1967-02-10

HATE LITERATURE


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notice of motion:
February 8-The Minister of Public Works-The following proposed motion:-That this house do unite with the Senate in the appointment of a special joint committee to study and report upon amendments to the Criminal Code relating to the dissemination of varieties of "hate propaganda" in Canada as set out in Bill S-49, intituled: "An Act to amend the Criminal Code":
That 12 members of the House of Commons, to be designated by this house at a later date, be members of the said committee; and that standing order 67(1) be suspended in relation thereto;
That the committee have the power to call for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses, to report from time to time, and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee; and
That a message be sent to the Senate informing that house that the House of Commons do unite with the Senate for the above purposes.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21, this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notice of motion:
February 8-Minister of Public Works-The following proposed motion:-That the report of the Department of External Affairs tabled on January 28, 1966, be referred to the standing committee on external affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Prime Minister a question in regard to the vice president of the C.B.C., and his answer read in part, as recorded at page 12829 of Hansard:
The vice president resigned the other day. Steps are being taken with a view to filling that particular post. I believe these matters were being considered last night at a meeting of the board of directors.
Is the Prime Minister in a position to add anything further to the answer he gave yesterday?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the management of the C.B.C. and the board of directors are taking steps by readjustment of duties within the corporation to fill the vacant position.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, is it not a fact that the vice president is appointed by the governor in council, and that the board of directors have nothing to say with respect thereto? Also, Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister is answering will he inform the house whether he expressed himself to this effect regarding the president a few days ago, as stated in one of today's newspapers, that "we have stopped looking for a president for we have found one." Is that statement correct? Has the voyage of discovery for a president of the C.B.C. been consummated with success?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the right hon. gentleman got that statement or what he is quoting from, or indeed whether it is a quotation, but if it is a quotation it is entirely false.


John George Diefenbaker: False? Fine.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago the Prime Minister cast some doubt on a quotation I gave. I did not have it before me


Inquiries of the Ministry at that time. Now I should like to draw it to his attention and ask the question again. It appears in the Globe and Mail of today's date. The quotation is as follows:
Rumours persist that Mavor Moore will be asked to take one of the two top posts-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. gentleman, but he knows there is a rule which I try to enforce that questions shall not be prefaced by the reading of telegrams and newspaper articles. There also is a rule that a member should not ask for confirmation of the accuracy of a press statement. I am sure the hon. gentleman can find some way in which to ask the question without infringing the two rules I have mentioned.


John George Diefenbaker: It is far removed from my thinking that I would do anything like that. If the Prime Minister doubts the quotation I suggest that he read the front page of the supplement. I should like to ask him this question. Did he say to a group of Canadian international affairs scholars at a private session last week:
We have stopped looking for a president. We have found one.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; it is still unfounded. I might add that there are some strange rumours appearing in the Globe and Mail these days.


John George Diefenbaker: I am surprised that you bite the hand that feeds you.



REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TELEVISION SERVICE IN KOOTENAY WEST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the recommendation of the Board of Broadcast Governors that the C.B.C. television network should be extended to the Northwest Territories and to three points in western Newfoundland, would the minister mind informing the C.B.C. that residents in certain considerable areas of Kootenay West are also looking forward to enjoying C.B.C. television services?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is submitting a representation. That is not a question.



MIDDLE EAST-REPORTED BOYCOTT OF CANADIAN EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. What is the government doing in regard to the boycott of certain Canadian exports to the Middle East, which is reported to have been precipitated by actions of the Arab countries?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the best I can do is take this question as notice. I have not heard of this specific instance.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is it a fact that wholly owned subsidiaries of United States firms in Canada have increased payment of dividends to their parent companies in the United States, and are thus greatly worsening our balance of payments problem with the United States?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I presume that question was precipitated by a story in the business section of the Globe and Mail this morning, and I anticipated it. The period reported on is prior to the application of the United States direct investment guide lines to Canada, and before the introduction of our own program of guiding principles.
The United States survey covering transactions of United States parents and their Canadian subsidiaries showed a somewhat larger proportion of profits paid out as dividends in 1965 as compared to 1964. However, the rate of dividend payment as reported at 47.6 per cent of the profits in 1965 was not extraordinarily large. On the other hand a substantial volume of financing continued to flow from the United States parents to their Canadian affiliates.
Careful attention is being given to any possible effects of the United States guide lines on Canadian companies and, as I stated previously, any shifts in financing arrangements between Canadian subsidiaries and their United States parents have not prevented the realization in Canada during 1965 and


again in 1966 of substantially larger capital expansion programs. We are, however, keeping this matter under closer review.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the minister wish to revert to motions?


Robert Henry Winters: No, thank you.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Now that the transportation bill has received royal assent, has the minister anything to report concerning what the railways intend to do about municipal taxation?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. lady for giving me notice of her question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say that one would not have to be very discerning to guess that such a question would be asked this morning.
The government has authorized the Canadian National Railways to pay grants in lieu of taxes as though the bill had passed before January 1. That is in respect of the year 1967. Last night I received a telegram from the president of the C.P.R. which sets out their position. Since the telegram is very brief, perhaps I might read it. I could paraphrase it, but I would rather read it. Also I would be glad to table it, if that should be the wish of the house. It reads as follows:
On learning of royal assent to the national transportation bill I am sending this message so that you may inform parliament that Canadian Pacific will carry out its proposals as set out in my letter to you of August 29 1966 regarding municipal taxation as though the national transport bill had become law before the end of 1966.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for answering the question which I had planted twice previously. Now I should like to ask him what is the position with regard to the National Harbours Board, which also is of concern to municipalities.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman would like to put that question say next Friday, I think I might be in a better position to answer it.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Jardine McCleave: Will the minister guarantee that he will not feed it to one of his followers on that side of the house?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will undertake, sir, that I will not feed it to Moby Joe.


Margaret Isabel Rideout: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I should like to inform the hon. member for Halifax that as a member of the transportation committee I missed very few of its meetings, as I am sure my record will indicate. In addition, I attended a meeting of representatives from all across Canada concerned with this very matter, which was held in the minister's office. I assure the hon. member that this question was not planted, sir.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, may I offer my apologies to "Moby Marg".



REPORTED SURCHARGE ON CARGOES FROM JAPAN TO VANCOUVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether we should infer from the minister's comment that he feels the hon. members on his side are as dead as Moby Joe.
I actually rose to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he had received a telegram from the Vancouver merchants exchange pointing out that Japanese shippers are adding a 15 per cent surcharge on all cargoes shipped from Japan to Vancouver, and whether the minister will make representations to the government of Japan in this regard.


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of this fact, and I did receive the telegram. We in turn sent a telegram protesting this action. The National Harbours Board also sent a telegram. I learned from the National Harbours Board just before coming to the house that this contemplated action has been deferred until March 1.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I right to assume that further representations and discussions will be immediately instituted and will take place between now and March 1.


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, this is being done, and the deferment was arranged to provide an opportunity for consultation.


Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



AMOUNT OF MONEY AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South
Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Now that it has been shown that his policy is providing less rather than more money for the purchase of defence equipment, will he instruct his propaganda agents to cease attempting to mislead the public?
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Certainly the question as framed is out of order.



PRINCE ALBERT, SASK.-REPORTED INTENTION TO CLOSE RADAR LABORATORY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence a question which will not require the assistance of propaganda agents to be answered. My question relates to the Prince Albert radar laboratory, commonly known as "PARL". I received an indication of the intention to close this facility just before coming into the house. Will the minister indicate whether representations will be acceptable to the government from the city council of Prince Albert, the chamber of commerce and scientific bodies to the effect that the work being done by this institution has not been completed? I am wondering whether it is merely coincidental that this particular station is to be closed down at this time.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we naturally would welcome representations from any group of individuals, either civic or scientific. I can assure my hon. friend that this station was not scheduled for closing without a great deal of thought. As a matter of fact it was recommended for closing a year ago, but we kept it in operation for an extra year in an effort to determine whether some group in the country such as a university would take over some of the functions previously carried out by the Defence Research Board. If the right hon. gentleman can persuade any group or educational institution in this country to assume responsibility for this station he will receive every co-operation of the Department of National Defence in making the equipment available, and in every other way possible. I believe that would be a good solution, but so far we have not been able to find sufficient 
interest on the part of a responsible organization to make this kind of transition possible.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, will the minister indicate whether the University of Saskatchewan, which has a high reputation for scientific research, has been consulted in this connection? Has President Spinks been consulted? He is known to the officials of the Department of National Defence for his outstanding work. Perhaps the minister will also indicate whether the government would continue to pay the 14 officers and technical personnel connected with that station if the University of Saskatchewan were prepared to operate it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the problem is really financial. I understand there have been consultations with the university. As a matter of fact it is because some of the university students are doing work there this spring that we are keeping it in operation for some additional period. We are doing this in order that they may complete the projects they have under way at the present time. I think if some reasonable method of financing could be worked out at the university level, either there or in co-operation with other universities, we would be glad to receive any submissions they might care to make. But it has been decided by the Defence Research Board that the continued operation by our department is not justified, with respect to the actual need for it at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the minister, are there any more of these radar institutions across Canada? If so, are they being kept open? Also, in view of the fact that the work has to do with the aurora borealis, there must be further scientific research that could take place, as the minister suggested, and does he not think this work might be carried out by the universities?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the right hon. gentleman and the Minister of National Defence that perhaps we are going a little too far in the consideration of this matter. Perhaps it is urgent, but I do not think we should engage in much more discussion of the subject.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I simply point out that until I received a notice this morning, as member for that constituency, there was never a word said to me by the minister or the department.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman knows that I am always willing to have his advice; but in this case the decision was really made by those responsible for scientific endeavour and it was on their advice that the recommendation was accepted. No one would know better than my right hon. friend-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg Norlh Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General. Yesterday in response to a question put to him by the Leader of the Opposition the Solicitor General referred to a study that is being made of the Criminal Code for possible amendment. May I ask the minister whether a decision has yet been made by the government to include in any amendments to the Criminal Code the abolition of capital punishment?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the answers I have given on previous occasions.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the right hon. Prime Minister. Having regard to the recent announcement by the British government substantially increasing university fees for overseas students, could the Prime Minister tell us whether our government has been in contact with the government of the United Kingdom with regard to this serious problem?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am wondering whether the question is so urgent that it could not be placed on the order paper.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the attention of the department been drawn 23033-815
Inquiries of the Ministry to a report that a temporary United States federal court order has ended the distribution of a controversial cancer vaccine and that Canadian residents-one in particular in Ladysmith is mentioned-are claiming that this order is a death sentence to them? Will the minister investigate the situation with a view to determining the reasons for this order?


Margaret Isabel Rideout: Mr. Speaker, I will bring this matter to the attention of the minister.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister inform this house whether transport board regulations limit to once a day the blowing of the unique "O Canada" musical whistle on the centennial train?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


James Edgar Walker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. To whom should I appeal in an endeavour to allow the centennial train to blow its popular and melodious tone more frequently than once a day on its tour across Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may appeal to the Minister of Transport, but he cannot do so now.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Secretary of State. Inasmuch as lotteries are illegal in Canada it is to be presumed that the C.B.C. does not encourage them. However, hockey pools are being operated throughout Ontario, and the other day the C.B.C. gave the wrong time for the last goal scored. May I ask the Secretary of State to provide the news department of the C.B.C. with another colour set so that members of that department can watch the game and get the exact split second of the goals for the benefit of the hockey pools?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Inquiries of the Ministry CRIMINAL CODE



POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS WITH RESPECT TO FAMILY PLANNING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General with respect to amendments to the Criminal Code. I should like to ask him whether the recommendations of the health and welfare committee with respect to family planning will be included in the amendments to the Criminal Code which will be dealt with in the next session.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I will bring this question to the attention of the Minister of Justice.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Associate Minister of National Defence I wonder if I may ask the minister whether his colleague has discussed with him the recent lengthy communication received from the dockyard trades and labour council in Halifax with regard to wage negotiations.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, he has not, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that he will take note of this question and communicate with my hon. friend.



EXPO '67 REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE IN FINDING HOTEL ROOMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   Roger-E. Regimbal@Argenieuil-Deux-Montagnes: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is responsible for Expo. Will the minister use his good offices to help me find 2,000 hotel rooms in Montreal during the month of June?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ESTABLISHMENT OF RESEARCH INSTITUTE BY HYDRO QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday I asked the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Resources a question with regard to the research establishment proposed by Hydro Quebec. Can he or the Minister of Industry furnish me with a reply now?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was not in the house when the hon. member for Kamloops asked about the announcement made by the premier of Quebec regarding the proposal to establish in that province a very large research facility to be put up by Quebec and operated by Quebec Hydro. The federal government, through the National Research Council, has recognized the importance of increasing research into high tension transmission of electricity, and for some time has been discussing with Quebec Hydro a co-operative arrangement. We are pursuing these discussions and hope to co-operate effectively in this project.


Mr. Fulfon:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
minister whether we can attach some special significance to this with respect to the development of a national transmission grid. Will this be one of the matters specifically discussed between the National Research Council and Quebec Hydro with respect to this research?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Not directly, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of the research facility is not to discover and provide solutions for problems relating to the establishment of the grid and the transmission of high voltage electricity. Obviously if some of the problems related to large grids and to these kinds of transmissions can be solved it is more likely to lead to the successful introduction of a national and international grid.



COLUMBIA RIVER-REPORT BY CANADIAN MEMBER OF JOINT ENGINEERING BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the minister received a recent report from the Canadian representative on the joint engineering board regarding the Columbia river


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that it is not a matter of urgency whether or not the minister has received a report.
February 10, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 9, consideration of the motion of Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means.
Mr. Speaker:: It has been mentioned to me that the hon. member for Kootenay West called it ten o'clock last evening. Because of this I suggest to hon. members that he should be called first today if he wishes to take part in the debate. Does the hon. member intend to speak this morning, or did he complete his speech yesterday at ten o'clock?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No,
Mr. Speaker, I wish to return to the debate for a particular purpose and reason. First of all I want to thank the minister for his prompt replies to various matters which I brought to his attention with respect to taxation and so on. May I say that the minister, who is so delectable socially, unfortunately considers himself financially impregnable when it comes to the question of budgets.
Before I continue I should like to mention that after having spoken to a number of people in the press gallery I discovered that their feelings were hurt when they were referred to as vultures. I told one member this morning that I would correct that. I believe it is safe to say that the press gallery represents two doves, and the rest of the press are hawks.
Last Monday the hon. member for Kootenay East, who is parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport, delivered an amazing speech both in my view and in the view of the members of this group and of other hon. members in the house. His speech dumbfounded hon. members on all sides of the house regardless of party. The record will indicate that the great majority of members of all parties objected to his thesis, his arguments and his presentation. I give him full credit for his willingness to swim against the tide of public opinion, of experience and of the wishes of the government, as well as against the wishes of farm and labour organizations, credit unions, and professional teachers and women's organizations in Canada.
These wishes have been clearly expressed to various governments since 1946. I must say
12889
The Budget-Mr. Herridge that in this age of "me too-ism" it is refreshing to see a man get up and say something which he knows is unpopular with a large majority of the Canadian people, and I give credit for that to the hon. member for Kootenay East. However, I must say that it was a rather trying and sad experience for me to listen to an hon. member who has been the president of a trade union, and connected with movements of this type in his own constituency, advance the arguments of the chamber of commerce for the taxation of cooperatives and credit unions. I am sure he would not have done that were he not convinced that his argument was sound and that this was the right thing to do. I give him credit for that also.
I must say that the principles of co-operation are eternal. As a matter of fact I would not be here today if there had not been some measure of co-operation in my connection some years ago.


Mr. Pepin:: Explain.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: 
The Budget-Mr. Herridge residents of the area and, in some cases, the whole community.
Take for instance the transportation cooperatives. These, designed for a specific service, have been built up out of dire necessity for a cheap and reliable method of transporting the men employed at the Trail smelter who reside in the outlying communities of Rossland, Castlegar and Fruitvale to and from their work each day. At Rossland, out of a population of some 4,000, upwards of 1,000 are members of the transportation society and depend upon it as a means of getting to and from the source of their livelihood. In effect, the society is secondary only in importance of the job itself.
For the past 35 years, Mr. Speaker, these people have been doing their own transportation business in the co-operative way, that is at cost. Like every genuine co-operative, they have made a practice of distributing surplus earnings back to the members at each year's end. The resulting savings in the hands of members, amounting to thousands of dollars, have meant more purchasing power for other necessities of life, and to this extent all other business establishments in town have benefited, to say nothing of the effect a cheap transportation system has had in attracting new residents to the community. What is true of Rossland is equally true of the other communities surrounding Trail, except as to numbers.
Another form of co-operative endeavour which has grown out of necessity in this West Kootenay area is the producer farm co-operatives. Up and down the fertile valleys of the Arrow lakes, the Slocan valley, the Kootenay lake area and the wider spaces of the Creston valley are scattered some thousands of large, small and medium sized ranches and farm homes. Fruit growing, cattle and dairying, poultry ranching, seed and feed growing are all practised on varying scales. Bumper crops can be and are being raised in each and all of these lines of farm industry, but the No. 1 problem of the farmer in this, as in many other parts of the country, has always been to find a profitable market for his product.
For years the fruit grower and poultryman, as well as other classes, were at the mercy of the monopolistic packing houses and trading concerns, and the consequence was that the farmer had to accept such prices for his product as were dictated to him. I had that personal experience during the depression years, and I expect some of the members on


The Budget-Mr. Allard from 3 per cent to 5 per cent. I am not fully informed on the amount issued but I understand that the amount involved is not large. I urge the minister to give consideration to correcting what appears to many of us to be an unnecessary injustice to the persons involved as a result of the government's decision to continue these bonds at the present 3 per cent rate.
That is all I have to say at this time. I hope after looking at the minister that possibly we shall get a favourable response later in this debate.


