R. and the C.N.R., which have employees in provinces which have passed legislation, will be covered by that legislation, or whether those companies and their employees will have to wait for the implementation of federal legislation.
January 24, 1966

The Address-Mr. Baldwin


Mitchell William Sharp: Since I am not a constitutional authority like my hon. friend, I should like to take that question as notice.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January 21, 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, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I first extend to those hon. members who moved and seconded the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne my very sincere congratulations on the excellent speeches and contributions they have made to this house. Not only the delivery but the content and material were such as to indicate that these two members will prove to be very valuable and useful members in this chamber.
It is significant at this time to note that those two hon. members are two of 60 new members who are now engaged in finding their places and becoming aware of the many facets of parliamentary life which make it interesting and perplexing. I welcome all those other new members, but I might say that I think if the seating arrangement was such that more of them were on this side of the house, this party and this country would be better served and these members would have a far greater opportunity to make a contribution. However, the people of this country have made the decision.
I should like to extend to you, sir, my sincere congratulations on your elevation to the high position you now occupy. Through you I should also like to offer my congratulations to the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Committees.
Having had the privilege of being associated with you, Mr. Speaker, during the proceedings and deliberations of the committee on procedure studying changes in the rules, I have every confidence that you will discharge your responsibilities in a way most fitting to your high office. I am particularly sure of this because, as a result of the adoption of these rules for one year, this house has seen fit to entrust to the occupant of the Chair the right and duty of making decisions which are not subject to appeal. With the adoption of this rule it is my belief that a greater measure of
[Mr. Orlikow.)

independence should be attached to the position of Speaker and Deputy Speaker. In any event I am sure and have confidence that you will discharge your responsibilities and exercise discretion carefully and justly.
This parliament has inherited some of the leftovers of the last parliament, one of which I was pleased to note was disposed of satisfactorily by this house on Friday; I refer to the temporary arrangements adopted in regard to the application of the new rules for the balance of this session. I cannot agree with all the changes introduced by the government and the committee on procedure, but I feel sure we will have a reasonable opportunity during the balance of this session to understand and decide whether some of these changes are satisfactory and should be adopted on a permanent basis, or whether some of them are unsatisfactory and should be discarded.
Another of the problems inherited by this house relates to the government which finds itself in a minority position in this house. During the last two days, Thursday and Friday of last week, we had an opportunity of debating the question now before the house and of hearing the views of hon. members regarding this minority position. We have had the opportunity of hearing views expressed by the Prime Minister and other leaders in this house.
As an example, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask what the position will be if and when the opposition in exercising its rights and duties sees fit to propose an amendment in substance to government proposals, bills and spending programs. As I understood the Prime Minister, after listening to him on Friday, he indicated that he intends to take the narrow and orthodox view that an amendment in substance to the government's position when accepted by the house could be followed only by the resignation of the government and dissolution. Other hon. members, including the right hon. Leader of the Opposition have taken a different view.
In this regard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre delved into the records of the house in search of precedents and customs followed by this house. I suggest there are practices and usages we could adopt, if we saw fit, which would alleviate the necessity of a government sustaining a defeat to resign and call an election.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that practices, customs, usages and precedents are useful in a democratic parliamentary system. While it is
January 24, 1966

true that in a system of this kind practices and customs are followed, there is no doubt that under unique sets of circumstances new precedents can be created. Surely we can carve out new rules and customs which can be followed by future parliaments in unique circumstances such as those which exist today. I refer, of course, to the fact that for the fourth time in five elections the people of this country have returned the political parties of this country in such a way that no party holds an over-all majority.
It is not for us to say whether that is wise or unwise. It is the view of our masters, those people who voted on November 8, 1965, and during the course of preceding elections, that the members of this house with a minority government should attempt to carry on.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
I think they have sent them back with a clear mandate, with specific terms of reference not to come back to the people for another election until this parliament has run at least a substantial part of its normal life. This is my view. I believe this view was expressed by the people of this country. I know that during the course of the election campaign up in my constituency I frequently heard the candidate for the government party say that majority government was the main issue, and this was the central issue around which the last election was called. The candidate for the government party said this at all the joint meetings wherein I was associated with him in addressing people, and I have no doubt that other hon. members had the same experience.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it was certainly a matter that was thoroughly canvassed and discussed. It was, I think, the announced reason for calling the election. The Prime Minister said he was going to seek a new mandate, and his contention was that he required a majority government. No other reason can be assigned to the calling of the last election. Certainly the government was in no danger of defeat before September 8, 1965; the members of the smaller parties had from time to time given the government their support.
This is quite right; this is their privilege. But as I remarked once before, when we saw situations such as there were for example in 1963, when the New Democratic party abstained from a vote and the government was not defeated; when we saw from time to time the other minority parties giving their sup-
The Address-Mr. Baldwin port to the government, I think one can say "With enemies like this, why do you need more friends?"
So it is with regard to majority government. I found, from going around my constituency and western Canada, that what the people said to me about majority government being an issue was obviously different from what they had said to the Prime Minister. What they said to me was "Well, for heaven's sake, Jed, if majority government is an issue, don't let the Liberals come back with a majority". This was their view, and a very sensible one it was.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, the result is that we are here with a minority government and we must live with the situation. Therefore I think we must review and re-assess our position. For this reason I suggest that when the right hon. Prime Minister last Friday said he would regard a defeat of the government on the amendment which was before the house as sufficient cause and adequate reason for him to resign and seek a new election-he did not express it in precisely those words but the meaning was quite plain-in taking that position he is proceeding in open defiance of the wishes of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: There are various courses open to the Prime Minister. I am not going to suggest the number of combinations of situations which way arise. Naturally it is predicated on the form of an amendment; it is predicated on whether or not the government quite sincerely believes that it is proceeding on a deep and fundamental principle where its failure to secure its own way on the particular issue will lead to a very bad situation in the country.
It may well be that circumstances could arise where a government, not merely because its will was thwarted, not merely because it was not getting its own way, would be justified in following the course that the Prime Minister suggested. But if we are going to follow the time-honoured practices of the past despite the fact that the conditions of the present are entirely different, then I think, as I said before, that the government is proceeding in open defiance of the views of the people of Canada.
There are a number of combinations which could arise. Certainly there is no reason why the government could not bend, could not conform, could not mould its views to the wishes as expressed in this house by a
January 24, 1966

The Address-Mr. Baldwin majority of the members. This is my fifth parliament. I have never been convinced that governments and their senior advisers have that degree of infallibility that suggests we should follow them without question-certainly not the government which now faces us across the floor of the house.
I think this is an admirable time, particularly suited to the new rules which we have adopted, for governments in bringing in legislation, in bringing down spending proposals, to accept the principle that they are agreeable to alter, to amend and to have changes brought about either by agreement -as was the case with the rules which we established on Friday-or by vote of the house. After all, Mr. Speaker, I think the majority of the 265 men and women here representing the people of Canada are entitled to say to the government under those conditions, when the people have so voted and their representatives have so voted, "You have a plain duty cast upon you to conform and to adapt your attitude to ours".
Equally, Mr. Speaker, even if the government should take a more serious view, their resignation need not necessarily be followed by dissolution. I think this course is their last resort. I believe we must come to a very serious situation which is the height of gravity before the government and the Prime Minister take this course. I suggest that the Prime Minister and the government should re-assess and review their position in the light of the changed circumstances which this minority parliament, following two other minority parliaments, considers itself to be in. Precedent, I repeat, can be followed. Precedent can also be established. 'This, Mr. Speaker, is a time for us to establish precedent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my remarks to a more local issue but one which I think is also fundamental to some of the tasks which face this parliament.
I deal now with the situation facing many thousands of people in the Peace River country who have experienced hardship and distress throughout the course of several years and whose difficulties have been accentuated this year by the third poor crop in successive years as a result of adverse weather conditions. Because there have been certain incorrect statements made in this regard I think it is essential to put the whole issue and all the facts on the record.


I direct my remarks to the Minister of Agriculture and to the Prime Minister as well. 1 realize, of course, that the Minister of Agricuitu-e has only recently taken over his responsibilities and I realize that this is a problem which he has inherited. Nevertheless I think there is a fundamental issue here stemming far beyond his immediate rejection of the request of the people of the Peace River country and the province of Alberta.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
I would first point out that the area involved in the Peace River country constitutes some 80,000 square miles with 10,000 farm units. It is a vast inland empire with a variety of weather, just as different and changeable as the record of this government with regard to its budget and the pension plan. In 1963, 1964 and this year large areas of the Peace River country involving almost 20 per cent of the farm units-which in terms of people could be between 8,000 and 10,000 -sustained very severe losses. Much of this country is in the homestead stage. We have attempted to build up an area on the perimeter of civilization. This is not an area, at least most of it is not, in which there is a long record of agricultural operation. These are people who have gone into the far north, into a new country, and are attempting to carve out a living for themselves and their families.
Now, according to correspondence I have received and from trips I have made, there are indications of serious hardships and a large measure of distress in these areas. Many farmers have had to sell parts of their farm units to pay their debts. Basic herds of cattle have had to be sold in order to pay debts. These cattle were sold at prices which were entirely uneconomical. The cattle had not been fattened and were not ready for sale.
The position of the head of the household under these circumstances is not what it is in other parts of the country. In order to secure employment many of these men must go 50, 60 or 70 miles. There is not a considerable body of industry there. The type of work which is available is connected with oil development, forestry or pipe line building. This means the men have to leave their families at home under weather conditions which, during periods of this winter, have seen temperatures of 40 or 50 degrees below zero.
I could go into a considerable amount of detail concerning these conditions. However, I ask the house to accept my word that there
January 24, 1966

are many thousands of people who have suffered and are suffering great hardship at this time. The provincial government made a careful study and analysis of the situation. Shortly after the first week in December the province of Alberta made a request of the federal government, which I assume was directed to the Minister of Agriculture. This request set out in detail the terms of a plan of assistance in which the provincial government asked the federal government to share on a 50-50 basis. The Minister of Agriculture, both during the course of discussion with the provincial minister and in a letter to me, rejected the proposal of the provincial government. He based his rejection on the fact that eligible farmers have received or are receiving P.F.A.A. assistance, and the validity of superimposing further federal assistance on these areas could be questioned.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has completely misconceived the purpose and nature of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. The application of this legislation, as designed in 1939, was limited to the southern area of the prairie provinces, and originally was only for the purpose of providing help against drought. Since then the application of the act has been extended in scope and area so that it now covers all western Canada and the Peace River bloc in British Columbia. It is, Mr. Speaker, a form of statutory insurance. There are people not only in my part of the country but in all parts of western Canada who have made annual contributions to this scheme, which can be termed an insurance premium. The contribution is 1 per cent of the value of the grain which they sell. These people have paid this 1 per cent for 10, 15 or 20 years and never once received a dollar in prairie farm assistance aid.
This 1 per cent is a premium paid by farmers, and it is like any other insurance premium. It is a gamble. The government gambles and the farmer gambles. If there is that degree of adverse weather conditions which results in the crop being below the minimum required under the act, the farmer is then entitled to an inspection and to receive an amount provided in the regulations. This is a statutory form of insurance. I suggest that the minister, in his rejection, has completely misunderstood this particular basis of payment.
As a matter of fact the minister has pointed out, I think quite properly, that over the last three years the entire Peace River country had received a considerable amount

The Address-Mr. Baldwin through the provisions of this legislation. The minister supplied figures in answer to a question I asked, but I suggest to the minister this money was not necessarily paid to the same people who are now seeking relief. This money, I judge, was distributed over the entire Peace River area, including the Peace River bloc of British Columbia. If you divide the total amount by the number of farm units, the result would be approximately $540 per unit over three years or approximately $180 per year.
I point out to the minister that I admire the position he took when he was out west with regard to the railways and the effect of their actions on western Canada. I point out to the minister also that a series of horizontal freight rate increases has placed a burden on the people of western Canada and an additional burden on the people of northern Alberta who are on the receiving end of these increases, all of which are reflected in the cost of living. I can confirm this fact from my own experience since I have lived here as well as in the Peace River district. I can confirm the fact that this $180 per year will no more than cover the increased cost of living which the people of the north have to pay by reason of these horizontal freight rate increases. I do not believe there is any question about it, and statistics will bear me out, Mr. Speaker.
Last year I thought the minister took a very reasonable and very tolerant attitude toward this question of assistance to farmers. At the time the subject was debated the hon. member for Renfrew South, as he then was, participated in order to tell the story of his own people. He said, as reported on page 10207 of Hansard for November 17, 1964:
I would point out that I appreciate there is a constitutional difficulty in these matters; that unfortunately national legislation pertaining to crises in various provinces where, through no fault of their own the farmers of this country are very hard hit by drought or other disasters of this nature which stem from an act of God, is possibly lacking in this parliament by reason of the fact that to date no national policy has been evolved-
Later he said:
However, Mr. Speaker, I do submit that in a situation such as this, which affects not only the economic well-being of these farmers but even involves the possibility of the wells being dry and the water tables being extremely low, and which might affect the question of health and welfare in these areas, surely when a crisis of this kind occurs some action can be taken under the federal powers to remedy it.
At that time the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture replied. He
January 24, 1966

The Address-Mr. Baldwin enunciated what I submit was the policy of the government and what has been the policy of governments in the past when such problems have arisen and when provincial governments have requested assistance. This is what he said, as recorded on the same page of Hansard:
The policy of the government, as was the policy of previous governments, has been that the federal government should not interfere unless requested to do so by the province concerned. A province would not normally ask for federal assistance unless it felt that any loss occasioned was beyond their financial capacity to absorb. But the federal government has recognized that many of these problem areas do present a serious drain on the finances of the provinces and therefore the government has been only too willing to enter into consultations with the provinces and to reach agreement on a policy whereby federal assistance can be made available-
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
That seems clear enough. Then later on, Mr. Speaker, on another occasion in connection with the same discussion, the hon. member for Renfrew South, now Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene), said, as reported at page 2821 of Hansard for June 23, 1965:
I think this is a desperate and dark hour in the lives of these people, most of whom have lived in this area of eastern Ontario for many generations. I do not think these are people who come running to government every time something gets a little tough. I do not think they come to us on their knees, and they never will, because these are proud people. But I do suggest that if we have any function here whatsoever it surely is to see to it that we use every measure and every available facet of governmental action that is available to us in order to alleviate this desperate situation of the farmers of eastern Ontario.
What about the situation as it developed during the election campaign, Mr. Speaker? I am glad to say that the official Liberal candidate took what I considered to be a very sound position. In the issue of the Grand Prairie Herald-Tribune for October 4, 1965 Mr. C. A. MacDonell, Liberal candidate, was quoted in these words:
A general survey of the crop situation in "the Peace" will be made this week by O. G. Bratbold, superintendent of crop improvement in the field crops branch of the Department of Agriculture, it was announced today.
The announcement was made by Peace river constituency Liberal candidate, C. A. MacDonell, who only last week had told The Daily Herald-Tribune that farmers in the Lymbum and Albright areas would receive federal assistance in the form of cash grants.
The Liberal candidate met with farmers at Lymbum and Albright over the week end and said since then he has been flooded with inquiries from other districts in "the Peace".
This went beyond that, Mr. Speaker. The Liberal candidate, through his office, sent out

questionnaires for farmers to fill them in, the plain inference being that those who filled in these questionnaires and who qualified would receive federal assistance over and above P.F.A.A. I do not think there is any question: about that.
For further confirmation, when the minister rejected the request of the provincial government there was quite a lot of anxiety about it. The same Mr. MacDonell said at that time, as reported in the January 13, 1966 issue of the Grand Prairie Herald-Tribune:
My understanding In this respect was that Ottawa would match dollar for dollar any assistance plans, aside from P.F.A.A., as they did in Alberta in 1959 and Ontario and Quebec in 1964 and 1965.
Mr. MacDonell had a letter, which I was told was from the former Minister of Agriculture, containing those words from which he drew this inference. I can only give that as hearsay evidence; I never saw the letter myself.
Then we can go beyond this, Mr. Speaker. In 1957 there was a serious crop situation in part of northern Alberta. All the crops were covered with snow. At that time a meeting was held of a number of officials from municipalities and a wire was dispatched to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness), the then Minister of Agriculture, asking what the federal government would do. The reply immediately came back-and I remember one farmer telling me that this was the first time in 20 years they had had so-rapid a reply from a minister of agriculture-that if the provincial government would make the usual constitutional request, the federal government would provide assistance on the same basis.
In 1959 all the crops in western Canada were under snow. A request was made by the provincial governments of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba for assistance. In addition to P.F.A.A. the then federal government provided special cash assistance and other benefits. Therefore the practice in the past definitely has not been that which the minister has now indicated.
If, Mr. Speaker, this is a new practice, then we wish to know. I suspect, though I should like to believe I am wrong, that there is more than this involved. Almost the same day the minister rejected the request of the province of Alberta his departmental officials issued a notice in which they agreed to pay to the province of New Brunswick a measure of cash assistance to the farmers there. I wonder whether we are in the position-
January 24, 1966


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time appears to have expired, unless he has the agreement of the house to continue beyond his allocated time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I am just concluding. I did feel that these remarks might be referable to a statement made by a figure in one of Dickens' books, which I might paraphrase as follows: Election results: Alberta-two Social Crediters, 15 Tories, no Liberals-no farm assistance. Election results: New Brunswick-four Tories, six Liberals-farm assistance. I hope I am wrong in this. This is too serious, too fundamental a problem. But if this is the policy of the government, then all the fine and brave words they have used with regard to assistance programs and a war on poverty are completely meaningless.
I am not going to take advantage of the discretion which has been exercised in my favour, Mr. Speaker, and I will conclude with these words. I urge the minister and I urge the Prime Minister to review the decision in this respect, and to re-examine the situation so that the cry of discrimination, which I admit I raised when the matter first came to my attention, cannot be validly used against the federal government of this country.


Mr. Jean-Eudes Dube (Resiigouche-Mada-waska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
begin by congratulating 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). The distinction they showed in performing their task permeated through this house like a refreshing breeze and gave the promise of two brilliant political careers.
May I also extend my congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker? I know that you are naturally endowed with the competence, authority and diplomacy necessary to discharge admirably your high functions. I am sure that the University of Ottawa, which we both consider as our Alma Mater, must be proud of this mark of confidence bestowed upon one of its most illustrious alumni by the Canadian parliament.
No great surprises were to be found in the speech from the throne, and that is probably
The Address-Mr. Dube because it contained what most Canadians expected.
I find the speech from the throne a document of impressive scope, but deeply human in its aims.
One of the subjects referred to most often in this document and one of those most thoroughly discussed by the Prime Minister deals with federal assistance to education.
I feel that the basic principle in this field is that every young Canadian is entitled to an education and that it is not the exclusive right of any association, institution or government.
Poverty which the government is committed to fight stems from several causes, the main one being illiteracy. Therefore, our fight must first be waged on the front, in the front lines, in the trenches of education.
In order to win this fight, to co-ordinate the existing activities and to protect the constitutional rights of minorities, I feel the government should establish a department of education and culture.
Consequently, a new department of education and culture would have a dual purpose: first, to protect the rights of minorities and, second, to co-ordinate the complex ramification of the measures taken by various federal departments concerning directly or indirectly culture and education.
Under section 93 of the British North America Act, each province may make laws in relation to education, subject to four provisions.
The third of these provisions grants a right of appeal to the governor general in council, that is the federal government.
The fourth of these restrictive provisions authorizes the Canadian parliament to make laws in the field of education for the purpose of helping minorities whose rights have been encroached upon.
In a learned paper published in Le Tra-vailleur of Worcester, Mass., on November 18, 1965, Seraphin Marion, the historian writes and I quote:
The most important compromise the fathers of confederation had to agree to was undoubtedly the one concerning minorities and their school rights and privileges. This compromise is no less than the cornerstone of the confederation structure. Without it, the entire building would crumble like a house of cards under the flick of a child's finger.
Mr. Marion emphasizes that this truth is almost ignored today and he quotes several fathers of confederation, including George Brown, Alexander Mackenzie and a categorical statement by Sir Charles Tupper. Here is
January 24, 1966

The Address-Mr. Dube what the Conservative prime minister said in this house in 1896:
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)

I say with knowledge that but for the consent to the proposal of Mr. Galt, who represented especially the Protestants of Quebec, and but for the assent of that conference to the proposal of Mr. Galt, that in the Confederation Act should be embodied a clause which would protect the rights of minorities, whether Catholics or Protestants, in this country there would have been no Confederation .... It is significant that for the clause protecting minorities the measure of Confederation would not have been accomplished.

