1967-05-11

Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will notice there are on today's order paper about 100 public bills listed for introduction by private members. It would be difficult if not impossible for the Chair to review the provisions of each of these bills at this time. May I therefore suggest to the house that we adopt the procedure that was agreed upon by the house in the past five sessions, namely that we proceed to the introduction and first reading of these bills so that each may be scrutinized between now and the time appointed for second reading in order to determine whether there be any defect therein with respect to the practices and usages of the house.
Therefore, in order to save the time of the house, taking into consideration that perhaps more than two hours would be required to introduce each of these measures separately, it is suggested that by unanimous consent all the bills listed for introduction on today's order paper be deemed to have been introduced, given first reading and ordered for second reading at the next sitting of the house, subject of course to a subsequent examination as to the regularity of each bill.
Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill C-2, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act- Mr. Bell (Carleton).
Bill C-3, to amend the Canada Elections Act (publication of straw poll results)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-4, concerning reform of the bail system- Mr. Mather.
Bill C-5, to amend the Canada Elections Act (age of voters)-Mr. Brown.
Bill C-6, to provide in Canada for the dissolution and the annulment of marriage-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-7, respecting the observance of Leifr Eiriksson day-Mr. Stefanson.
Bill C-8, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (three weeks annual vacation after three years)-Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-9, to govern, licence and regulate the operation of rainmaking equipment in Canada- Mr. Peters.
Bill C-10, concerning the exportation of the growth and produce of Canada-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-ll, to amend the Criminal Code (fine print clauses)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-12, to amend the Canada Elections Act (age of voters)-Mr. Reid.
Bill C-13, to amend the Criminal Code-Mr. Prittie.
Bill C-14, to amend the Canada Elections Act (age of voters)-Mr. MacDonald (Prince).
Bill C-15, to amend the Inquiries Act-Mr. Bell (Carleton).
Bill C-16, to amend the Judges Act-Mr. Bell (Carleton).
Bill C-17, to amend the Post Office Act (hate literature)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-18, to amend the Criminal Code (wire tapping, etc.)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-19, respecting the right of privacy-Mr. Herridge.
Bill C-20, to amend the Radio Act (community antenna)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-21, to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-22, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (St. Luke 11;46)-Mr. Herridge.
Bill C-23, to amend the Weights and Measures Act (truth in packaging)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-24, to amend the Oaths of Allegiance Act (affirmation)-Mr. Howe (Hamilton South).
Bill C-25, to control air pollution-Mr. Haidasz.
Bill C-26, to amend the Canada Elections Act (age of voters)-Mr. Schreyer.
Bill C-27, to amend the Combines Investigation Act (floor penalties, criminal joint tortfeasors, and moieties)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-28, to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment, form of sentence)-Mr. Cowan.
Bill C-29, respecting Sir John A. Macdonald day -Mr. Macquarrie.
Bill C-30, to amend the Immigration Act-Mr. Badanai.
Bill C-31, to amend the Immigration Act (mental retardation)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-32, to restrain the use of tobacco-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-33, to amend the Criminal Code (preventive detention)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-34, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, with respect to the quorum of the House of Commons-Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-35, to provide for the length of sessions of parliament-Mr. Ryan.
[Stage Direction]
May 11. 1967
Public Bills
Bill C-36, to amend the Small Loans Act-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-37, to amend the Canada Elections Act (political affiliations of candidates on ballot papers) -Mr. Patterson.
Bill C-38, to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals)