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, we are studying for the fifth day the mini-budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp). The main provisions of that posthumous birth, since the mini-budget came nine months after the main budget of March 1966, boil down to this: starting on January 1, 1967 the maximum personal income tax deduction for old age security is increased from $120 to $240 per year and the sales tax is increased from 11 to 12 per cent.
The income tax increase for old age security applies to one third of the taxpayers with higher incomes, that is 2,300,000 out of 6,500,000.
The sales tax increase will not apply to building materials or to production machinery and equipment. The hike in the sales tax will lead to a price increase, but will not mean more than a one-point boost in the cost of living.
The minister foresees a $340 million deficit for this fiscal year, as compared with one of $150 million forecast by him last March.
The present rate of economic growth is such that expansion can continue without inflation.
Salary and price increases are still excessive, but tend to became moderate.
Those are, sir, the major points that come out of this mini-budget. If the main budget of March 1966 had not made Canadians too enthusiastic, this mini-budget, in turn, deepens the frustration of millions of Canadians. I want to read to the house what Roland Charbonneau, editorial writer at the Sherbrooke Hebdo, has to say about this minibudget, and I quote:
This is further proof that Mr. Lester B. Pearson's Liberal government, and particularly his Minister of Finance, Mr. Mitchell Sharp, are incompetent in the field of public economy.
(Mr. Herridge.l
While increasing old age pensions by 40 per cent, he doubles the contributions of individuals so that the $120 maximum contribution to the Old Age Pension Fund is now set at $240.
Sure, the manufacturers will pay the 1 per cent sales tax increase, but they will collect that, and more, by raising wholesale prices.
And if we follow the sales pattern, once again we find that this additional tax burden falls upon the consumers' shoulders, the majority of whom earn small and modest incomes.
It might be acceptable if the manufacturers and retailers did not go beyond this 1 per cent increase. But experience has shown that whenever the tax is raised on a particular product, the retail price is increased a lot more.
Those are the very sound comments of an editorial writer for the Sherbrooke Hebdo.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, in the eyes of knowledgeable Canadians, this mini-budget certainly did not provide dynamic and progressive measures to solve the various economic and industrial problems of our country.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
Just read, for instance, several warnings, and I quote this one given early last January by Mr. R. B. MacPherson, economist with DuPont of Canada:
The Canadian economy is heading toward a period of recession that will reach its peak between the latter half of 1968 and 1970.
In addition, here is the statement of a man who, for several years, has not feared to express himself on Canadian problems, whose judgment has proved sound, far more sound than the measures we are offered by the Minister of Finance in his budgets, since he has taken over that post. I am referring to Mr. A. T. Lambert, president of the Toronto-Dominion Bank.
Dealing with the need for a reasonable stability in prices, Mr. Lambert said the following in mid January 1967:
This is an urgent problem and we cannot remain indifferent in the face of the level of inflation now reached. We cannot ignore either that this factor may have far-reaching consequences for the Canadian economy. Inflation darkens the economic future and if we fail to check it, we are in danger of bringing about a reaction which would have unpleasant effects for all Canadians.
Is it still necessary to emphasize the meaning of the brief submitted to the government a few days ago by the C.L.C.? This responsible, democratic and representative body gives fair and proper warnings to the federal government and to the Minister of Finance and I quote:
The Canadian Labour Congress is concerned that the country may suffer increased unemployment and slip into the slow rate of growth and the high level of unemployment which struck the Canadian economy from 1957 to 1962.


The Canadian Labour Congress report also says:
The rate of increase of the gross national product has diminished substantially. The number of housing starts is considerably lower as compared to 1965, and we have noted remarkable reductions in the sale of some durable consumer goods. Pundits of the business world anticipate a reduction in capital expenditures this year.
And the brief goes on:
-the leaders of this great labour organization are calling on the federal government to refrain from imposing any general restrictive measure, either monetary or fiscal, "that would only accelerate the slackening of the economy'', which seems to have begun already.
People often find exaggerated and too systematic the complaints and grievances presented in this house. I have the privilege to sit here as a free man without any political affiliation and I am here to represent all the electors, men and women, of the Sherbrooke constituency, the great majority of whom, namely about 72 per cent, belong to the class of average Canadian citizens, namely the labour class and office workers of small businesses. Now, the great majority of Canadians are included in that category. My electors, male and female, and millions of Canadians, and also people as well versed in the matter as the hon. Minister of Finance and Receiver General (Mr. Sharp), his advisers, his officials, criticize this government and warn it, because the government itself does not seem to know where it. is going. All those people complain that the economic, financial and fiscal philosophy of this government is not distinguishable, no more than its economic direction, at the industrial level and in all the fields of social legislation.
It is a government which gropes along, with inconsistency and which does not prevent problems and events and which awakes only when a complaint has become very severe to apply what is quite quaintly described as a poultice policy. He waits until the abscess or the tumour has become enormous before he treats it or removes it.
That is a backward policy which Canada can well do without in these rather difficult times.
I say the Pearson government is irresponsible and hesitant. It is assertively irresponsible. It refuses to make decisions, or puts them off indefinitely. It intervenes when it is too late and then propounds disjointed and contradictory theories. This want of vigour and courage not only costs Canada millions of 23033-816
The Budget-Mr. Allard dollars but prolongs conflicts, worsens situations, spreads distrust and confusion and alienates Canadians from each other, one region from another and one culture from another.
The Pearson government is a past master at procrastinating; it is the very expression of mediocrity and platitude in Canada. There are thousands of examples, Mr. Speaker. What about its refusal and its hesitation to revise the Canadian constitution, a century old, and to create an official parliamentary committee to consider that matter, giving such a responsibility, not to individuals hidden in officialdom, but to legislators in this parliament who have the responsibility and the duty to guide Canada and all Canadians toward a better and more substantial future.
There is also this contempt on the part of the present central government for the rights and needs of the provinces, its timorous and discriminatory policy with respect to bilingualism and equality of the two cultures. The attitude of the government is that of the ostrich with regard to inflation, price increases, monopolies, the decrease in productivity accompanied by an increasing rate of unemployment. This is also reflected by its bourgeois selfishness in restricting credit, distributing national income in a way which is contrary to democratic principles, aggravating cases and areas of poverty by the implementation of pitiful and mathematical legislation.
One could also criticize the non-interference attitude of the government, waiting until disputes arise before taking action and legislating; added to this, we have a lack of foreign and national defence policy based on principles of simplicity, logic, practicality, efficiency and economy; we have a blind and haphazard commercial and industrial policy, where several of our industries are subject to pressures, oppression and even bankruptcy-and I want to mention, in passing, the difficult situation in which the Canadian textile and shoe industries are now placed-and the government has neglected important sectors of our economy, such as housing for small wage-earners, because even the recent proposals made by the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) do not meet the needs of the small wage-earner, the average Canadian, the head of a family.
If this government would add a touch of moral and social philosophy to its legislation, there would be criteria enabling the head of a family to raise and shelter his dependants decently, enjoying a reasonable 5 per cent


The Budget-Mr. Allard rate of interest. But no. In spite of the representations made by a number of hon. members, the government goes on its cold-hearted way and once in a while introduces inadequate measures, which do not meet the real needs of the Canadian head of a family.
There is no moral, human and social philosophy in the elaboration of legislation. Indeed, only administrative concern can be found: uniformity, portability, state control, not to mention a heterogeneous cabinet, without cohesive thinking, evasive, obese, marking time, versatile. No doubt Canada lacks leadership and drive, as well as economic, fiscal, financial, commercial, constitutional and patriotic direction. The government should wake up and the centennial year should make it offer at last some means of action to the citizens of Canada and members of parliament, that is a parliamentary committee on constitutional and fiscal reform.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the happy innitiatives taken by the premier of Ontario, Mr. Robarts, and the premier of Quebec. Mr. Daniel Johnson-these two provinces represent almost two thirds of the country's population-who call for a conference on the constitution in order to remodel it in a 1967 context, so that all Canadians might close their ranks, work toward the development of this country with a feeling of brotherhood and stop bickering on discussing misunderstandings and imprecisions of the constitution, the federal government is displaying tremendous irresponsibility.
It should be severely blamed for refusing-and this is the position taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in this house since January 18 last-notwithstanding numerous requests, to the members of the house, to the legislators in this parliament, an opportunity to meet, to trust each other's goodwill and intelligence, in order that we might, in fact, formulate precisely, according to the responsibility we hold from the Canadian people, a renovated Canadian constitution, modernized and amended according to the aspirations of Canadians in 1967.
[DOT] (12:20 p.ra.)
That is proof of the Prime Minister's weakness and faint-heartedness, for he refuses to believe in the good faith expressed not only by hon. members but also by the premiers of the two largest provinces which have more than two thirds of the population of Canada.
We have been needing a constitutional court for a long time but this government

refuses to set one up to settle our problems as is done in other countries. I shall bring this up again when the discussion bears solely on this subject and I urge hon. members to study the operation of the constitutional courts in Switzerland, for instance, or in Western Germany. In so doing, hon. members will realize that such a thing is not impossible since it really exists. Members of the constitutional court of Switzerland are not appointed unilaterally, as are the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada which, as it now stands, is inappropriate to solve our constitutional problems. The constitutional court in Switzerland is made up of representatives of the federal legislature and of representatives the Assembly of the cantons, which is the equivalent of our provincial legislatures. Such things are possible and they have been in existence for a long time, in fact, since the constitutional revision in Switzerland many years ago. Why, then, try to run a country by marking time, by playing blind-man's buff, seeking blindly, without finding it, a solution to our problems, letting the country seek its future right and left, in a perpetual see-saw, when energy and enthusiasm should be shown to finally make Canada the most beautiful country in the world, a dynamic country? We have all the possibilities, but the present government refuses to give us the necessary means to enable all Canadians to work hand in hand to make this a dynamic country, a country of brotherhood.
Why is there so much misunderstanding from Halifax to Vancouver? Why are so many Canadians living on such a vast territory, separated by such distances? It is because our present government refuses us the necessary framework and policies to bring all Canadians together, to start the flow of a geyser of brotherhood, friendship and cooperation which our country needs so much to make a future for itself.
Reference was made to an organization which would control prices, profits, combines and wage readjustments. It is too bad, Mr. Speaker, but the people who sit on the government side of the house, here in Ottawa

since the federal authorities want to have such a leading role to play in the direction and orientation of our national economy-will have to assume their responsibilities in the economic field. A democratic policy will have to be established, a democratic policy regarding distribution of national income and, at certain times, the government will have to hurt certain categories


Mr. Lailamme:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow me a question?


Maurice Allard: You ask questions when I am through with my speech.
How come the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is taking this attitude in the light, for instance, of an answer given, hardly two months ago, to a question asked by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) concerning the number of high officials who


The Budget-Mr. Allard are French Canadians. Out of 1,200 senior officials in Ottawa, only 135 are French Canadians.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
My young compatriots are dissatisfied with such discrimination. And how many inequalities are still being inflicted on our compatriots in the civil service today? We have evidence of this when we meet them in the various departments. And because our young compatriots are not satisfied with that situation, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) calls them young punks. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, who are the young punks in Canada. For instance, with regard to the department of immigration: in 34 foreign cities, where that department has offices, out of 2,186 employees, scattered in the 34 offices in those 34 foreign cities, there are only 25 French Canadians. And, because my young compatriots from Chicoutimi, Sherbrooke, Laval, Montreal, are not satisfied with the situation, and denounce that discrimination, which we shall try and correct, the minister of immigration calls my young fellow Canadians young punks.
The young punks are certainly not in Chicoutimi. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration, came here, from a trade union representing 200,000 members, to save confederation; what is he doing in this house? For the last ten months, this trade union, the C.N.T.U., through its leaders, Messrs. Pepin, Sauve and many others have been urging the government to settle their problems, to define what has not been defined by legislation, to correct the wrongs done by the jurisdictional decisions of the Canadian Labour Relations Board to certain classes of Canadians, with regard to trade union freedom and the liberty of the workers; to define the units of bargaining and to recognize them naturally and locally. What did the Minister of Manpower and Immigration do? Nothing at all; he forsook his 200,000 subalterns whom he served when he was the leader of the C.N.T.U.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time is up.


Ovide Laflamme: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I am
sorry, but the time allotted to the hon. member for Sherbrooke has expired.


Ovide Laflamme: Would the hon. member answer a question, with the consent of the house?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I shall
ask the unanimous consent of the house so that the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency (Mr. Lafiamme) may put a question to the hon. member for Sherbrooke. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ovide Laflamme: I would ask the hon. member for Sherbrooke who criticized the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) a moment ago for certain justified statements he made in Chicoutimi-


Maurice Allard: You too.


Ovide Laflamme: -what he thinks about quite similar statements made by one of his supporters, the mayor of his city, Mr. Nadeau, last Monday or Tuesday. He spoke to the same effect as the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I note that the hon. member did not read verbatim the statements of the mayor of Sherbrooke which were not made in the same light or in the same circumstances as those of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


Ovide Laflamme: It was the same thing.


Maurice Allard: What the mayor of Sherbrooke railed against was the irresponsibility-


Mr. Bechard:: Exactly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Maurice Allard: -of some individuals. You are applauding here but go before your young compatriots of Laval. What they want is a special status and equal treatment for Quebec. They have had enough of being pushed around by those who come to the House of Commons and forsake them and their aspirations to further their own ambitions, like the hon. member who just asked that question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is the same thing.
[English)


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make some comments this afternoon while we are debating the merits of the mini-budget, and I can assure you they will be as relevant to the subject as the last speaker's remarks. Let me make a few observations regarding the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the von Thadden incident to show the amount of double talk that pervades the operations of the organization. In fact it is


present in so much of its activities it should be adopted as its trade mark.
Early in January it was announced that a leader of a small German party had been invited by the C.B.C. to come to Canada and take part in a national network show, of course at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada. A considerable uproar followed this announcement and some well justified complaints were made. In response to the complaints that were made regarding this announcement that von Thadden was to be brought to Canada, the president of the C.B.C. issued a statement. I have in my hand a copy of this statement which was provided by the C.B.C. information services. The statement is dated January 16, and leads off as follows:
The following statement by President Ouimet was released to the Canadian Press in Ottawa; C.B.C. news rooms; and dailies in Toronto after 7:40 p.m. January 14, 1967-
Mr. Ouimet was commenting about the fact that the C.B.C. decided not to bring Mr. von Thadden to Canada because of the opposition which arose following the announcement of the C.B.C. In the last paragraph of Mr. Ouimet's statement we find these very interesting words:
This action does not mean that the corporation will abrogate its responsibility in terms of the principle of the right of the Canadian public to information.
These are noble words, almost fit to be carved on some tombstones, but I will not mention whose. I will repeat them:
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
This action does not mean that the corporation will abrogate its responsibility in terms of the principle of the right of the Canadian public to information.
We have been rising in this House of Commons for the past five years asking for information on how the C.B.C. operates, and always getting the same answers; either that the C.B.C. is in a competitive business and never divulges this kind of information, or that the salaries or payments made to stars on the C.B.C. payroll are never divulged.
For instance, I asked how much money was paid to Mrs. Baskin, whose husband was a private member of the House of Commons, and how much was paid to Mrs. Sauve. The reply was quite interesting. I got the answer as to how much was paid to Mrs. Baskin, in which I had no interest whatsoever, and was told I could not get the answer with regard to Mrs. Sauve because the C.B.C. did not divulge
The Budget-Mr. Cowan that kind of information. Talk about a two way answer on the same subject. This is an example of it.
At the time Mr. Ouimet was making this high sounding statement on behalf of the C.B.C. the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked a question of the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh), who answers in this house-I do not like to say she "answers", but she represents the C.B.C. in this house. I will not say she answers for them because the answers are always the same, that it is not in the public interest to divulge anything regarding the C.B.C. On January 16 the hon. member for Prince Albert rose in his place and asked a question of the Secretary of State. Part of her answer can be found on page 11819 of Hansard for that day. It was as follows:
But there is the principle of respecting the right of the Canadian people to know what is current in the world-
That was the answer given by the Secretary of State of the Canadian cabinet regarding the von Thadden episode.
It was at this very moment that a Toronto newspaper came up with the interesting discovery that two stars on the C.B.C. John C. Ricker, M.A., of the Ontario College of Education, and John Tupper Saywell, Ph.D., of York University, Toronto, were the joint authors of a book "Nation and Province." I have photostat copies of pages 58, 59 and 60 of this book in my hand. These gentlemen devote a couple of paragraphs to parliament and the press. I have been in the press business all my life, 40 years with Canadian newspapers and Canadian magazines, and feel I am entitled to speak on behalf of Canadian newspapers and the Canadian press.
I object strongly to the idea put out by these two gentlemen who appear regularly on C.B.C. On page 59 of the book, when commenting on the giving of information about parliament, these men have written that newspapers being in private hands, and private radio stations being in private hands, "they may well be reluctant to print or broadcast news or opinions which could have an adverse effect on advertisers' interests."
On page 60 they talk about the "dangerous tendency toward centralization." These are two comments made by these C.B.C. stars regarding private industry which produces in Canada the newspapers and magazines as we know them today. I would like to ask, what is

February 10, 19S7
The Budget-Mr. Cowan the dangerous tendency toward centralization? We see it going on in all fields of activity. I do not know that it is dangerous. I do not know why Messrs. Say well and Ricker should have the audacity to think that because they want to use the adjective "dangerous" in connection with centralization in the publishing world, it becomes dangerous. It is not ipso facto simply because these two men wish to make a comment of that nature.
Before I proceed to their extolling of the merits and virtues of the C.B.C., in their own eyes, I would like to refer to a very unfair attack that was made on three Canadian press representatives last fall through the medium of a C.B.C. commentator, Knowiton Nash. I have in my hands, provided to me by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's Toronto office, 354 Jarvis Street, under date of October 12, 1966, the text of a broadcast by one Knowiton Nash on the national news, August 11, 1966. In the cource of his remarks Mr. Nash created the impression that anyone who accepts free transportation or hospitality from anyone is their slave, is indebted to the host and will report only in a manner acceptable to the host.
Speaking of these three Canadians-and I will make direct reference to a personal friend of mine although I know two of the gentlemen very well-Mr. Lubor Zink of the Toronto Telegram-Mr. Knowiton Nash, who is paid by the C.B.C., commented about their flying to Saigon and pointed out:
The United States agency says that it does not want to identify the newsmen because it says this might lessen their credibility.
He stated that the action of the United States information office in asking these three men to fly to Southeast Asia was in the best press agency approach. During his comments he remarked that they would, of course, be favourable to the host. If Knowiton Nash is so certain in his opinion that people who accept the hospitality of the bureau of information of the United States will be favourable to that bureau or to the United States, what about the C.B.C. that has flown hither and yon both French crews and English crews in Canadian government planes whenever a minister travels abroad or has anything to do somewhere in Canada? If these newspapermen will be influenced by the hospitality shown to them by hosts such as the information bureau of the United States, what about the C.B.C. commentators who are flown hither and yon with government officials, with the government picking up the check?