There is no need to go over the far from glorious record of provincial governments with regard to minorities to realize that those governments failed to assume their responsibilities with regard to minorities and to hope that the federal government will fill the vacuum and start right now to legislate in that field.
In all fairness, however, one must point out two provincial exceptions. The province of Quebec has always been very generous toward its minority and over the last few years New Brunswick has started to legislate to give everyone equal opportunities.
The second task of a Department of Education and Culture would be to co-ordinate the numerous federal projects related to culture and education now scattered among several departments.
The federal government is spending several million dollars every year in the fields of culture and education.
Last year I put on the order paper the following question:
Question No. 564.
In each year since 1960, what have been the total amounts expended by the federal government, including per capita grants, in assistance to education in the province of New Brunswick?
I will spare you the other years, but here is the breakdown of the figures obtained from the departments for the sole province of New Brunswick during 1964-1965.
Citizenship and Immigration	$ 246,847.00
Finance	1,234,000.00
Fisheries	8,009.00
Labour	3,984,270.00
Health-	
Technical training for	
workers	286,089.00
Grants for training	9,728.00
Health and amateur sport	11,600.00
Veterans Affairs	45,599.00
Total	$5,826,142.00
The preceding figures come from six departments only for one province only and for one year only. It is true that it is the most picturesque of our provinces, but it is one of the least populated.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock? [English]
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, in an article written by Pierre O'Neil, of the newspaper La Presse, January 20, 1966, pointed out that Ottawa was appropriating $500 million for education.
Here are a few of the figures quoted in this article:
-Scholarships and various types of assistance to students: $13.7 million;
-Capital expenditures and operating costs of military colleges: $716 million;
-Canada Council grants: $3.5 million;
-Education of children of members of the armed forces: $17 million;
-Education in penitentiaries: $1.1 million;
-School broadcasts, films: $3 million;
-Money remitted on schools built under the municipal development and loan board program; -Grants in lieu of municipal taxes by government organizations (school taxes): $18.4 million;
Mr. Speaker, in his message to Congress on January 12, 1965, the President of the United States, Mr. Lyndon B. Johnson, submitted a massive $4.1 billion program for 1966 to improve education in the United States.
Here is what President Johnson said: [English]
In all that we do, we mean to strengthen our state and community education systems. Federal assistance does not mean federal control-as past programs have proven.
The late Senator Bobert Taft declared: Education is primarily a state function-but in the fields of health, relief and medical care, the federal government has a secondary obligation to see that there is a basic floor under those essential services, for all adults and children in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I submit also that federal aid to education does not mean federal control. On the other hand, a federal department of education and culture would do two things:
1-	Protect the rights of minorities, and
2-	Co-ordinate federal assistance to education and culture, while respecting the fundamental principle that education is the right of all Canadians.

January 24, 1966

To pass to something else, the speech from the throne is also the perfect time for members of the house to make representations on behalf of their respective ridings.
Today, I would like to bring to the attention of the proper authorities three definite and concrete suggestions to improve railway and highway transportation in our area.
The population of the riding of Res-tigouche-Madawaska has very poor railway passenger service. It is practically unbelievable that the city of Edmundston with 14,000 people and the riding of Restigouche-Madawaska with 39,000 are served only two or three times a week in winter, and not at all the rest of the year. It is an abnormal situation which I have discussed several times with the proper authorities.
The answer I get is that the main lines must first be provided with attractive and profitable service and that the C.N.R. will then look after secondary lines. We are asked to be patient in the meantime. The population of that area has been patient long enough and now demands a solution.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Here is the solution I propose: That the Moncton-Edmundston line of the C.N.R. be connected with the Edmundston-Levis line, and that adequate passenger service, including sleeping cars and dining cars be provided on the new Moncton-Edmundston-Levis line.
Even if this new service were to operate only two or three times a week at the outset, that would be quite acceptable. And, as it would grow in popularity, a daily service would become profitable. In reply to this very reasonable suggestion, the C.N.R. persists in saying the line would not pay for itself. There are two replies to that argument.
First of all, inasmuch as the people of this area pay taxes just as other Canadians do, it is unfair to force them to contribute to the replenishment and financing of the Canadian National elsewhere in this country when they do not benefit therefrom.
In the second place, this railway line, if it is not profitable as far as passenger traffic is concerned-which remains to be proved-is surely profitable with regard to freight services, since this line is used almost exclusively by freight trains heading for the Atlantic coast.
As far as highway transportation is concerned, they are talking about building a new road between Halifax and Sherbrooke in Quebec. This proposed route, better known as
The Address-Mr. Dube the Corridor Road, would bypass completely the northern section of New Brunswick and would go through the state of Maine. This does not strike us as being an ideal solution to our highway problems.
It would seem preferable to go further north, which would have the advantage of including Moncton, Renous, Edmundston, St. Francis and, lastly, Sherbrooke. This route would include several already established roads, it would serve more centres and it would not isolate the north of the province of New Brunswick. This proposal should be further examined at a time when competent authorities are considering tomorrow's road building projects.
To continue in the field of new road, I must reiterate my request for a secondary section of the Trans-Canada highway in our region. This second section should complete the network under construction by linking Riviere du Loup to Moncton, through the Matapedia valley and Restigouche county. Increasing traffic makes the present road inadequate within that network. I should like to add a protest to these three recommendations for improving the present situation. The people of my town of Campbellton strongly disapprove of the Canadian National's decision to transfer the maintenance of diesel engines to Moncton.
I have been assured by C.N.R. officials that efficiency and economy make this step necessary and that only ten employees will be affected. However, this decision should not lead to a dismemberment of our railway centre for the people would not accept it.
Above all, C.N.R. officials should provide new jobs in other departments in Campbellton.

In concluding my remarks I should like to make a modest contribution to the great question now occupying the minds of many Canadians, the question of national unity. I live in a province which has had to face its share of problems in that field. It is surprising, however, how many of these problems have gradually been solved through a daily dosage of mutual understanding and plain common sense. The fact that a young man from the Acadian minority was elected premier of the province is not necessarily conclusive evidence that we live in a Canadian bilingual paradise but it is a clear indication that we have gone a long way toward national unity.
January 24, 1966

The Address-Mr. Hees
One source of friction encountered in places in Canada where Canadians of both expressions meet every day is the fact that a bilingual person is usually a French speaking Canadian who speaks both languages. This can be partly due to the fact that many English speaking citizens did not learn French early enough at school or did not learn it on a practical basis or in some cases did not learn it at all. This is perhaps due to a shortage of French teachers. In any event, we should not be overly interested in apportioning the blame. But we should all be very much interested in a solution.
It is common knowledge that the best time to learn a second language is very early in life. In fact, young children in Europe learn many languages early in school and remain fluent in these languages throughout their lives. There is a proposal now being launched in my home town of Campbellton to teach French to English speaking children in elementary schools beginning in grade one. That proposition is receiving the support of the community.
May I quote extracts from a front page editorial in the Campbellton Graphic dated February 11, 1965, in support of the proposal.
The French program for English classes in elementary schools of this province is mid-Victorian in its approach and has failed miserably to accomplish its purpose-to teach English students to speak and write French.
Lingualists agree that the time to teach another language to children is when they are very young. They also agree that being able to speak another language is all important and that the grammatical side of the language can be instituted in later years.
Perhaps never before has it been so important to be able to speak French. For years our Frenchspeaking friends have pointed out that if we English citizens could speak their language our understanding of their culture would lead to greater unity and a truly united Canada. We feel that French citizens here will strongly support this proposal toward bilingualism.
I am very pleased to commend the Graphic and the people of my community for their forwardlooking endeavour. I believe that if the same program could be carried out throughout Canada, and especially in areas where Canadians of both cultures live together, the next generation would be much better equipped than we are today to deal with our common Canadian problems. And if we love our country and our children, now is the time to make the decision.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by congratulating the Speaker of the House of Commons and you, Your Honour, on your

appointments and by joining with the many other members who have already congratulated the proposer and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. They have done excellent jobs and, as one who is making his maiden speech for the second time, I know just what they went through. I commend them heartily for their able efforts. Today I should like to speak about our economy generally, and then about some things that are badly needed in the county of Northumberland, which I have the honour to represent.
Two things which can seriously check a country's economic progress are, first of all, a situation in which a country finds itself spending considerably more outside its borders than it is taking in, and, second, a tight money policy. This country today is experiencing both of these situations. In the past, Canada has been able to handle reasonable imbalances in its external account by attracting large volumes of foreign capital for investment here. However, when an imbalance becomes excessively large, positive steps then have to be taken to correct this. That time has been reached today.
In the first nine months of 1965, and these are the latest figures available to us, this country paid out $754 million more than it received. This compares with a deficit balance of only $272 million for the same nine month period of 1964, which was, of course, only about one third of the amount of our imbalance during the first nine months of 1965. At this rate, when we observe our year-end figures, after they appear around the middle of March, we can fully expect to find that during 1965 we will have spent about $1 billion more outside this country than other countries have spent in Canada. If the rate of acceleration of 1965 over 1964 continues, we may easily find at the end of the present year that we will have spent some $2 billion more outside Canada than we will have taken in. This is clearly a very serious situation indeed and one which requires immediate action.
One thing which could help correct this serious imbalance is an increase in our commodity exports. Faced with a similar situation in 1960, the government, of which I was a member, did several things to bring about that kind of a correction. I commend them to the minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) who was not in the house then, and may not be familiar with the steps we took to increase exports at that time.

January 24, 1966

[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The first thing we did was to bring our 150 trade commissioners, from 50 foreign posts abroad, back to Canada to meet with our businessmen, and convince them that there is a place in the export market for their products. Some 1,350 Canadian businessmen came to Ottawa at that time, and spent one week conferring with our trade commissioners. Over 10,000 individual half hour interviews were held between our trade commissioners and our businessmen. The result of these conferences was that a great many of the businessmen who came to Ottawa at that time became convinced that there was a place for their products in the export market. They started travelling abroad, either individually or as members of the greatly enlarged trade commissions that we started sending abroad, and found they were able to make sales or, if not, that they were able to get information from foreign buyers of the countries they visited, who told them what they must do to bring their products into line to make sales. They came home, talked it over with their factory managers, and made adjustments in their products and in the prices of their products. The result was very important orders later on.
The second thing we did was to ask our trade commissioners when they returned to their posts to make a survey of the markets they served and to let us know which Canadian products then being produced could be sold in their markets, provided the necessary selling effort was put behind them. As a result, we received a startling list of more than 2,500 individual Canadian products which were then not being sold abroad, and which our trade commissioners said could be sold very easily if the proper selling effort was made. This list was circulated to all firms in Canada and was very useful to the heads of industries in planning export drives. It was not a general list but a specific list, giving to each product the name and address of the trade commissioner concerned, so that the manufacturer could immediately get in touch with the trade commissioner, and obtain information on what he would have to do to sell his product in that particular market.
Then, in June of that year, our government began systematically to lower the value of the Canadian dollar in terms of the United States dollar in order to make our products more competitive in the export market and to make foreign products less competitive in the Canadian market. This was done so that our
The Address

Mr. Hees producers who sell overseas could sell their goods more easily and so that those producers who sell in the home market could sell more easily against foreign competition here in Canada. This move was of tremendous benefit to Canadian producers generally. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in May of 1962 the dollar was finally pegged at 92J cents U.S. This deliberate devaluation of the Canadian dollar by the Canadian government made our products 10 per cent more competitive in foreign markets than they were before this survey was taken.
In addition, foreign costs generally, and European costs particularly, have risen spectacularly in the last few years, so that our products today are from 20 per cent to 25 per cent more competitive in the world market than they were when the survey was originally taken in early 1961. I am convinced that if another survey were taken today by the Department of Trade and Commerce, we would find that, instead of our original list of 2,500 products that were not being sold overseas, the list would be several times larger. I strongly commend to the minister that another survey be taken immediately for the benefit of the Canadian economy.
The third thing we did was this. Realizing there were many Canadian businessmen who had not been able to come to Ottawa for our first conference, we decided to take government to the people and held conferences in the capital cities of all the ten provinces, including three conferences in Ontario because of the far greater demand by the manufacturers and merchants of this province. More than 5,000 businessmen attended those conferences, mostly small businessmen who, up till that time, had never thought for a moment that there would be any place for their products in the export market. As in the case of those who attended the first conference in Ottawa, a great many of them became convinced that there was a place for their products in the export market if they were helped, as we indicated they would be, by the officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce. They started making trips overseas, both as individuals as members of the trade commissions that we sent overseas, and a great many were able to make sales either on the first trip or, having been advised what was necessary to sell their product in the export market, were able to make sales later on.
We did a great many other things to help this export drive get started. I have not time

January 24, 1966
The Address-Mr. Hees now to detail all of them, Mr. Speaker, but I do recommend very strongly to the government and to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that they immediately repeat these three things that we did, because these steps that we took provided a great and immediate upsurge in our commodity export trade. They provided the first positive trade balance in nine years, and also made possible the basis of the prosperity which this country has been enjoying ever since. If the government will repeat that successful program today, it will give our exports the stimulus which is needed to help balance our foreign accounts, and provide the employment that we are going to need in the future for our steadily growing work force.
In addition to increasing our sales of industrial products, Mr. Speaker, I think the time has arrived for us to start a drive to sell far more of our agricultural products in the export market. In 1961 our government, by initiating wheat sales to China, demonstrated that wheat could be sold in far greater quantities in the world market than had ever been sold by Canada before.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: Our other agricultural products can be sold on the export market in far greater quantities if the same drive is put behind selling these products as we have put behind selling our industrial products. The industrial trade crusade of five years ago paid off very handsomely indeed, and is continuing to pay off every day. It needs reviving, it needs renewing, but it is still paying off.
An agricultural trade crusade of the same pattern will pay off equally well if the same initiative is put behind it, and the same pattern is followed. After all, Mr. Speaker, our trade commissioners are just as competent to sell our agricultural products as they are to sell our industrial products. If they sold our industrial products, they can sell our agricultural products, I believe, even more easily, because our farmers are at less of a disadvantage in selling their products in the world market than are our industrialists. I say this, Mr. Speaker, because our farmers are not faced with the same competition on a mammoth scale as are our industrialists, in competing with the industrial giants of the United States and western Europe.
I believe we can make a spectacular increase in the sale of our farm products if an agricultural trade crusade is started right away. Such an intensified selling campaign is necessary if we are to maintain a good

domestic price for our farm products and give our farmers a fair return for the work they do and the capital they invest. By selling our farm surpluses overseas we can remove the downward pressure on the domestic price which occurs whenever harvests are good, and crops are larger than normal. Therefore,
I urge the Minister to introduce without further delay such an agricultural trade crusade, based upon our industrial trade crusade of five years ago. I am convinced that equally good results will accrue to our farmers, which will enable them to receive a much fairer return for their labour and investment than they do today.
I should like to address a few remarks now, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) and ask him and the government to relax immediately the iniquitous tight money policy which has been saddled on this country by his government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer the minister and the government to a statement made recently, as reported by the Canadian Press last Friday, and appearing in most Canadian newspapers. The statement was made by Dr. O. J. Firestone, who was an economic adviser to the Liberal government prior to the time we took over the government in June, 1957. I know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has great respect for Dr. Firestone's views, and his ability as an economist. I know the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) also has great respect for Dr. Firestone's views and ability as an economist, because, when the minister was deputy minister of Trade and Commerce, he worked closely with Dr. Firestone. I know he has great respect for his views. It is for this reason I have hopes that the government will pay strict attention to what Dr. Firestone said recently. I am going to quote his remarks as they appeared in a Canadian Press report of January 21, with the dateline Ottawa. The article reads as follows:
Downward tax adjustments, reasonable credit terms, and an adequate money supply are needed to keep the economy buoyant, a former economic adviser to the federal government says.
O. J. Firestone, Vice-Dean of Social Sciences at the University of Ottawa, writing in the January issue of Engineering and Construction magazine says higher taxes and a credit squeeze could cause a recession.
"The objective should not be to cut off prosperity but to prolong it," he writes.
Adequate money supply, reasonable credit terms, and downward tax adjustments, where appropriate
January 24, 1966

in the light of the recommendations of the forthcoming report of the royal commission on taxation, would be some of the economic policies most appropriately pursued in the light of the unfolding economic pattern of 1966.
Dr. Firestone says unduly tight money or higher taxes could take the steam out of the economy, and "transform gentle clouds evident on the economic horizon, into a cloudburst of a recession."
I should like to remind the government that this is the same Dr. Firestone who, in his famous report of April, 1957, warned the Liberal government that if they did not cease their tight money policies of that day, a recession would ensue. The Liberal government of that day refused to listen to the warning of Dr. Firestone. As a result, by the time we took over the government, in June of 1957, a recession was already well launched. I strongly urge the government at the present time to adopt the policies which Dr. Firestone advocates to put the country back on its feet again, and to make sure that the economy keeps rolling, instead of going in the reverse direction.
I should like to remind the government of the great successes achieved through tax reductions brought in by President Johnson, in the United States a few months ago. Not only did those tax reductions stimulate business and create employment, but the far greater production, multiplied by the lower tax level, brought into the coffers of the United States government, in the first year alone, an added $100 million of increased revenue. An adequate money supply is needed to enable our farmers and our businessmen to buy the machinery and supplies which they need to increase their operations, and to keep our economy moving. The government's policy of tight money and high taxes will slow down the economy, and create unemployment. If the government does not reverse its tight money policy immediately, and persists in high taxes and tight credit, then it must take the responsibility for the business downturn which is bound to follow, just as it followed those policies in early 1957.
I should like to deal for a moment, Mr. Speaker, with the treatment of foreign capital operating in Canada. We need a great deal of foreign capital to come to this country every year to enable us to carry out our development, because we simply do not have enough capital of our own to build the factories and the transportation systems, and to carry out the developmental projects that are needed to keep our economy moving forward. Foreign capital operating in Canada must be treated
23033-Hi
The Address-Mr. Hees in exactly the same way as Canadian capital is treated in this country. It must receive the same privileges, and it must be subject to the same obligations. We Canadians must resist all attempts by foreign governments to influence their subsidiaries through the parent companies.
We want these foreign subsidiaries to establish here; we want them to grow and to prosper. We want them to enter into the export market. We want them to grow so that they can provide an increasing number of jobs for Canadians. Any attempt to restrict the normal operations of these foreign subsidiaries operating in Canada must be strongly resisted by our government. As I said a few days ago in this house, I am very distressed, as I am sure all Canadians are, to see the refusal of the government to protest on behalf of Canadian interests when interference of this kind takes place.
I should like now, Mr. Speaker, to address a few words to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen). I ask him to persuade his colleagues to accept the view that our older people simply cannot live on $75 per month, as this government attempts to force them to do. They need a minimum of $100 per month in order to subsist. I ask him to start working on his colleagues now, in the hope that, when the budget is prepared, the fact that they have seen the light will be reflected in a decision to increase old age pensions to $100 per month.
I should like to address a few words to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene). Since he is a man who comes from my part of the country, I feel sure that he will be familiar with the problems which are faced by eastern farmers and will, therefore, agree with the suggestions I am about to make. These suggestions are made on behalf of the people who live in the riding I have the honour to represent, Northumberland. They are as follows:
1.	To raise the price paid for industrial milk to $4 per hundredweight.
2.	Reform our milk inspection and testing systems for fats and solids, so that our farmers get a fair deal for the milk they deliver.
3.	Bring about more research into the breeding, feeding and marketing of our beef and pork products, so that our farmers can make a better margin of profit.
4.	Do everything in his power to remove the limitation on the production of tobacco, by persuading the Minister of Trade and
164	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Hees Commerce (Mr. Winters) to sell a great deal more of this crop in the export market.
5.	Persuade his colleagues to appoint a royal commission to investigate the cost-price squeeze, to determine why the farmer is not getting his fair share of the price the consumer pays, and to recommend steps to correct this injustice.
I should like to address a few words to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and ask him to consider carefully the need for new bridges at Campbellford and Hastings. These bridges were built in 1916 to accommodate horsedrawn traffic, and are completely inadequate today to handle the considerable traffic which crosses over them every day. They are a detriment to the growth of these two very important towns. I urge that the appropriate authorities of the provincial and federal governments bring about an agreement whereby new bridges can be constructed without further delay.
I should also like to ask him to study the possibility of developing the Trent Valley system as a tourist attraction, and a means of attracting the important United States cruiser trade to this important waterway. This is a great potential earner of United States dollars, and will help solve our balance of payments problems, and bring added prosperity to the Northumberland area.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I believe that the tourist industry is one to which this government can pay a great deal more attention than they have done in the past, Mr. Speaker. The greatest potential earner of the foreign funds which are needed to balance our financial accounts is our tourist trade, and I would ask the government to realize that this is a trade which deserves a great deal more attention than it has received in the past. Our tourist operators are worthy of all the backing that we can give them and this support will pay off many times over in the years ahead. I think the government must realize that increased tourist trade is equal in potential to increased exports in helping to bring our international accounts more into balance and in providing jobs.
Increased tourist trade just does not happen, Mr. Speaker. It comes about because governments and individuals spend energy and money to provide the attractions which bring tourists to a country. The countries of Europe have long realized this, and do a great deal in this regard. Hundreds of thousands of skiers from this continent travel