Mr. Mather.
Bill C-39, to amend the Criminal Code (trading stamps)-Mr. Howard.
Bill C-40, to establish the office of parliamentary commissioner-Mr. Thompson.
Bill C-41, to amend the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act (age discrimination)-Mr. Salts-man.
Bill C-42, to better assure the public's rights to freedom of access to public documents and information about government administration (administrative disclosure)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-43, to amend the Criminal Code (provincial lotteries)-Mr. Valade.
Bill C-44, to amend the British North America Act 1867 (abolition of the Senate)-Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-45, respecting the national Indian day- Mr. Brown.
Bill C-46, to amend the Criminal Code (invasion of privacy)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-47, to amend the Criminal Code (contempt of court)-Mr. Cowan.
Bill C-48, to provide for consumer protection throughout Canada-Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway).
Bill C-49, to amend the National Capital Act- Mr. Bell (Carleton).
Bill C-50, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, (duration of House of Commons) -Mr. Peters.
Bill C-51, to amend the Food and Drugs Act (listing of ingredients)-Mr. Saltsman.
Bill C-52, to amend the House of Commons Act (internal economy autonomy)-Mr. Howard.
Bill C-53, to provide for the establishment of the Alaska-Yukon highway authority (Alaska highway) -Mr. Thompson.
Bill C-54, respecting the metric system-Mr. Bell (Carleton).
Bill C-55, to amend the Railway Act (responsibility for dislocation costs)-Mr. Fawcett.
Bill C-56, to amend the Criminal Code (harassing telephone communications).-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-57, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (provision for a ninth general holiday with pay)-Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-58, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act and the Interest Act (off-store instalment sales)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-59, to repeal the Tobacco Restraint Act- Mr. Cowan.
Bill C-60, to provide for the establishment of the Canada disaster fund-Mr. Herridge.
Bill C-61, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (duration of House of Commons)-Mr. Bell (Carleton).
Bill C-62, to amend the Criminal Code-Mr. Stefanson.
Bill C-63, to amend the Broadcasting Act (television receiving apparatus)-Mr. Prittie.
Bill C-64, to amend the Combines Investigation Act (increased prices)-Mr. Saltsman.

Bill C-65, to amend the Small Loans Act (advertising)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-66, to amend the Criminal Code (tire safety)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-67, to amend the Judges Act (discontinuation of pension)-Mr. Bell (Carleton).
Bill C-68, to amend the Canada Evidence Act (incriminating statements)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-69, to authorize the government of Canada to enter into negotiations for the creation of an inter-governmental advisory commission-Mr. Mongrain.
Bill C-70, to amend the Criminal Code (modernization of law of picketing)-Mr. Lewis.
Bill C-71, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act (instalment purchases).-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-72, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (increased minimum hourly wages)- Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-73, to amend the Criminal Code (company-censored housing)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-74, to amend the British North America Act, 1867, (Canadian Bill of Rights)-Mr. Badanai.
Bill C-75, to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act -Mr. Howard.
Bill C-76, to preserve and promote native Indian and Eskimo arts and crafts-Mr. Howard.
Bill C-77, to amend the Parliamentary Secretaries Act-Mr. Bell (Carleton).
Bill C-78, to amend the Broadcasting Act (political programs)-Mr. Harley.
Bill C-79, to amend the Supreme Court Act (payment of costs)-Mr. Herridge.
Bill C-80, respecting the national fruit of Canada -Mr. Harley.
Bill C-81, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (notice and payment to employees in case of discharge or lay-off)-Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-82, to amend the Canada pension plan (housewives' contributions and benefit)-Mr. Saltsman.
Bill C-83, respecting royal assent-Mr. Bell (Carleton).
Bill C-84, to secure freedom of choice in television viewing-Mr. McCleave.
Bill C-85, to establish the Canada law reform commission-Mr. Bell (Carleton).
Bill C-86, concerning the labeling of hazardous household products-Mr. Howe (Hamilton South).
Bill C-87, to amend the National Energy Board Act (drainage works)-Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West).
Bill C-88, to amend the Criminal Code (nuisance) -Mr. Herridge.
Bill C-89, to amend the Supreme Court Act- Mr. Bell (Carleton).
Bill C-90, to amend the Public Service Employment Act (appeal panel)-Mr. Bell (Carleton).
Bill C-91, to amend the Broadcasting Act (community antenna)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-92, to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and to human beings)-Mr. Klein.
Bill C-93, to amend the Criminal Code (punishment for murder)-Mr. Klein.
Bill C-94, to amend the Criminal Code (publication of ingredients of wonder drugs)-Mr. Klein.
May 11, 1967	COMMONS
Bill C-95, to amend the Criminal Code (elimination of premium stamps in food establishments) - Mr. Klein.
Bill C-96, respecting observation and treatment of drug addicts-Mr. Klein.
Bill C-97, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (removal of Kitsilano trestle)-Mr. Basford.
Bill C-98, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (prevention of water pollution)-Mr. Basford.
Bill C-99, to amend the Combines Investigation Act (professional sports)-Mr. Basford.
Bill C-100, to amend the Canada Elections Act (political affiliations of candidates on ballot papers) -Mr. Basford.
Bill C-101, to amend the Canada Elections Act (eighteen year old voters and candidates)-Mr. Basford.
Bill C-102, to amend the Financial Administration Act (truth in receiving bill)-Mr. Basford.
Bill C-103, to provide in Canada for the dissolution of marriage-Mr. Basford.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Kon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, regarding this semi-formal federal-provincial meeting to be held in Ottawa on July 5 I would ask the Prime Minister whether he would table the correspondence that has been sent to the various premiers; would he advise what is on the agenda and whether, as suggested in the press, that this was a subject discussed between him and Premier Robarts on the occasion of the opening of Expo? Was the determination of this meeting made then.
Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad indeed to table the letters I sent to the provincial premiers in regard to this matter, and I shall immediately ask their permission for that tabling. I should think there would be no difficulty about that, and I will deal with it as quickly as possible. The letter itself will indicate the nature of the meeting. Also the date of the letter will show that it went out some time before I met Mr. Robarts at Expo in Montreal.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Would the Prime Minister say whether there is any prepared agenda, or is this just a kind of handshaking meeting?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope it will be a handshaking meeting. Also I hope it will be more than that.
DEBATES	61
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