I cannot see for one moment how the C.B.C., through Knowiton Nash, can comment in this way with respect to private newspapermen when it is simply a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I cannot see any justification for the attack made by Knowiton Nash on August 11 last. These three men, two of whom are well known to me, are independently minded gentlemen and can be counted on to express their opinions whether or not they were the guests of some would-be host at any time.
To come back to Mr. Saywell and Mr. Ricker, I would point out that after they paid their respects to the operators of private newspapers and raido stations in Canada on pages 59 and 60, after referring to the "dangerous tendency toward centralization" they go on with these choice words on page 60:
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, owned by the government and the people of Canada, does an admirable job in keeping the public informed on events in parliament; being the servant of public rather than private interests, its news is impartial.
I did not know I was going to be speaking on the mini-budget this afternoon, but I wonder how many hon. members heard the marvellously impartial newscast of the C.B.C. last night. Maybe the opposition did not know this. According to the C.B.C. last night and this morning, the four opposition parties ganged up last night to defeat the government by a vote of 87 to 75. That is straight from the C.B.C., which according to Mr. Ricker and Dr. Saywell is keeping the public informed. What kind of reporting is that? I admit that the four opposition parties ganged up in an effort to defeat the government last night, but no responsible, self-respecting newspaperman in Canada wrote such a phrase as "the four opposition parties ganged up to defeat the government last night." When the newspaper reporters' reports are available later today I am certain you will find that they said "the four opposition parties ganged up in an effort to defeat the government."
That is just one episode in the news reporting of the C.B.C.-it can be multiplied a thousand times in the course of a year-which illustrates the inaccuracy of the reporting of the C.B.C. Yet Mr. Ricker and Dr. Saywell said:
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, owned by the government and the people of Canada, does an admirable job in keeping the public informed on events in parliament; being the servant of public rather than private interests, its news is impartial.


Has anyone ever tried to get anything out of this public servant? The answer comes saying that that kind of information is not given, that this is a competitive business and they cannot divulge such information.
Relying on the forthright statement of President Ouimet that this action
-does not mean that the corporation will abrogate its responsibility in terms of the principle of the right of the Canadian public to information.
And relying on the statement made by the Secretary of State which reads as follows:
But there is the principle of respecting the right of the Canadian people to know what is current in the world-
I filed a question with the clerk of the house asking the Secretary of State how much money the C.B.C. had paid Professor Saywell and Professor Ricker year by year during the past five years. I did not wish to indicate thereby that the high opinion of these two men for the C.B.C. was based on the money they had been paid. I just wanted to point out that if Mr. Lubor Zink may be influenced by the fact that he is given a free trip to southeast Asia, it is possible that the high opinion of the C.B.C. held by these two men might be based on the amount of money which has been put into their pockets.
Hon. members at that time did not see the answer that came back from the C.B.C., and I must thank the Secretary of State and her parliamentary secretary for being so kind as to show me the letter. It said, despite the statements of Mr. Ouimet and the Secretary of State, this information had never been given in the past and they do not believe that it should be given at this time. If that is not double talk in its purest and simplest form then I do not know the meaning of double talk.
Hon. members saw and heard the Secretary of State rise in the house the other day and ask me whether I would not withdraw the question because the C.B.C. had not been in the habit of giving this information in the past. She did so in spite of the statement she herself made that there is the principle of respecting the right of the Canadian people to know what is current in the world. I said I would transfer the matter for debate, and hon. members will find at page 39 of today's routine proceedings my motion No. 200. I would have waited to discuss the matter perhaps a couple of months from now after the house leader arranged for it to be brought up when the subject was dead, but having the
The Budget-Mr. Cowan opportunity to speak on the mini-budget today I wish to draw this matter to the attention of the Canadian public so they can see the duplicity and double talk which pervades the operations of the C.B.C., and I have given the house a couple of examples. I certainly would like to know how much money was paid to Messrs. Saywell and Ricker during the past five years, year by year, just so we will know whether their opinions are as pure, unadulterated and free as those of Mr. Zink, Mr. Henderson and the third gentleman who went overseas at the expense of the United States government.
I do not wish to speak at any length on the mini-budget, but I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport, although I do not expect to receive an answer from him before the vote is taken. Three or four years ago when I was a member of the transportation committee a bill was brought before us to incorporate the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company. One of the clauses in that bill specified that there would be a monopoly operation of the taxicab service at the proposed new Ottawa station. Quite a few of us are incensed at the monopoly operation of taxicab service out of airports throughout Canada stretching from Victoria to St. John's, Newfoundland. This is taking place despite the fact that the cabinet talks about free enterprise and the competitive system, and while they do not allow the setting of prices by competitors. They have a law to prevent collusion by competitors but whenever competition rears its ugly head around an airport or a station it is amazing how quickly the cabinet forgets its dedication to free enterprise and the competitive price system.
When the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company Bill was brought before the committee and objections were raised to the last clause, we were told that it would be struck out. I must give credit to the Minister of Transport for having seen to it that the clause was struck out. We were then presented with a new bill in which the late member for Hull, a highly regarded friend of mine, Alexis Caron-I am sorry he is not with us now -raised an objection to the composition of the board of directors. The bill never did come before the House of Commons. We waited for a new bill with regard to the Ottawa terminal station but it never came forward, and now we are told that the new Ottawa station is being run co-operatively by the C.P.R. and the C.N.R.


The Budget-Mr. Cowan
Recently when coming off the train in the Ottawa station I noticed with interest that there were starters for the Blue Line taxis, of which there were about 20, to take the travellers to their destinations. I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether we have moved again into the field of a monopoly operation by a taxicab company in the new station. When I spoke to one of the starters on the platform he informed me that that taxicab company had just got the contract. This means that another monopoly is in operation right here in Ottawa under the nose of the cabinet.
I would like to see a little more faithfulness on the part of the cabinet to the doctrine of free enterprise and competition in business, particularly here in Ottawa. I will not go into a discussion of the Malton airport at this time; there may be another occasion for that.
Before I conclude I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, who I believe is doing a magnificent job and certainly is giving satisfaction to a large number of newcomers to Canada in Toronto and in the riding of York-Humber, whether he will be introducing a bill before this parliament is prorogued which will make naturalized Canadian citizens the equals of native born Canadians. At the present time a naturalized Canadian citizen can lose his citizenship by one means or another, while this cannot happen to a native born Canadian. We have been promised that amendments would be brought to the immigration bill which would remove this anomaly among Canadians. We have been promised this in four consecutive speeches from the throne.
The opposition pointed out that in 1919 the Liberal party moved a motion with regard to medicare. I looked up that motion, and found it reads that the Liberal party favoured medicare when the nation could afford the cost. The opposition conveniently dropped that last phrase and simply stated that the Liberal party favoured medicare in 1919 and it took us until 1966 to get around to it.
I have sat through four speeches from the throne in which we have been promised amendments to the citizenship and immigration laws so that naturalized Canadian citizens would not be subject to loss of their citizenship for any reason whatsoever. This has never been introduced to the house. I am sure if it were brought forward it would be passed in no time. I cannot imagine anybody in the opposition, and certainly no one on the government side of the house, objecting to

such a bill; yet after being mentioned four times in speeches from the throne it has not yet come forward. Do we have to wait for another 47 years, like the medicare bill, to have this anomaly removed? Can we not let our naturalized Canadian citizens realize right now that they are the equals of native born Canadians once they have gained Canadian citizenship by observing the laws and regulations of this land? As it is now, if certain regulations are broken the citizenship of naturalized Canadians may be taken away from them.
I have had personal experience with this in connection with some Italians who were advised by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration that they had lost their citizenship status. The matter was drawn to the attention of Hon. Guy Favreau, the magnificent former minister of immigration, and was corrected at once. I do not believe this situation should be allowed to continue. Every naturalized Canadian should have the same rights as a native born Canadian, and that includes no loss of citizenship unless it is forsworn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfiel):: Order. It
being one o'clock this sitting is suspended until 2 p.m.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 2 p.m.

Ovide Laflamme: Mr. Speaker, may I have the consent of the house to revert to presentation of reports by standing and special committees?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ovide Laflamme: I have the honour to present the ninth report of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, in English and in French.
[Note: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means.
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like very much to take a few minutes of the time of the house this afternoon, at the end of my first year in the House of Commons, to voice some of the frustrations with which I have been surrounded since I was elected to this august chamber. These frustrations, it seems to me, have become magnified by the fact that this is the centennial year in our country's history. These frustrations have been magnified further by the constant dialogue we hear, as Canadians, about a search for our identity, whatever that may be. We hear phrases such as the B and B commission, welfare, the C.B.C., housing crisis, war on poverty, pro-American, antiAmerican, and so on. These phrases seem to stick out, and I believe they are symptomatic of the morass of mediocrity in which we as Canadians find ourselves mired in our search for the good life.
Goodness knows, we have heard that term often enough over the past years. I believe that we as Canadians and as parliamentarians have lost track of who we are and where in fact we are going. After all, what do we mean by "the good life" for every Canadian? Is it perhaps the Christmas present of $30 per month in the form of a guaranteed income supplement referred to so proudly by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) in his minibudget? Perhaps in his heart he feels that $30 per month is the answer to all the - problems of the aged. He pointed out, and I agree with this, that he must raise taxes for some in order to make payments to those in need. I have no quarrel with that.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Am I and other Canadians to believe that we shall have the good life with the addition of 1 per cent to the sales tax on prescription drugs? Imagine that increase being imposed in face of the great amount of evidence presented to the committee of the house meeting at this time to discuss high drug costs? To give us the good life there was no change in exemptions in the mini-budget. As a result some married pensioners must pay back some of their increase. They must obey the rigorous
The Budget-Mr. Brand income tax laws of Canada. Is this the good life for all Canadians? It makes one wonder.
We hear voices from the government side, tinged with pardonable pride, saying that these are prosperous times. Are they prosperous while millions of Canadians struggle under the weight of increasing taxes, prices and debts they must assume to keep themselves and their families alive? Is this the good life? Do we have the good life when we can find $10 million to found a feature film industry but at the same time sit idly by and watch some Canadians suffer kidney failure? From this serious disease many die. They die because we do not have enough artificial kidney machines for dialysis. Here we are in our centennial year and not only do we not have enough machines, not only do we have this basic inconsistency, but we have a jury deciding which victims shall be helped and which shall not be helped by means of the kidney machines. The jury passes the ultimate sentence. Not all patients can have their uremia controlled because there is a lack of funds and equipment. Because of this lack patients see their lives ebb away. Ten million dollars is spent for films but not even $1 million is spent to save a particular group of Canadians. Yet these are prosperous times.
These are the times when treasury bench members can point their ministerial fingers with pride at the number of jobs created by the Canada-United States auto parts agreement. These ministers brush off all statistical arguments showing how many have lost their jobs as a result of the pact. Men and families suffer. After all, it is little comfort to be reminded of those who have lost their jobs as a result of entering into the pact when speaking of the new jobs brought about by the pact.
Is this the good life for all Canadians that we are proud of? Is this the heritage we shall leave our children in the second century of our history? Does the government believe the Canadian people are blind? Does it believe that the bland assurances that all is well with the world will blind the average Canadian to what is around him? The average man can see old age pensioners in substandard rooms in rooming houses, children running ragged in city slums and Indians on our reserves, their pride gone and spirit broken, huddling together in one room. I wonder sometimes whether our Indians are not trying to protect themselves from the white man's benevolence. Is this the good life for all Canadians? Is it enough, I wonder, for


The Budget-Mr. Brand the government to express regret when four or five children on an Indian reserve are burned to death and in the next breath answer a member in the house, as happened the other day, with the words: "What's the matter? Don't you like prosperity?"
Are we expressing Canadianism and the idea of the good life when we find that centennial projects include such things as providing plumbing facilities for prairie towns and putting our fighting men into green gabardine? It may be necessary for some prairie towns to have good plumbing and the amenities of modern life, but do we regard plumbing as a centennial project? Surely the aim of government should be to see that all Canadians have the good life. Instead of spending everything on material things we should spend a little providing something for the mind.
It is time that not only we in the house but people all over Canada began to build a Canadian pride, to forge a true sense of Canadian destiny. It is time we looked to see what is happening in our own country. It is time to stop being blinded by the glow of our smug self-satisfaction and confused by our national dichotomy. If we suffer from selfsatisfaction it is merely a thin veneer hiding our national uncertainty. Somebody said-I forget who-" Let's stop being a nation bounded on the north by the aurora borealis and on the south by an inferiority complex." For the centennial year let us stop being French Canadians, English Canadians, German Canadians or what have you and become truly unhyphenated Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: It is time the so-called English speaking parts of Canada recognized the basic fact of life, that the French were in Canada for 225 years before confederation and the British for 108 years. It is time our schools taught proper history. It should not stop in French Canada at the Plains of Abraham in 1759 and begin in English Canada when Wolfe died. It is time we started teaching our children about our country. It is a historic fact that when John Cabot sighted Nova Scotia in 1497 he did nothing to colonize it. But when Cartier sailed up the St. Lawrence in 1534 looking for a passage to the Indies he began the great story of our country. There was the great Champlain who founded Port Royal in 1605 and the settlement of Quebec in 1608. Surely we should try to forget dates such as 1759 and the deaths of two great 
military leaders, the Marquis de Montcalm and General Wolfe.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
I believe that we in this house and certain of the schools across the country have failed in the duty to teach the children exactly what we have here in Canada. I ask my English speaking compatriots to realize that in many ways the French have a greater right to be here than we have. I believe we should recognize this fact and go on from there. I do not believe this is a time for recrimination. It is a time for toleration. It is a time to accept each other as equal partners in this great and glorious Canada of ours.
In my view we should stop wasting our energies and talents on deciding foreign policies for other countries. I believe we should start playing a role as an individual nation. We waste far too much time in this house discussing whether or not the United States is doing the right thing in Viet Nam. I find it difficult at times to put into words how strongly I feel about these things but perhaps as I grope for the right expressions Your Honour will understand the ideas I am attempting to articulate.
I mentioned Viet Nam. I believe we should stop criticizing one or other of the parties concerned and start criticizing ourselves. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this situation, certain facts are self-evident. One of them is-and I speak as a physician in this sense-that there are men, women and children, non-combatants, in that strife-tom country who are in need of medical care and medical supplies. Instead of blaming one side or the other for what is happening I should like to see the people of Canada, not just the parliament of Canada, doing something about this situation. I know we are doing something now. But is it enough?
I should like, for example, to see the Canadian Medical Association of which I am a member encouraging doctors, surgeons and plastic surgeons to volunteer their services, as I know many of them are willing to do, for one, two or three months at a time in Viet Nam to help repair the broken bodies of the civilian population who are suffering needlessly as a result of this conflict. I am sure that not only would they volunteer their services but that the great pharmaceutical industry of this country would be willing to donate supplies to help civilians in those areas.
We can go beyond Viet Nam to other areas of the world. Help is being given now by such


wonderful organizations as CUSO, MEDICO and so forth. But it is not enough. I believe that if we as Canadians could voluntarily set out to repair the ravages of war we would do more to build a Canadian identity and give ourselves a place of prominence in the councils of the nations than all the emissaries and missions we could send to Hanoi or Saigon.
In our own country, could we not recognize honestly the extent of our housing problems? Could we not seek to ensure that all our citizens have the means to buy their own homes and that our old folks have a decent place in which to live in their declining years? There are so many areas in our own country which urgently need attention; yet we are so busy trying to solve the problems of the world outside our borders that we cannot see what is in front of our eyes. I believe it is time we found our own identity and tried to do something worth while here in Canada. Then we could hold out a helping hand to other areas of the world which need help.
As I think about this problem I think about the plumbing in prairie towns. I think of my children and what they are learning in school about the centenary. Plumbing does not seem to have any heritage associated with it. It does not seem to provide very much by way of a Canadian identity though perhaps it sets us apart from those countries which do not have plumbing. What does it do for Canadians as such?
I believe it is time in our centennial year for us to begin to honour those Canadians who for too long have remained unsung in their native land. Put their pictures on our postage stamps. It is very good to see a puffin or a loon or other wildlife of our country. But how about some of those people who have done so much? How about Pierre Radisson?


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Next year; 1968.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: I am pleased to hear it. I believe that in every possible way, not only on our stamps but through broadcast and other media, we should put the lives of great Canadians into proper perspective in song and story and allow our children to see that there really are Canadians whose lives and works are just as fascinating as those of Daniel Boone or Jessie James.
I mentioned Pierre Radisson. I might mention another man in whom I am perhaps even more interested because he was essentially a physician. Since the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) is here I would point out that Canadian
The Budget-Mr. Brand physicians have not fared well in having their likenesses placed on postage stamps. I believe that Alexander Graham Bell was so honoured at one time, but his doctor's degree was an honorary one.