DEBATES	January 24, 1966
every year to Europe to ski because countries like Switzerland, Austria, France and Italy have studied what skiers want, and give it to them. We could attract tens of thousands of United States skiers to our Rocky Mountains and eastern resorts each year, if the government would take a similarly constructive approach, and help our tourist operators instead of the reverse.
The same applies to our inland waterways, Mr. Speaker. Intelligent expenditure of a reasonable amount of money to assist our resort operators to beautify these waterways would attract many thousands of additional tourists, and many millions of United States dollars. The time to start studying what will attract more tourists is now.
The suggestions I have put forward, Mr. Speaker, have been advanced in an effort to be constructive. I hope that the ministers concerned will receive them in that spirit. The suggestions have been made on behalf of the people we are elected to serve, and I can assure them that I and my colleagues will be watching closely, in the weeks and months ahead, to see how the government carries out the responsibility which is theirs.
During the past three years that this government has been in office, Mr. Speaker, I have been able to travel extensively across this country, and I have been able to talk to a great many people, and listen to their views. I have learned why they have decided to retain this government on a temporary basis only. They are tired of a government which moves from crisis to crisis, with never an over-all plan to follow. They are tired of a government which refuses to face the issues of the day, and to tell the people of the difficulties they face, and the part they must play to help overcome them. They are tired of government spokesmen who try to delude the people across our country by oratory into believing that all is well, when their common sense and their education tell them that we have many problems to face, and to overcome.
They believe that Canada deserves better government than the patching up and the making do that they are getting today. They want an over-all plan that all Canadians can understand and take part in. They want to know this country's long term objectives, and the practical steps which are necessary to accomplish the first stages of those objectives. They want a blueprint for the future. They want to know where they and their country are going. Such a blueprint will make it
January 24, 1966	COMMONS
possible for every Canadian to know that he can have a job. Every Canadian wants to know that by hard and intelligent effort he can earn a good living. He wants to know that he will be able to provide for the needs of his family, to educate his children to the extent of their ability, and to live in a world of peace.
The Liberal government has demonstrated, Mr. Speaker, its inability to provide such a blueprint for the future, and that is why the people have decided that it shall be kept on in a temporary capacity only. At the next election, the people are going to choose a government with plans, not only far-seeing, but practical, and, Mr. Speaker, we intend to form such a government.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the present debate on the Speech from the Throne we have heard many remarks, most of them very laudatory, from hon. members in this house concerning the government's proposals for its total war on poverty. In this attack on poverty I believe that the Canada Assistance Plan, medicare and manpower policies are very important weapons.
The first step in fighting poverty is the Canada Assistance Plan which is to provide, with the co-operation of the provincial governments across Canada, an increase in old age pensions to our senior citizens in need. Everyone agrees that today a $75 per month pension for any person, who has no other source of income, is completely inadequate to enable him to lead a decent life. However, Mr. Speaker, we hope that the program at present being worked out in co-operation with the provincial welfare ministers will provide to those in need adequate assistance in their old age.
I have only one worry in this regard, Mr. Speaker, and that is that we have not heard enough about the new term "principle of need". If we are to see that our senior citizens have an adequate income to lead a decent life, especially in our great cities where the cost of living is very high, then I think that the federal government should use all possible moral persuasion as well as its fiscal authority to prevail upon the provincial governments to recognize that the needs test should embrace as many citizens as possible in order to make their lives easier in these days.
DEBATES	165
The Address-Mr. Haidasz
The second attack on poverty, Mr. Speaker, is the medicare program of the government.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Haidasz: After my speech, if you will. For the past 15 years, I have been an active medical practitioner in the constituency of Parkdale and am therefore closely acquainted with the medical and welfare needs of its residents, most of whom are people of little or only modest means. I am therefore particularly happy that the government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) are not only vitally concerned about the health needs of the Canadian people, but also that the Prime Minister has already announced that the government has offered to pay 50 per cent of the cost of a comprehensive medical insurance plan.
This comprehensive medical insurance plan, Mr. Speaker, is urgently needed, and I am sure all hon. members are in agreement with that. The conditions laid down by the government, namely, that it be comprehensive, that it be universally applied, that it have the principle of portability attached to it, and that it be administered by the provincial governments, are very valid and worthy conditions.
In connection with this aspect of the medical insurance plan, Mr. Speaker, I should also like to urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) especially to consult the government of Mr. Robarts, whose imminent medicare plan is inadequate and very unpopular. Many of those in Parkdale to whom I have spoken have voiced grave concern, feeling that this is a plan to help insurance companies and other private carriers rather than the people themselves.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Very closely associated with the medicare program is the government's health resources fund for the improvement of research and teaching facilities. This is an important item in the war on poverty because it will lead to the provision of more doctors and medical technicians to provide the necessary health services for our people. I hope the facilities which are to benefit from federal aid will include not only medical research establishments, medical schools and teaching hospitals, but also those non-teaching hospitals of Canada where general practitioners and others will be able to carry out their work in a more satisfactory manner and where their medical knowledge can be updated as well as continued.
January 24, 1966

The Address-Mr. Haidasz
With regard to the special committee on drugs which is also mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, may I express the hope that this will be established immediately to study the high cost of drugs and to give its attention to the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax. The committee might also give its attention to the inordinate increase in the cost of quinine and quinidine which has risen from about $5 per 100 tablets to $12 per 100 tablets.
The health resources and research fund has been widely accepted by the research community, especially by the medical teaching profession. It represents a new look since it will provide medical researchers with improved facilities enabling them to devote more time to their work and inculcate into the students a spirit of investigation. I believe this measure should help greatly in the education of our doctors.
The federal government should also be commended for its decision to allocate more funds to the National Research Council and the Medical Research Council. The Science Secretariat which the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) established last spring has already proved to be a great help both in the area of research and in defining the financial needs of the institutions affected. Private industry has already been assisted through federal tax incentives in improving research facilities. Today, industry and the people employed in industry are benefiting from such measures.
Canada as a whole will be the beneficiary of the recent government proposal in the Speech from the Throne increasing to $5 per capita the federal grant to our universities. We also welcome the proposal for additional federal scholarships for university students. I hope this is only the first step in making free higher education, available to every Canadian whether or not he can pay the tuition fees.
I should like to stress once again that medical research and, indeed, all other types of research, are vital to Canadian progress at home and to our reputation abroad. I would therefore urge the responsible minister to take immediate and definite steps to study the possibility of switching to the metric system of weights and measures. It is true that the metric system is already legal in Canada under the Weights and Measures Act. However, it is not mandatory; and because it is not widely applied, it is not very popular in our schools.
Recently the pharmaceutical industry in Canada changed over to the metric system.

Apart from the efforts of the research community and the pharmaceutical industry, nothing has been done of any significance to make the people of Canada aware of the advantages of changing to the metric system or to clarify the implications of such a move. Our research scientists use the metric system, but our engineers use the English system of measurement. And this lack of uniformity is, I believe, leading us to a crisis. We have lost many orders for machinery and other products because we are clinging to an archaic system of measurement. Parliamentary committees in the United Kingdom, India and New Zealand have already recommended that their governments should introduce measures for the introduction of the metric or decimal system. I would therefore suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) and to other responsible ministers that they undertake serious studies as to the possibility of changing to the metric system of weights and measures in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words now about the rise in municipal taxes throughout Canada. In the city of Toronto, municipal property taxes have doubled in the past ten years. Struggling to pay these taxes as well as the cost of other essential services, the home-owner today who is seeking to provide a decent home for his children is, I believe, fighting a losing battle and will continue to do so unless this burden is removed. I hope it may be possible to arrange for such fiscal policies that the cost of education can be borne entirely by the provincial governments, and also, so that the home-owner will be able to deduct property taxes from his federal income tax.


William Heward Grafftey: You have read our program. That was plank number one.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, these are the few remarks I wanted to make in addition to those I made last week. I now wish merely to add that the program of the twenty seventh parliament of Canada as outlined in the Speech from the Throne is both important and heavy. I would therefore urge all hon. members to exercise patience and to direct their attention assiduously to these urgent matters which the government has brought before us in the Speech from the Throne.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. member permit a question now? 1 was interested in his reference to the Canada Assistance Plan. He mentioned it would be based on need. Can he explain to the house-I am somewhat illiterate
January 24, 196S	COMMONS
myself and I get these things confused -precisely what difference there is between a program based on need and one based on a means test?


Stanley Haidasz: I am unable to explain
that to the hon. member. I know, however, that negotiations are being carried on between officials of the welfare departments of the provincial governments and officials of the federal government. We are awaiting the outcome of these negotiations and the special federal-provincial conference on welfare that is to take place at the end of this month. I am sure every one of us will be able to learn at that time, I hope, what the difference is.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my first words in this house must be words of appreciation and thanks to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) who paid such moving tributes the other day to the memory of two men, former members of this house, with whom I was so long and intimately associated. I thank them for these tributes to two men who gave of their best in the service of this house and the country.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I speak as a member of the group in this corner who believe that the proper job of government is to help a community of people do for themselves collectively what they need to have done and what they are not able to do for themselves as individuals. In case anyone should think that is a radical definition of the job of government, let me hasten to assure them it is one given by Abraham Lincoln about 100 years ago. The only thing is that it was rather farsighted then and we have not caught up with it just yet. We are beginning to realize its necessity but we are not there just yet.
From this angle, in the light of this definition, I am afraid that the Speech from the Throne, the government's projected legislative program for this session, leaves a great deal to be desired. It is full of a number of good things. It is full of bits and pieces for building various sectors of the economy but where it seems to me to be lacking is in the end for which the economy is to be built. I know it is very desirable and necessary to build our economy, but why are we trying to build it?
Some of us feel that the purpose of building the economy is to develop the people of a country, to see we have the conditions under which people, individuals, can develop to
DEBATES	167
The Address-Mrs. G. Maclnnis their full capacities in the surroundings where their development will be best promoted, as has been said by that American sociologist, Lewis Mumford, who puts it very much better than I can:
The final test of an economic system .... is not the tons of iron, the tanks of oil or the miles of textiles that it produces; the final test lies in its ultimate products .... the sort of men and women it nurtures, and the order and beauty and sanity of their communities.
Seen from this angle the Speech from the Throne is woefully inadequate. There is no attempt to make a survey of the Canadian people as a whole and to see how we are getting on toward providing a rounded program for the development of the Canadian people as a whole. I do not equate the Canadian people with the Canadian economy. The two things are not necessarily connected in that the welfare of one does not always automatically bring about the welfare of the other. The Speech from the Throne makes this statement:
Our country is enjoying an unprecedented period of prosperity and growth.
That is indeed true of the economy and of the condition of some of the people in the economy, but there is no attempt made in the Throne Speech to find, in any far-reaching way, the weak spots so far as the people are concerned and to provide any far-reaching measures for correcting these weak spots. Indeed, until I heard the speech of the hon. member who spoke just before me I felt there had been no reference made to the sector of the people with which I am most concerned this afternoon.
I wish this afternoon to refer to other sections, sections of the people of this country that live in poverty and insecurity, and I do so not because those are the only sections of people that live in my constituency or in Canada as a whole. I do so for two reasons. First of all, they are people who very badly need spokesmen, many spokesmen, and in the second place I believe that the conditions of poverty and insecurity which we have in this country will spread like a cancer to other sectors of the community unless we take very definite and far-reaching measures to remove these conditions of poverty and insecurity now.
There are no facts lacking to document poverty in Canada. Facts and surveys are coming to light on every hand, and I shall remind hon. member of just a few of the more recent surveys.
January 24, 1966

The Address-Mrs. G. Maclnnis
First of all, there is the government's own profile on poverty prepared for the federal-provincial conference held here in the month of December, which tells us that 23 per cent of the Canadian people, nearly one quarter of the Canadian people, live in what is defined by sociologists as a state of poverty in its varying degrees right down to destitution, and by poverty they mean those people who live on an income below $3,000 a year.
Before anybody gets to thinking that this is a princely income let us compare it with our own, and let us think what it would be like for us to live on $250 a month or $62.50 a week which is the basis on which a great many people do their calculating. We would find that we would have a rather thin time making do on that amount. Yet at present nearly one quarter of the Canadian people have only that much income on which to live. Imagine a family of four or a much larger number of people existing on $250 a month.
I feel that the government's fault lies in the fact of its complacency in the face of this situation because, in a situation where you have almost a quarter of your population living in poverty, to refer in the Throne Speech to the need for cleaning up pockets of poverty is a pitifully inadequate way of looking at the situation. We should realize that when we have a quarter of the population living in poverty this calls for heroic measures and high priorities which so far have not been forthcoming from the government in any tangible way.
In addition to that survey I should like to refer to an excellent one made a year ago, "Poverty in Ontario

1964", by the Ontario Federation of Labour, which contains very similar findings. Another survey came out very recently entitled, "A Preliminary Report of Rural Poverty in Four Selected Areas," by the Canadian Welfare Council which has its headquarters in Ottawa. It deals with four rural areas, one in Nova Scotia, one in Quebec, one in Ontario and one in Manitoba. In fact I believe the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) made a very eloquent speech concerning this survey to a group in Toronto the other day and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) also made reference to it at a recent conference held in that city.
There are any number of these reports but the last to which I want to make reference is one which was published in my city, Vancouver, by the Community Chest and Councils of the Greater Vancouver area, and which was prepared for the federal-provincial conference held in Ottawa in December.


The reason I particularly want to refer to it is that it has a direct bearing on my own city and constituency.
It states at the beginning:
After considering what we have learned about those residents-
That is, the people who live in poverty.
-in our area who are dependant, we wish to submit the following statements for your consideration :
1.	Chronically dependant families and individuals exist in the Greater Vancouver area in sufficiently large numbers to constitute a major social concern.
I look in the throne speech in vain to find anything dealing with this major social concern.
2.	As a group they characteristically display many severe problems-physical, social and economic. They appear to have limited access to social and economic opportunities and limited ability to make use of opportunities that are available to them. By and large they remain basically dependent during good economic conditions and bad, and tend to transmit their dependency traits to their children.
3.	They are large users of public and voluntary health and welfare services, but these services at their present levels have had little permanent impact on their rehabilitation.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Then it goes on to point out, and this is the thing I wish to draw particularly to the attention of the house:
It appears from our data that 6.8 per cent of families with children in the eastern half of Vancouver-
Half of the eastern half of Vancouver is Vancouver-Kingsway.
-remain in a dependant status on a continuing basis, almost irrespective of varying economic conditions and the opportunities available to them.
Mr. Speaker, when one family in fifteen with children, in the eastern half of one of our big cities, is dependant entirely on the state for its income, then the time has arrived to ask what we are going to do about poverty in this country.
Who are these individuals? These are people whom all of us know among our con-stitutents and our friends. They are the older workers and the pensioners, the unemployed and the underemployed, the school dropouts and the undereducated, the widows and fatherless families, the disabled and the sick, the retarded and the mentally ill, the small farmers and the commercial workers, the native Indians and the new immigrants. These are the poor, and together they make up a frightening total of misery and neglect. They live on the margin of misery.
January 24, 196G	COMMONS
These are the people for whom the Speech from the Throne makes scant provision. They are not statistics or figures in a book; they are men and women with human needs, wants, desires, dreams and hopes. They are the people whom we are here to represent and we should be representing them most urgently because they need far more greatly than anyone else.
What does poverty mean to these people? It means a life on the margin of misery, having to consider carefully as between items of diet and whether or not they can afford the things which are necessary to a good life. Second, it means that they must live a life of poverty in the midst of affluence. They stand outside the show windows of our truly affluent civilization looking in at all the goods and services which they cannot have, knowing that there is no opportunity for them to have these things and, according to this Vancouver report, knowing that there is little hope of their children getting these things because these people are caught in a net of poverty and know that their children will be caught in the same net of poverty. They know that they will find it most difficult to escape from these manifest difficulties. Third, these people must listen to statements such as the gross national product of this country has gone up by 9 per cent when the only increase they know of is the increase in the price of food and rent.
Just before I came to this house an old age pensioner in my riding said to me: Do try to get us a pension of $100 a month and at the same time try to see that our rent does not go up in the way it did after our last increase. Those are the things that are close to these people and this is what their poverty means to them.
Worse than those things, they feel that they are outsiders, that the country has no use for them and that they are surplus. This feeling is applicable not only to old age pensioners but also to all those people who form the groups I recited to you a moment ago: the young folks starting school, the sick and disabled, the unemployed and the widows. Those are the people in these groups who feel they cannot participate, that they are outsiders and that there is no place for them any more.
This poverty means something to the rest of the country as well. These people are shut off by the pitiful silence, as our Quebec leader referred to it yesterday at Toronto, of cruel isolation. Perhaps if we could forget 23033-12
DEBATES	169
The Address-Mrs. G. Maclnnis about it in that way we might do so and salve our consciences by giving hampers at Christmas or something like that. However, the poverty of these people means a great deal to the rest of the community because, with automation coming along, with vast production equipment and new scientific knowledge, we have simply got to come to grips with this problem. Automation, putting it in its simplest terms, means that machines can displace people and make goods in great abundance, but machines cannot buy goods and cannot consume goods. Unless we can find ways and means of distributing purchasing power to the people of this country we are not going to be able to keep the wheels of industry going indefinitely or on anything like the scale that we should have. Our cabinet ministers will have to scurry desperately to the four corners of the world to find markets abroad at a time when our most serious market lies neglected at home.
I am not one of those who prefers to present a Queen Anne front to the world and a Mary Ann front in a backyard which is screened off. I hope we will be able to have a front which means something to the world and means the same thing to us here at home in this country.
To us and to the country this tremendous backlog of poverty means, in the first place, a tremendous and needless expense. We cannot afford to keep all these people on social assistance in an unproductive state because the great majority of these people, and I recited the groups to you, are capable of productive employment. It is far better for them and for the rest of the country to have them employed. There is nothing worse than people being compelled needlessly to live on relief and welfare when they are able to work.
As an example of what I mean, I have in mind one individual who lives in my riding. This man used to be a heavy construction worker. He suffered a heart attack following which there was no alternative position available to him and none was provided. He had no alternative but to go into a public housing project with his entire family and live on social assistance. There he sits looking for little odd jobs he can do without jeopardizing his social assistance.
We penalize initiative by cutting down on social assistance when an individual finds gainful employment from which he derives income which makes a difference in the family income. Not only do we have the expense
January 24, 1966

The Address-Mrs. G. Maclnnis of this spreading cancer but we must face the prospect of this expense becoming greater and greater. Thank heaven we have reached a stage of civilization in which we no longer take these people out and shoot them. Thank goodness the conscience of this country is being aroused to the point where little by little reluctant governments are being pushed to provide more civilized standards of living for these people. This is a slow process but it works.
When I heard an hon. member opposite say that we desperately need to increase the assistance to $100 a month for old age pensioners I began to think of a statement by the Toronto Metropolitan Planning Council to the effect that the minimum on which an elderly man could hope to exist was $126.47 per month. Prices have gone up since then and already the proposed $100 per month looks small when measured against that figure.
We are wasting our human resources because we need these people in our production efforts. Let us not forget these people. We often worry about our democratic process. Let me remind hon. members that when these people are cut off in increasing numbers for long periods of time they begin to lose faith in our democratic process. They lose faith in government, they are non-participating, and it will be exceedingly difficult to get them back again to using the organs of democracy and getting their children to use them as well.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
There is another layer of these people with whom I am also greatly concerned because there are a great many of these people in my riding and, I imagine, in the riding of most hon. members. I refer to the layer of people who are all right as long as they have a job but who are on the edge of insecurity. They worry about their jobs; they have job insecurity. They worry about their fitness and training for the job. They worry about the education of their children. They worry about their health and what will happen if a major Illness overtakes them. They also worry about the cost of living and how it is rising. It may not seem to us that it is high but that steady, stealthy rise of a few cents here and a few cents there is very bad indeed for these insecure families.
Remember, too, that most of them are in debt up to their ears. From pay cheque to pay cheque is how they live, and if anything happens to the pay cheque it does not take Jong to pull them down. These people, too,

have in very large numbers family insecurity. The mother is trying to get out to work to supplement the family income, and that brings with it a whole train of difficulties for the family and for the children.
This brings me, Mr. Speaker, to the question of working mothers. I want to say right at the outset that I am the first to declare that women have the right to say whether or not they shall work in the home or outside it. Women have the right to work outside the home in this day and age and a great many of them are doing so. In fact, one out of every four last year did so and, according to the Department of Labour, by 1971 one married woman in every two, half the married women in Canada, will work at paying jobs outside the home. I feel that for these women we should be doing something to make sure that their children will be adequately cared for. We should be building nursery schools for the children of these working mothers. These nursery schools should be located in some cases right in or near the place of work of these women who are working in large factories, and their children should be adequately looked after while they are working.
Second, Mr. Speaker, we should provide much more elasticity in the hours of work for mothers. Part time employment should be made available wherever possible so that women who wish to do so may spend a part of the time with their children at home. I also wish to say that in my view women have the right to stay at home if they want to do so. The house may be surprised to know that in my riding a great many women do not have that right. If they are to maintain a decent standard of living they must get out to work and supplement the family pay cheque in order to pay for some of the modern aids to housekeeping and living around the home. Far too often while I was visiting homes in my riding this fall I would come across little children with or without the door key, who would inform me that Mom would be home in time to get the supper and Dad was away working too. That sort of thing does not build the homes of this country in the way in which they should be built.
I should like to suggest that with regard to women who desire to make a full time, good career of motherhood-and I think that for many women no career would be considered as fine as that-the time is coming, if it has not already arrived, when we should consider providing suitable and adequate wages for
January 24, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	171
that kind of occupation. I realize that many hon. members will think this suggestion is far out, but we should do one of two things. We should either quit paying lip service to motherhood and making it impossible in the meantime for mothers to do a good job of raising families or we should recognize that motherhood is one of the most important careers that any woman in this country can follow and we should provide the wherewithal for women to make a good and proper job of that occupation. I welcome very much the Vanier Institute of the Family and hope that this institute will devote istelf to studying what is necessary in order to keep good family conditions in this country and build them where they do not exist.