VIET NAM-STATEMENTS RESPECTING CANADA'S POSITION ON CONTROL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister with regard to his denial of the statements made by Mr. Gerald Clark of the Montreal Star and Mr. Tim Ralfe of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to the effect that Canadian military personnel attached to the Canadian mission of the I.C.C. in Viet Nam have been passing on information to the United States authorities. Before that denial was issued was any attempt made to get in touch with either of these two gentlemen to ascertain what evidence they have upon which they based their statements?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question perhaps I should read the following statement which deals with it. Members of the Canadian delegation in Viet Nam are not engaged in clandestine or spying activities. I repeat that, Mr. Speaker. That was the reply I gave yesterday.
These Canadians, just like the other members of the international truce commission, carry out a quasi diplomatic task which includes observation of local conditions and discussions with the local authorities of both North and South Viet Nam. The Canadians in Hanoi have been working under difficult circumstances now for 13 years, along with Poland and India, and have done and are doing their best to meet their international assignment.
With reference to allegations that the Canadian delegation in Saigon prepares its reports in duplicate with one copy for Ottawa and the other for the United States embassy in Saigon, the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated that the allegations in question are based on pure speculation. The Canadian delegation reports to the Canadian government and the Canadian government only; it is for the Canadian government to decide in the case of these reports, as all others, what use is to be made of them in the course of normal diplomatic exchanges with other countries. Any departure from this procedure would be entirely contrary to established practice, and there is no authority for it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Has the Prime Minister or

May 11. 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry anyone in the Department of External Affairs made any inquiries of the Canadian mission in Viet Nam to secure assurance that no information such as photographs, tape recordings or other information has been turned over at any time by any Canadian military personnel to the United States authorities? Has the government obtained this assurance, or was the denial by the government made before such assurance had been obtained?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The government's denial was made with reference to the allegation that Canadian personnel on the international truce commission were engaged in clandestine activities. I repeat that. As a result of my hon. friend's question of this morning and the reports which have appeared, the whole question is now being exhaustively examined in all its details.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a specific question so there can be no mistake whatsoever. Was the statement attributed to Tim Ralfe, a reputable C.B.C. man who was there, correct or incorrect when he said that copies of dispatches funnelled through the Canadian headquarters in Saigon were sent to the American embassy even before they were transmitted to our external affairs department here in Ottawa? That is the simple question. It is not answered by a statement that we have no spies. We know we have no spies. Is that a true statement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with that in the statement I just made.


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Speaker. I suggest to the Prime Minister that the question he will not answer is a very simple question.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Secretary of State.
Can the hon. minister tell us whether she has received from the Quebec government recommendations asking to "block the present tendencies" towards television programs being broadcast by the C.B.C. which are morally injurious, in order to enable the Quebec province to better censor the films shown in theatres?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I do not think so.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence a question I believe to be of the utmost importance. I am sure we all agree that no armed forces commitments should be made without the knowledge of this house.
In view of the decision of the United Kingdom and United States governments to reduce by some 35,000 their military personnel in Europe under NATO commitments, will the minister inform this house as to Canada's position regarding the withdrawal of armed forces from Europe? What presentation is being made at this time on behalf of Canada by the Associate Minister of National Defence at the high level conference now taking place in Europe? I think that is the urgent part of this question.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, this meeting was called to review the work of defence planning groups which have been studying various contingencies within the NATO framework for a number of months under the direction of ministers, and to provide an opportunity for the ministers to give further guidance to the defence planners.
In so far as future commitments are concerned, they will be made known to the NATO planners by the individual member countries later this year. The principle being adopted is to give an indication five years in advance of what are the plans of the countries then to make commitments on a yearly basis in advance. The Canadian government will be studying what might be the appropriate contribution for this country, and I assume there will be further discussions in this regard in the house. Perhaps when the national defence estimates are being considered that might be an opportune occasion to discuss what might be appropriate for us to do in the years ahead.
Some time later this year, before the ministerial meeting in December, we will make known to NATO what we will commit for the year ahead and what our plans are for a five year period.
May 11, 1967	COMMONS