An hon. Member:: Charles Tupper.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Charles Tupper was on a stamp because he was at one time prime minister. It is true he was a doctor. But what about Sir William Osier? What about Robert Tait Mackenzie? Hon. members ask:	Who is
Robert Tait MacKenzie? Many people will not know anything about the life of this great Canadian. Most people will admire what he has done without realizing to whom their admiration is directed. Let me give a brief biographical sketch of this great Canadian. He was born in Almonte, Ontario, on May 26, 1867, 100 years ago, and like so many of the geniuses nurtured in Canada he died an expatriate in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on April 28, 1938. Despite the fact that Dr. MacKenzie spent many of his working years in the United States he remained a Canadian in every way. Every summer throughout his sojourns below the 49th parallel he returned to Almonte to the home he called The Mill of Kintail, named after the ancient seat of the clan MacKenzie.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
Why, you may ask, is Robert Tait MacKenzie worthy of centennial recognition?
I see that the Postmaster General wonders too. In 1892 he graduated in medicine from McGill University and, because of his intense interest in physical education, became the first professor in charge of physical education at that institution. His work in the field of physical education became known through many publications and was continued at the University of Pennsylvania and indeed all across the free world. He was in fact one of the prime movers in emphasizing the need for a healthy body to house a healthy and alert mind. A classmate in his early school years by the name of James Naismith, who also became a physician, went on to fame in the United States as the founder of the game of basketball.
While Tait MacKenzie was carrying on his duties as medical director of physical education at McGill University he was also teaching anatomy. He looked for a better method by which to teach anatomy to his students. He had a hobby, that of sculpture, and he decided to put that talent to use in the anatomy


The Budget-Mr. Brand laboratory as a means of teaching his classes. He did sculptures of various parts of the human form in order to illustrate his points. It was not long before these rough clay models were recognized for their intrinsic beauty as well as for their practicality. Following this he enlarged his work to include sculpture of athletic forms considered by many to be the finest of their kind since the days of the classical Greek sculptors.
It is an interesting aside and of great importance to me in Saskatchewan that the figure of the swimmer on the top of the trophy for intercollegiate swimming in western Canada was donated by Robert Tait MacKenzie. This statue has become famous as "The Plunger". If you should see a statue of a swimmer it would likely be a copy of this piece of sculpture. His work and fame as a sculptor grew until finally his sculpture took him literally around the world. Among his works are included the Scottish-American memorial at Edinburgh, the statue of General James Wolfe in London, the "Youthful Benjamin Franklin" at the University of Pennsylvania, and many, many more. Members of this house who are not familiar with his work may see the statue of Captain Guy Grum-mond in the archives in this city and, in the foyer outside this chamber, the heroic statue of Lieutenant Colonel George Harold Baker, M.P., executed by Robert Tait MacKenzie.
Despite what this man did in his lifetime there is no argument that he did not receive the honour due him by his countrymen. It seems only fitting that this authentic genius of Canadian birth who had great pride in Canada should on the centennial of his birth and in the centennial year of our history receive from his countrymen the honour that was denied him during his lifetime. What this honour should be I leave to the Secretary of State and to the centennial commission. I am sure the minister, in co-operation with the Canadian Medical Association and the council on health, physical education and rehabilitation, can come up with a fitting memorial for this great genius. His sculpture has been given to the world. His fellow countrymen should recognize its origin.
To my French speaking friends let me say that Robert Tait MacKenzie believed very much in the importance of French culture within our nation. One of his first accomplishments was to become proficient in the French language, so much so that at one time in his career he was invited to France by the government of France, which of all the European

continental countries appealed to him most. As a result of this invitation he helped to put in practice in France a system of rehabilitation which assisted in restoring the manpower of that country after the devastating losses of the first world war.
His home, The Mill of Kintail, still stands. Many members here may have seen it. Many of his original works still decorate the studio. This is due not to government help but to the interest of the present owner of the mill, Colonel James F. Leys. I should like to see something done in our centennial year to honour this man.
There are many other Canadians who fall in the same category and perhaps could become household words so that when the children come home from school they will say, "Did you hear about so and so? We learned about him in school today." I think we must do these things now in our centennial year. We should do something within our country to build a true Canadianism-one country, one Canada, with all citizens having equal rights. We should do something to honour those who in the past have helped make Canada the great nation it is today.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this is an important debate, dealing as it generally does with a variety of important subjects and with discussion of a general nature. I think it underscores a fact which never should be forgotten, that parliament is something more than a mere legislative mill which eventually turns out the emissions of a government in legislative form. This chamber is a body which seeks and must seek the views, and give thought to the concerns, anxieties and needs, of the people who send us here. Before we bad responsible government we had representative government. I think that in our general debates we emphasize the representative aspects of our democratic structure.
As usual in debates of this kind, and as usual with regard to most constructive utterances in this chamber, the speeches which have been made in this debate have been given little attention in the press with its proclivity for the controversial and sensational and its seeming indifference to the reasoned and the reasonable. Yet in my opinion the remarks by members in the various parts of the house during the past few days have been valuable contributions to important public issues. I say that about many of the speeches I have heard and have read, and I certainly say it about the one just delivered


by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand).
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
When one intervenes in a debate at this stage there always is the difficulty that so many things which one would like to say himself have already been said. I can only express my agreement with many of the contributions which have been made. The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) and the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), especially the former, spoke about the procedures of this house. Their comments were thoughtful and I think useful. We must be concerned about the efficiency of our procedures. Smoothness of the operation of this body is not the be-all or end-all-far from it. I would rather we remained hopelessly archaic than that we whittle away or diminish one bit of our freedom of expression. But we do not ensure democratic values by enshrining inefficiency. I think the hon. member for Royal was very helpful to all of us in outlining some important and valuable projected improvements in our procedure. I shall only mention two aspects of this field which are elementary and elemental.
By now we should realize that sessions of parliament are year-round operations. We find now that it is 13 months since we began this session. In other words, the calendar year is not long enough for the parliamentary year. Surely we must recognize that this is a year-round business and schedule our adjournments for appropriate preconsidered times so that they are not subject to constant hit or miss, hope and happenstance, with the result that we never know when we might or might not end a certain session.
I also believe, and this is becoming an old chestnut with me, that we have to look at our voting procedures. During the last vote I attended in this house not long ago-I do not miss very many-I sat for 49 minutes while the bell rang and rang and rang. I do not mind being up so late at night or hearing bells ringing in my ears, but even I could find more useful things to do than sit and wait while bells ring. In this case, after 49 minutes of waiting, I stood up and announced that I was paired with an hon. member who had missed the bell-ringing session. I think we could entrust our democratic procedures to an electronic voting device. We could wait five minutes for the vote to be taken and then cast our votes in five seconds.
Someone told me after the last suggestion I made along these lines that I was doing some

The Budget-Mr. Macquarrie personal pleading. At one time I was accused of being embarrassed and red in the face
because I voted with the New Dtmocratic Party. Let me defend myself and recall that I suggested this procedure long before the time the New Democratic Party was so abundantly right that I voted with them.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), spoke about constitutional developments or the lack of them. I have been disturbed in recent months after the former premier of Quebec torpedoed the Fulton-Favreau formula despite his earlier commitment to it and despite approval by all other legislatures. In the past we have looked for initiative from the national government and the national parliament. I am proud that recently Premier Robarts of Ontario has taken an initiative, but I regret that it was necessary for a leader in the provincial arena to give the lead in matters where the initiative lies with the national parliament, with the national government and with national leaders. But in the vacuum which he as an intelligent Canadian saw, he took an initiative which I heartily welcome.
We should have set up a constitutional committee long ago and we should have invited the legislatures to do something similar. We have great and important problems of a constitutional nature and we should not have sat inert and relaxed during the months which followed the demise of the Fulton-Favreau formula. I salute Premier Robarts in this connection. He has shown himself as a great Canadian. I believe Canada can rejoice in the fact that during the last few years the populous and prosperous province of Ontario has not been led by a Mowat or a Hepburn. Had that been the case the frail fabric of federation might have been badly sagging by this time.
It is now 13 months since this session began and I have been distressed by the paucity of discussion on external affairs. I am convinced that there is a strong desire on the part of the great majority of members in this house to give the widest possible degree of support to the execution of our nation's foreign policy. Irrespective of the label which is borne by the party in power, I believe there is a genuine feeling, which has been in existence for a long time, that our foreign policy should be bipartisan, multipartisan or possibly non-partisan in so far as it is practically possible.
I am convinced that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), sometimes described as a "former political person",


The Budget-Mr. Macquarrie agrees with the virtues and values of departi-sanizing our foreign policy. In this assumption, because I believe him to be a sincere and able internationalist, I offer him a suggestion or two which are intended only to be helpful. I regret that he is not here. When he is not here I do not vote, but I have not taken that self-denying ordinance in so far as talking is concerned.
In the first place, although his practised skill in evasive equivocation is always appreciated as an art form, and it truly is, it is not always universally beneficial to a broadening of the base of parliamentary and public support of his government's actions on the international scene. The broadening of such support should be a goal toward which he should strive. In a word I would say that he should be more forthcoming in his answers to those members who seek information on the many vital areas of Canada's external affairs policy. There is no one in this house, I am sure, who would hesitate for a moment to take on the mantle of silence if he believed that silence, per se, would be conducive to any worth-while accomplishment in our diplomacy. Sometimes I fear that my good and long-time friend, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, shows an increasing tendency to invoke the aura of high confidentiality around foreign policy areas and incidents which at some times are widely discussed outside this chamber.
How often are we enjoined here in this house to maintain silence on the Viet Nam question lest some imminent solution or impending accomplishment be destroyed utterly by the slightest reference to it in this parliament? We are made fearful lest a phrase, sentence or syllable might mar some impending achievement. Yet Mr. Ronning speaks publicly. How often have we been enjoined to silence in this chamber when later during the same day we have turned on our television sets and heard senators of the United States evoke from the secretary of state, Mr. Rusk, fulsome answers, or indulge in the quizzing of Mr. McNamara, or the eliciting and publicizing of views of a very distinguished newspaperman, Harrison Salisbury? If in the United States, where great responsibility for world affairs resides, their democracy may be so functional as to allow, and indeed encourage, full discussion of vital areas of diplomacy, surely we here, whose responsibility is less, need not be inhibited from exploring and discussing our role in this issue, which of course concerns us although naturally it does not concern us primarily.

[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I think that candour and earnestness in the discussion would be valuable. I believe that the external affairs committee should be much more active than it is. I think we should be examining in depth various aspects of our country's foreign policy and drawing upon the expertise of specialists in world affairs. I am happy that committees generally have become more active and more useful on the parliamentary scene, although I think we have to use a little bit of skill in organizing their schedules. There seems to be something wrong when for many, many weeks no committees are sitting, and then we have a great splurge when there are more committees sitting than members to go around or rooms in which to hold them. But I see an increasing initiative within and on the part of committees, and I think this is to be welcomed. I do not think the external affairs committee should content itself with merely examining the estimates of the department. I think we should move into great questions and help to further our own knowledge and give leadership to our people.
In the far off days of Mackenzie King and O. D. Skelton foreign policy was regarded as something so esoteric as to not really to be suited to the amateurs, members of parliament, let alone the public. Such an attitude was deplorable then but at that time our role in the world was not so important as to make our diplomatic efforts of much significance. It really did not matter too much whether Mr. Skelton and Mackenzie King handled it all themselves or whether there was the odd reference to it in parliament. But things are different now. Canada has a different role and there is a relationship between public opinion and foreign policy. The public, which always had a stake in the decisions of the diplomats, now has far greater influence on the decisionmaking than ever before. Canada is not a great power; we do not have great power roles; we do not have big power responsibilities. But we are capable of making an impact upon the world.
I think we must do all we can to strengthen our role, to make more valuable our contribution. I think that we as parliamentarians could enrich our knowledge and increase our participation in discussions which will lead to the most meaningful policies. We talk often about the various stages in our foreign policy development, how we began in the early days of nationhood with no policy, how people like


Borden led us into an era of responsibility on the world scene, how we carried on in an isolationist attitude in the League of Nations and did nothing while talking about American isolationism at the same time.
In the post-war era, under Mr. St. Laurent we took a positive and valuable role. Perhaps we are now at a stage where we should do something more fundamental in re-examining the situation. I am always a little ill at ease when I hear people say, "Isn't it wonderful that we are so much more popular than the Americans, and that no one dislikes us?" I think possibly we are at a stage of our development when we may have to risk being disliked somewhere in the world as we try to give meaning to the things that we believe are important in world affairs.
I would like to see us take part in a thorough analysis of our role in NATO. What about NATO itself? The dry words of the treaty of 1949 are not of themselves sufficient. What changes should the alliance undertake? What changes does Canada envisage for the alliance and for its own role therein? I wish the minister were here, because he and I used to be companions of the order which supported Canadian membership in the Organization of American States. I have kept my membership in that group intact but I do not think the minister belongs to the club any more. I would like to know why. I was hoping I would be able to salute and applaud him as he led our country into a greater role of hemispheric responsibility. Has he forsaken his belief in Canadian membership, or is it yet to come?
I wonder, too, whether we are taking sufficiently careful note of what is taking place in the United Nations. Is the United Nations itself abandoning what used to be regarded by us as its most hopeful field of operation, namely, the peace-keeping role. Things which have happened in the general assembly of the United Nations cause me grave disquiet. Are we adopting our foreign policy vis-a-vis the United Nations to an attitude which that body has itself abandoned? I am concerned about that.
There are many areas of possible Canadian initiative. What is the status today of the one China, one Taiwan policy? It is an interesting question. Have we yet been able to find a meaningful measure to register in a practical way Canadian disapproval and distaste for the actions of the Ian Smith regime in Rhodesia? Unless that which we are doing on
The Budget-Mr. Macquarrie the international scene or in the Commonwealth context has some meaning when applied to the object of the action, it is useless. We should either look for something meaningful or advise our Canadian people that no meaningful role has been found.
Should we be more specific in our external aid programs? Are we spreading our own resources too thin? Should we, for instance, undertake a special role for the small islands in the West Indies to the solution of whose economic and political problems we could make a meaningful and perhaps decisive contribution? I am convinced that there is no part of the world whose future both economically and politically depends more upon Canada than those small islands to the south. I think we should launch into a program that is imaginative, that is new, that is massive. A step has been taken, and we welcome it. But those islands are much more than places for fun in the sun; they are places which will have great difficulty in surviving. This might give us a great opportunity to make the Commonwealth idea mean something more than a mere good will expression in an afterdinner speech. I should like to see us face up to the ultimate responsibility for the small islands in the Caribbean and offer them every economic and political aid that they will accept.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
There are many other problems which I think are ripe for discussion and which the people of Canada would like us to discuss. Some of us believe that Canada would improve its effectiveness on the diplomatic scene by developing full diplomatic relations with the Vatican State, and perhaps it is best that someone from the reformed religious tradition give utterance to that view and underscore the fact that the Vatican State is much more than the seat of a great religious leader. It is a political entity, it is a state among the other states of the world, and I think we could enrich our role greatly and enhance our effectiveness by developing diplomatic ties of a closer nature than we have at present.
There are a host of questions calling for serious appraisal and sustained discussion. I think we limit our effectiveness in the world if we fail to ask questions and seek solutions. I see an item on the order paper relating to the external affairs committee. I agree with my colleague that it is not necessary for the committee to be set up or put in operation by the minister or the Prime Minister. I believe


The Budget-Mr. Kennedy that with greater effectiveness, greater research and a more searching inquiry as to our goals we will bring external affairs out of the area of casual reference and equivocation. I believe we can move toward greater leadership for our country in the world and within this country by those of us who are on the national political scene. I would invite the minister, who is a good minister, to be more fulsome, more frank in his discussions with us.


Miss LaMarsh:: Did the hon. member say more full?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Would the minister prefer me to say "more full"?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I think "frank" is fine.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Perhaps I should say: not so full but more frank.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Fine.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: The Secretary of State is living up to her reputation. She knows what to say at the right time and she uses the right word in the right place. We want more candour and more frankness. If the Secretary of State for External Affairs were more frank and more candid perhaps we would not object to all the time he takes. However, we must be kind to the minister who is not here today. Speaking in all seriousness, there is room for strengthening our role in foreign policy by drawing upon the house, the committee and all concerned members of good will in the house who are anxious about our foreign policy, who wish to help and who know that our people are becoming concerned about this matter. Foreign policy is no longer ignored as it was once because, if nothing more, the so-called instinct of preservation would drive us for we all know how fatally we would be affected if the avenues of peace were forsaken for that which it is too dreadful to contemplate.


Mr. C. F. Kennedy (Colchester-Hanls):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to make a few comments in this debate which I feel was not necessary because I do not think a mini-budget between regular budgets is necessary for the simple reason that it comes on the eve of the annual budget. Under the arrangements made with regard to the old age pension supplement the payments will not go out at least until the time the next budget is due. Furthermore, there is an accumulation of funds in the old age security account which would
[Mr. Macquarrie.)
allow the payments to be made until such time as the annual budget is brought down.
What concerns me most is that this budget has directed the attention of the taxpayers of Canada to the fact that its purpose is to support the old people of this country. I think this is grossly unfair. If the government is going to single out certain people to budget for especially and to whom special attention must be paid, then I believe the government should go further and do the same in other areas. It should bring down special budgets to cover the costs of expensive royal commissions to which the attention of the public is not drawn too often. For example, the current commission on bilingualism and biculturalism has cost this country now well over $10 million and there seems to be no end in sight. Editorial comments have referred to it as a most expensive exercise in futility.
I am concerned about what has been taking place in recent times with regard to financial matters which has undermined people's faith in investing in their own country. We hear from the government benches diverse opinions on whether we should allow foreign capital into this country or limit ourselves to our own capital. I think that we need both, but we must put most of our efforts into encouraging our own people to invest in our own country.
The public debt of Canada is reputed at the present time to be in the neighbourhood of $1,000 for each man, woman and child. In many funeral services we are told that we bring nothing into this world and we certainly take nothing out of it, but apparently every child who comes into this world in Canada brings with him less than nothing and when he departs leaves less than nothing behind. Not only do we have an inheritance of debt but we are committed to the servicing of this debt which is getting more costly as interest rates go up. At the present time everyone is faced with a charge of $60 to $70 per year to service the debt which we inherited, and the government has made no effort to reduce it. On the contrary, even now in these good times we still face deficits.
A good example of the situation would be a person who inherits a growing farm and instead of paying his way keeps spending money and borrowing money against the property until eventually he has nothing left. Government expenditures in general are directed to consumable goods and services and they are made for things which are useful today but which in future days will either
February 10, 1967	COMMONS
wear out or become obsolete and have to be replaced. I think every encouragement should be given to the government to put more investment into permanent structures, something that will stand for years, such as transportation facilities and other facilities which affect the economy of a particular area.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The recent failures of financial institutions in this country have upset a lot of people. I feel that in this regard the government must move strongly in order to ensure that people who invest in what is known as the trust class of securities will have protection. There is nothing more humiliating for a person than to invest his hard earned savings and find later that the investment is worthless. I say the government should take the lead in this situation because recently there have been indications the government has not even considered honouring some of the commitments of the past. I am referring to the issue in 1936 of $55 million of 3 per cent perpetual bonds. Whether or not the people who purchased them realized they might never be honoured,
I believe that as time went on people treated them as being worth their face value. Since interest rates have risen they have found that these bonds are not tradeable at face value. In other words, these people are stuck with something for which they paid $100 in 1936 only to find that in 1966 and 1967 these bonds will not bring any more than $50 on the market. If you multiply that loss by the amount of inflation which has taken place, you find that the value of these bonds is down to about $20 or $25 on an original investment of $100.
I believe this is a great injustice and should be rectified. If the minister cannot make a new issue at the present time and refund the face value of these bonds, I feel he should set a date a few years hence when these bonds will mature. This action would stabilize the market for the bonds and if people wanted to hang on long enough they would realize their face value. I believe they are entitled to some encouragement to hope that some day they will get the face value of these bonds purchased with money they had put aside in those days.
I believe that the government must provide more funds to aid the country. There should be greater government participation in education in order to assist those who are able to absorb higher education. On the other hand, those who for one reason or another are not able to pursue higher education should also
The Budget-Mr. Kennedy be looked after and something should be done for them. Although some provision is being made now for these people, I think more could be done to bring them to a place where they could participate in the production of the country and earn a decent living for themselves and their families. In this regard the government could also help in the general development of the country in order to provide opportunities for these educated people. There are many parts of this country still underdeveloped. I did say that if Canadians perhaps put more of their money into development through private enterprise, this would provide opportunities for young people. However, private enterprise must be assisted by government in the fields of communication within the country and in trade relations with other countries.
I should like to turn now to a more local aspect of my theme. In the province of Nova Scotia from which I come there is probably more room for development with the limited resources we have than anywhere else in the country. We have an organization called the Atlantic Development Board. It was set up to deal with certain aspects of development in that area. The Atlantic Development Board is very much concerned now with studying the development of tourist attractions in the maritime provinces. In this day and age when highways are better and people have more leisure, the tourist industry is becoming one of our greatest industries.
The Atlantic provinces have much to offer to tourists. We do need more access roads to some of the assets we have there. A highway has been projected from the United States border around the head of the Bay of Fundy to the southwest tip of Nova Scotia. This highway would go through a great scenic area. As a matter of fact, much of the highway is already there but there are certain links that need to be developed in order to make it truly a vacation trail. One of these links is the crossing of a major obstacle near Truro known as the Shubenacadie River. The construction of such a crossing would shorten the mileage and also attract people to the seashore along which are the highest tides in the world as well as many other attractions which one cannot see anywhere else.
This crossing would not only be of great benefit to the tourist industry but also to the people in this area who are in reasonably close proximity, as the crow flys, to the town of Truro which is fast becoming an educational and industrial centre as well as a


The Budget-Mr. Mather health centre as a result of recently expanded facilities. It is only fair to the people in this area that they have access to this town, and a crossing of this major obstacle would reduce the mileage one would have to travel. As a matter of fact, in so far as health is concerned it would probably save lives because of the ability to get medical help quickly.
This trail, I believe, would also benefit another depressed part of that area, namely, the area to the west of Truro which has unfortunately been more or less bypassed by the development of the trans-Canada highway. It is an area which certainly needs some development. Actually it is one of the most beautiful parts of the province. Every effort should be made to get tourists into that area so that they could feast their eyes on the beautiful landscape. I would commend to anyone visiting Nova Scotia the north shore of Nova Scotia and the hundreds of miles of ocean beach which are practically unoccupied and readily accessible along the sunrise trail. Facilities are available there, land is reasonable and the municipalities will co-operate in making it economically feasible for people to move in and build cottages. The waters are warm, sheltered and shallow, suitable for swimnrng in the summer months and good for other water sports. I commend this area to anybody visiting Nova Scotia. They will enjoy it.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Brule beach.