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that such measures are necessary to establish Canadian families on a firmer basis.
I can think of nothing better to show, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, our strong determination, as citizens of this large country of ours, than to work together to erect a modern building for all the families of our beloved country.
It would be a fine home reflecting a standard of living commensurate with our abundant resources and our advanced technology.
It would not house only wealthy and influential families but all families down to the smallest farmer and the most humble worker. They would all be accepted as essential to the welfare of the country, and their work, as well as their leisure, would enrich Canada's culture.
Finally, it would be a house where every man and woman would feel at home, both as an individual doing his part in increasing production, and as a consumer fully enjoying all those goods and services; in short, a small piece of this rich mosaic making up our country.
In the various parts of our huge country, we could keep on living in our own room, while being free and happy to go in any part of the house, as masters in our own home.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am pleased to reiterate, on behalf of my fellow citizens of the riding of Rimouski, my congratulations to 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 23033-12j
The Address-Mr. G. LeBlanc York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury). Both of them spoke with great dignity and sincerity and, at the same time, described in a very concrete and realistic way the aspirations and the needs of the people of Canada.
May I point out at this stage that there exists a historic friendship between the ridings of Rimouski and York-Scarborough that should be a source of inspiration for all Canadians. That link of friendship is, on the one hand, the election in 1842, in the riding of York, of one of our greatest French Canadian statesmen, Hippolyte Lafontaine, and, on the other hand, the election by acclamation in 1843 in the riding of Rimouski, of an English speaking reformist leader from Upper Canada, Robert Baldwin.
Following the example of the electorate of that time in the constituencies of York and Rimouski, let all of us Canadians in 1966 join together and respect each other's personality and character, so that we may all continue to build a better Canada.
My constituents gave the speech from the throne a good reception, first because it meets their wishes as inhabitants of the pilot territories for the development of the Lower St. Lawrence, Gaspd and Magdalen Islands, and second, because it answers their immediate needs. They want to take part in the building of Canada.
The constituency of Rimouski is located in the picturesque Lower St. Lawrence region, at the gateway to the Gaspe peninsula. It includes the city of Rimouski, the towns of Mont Joli and Trois Pistoles, some 15 parishes established in the last century along the shore, and about ten other parishes further inland, opened to settlers around 1930.
The economy of the area is based mostly on agriculture and forestry.
Allow me to remind you that there are in Mont Joli, a magnificent airport built during the second world war, C.N.R. yards and a few smaller industries including a silk hose manufacture and a creamery.
Trois Pistoles had a flourishing lumber trade at one time; it still has sawmills, planing mills, docks and a tourist industry. It is the home port of a ferry which crosses daily to the North shore during the navigation season and schooners still call to load wood for pulp mills. That community is mostly known for its summer school of English and French.
As for the city of Rimouski, it forms with the adjacent municipalities, a community of some 30,000 people, that is to say the largest
172	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. G. LeBlanc east of Quebec City. Besides being a business, administration and service centre, it has institutions of learning that are bringing it closer and closer to the day when it will become a university centre. There we find a marine school, the harbour facilities of Ri-mouski East, the harbour at Father Point, a deep water winter port, the Rimouski East airport, served mainly by Quebecair and a few small but growing industries. The Rimouski city council is now negotiating with the Quebec government for the establishment of an important industry to replace the sawmill which Price Brothers had to close.
The people of my constituency realize that, thanks to the government's wise policies, Canada is prosperous. Still, due to urbanization and economic and technological changes, the very factors to which the general progress across the country may be attributed, and also, doubtless, due to past improvisations, our area, rich in both human and natural resources, suffers from economic and social imbalance.
That is why, the program advocated in recent years by the government with a view to fostering prosperity, social security, and equal opportunities for our young people, has been looked upon with confidence. True to its principles, the government, in the speech from the throne, has presented again a rejuvenated program, adapted to the problems of the day. We feel confident, because the implementation of this program is guaranteed by past accomplishments of this government. Every aspect of our national, social and economic life has been considered. Moreover, the government has provided for every citizen, mothers, young people, workers, farmers, industrialists. My constituents were happy to become acquainted with this objective legislation and they hope every member of the house will display the greatest dynamism during this session, above all taking into consideration the general good of our population.
Surely, we can but rejoice at the proposed legislation with regard to our international policy, the amendment of the constitution of Canada, the preservation and the strengthening of Canadian identity and unity, the selection of a distinctive anthem, in short the over-all proposed legislation.
However, we are primarily interested in legislation dealing with our immediate problems, and I am thinking here of legislation concerning unemployment insurance, the Fair

DEBATES	January 24, 1966
Wages and Hours of Labour Act, health services, education assistance, revision of the Crop Insurance Act, the establishment of a Canadian dairy commission, the creation of a fund for financing major rural development and the broadening of the Department of Forestry into a department of forestry and rural development.
In view of the social and economic conditions prevailing in our region, development projects financed by this government under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act (ARDA) have been the ones appreciated most.
In 1956, the lower St. Lawrence economic planning council was already in existence and studies and activities carried out by that body tended to ensure better regional economic planning.
Thanks to the action taken by that organization, our area was designated in 1963 as a pilot development area. In July 1963, the regional councils set up the eastern Quebec development board, one of our projects financed by the governments under ARDA.
That non-profit making company, responsible for preparing a development plan for the pilot area, is the result of a regional initiative. It is a serious effort on the part of the government and the people to try a real experiment in planning.
The development board includes approximately 80 experts in various fields, both in research and in social work, and has an adequate clerical staff. In co-operation with various government services, the board has made an inventory of resources in the pilot area with the participation of the people as members of zone and local committees. A draft plan has been prepared and submitted to the population. The development plan itself will be published within a few months. Divisions of the plan will be agriculture, forestry, fisheries, mining, tourism, industry and finance, transportation and the methods to implement the plan.
Once it has been approved by the population and the governments, we feel the plan should provide guidelines for all development policies in the area.
To implement that development plan, we believe it would be necessary, on the one hand, to develop our local policital structure along the lines of our democratic traditions and, on the other hand, to organize the public service at the regional or subregional levels to ensure co-ordination between the various departmental services. We are confident that
January 24, 1966
the government will continue to play a major role in the implementation of the plan. In the meantime, we continue to rely on social security measures.
For the time being, we are confident that the government will continue to give more and more attention to our water and air transport problems, to railroad operation, to maintenance and improvement of our wharves and harbour facilities as well as of our airports.
By bringing our economy up to par, we wish to do our duty as Canadians.
Of course, we do want to keep and develop our identity; but we wish to live in harmony with the other groups of Canada, of our Canada that we wish happy, prosperous and at peace.
That is how we plan to live in Canada, after hearing the Speech from the Throne.


Mr. F. J. W. Fane (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, may I first offer you my felicitations upon your election as presiding officer of the House of Commons. I know that your training under the distinguished Mr. Speaker Macnaughton was very thorough and very good. We know that you will continue his work and will keep control of the house at all times. To your assistant, the Deputy Speaker, and to the Deputy Chairman of Committees I also offer my felicitations. They too, I know, will preside properly and wisely over the deliberations of this house. Since it is customary, I would like to offer my congratulations to the two new members who were chosen to move and to second the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I should like to suggest to the young member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury), who said that he represented the most populous constituency in Canada, that though he may represent more people than some of us I am quite sure that he does not have more work to do or more interest in the people he represents than those of us who represent constituencies of some 50,000 people. I am quite sure that his workload, even with his
250,000	constituents, is no greater than mine with slighly less than 50,000 because my people are farmers. They are people who, when a Liberal government is in office, are the forgotten people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
The Address-Mr. Fane


Frank John William Fane: That is something that has always been evident and a fact. The last three years have done nothing whatever to change this situation. I know that the Liberal candidate in my constituency was forever telling meetings we both attended that Liberal times are good times. He was just laughed out of the meetings. He told us how much better off the farmers were now than they were three years ago.


Mr. Mcllraith:: Hear, hear.


Frank John William Fane: You may very well applaud, Mr. Minister, but let me say that the people certainly gave him the raspberry for that too.
As we are debating the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne I had better mention the Speech from the Throne, although from my point of view there is little enough for the farmers in it. I think agriculture is mentioned three times and nothing very definite is said. There is to be an extension or a continuation of ARDA, a feed grain policy for eastern Canada and British Columbia, and the establishment of a dairy commission. These measures are very necessary. The first mention of agriculture has to do with the elimination of pockets of poverty within the economy and the establishment of rural development programs, which are necessary to agricultural progress and a better rural life. That is what is said about agriculture so far as I can see.
There does not seem to be any promise of relief for the farmers of western Canada or for the farmers of eastern Canada. Farmers wherever they are are all in the same boat. The people of Canada know that the farming industry is the backbone of this country. Without our farmers, and in times when the farmers are not prosperous, nothing is prosperous. In Alberta we have some oil and other industries but we cannot live on those industries alone.
I also notice in the throne speech that there does not seem to be any mention of Indian affairs except that the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources is now to be a department dealing with Indian affairs and northern affairs. This may be a good thing because I have never believed that Indian affairs were in the proper place when they were under the jurisdiction of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The Indians are our first citizens and actually should have a department and a minister all to themselves. I am also glad to note that the Canadian Citizenship Act is to be amended; it should have been amended long ago.

174	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Fane
I did forget, Mr. Speaker, one further reference to agriculture. The Speech says: Canadians have benefited from good harvests and a high level of demand for our farm products.
That may be the case in some places but throughout my constituency the farming business has not been considered to be as good as it might have been over the last two years.
I think, Mr. Speaker, I will devote a short time to speaking about agriculture and the difficulties faced by farmers in my constituency. As you know, I represent the constituency of Vegreville, which is in the east-central part of Alberta and comprises some 5,500 square miles. The main industry there is agriculture, though we do have some oil, gas, and coal mining industries and a chemical plant. However, the main industry is agriculture.
I am pleased to see that we have a new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) and I wish to congratulate him on being given what is to my mind the most important portfolio in any government. He has, I am sure, taken over a bigger job than he realizes because he has to undo all the harm done by his predecessor over the last three years.
I notice that he was not slow to approve a $30 million grant in foreign aid by way of agricultural products to nations less fortunate than ourselves. But what is he going to do for the farmers of western Canada? What about those in the Peace River district who lost their crops in 1965 and most of the farmers in Alberta who lost their crops in 1964? You may say that 1964 is old stuff now but I assure you, Mr. Speaker, it is not because the prairie farm assistance branch has only just recently released the findings of the 1964 board of review of appeals and awards under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Their final meeting was held, I believe, on November 25 last and I received the report on January 6. This is why I still talk about 1964 prairie farm assistance.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
In 1964 the agricultural industry in my constituency met with a severe reverse. Conditions were comparable with those which occurred in the Ottawa Valley last year. No one who lives around here would deny that this presented a most unpleasant situation for the farmers of the region. Even in this area of Canada, one which has been settled for many generations, assistance was required. Most of the farmers in my constituency, in

DEBATES	January 24, 1966
the area of which I am speaking, suffered heavy losses. Prairie farm assistance inspectors went round, made their inspections and recommended in most instances that payment should be made. There are 12 townships in which I am particularly interested at this time. For the benefit of those who do not know what a township is, may I explain that a township consists of 36 sections in a square block or an area 6 miles square. The 12 townships I have mentioned were approved for awards under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Later, however, approval was withdrawn because it was found that one or two farmers in each of those townships had given wrong information, whether on purpose or accidentally I am not in a position to say. But each township was cut out on account of those few people.
I held two meetings with the director of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. He came to my house once and we spent four or five hours together. The next occasion was on January 6 when he came to Edmonton for the sole purpose of discussing this situation with me again after the board of review had completed its deliberations. The director informs me that he is not personally responsible for the mix-up; he has taken his orders from higher up. The board of review has summarily thrown out these areas which I have mentioned and has decided they are not eligible. The decision imposes a great hardship on people who really deserve consideration. This situation must be thoroughly investigated.
I do not want anybody to think that payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act are a direct gift from the government. They are not. Every farmer who sells grain to the Canadian Wheat Board pays 1 per cent of his cash receipts from the grain toward this fund. Certainly the premiums do not always cover the payments which are required. At times the government is required to put up an amount equal to what the farmers contribute. But if the government does subsidize the most important industry in Canada so far as the life of this nation is concerned to the relatively small extent I have mentioned, its action is not out of the way at all and there should certainly be no complaint about it.
Since I came to this house almost eight years ago I have worked steadily with every Minister of Agriculture to bring about a Prairie Farm Assistance Act amended in such a way that payments can be made on a one-section basis instead of a twelve-section
January 24, 19G6	COMMONS
basis as is the case at the present time. In 1958 when I came here payments were made on a basis of 18 sections in a rectangular block. I can assure anybody and everybody that when disasters occur involving farm land, whether due to hail or drought or any other cause, they do not happen in a rectangular block of 12 sections or more.
I say that prairie farm assistance should be available to areas of one section and that assistance should not be limited to rectangular blocks of 12 sections.
Farmers are hit very hard too by the tight money policy of the present government. It is difficult for a farmer to borrow money from the chartered banks. In fact, it is extremely difficult now unless a man has established credit over many years and the banks do not consider him to be a farmer any more. Even though at the present time a farmer who has everything going right for him is able to borrow up to $85,000 in loans supported by the government, there are in practice mighty few who can do this.
The time has come when the Prairie Farm Assistance Act should be put completely out of business. It is time for a new, over-all crop insurance act to be put into effect throughout Canada. Provision for such an act was made by the Conservative government some years ago. In Manitoba and Saskatchewan some use has been made of it. In Alberta last year, for the first time, three relatively small areas were provided with over-all crop insurance.
As to the cost of this insurance, I cannot say what it would be exactly; it would certainly be more than the 1 per cent which western farmers pay now under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. On the other hand, coverage would be greater and the premium would not be more than the hail insurance premiums in the areas which are concerned. In the area where I farm the hail insurance premium is 10 per cent; it costs $1 to get $10 coverage. This is the only way to my mind in which the Prairie Farm Assistance Act can be replaced and allow farmers to profit by the insurance they have taken out. Prairie farm assistance is a type of insurance, even though it has been greatly changed since it was brought into being some 36 years ago.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I should also like to bring the price of farm machinery and repairs to the attention of the minister. Machinery and repair prices are out of all reason and out of all relationship with the prices that the farmers get for their products. Fancy, Mr. Speaker, in 1944 I
DEBATES	175
The Address-Mr. Fane bought a 16 foot combine for $3,200. That same combine now, with a little more streamlining, a little thinner tin on it and with greater operating speed, costs $11,000. The price of wheat has not gone up. What cost approximately 3,000 bushels of wheat in 1944 now costs approximately 11,000 bushels of wheat. This is certainly out of all reason and the government should do something about keeping these prices related to the prices farmers get for their products.
Somewhere in its platform the Liberal party proposed unemployment insurance for farm labourers. This is something that is very necessary and should be attended to at the earliest possible moment because it is so difficult to get people to work on farms. They are not willing to work on farms because they have no assurance of having anything to live on should they lose their jobs.
I note that the Speech from the Throne states that the benefits available under the Farm Credit Corporation are to be raised. This corporation performs a much needed service for the farmers and now, everything being right, a farmer can borrow up to $55,000 at interest rates of 5 per cent, 5J per cent and rising to 6f per cent. This is all to the good. If a farmer thinks he has a hope in the world of repaying such a loan that is fine. The Farm Credit Corporation people look after that; they advise him and attend to his future.
However, it has been brought to my attention many times that during the last two or three years the cost of legal fees for processing Farm Credit Corporation loans has doubled and even in many cases quadrupled. That does not seem right. It is something which should be examined. The farmers who have to borrow money are very disturbed about it.
There is great discrimination against farmers who deliver grain to delivery points on the Canadian Pacific Railway lines. Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that on the Canadian Pacific line which goes through my constituency many of the delivery points did not have any delivery quota for grain one month ago other than the initial 300 bushels. Yet delivery points on the C.N.R. line 20 miles away could take five, six, and seven bushels per cultivated acre. That is a bad state of affairs and has resulted because the C.P.R. apparently does not care very much about transporting carload lots of wheat, something it is forced to do under the Crowsnest freight agreement.
176	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Fane
The C.P.R. was mighty well paid for the Crowsnest freight agreement which is to operate forever. It received about a third of the land in western Canada for the privilege of constructing its railway and continuing the Crowsnest agreement in perpetuity. It has got all the benefits from that land. It got the mineral rights and, believe me, has made great use of them. The C.P.R. certainly should not try to deal the farmers out of delivering their grain. I believe that throughout the whole of western Canada the C.P.R. is dragging its feet in providing box cars for hauling grain to the terminal elevators. I know the minister has already taken this matter under advisement and that the C.P.R. is now doing a better job, but why should it have to be forced to carry out the duties it undertook and was paid for?
While speaking of the C.P.R. I also wish to say it seems a pretty poor show that the board of transport commissioners has allowed that company to discontinue operating the Dominion passenger train across Canada. This is something that should be examined and corrected.
I shall have more to say about agriculture at a later date but now I wish to speak about Indian affairs because in my constituency there is the Saddle Lake Indian reserve. I have known the people who live on it all my life. Over the past nine or ten years their conditions have improved but they are not yet at the state at which they should be. They require more and better education, both academic and technical, and they require more help in getting established in whatever industry they take up, whether it be farming or some other type. They are very able workmen and when they see that they must work they are good, careful workmen.
The Indians on Saddle Lake reserve require individual homes for the recipients of the old age security pension. They asked me to tell the minister, which I did, that they wish to have a block of at least four small homes built and they wish them built on a certain lot so that the old people can be together. Should it become possible they ought to be provided with the facilities that are available to other people. Their aged folk do not want to go to the homes for pensioners that are provided by the provincial government of Alberta even though these homes are very nice and wonderfully run. These people want to be entirely free and they do not want to be pushed around. I certainly cannot blame them for that. In any event, they

DEBATES	January 24, 1966
require more and better facilities for education both in the academic and technical fields, and the Indian Claims Commission should certainly put this on the road and into effect.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
There are certain things in this regard which must be taken into consideration. I was surprised to note the lack in the Speech from the Throne of mention of the removing of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and industrial machinery. The Liberal candidate who contested the election in my riding certainly said that he was going to have this tax taken off. Whether he was speaking on behalf of the Liberal party platform or as an individual I do not know but certainly he indicated that this was going to be done. The new Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) indicated at one time that he was in favour of removing this tax, and I suggest to the government that this is the time to remove that iniquitous piece of legislation and stop this discrimination against Canadians who wish to build homes for themselves.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member to inform him that his time has expired. Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the house to continue beyond his time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank John William Fane: I wish to thank you and the house, Mr. Speaker, for extending the privilege of allowing me to complete the few remarks I have left. There is nothing in the Speech from the Throne in respect of increases in veterans pensions, war veterans allowances or other allowances to veterans. The Canada Pension Plan certainly requires amendment and, for that matter, required amendment even before it became law. I hope the government will give consideration to making it possible for the 2,500,000 Canadians not now eligible to benefit under the Canadian Pension Plan.
I did note with pleasure that the government proposes to adopt a plank from the Conservative platform. In fact it has already done so by increasing university grants from $2 to $5 per capita. I have a great deal to say about the C.B.C., medicare and several other subjects but I will leave these remarks until a later date.
Again I should like to state that I am in complete accord with the amendment moved by the right hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and I will support, it. The amendment reads:
January 24, 1966

We respectfully regret that Your Excellency's advisers have omitted to provide for an immediate increase from $75 per month to $100 per month for all recipients under the Old Age Security Act.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Hugh Faulkner (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with the rest of my colleagues in the house in extending to the hon. members for Dollard (Mr. Goyer) and York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) my warmest congratulations for the very distinguished jobs they have done in moving and seconding this motion. If I had a criticism to make it would only be that in doing such good jobs they have made it unnecessarily difficult for the rest of us who have to follow them.

With my sincere congratulations, Mr. Speaker, please accept by best wishes, for opening before you is a session in which you will have an important and delicate part to play.
The Speaker is known to be a fair and objective man, but inexperienced as I am in the practices of this house, I feel I should refer also to his need for patience and forbearance.
You were highly recommended for this post, Mr. Speaker, by every member of this house.
It is quite apparent that this admiration is due to the impression you made upon them during the last session. That is why I am fully confident that you will do an excellent job of presiding over our discussions.