Harold Edward Winch: In view of the statement just made by the minister let me ask him this important and specific supplementary question. Will the House of Commons be given an opportunity to discuss what our commitments should be before there is any fait accompli in this regard?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As I just suggested, Mr. Speaker, when the defence estimates are being considered-and I hope that will be sometime within the next two months before the summer adjournment-there will be a full opportunity to discuss the roles and missions of our forces for the years immediately ahead. I think this would be the best available opportunity for members on all sides of the house to give the government an indication what they think would be an appropriate policy for Canada for the next five years.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to ask a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of what he has now stated, will the minister indicate the government's views to the committee on defence in order that they may be considered?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of an alleged report that the C.N.R. may eliminate or drastically alter transcontinental passenger services, will the minister give us an assurance that no such drastic change in present rail service will be made until this whole question is fully considered by the house?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I know nothing of any such rumour, Mr. Speaker, and I think I should investigate it before giving any assurances.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, will the minister make it clear to C.N.R. officials that such a move would be against the wishes of the transport committee, which performed a very effective job in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure hon. members recognize this as a hypothetical question.
27053-5J
DEBATES	63
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL REVENUE



REPORTED DENIAL OF ENTRY TO CERTAIN BOOKS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue and ask whether his department has adopted a new policy of censoring books, and forbidding the importation of certain books because of their contents.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: There has been no change in our policy, Mr. Speaker.


David Orlikow: I should like to ask the minister whether the reports are incorrect that certain books have been forbidden entry into Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question cannot be asked at this time.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent (Onl.)):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the minister of forestry. May I inquire whether the members of the feed grain livestock agency have held any meetings, and when they will be in a position to accept briefs or representations from the grain trade.


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: They had a meeting, Mr. Speaker, on April 25 and 26. The office in Montreal will be opened some time this month, and they are already in a position to accept any briefs or submissions from interested parties.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria (B.C.)):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister received telegrams from the fishery associations of British Columbia and B.C. Packers protesting the department's contemplated closure of area 19 and part of area 20 to commercial salmon fishing? That is my first question. I think I have a supplementary.

May 11. 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If that is the only thing the hon. member wishes to ask, his first question is unacceptable.


David Walter Groos: Then may I rephrase my question and ask the minister whether there is any doubt that the closure of salmon fishing in area 19 and part of area 20 in the straits of Juan de Fuca is still in fact to take place, in view of the representations he has received from the commercial, sports and wildlife preservation societies in British Columbia?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did receive a telegram from the sports organization claiming that the closure of the areas mentioned does not go far enough. I also received a telegram from the fisheries association stating that it is going too far, so I can say there is a conflict between the two groups. The matter is under consideration at the present time.


Mr. G. L. Challerion (Esquimali-Saanich):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries apropos the question asked by the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) with regard to the apparent conflict between net fishermen, troll fishermen and sports fishermen. Will the minister refer this matter to the fisheries committee so they may go out to the Pacific coast and hear evidence from these groups with a view to finding an equitable division of the resources?



EXPO '67 REPORTED UNDERWORLD CONNECTIONS OF ASSOCIATED FIRMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
Further to the charges made by Mr. Claude Wagner, a member of the Quebec legislative assembly that the Mafia has infiltrated the world's fair is the minister prepared to get in touch with his colleague responsible for Expo in order to check the truth of these statements and recommend that the necessary steps be taken by whoever may be concerned?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member is repeating a question that has already been asked.


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: There can be no supplementary question, the first question having been ruled out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: In that case, another question on the same subject, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I have already recognized the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather).