Cyril Frost Kennedy: Yes, Brule beach is one place. I have mentioned the high tides in the bay of Fundy. I am glad to know that a study is being made to harness these tides to produce hydroelectric energy. It is estimated, according to experts, that the tides in and around Minas basin alone can develop enough power to heat and light half of North America. It would cost a lot of money to develop this undertaking but once developed it would operate with little cost for 100 years. The government would have to participate in the study until it can be shown to private interests that it would be profitable for them to take over and develop the project. The project would serve generations to come. It is not something which would have to be renewed twice in every generation.
It has been a pleasure to take part briefly in this debate and I thank the house for its attention.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, it is permissible and customary for members speaking on the budget to discuss practically anything but the budget. I shall confine my few remarks to the budget and to some of the circumstances which appear to me to influence it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You will need the permission of the house.


Barry Mather: My hon. friend says I shall need the permission of the house to confine myself to the budget.


An hon. Member:: Then you will not speak for long.


Barry Mather: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) has said: "Well, we have increased the old age pension to certain old age pensioners and now we must find the money to pay for that increase." The only way to do that, he suggests, is by increasing taxes. I hope to contradict his proposition.
To show the mixed-up society we live in and the inflationary spiral in which we are involved, let me point out that before those old age pensioners most in need have received the increase their rents have gone up. We are receiving letters from old people saying their rents have been increased. This situation results from the housing shortage and not from mean landlords. The housing shortage is part of the general inflationary situation. The housing shortage means a greater pressure on rents. Rents are rising not only for young wage earners who may be able to afford them but for old people who have little to exist on. I do not blame the government for the housing shortage, though had it acted earlier and more resolutely the housing situation in Canada could have been better than it is today.
It is only fair to say that though the government might have done better the greatest factor influencing inflation in this country is generated not here but south of the international border. The United States is at war. This is the big fact in North America today. What happens in the United States affects our budget, education, pensions and production. The fact is like it or not, that the United States is at war. We are geared to a warfare state. At this time the United States is spending $55 million a day in Viet Nam, $1 billion a week for general defence purposes and $40 billion a year in general war contracts. This is


a massive injection of public money, representing an increase of debt, into the private enterprise or capitalistic system. In large measure this enormous amount of money is going into the production of non-consumer goods. One result is that there are fewer consumer goods to be bought by the greatly extended numbers of dollars in circulation.
To increase taxes in our country, particularly sales taxes, in the light of the tremendous economic influence and impact we face from the United States will defeat the purposes the minister has set forth. The minister believes that his policy is anti-inflationary. I contend, particularly in regard to the increase in the sales tax, that his policy will lead to higher prices and higher wages followed by even higher prices and higher wages, with the latter pursuing the former.
There is an alternative to increased taxes open to the government. I have been amused, as a former newspaperman, to read the editorial pages of many Canadian newspapers whose editors sagely nod their heads, agreeing with the Minister of Finance that the only way to get money for the increased old age pensions is to increase taxes. Surely there is a simple and clear alternative to increase taxes-reduced spending.
We should be like a family living on a budget. When a family decides to spend more money on one project it decides to spend less money on another. In my opinion we have a great, shadowy area, national defence, where we might well explore a reduction of expenditure. Let me quote figures for the record. In the last 20 years we have spent in the order of $25 billion on defence. We are now spending $1.5 billion yearly. In this country of 20 million people we spend no less than $4.24 million a day on defence. The total federal personal income tax for the fiscal year April 1, 1965, to March 31, 1966, was little more than $2 billion. In that same period we spent more than $1.5 billion on so-called defence. We spent a sum on defence approximately equal to three fourths of all federal personal income taxes. If we also include the hundreds of millions of dollars we spend on veterans affairs and veterans pensions, which are an adjunct of defence, we see that our total defence spending equals practically all the money received from personal income taxes. We have spent $25 billion in the last 20 years on defence. Though we have done this, and I do not think that all the money has been wasted by any means, I have yet to meet
The Budget-Mr. Southam anyone who really contends that in this atomic age Canada can defend herself against nuclear attack. I believe this is an area which ought to be considered seriously before attempts are made to raise more money by increased taxes.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I should like to remind the house of the remarks made by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) who spoke on the subject of defence some time ago outlining some of the economies which must be made and suggesting that in line with the realities of 1967 we should change our defence commitments in such a way as to bring about the withdrawal of our brigade and air divisions from Europe, the closing down of the obsolete Bomarc SAGE air defences, and a review of our present antisubmarine role. He went on to say that in place of today's expenditures we should concentrate on a tri-service or unified, efficient force available for peace keeping roles.
I wish to place before the house the general proposition that instead of moving toward increased taxes we should study means of reducing our expenditures. With this point in mind, I intend to vote against the budget resolutions if I have the opportunity to do so.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to take part in the debate on the mini-budget but since I did not have an opportunity to discuss the main budget last year I felt I had a few remarks I would like to make which would be pertinent at this time. Many of the problems which face us have, of course, already been discussed at length by earlier speakers.
I was impressed by the suggestion of the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand) that we should mark our centenary by commemorating our great Canadians by portraying them on stamps or by using other means of keeping them before the public eye for a century to come or for several centuries in Canada's future.
When dealing with budgets we naturally think of taxation. That is the first thing which comes to mind. In the past year there has been no lack of evidence as to how unpopular the government is becoming by trying to go too far too fast so far as taxation is concerned. Simple and direct evidence of this can be found in the postponement of the medicare program which had to be sidetracked and put off for a year until July 1, 1968.


The Budget-Mr. Southam
The federal government has increased revenue from income tax and sales tax by about $300 million and will likely raise this sum to $500 million when the national health insurance plan comes into effect. This, of course, is one of the main causes for the rise in the cost of living in Canada until it has reached its highest point in Canadian history. The increase in the present year alone amounted to between 3 and 4 per cent. We are hoping, of course, that the government will take account of some of the suggestions which members of the opposition have put forward during the present debate and on previous occasions to bring about a halt in this inflationary spiral before our goods are priced right out of the world market upon which Canada depends so greatly for its economic survival. All these questions have been discussed already at some length but I refer to them in passing so as to re-emphasize the need to take a serious look at the direction in which we are heading in this centennial year.
I wish to turn now to a subject about which I have been concerned for a long while-our national parks policy. Over the years as a member of this house I have been advocating the development of further parks as well as the development of the tourist industry generally in Canada as one of the basic ways by which we could enhance and accelerate our economy. As we know, Canada is a veritable gem, one of the most beautiful countries in the world. In the last few years I have had the privilege of visiting many parts of the earth's surface and I have come home more satisfied than ever to be a Canadian, to look at this fine land of ours and realize what a potential it has.
If we study our economy we find that our first source of income is the pulp and paper and wood products industry and the second is the export of our agricultural products. Our third source of income-this is not realized by many Canadians-is the tourist industry. Figures indicate that in 1966 the revenue derived from tourism amounted to more than $600 million. In the present year, with the impetus given by the world fair in Montreal, it is anticipated that this figure will reach $1 billion. This shows the extent to which the tourist industry has become an important part of our economy, something to which we should continue to pay serious attention.
I have been advocating a reconsideration of our national parks policy particularly as it applies to Saskatchewan. I was very pleased when the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development (Mr. Laing) told us a year ago last April that at long last it would be government policy to develop a second national park in the province of Saskatchewan. This statement naturally interested and excited the people of our province. As hon. members know, over the years we have lacked a varied basis for our economy. We have been dependent for the most part on agriculture though in the last 10 or 20 years we have begun to come into our own, thanks to attention from the government, particularly the attention paid to some of our problems by the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). Having come from that province and lived there for many years the right hon. gentleman realized that we could not live by bread alone and began to develop a policy to help the western provinces and, of course, the maritimes, whose problems are somewhat similar to ours in the west. The roads to resources program was a basic part of this policy and it is paying off, as Canadians fully realize.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
As I say, I was glad to hear the minister announce two years ago that we were going to have a second national park. Since then we have been waiting patiently for its finalization. You, Mr. Speaker, will remember that I questioned the minister about it in the house and on one occasion at your discretion I was ruled out of order. I then placed questions on the order paper as to why the new park was not being brought into being. So far nothing definite has been stated about when the park will be developed or where it will be situated in Saskatchewan. Again I point out to the minister that the people of Saskatchewan would like to hear soon when this development will take place. I am disappointed that it is not being developed this year as another centennial project in the economic life of this great land of ours.
A number of years ago, during the time when the party of which I am a member was in office, we discussed diversification of our economy and the desirability of having subsidiary industries located in various parts of the country which lacked industry. We in Saskatchewan felt it was a province in which there should be such diversification. Through automation our agricultural industry was beginning to increase in productivity, but our population loss was becoming very serious because we were not able to provide sufficient jobs for all the young Saskatchewanites we

February 10, 1967	COMMONS
were raising and educating. The young people had to leave home and move to other provinces. Our loss was the other provinces' gain. Bearing in mind the economics of human resources and the potential of having a lot of people in one particular area, I do not need to emphasize how serious was the problem to Saskatchewan.
Of course we had another problem in Saskatchewan for a number of years. The political climate there was not compatible to the retention or development of industry. The C.C.F. party there does not like to be reminded about this, but its policies were such that industry did not feel too happy about the prospects of going into Saskatchewan.
I can think of one example to emphasize this point, Mr. Speaker, where the former government of Saskatchewan took it upon itself to tax oil companies on the road allowances adjoining land which had been leased to them. This irritated some of the companies to such a considerable extent that they deliberately moved their head offices from Saskatchewan to other provinces rather than pay that unfair tax.
Many other such instances could be cited, but it so happens that we now have another free enterprise government in the province. Of course I do not think it will do quite as well as if a Conservative government were in charge of the province, because I do not feel it is doing a better job than we could in inducing industry to establish in Saskatchewan.
One of the things we greatly hoped for in Saskatchewan was the promised heavy water plant which was discussed on numerous occasions in this house. The fact that it did not materialize was a great disappointment to me as the member representing the area in which it was to be developed. It was a great disappointment to Saskatchewan as a whole, and I know it was very embarrassing to the present premier of Saskatchewan when the proposed project fell through.
To me it is passing strange that two years ago the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) announced that tenders had been advertised for a second heavy water plant. He said that the tenders would be considered in January, 1965. In the month of February, 1965, tenders were opened and the minister got up in the house and made a very positive announcement to the effect that the world's largest heavy water plant would be constructed at Estevan, Saskatchewan, with construction to commence about August of that year.
The Budget-Mr. Southam
I do not think I need to relate in great detail the gruesome disappointment that faced the people of Estevan and that part of the province, and the Premier of Saskatchewan, when early in August, 1965, word came over the wires that Western Deuterium Limited had withdrawn its proposal. It had not broken a contract but simply withdrew its proposal to build the plant. Immediately we knew that there had not been any hard and fast agreement with Western Deuterium. The government had just taken the proposal and the minister came into this house and made a positive announcement leading Canadians, particularly the people of Saskatchewan, to believe that at last Saskatchewan was being recognized so far as industrial redistribution was concerned.
I need hardly mention also the furore which was created in the city of Estevan. This was to have been a $40 million plant. You, Mr. Speaker, can appreciate the planning that had to be undertaken in a city like Estevan, with a population of around 9,000 people, to provide the facilities that would be necessary. Such facilities normally cannot be provided overnight. Real estate began to change hands. Several contractors were starting to build apartments to house the 500 people required to build the plant and were making plans to build permanent homes for approximately 200 engineers and technical workers who would be running the plant when it came into operation. The city fathers had to call on the provincial government for support and advice with respect to municipal services that would have to be provided, water facilities, hydro, and sewage. A great deal of expense went into this preparation and it was a very great disappointment to the people of Saskatchewan and the people of this area in particular when the proposal was withdrawn.
Examining the matter in retrospect it seems to me that at that particular time the ministers responsible for national parks policy and the proposed heavy water plant must have been taking advantage of a situation in which they thought they could develop good political propaganda, because everybody seemed to anticipate that there would be an election either in the spring or fall of 1965. These great promises, headlined in the Saskatchewan daily newspapers and supported by the Premier of Saskatchewan himself, made it look as though the federal Liberal government was on its toes and would finally do something for our great province. I maintain that the government now owes us something


The Budget-Mr. Southam to compensate for these disappointments, particularly the disappointment over the proposed heavy water plant. Once again I strongly urge the ministers concerned to take serious cognizance of these remarks.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Another matter it is pertinent to mention at this time is Expo '67, which is referred to so often in the House of Commons and of which we are so proud as part of our centennial celebrations. During the Christmas holiday I had the pleasure of visiting our great sister nation to the south for a couple of weeks. I was relatively far south for a period of a week or two. When I mentioned our centennial celebrations and used the phrase "Expo '67", no one seemed to know what I was talking about. They said, "What does that mean?" They were not familiar with the expression. On the contrary, when I spoke of the world fairs at Brussels or Seattle or the recent one in New York city, they knew what I was talking about. It was necessary for me to go to some length to explain that Canada is celebrating its one hundredth birthday and that as a part of the celebration we are developing what we hope will be one of the greatest world fairs in history.
Just a few days ago, during a discussion on a C.B.C. program, the point again was brought home to Canadians that we are not selling Expo '67 in the proper manner. I am not saying this with the intention to disparage the officials of Expo. I believe most of us in the House of Commons, because we are adjacent to the area, are very well aware of what Expo '67 is and are looking forward to attending this great exhibition. I am thinking, however, of the economic welfare of Canada and the population as a whole.
I am sorry the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) is not in the house. I believe he should take a serious look at this situation to see whether emphasis should be put on the words "Canada's World Fair" instead of the words "Expo 67". The expression "world's fair" amplifies the importance of the event. This is something about which I believe all of us should be concerned. I was very disappointed and concerned when I learned of the lack of knowledge on the part of a great many people who live farther south, people whom we hope will visit us in large numbers this year. They did not know what I was talking about when I used this terminology.