I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that each of us in this house cherishes a particular affection for those people of the constituency he represents and in this regard I am no exception. It is difficult for me to convey to the members of the house how very proud and honoured I am to be here as the chosen representative of the people of the constituency of Peterborough. My only wish, as I am sure it is the only wish of every member of the house, is to serve these people faithfully and well in keeping with the great tradiiton of public service for which this house stands.
My two immediate predecessors, Mr. Walter Pitman and Mr. Fred Stenson, worked tirelessly and unselfishly for their riding. They understood the needs of their riding and were always diligent and conscientious in their efforts to make these needs known to
The Address-Mr. Faulkner this house. I intend to meet these responsibilities which I have now assumed in a like manner.
As a new member I have been listening with some care to what has been said by those with more experience in the ways of this house. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) during his introductory remarks to this performance, and it was a very fine performance, mentioned the question of efficiency and its relationship or, as he argued, lack of relationship to the business of parliament. Fifty years ago, Mr. Speaker, it may have been true that efficiency was not a consideration. Parliament met for a much shorter period of time, it had much less business to transact and, probably of utmost importance, it had far less influence on the affairs of the nation and in the lives of individuals. Since the 1930's, and particularly since the war, the scope and magnitude of parliament's business have grown beyond recognition. The burden of decision is far greater and the ramifications of these decisions extend far wider.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The challenge we face today is to ensure that parliament is still able to continue to deal effectively with these much heavier responsibilities. It is certainly true, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, that essentially the role of parliament is to preserve freedom, freedom of the opposition to probe, to criticize and, indeed, to oppose. As one of the great students of the parliamentary system pointed out to us, the function of parliament is not only to pass good laws but to stop bad laws. However, this freedom must be exercised with greater responsibility, greater discretion and greater intelligence than ever before. It must be exercised in light of the legislative burden with which this house is faced. There is hardly an item in the Speech from the Throne, and there are many items in it, which is not important and indeed urgent. The fact of the matter is that we face today a condition of congestion which may well become worse unless we are capable of acting with some dispatch.
We have many tasks in this parliament but I would suggest that one of our most important tasks is to demonstrate to the Canadian public, a very sceptical and disillusioned public, that parliament can still be an effective instrument of the public will, that we can still hold the initiative in face of the mounting number and complexity of the problems. This will never be easy but it certainly will be
January 24, 1966

The Address-Mr. Faulkner possible if we will only remember what Sir Winston Churchill told the British House in 1911, that the congestion of parliament is a disease but the futility of parliament is a mortal disease. If we are mindful of this, it may not be an overstatement to say that it is in the interests of both the government and the opposition, and indeed of parliament itself, to ensure that the twenty-seventh parliament gets things done and gets them done with some efficiency.
During the past few years, Mr. Speaker, much has been said and much has been done to define and promote a meaningful and historically valid concept of Canadian unity. Much is said in the Speech from the Throne in the same vein. The concept of equal partners in confederation, recognizing as it does the basic duality of this country's origins, is a concept which is much better understood and, I would suggest, supported in far wider circles than ever before. If I might be permitted to say this as a personal observation, in my view much of the credit for this development goes to our present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Hugh Faulkner: It is my belief that a much greater share of the burden of promoting this concept will in the future, as it should have been in the past, be shared by the members of this house. We who work at the very point where all ten provinces meet must surely be the ones that bear the primary responsibility for fostering and strengthening Canadian unity. In the past too many of us have abrogated our responsibilities in this regard, leaving it to certain Canadian newspaper editors, journalists and provincial politicians to tell the people of this country what in fact has been done in this connection. It is my hope that this will change.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are some people who would have us believe that the French fact and the English fact are irreconcilable, that the one can only flourish and grow at the expense of the other. To my mind this line of reasoning is just as outmoded, just as outdated and just as pessimistic as the line of reasoning which insists that the interests of management and labour are irreconcilable. These are both nineteenth century doctrines and should have no place at this time in our history. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, they can have if we lack the imagination to conceive of new categories of thought to order our relations as people and producers. We have made some progress in the past, particularly

in the past few years. However, to find an answer to the problem posed by Canadian dualism, a problem which, paradoxically, offers tremendous opportunities, we cannot be constantly looking at European experience. We must study the Canadian facts; we must discover what has been authentic and best and valuable within our own traditions, and we must build from there with much greater originality and courage than heretofore. In short, Mr. Speaker, we have plagiarized from other countries for far too long in the formation of our national identity.
Unhappily, there has developed a certain unnecessary overlapping between the question of Canadian unity and the question of dominion-provincial relations. There are those who would argue that the true test on one's sincerity in supporting the concept of equal partners in confederation is whether or not one is willing to see the jurisdiction of the provinces, in particular the province of Quebec, grow at the expense of the federal authority. I reject this thesis utterly.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, the true test of partnership lies, for instance, in our willingness to accept the greater participation of French speaking Canadians in the higher echelons, and indeed the highest echelons, of the federal civil service and in the senior ranks of our defence establishment.
As the Speech from the Throne puts it:
-it is of the utmost importance that Canadians in all parts of the country should look to Ottawa as its true capital where they can feel at home.
To this end, Mr. Speaker, there is this commitment by the government:
To this end my government will continue to work toward the broadening of the bilingual character of the public service. The national capital should increasingly reflect the nature of the Canadian society.
Our ability to fulfil this promise is the best test of our willingness to be partners in confederation. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I should like to express also certain misgivings which I feel sure are shared by a large proportion of my constituents. These are misgivings about the direction in which dominion-provincial conferences are taking our federal system. It is not my purpose to criticize what has happened up till now but I do feel we have reached a point where we must ask ourselves whether or not the dominion-provincial conference is still the best vehicle for dealing with the immediate problems of our federal system.
January 24, 1966	COMMONS
There is a widespread feeling that these ad hoc meetings, designed to arrive at solutions to particular problems, too often result in a hybrid of compromise and expediency fostered by political pressure. This in turn results in a de facto change, albeit sometimes subtle, in the distribution of powers as between the federal and provincial governments and indeed all levels of government. These particular solutions, with their inevitable exceptions for certain provinces, produce a marked confusion and lack of clarity in our federal system. Change seems so often to come about through a process of attrition rather than through a process of conscious, long term decision.
It has been suggested by some people, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), that the time has come for a national constitutional conference. Such a conference would beyond doubt pose tremendous problems and create several severe tensions within our federal system. All of us are aware of the magnitude and difficulty of such an undertaking. However, I believe it is time that we as Canadians came to grips with our most difficult and fundamental problem, our raison d'etre. Other nations have done it, and have proven themselves equal to the task. Therefore I should like to suggest or, probably more discreetly, I should like to hope that this government would give serious consideration to the calling of such a conference.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The task of drawing up a new constitution commensurate with our present level of political, economic and historical development should, in the preliminary stages, be handled by experts, experts in constitutional law, experts in our economic and political history. At the intermediate stages of development, this new constitution should be approved by both the federal parliament and the provincial legislatures. In the final stages it should be ratified by the people. This will be an immense and traumatic undertaking but in the long run I suspect that it might be the condition of our survival as a nation.
I come now, Mr. Speaker, to certain other provisions of the Speech from the Throne. As we know, the members of the opposition have been extremely critical of this document. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in particular-I am sorry he is not here but I can understand why-has been critical and scornful of it. He has described the Speech from the Throne as a puerile and pusillanimous piece of repetitive propaganda. In my
DEBATES	179
The Address-Mr. Faulkner opinion, Mr. Speaker, far more puerile is the person who in mock rage scorns the honest and well intentioned efforts of others who fail completely to agree with his own political point of view. Far more pusillanimous is the man who fears to give credit to an opponent when credit is due. A much fairer and more perceptive assessment of the Speech from the Throne was contained in an editorial which appeared in one of this country's finest provincial daily newspapers. I refer, of course, to the Peterborough Examiner. If I may be allowed, I should like to quote from this editorial which appeared in the edition for Wednesday, January 19:
Essentially, the program that has been laid out for this session of parliament is a continuation of the Liberal government's far-reaching and, in many ways revolutionary development of Canada's social, health and welfare legislation. Already such measures as the Canada Pension Plan, the war on proverty and the Canada Assistance Plan have begun changes in Canada's social structure, and the relation of government to it, which are probably more radical than any since the second world war.
In my view, much of what is proposed in the Speech from the Throne is of immediate interest and benefit to the people of my riding. The important emphasis given to education, particularly the interim grants to higher education announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), will be warmly received by all of those who are interested in the development of Trent University. This university is in many ways unique in Canada. We from Peterborough derive considerable satisfaction and pride from the achievements of this young university. In passing I should like to point out to hon. members that the name of the first residential college of Trent University will be Samuel de Champlain, a name which we realize is revered by all Canadians but particularly French speaking Canadians.
The second annual review of the Economic Council has drawn our attention to the severe shortage of manpower with higher educational and skill qualifications. The plan announced in the Speech from the Throne for vigorous federal action in this area of manpower training is most welcome. It has been my view always that much greater use could be made and will be made of on the job training. In order to accomplish this the cooperation of management and labour would have to be secured. From the many discussions I have had with these two groups, I suggest that such co-operation would be forthcoming.
January 24, 1966

The Address-Mr. Godin
There is something missing from the Speech from the Throne, as the hon. member who spoke before me pointed out. I refer to the 11 per cent tax, particularly on production equipment. This matter has been a continuing concern of mine. I discussed it at length during the course of the election campaign. I am aware, as I am sure all hon. gentlemen opposite are, of the tremendous problem, indeed the dilemma, faced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp). When the government is committed to such an extensive program of social security it must necessarily find the revenue. However, I should like to urge the Minister of Finance, in his general review of the tax structure prior to commencing the budget, to give careful consideration to the effect of this particular 11 per cent tax on production equipment on the competitive position of our manufacturing industry in order to ascertain if he can drop it. I might point out that my position on the 11 per cent tax is not an ideological position. It happens to derive from experience in my riding.
There is much that remains in the Speech from the Throne with which I should like to deal but time does not permit. It seems to me though that the Speech from the Throne begs a fairly fundamental question. It is this: Are the 265 members of this house, who have been elected by the people of Canada to get things done, high-minded enough and concerned enough about the tremendous burden of legislation that confronts them to put aside party differences, to call a moratorium on party hassles, and get down to the job they were elected to do?


Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate you on your appointment to the post you now hold. We
owe you the respect due to your high functions. On the other hand, you have won our admiration for the manner in which you have presided over our proceedings since the opening of the session.
I take this opportunity to greet the members of the two minority groups sitting around me. I am willing to admit that the two old-line parties here must have several men of talent to be able to indulge in this game of division they are playing now. A newcomer from Quebec like myself finds that kind of game most amusing, because in Quebec now, and this has been going on since 1962, those two teams are playing hand in hand. And especially as regards the riding of

Portneuf which I represent, both the Conservative and the Liberal candidates were advocating the same program during the last election campaign. And the political organizers in our constituencies, whether they are farmers who know one another, workers in the same plant who have a drink together, agreed that there was no cause to worry since electoral coffers are filled by the same benefactors.
In the house, I have noticed differences of opinion between the government and the opposition. There are always disagreements when the possibility is being discussed of spending millions on services which might promote the welfare of Canadians right across the country. On the other hand, when the time comes, for instance, to squeeze out of the French Canadians a billion dollars to be handed over to their friends of the financial community as interest on the national debt, then the two groups are in complete agreement.
According to the Speech from the Throne, the government intends to wage war on poverty. In my opinion, as long as people's pockets are being emptied, it is useless to try waging war on poverty. As long as single and married workers are only allowed a deduction of $1,000 and $2,000 respectively for income tax purposes, a government cannot possibly be sincere about waging war on poverty and fighting for justice. So, every time the occasion arises, we will vote to have the tax deduction raised to $2,500 for single people and $5,000 for married people. We are of the opinion that if members of the house are entitled to a $6,000 deduction, farmers and workers of Quebec and Canada as a whole are also entitled to a more generous exemption.
Furthermore, the government will never be able to talk about waging war against poverty as long as Canadians have to pay the 11 per cent tax on building materials used for the construction of homes or of any plant needed for the proper development of the country.
Similarly, one cannot sincerely talk about waging war against poverty when one neglects people of 65, as was done last week.
In this connection, I should like to point out that the great majority of hon. members seem to have forgotten their origin. When we speak of those who are 65, they do not seem to know whom we are talking about.
Now, among persons 65 years of age, there are Canadian mothers who managed heroically to raise their family with the meagre salary earned by their husband at that time.
January 24, 1966

Mothers have also worked in war factories where they proved just as skilful with the soldering iron as with the laundry iron. There are also mothers who gave to their country their sons who now fill war cemeteries. Some thought should also be given to the men. The oldest started working at 15 years of age for 50 cents a day. They failed with everything they tried between 1929 and 1939. They allowed union dues to be deducted from their salaries for 30 years, and often these only served to pay fraudulent salaries to labour leaders. There are men who paid taxes all their lives; others have been paying for 25 years.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that if a member of parliament is entitled to a $2,000 a year pension after sitting in this house for three parliaments and being generously paid for it, the worker who has helped to develop this country for 50 years of his life is entitled to a pension of $1,200 per year.
When those old people get a pension then we shall make room for younger workers. It must not be forgotten that, at present, our youth is flouted throughout Canada, caught as it is between the government which requires education and industry which calls for experience. Having obtained diplomas, our young people try to get jobs in industry only to find that experience is required of them; on the other hand, the government tells them: If you are not working, it is because you do not have enough education. From pillar to post, from post to pillar. It is not the first time that that game is played in this world.
On the other hand, I was pleased to find in the speech from the throne that the government wants to look into the matter of salaries and working conditions.
That makes me very happy. I hope the citizens of the constituency of Portneuf will benefit from it, because some industries of my riding pay their employees, who are married men, only 80 cents an hour.
In Canada, some young people go without jobs, while others work too much. I am speaking of children who have to support their family. There are children who have to work while others sleep, play and study. Some children must work to support their family and they do so at the risk of jeopardizing their future. We have the best example of this deplorable situation right here in the house, our pages.
I have noticed that those children go to school at nine in the morning and work here from half past twelve until six and from
The Address-Mr. Godin eight to ten at night. Last week, at ten forty-five, they were still here. The next morning, while we, members of parliament, were sleeping in, those children were in school.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I regret that the future Minister of Manpower (Mr. Marchand) is not in his seat, because I would ask him to do something about those children. They are not the only ones, there are cases similar to theirs throughout Canada. If the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) cannot think of anything better than putting those youngsters to work to help mothers of large families or needy families I would advise him to be guided by the history of the tribes that inhabited northern Canada before our ancestors came here. As long as family allowances are not adjusted to the cost of living index, it is impossible also to talk about justice because too many of our families now have to do without the strict minimum. Talking about family allowances, they should be adjusted to the cost of living index. To hasten the readjustment, I would advise the government to use the indemnity granted to members of this house as a basis for determining when to stop raising family allowances. Let them take a look at what a member was getting in 1945 and how much he is paid today, in 1966, and then they can set the family allowance rates accordingly. I am quite sure that this would make all Canadian mothers happy.
Now, may I move an amendment. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise):
That the amendment be amended by deleting the period at the end thereof and by adding:
"and have not taken the steps required for an immediate increase in the family allowances based on the cost of living index."
I also noticed that the government intends to develop agriculture. Mr. Speaker, might I point out that, in order to do so, the farmers do not need the government. The farmers proved they could manage their business from 1940 to 1950. What they want is prices and markets for their produce.
On the other hand, we need the government very much where finance is concerned. On this I insist:	the government must,
through the Bank of Canada, make loans to the provinces, municipalities and school boards. It may be that several ministers of our "belle province" have already committed
January 24, 1986

The Address-Mr. Godin themselves too much with their friends, the financiers, to enact a new law.
I am convinced the chairmen of our school boards and mayors of our parishes would favour loans without interest.
One must not forget that all schools built all across Canada, because of interest, have been paid for once and twice over, if not more. We still owe money on our municipal services, although they have been paid for many times through interest.
When we ask an interest-free loan, we feel that we are not creating a precedent, since last year the government extended an interest-free loan of several million dollars to Jamaica for development projects. Also, last year the government of Canada lent money without interest to England for a housing development. This year, we read in the speech from the throne that the government is willing to do the same thing for Asia.
In closing, I ask the Canadian government to act as a Christian government and, whatever the needs may be in other countries, never to forget that charity begins at home.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Would any hon. member have any advice or comment to make for the guidance of the Chair regarding the acceptability of this amendment?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is one point I should like to draw to Your Honour's attention and it is simply a question of principle. I have always thought that subamendments had to modify the amendment, that they must bear a direct relationship to the amendment before the house. Since the amendment now before the house deals with old age pensions and payments to persons entitled to old age security benefits, I cannot see how a subamendment which deals with family allowances can be superimposed and yet modify an amendment with regard to old age security. If the amendment were to carry we would have two unrelated subjects tied together. In this instance I am of the opinion that, as in many other cases, the attempt to tack something on to the amendment is contrary to the rules and therefore, that the subamendment is out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker,
I think the subamendment is regular and can easily be related to the amendment in that old age pensions and family allowances are both


social security measures. They are neither different nor distinct.
Family allowances concern the human being at the beginning of his life while old age pensions apply to the aged. They are thus related to the human being and do not constitute contradictory proposals.
However, I believe that under the established Tradition of the house, the Speech from the Throne allows the opposition to move an amendment and subamendments for the definite purpose of bringing to the knowledge of the government the matters which it would like to see included in the legislation. Now, as only one amendment and two subamendments can be introduced, the opposition has always been allowed by tradition to submit a subamendment to inform the government of certain points which itself or some members would like to see incorporated in the legislation during the session. That practice has always been followed in the past.
As a matter of fact, I recall that last year an amendment-not a subamendment-concerning the increase of old age pensions, family allowances, health insurance, the pension plan which had not yet been passed, and five or six other equally important items, had been placed before the house and accepted by the Chair.
I also recall that on another occasion an amendment concerning all the natural resources of the country and including, in the one package, wheat, water pollution, power resources, and a number of other ill-assorted items, was, in spite of all this accepted by the Chair because it had in fact been presented during debate on the address or the budget, and it afforded the opposition an opportunity to voice certain opinions.
For those reasons, I feel that the subamendment is in order, since such proposals have always been allowed by tradition and precedents.
Since this has been accepted on many occasions in the past and since the subamendment can be easily related to the main amendment and these two social security measures are very close to one another, I maintain that the subamendment is in order.
In addition, I cannot understand why the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is against a subamendment asking for increased family allowances, because it was advocated by everybody during the last election campaign.
January 24, 1966


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You will have the right to do so at the proper time, but not on this amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: If hon. members have no other comments to submit to the Chair, I am ready to rule on the subamendment introduced by the hon. member for Portneuf.
First, I should like to thank the hon. member for Edmonton West and the hon. member for Lapointe who were kind enough to offer their comments; that is always useful to the Speaker when he has to make a ruling as to whether or not a subamendment is in order. I must say to the hon. member for Lapointe that I am not in agreement with his suggestion that amendments of this type have always been received in the past. On the contrary, the study I made on that matter, some time ago, more precisely during the last session of the last parliament, shows that on several occasions subamendments moved in similar circumstances were ruled out because they did not deal directly with the amendment submitted to the house.
Allow me at this time to repeat an argument which was made last year, rather that is in February 1965, by the hon. member for Edmonton West when an amendment and a subamendment were submitted to the house. The hon. member for Edmonton West quoted a ruling from Speaker Fauteux, as reported in Journals of the House for 1948, at pages 220 and 221.1 quote:
Obviously the amendment moved by Mr. Bracken constitutes a non confidence motion and deals exclusively with that question.
In my opinion, it is quite obvious that the subamendment does not in any way alter the amendment, since it deals with an entirely different matter. It is also obvious that the subamendment raises new and important matters. I now wish to quote Beauchesne's third edition, page 142, citation No. 367:
"A subamendment on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne may be moved subject to the same rules as any other amendment. It must be relevant to the amendment and cannot raise a new issue."
For the information of hon. members, I now quote citation No. 202 from Beauchesne's fourth edition:
Since the purpose of a subamendment is to alter the amendment, it should not enlarge upon the scope of the amendment but it should deal with matters that are not covered by the amendment; if it is intended to bring up matters foreign to the amendment, the member should wait until the amendment is disposed of and move a new amendment.
The hon. member for Lapointe has a point when he says that those matters are related to social security measures, but I do not feel
The Address-Mrs. Wadds the relationship is complete and specific enough.
Under the circumstances, I must say that the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Portneuf goes further than the amendment itself and cannot be accepted by the Chair.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mrs. Jean Wadds (Grenville-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, particularly since we are near neighbours on the banks of the St. Lawrence I should like to offer you more congratulations on your well deserved honour and may I join all members of the house in wishing you the very best of health with which to continue your usual good judgment, good sense and good humour because, as we all know, your job is one of the most onerous and one on which the success of any parliament depends.
May I also congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I am also pleased to welcome again most warmly another lady colleague in the House of Commons. We have been fortunate, certainly in my time here and all the years I remember, to have a very good and happy relationship among the lady members, and I know that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), with her charming personality, her well known character and political background, will contribute to these good relations and also, as she has so well shown this afternoon, will contribute greatly to the business and the work of this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean Casselman Wadds: Without being unduly feminist may I also take this occasion to offer congratulations and good wishes to another lady, the new Prime Minister of India. I remember her originally as a charming, shy girl when she visited this building with her father many years ago, and last year when we were in India we enjoyed her hospitality and the magnificence of her historic and wonderful country. I am sure I am speaking for all women of Canada, and all citizens of Canada when I wish her the best health and success in her awesome task. Our good will goes out to her across the world.
The problems in different parts of the world today vary greatly, and in our rapid development in Canada it seems to me we have lost some of the capacity to adjust to fluctuations that we may have had in a
184	COMMONS
The Address-Mrs. Wadds simpler society. Our dependency on communications, on transportation, on electricity and on machinery gives us a rigidity and the conscious or unconscious fear that individually we are incapable of personal responsibilities. This eroding of man's faith in himself seems to me to be one of the great dangers of the scientific age because a nation is only the total of its individuals, is only as strong as each individual. The hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway this afternoon spoke at length and in detail about this very fact and, although I may not always agree with her on solutions, I certainly share* her concern, not only for the individuals involved but for the future of Canada when, as she said, so many are living on unproductive forms of maintenance. Due to the unequalled success of one of our Canadian politicians in staying in power for 22 years by the process of following what people seemed to want, we have less and less stability direction and leadership given by governments, but rather a piecemeal line of least resistance and, worst of all, a upsurping of responsibilities which should remain with individuals.
The "for motherhood and against sin" tone of the Speech from the Throne is probably to be expected but what I did not expect was the remaining influence of the former minister of finance. One of the most charming and amiable gentlemen ever to sit in this house, he showed in his first budget a great tendency to impractical steps, for example, his idea ol strengthening our economy by persuading foreign companies to place 25 per cent of the capital stock of their Canadian subsidiaries on the Canadian markets. The theory was that by buying one quarter of each foreign subsidiary this would give Canadians more control over their general economy. This large amount of capital would only have gone into the coffers of the foreign companies. It would not have changed in any extent the control of our economy and it would have completely exhausted our national reserves in gold and foreign exchange. So unworkable a scheme was fortunately dropped but according to the Speech from the Throne another unworkable scheme is still in existence. In it we have this statement:
You will be asked to approve legislation to establish a Canada Development Corporation.
That is short and quickly said but it arouses more terror than hope in those who have given it any thought. It may be unpopular to mention past political patronage and skulduggery on the part of a government which