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Maiher (New Wesfminsier):: Mr. Speaker, if I may I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister say whether his attention has been called to news reports to the effect that President Johnson of the United States has so far failed to acknowledge Canada's invitation to him to attend centennial ceremonies in the national capital? If these reports have been drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister, does he propose to make a statement on this matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the President has indeed acknowledged our invitation and has expressed the hope and expectation of visiting Canada and Expo during our centennial year. Two dates were put forward. One was the latter part of May-I think it was May 25 that he would arrive-and I think the other was toward the end of July or August. I have not the exact dates in mind. It had been hoped he would be able to accept the earlier date, but I understand that is not now possible and we expect him to be here on the later date.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Because of the thunderous silence of the throne speech on this point, would the Minister of Transport assure that legislation relating to maritime transportation will be dealt with in this centennial session?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I could not possibly give such an assurance, Mr. Speaker. It would be very presumptuous on my part to say what this house would deal with.
May 11, 1967	COMMONS



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Could the minister tell us whether his department is considering the possibility of establishing a special program in order to help students in urgent need of money who are looking for a summer job?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any special study in that connection. However, I know that our manpower centres are making every effort to find jobs for students.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance. I apologize for not giving him notice, but the question is quite simple. Has the attention of the parliamentary secretary been drawn to the contradiction between the Bank Act and the Bank of British Columbia Act, which is causing some furore in British Columbia at this time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt very much that this question is in order. I cannot accept it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, this matter is causing a lot of difficulty and comment in British Columbia at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is causing me a lot of difficulty.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that the question cannot be asked at this time.



ALBERTA-NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING FREIGHT RATES ON SHIPMENTS TO JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of
DEBATES	65
Inquiries of the Ministry Transport a question. I refer him to page 18 of Hansard, where two days ago he undertook that in the course of the next day or two he or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources would make a statement in reference to the negotiations with the C.P.R. and the coal operators in Alberta with respect to the export of coal to Japan. Has he any statement to make today?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Great progress has been made in this matter even today. Possibly tomorrow I hope to be able to be a little more explicit in the matter, but I can assure the hon. gentleman that in respect of the one company which has negotiated a long term contract, great progress is being made.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, is it the view of the minister that the negotiations which are taking place will be concluded without the need for a government subsidy?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, there is a well known rule that you should never count your chickens before they are hatched.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: One often does, and I would like to state that the people are waiting for the information.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF CHAMPIONSHIP AMATEUR HOCKEY TEAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   Patrick-T. Asselin@Richmond-Wolfe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I should like also to take this opportunity to draw attention to the presence in the gallery of a delegation from the Drummondville Eagles, winners of the Allan Cup.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe):: This city is located in the eastern townships.
I would ask the minister whether he intends to convene soon a federal provincial conference on amateur sports in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question is an excuse for the statement and I do not think it is in order.
66	COMMONS DEBATES	May 11, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry
[English]	myself to see if something could not be done
LABOUR CONDITIONS	about it.



REQUEST FOR MATERNITY PROTECTION FOR FEMALE WORKERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I gave a brief progress report in reply to the question asked on April 17 by the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway as to when the government proposes to ratify the maternity protection convention passed by the I.L.O.
The convention in question establishes the right of mothers to get maternity leave without losing their jobs and to collect cash and certain medical benefits to be provided out of public funds or by means of a system of insurance. It does not specify the methods by which its requirements should be implemented by the ratifying nations. Since the convention is deemed to be partly within the authority of this parliament and partly within the authority of the legislatures of the provinces, ratification can only be envisaged when effect is given to the convention by legislation in the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, only two provinces have laws allowing maternity leave and forbidding dismissal because of pregnancy. The legislation in two other provinces provides for regulations to be adopted in the matter but that is as far as they have gone. Consequently, the laws of those two provinces are not yet operative. We favour ratification and are working toward making it possible.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Would I be in order, Mr. Speaker, to inquire which provinces those are?


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid not.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the numerous requests that have been made over the years for a longer shipping season for the port of Churchill, can the minister assure the house that his department is aware of the desirability of this action?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very much aware of it, sir. I went and looked at Hudson strait recently


Robert Simpson: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister then say what was the basis for the reply he is reported to have given during his recent visit to Churchill when he was asked if his department could not do something about it? He is reported to have said that they would if it were brought to their attention; "I am quite sure they would."