Recently, of course, we have been interested in what has been going on closer to home. This brings me back to the budget and finances, as well as the row over the Mercantile Bank. The principal points involved in the Stevens-Coyne-Westbank-British International Finance dispute are set forth in a recent issue of the Financial Post. I believe it would be worth while to quote this editorial for the record because I am in agreement with the opinion stated therein in respect of this matter. This is what the Financial Post has to say about this dispute:
In 1964, the Porter royal commission on banking and finance, appointed by the Diefenbaker government, recommended that Canada should not allow control of Canadian banks to fall into foreign hands. It was concerned about the grave concentration of power that might shift outside Canada, particularly to New York.
Canada is not the only country which has faced this problem. Britain hasn't much formal organizational control through legislation but it has immense influence in practice over the conduct of foreign financial institutions. In France, licensing of a foreign bank is subject to the discretion of the government. Japan insists that at least 50 per cent of the stock of all corporations, including banks, must be owned by Japanese, and has extensive controls on foreign exchange and capital movements.
Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Australia, South Africa all arrange, one way or another, to set limits on foreign banks.
Even in the U.S., only six states or areas- Washington, Oregon, California, New York, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands-specifically permit foreign banking and none permits a complete range of banking service.
Canadian policy, at the time First National City Bank was buying Mercantile, was clearly aimed at keeping control of Canadian banks within Canada. If there was any doubt, Canada's finance minister personally made this policy plain to the Citibank people. He didn't have to warn them, but it was surely in their interest that he did so.
Washington charges that Ottawa is discriminating against U.S. banks. But the new ownership rules are being applied to the Canadian owned banks as well as to the Mercantile. All Canadian banks will have an upper limit of 25 per cent foreign ownership now, and a limit of 10 per cent in any one foreign holder's hands.
No small nation could have a better big next door neighbour than Canada has, and Americans have reason to feel lucky that they have a bountiful friendly Canada close by.
Unfortunately, the Mercantile dispute involves an issue on which Ottawa can't back down.
The U.S. banks accept local restrictions in other countries. Perhaps Washington will have the good sense to realize that Canada's stand is reasonable.
In my opinion, this puts in a nutshell the general thinking of most Canadians. I do not always agree with the policy of the government in respect of economic matters, but here
February 10, 1967	COMMONS
is one instance in which I do agree with them. I think the Financial Post puts this whole matter into proper perspective.
Another matter about which I am concerned has to do with our economic welfare. I am thinking now of western Canada and the proposed increase in the St. Lawrence seaway tolls. I was very interested to receive from the Great Lakes Waterways Development Association a copy of a speech made by Mr. Paul Yakabuski, M.P.P. for Renfrew South, in the Ontario legislature quite recently. I think this more or less exemplifies the feeling of the people in western Canada as well as the feeling of the people of Ontario about this matter. I should like to quote a few excerpts because I think it puts forward my views even more effectively than I could.
When the costs of moving such essential bulk commodities as coal, iron ore, limestone and petroleum products to the industrial heart of Canada go up, a very unfavourable influence is exerted upon the economy of this province.
Higher power and raw material costs to primary manufacturers mean higher costs and prices of semi-finished products to secondary manufacturers. Hence, the cost of Ontario finished goods to wholesale and retail distributors in all parts of Canada go up; and this multiplier effect is reflected in prices to consumers in every part of this country.
In similar fashion, the costs and prices of Canadian natural and manufactured products destined for foreign markets go up, thereby lessening the ability of producers throughout the Canadian economy to compete in the ever more competitive world market.
It is for those reasons that the province of Ontario, along with the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan-
I should like to re-emphasize this, because it is equally effective in, and pertains to, the western provinces.
It is for those reasons that the province of Ontario, along with the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan, opposed the seaway toll and Welland ship canal lockage charges recommendations of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority at the toll hearings held in Ottawa on May 25th and 26th last year.
It is interesting to note the following;
Of the 58 submissions with respect to its recommendations presented to the Seaway Authority at the Ottawa toll hearings last year, only two were in favour of the recommended increase in seaway tolls, and the imposition of lockage charges on the Welland ship canal.
But despite the opposition of the Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan governments, and of very highly qualified and responsible organizations, to the toll and lockage charges recommendations; and despite a unique debate in the House of Commons on May 26, 1966, inspired by that overwhelming opposition, when members of all five of our political parties including four courageous members of the
The Budget-Mr. Southam Liberal party, opposed the recommendations, the Seaway Authority has ignored all the submissions.
I spoke on this matter during the debate in the month of May last year. At that time I emphasized, and I emphasize again, that if these tolls are imposed the people in western Canada will be faced with a double impost because the tolls will affect the shipment of their grain to eastern markets through the St. Lawrence seaway. Eastern Canada is the heart of our industrial area. This is where all the heavy goods such as cars, machinery, refrigerators and so on are manufactured. These goods are shipped through the seaway to the head of the lakes and then through the great area of the west which is not heavily populated and now will have no bridge subsidy formerly payable on goods shipped by rail through northern Ontario. By the time these products reach our markets in western Canada the penalty of any increase imposed in the St. Lawrence system is doubled or tripled. I implore the minister to consider our recommendations not to increase these tolls.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The article to which I referred makes reference to the courage displayed by Liberal members who have spoken in opposition to this measure. This should be an indication to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) that he should look seriously at this policy before making a final decision.
Let me reiterate something said by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand), and touched upon by another of my colleagues, the hon. member for Colchester-Hants (Mr. Kennedy), regarding education. The greatest resource in Canada is not gold in the ground, wheat in the field, minerals or forest products, but rather the human resource.
It was interesting and rather disconcerting to read Dr. Deutsch's report on education in Canada and how it affects our productivity. This is something about which we should be concerned during this centennial year. We should try to assist our provinces in turn to provide assistance at the primary, secondary and university levels of education in order that we may utilize to the maximum degree the potential ability of our population.
I was interested in an article written by Dr. Spinks, president of the University of Saskatchewan, who was quoted in the following terms;
"Contrary to a widely held belief, our average educational level is considerably behind that in the United States. In 1961, only 6 per cent of the whole working force in Canada held a university


The Budget-Mr. Southam degree compared with 11 per cent in the United States. About 25 per cent in Canada had four years of high school compared to 50 per cent in the U.S."
This same article also states that-
-Dr. Spinks referred to a 1961 National Research Council report which said that unless Canada as an industrial power is content to remain inferior to the U.S. and the United Kingdom, a way must be found to induce industry to devote more of its resources to research.
Another paragraph of the article reads as follows:
Noting the emphasis placed by recent economic studies on "the overriding influence of education" in increasing the gross national product, Dr. Spinlcs said, "it is not just chance that for many years Canadian productivity has been only 70 per cent of that of the United States".
Dr. Spinks said it was not just chance that productivity has been only 70 per cent of that in the United States, but because our standard of education has not been developed on a basis similar to the one in that great country. These facts should weigh heavily on our minds, and the authorities responsible for alleviating this situation should adopt as a centennial project-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. I regret to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, I have just about concluded my remarks, and can do so within a minute or two.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Has the
hon. member leave to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Richard Russell Southam: Thank you. A survey was conducted a number of years ago in the province of Saskatchewan regarding the relationship between education and income. At that time the average income there was approximately $5,000 per year. That was approximately ten years ago. That survey was based on a productive life expectancy of 40 years, from age 20 to 60. On that basis the average individual would contribute something in the neighbourhood of $200,000 to society over a period of 40 years.
Using that as an example it seems to me that we could enhance our productivity by increasing average annual salaries to $6,000 or $7,000. This can only be done by developing the potential capacity of individuals through higher education. About 30 years

ago Saskatchewan had a population of roughly 850,000. It gradually increased to about 860,000, but then started to decrease because of automation in agriculture and an unfavourable political climate. The people in Saskatchewan desire to enjoy the same standards of services and education as are enjoyed by other areas of Canada. Because of this decrease in population the tax load was borne by a smaller number of citizens. This resulted in a very high tax structure. It is imperative that we maintain some even distribution of population and industry. We must improve our educational system as quickly as possible in order to obtain a better balanced economy.
Some months ago a very interesting article appeared in the Weekend Magazine regarding secondary education in schools of the nonacademic type. The minister of labour in the former Progressive Conservative administration the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) realized that one of the basic causes of unemployment in this country was lack of knowledge or specialized training. As a result of his efforts our vocational and educational trade school program was developed. Very few people realize what this program has done to increase our productivity and economic strength. We have been happy to note that the present government has not cut back on this program, although there has been some indication that it may place more of this load on provincial governments. Vocational training is something that should be emphasized throughout Canada, because not everyone can become a professional. This is an age of specialization and we must have people trained in specialized fields.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government to consider seriously the comments which have been made, particularly those in respect of the province of Saskatchewan. Any improvement in the economy of that province will naturally be reflected by a general improvement in the economic welfare of this country.
[DOT] (4:10 p.ra.)


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I wish to deal with one major issue. It is an issue that is not new to this house and is one about which I am sure we will hear much more in the ensuing months. I am particularly glad that the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) is in her seat this afternoon, because I am hopeful that these words will provide some impetus or motivation, particularly on the part
February 10, 1967	COMMONS
of her department, with regard to what I consider to be a critical problem in our country today. This is a problem related to the whole sphere of political action and political responsibility, not only in respect of those who are elected representatives or civil servants, but people generally.
Perhaps because I am a freshman member of parliament some of my reaction to the systems by which we govern ourselves will be considered rather bold. Perhaps, in some senses of the word, they will be even naive. But one of the things that has never ceased to amaze me since becoming a member of parliament is the very close relationship that exists between those of us who work on this floor and those who occupy the press gallery. It is that crucial relationship, indeed, that establishes some kind of rapport and understanding in the country for what politics and political action are all about. When that relationship breaks down or becomes confused, not only does parliament suffer but I think the whole process of self-government suffers greatly.
One of the things that has continued to concern me very much about this whole question is the fact that we have invoked in our political processes and parliamentary activity a kind of discrimination that I think would not be tolerated for one moment in any other sphere of human activity. We have continued to acquiesce in this discrimination, to allow it to be accepted, almost without question, until we have given a kind of preferential treatment to one aspect of the mass media of communication and discriminated against the rest. I think that part of the problem of relating the process that takes place in this house to people generally is faulty and inadequate communication. Marshall McLuhan would put it this way, I suppose, that we have moved from the era of print to one of the electronic age in which now it is possible for people to become, almost quite literally, plugged-in on the important events of our civilization. I believe that in our time we have seen this most uniquely and clearly when events of great national and international significance have taken place.
I do not believe it would ever have been possible in any previous era for a whole continent, and one might say almost the whole of a civilization, to become related as one community to the events in Dallas and Washington on a particular week end in 1963, had it not been for the availability of television. Television transformed what was a national
The Budget-Mr. D. MacDonald and somewhat localized event into an international, indeed almost universal, experience. We also have the further experience that continues to take place from time to time of the occasional satellite attempts, particularly by the United States, to which immediate access is given by television to millions of viewers.
We have had events of national significance in our country over the past few years, but they have not commonly been available to people in some of their most important points because we have exerted a kind of media discrimination. This discrimination is not something that began this year or last year, but rather it has been going on for a number of years and has been tolerated almost without comment by nearly everyone.
So I speak out for a new understanding of the nature and uses of mass media and ask that they not be used to expose for purposes of power or popularity any individual in this house or outside it, but to create a more genuine, a more thoughtful and a more purposeful dialogue between our activity in the house and the thoughts and desires of the nation. I think it has been interesting to observe over the past few weeks the reaction of many people-it has been almost general across the country-to one of the most recent television dramas of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I refer to the Quentin Durgens program. I wonder whether hon. members have thought, as I have, why this program so immediately created an interest on the part of people living all across this country.
I am sure that many members of this house have discovered in their travels to their constituencies that this popular program, which was on the television screen for the short period of seven or eight weeks, established a whole new series of thoughts and considerations and, perhaps what is even more important, sympathy for those who labour within the confines of parliament. Perhaps we could say that one of the reasons was that it was a very good drama, that the writer George Robertson and the producer David Gardner were men of exceptional ability and were able to provide us with good television entertainment. I believe there was more to this program than entertainment, because time and time again it has been made quite clear to me by many friends and neighbours that here, for the first time, people who had never had the opportunity of coming to grips with


The Budget-Mr. D. MacDonald parliament were able to get inside, to understand strange and baffling terms like "caucus", "party whips" and "parliamentary committees". They were able to understand even in some minor way what they meant. I think this is crucial.
If there has been cynicism, and there has, on the part of many as to the effectiveness of our parliamentary process today, I think this one, short television series did more to dispel it than any other single thing in modern day experience. This program taught us a lesson, I hope, that we have in our systems of mass communication, radio and television, an unparalleled opportunity to greatly facilitate and make much more effective our whole program of self-government. I think it is tragic that we have for so long barred the door against these two important media and exercised a kind of discrimination in this respect.
I am told that a number of years ago when radio first became significant in our country, the only reporters allowed in the press gallery were those who were providing written reports for newspapers, magazines and journals; but of course some of the radio systems wanted to have access to what was going on in parliament and I am told they made application to become members of the press gallery.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Somehow it seemed odd and strange to allow these people who were not writing the news, but speaking it, to be given that access, and therefore in the early years those who provided news for the radio waited outside the press gallery, and when some member came out they asked him questions to find out what had been going on inside. This seems ridiculous to us today. I do not think that anyone would rise in his place in the house and demand that all those who report for radio and television should be kept out of the press gallery. But we do. I know we allow them to come in physically to write down what they hear or what they see, but when it comes to someone recording either on film or on tape the events which take place in the house, objections are raised as if this would almost defile this house. I think that this is a tragic misreading of the opportunities which both the radio and television provide to us in this electronic era.
It seems strange also, when politicians are so inclined to look for precedents for actions, that we are more than willing to ignore a number of precedents both in our system and

in other countries that have made available to the mass media the great forums for decision making and legislative action.
A few years ago when I was travelling in Australia I remember being able to tune in the radio at any point in that country and hear at that very moment what great matters of state were being discussed in their legislative chambers. It seemed to me a great thing. I am not sure whether the audiences there are very large, in fact I believe that the reverse is true, but the opportunity is there, and that is of immeasurable value.
I am not so much concerned about this chamber specifically but about the various urgent, important and interesting matters that are being discussed in our committees. Surely this has been a year in which it would have been more than interesting to have live reports, video taped records or tape recorded reports of the various committee discussions such as perhaps the discussions which are going on this very afternoon in the defence committee, those that dealt earlier with the problems of the Mercantile Bank, or more recently the altercation between Mr. Coyne and Mr. Stevens, or even earlier in this session the long discussions over the "Seven Days" controversy. I am sure there was a great deal of public interest for all these matters, and yet in each and every one of these committees the cameras were treated as if they were some kind of furtive alien.
In some instances the television camera was poised outside the committee room door, lurking as if it were some kind of an unwanted interloper, and occasionally when the opportunity arose, glimpsing some picture within. And yet, sitting at the very front desk in each committee, was the press, writing, if they wished, every single word that was expressed in that committee and also adding for the benefit of the reader any particular emotional expressions or nuances that might not be expressed in the verbalized word.
I cannot understand why, when we have encompassed so much that is modern and new in our technology, we have continued to exercise a kind of prejudice against the visual and the aural, because it is true as true can be that the major decisions of people that are being made with respect to the whole of the democratic process are largely being made in response to what they have seen on the television screen, or what they have heard on the radio. Indeed if we were to take a survey I am sure that we would discover that the great majority of our population today spends
February 10, 1967	COMMONS
so much time watching television-well over 20 hours a week on the average-that this is their great forum of communication.
In spite of this we have effectively blocked year after year the availability to people of what is happening in this place. I think we have done a great disservice to parliament, and even more than that we have done a great disservice to the people of this country.
This matter has been raised on a number of occasions during the present session, and at this point I would like to remind the house of what has been said, and of the understanding which we now have on this matter. On one of the earliest occasions in this session, on May 4, 1966, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), in discussing the questions related to the establishment of quorums in the house and in committees, said the following, as recorded on page 4675 of Hansard:
I have on more than one occasion-and this is an opportunity to raise this matter again-expressed the view that if we wish to restore parliament so the people will understand its operations, one means to bring that about would be through broadcasts or television representation of parliament from day to day. I can tell you, sir, that if this practice were adopted in committees as an experiment there would be no difficulty about having a full quorum in committees at all times.
It has been argued sometimes that to introduce these dangerous communication instruments of radio and television into this house and into committees would cause many hon. members who sit here faithfully day after day to simply sit in their offices, or wherever they might be, and watch television or listen over the radio to what was taking place in the house. Anyone who makes that kind of a statement does not understand the nature of these media and, even more more than that, does not understand the nature of politicians, for I have found very few politicians-and these were not politicians for very long-who were anxious to run away continually from these media and, even more than that, very reverse would be true, as the right hon. gentleman remarked. If we introduced these mass media into this house we might indeed find that more members would be sitting here during the debates, and in fact it might indeed be difficult to extract them to their offices or to committee meetings, where they have to be from time to time.
On Thursday, November 10, 1966 the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather), in dealing with the same matter, asked the 23033-817J
The Budget-Mr. D. MacDonald Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) the following question:
I have a question for the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister consider doing what the British government is doing at this time in respect of a study regarding the televising of the proceedings of parliament?
And the minister answered:
I had the opportunity this summer of observing what is being done and contemplated in this regard in Australia, New Zealand, Italy and Britain. I am informed that Mr. Speaker on behalf of the House of Commons has made a very detailed study of the U.K. experience and plans to telecast in this regard.
This might be a question about which, under the estimates to which they are related-those for the B.B.G. and C.B.C.-the broadcasting committee might well decide to hear witnesses and to discuss this matter. It will be remembered, however, that when such a motion was placed before that committee to televise the committee proceedings during the Seven Days matter, it was rejected. Perhaps Mr. Speaker on behalf of all members will discuss this matter with the broadcasting committee on the basis of that information which I am sure he now has.
An interesting footnote to the comment by the Secretary of State-and of course her information on the first decision of the broadcasting committee was correct-was that at a later date this fall the committee reversed its recommendation and indeed recommended to Mr. Speaker that broadcasting of committees be attempted on an experimental basis.
A further question was raised on the same matter by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition on November 30, 1966 when he asked the following question:
Now that the question of television in the British parliament has been dealt with by a free vote of the British House of Commons sn a motion moved for the purpose, would the Prime Minister consider having a motion placed before the house, free of the whips, to provide for television in this house? I suggest that it might be done on an experimental basis to start with so as to allow us in the house to decide whether it is appropriate at present and in the public interest that an opportunity be given to the Canadian people to see parliament in action. Such a move also would enable Canadians to appreciate better than they otherwise can the operation of this institution.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question of course and I will be very glad to give it my consideration along the lines indicated by my right hon. friend.
Unfortunately, that was on November 30 last and we have had no further indication in this house as to what action might be taken. I


The Budget-Mr. D. MacDonald have been heartened from time to time, Mr. Speaker, by the comments of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Turner), who has in two or three public speeches made remarks to the effect we are moving in the direction of understanding when we permit the accessibility of radio and television to our parliamentary activities.
Finally, I should like to read some letters which form part of the evidence of the broadcasting committee. The first letter is from the chairman of the broadcasting committee to Mr. Speaker and it reads:
I am instructed by the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts to convey to you the committee's opinion that consideration should be given to radio and television broadcasting of a committee's proceedings on an experimental basis. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the twelfth report of the committee's subcommittee on agenda and procedure which was adopted by the committee at its meeting last night.
The Speaker's reply reads as follows:
This will acknowledge your letter of December 13 in which you bring to my attention the recommendations contained in the report of your subcommittee on agenda and procedure.
I am sure you share my doubts as to the committee's authority to submit recommendations regarding radio and television broadcasting of committee proceedings. Looking over the terms of reference of the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts it would appear that it is not empowered by the house to consider the proposals contained in the subcommittee's report.
In my view authority to broadcast or telecast committee proceedings can only be given by the House of Commons itself and I, as Speaker, cannot substitute my judgment for that of the house in this regard.
This would seem to leave the matter squarely in the hands of this place. It is my urgent hope that the government, and more particularly the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh), will bring this matter before the house this year. We have talked in a very grandiose way of the great things we are going to do in 1967. Everyone has been making so many comments that it has become almost a standing joke as to what your own particular centennial project will be. Surely, along with the many other things we have set aside for ourselves to do as worthy projects on this 100th birthday, there is one we might consider for parliament itself. We should make a real attempt to make accessible to the people of Canada what we do in this place. I think if we adopt an enlightened, realistic attitude to the nature and purpose of the mass media we will effect some changes here of real importance.