DEBATES	January 24, 1966
managed to weather an election in spite of it but it is too much to hope that such a government will now take noble steps and noble directions. Let no one be bribed, promised or cajoled into thinking that the Canada Development Corporation would be free from political influence with the government as its largest single shareholder. It seems to me a naivete that we can ill afford to say that the government will appoint all the directors only at the beginning. I hope Canadians are thinking of the vast difficulties of organizing shareholders to elect directors thereafter and of the great danger of the original government appointees being self-perpetuating.
I hope too that Canadians are wondering why they should be asked to invest in a government controlled corporation which has as one aim new enterprises considered too risky for experienced financiers. It has as another aim the saving of Canadian companies from sale to foreign bidders. I hope that Canadians, who are being asked to look with favour on such an idea, will realize that such a government controlled corporation will thereby be paying the highest possible price. This price will be even greater when integration is considered. There will be many occasions of competing with other buyers who intend to integrate with their existing production. For example, a foreign food company might very well bid high on a Canadian jam company which it planned to integrate with its own food business. The Canada Development Corporation would have to top this bid, and there would not seem to be a very likely alignment between jam and the Polymer Corporation. Even if the jam company is good and makes a profit, the cost of purchase having been forced up initially the Canada Development Corporation would find earnings on its original investment relatively small. Who stands to lose? The Canadian taxpayer whose money goes into the initial purchase. Canadian capital is scarce and we do not want it to dwindle further by reason of the smallest possible earnings on invested capital.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The Polymer Corporation is being used as an example, but would it not be equally fair to young Canadians saving to make good investments to point out other crown corporations? In the 1962-63 estimates I found that the C.B.C. needed $80 million from the federal government to operate the national broadcasting services. Only three years later, in
January 24, 1966

1965-66, the C.B.C. needs $97 million. And so it goes with the C.N.R., the Seaway Authority and Air Canada. It will be said that these companies are facing unusual difficulties, and so they are, but what company is not facing unusual and great problems when competing in the whole world market? I submit that the ratio of financial success of one in five government-backed projects does not augur well for the success of the Canada Development Corporation. I cannot imagine shrewd clear-thinking Canadians risking their hard earned money on such a nebulous gamble. This leaves only those who through no fault of their own are less financially experienced and feel they should be able to trust the government.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that nature has about its same percentage of good and bad, idealistic and opportunistic, whether inside politics or outside politics. It seems to me from considerable experience that the competition and counterchecks of the open market demand nearly as much honesty as the confusing labyrinths of government departments.
I have dwelt at some length on this one point because I was alarmed when this financial fantasy was proposed during the last parliament and I am more alarmed that it is still being promoted. Legislation of such far-reaching consequences needs a great deal of thought and study and I hope some of the dangers I have mentioned will be considered and thought through before it is too late. We cannot afford to use what capital we have for investment in extravagant gambles. Today we have the highest cost of living in Canada's history and we are enjoying and expect one of the highest standards of living in the world. Already it is estimated that 12 per cent of personal income tax in Canada is taken up by welfare costs compared with a corresponding 7 per cent in the United States. It is also estimated that those individuals living on savings, pensions or fixed incomes have lost over the last three years at least 7 per cent of the real value of their incomes due to a complicated and inflationary eroding of benefits. Such tendencies do not make for confidence and other countries cannot have the confidence in us that we might wish. Surely the recipients of vastly extended government protection must themselves begin to ask where this is all coming from and on what it is based.
Last Thursday the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) stated during his speech that in 1960-61 the expenditure on old age security
The Address-Mrs. Wadds was $592 million and that in 1970 it is expected to be $1,600 million. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) on the same day spoke of the alarming extractions being taken from the Canadian people. The burden of the Canada Pension Plan on the employer or person operating his own business, he said, is 1.8 per cent, totalling $500 million to $600 million per year. In addition, the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and production machinery continues to weigh most heavily on the small businessman. Is it any wonder that we have such an exodus of our keen and aggressive young people to the United States, an estimated 700,000 in the post-war years? This exodus, Mr. Speaker, is further compounded by the number of scientifically trained people entering the United States and giving their last place of residence as Canada but who were born elsewhere. This means that their education has been paid for by the Canadian public or the taxpayers. However, when the time comes for a return to the economy and our society, these people find greater opportunities and incentives elsewhere.
I have always been one to urge greater federal expenditure on education for research in education and the greatest possible attention to it, but it does seem to me that coupled with this attention there must be more attention given to stimulating personal enterprise here in Canada. The removal of the 11 per cent sales tax and the restoration of the National Productivity Council as a forum for representatives of labour, management and government would be steps in the right direction. These steps have been urged by the official opposition.
In addition, the great industry of agriculture, particularly the dairy industry which is so important to eastern Ontario, needs more effective attention. I was never enthusiastic about last year's interim dairy support policy which was most cumbersome and delayed deficiency payments until March of 1966. I strongly recommend that the much vaunted aim of $3.50 per hundredweight of milk be raised this year to $4, as repeatedly promised during the election campaign. Here again we must consider the already mentioned need to create incentive and encouragement to our young people. The production of milk was down last year but the most serious statistic, it seems to me, is the fact that the number of milk cows across Canada was the lowest in 45 years.
January 24, 1966

The Address-Mr. Reid
With the rise in the cost of living, inflationary signs in all directions and the 11 per cent sales tax on production machinery, which includes farm machinery, it is not to be wondered that total farm expenses increased last year. Proper and efficient farm labour is scarce and often non-existent. The cost price squeeze is very serious in the dairy industry and we recommend most highly that dairy farmers be given immediate encouragement before this situation builds up into serious shortages.
The Speech from the Throne suggests that the heavy demand for loans from the Farm Credit Corporation makes it desirable again to increase the capital of that corporation. I have been among those who welcomed and supported the improvements and extensions to the Farm Credit Corporation but many farmers are expressing grave worry over their indebtedness under existing trends.
I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees) this afternoon stress and recommend more aggressive selling policies, particularly in respect of farm products. I was also pleased to hear him stress the importance of the tourist industry in which we are very interested in eastern Ontario, with all the attractions of our great St. Lawrence river, our historic areas and our great historic development at Upper Canada Village. I feel strongly that this is an industry with great possibilities. We have hardly begun to earn the return that we might, considering all that we have to offer.
This debate, which allows such a wide-ranging choice of subjects to all speakers, indicates the main trend of concern. The concentration on all types of health and welfare problems, standards of living and their improvement, however commendable and popular, must surely not obscure the need for at least as much concentration on our productivity and balance of payment problems. It seems to me that we must at this time heed that biblical warning: Let us build our house upon a rock.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Mercer Reid: This responsibility has now
passed on to me and I wish to assure you, sir, that I shall do my best to ensure that the Liberal Labour Association of Kenora-Rainy River shall be heard forcefully here in the house as it will in the Senate through Senator Benidickson. I should say too, that when Senator Benidickson was member of parliament he gave his constituency a service that has set an extremely high standard for me to follow. I have been into areas in the constituency that I was not aware he had visited, and I am finding out daily that he has done more good than I can ever hope to do if I spend the same time in the house as he did. My ambition is to be as good an M.P. for Kenora-Rainy River as he was, and this will certainly keep me busy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Mercer Reid: The riding of Kenora-Rainy River is, I am told, the fifth largest in population in Ontario and the second or third largesi geographically. Its population is spread out
January 24, 19S6

almost evenly, and we are dependant for our very survival on a few basic enterprises.
Our constituency is right up against the Ontario-Manitoba border, and this gives us a feeling of isolation. We are the hinterland of Winnipeg, and yet our political capital in provincial affairs is Toronto. At the present time northwestern Ontario as a whole is going through far-reaching and impressive technological changes. We are also going through the birth pangs of new sociological changes, because we have no built-up urban base in the riding and are suffering from a decline in population, capital and growth. In comparison with the national average, we are static or even declining.
Although statistics show that northwestern Ontario is at the national average in such things as unemployment rates, income levels and rate of growth, the part of northwestern Ontario which I happen to represent, that of Kenora-Rainy River, is an exception to this trend. Part of it, as I have said, is the hinterland of the Canadian lakehead, but this is only a very small part. The rest of the riding looks to Winnipeg, and this has led to certain frustrations.
In the speeches of the hon. member for Dollard and the hon. member for York-Scarborough we heard a little about separatists. Well, Mr. Speaker, there is a separatist movement in my constituency as well. This movement wants to break off from Ontario and join up with the province of Manitoba.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


John Mercer Reid: I, sir, do not agree with this suggestion, and when it was raised during the past election campaign I put it in this way: "Why do you want to leave Ontario? Why do you want to jump from the frying pan into the fire? You would just be moving from a Tory government in Queen's Park to one in Winnipeg".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But we haven't had it so long.


John Mercer Reid: As I said a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, my constituency is going through great technological changes. The first of these, and perhaps the most important, is the change in transportation services as they affect my riding. As you know, sir, Kenora-Rainy River is basically a transportation riding; this was its origin. Now that the transportation services are pulling out of my riding, it is causing a great dislocation of the population. But even more important is the
The Address-Mr. Reid dislocation of services. It seems to me that if the railroads are going to take advantage of these new methods of transportation, they ought to be able to continue and indeed improve the standard of services they are providing to the constituency, to the businesses that are there, the mines, logging companies and storekeepers. But, sir, the C.P.R. are not doing this. They are cutting back services. They are not giving us the advantages of these changes. Indeed it seems to me that the C.P.R. in my riding is going out of its way to discourage business from using its services. I am speaking here not of passengers but of freight and express services, two of the vital things that we need.
The C.P.R. have cancelled the "Dominion". In some respects, perhaps, this is justified, but I do not think it was justified in the way the C.P.R. went about it. The excuse they have given for cancelling the "Dominion" is that it will improve the freight and express service; yet I pick up one of my local newspapers and find that with regard to the freight and express services the C.P.R. are cutting back their regular daily service to one of three times a week. They are cutting the throats of the people in this riding without even giving them a chance to fight back.
We have had the example of Kenora, where an industry came in. They went to the C.P.R. and asked them to provide transportation. The C.P.R. said, "We are not going to provide transportation for you. Find another way". So the company, being a resourceful one, went out and found another way, which was a little more expensive. Then the C.P.R. came back to them and said, "Now you are operating, we would like to help you".
Mr. Speaker, there are a great many things I should like to say about the C.P.R., but I think I will reserve that privilege until another day when I can go into them in more detail. Right now, sir, I should like to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, which arises out of the subamendment of the
January 24, 1966

The Address-Mr. Reid hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin). Mr. Speaker asked me this afternoon to show him precedents as evidence that during the debate on the address a subamendment could be moved which was a little outside the subject matter of the amendment.
I have found such precedents by checking the debates on the address for the years 1963, 1964 and 1965. In 1965, the main amendment-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; I suggest to the hon. member that the subamendment presented this afternoon has already been ruled upon by the Speaker. I do not believe we can permit any further discussion of the Speaker's ruling.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, as for the question of privilege, I have no intention of discussing the Speaker's ruling of this afternoon. I merely would like to quote three rulings in the last three years, so that this afternoon's ruling may not set a precedent. This is my only motivation; I had no intention of questioning the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; I should point out again to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) that in referring to this ruling, he is in fact commenting on the Speaker's ruling.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I was asked for these precedents this afternoon by Mr. Speaker himself. I could not quote them at that time because I was somewhat taken aback. That is why I wanted to give them to you tonight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; I recognize that at the time the subamendment was moved, the Speaker did ask for comments from members of the house. I am sure that the hon. member for Lapointe will recall that this request for comment was made before the Speaker made his decision. Having once made that decision, I do not believe the Chair can permit any further comment or discussion of the ruling.


John Mercer Reid: Now that we have returned from dinner, Mr. Speaker, I thought perhaps we could put a little brighter light on things if I were to extend to all hon., gentlemen an invitation to come to Kenora, which is one of the prime tourist areas in Canada, from the

14th to the 21st of August. At this time we will be inaugurating an international sailing race over one of the largest inland bodies of water in Canada or the United States. This is a first. This year the race will begin from the United States side, but next year, our centennial year, it will begin in Kenora. After a long, hard session, which I am told we are going to have with all of the goodies in the Speech from the Throne, perhaps those who would like to relax may come up and enjoy this event.
I spoke generally about my constituency and about some of the problems we were facing in that constituency which were of national importance. This evening, I believe I will use the remainder of my time to discuss another problem of very great importance. So far as I am aware, no one has commented on this subject. I refer to the plight of our Indian people. As you know, shortly after the election there was a march of 400 Indians into Kenora, Ontario to protest the type of conditions under which they were living. What I should like to do now is give a brief history of this march and indicate what the accomplishments have been to date, as well as what is going to happen or ought to happen in the future.
The problems of the townspeople of Kenora and the Indian population of the area have a longstanding history. This particular issue began on July 31, 1965 when Weekend magazine published an article entitled, "The Indians: An Abandoned and Dispossessed People". The article, I believe, was over-sensational, but it did point out that there was discrimination and that the Indians were not having a fair shake, so something ought to be done. The article had the effect of a bombshell. A meeting was called by the Crown Attorney to protest it. It was well attended but unfortunately nothing concrete resulted from the meeting. A decision to do something about the situation was taken by an organization called the Indian-White committee, which had been in existence for some time without having been able to accomplish anything.
Shortly after the election, on the 13th and 14th of November, this organization called a seminar to discuss all aspects of the Indian's plight. The seminar was well attended by outsiders, senior government officials from both federal and provincial governments as well as by some Indians. The Indians were not able to come out in force because poor weather conditions kept most of them on the
January 24, 1966	COMMONS
reserves. However, I would say the seminar was a success. Unfortunately it suffered from a bad press. Headlines, such as the following were seen:
A senior government official warned this town Sunday that its failure to care about local Indians may lead to racial violence.
At the same time a leading welfare official compared the racial situation in the area to that of the southern United States.
These statements appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune on November 15. The headline in the Winnipeg Free Press read as follows:
Indian-White violence feared unless Kenora commits its interests.
This also appeared on November 15. These statements had an unfortunate reaction amongst the townpeople because they would look out on the street and see certain Indians. These were probably what we call the hard core derelicts, the ones who suffer from alcoholism. They would say, "revolt, those guys have not got any gumption to revolt." This sentiment was echoed a few days later by Dr. G. C. Monture, who is a full-blooded Mohawk from the Six Nations Reserve. His opinion was that welfare and alcohol had combined to defeat the Indian and deprive him of any initiative.
I had the privilege of attending the seminar and was also asked to speak. I suggested to the people there that they should organize and that there were certain things they should do to make their organization effective. As things turned out, my advice was not heeded. They went ahead with their own plans which turned out to be quite successful. They decided to organize a march on the town of Kenora. As a result of the headlines, to which I referred a few minutes ago, the press came streaming in. They came with cameras, with notebooks and with preconceived ideas. There were those who had covered the civil rights demonstrations in the United States and they immediately assumed that this was a similar situation.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
They compared Kenora with Selma, Alabama. They talked to the townspeople in that peculiar way the press has, and ended up at times putting words and ideas into the mouths of the local residents. They made good copy; the news was sensational. They focused public attention on the town of Kenora and, in the heat and the glare, the townspeople looked inward.
Meanwhile, while the press swarmed into Kenora, work went on over the presentation of the brief and publicity was brought
DEBATES	189
The Address-Mr. Reid to bear, so that things came to almost an unbearable peak on Monday, November 22, 1965. Four hundred Indians from the reserves around Kenora marched on town council, which on this occasion held its meeting in one of the larger halls in town. The Indian march was impressive. It was an impressive demonstration of solidarity and of discipline.
Two main results flowed from this march. First of all, Mr. Speaker, just being able to assemble and to present a brief to the town fathers gave the Indians confidence which they never had before. The Indian now found himself for the first time in his history in this area a force to be reckoned with in the community. Second, because the demonstration was so orderly and so well carried out and so truthful, the opinion which the townspeople of Kenora had of the Indians went up markedly.
The brief which the Indians presented had been prepared in the glare of publicity, but unfortunately the expectations of what was put in the brief were quite different from its actual contents. The local people had been led to believe as a result of the publicity that all of the problems which the Indians had would be specifically dealt with in the brief. They were wrong, for the brief was nothing more than an eloquent plea for help; an admission that the Indian by himself did not have the ability or the power to save himself. It admitted the frustrations of the Indian. It admitted the Indian's inability to handle most of his own problems. It admitted the Indian's need for help from the townspeople of Kenora.
I have here, Mr. Speaker, a copy of the brief, and I am wondering whether I might ask for unanimous consent of the house to have it printed as an appendix to the Hansard debates for this day.
This brief asks for four things.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, what is the nature of the document which the hon. gentleman is seeking to have made an appendix?


John Mercer Reid: The brief presented to the town of Kenora by the Indians. The source of this particular copy is the full report which was printed in the local newspaper.


Mr. Ricard:: No; we can look at the newspaper for that.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, this brief appears to be a document of a very substantial nature. It is not in accordance with the

January 24. 1966
The Address-Mr. Reid
practice or traditions of the house that a document of this type should be printed without being read. I respectfully submit to Your Honour that it ought not to be printed by unanimous consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Do I take it that there is not unanimous consent to have this document printed?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.


John Mercer Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In that event, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may briefly summarize the conclusions of the brief. It called, first of all, for the establishment of a special mayor's committee made up of Indians and non-Indians to act as a medium for the adjustment of grievances between the Indian and the non-Indian people, and to promote long-range racial co-operation. Second, it asked for some of the specifics I mentioned before; an extension of the fur trapping season; a request that the Alcoholism Research Foundation involve itself in the fight against alcoholism in the Kenora area; and lastly it asked for a radio-telephone communications system between Kenora and the local Indian reserves.
I am happy to report, Mr. Speaker, that to my knowledge the last three requests have been accepted almost in total. The mayor's committee has been formed and is currently in operation. As a matter of fact, since that time two meetings attended by both provincial and federal officials, the townspeople and the Indians have been held; and even today a meeting is taking place in Kenora, made up solely of Indian chiefs and councillors, along with supporting help from the federal and provincial governments, wherein the Indians are attempting to work out solutions to their own problems.
In the short time left to me, Mr. Speaker, I should like to suggest some of the lessons which have been learned from this march. First of all, the Indian is beginning to look upon his condition and to find that it is not satisfactory; and he is attempting to do something about it. This, to me, is a most encouraging sign. Second, the Indian recognizes that he cannot do it alone that he needs our help; and this was the central message in the brief. Third, what is going on in Kenora now at all these meetings is an attempt to join the townspeople and the Indian together in order to look for a joint solution to their

problem. This is an exciting development in what might be called a community development program.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that Kenora has been maligned in much of the publicity received over this incident. I think that this could have happened in many places outside my own constituency and in some cases it is a miracle that it has not happened before. What is going on now in Kenora is an attempt by all concerned to work out joint solutions which will help the Indian to make his life easier.
I should now like to say a few words about the fuss there has been in the newspapers over the agreement between the federal government and the Ontario government with respect to community development and welfare payments. When this fuss arose in Kenora and when the march took place, an ad hoc committee made up of provincial and federal officials swung into action; and basically they have been the ones who have been able to provide the resources which have been made available so far.
My own objection to this type of agreement, sir, is that in some cases I think it is out of date. It was negotiated prior to this march in Kenora, and I think in many cases it is obsolete. First of all, I have no objection to the provinces taking over welfare payments to the Indian, so as to integrate them into the provincial welfare system. I think that the system we have of a division in welfare services between what the Indians get from the federal government and what everybody else gets from the provincial government is bad, and has led, in part, to the development of a class system within the welfare field.
I should like to see the provinces take over complete control of welfare payments to Indians, but I do not want to see this done on the basis of the provinces setting up a separate organization to handle this welfare. However, I think it must be fully integrated with provincial welfare operations.
Second, Mr. Speaker, I should like to see welfare cut away from the community development programs that are going on. I do not think it is a good idea to mix the two. I think we are much better off if the province takes over welfare, and if the proposed department of Indian affairs concentrates its full resources on community development, on providing support and services for Indians going to universities and Indians going to high schools, and for Indians trying to get employment. I think the department of Indian
January 24, 1966

affairs should develop into a much more vital department than it is at present.
I was very pleasantly surprised, when I began to deal with Indian affairs, that this matter came up.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I found that the Indian affairs branch was on many occasions far in advance of the thinking of both the Indians and of the whites in Kenora and a number of other places. In many cases the branch was further ahead in its thinking than were the provinces. I am basically in favour of these agreements. However, I recognize that though parliament may legislate, others have to implement. The way things have been going it may be that the intentions of the government will be frustrated by personality conflicts and by people out in the field.
The approach to Indian affairs in the past has been paternalistic; its effect has been to create a paternal relationship between the Indian affairs branch and the Indian. This has lessened the Indians' sense of initiative, their independence, the spark that makes people do things. It might not be a bad idea if we were completely to take away everybody concerned with Indian affairs at the present time and transfer them to other departments of government, and then go out and recruit a whole new department which would have a different approach.
I am aware that a body of people who have been carrying out a program under one philosophy find it very difficult indeed to change that philosophy. I think this is a matter which the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) might look into. I know my proposal is a drastic one; but the situation is drastic and my concern in this case arises because I feel we must break the bond which now exists between the Indians and the department. We must eliminate this paternalistic attitude and we must do it soon.
I think it is important, too, that we should adopt a new approach to Indian affairs. Indians do not necessarily want to be integrated into our society; they do not necessarily want to be assimilated. As a matter of fact I have found a great deal of opposition among the Indians to assimilation. What they do want today is participation. They want to be able to make their contribution, to do their share. And they recognize that they need help.
I think we have to listen to the Indians, now. They are beginning to think; they are beginning to discuss many things and arrive at solutions. All too often our people who go
The Address-Mr. Reid out into the field listen to the words of the Indians but they do not listen to the sense. As a result, the Indians have become terribly frustrated, because what they are saying does not get home. All too often we do what appears to be good for the Indian affairs branch, or what is good for the government of Canada instead of what is good for the Indians. A new approach has to be accepted and I hope we shall be able to take such an approach when the white paper on Indian affairs comes down. I understand there is to be a report called the Hawthorne report made from the University of British Columbia. It may be delivered to the government in April of this year. From discussions I have had it seems it may herald a new approach in our dealings with Indians. I trust the government will look carefully at this report and consider it very seriously.
There is much more I can say about the situation. Before concluding, however, there is one point I must make. It concerns a group of people who are lost, who are cut off and who have nowhere to go. These are the people who are non-treaty Indians; they are not included under the terms of the Indian Act and they are ignored by the provincial officials, possibly because they do not know how they are affected and what their problems are. I would suggest that when the Act is revised the non-treaty Indians should be brought under the Indian affairs branch and under the Indian Act. If this were to be done I think we would be making provision for a great many people who are presently being ignored and whose living conditions are almost unbelievable, so great is their poverty.
There is another group to which special attention should be paid. I refer to those Indians who reside so far from the main centres of population as to be virtually beyond travelling distance. These are the Indians who live in the northern reserves and whose only contact with the outside world is through the occasional aircraft that flies in. The Indians on some of these reserves have kept up the old native skills; they are hunters, fishermen, trappers. In such reserves as these there is still dignity to be seen. There is solidarity. There is even contentment and happiness. But there is another class of reserve up there in the north which does not possess these resources. Those who live in such places are completely dependant on welfare payments from the government. For them, life is just one welfare cheque after another; they have no hope, no prospects.
192	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Enns	.
While we have to help those who are nearer to civilization we must not forget those who are so far away, those who do not possess the means, or perhaps the ability, to raise a fuss.
I hope all members of this house will pitch in with constructive suggestions when the white paper is tabled and the debate comes up later on in the session.