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was right after that interview I went to look at Hudson strait.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: May I address a question to our good humoured Minister of Transport. Has the minister been made aware that the order in council passed last month which sets out the prairie rail network guaranteed against abandonment departs in a significant degree from the announcement the minister made?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not only aware of it but my face is very red indeed. The mistake has been corrected or, at least, I have asked my colleagues to correct it. I am confident they will do their best to make an honest man of me.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I should like to ask the minister if it is the intention to pass a supplementary order in council or a relieving order in council.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, it would require an amending order in council. Speaking quite seriously, I am regretful about this error. I take all the blame myself because I did not compare the recommendations with the map carefully enough. It does sometimes happen that when there are these recommendations which contain a lot of detail, it is assumed they are in order but sometimes they are not. I take all the blame. If the error has not actually been rectified I have enough confidence in my colleagues that I feel sure it will be.


Thomas Miller Bell: In
connection with this whole matter of the new transport commission, I should like to ask the
May 11. 1967

minister if he has made any appointments as yet, and if not why not?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe, sir, this question does have an element of urgency. The commission has not yet been set up because there is a little problem of finding some place for them to rest their heads. There is also the very complicated problem of the drafting of the rules. I am making the life of the Minister of Public Works miserable trying to get quarters for the commission. Great progress has been made in the drafting of the rules. Meanwhile part V containing the amendments to the Railway Act, which I think were the most urgent of all, is in operation.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
Since a number of honest citizens think that our society makes many efforts to improve the lot of criminals, I should like to ask the minister the following question.
Is he giving consideration to setting up or interesting the provinces in setting up a program of compensation for crime victims of the families of crime victims?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minisier of Justice: Mr. Speaker, this question has also been raised by certain correspondents. I am studying the problem at the present time. As the hon. member is aware, there is also here a question of constitutional law, for such compensation could come from the provinces instead of the central government. However, in that case, negotiations could be undertaken with the provinces.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lawrence Elliott Kindt: The
other day I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who answers in this house for the national parks,
Inquiries of the Ministry if he had received a petition signed by 324 residents of the Banff area objecting to the lease policy of the department. At the time he said he had not received it. Now that there has been a sufficient lapse of time to allow him to receive it, has he anything to report to the people of Banff and to the house concerning this matter?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I made inquiries yesterday and it still had not arrived. I think the hon. member should send over the copy he asked to have sent to him.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I will be delighted to do so. My colleague has just informed me that he too has a copy.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I am wondering when the minister might be prepared to announce the plans of his department respecting the winter works program for the year 196768.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am wondering whether the matter is so urgent that the question should be asked at this time. I have serious doubts about it.


John Alfred Irvine: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is very important because the municipalities must make their plans and set up their budgets for this purpose. I believe on that basis it is very important the announcement should be made right away.


Jean Marchand: I believe last year the announcement was made during the course of the month of July. I am hoping that this year it will not be later than that.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the minister's reply I am confirmed in my suggestion the question should be on the order paper.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey Norih):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance,
May 11, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry relating to information I received on January 19 last. Has the minister anything to report on the disposition of the tariff board recommendation with respect to wire netting?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe this question should be placed on the order paper.



INQUIRY AS TO REDUCTION IN FEDERAL INTEREST RATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of Finance.
Can the minister tell us, since the average yield of the federal government short-term bonds is less than 4J per cent, if therefore any ceiling imposed on the interest rates which can be charged by the chartered banks has been removed?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon. member's question could easily be discussed during the debate on the motion for adjournment.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is quite conceivable that this matter could be discussed during the debate on the adjournment motion. However, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) was still listening to the translation.


Mr. Speaker:: The decision with regard to a question put by an hon. member is taken by the Chair and not by the minister.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can the minister tell us what is the position with respect to the details of the off-reserve housing program for Indian people, which was approved in principle by parliament shortly before the end of the last session?