We will look to the extension of opportunity in this house and in committee for the radio and television media. I frankly think we have missed the boat time and again by denying the rights and privileges to radio and television which we have granted to the print media for 100 years now. Surely it is high time, in this centennial year, that we adopted the same fair attitude toward radio and television. There are many benefits to be gained by it, not the least of which I think is an enlightened public opinion. As every member of this house knows, little can be done in this place unless the public will it to be so. If we are anxious to increase the quality and effectiveness of the legislation that is passed by this house, that is discussed in the various committees, we will have no fear whatever of making available in our many forums complete accessibility to the media of radio and television.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: might, Mr. Speaker, for a few moments I should like to follow along the same theme as the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald). I should like to make a few comments that appear to me to need to be said in so far as the image of parliament is concerned, and in so far as the great demand that seems to be pressing upon his institution to modernize its rules in such a way as to make what many feel has to be a more effective day to day working operation.
What concerns me, and has concerned me for some time, is that on many occasions in this forum we are asked to give up some of the rights we have as a legislative body and turn them over to the executive. More and more, the executive is becoming all-powerful and the legislative body less and less powerful. Whether you look at the problem of the separation of powers from the point of view of political science or philosophy, or whether you look at it on the basis of the day to day work of this institution as compared with the executive, I do not believe you will find there is a great deal of merit in the suggestions that are put forward.
In my opinion, this is a debating forum. This is the forum in which we try to get an expression of opinion from all corners of the house, from all parts of the nation, as to whether or not a given piece of legislation is of real benefit to the development of the nation. At the same time, we give careful consideration to the ways in which the taxpayers' money is being spent. So long as that is the main responsibility of this forum, I do not


believe we should tamper too much with the individual rights of members of parliament, nor do I believe we should greatly strengthen the already strong executive arm of government.
At the same time, I believe there is a responsibility to go into all the various areas of the economic spectrum in our committees. I do not believe this necessarily means we have to develop to a greater degree the kind of thing that seems to be developing in our committees system. For instance, at the moment we have a large body of members who belong to a certain committee of this house away in another part of the nation taking a first-hand look at a certain problem. I do not believe there is anything wrong with committees travelling, if first-hand information is going to be of value. However, I do not believe you need 30 or 40 members away looking at this particular problem. I do not believe the money spent carrying out such a project is really necessary, and I believe our committees ought to be a good deal smaller. At the same time if we spend money, making available to this smaller group of members a greater research capability, we shall be in a better position to get from them a better judgment. They will be able to judge whether the government is approaching a matter properly.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
We could learn a great deal from the United States committees system. Studying the congressional committees system of the United States would be money well spent, especially if two or three men could do a job, instead of having large bodies of members having to travel over the country.
The present committees system of the House of Commons is unfair to committee members. Ministers, arguing for their legislation come before committees with batteries of individuals who prepared the legislation, studied the problem in detail, and who tell the group of committee members why the legislation ought to be approved in that particular form. In the end the members of parliament are brainwashed. Who are they, to argue with the battery of professionals? The individual members have other responsibilities. They can do research work, but their time and financial resources are limited. The resources of the country are available to the minister who wants his legislation approved. It is almost impossible, under the present system, for legislation not to be approved.
The Budget-Mr. Coates
Let us take a look at the situation as it exists. Twenty four or more committees are sitting, most with a quorum of 20 or more members. If all the committees should meet at the same time nobody would sit in the house. Yet, when people come to this chamber they look down and say: "My goodness, onty 20 or 25 members are in the chamber. Where are the rest of them, who have been elected to this institution?" Parliament is given a black eye because the public does not understand that a member may be doing something outside the chamber which he feels is important to his constituents. All too often the impression is that members are away.
When the bells ring for a vote you find, suddenly, that 100 members appear to vote for something. All I say is that in any given time too many committees make too many demands on the available members. Another thing not considered is that, though 265 members are elected to this chamber, 27 are cabinet ministers, a few more are parliamentary secretaries, and some others are involved in the operation of the house. Less than 265 members therefore are available for committee work.
Ministers and parliamentary secretaries are involved in the day to day operations of government and cannot be available for other duties. The number of members available to serve on the 24 committees becomes smaller and-I am looking at the Liberal whip-the whips of the parties have an awful time rounding up members for committees, or to form a quorum in the chamber. Yet the public, looking at the chamber and seeing 25 members, say, "Well, that's parliament for you." Often we cannot explain to the public what a member of parliament does outside the chamber.
If you cut the number of committee members down and gave every member of the house the right to ask questions of any committee with the consent of the chairman, and if you gave research assistance to those serving on committees, you would soon find that experts would develop in the various fields of government. They need not be members of the government.
I must mention something else. When you come to Ottawa, especially if you are a young man and ambitious, you will find that besides intelligence and aggressiveness, religion, where you come from and many other things will determine whether you will sit on the treasury benches-that is, assuming your party forms the government. We cannot do

February 10, 19B7
The Budget-Mr. Coates anything about that, but we can do this: We can make the position of a committeeman truly significant. We can arrange affairs so that, by spending time and energy, a man may become an expert in a field. If a minister came before a committee seeking approval of his legislation, his battery of experts would not in those circumstances brainwash the committee members. The minister would find himself confronted by men who know their subjects. Cabinet ministers in the United States are not elected, but they have to convince their committees, often composed of experts. In our country, if this suggestion were adopted, the minister would know that his legislation would be subject to educated, learned criticism.
Surely, if we left our rules alone, if we
stopped eroding the responsibilities of individual members and endeavoured to make our committees system more effective we would find that legislation returning to the chamber would secure a quicker passage than at present.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Where a committee is composed of, say, 20 men, the majority of them are government members concerned first and foremost with the government's image, whether in committee or in the house. They have at all times to be concerned about the government's image, whether in committee or in this house. The opposition members find great difficulty in amending the legislation. They must either approve or vote against it. So little progress is made before the legislation comes back to the house, and once again hon. members find themselves in the same position as before; I do not see that we are much further ahead.
I understand there is another committee which is supposed to leave in the course of the next two days and go in two directions, taking with it a large number of the members of the house. I do not see anything wrong about members getting across the country, talking to people and hearing different points of view. But I think we are sent here, basically, to do the countrys' business, and most of the country's business can be done here. Most of the groups which desire to make presentations to committees are financially capable of coming here and explaining their position.
On far too many occasions members are not as well equipped to understand these submissions as they would be if better research facilities were available to them. I have been down to Washington on more than one occasion on Canada-United States parliamentary

trips. What impressed me there was that when a congressman or a senator walked into a committee to discuss a subject he had either one or two men behind him, and when a question was referred to him he could turn to them and discuss it, very much as is done in this house when estimates are before us for consideration and the deputy minister, and other officials, are available to the minister for consultation. These men in Washington were capable of speaking on a great range of subjects in a very learned way, because they had the services of research assistants who could bring them up to date at all times on any subject.
If we are to have a more effective parliament we shall need more learned members of parliament. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with the I.Q. of any individual who can get himself elected to parliament; but it is one thing to have the I.Q., and another to be able to develop knowledge in many different fields. The complexity of government in Canada today as compared with 1867 is so great that, rather than saying "penny wise and pound foolish" we would be pound wise and penny foolish if we did not soon move into an area where we tried to assist all members of parliament, regardless of the party with which they are associated, by providing research facilities which would make them better able to understand and criticize whatever was being done. After all, the object of all members should be to produce the legislation which will bring the greatest amount of benefit to the Canadian nation, and this is one way in which this can be accomplished.
There are several ways and means of streamlining some of the rules of the house. For example, I do not see any great value in retaining any longer the resolution stage of bills. During the resolution stage we talk on the same subject as we debate when second reading is discussed. It is a duplication. While the present arrangement may have had merits at one time, I do not think any useful purpose is served by its continuation.
The arrangement for the question period has worked out very well. I was concerned about what might happen when this new idea of a limited question period was introduced, but I think it has worked to the satisfaction of all members of the house. However, there are some other suggested provisional rules which cause me concern. Certainly the rule with regard to the time allotted for a discussion of estimates causes me concern, because


we ended the last session without an opportunity-because of a choice made by the opposition-for having any kind of discussion on estimates, which represented a great deal of the money which was spent. I do not think this is of benefit to parliament in the long run.
If it is necessary to set a time limit-and I do not think it is, necessarily-I believe some time must be spent on all the departments, so that no department is allowed to pass unscanned, without any kind of surveillance by members.
There are other rules which might be streamlined. I do not think it is necessary for speeches to be as long as they are now. We could save time there. I do not know whether the debate on the speech from the throne, or the debate on the budget need to be as long as they are at present, though when we have a chamber composed of as many members as this one is, we must make sure there is reasonable opportunity for everyone to speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



TOBACCO RESTRAINT ACT


Ralph Bronson Cowan: the second reading of Bill No. C-36, to repeal the Tobacco Restraint Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill which I have introduced to repeal the Tobacco Restraint Act was given first reading in the house in July, 1964, and now almost three years later we have an opportunity to discuss the question. I have had to re-introduce the bill on April 8, 1965, and on January 24, 1966. I am happy that in February, 1967, it has been called for debate. I note an hon. member is applauding the speed of the cabinet in making it possible for the bill to come forward so fast.
I would like to state at the very first moment of moving second reading that the act which this bill seeks to repeal, chapter 266 of the revised statutes, entitled "An Act to Restrain the Use of Tobacco by Young Persons," is being broken every day that the House of Commons sits throughout the entire year. It is broken with the open consent of the members of the house and absolutely
Tobacco Restraint Act nothing is done about it. No charge is laid under the act.
I make this statement without any fear of contradiction because under this ridiculous chapter 266, an Act to Restrain the Use of Tobacco by Young Persons, any juvenile under the age of 16 who has cigarettes or cigarette papers in his possession at any time is guilty of an offence and can be convicted. Yet in the House of Commons we have a fine force of page boys, of whom the great majority are under age 16. I do not smoke myself, but I know for a fact that members of the house who do indulge call the page boys to their desks time without number each day, give them the necessary funds and ask them to go to the cafeteria on the fifth floor and purchase cigarettes for them.
The moment a juvenile buys the cigarettes not only is he guilty but the person selling them to him is guilty as well. But no charges are ever laid.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Yes, shame. The page boys bring the cigarettes back to the members and most of them retire, either behind the curtains or into the members' lobbies, and indulge in the pastime of smoking.
There are sections of this act, chapter 266, that cause offence to me and to those who have read it-and I am sorry to say that is a minority of the house-because under this act presumption can be the convicting force.
In section 2 of the act it is stated:
Every one is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction in the case of a first offence
to a penalty	who	sells....cigarettes or
cigarette papers-
.-to a juvenile; and then there are these words:
-which tobacco he knows or has reason to believe is for the use of that person.
How in the name of heaven can anybody tell what is in the mind of a tobacconist when he sells cigarettes or cigarette papers to a child under the age of 16? How do you know the tobacconist "has reason to believe" the child is going to use the tobacco?
Section 3 of the act goes on to point out:
It is the duty of any constable or person having the powers of a constable, or person authorized so to do by any by-law in that behalf made by any authority or person having power to make such by-law, to seize any cigarettes, cigarette papers or tobacco in any form other than cigarettes in the possession of any person apparently-


Tobacco Restraint Act
-note "apparently"-

under the age of 16 years whom he finds smoking or chewing-
And this is the stumbling block in the whole thing to which all members of the House of Commons must object-
-whom he finds smoking or chewing or about to smoke or chew tobacco in any street or public place.
How is anyone going to tell whether someone is about to smoke or chew tobacco just because he may have some in his possession? Mr. Speaker, I had a hard time in the city of Ottawa getting this plug of chewing tobacco which I hold in my hand. I have had it for three years, having bought it when I first introduced this bill in 1964, and this act says that a person may be guilty who is "about to chew tobacco in any street or public place."


Stanley Howard Knowles: So that is what we smell about you.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: It is Sweet Briar. The fact that I have this plug of chewing tobacco in my possession and in my hand I can assure you is no assurance that I am about to chew it, but under this act it is an offence for a juvenile to be about to chew it, and I would like to find the police officer or crown attorney who can prove it.
Section 4 of the act returns to the child under the age of 16 and says of him:
-who, being under the age of 16 years... has in his possession, whether for his own use or not,-
And this is what covers the page boys here. -any cigarettes or cigarette papers-
-is guilty of an offence-
-and liable on summary conviction in the case of first offence to be reprimanded, in the case of a second offence to a penalty not exceeding one dollar, and in the case of a third or subsequent offence to a penalty not exceeding four dollars, who, being under the age of 16 years, smokes or chews tobacco in a street or public place, or purchases or has in his possession, whether for his own use or not-
These are the cigarettes the page boys are taking back to members.
-any cigarettes or cigarette papers, or purchases or has in his possession for his own use tobacco in any form other than cigarettes.
I draw this to the attention of the house to show how ridiculous the act is. The act was introduced in 1908, which is only 59 years ago, and there is not a recorded conviction under it. Why have the statute books been cluttered up with an act like this, which is 
ridiculous on the face of it, which presumes people to be guilty, and on top of that has never had a conviction under it in 59 years?
We come again to those under 16 years of age. Section 5 says:
If, on complaint to a justice, it is established to his satisfaction that an automatic machine, for the sale of cigarettes, cigars or tobacco in any form-
I might interpose, Mr. Speaker, that somebody has been kind enough to send me a cigar. It is a Simon Statesman. Thank you. I am glad it is not a "Politician"; and referring to the cigar I would like to jump for a moment from section 5 of the act to section 7 which says:
For the purposes of this act the word "cigarette" includes any small cigar made of tobacco rolled up in paper, tobacco leaf or any other material.
So, the act covers cigars as well.
To return to section 5, it says:
If, on complaint to a justice, it is established to his satisfaction that an automatic machine, for the sale of cigarettes, cigars or tobacco in any form, kept on any premises, is being used by persons under the age of 16 years, the justice may order the person on whose premises the machine is kept to take such precautions to prevent its being so used as are specified in the order, or, if necessary, to remove the machine within any specified time.
Now, down in the Chateau Laurier hotel, which is government property operated by the C.N.R., there is a cigarette vending machine in the front lobby, and it has this prissy statement on the face of it, "Sales of cigarettes to minors are forbidden by law." I watched that machine for a while the other evening when I was down there and you would be surprised at the number of young lads who came in and purchased cigarettes by putting the necessary funds in the slot, pressing the proper lever, and out popped the cigarettes.
No one was there to see whether they were under 16 years or not. The machine will sell to anybody. You just put in the proper amount of money and press the proper lever. How can you convict a machine for selling to minors when you cannot question the machine in court?
Section 5(3) reads as follows:
Any person upon whose premises there is any such machine may himself or by his agent seize any cigarettes, cigars or tobacco obtained from such machine and in the possession of any person apparently-
Note the word "apparently".
-under the age of 16 years using such machine or smoking or about to smoke such cigarettes, cigars or tobacco.


12S27
I would like someone to define just what is that state of smoking in which you find a juvenile "about to smoke such cigarettes, cigars or tobacco."
Then in section 8 you have in my opinion the most heinous part of the act:
For the purposes of this act any person who appears to the justice dealing with an information or complaint hereunder to be under the age of 16 years shall be presumed to be under that age unless it is shown by evidence that he is in fact over that age, and the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to the proof of the age of young persons apply to offences under this section.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Here we have an act which presumes a person to be under the age of 16, and if he has any tobacco in his possession for his own use or not, he is automatically guilty. These words which presume a person to be in a situation where he is automatically guilty go against my grain. This recalls to me only one thing; that is, the proceedings in this house in respect of section 98 as we knew it. All of us are aware of that nefarious section which in 1919 was introduced by the late Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, and which was known in Canada as the section relating to unlawful association. I am not one who was unfriendly toward the former Co-operative Commonwealth Federation or is unfriendly to the New Democratic Party. I have admired their stand on many questions for many years. I maintain that section 98 might still be on the statute books of Canada had it not been for the insistent demand of the late J. S. Woodsworth that the section be repealed and the continuous support that the Toronto Star gave to the demands that this be repealed. I take off my hat to Hon. Ernest Lapointe for his great efforts in this matter.
I have before me a photostatic copy of section 98 and also copies of sections 97A and 97B. Prior to 1919 the sections were 97A and 97B. Then when amendments were made in 1919 they came into the Criminal Code under the number 98. The first section is labelled "Unlawful Associations." In section 2 of that nefarious act we have:
Any property, real or personal, belonging or suspected to belong to an unlawful association-
Then in section 4 we have, with regard to any prosecutions under this section, the words:
*-if it be proved that the person charged has
(a) attended meetings of an unlawful association ... it shall be presumed, in the absence of any proof to the contrary, that he is a member of such unlawful association.
Tobacco Restraint Act
This was a miserable piece of legislation. Hon. Ernest Lapointe on April 23, 1928, in introducing a bill to kill this section stated:
A bill similar to this has been adopted by this house five times, and in each case it has been rejected by the other chamber.
He went on to point out the nefarious features of the act. In that debate Mr. Woodsworth, as reported at page 2308 of Hansard for April 23, 1928, refers to any property belonging to or suspected to belong to such an organization, and then makes the ringing declaration:
I have always entertained the idea that British justice presumes a man innocent until he is proved guilty. In this case the presumption is that he is guilty until he can prove himself innocent.
In this ridiculous tobacco bill of 1908 the child is presumed to be uder 16 years of age until he proves he is over. I would ask this house to agree to the repeal of this ridiculous piece of legislation. Machines are selling tobacco to anyone who can put money in the slot. We know children under 16 years of age are smoking. No convictions have ever been made under this act in 59 consecutive years.
In calling for the repeal of the act, I should like to read to you the explanatory notes, which were written by a more able person than myself:
The long title of the act which this bill purposes to repeal is: "An Act to restrain the use of Tobacco by Young Persons."
This legislation which has been on our statute books since 1908 has certainly not accomplished what it started out to do. No doubt its purpose was excellent but it has had a contrary effect to what was intended. Like all law which is a dead letter and is not observed it tends to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Furthermore it is vicious legislation in that it is an attempt at thought control for it provides punishment (section 3) for a juvenile "about to smoke or chew tobacco" and (in section 4) for a juvenile who "has in his possession, whether for his own use or not, any cigarettes etc."
Many people have been killed by blows from a hammer or an ax, perhaps it should be made a crime to be found in possession of one of those horrible instruments.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the members of the house to repeal this act. An Act to restrain the use of Tobacco by Young Persons, in the same manner this house repealed section 98 because under our system of justice a man is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I am sure many members of this house, and I think particularly members on