Siegfried John Enns: I consider it my first duty to join with those who have already spoken in congratulating the mover (Mr. Goyer) and the seconder (Mr. Stanbury) of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I should also like to add my felicitations and congratulations to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker to Mr. Speaker himself and to the Deputy Chairman of Committees on their election to the high offices they now hold. I wish them well, and know they will do well.
I hope to be able to make more specific reference to the Speech from the Throne in my comments than did the hon. member preceding me who instructed us so well on problems relating to Indians affairs. Although I was attracted to visit his riding I must tell him I have already done so and hope to do so again. He is a welcome addition to this house and we look forward to more and greater things from him in future.
I believe the Speech from the Throne is a repetition of the experience of many of the things we have come to expect from the present government. I suspect that not all of these great promises will be or can be achieved by a government which has been subject to so many limitations.
I hope to be counted among the members of this house who hold that all constructive legislative proposals are not limited to one party, although I am not too hopeful that suggestions from opposition members will be greatly welcomed by the government. Nevertheless, I believe there are members who are motivated beyond the limited ends of party power, men who wish to bring their knowledge and ability to the solution of some of the problems of this country. I know there is a great fund of experience and knowledge among the members of this house which might well be turned to the solution of the problems which Canada faces in 1966.
In the opening words of the Speech from the Throne the Governor General made reference to Canada's responsible role in world affairs, giving the speech an international flavour. This provides me with an excuse to make some reference to Canada and to its

DEBATES	January 24, 1966
relation with our neighbour to the south, the United States. By its very proximity and size the influence which the United States exerts over us is great. We recognize the position of world leadership in which the United States finds itself. However, I feel Canada must still speak as a power which is coming to greatness in its own right, and Canadians can do much which neither Britain nor the United States can do toward bringing the countries of Asia into closer relationship with the West. Canada, by words and by deeds, must firmly let our allies know that this is a nation which has its own traditions and aspirations. We will work beside her better when the United States appreciates our attitude toward world affairs.
In matters of defence and trade, therefore, as was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, we must act in such a manner as to provide world leadership and thus make ourselves stronger both at home and abroad. Measures such as the recognition of Communist China might well be increasingly discussed in this house, although I know full well there are many problems to be faced before this question can be resolved.
Another great need in Canada in 1966-and I am speaking now in very general terms-is to preserve the right of the individual to do things for himself. My thoughts at this point are, perhaps, more obviously those of a Conservative. Maturity of mind must go hand in hand with physical and economic maturity. The political leadership in our country must express our national pride and spirit of independence. We must embark on a program of equitable and increasing human betterment at home and in the world at large, and take the lead with our material and human resources on the road of peace, and improvement in the lot of our fellowmen. Our actions in the field of external aid will need to be more closely examined in the light of these aims.
e (8:30 p.m.)
I have held these thoughts for many years and have been prompted to express them on this occasion by the opening remarks in the Speech from the Throne. I will therefore support any national development policy that will strengthen Canada by strengthening all areas, regions and groups. Canadians of all regions must have more equal opportunities to share in the national prosperity, and I am discontented by the manner in which certain policies of the federal government have seemed to do the opposite.
January 24, 1966

Thus, the individual rights of the people must be protected and enlarged in parliament and before the courts of law, as individuals and groups. Every Canadian has the right to be governed by laws passed only in parliament, and the concurrent right of appeal to a body of known composition and jurisdiction. I am wondering whether that civil servant recently dismissed from the Vancouver post office is enjoying the full rights of citizenship when he will be pursued but not brought to court.
In order that a national development policy and a strong democratic state may bring equitable and increased advantages to all, there must be a program of human betterment. I am looking with great anticipation to the development of the Canada Assistance Plan, the proposal to bring into line the various social security measures that have been developed as a patchwork quilt over the past number of years.
The various social assistance programs should some day be based on a comprehensive contributory system that covers the aged, the unemployed, the sick, and the injured or handicapped. It must be such a system that preserves the individual, the home, the volunteer groups and local government powers. Incentives must be built into such programs to encourage the individual to be a proud, participating member in a self-reliant society. There are still many gaps in our social security system and I hope to speak at greater length about these on another occasion.
I want to make reference to one group who are constantly left out in our deliberations on the improvement of human goals, namely the retired civil servants, the superannuates, and I join with the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), and the other hon. members who have already raised concern about these superannuates who are living in retirement on fixed income despite the rising, inflationary cost of living, and who seem to have been forgotten by the government. I trust that some measures can be implemented during the session, by which this group of people will be considered and helped.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Siegfried John Enns: I am encouraged by some measures that have been mentioned in the throne speech, and I wish to talk about education as one such measure. I welcome the emphasis given to education in the Speech from the Throne. I have read the Bladen commission report on the financing of higher education, a report which presents 23033-13
The Address-Mr. Enns some startling statistics indeed. It states that whereas we are dealing in millions of dollars today, we will be dealing in billions of dollars ten years from now. The reason for this is very simple. In 1950 about one in 12 primary school pupils reached first year university. By 1964 the proportion had risen to about one in six, and it is still rising. This is wonderful.
There is a general recognition of the importance of developing to the full the intellectual resources of our people. This recognition has been connected with a new concern for economic growth and a new assessment of the dependence of that growth on the supply of highly intelligent, highly trained and highly educated people. I must emphasize, however, as did the Bladen commission, that the purpose of all education is not merely the supply of productive instruments but the development of whole persons.
I share the view that in spite of increasing demands on the taxpayer who, after all, is the only revenue generating resource for all levels of government, that as a country Canada can afford this high cost, that it must afford the massive expenditures on education, because the alternates are more costly. If we leave people illiterate and improperly educated we are inviting an increase in other problems such as juvenile delinquency.
What does it cost to be unemployed? Can anyone give statistics for that in human values, in real values affecting our gross national product?
What does it cost to have insufficient skilled personnel to realize fully our country's potential? These are questions without specific answers, yet one shudders to think of the actual cost we might have to pay if we do not fulfil all our responsibilities in the field of education.
The costs of education are investments, I believe, and the greatest human investments our nation can make is in our youth, for here are our greatest dividends. Of course pensions are necessary, but these are usually paid to people on their retirement. Of course medicare and health plans are necessary. These are matters which are of benefit to all Canadians, but certainly not to the same extent as is education. Therefore I say again that the highest return will be on the investments we make now in the education of our youth. Therefore, in any scheme of priorities I would put education ahead of these other two matters.
The Bladen commission report states:
We believe that the people of Canada want this expansion. We doubt whether they, or their governments, have fully understood how much it will
January 24, 1966

The Address-Mr. Enns cost, but we believe that they will still want this expansion when they do know the probable cost, and we believe that they will be prepared to pay for it through fees, taxes, and gifts, provided that a satisfactory way of allocating the cost between the various sources of funds is worked out.
I expect that herein lies the key to our federal responsibility, that is, to provide a satisfactory way of allocating funds toward education. Sometimes I am inclined to recommend to the government that a department or a branch of education be developed because the federal government is now so far involved in matters pertaining to education. It might be desirable for the government to consider changing the name of the Department of National Health and Welfare to the department of health, welfare and education.
With the number of programs that the government has embarked upon in regard to vocational training, grants to higher education and grants for research, and even though education is a matter for the provinces, according to the British North America Act, the federal government is committed to matters educational. Therefore it is quite justifiable to urge that it establish, if not a department, then certainly a branch as a department of education.
It would appear that there is no other choice than to pay the price of higher education. To do anything else would be to see our country slip slowly backwards in the changing modern technological world we are entering.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I was pleased with the Prime Minister's announcement last Thursday that grants to universities will be increased from $2 to $5 per capita, and perhaps even more. I was not quite able to sort out the very complicated formula the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) used, but this is in essence, I believe, a program that the Conservative party has endorsed and advocated for some time.
Moving now to another subject mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, in respect to agriculture-and I see the amiable new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) in the house and I should like to congratulate him on his appointment-let me say that the emphasis apparently placed on agriculture in the throne speech is significant. This seems to be an obvious attempt to cover up a lack of achievement on the part of the government in respect of the whole field of agriculture throughout the last session of parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to mention only a few items listed in the throne speech which

to my mind are the ones which have been given special emphasis. First of all there is a suggestion that we should establish a national dairy commission. I am sure this will meet with the general endorsation of producers in all parts of the country.
The suggestion for crop insurance extension is one that needs more scrutiny because some of the provinces are not completely convinced that the increased premiums which will be exacted from the growers and producers will be useful. Some provinces are concerned about the higher costs of farm crop insurance extension in that it will place an undue drain on provincial budgets during periods of high loss.
Farm credit extensions are matters which will also have to be considered carefully, because some people believe there is enough credit at this time and that credit may in fact be too easy, which in turn has served to increase the cost of the land. I am not suggesting that we should not extend this form of credit, because credit is a very useful and essential tool to the farming industry, but this is a policy which will have to be more carefully examined when it comes before the house.
The redevelopment of uneconomical farms is something to which we will all look forward with great interest. Just how this will be accomplished is not known and we will have to wait until we hear more specific proposals in order to assess this measure.
Cash advances on unthreshed farm grain is an interesting suggestion, particularly in view of the fact this party had advanced this proposal last summer. We wonder how this can be applied by the present government and we are waiting to hear their suggestions in this regard.
Unemployment insurance for full time workers is a subject that I will certainly support on behalf of farm labourers, but I am interested in the connotation of the phrase "full time workers" because many of these farm helpers are part time and, if this proposal does not cover seasonal farm labourers, it may well not achieve the objectives needed to aid the labour problem, so far as agriculture is concerned.
One specific item I wish to single out is that referred to in the throne speech debate where it is stated that the agricultural situation needs special attention. The suggestion is made that the present proposals will provide this special attention. Reference is made specifically to a feed grain board for eastern
January 24, 1966

Canada. The establishment of such a feed grain board might lead to a slash in the returns to western feed growers. I hope my anxiety in this area is unfounded, but it is suspected in western Canada, and I offer this warning to the minister, that it may also result in the transfer of livestock feeding from the west to the east. It would be foolish to build up one part of the country at the expense of another part. I must stress the fact that the livestock industry is a critical factor in the prosperity of the west.
We are looking forward with great expectation to what the new Minister of Agriculture will do, and we are prepared to give him every opportunity to prove himself.
Some of the items mentioned rather unspecifically in the Speech from the Throne are items of broad general concern. I notice, for example, there is a statement to the effect that the government hopes to change the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in part to a department of manpower, and it later refers to an amendment to the Citizenship Act in this regard. However, there is no specific reference to immigration or to the Immigration Act itself. The indications are that the new minister will continue to develop the policy of selective immigration. Studies of labour markets certainly suggest that many skilled immigrants are badly needed if the economy is to be kept in high gear.
I am distressed by repeated cases of discrimination of which I and, other members are aware, which obviously are still being practised at some of our ports of entry. I know of two specific situations in my riding, which I will not spell out, where Chinese cooks have been discouraged from entering the country. Most of us enjoy Chinese food from time to time and have come to recognize the special skills required to serve Chinese delicacies in a proper manner. Those skills are in short supply in our country, yet several applicants from Hong Kong in possession of these skills have been rejected because of their inability to speak English. I hope this is not the practice because it certainly would be in direct contravention of the Immigration Act.
In the absence of any suggestion in the throne speech of an amendment to the Immigration Act, and this act as we know has been in effect now for some 13 years, I trust that the new minister with his new department will develop a white paper on immigration.
23033-13J
The Address-Mr. Enns
I believe the act as it now stands gives dangerous discretionary powers to the minister and his departmental officials. The officers of that department can reject immigrants on various grounds, and when one reads the act he will find surprising words such as "cultural background" and others. How is that interpreted? One can also find the words "economic factors". This in certain circumstances may disqualify an immigrant from entry. How specifically should this be applied? "The lack of ability to adjust" can disqualify an applicant. Those are the type of phrases that I believe constitute dangerous wording and give far too much discretion to local departmental officials. I feel that they need and call for revision.
No doubt new manpower policies to develop to the full existing human resources in our country will represent the minister's first task, but I suggest to him that he might well give another priority to bringing immigration into line with new policies. The house will watch with high expectation what the proposed department of manpower will produce. Again let me propose that a white paper on immigration be developed by the new department as a high priority.
I come now to a question that has been raised more regionally or parochially, but perhaps the members of this house, in keeping with the general practice in respect of this kind of speech during the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, will forgive me for mentioning it. I want to talk about a provincial problem which is associated with a national problem, and that is the problem regarding the lack of a national air policy for Canada.
My colleagues from Manitoba have raised this question with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), and I myself have raised it in connection with objections to the recent air agreement signed with the United States. On January 19, as recorded at page 17 of Hansard, I asked the minister about the national air policy and pointed out that future agreements should not be signed when one region of a country benefits at the expense of another. In his reply, which appears at the bottom of page 17 of Hansard of January 19, 1966, the minister said in part:
We hope for the development of air traffic which will be such that there will be great expansion within three years.
The minister expressed a hope. Let me point out that hopes and intentions will not do the trick of providing Canada with a national air policy for the development of our

January 24, 1966
The Address-Mr. Enns services. The adoption of an air policy would not be an attempt to take something away from larger air lines or other regions, but we do expect to have a program for the development of new air traffic using the facilities that exist with existing air lines, that will give encouragement to smaller regional operators. We feel this would result in giving the residents of smaller centres those air services they deserve and want.
Ever since 1963, when the Winnipeg overhaul base was being moved piecemeal from Winnipeg to Montreal, in spite of government protestation to the contrary, we on this side of the house had been asking for a national air policy.
The regional carriers, I believe, need some encouragement. I think a sound policy of government support to give the public the service it deserves should be the central aim of such a national air policy.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
At a time when railway passenger service has been curtailed and Air Canada is using larger planes like the DC-8-and they have even larger planes on order-I fear that a "fly-over" system of air transportation will develop whereby people living in smaller centres might be without service. A national policy giving emphasis to regional needs is urgently required and is long overdue. Canada will not retain its air position in North America if such a policy is not adopted; already there just are not enough seats to go around on many days.
The United States recognized the need for strong regional carriers some time ago, with the result that now 11 of the 13 regional carriers are operating in the black. From the United States experience we learn that the regional carriers are developing traffic for the larger lines and the big carriers are actively supporting them now. I therefore do not see why there should be any problem in Canada.
I make the point, Mr. Speaker, that aircraft now are so expensive that an air line needs government guarantees of loans or at least of territories to make their purchases economical. It seems to me that Air Canada is no longer just a domestic carrier and that its schedules are determined by the time of day the flight should arrive in London or some other foreign city. Winnipeg, for example, suffers more than most cities from this arrangement because it is in the centre of the country and there are many flights that just seem to fly over the city, or arrivals are at a

poor time of day, inconveniencing the travelling public and providing poor connecting schedules. I think it is time we spoke about this high handed action by Air Canada.
A national air policy must be developed with proper subsidies to the regional carriers where uneconomic routes provide a service that is in the best interests of the community. There is nothing strange about this kind of proposal. We have done it with rail and ships, and indirectly we have done it with trucking; so this is something we could well do for air lines as well. Last fall the five regional air carriers, Pacific Western, Nordair, Quebec Air, Eastern Provincial and Trans Air joined in a common submission to the cabinet in which they envisioned the removal of the major air lines from short but rather lucrative links which are really feeder lines. Such a transfer would assist these regional carriers financially and permit them to develop air traffic which could feed the larger air lines or tie in with other carriers.
I am not claiming that this is the only solution to our air transportation difficulties, but certainly these proposals bear some examination. I believe that Air Canada seems to be revealing more and more of the bad effects of a monopoly. It seems that it has grown so big that it can afford to ignore the demands for better service to the smaller towns and cities. As the years go by I think it is even more essential for us to have well enunciated, clear and distinct national policies so that we know what we can expect in this field.
Mr. Speaker, I have a few minutes left in which I wish to place emphasis on a matter that has given rise to much concern in my own riding of Portage-Neepawa. I refer to this wonderful program of support that the Department of Industry has developed in the designated area program. In a news release issued last August the department said:
In viewing the economic problems facing Canada and its regions, the government is convinced that special emphasis must be placed on the need to expand Canada's manufacturing and processing industries. We are determined to ensure that a share of this expansion takes place in areas where industrial employment and income opportunities have tended to be inadequate.
I submit to the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) that the area and district of Portage la Prairie is one such area where the development of manufacturing and processing industries has certainly been inadequate. Yet for very surprising reasons not completely
January 24, 1986

known to us all, this is an area that has been neglected in this regard and has been omitted from designation.
I am concerned about this, as is the local chamber of commerce and the local city council, and I feel that some corrective measure needs to be taken. When I asked for an explanation as to why the city of Portage la Prairie was left out of designation, a letter from the Area Development Agency said in part:
-employment in Portage la Prairie has been at a rate of more than 50 per cent greater than the employment growth in the Canadian economy as a whole-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allowed for his speech has expired.


Siegfried John Enns: I will just be a few moments, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it the
wish of the house that the hon. member shall have time to conclude his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Siegfried John Enns: Thank you for your courtesy, Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to bring home the fact that an explanation given by the Area Development Agency seemed to state that we were enjoying a rate of growth 50 per cent greater than the rest of the country. We were completely nonplussed by that explanation because any figures available to us certainly do not bear this out. Therefore I asked the minister last December just where the supporting figures came from that led him to make that kind of statement, and in a letter dated January 7 over the signature of the Minister of Industry there is this surprising sentence:
These figures are from official but not public records-
Looking at figures obtained from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, employment section, labour division, catalogue No. 72.002, it is seen that wages paid to employees in the city of Brandon, for example-which is a designated area-for the last three years have been consistently higher by some $5 to $10 per week than has been the case in Portage la Prairie.
Despite this, Portage la Prairie is not a designated area, and Brandon is. I wish to draw to the attention of the minister that the city council believes this to be discrimination, because an article appeared in the Daily Graphic of Tuesday, January 18, bearing the
The Address-Mr. Lachance bold headlines, "'Discrimination' says City Council". The article reads in part:
A charge that the community of Portage la Prairie is being discriminated against in not being listed as a designated area, as are other parts of Manitoba, was levelled in city council committee Monday night.
This charge was made by Mayor H. L. Henderson who said it has now become "a program of discrimination, not a program of help". I believe that the strongest words of protest must be lodged against the department for this type of action with regard to an area that we in the province of Manitoba consider should be designated, because the peculiar situation in Manitoba is that over half the population lives in one metropolitan centre. There is no other province with this problem. Therefore the location of industries and employment opportunities are dominated by this one metropolitan area. Thus, areas not benefiting from the federal grants program are under a severe handicap.
I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, by admonishing the government to bring forward constructive legislative proposals so that we on this side of the chamber and indeed the whole house, can contemplate, develop and pass legislation that will earn for Canada the rightful place that is ours for the asking in this modern world.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Mr. G. C. Lachance (Lafonlaine):: when they come out of jail, I feel that it would be advisable to decide in what way and after how many years an ex-convict whose behaviour has been beyond reproach and who has shown every intention of behaving like a first class citizen could enjoy that privilege, could have his judicial record put aside, a record which erects a wall of shame, as we know, and prevents a lot of people from helping him to use his human resources to the benefit of the Canadian economy.
Mr. Speaker, what procedure will be adopted to do away with those judicial records? It does not matter, but allow me to suggest one. Other suggestions will undoubtedly be made, better or just as good, but I think that the procedure will have to be simple, available to all, and inexpensive. For instance, a simple request could be submitted to the Exchequer Court with a written notice and registered letter informing the federal and provincial departments of Justice that, within a certain period of time after the publication of the said notice in the Canada Gazette, if there is no serious objection to the elimination of the applicant's judicial record, a judgment or decision might automatically be made on this simple request by the Exchequer Court.
This is a rather simple method, in my opinion, which could be embodied in a piece of legislation that the government could bring into effect as soon as possible.
This is a rather important matter, and if former convicts are to occupy choice positions and become first class citizens within our society, prompt action is required. In this way, we shall prevent law-breakers from becoming habitual offenders. We shall enable prisoners, while they are paying their debt to society, to hope for a better life. Thus, those people could hope to find a place in society when they leave the penitentiaries and, through good behaviour and proof of their good will, obtain the elimination of a judicial record that otherwise would haunt them for the rest of their life.
I have practised law long enough before criminal and civil courts to know that those judicial records often serve a purpose other than the one they should serve.
I should like to end my remarks by saying that unless the state assumes the responsibility for this training, for giving this instruction in penitentiaries, unless the state takes the initiative of opening the doors of the civil service, hence government jobs, unless the state takes the initiative of forming an organization to help and advise the prisoners
The Address-Mr. Brewin after they have paid their debt to society, unless the state gives them hope of becoming first class citizens in society, then we shall have an ever-increasing number of habitual criminals.
In view of the population increase, more people will be unable to find their niche in society and the number of old offenders and of crimes will continue to grow. This involves the lives and welfare of our citizens and the improvement of Canada's economic position.
I spoke of human resources as one of the greatest resource we have. Well, let us use what we have. When we have done that, we can be satisfied that we have done a very good job in this field.
Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support the various ministers of justice, both federal and provincial. They are responsible for the administration of justice and theirs is not an easy job. They must, however, have a great deal of patience and good will to seek the necessary solutions and not change into a public debate the discussions which should be held around a table.
I know the federal and the Quebec minister of justice personally. I have utmost respect for them. I know they are working in the interest of all the citizens of this country.
Now, I do not want to resume my seat before giving my opinion, maybe a little ahead of time on capital punishment. I am against the complete abolition of capital punishment because, under these circumstances, it is justified in the case of certain special crimes, particularly for the murder of guards in penitentiaries.
This is my opinion on the subject. I had the opportunity to meet many criminals in the past, when I was crown attorney in Montreal, and I have come to the conclusion that capital punishment still frightens some people enough to keep them from actions which they should not commit.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your patience and I hope that the government will grant these remarks the attention which I have been giving them for some time, for I consider the rehabilitation of prisoners a problem of vital importance.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am
glad to be able to express my sincere congratulations to the hon. members for Dollard (Mr. Goyer) and York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) for the excellent opening of this
200	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Brewin debate; and to you sir, and to Mr. Speaker Lamoureux and to Mr. Deputy Speaker Batten we would also like to express our warm congratulations.
There is one delightful feature of this debate. We can jump from subject to subject with great freedom even though the topics under discussion are completely unrelated. I propose to do precisely this. I have two subjects which I wish to discuss particularly: One is the contribution which this parliament could make to Canadian unity; the other is the key issue today in international affairs- the war in Viet Nam.
In the Speech from the Throne the following words are to be found:
The preservation and strengthening of Canadian identity and unity is the most important trust and responsibility of parliament and of my government.
I wish to underline the words "responsibility of parliament".
I noted also the eloquent words of the Prime Minister in his speech last Thursday. He said:
It will matter much-indeed, it could be decisive for Canada's future, whatever position we may hold, whatever responsibility we may have- if we do not act to the very best of our ability to exploit every chance we may get, to use every quality we may possess in serving Canada, as we face up to and in the end meet the challenges ahead. We will then be judged in this parliament, Mr. Speaker, by our deeds and not by our words.
Those were the words of the Prime Minister last Thursday. Earlier in his speech he outlined some of the challenges to which he was referring. He said this:
We have not only economic, financial and social problems, but we have political and constitutional problems arising out of the federal character of our state .... We must decide on the priority of problems which confront our country politically as well as economically and find new administrative and political techniques and frameworks within which each region of Canada can develop according to its own particular requirements, but as part of a strong and united country.
I heartily subscribe to these words, as I imagine do all members of this house. I want to make the substance of my speech an appeal to the Prime Minister to make it possible for members of parliament to contribute in meeting the challenge of the problems of Canadian unity.
I want to urge that machinery be set up whereby parliament can contribute to meeting the challenge, namely a committee of this house representative of all parties, charged with the responsibility of recommending what changes if any are needed in our consti-

DEBATES	January 24, 1966
tutional framework to meet the crisis of confederation, as it has been called.
As most hon. members probably know, the Royal Commission on Biculturalism and Bilingualism has told us that this crisis is a grave danger to Canada and calls for major changes. It would be a strange anomaly if the one institution which was not asked to confront this problem and examine it directly and in detail was the parliament of Canada.
It is a truism to say that we live in an era of rapid social change. It would surely be a strange accident if a constitution devised for a group of British colonies one hundred years ago, predominantly agricultural in nature, fitted the needs of a modern industrial community in the second half of the twentieth century.
But why do I suggest that a committee of this house is an important means of dealing with the crisis of confederation? It is because this house is representative, as no other group of people can be, of the people of Canada. We come from every region of Canada; we represent nearly every significant political viewpoint in Canada; we represent that practical political judgment which is important and indeed vital to the solution of these problems.
It is important that we should have the advice of experts. Indeed, we have in this house some who qualify as experts in this field. I cite, for example, the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau). But experts are not enough. The responsibility rests on us, members of the parliament of Canada.
I deplore the view expressed, apparently, by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau) in Montreal on Saturday, when he suggested that reform of the constitution should not be entrusted to a parliament which, as he put it, might be dominated, or would be dominated, by sentimental colonialists. Mr. Speaker, he is too pessimistic. There may be a trace of sentimental colonialism in some sections of this house-I am not looking in any particular direction now-but I do not believe that such an attitude is dominant in any party and I find it strange that the minister should defend his own conservative attitude-I use the word advisedly-of procrastination in matters involving constitutional change behind such a transparent smokescreen.
I am convinced the importance of this question is such that the representatives of all parties in the house on such a committee would rise to the occasion and render a signal service to this house and to Canada. The
January 24, 1966

committee, would, I believe, find a wide measure of agreement on some of the constitutional changes required. I believe we would find agreement, for example, with regard to eliminating from the constitution 60 or more paragraphs which are clearly and totally obsolete. I believe we could reach agreement about protecting in the constitution basic human and individual rights which are the foundation for our democratic structure. I believe we could isolate the problems which are at the root of our differences; this might involve some re-examination of sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act, but why not? These are not sacrosanct. Let us look at that question.
I am certain that we in this house could and should consider what are the necessary functions of government in the modern age, and with rationality assess how these functions of government can be divided or shared between different levels of government so as to achieve the most satisfactory results for all the people of Canada wherever they may live. In doing so I think we could act in the spirit of an excellent article or paper on this subject by the hon. member for Mount Royal to whom I have already referred. The subject of this paper is federalism, nationalism and reason. Reason is usually not associated with the other subjects, though it has been added on this occasion. This is contained in a collection of papers under the title "The Future of Canadian Federalism."
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
It is high time that the elected representatives of the people of Canada were given an opportunity to take part in this process of exploring, discussing, and perchance discovering some of the rational solutions of the problems that face Canada at this time. I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that a parliamentary committee would replace the more detailed examination of some of the very valuable and useful commissions of inquiry that exist now, or may be created in the future. For example, the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism is surveying a field which is at once much broader, and in other senses much narrower than the question of the constitutional changes required to strengthen Canadian unity.
In the Speech from the Throne it was stated that it remained the objective of the ministry to provide that the constitution of Canada may be amended in Canada. No doubt, Mr. Speaker, this was a gentle and delicate way of announcing that the so-called 23033-14
The Address-Mr. Brewin Fulton-Favreau formula is dead. The people of Canada have every reason to be grateful, in the first instance to the people of the province of Saskatchewan and the then government, and now to the people of the province of Quebec for resisting and preventing the enactment into law of this foolish formula.
It is satisfactory to those who believe in democracy to find that the good sense of the people sometimes prevails over the fallible judgment of their leaders. The absurdity of enacting a procedure of amendment which would put the present constitution of Canada into a strait-jacket before it was carefully examined in Canada, should have been obvious, and it now is very obvious to most Canadians. But, Mr. Speaker, because the means of patriating or bringing within Canada the Canadian constitution were, to put it mildly, ill-advised, is no reason why the objective should be abandoned.
When the representatives of the people of Canada in this house have carefully considered what change in the constitution they are prepared to support, it will be time to incorporate in the new constitution, so revised, an appropriate and flexible amending procedure which would have the effect of bringing the Canadian constitution wholly within Canada.


William Heward Grafftey: At this very interesting section of the hon. member's speech would he permit a question?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Certainly.


William Heward Grafftey: Does the hon. member, who is making a very constructive suggestion about a parliamentary committee, visualize that this committee could go across the country and meet with similar provincial committees? Does he have this in mind regarding the activities of such a federal parliamentary committee?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I would return the compliment by saying to my hon. friend that his suggestion is a very interesting one and would certainly be considered by such a committee when set up. However, I am not myself a zealot for travelling across the country. I would perhaps bring some of those people to Ottawa, but if the mountain won't go to Mohammed, or whatever the expression is, then I think the committee should be prepared to travel. We have our duties here and I would hope most of the work of the committee could be done right here. I know there are some committees of provincial legislatures dealing with this matter.
The Address-Mr. Brewin One essential part of the process of evolving a truly Canadian constitution-and I some what reluctantly now employ modern jargon -would be a meaningful dialogue in this house between the representatives of all provinces and of all parties. I regret that in this house there has been very little meaningful dialogue between the representatives of the different parties and different provinces to deal with these vital problems facing the people of Canada.
I, for one, believe that changes are necessary if our constitution is to be a dynamic expression of the basis of our unity. I suggest in all seriousness to the Prime Minister-who is not here, but I see some of his very close advisers are present-that it would be wrong for him to challenge the members of this house to contribute to the unity of Canada and then deny to them an effective opportunity to deal with these basic problems.
Too often in this house we are being presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis with arrangements arrived at in conferences held behind closed doors. A belief in parliamentary democracy requires that parliament be consulted not only after but also before the event. In short, I urge upon the Prime Minister that a committee of parliament be set up to make recommendations to parliament concerning constitutional changes that may be required to strengthen Canadian unity, or that may be otherwise desirable, and to examine how we can arrive at a constitution truly Canadian, amendable in Canada and meeting the requirements of a modem, federal structure.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I turn for a few minutes to deal with a problem which is worrying people throughout the world, the question of Viet Nam, and I select this problem because the implications of continuing conflict in Viet Nam permeate and poison the whole realm of international relations.
All over the world men and women are conscious that the continuance of this conflict means a tragic toll of human suffering and, perhaps, a disastrous page of human history. The views I want to express tonight are based upon those expressed by distingushed citizens of the United States. They in no way reflect a feeling of hostility to the United States. They reflect what is being said by spokesmen of the American churches, by United States educators, senators, scientists, by wise and experienced writers such as Walter Lippmann, by knowledgeable diplomats and writers such as George Kennan
[Mr. BrewinJ
January 24, 1966
and other distinguished students on international affairs, such as Hans Morganthau. They are also reflected in the editorials of the New York Times.
What is the reason for the United States involvement in Viet Nam? Two different views have been advanced, no doubt with great sincerity. The first, repeatedly enunciated by the Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, is that the United States forces are in Viet Nam to protect the independence of a sovereign state against external aggression. The other view, more frequently put forward by the Secretary of Defence, Mr. McNamara, is that the purpose of the war is to contain Communist aggression in Southeast Asia. In my view neither of these concepts will withstand critical analysis.
The difficulty in Viet Nam is not so much a case of external aggression but a civil war, and outside intervention in civil wars has always, in history, turned out to be a mistake. But this view at least provides for a way out. It could lead to the belated carrying out of the Geneva agreements of 1954, the intervention of international forces and the withdrawal of all United States military forces.
But the other view, the attempt to contain Chinese influence in Southeast Asia, can only lead in the long run to direct military conflict with China itself. It is for this reason that some of us welcome that part of the statement of the President of the United States in his speech to Congress on the state of the union, which emphasized the willingness of the United States to accept the principles of the Geneva Agreements, the right of the people of Viet Nam to opt for the unity of their country and whatever form of government they saw fit, and the eventual withdrawal of American forces from that country.
At the present moment a crucial stage has been reached. We welcome, as do people of good will all over the world, the cessation of the bombing of North Viet Nam. We regret that this does not appear to have produced any stated willingness on the part of the Viet Cong or North Viet Nam to enter into negotiations.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The failure to elicit an early and satisfactory response has produced strong pressure from certain quarters in the United States to resume the bombing. We urge that all possible Canadian influence, whatever it may be and however it may be and however it may be exercised, be excercised on the side of those who oppose this course.

January 24, 19G6	COMMONS
In my view, certain facts should be taken into account, not just in the interests of the world, but in the interests of the United States itself. First, the United States is getting involved in a land war in Asia against which she has been warned time and again by her most distinguished military leaders. Second, any resumption of the bombing will likely lead to renewed dangers of escalation of the war with incalculable consequences. Third, the bombing of an Asian peasant nation by the forces of the greatest and most powerful nation of the western world can only lead to the creation of hatred of the white race in many other parts of the world. Fourth, all other constructive developments in international affairs are being held up while the war proceeds.
The United States is in danger of drifting, as Walter Lippmann has said, into an icy isolation. It is claimed, indeed, that the United States is strong enough and prosperous enough to provide guns and butter, and to devote additional millions to the war and, at the same time, to proceed with the building of a great society. Again, as Walter Lippmann has pointed out, the internal movement of reform and development is psychologically inconsistent with the increased involvement with war.
Even if it is not possible now or in the near future to arrive at a negotiated truce, we urge that there ought to be no further escalation of the war and no resumption of the bombing. Indeed, the suggestion by Mr. George Kennan may have great validity when he said:
Immediate negotiations may be fruitless but a steady de-escalation of the conflict might enable successful negotiations to emerge at a later date.
In this crisis of human history it is to be hoped that Canada's full weight and influence will be used to urge that this course be pursued, rather than the tragically dangerous course of renewing the deadly process of escalating the war.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word or two about the amendment moved by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) upon which we will be voting tomorrow. As has been made very clear by my leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), we in this party will support the amendment. We will do so because we believe that Canada can afford and should afford to relieve the old age pensioners by increasing the basic pension to $100 a month, as proposed in the amendment.
DEBATES	203
The Address-Mr. Brewin
May I emphasize once again that in so doing we are not asking the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), if he should be defeated on this motion, to call another election. We do not believe that common sense or constitutional requirement would justify him in so doing.
It is not true in our view that there is no other alternative. The Prime Minister would have available the course proposed by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, namely to advise that the Leader of the Opposition be called upon to form a government. I am not sure I would recommend this course, Mr. Speaker because, to put it as mildly and as politely as I can, I am not sure the Leader of the Opposition would obtain and retain the continuing support of the various other parties in opposition.
There is another alternative which has been clearly pointed out by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), with a wealth of precedents. That is, that the Prime Minister could treat the vote in favour of the amendment as an expressed view of parliament, and adopt it, undertaking to bring in the necessary legislation to give it effect or, alternatively, say that in the government's view such legislation could not be brought in but that he would submit to the house a further vote of confidence in which the issue of an election or not an election would be the real issue before the house.
If the Prime Minister was defeated on the last suggested motion, then those who voted for it would be responsible for an election that ensued-an unwanted election, as I see it. If on the other hand the Prime Minister, upon defeat on the amendment now before the house, and without availing himself of this procedure called for an election, his would be the sole responsibility for that election.
This point does not appear to have been made clear to the pundits of the press, if I may use an alliterative expression. Let me try to make it clear to the house. In voting for the amendment we will not be voting for an election. We will be voting to express our conviction on the subject of old age pensions. We do not propose to be bluffed into formally denying our convictions by any conventional myths that may be spread around. If the government is defeated on this motion and if it calls an election, the responsibility for that election must be that of the Prime Minister and of the Prime Minister alone.
January 24, 1966

The Address-Mr. Coates


Mr. Roberl C. Coales (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my first words during this twenty seventh Parliament must be in congratulation to you upon your election to your high office. I witnessed your performance during the twenty sixth parliament and you gave at that time every indication in my opinion that you will be able to handle this house of minorities with a fair and firm hand, while at the same time being as impartial and unbiased as humanly possible. I look forward to watching you in the days ahead, because I believe you will give us the degree of stability we will need under certain circumstances, in certain situations. I was indeed pleased to learn of your selection and election.
I should also like to congratulate the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of the committee of the whole house, and his Deputy. I have watched them both and I know that they will do a very competent job in the days ahead.
Let me at this time also offer my congratulations to the mover and seconder, both of whom have acquitted themselves in an outstanding manner. I am sure their constituents will be very proud of them. They both indicate an appreciation for what is happening in Canada today and let us hope that they will rise often in this house to give us their views-because certainly this is why we are here, whether we are in the opposition or in the government.
While there are some who enjoy criticizing members of parliament for doing those things they were elected to do, let me say that I am one of those who believe that this is a debating forum in which ideas are conceived. Those in government receive advice from all members. Sometimes they do not accept that advice, but it should always be made available to them. If members take a more active part in debate, I think our country will be a better place in which to live.
My first remarks on the throne speech and on the action of the government must be in the form of commendation. As a Nova Scotia member I am very pleased to note that one of the first acts of this government had regard to the field of education and university grants. This was an election promise made by the two major parties of this nation. I take nothing away from the government because it happened to be the successor which went forward and immediately enacted one plank of its program. I am especially pleased to see that the special plight of maritime universities was recognized, and am hopeful-


[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I bring to the attention of hon. members the fact that it is very difficult for the Chair to follow hon. members who have the floor when conversations are going on at the back of the house.


Mr, Coates:: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is very close to ten o'clock and I can understand some hon. members conversing before they leave. As I was saying, I am very pleased to see that the government recognized the special circumstances of the maritime universities and the fact that we have a great many students coming to our universities from other parts of Canada, and indeed other parts of the world. This has placed a special burden on our universities, and that burden will be greatly eased by the fact that this recognition has been given. I am especially pleased to see that they took this action, because it was not one of the recommendations of the Bladen report. We were rather upset about that fact, and are very pleased that the government did take the step that we wanted to see taken.
I should also like to say that I am pleased about the type of legislation being proposed in the throne speech in the field of agriculture. I could get into a great argument here and say that the party to which I belong promised this legislation and had it ready for action in 1963. However, I have said it before and I do not believe there is much value in my saying it again. But I do say to the government that I hope they will go forward with their agricultural legislation, especially for farmers in eastern Canada, at an early date. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to see both the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) in the house. I would assure them that they will have my full co-operation with regard to this legislation as soon as it is brought forward. I am hopeful that it will be brought forward at an early stage in this parliament because I am certain that both ministers recognize the fact that in eastern Canada we do have problems in agriculture, and these problems must be corrected if our farmers are to remain on the farm and are to have the kind of income that they must have if they are going to be able to look after themselves, their families and have a future.
One of the statements made in the throne speech that particularly impressed me was
January 24, 1966	COMMONS
that related to the revitalization of farms which are at the present time out of operation. It states in the throne speech:
Among other measures, my government will propose a program for the purchase, re-development and re-sale of farms that are not now viable economic units. You will be asked to consider a revision of the Crop Insurance Act, for the purpose of enabling crop insurance to be available to all farmers.
The thing that concerns me is that in my province there are a great many farms today that in the modern concept of agriculture are just not economic units, and in many instances the credit facilities that are available at the present time, large as they are, are not satisfactory to get these farms in operation the way we would like to see them in operation. I believe this concept can do a great deal for agriculture, especially in the maritime provinces.
I have heard Alvin Hamilton, the former Minister of Agriculture, talk many times about this particular aspect of agriculture and it always excited my imagination and led me to believe this was one of the methods by which we could revitalize the industry, in the maritime provinces particularly. As I look at the Minister of Forestry I am sure he knows the situation in the Gaspe peninsula, which is not dissimilar at all to that in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. I think we have to
DEBATES	205
The Address-Mr. Coates act and act quickly, because every day that goes by in which we do not take this kind of action means another day we have to overcome in the days ahead.
I believe, also, that immediate steps must be taken if we are to produce a feed grain policy that is going to give our farmers confidence to increase their beef cattle production, their hog production and other aspects of the meat industry. This is another piece of legislation which once again is mentioned in the throne speech and on which we should act quickly.
I am not going to spend a great deal of time talking about this matter now, because I am looking forward to the legislation being introduced. There may be disagreement with regard to particular aspects of such legislation, but as far as the principle is concerned there is certainly no disagreement in my mind with regard to what the government intends to do in this field.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to turn to another field; but perhaps I should do this tomorrow. May I call it ten o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the Chair should call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday. January 25, 1966