Tobacco Restraint Act
this side, regard the hon. member for York Humber (Mr. Cowan) as an intermittent source of entertainment and enlightenment. In my view he is rather like the light-enment. In my view he is ratherlike the lighthouse with the revolving light which between periods of darkness flashes out, illuminating the landscape and revealing usually its unattractive qualities.
In rising today a few words in respect of this bill, frankly I am of two minds whether I should support it or oppose it. As some hon. members may know, I am one of those in the house who has taken an interest in trying to encourage the government and the country to become aroused over the epidemic disease connected with cigarette addiction. From that point of view it might be supposed that I would naturally oppose any step which would repeal any legislation intended even to reduce or curtail cigarette smoking among our young people.
Imust say that I think so little of our existing Tobacco Restraint Act that two years ago I brought forward a bill to amend it, in the hope that we might be able to put some teeth into it and modernize it so that it will meet the modern conditions of 1967, rather than those of 1908, the year of its origin. Therefore, personally I do not very much care whether the bill the hon. member brings forward is successful, or whether the existing Tobacco Restraint Act is repealed or not. I believe it might be better to amend it rather than repeal it. At any rate, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words and to put some of my views on record concerning the very serious need in this country for better legislation on this subject.
The situation regarding cigarette smoking among our young people in the year 1967 is very different from what it was when this legislation was enacted in 1908. Today we have some 9,000 young people every month starting to smoke cigarettes. They do so partly as a result of the inducement-type advertising on television, radio and in the press. The Tobacco Restraint Act of 1908 has no control over that situation. Throughout the world we have health departments and health experts who have looked into the disease situation. They have all come to the same basic conclusion, that there is a proven link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer and heart disease.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Our own Canadian Department of National Health and Welfare has done great work in recent years in this sphere. Early this week it

released another report underlining the link between cigarette smoking and heart disease. In spite of these educational efforts by health departments, the epidemic of cigarette smoking, with its attendant ill health, continues.
Perhaps it would be appropriate to quote from what has been said on this subject by a medical man of another country. The chief medical officer of the ministry of health in Great Britain said this, as reported in the New Statesman of January 20, 1967:
The increase will go on so long as these undoubted causes of death and illness are sold to a gullible public. Lung cancer and chronic bronchitis, the legacies of cigarette smoking, are not idle threats conjured up in these reports. They are the causes of five times as many deaths as follow road accidents in a year; yet they excite far less comment.
He was, of course, referring to cigarettes.
I should like also to quote very briefly from a United States authority, R. T. Ravenholt, as reported in the August-September issue last year of the National Newsletter. He said:
The "cigarette disease" has been described ... as the foremost preventable cause of death in the United States. He stated that for the American male aged 35 to 65 who smokes 20 or more cigarettes a day, tobacco is a hazard to life which is equal to all other hazards combined.
It is known that 80 per cent to 90 per cent of all lung cancers occur among smokers of cigarettes and more recently it has been recognized that the smoker has an increased risk of dying prematurely of other types of cancer, of heart disease or of chronic chest disease.
It is refreshing to find some progress being made in the combat against the cigarette disease. In England for ten months, there has been no television advertising promoting cigarettes. Quite recently in the United States the New Yorker has joined the Reader's Digest in refusing to carry cigarette advertising. In Canada we find that the government on the one hand spends money to discourage young people from smoking, yet on the other accepts revenue through tobacco taxation. It spends a great deal of money in the development of better types of tobacco. These things all take place at the same time.
Our government continually declines to request the C.B.C. to set an example by refusing to promote cigarette consumption through advertising. No matter how our legislation is worded, as the hon. member has suggested, and no matter how active is our educational work in this health field, we cannot succeed in preventing a great number of our children and young people from beginning to smoke, until we take some legislative step to Stop it.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very brief and to the point. I support the comments of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather) regarding the use of tobacco and the dangers presently faced by our young people who become addicted to smoking. This house owes a debt to the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) because of his ability to ferret out these inadequate and redundant pieces of legislation. Certainly the act the hon. member seeks to repeal has no practical use. I am sure no one in the house could find any reason for allowing it to remain on our statute books.
Like the hon. member for New Westminster, and the hon. member for York-Humber, I do not use tobacco. I also believe that if we really intend to do something about curbing the use of tobacco we should do away with the Tobacco Restraint Act and start from the beginning to draft an act to deal effectively with the problems associated with smoking.
It would be a fine gesture at this time to give unanimous consent to this motion to repeal this act, which is chapter 26 of the Revised Statues of Canada, 1952, thus removing it from our statute books. To this end I earnestly plead to hon. members of this house to support the bill.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: 
Tobacco Restraint Act goes out, but it leaves a coating on the inside of the lungs and cannot but harm the person who smokes this many cigarettes. Any athlete will tell you that if he becomes a heavy smoker he immediately becomes short-winded. Why is this? It is because the bloodstream does not receive the amount of oxygen it needs to function properly.
It does not matter whether the cigarette is filter tipped or not, you still inhale this amount of tar. You can make your own test with handkerchief or Kleenex; you will find tar is inhaled. If you start smoking at the age of 10, 12 or 13 it is not long before your lungs are clotted with tar. Anyone who starts smoking at this age has never given the lungs a chance to absorb oxygen normally.
I stress that if these are the effects, and they are scientifically proven and medically accepted, the government should take a very serious look at this question and make whatever changes are necessary, as suggested by the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan). The hon. member set out his arguments very clearly and has taken the initiative of introducing this bill to repeal the Tobacco Restraint Act. That act should be removed from the statute books altogether, because it is absolutely useless as it stands, or repealed, as is suggested in this bill.
If the government is concerned about the health of the people of this country, not only with regard to water pollution, air pollution and things of that kind, but because of the smoking that goes on under our noses every day, this problem should be looked into and we must see whether legislation can be enacted that will fulfil the hopes of the government in regard to national health. The government should look into this whole problem, if it is to achieve what it hopes to achieve in improving the health of Canadians.
The hon. member for York-Humber has brought this matter to the attention of the house and the departmental officials responsible in this area. I hope the government will take action to remedy the situation and that the efforts of the hon. member for York-Humber and other hon. members of the house who are anxious to see a solution to this problem will not prove to be wasted. I hope this matter is not just on the record so that people can say, "On February 10, 1967, the house spoke on this matter" and we will find ourselves facing the same situation in 1987. The government should take action in this regard. I congratulate the hon. member for

York-Humber for having brought this question to the attention of the house.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I must congratulate the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) for his excellent statement on pulmonary biology and physiology. I knew he was a professor of mathematics but I was not aware of his talents where human physiology is concerned.
Mr. Speaker, I now rise to take part in the debate as a medical doctor, and also as one who has seen several patients suffer from lung cancer because of their immoderate, and even moderate, use of tobacco.
After reading this bill I felt it my duty to make a few remarks. This private bill proposes the repeal of the whole of chapter 266 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, that is the Tobacco Restraint Act.
I need not define the word tobacco. We know it comes from an indigenous American language. It belongs to the solanaceae family, which is native of Tobago, and whose leaves can be smoked, snuffed or chewed in various preparations. Let us say, incidentally, to make a long story short, that tobacco is a vigorous, strong, pleasure-giving and habit-forming plant that may grow as high as two metres, and has large leaves. Probably native of the Caribbean, it was imported into Europe by the Spanish and popularized by France, thanks to the ambassador of Catherine de Medici, Jean Nicot. It is now grown in almost every country. It is all the more dangerous as it is mainly grown in Cuba.
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I share the views of my friend from York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) on the desirability of removing or repealing altogether the act to restrain the use of tobacco by young persons.
Several antiquated laws should be removed from the Criminal Code, I am sure. Yet, in many cases, a law, by its mere presence, has a deterrent or, to use a medical term, a prophylactic effect. If the presence of some laws in a few statute books succeeds in preventing certain offences, I am sure this particular piece of legislation could be used as medical prophylaxis, that is, to prevent people from starting the sad and bad habit of cigarette smoking at an age when they should refrain from doing so.
I agree with my colleague that this particular measure seems stupid. But such a


legislation is often necessary to make individuals, especially young people, behave decently, which they would not do otherwise. Having a father and mother has often prevented teenagers from misbehaving, simply because they thought of their parents or possibly of the authority the parents represent.
I am convinced that, more than ever, it is necessary to feel such authority, whatever its source, in order to have respect for it.
I was speaking of prevention a while ago, Mr. Speaker. There has been considerable study carried out on the subject and more is still being done. But there is one indisputable fact and it is that we are now almost sure that tobacco is a cause of lung cancer.
If we compare the higher death rate among male smokers with that from other causes, it will be noted that lung cancer accounts for 21 per cent of deaths, heart and blood vessel diseases account for 22.2 per cent, coronary diseases for 36.6 per cent, other cancers for 11.9 per cent, other causes for 2.4 per cent, and accidents, poisonings and violent deaths for 2.9 per cent. It is obvious from this that the Canadian people should definitely be brought to realize the dangers of nicotine. And the danger is even greater for cigarette smokers.
Let us look around a bit, if you will. First of all, chances of a cure, in the case of lung cancer, remain very slim, in spite of irradiation and radical surgery. Therefore, prevention rather than treatment should be insisted upon.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Let us take for example coronary diseases. In 1962, arteriosclerosis, the most frequent coronary disease, was the primary cause of death in Canada, having been responsible for the death of 25,549 men and 13,683 women. Cigarette smoking is related to an increase in the mortality rate from coronary disease, particularly among middle-aged men.
Several surveys have demonstrated the existence of a close connection between smoking and death caused by coronary disease. One need only look up page 32 of the report of the Royal College of Medicine and read the American report published on this subject. The mortality rate from coronary disease is higher among cigarette smokers than among non-smokers.
Studies have shown that the mortality rate for cigarette smokers is 1.7 per cent higher than for non-smokers, that the mortality rate due to coronary disease is directly related to the number of cigarettes a person smokes in one day, and that the mortality rate is even
Tobacco Restraint Act higher among middle-aged smokers, as compared with non-smokers.
The results of another study show that, for men between 40 and 49 years of age, the mortality coefficient is 3.9 per cent; then, the coefficient goes down to 2.1 per cent, 1.5 per cent and 1.3 per cent respectively, using ten-year age groups as a basis for comparison. Therefore, there is greater chance of death by coronary disease among middle-aged inveterate smokers.
It may therefore be said that the number of deaths due to coronary disease is lower among those who quit smoking cigarettes, as compared with those who did not.
The following statement may please some hon. members: the mortality rate due to coronary disease among pipe and cigar smokers is the same as that for non-smokers, which now stands at approximately 1 per cent.
The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that the following related diseases, namely chronic bronchitis or, if you would, chronic asthma and emphysema -which also lead to respiratory troubles, caused 1,197 deaths in Canada in 1962.
Studies on the expected effects of cigarette smoking on men reveal that the number of deaths caused by chronic bronchitis, chronic asthma and emphysema is higher with smokers than non-smokers.
There is no doubt that those who suffer from chronic bronchitis or emphysema cough themselves hoarse every morning, especially after having smoked a cigarette on an empty stomach, as shown by the popular expression which many patients use when they come to see us: "Doctor, every morning I almost spit my heart out."
This irritating phenomenon is most conclusive, and it certainly contributes to causing lung cancer. Yet, coughing and spitting are not nearly as common with old smokers as they are with those continue to smoke in general. One needs only refer to the chronic cough of coughers, or smokers' cough, as it is commonly called.
There is improvement when victims of broncho-pulmonary diseases quit smoking. Mr. Speaker, the one who now speaks to you quit smoking almost eight years ago. I may have put on a little weight but, even at that, I feel very fit. I can say that in the morning I feel as gay as a lark. I am no longer, Mr. Speaker, a slave to the cigarette.
It is also true that inveterate smokers always keep in their lungs as much as 50 per


Tobacco Restraint Act cent of the smoke inhaled. A few drops are deposited directly onto the walls of the bronchia, others are picked up by mobile cells mostly in the air sacks; several of the cells emigrate into the bronchia and travel up the walls of the membrane. We also note that the breathing capacity is inhibited in smokers.
It has been proved that those who begin smoking at an early age are short of breath, particularly when doing physical exercise or engaging in certain sports such as hockey, ski or basketball. Moreover, it has been established that cigarette smoke inhibits certain functions of the normal respiratory system, as I have just shown. It has also been noticed-and this is very serious-that a cerebral pollution occurs, causing a certain haze on the brain of the inveterate smoker, who will often put forward obscure and not too clear arguments, resulting in a foggy October morning type of reasoning. This is important for us, in this chamber, for we often feel the lunatic and confusing effect of smoke on the brain, during certain speeches.
There was some reference to the habit of cigarette-smoking in Canadian children. Unfortunately, many of them begin smoking when they are very young. Among their more active members are those in their early teens.
A survey conducted in Canada shows that one half of the boys and one third of the girls are habitual smokers at age 17. If one refers to a survey conducted by a James B. Morrison and published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health in 1964-in that case the survey was conducted among children between grades 5 and 12 in a Winnipeg school-one finds that children smoke very little before age 12, and that progress in school was slower among smokers and this, to a marked degree.
Tobacco addiction finds most of its recruits between the ages of 12 and 16 and, as I said before, at the age of 17, 50 per cent of the boys and 30 per cent of the girls declared themselves smokers. Of course, at the age of 18, those ratios have increased to 55 per cent and 33 per cent respectively.
Finally, let us say, that there is quite a close relationship between the smoking habit among students and their parents. According to the same inquiry, published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health, boys smoked more if one or the other of their parents or both smoked. This is also true of girls, but that habit was connected more frequently with that of the mother. That parental habit influences the girls more than the

boys, according to the studies which have been made.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Reports have also shown that the parents' example in this field will necessarily contribute to increase, decrease or abolish the smoking habit in young people and teenagers. In the United States, 68 per cent of men and 32 per cent of women of 18 years or more were registered among regular cigarette smokers.
Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to show that this bill seems absurd at first sight, especially on reading subsection 1 of clause 4:
-Every one is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction in the case of a first offence to be reprimanded, in the case of a second offence to a penalty not exceeding one dollar, and in the case of a third or subsequent offence to a penalty not exceeding four dollars, who, being under the age of IS years, smokes or chews-
And I doubt that one could chew at 13 years of age-
-tobacco in a street or public place, or purchases or has in his possession, whether for his own use or not, any cigarettes or cigarette papers, or purchases or has in his possession for his own use tobacco in any form other than cigarettes.
I hardly need to tell those who have reached a certain age and who have lived a bit, that children hide to smoke corn silk, particularly in the fall.
Contrary to my hon. colleague from York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), I feel that chapter 266 should be maintained as is in the statutes.
It is already a warning, and one representative of authority. And when the young people read or hear about someone who, 60 odd years before thought of them so that they might not be caught by the habit that will lead them to an early grave, I feel they will appreciate it. This may represent a very small benefit, but it is something that should stay in our mores since we are a people who have always had and continue to have a healthy fear of authority and who submit to it willingly, since fear is often the beginning of wisdom.
Section 4 of this act to restrain the use of tobacco among young people stipulates that a person guilty of a first offence is liable to be reprimanded and, in the case of a second offence, to a penalty of one dollar, as I have said. But this is symbolic rather than punitive. And I am sure that in certain areas today, the law is enforced not as a penal law but simply as a reprimand, to warn children that they are getting into a very dangerous habit.


Mr. Speaker, times have changed, but people have always remained relatively stable in their modus vivendi. As I said before, this act is enforced from time to time and appropriately so. And I cannot understand why it should be repealed, since it is now considered as part of prophylactic medicine, inspiring fear while at the same time pointing out a great danger: slow and painful death by lung cancer.
I hope that someday-resolutions to this effect have been brought forward in the house before-a skull will be printed on packages of cigarettes, under which there will be a warning of real danger, particularly for young people.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must point out to the hon. member that the time at his disposal has expired.


Robert Norman Thompson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if we could stop the debate at this time and complete second reading of this bill or refer it to a committee?


Mr. Grani Deachman (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, during the few minutes that are left-


Robert Norman Thompson: Talk it out.


Grant Deachman: -I should like to make a few remarks about this very interesting bill. This little bill concerns the Tobacco Restraints Act, and that act is not one I would want to see removed from our statutes. I do not say this because I disagree with the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) because I find myself in agreement with much of what he said. However, I should like to see this act remain on the statute books because it is a child's introduction to the statutes of Canada. I think it should be left there to continue to perform that purpose.
I can recall as a child, and I am sure other members of this chamber can, when it was a common thing to have the privilege of rushing down to the corner store on Sunday morning to get a package of cigarettes because there were none in the house. Generally there was some reward for this. In addition,
Tobacco Restraint Act one had a feeling of daring because he was violating a statute in performing the errand. I think it had a salutary effect.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Had you read the statute then?


Grant Deachman: I had read it, and I read it at the age of six. It is for these reasons that I should like to keep it. I think this statute helps to stimulate wonderful addresses in the house, such as the address of the hon. member for York-Humber and hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather). The hon. member for New Westminster has a long and distinguished career in addressing the house on the subject of smoking. He was well known in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, where he almost had a career as a non-smoker for years before coming to this house. As perhaps some hon. members know, he was the president of the Never-Touch-Em Club. He was not the founder of the Never-Touch-Em Club. That club was founded by a Vancouver newspaperman who thought of the idea of handing out badges which read, "Never-Touch-Em".
If you smoked you carried one of these badges behind the lapel of your coat, and when you gave up smoking you flashed the badge whenever people offered you a cigarette. This newspaperman had been president of the club and a non-smoker for some time. Then he was sent by his newspaper to do a story in South America and he was found skulking through the Andes with a fag in his lips. He had to relinquish the presidency of the Never-Touch-Em Club and the presidency then fell to the hon. member for New Westminster. He has upheld the tradition of that club without fail ever since. It is for this reason he is able to come before us and address the house on this subject, and it is for this reason we would like to hear him again. As I say, it is for this reason I do not want to see this statute removed from the statute books or we may be denied that privilege.
May I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour for private members business has expired.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: On Wednesday last, Mr. Speaker, the resolution was adopted providing for the Judges Act amendments bill. The


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



JUDGES ACT


George James McIlraith: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-267, to amend the Judges Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


George James McIlraith: On Monday the house will be asked to continue consideration of the supplementary budget. At the conclusion of that it will consider that Canada deposit insurance legislation, which has been reported back from committee today. Then we shall continue with the budget resolutions, and the legislation flowing from them.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 13, 1967