Arthur Laing: I would hope that might be done almost at once. There have been a couple of details which have held it up unduly or it would have been announced before this.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: I have a question I should like to address to the Secretary of State. Should not the member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert have been advised earlier, when they were asking about the antics of the C.B.C., that it is useless to make inquiries in that regard because the C.B.C. is accountable to no one for anything it does?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting proposition.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
After his recent meeting with the French authorities, is the minister in a position to confirm the forthcoming visit to Canada of President Charles de Gaulle and inform us of his itinerary.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: I am not in a position to give an answer at this time, but I can say that that matter was discussed during my meeting with the French minister of foreign affairs.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. I apologize for not giving him notice, but the matter has just come to mind. Has the minister received representations from the rank and file-not the leadership of the union-of the operating crews on the Kettle Valley railway urging the need for improved safety equipment, stretchers and other things which at present are not supplied, thus contributing to the dangerous conditions under which they operate?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am wondering
whether the hon. member is seriously suggesting that this question is acceptable now.
May 11. 1967	COMMONS
If he is, then I will allow the minister to reply.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, all I can say at this time is that I will have to take the question as notice.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that many members of the House of Commons are being deluged with correspondence about the loss of principal invested in what I understand are called federal government perpetual bonds, is any action contemplated by the minister to ensure that in future investment in government bonds will not result in any loss of principal?


Hon. Miichell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have made a number of statements on this matter. I have nothing to add, save that there is no safer investment in this country than investment in Canadian government bonds.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, May 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Don Jamieson for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, my first words are words of congratulation to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Both did themselves, their constituencies and their party proud by the able manner in which they moved and seconded the address in reply. Both dealt very cogently with subjects with which they were entirely familiar.
I wish they had written the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker. The speech from the throne is a lengthy one. Its length is in inverse proportion to its content. It seems to have used its verbosity to cover up its scarcity of ideas. There are a great many cliches, much purple prose, but very little in the way
DEBATES	69
The Address-Mr. Douglas of specifics. The government is going to conduct studies, it is going to call conferences, it is going to submit white papers to the house, but there is very little to tell the Canadian people what the government specifically proposes to do about some of the major crises that are facing this nation.
I had hoped, Mr. Speaker, that in this centennial year the speech from the throne would have been a call to action to the Canadian people, that it would have been a document that challenged the Canadian people to enter Canada's second century with their heads high and with a firm determination to make the second century of confederation an even greater one than the first. Instead we have this pallid document largely consisting of a lecture in history and a collection of long term dreams and hopes.
This is probably exemplified best by the fact that the government says very little as to what it is going to do about Canada's constitution. For years the government has talked about patriating the constitution, about bringing it into line with the needs of our day and generation. The government no longer talks about patriating the constitution or bringing it up to date. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) now wants to embalm the constitution, to put a little rouge on it and dress it up. But it will still be dead.
That brings me, Mr. Speaker, to the amendment moved by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). We certainly agree with the first part of that amendment which points out the necessity for dealing with the constitution in this, our centennial year. However, we feel that calling a constitutional conference will have very little value unless before that conference is called parliament has had an opportunity to agree on the specific areas which must be dealt with so we can put before such conference specific proposals. The members of this party have been advocating for years that an all-party parliamentary committee be set up to study the constitution and that we invite the legislatures to do the same so that out of these discussions involving all sections of the Canadian people the government might then be able to promulgate changes in the British North America Act which could be submitted to a federal-provincial constitutional conference.
I am going to move a subamendment which will incorporate that idea. The subamendment I will move, seconded by the hon.
May 11. 1967

The Address-Mr. Douglas member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), is as follows:
That the motion moved by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition be amended as follows:
By striking out all the words after the words "centennial year" in the fourth line thereof, and adding the following thereto:
"And has failed to prepare and present to this parliament proposals for amendment to the consti-tion of Canada as a necessary preliminary for a national constitutional conference, and has failed to make the proposals necessary
(1)	to set out the legislative powers of parliament necessary for the maintenance of an effective confederation;
(2)	to provide an appropriate special status for the province of Quebec;
(3)	to provide for a constitutional Bill of Rights;
(4)	to provide for the patriation of the Canadian Constitution."
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
In this our centennial year there are many things of which the Canadian people can be proud. Ernest Renan once said that "a nation is a body of people who have done great things together in the past and hope to do great things together in the future." I think this is a good definition of Canada. This nation has done great things in the past. We and our forefathers have built in the northern half of the North American continent a great nation. Our forefathers cleared the forests, tilled the virgin soil, built their homes, churches, schools and hospitals, built roads, canals, a great railroad system, an inland waterway, built industries and made Canada one of the great trading nations of the world. We can be proud of what this country has done in the past.
The question facing this parliament today is: What are we going to do together in the future? We in this party believe that Canada as it enters its second century must set for itself social and economic goals and must call on the Canadian people to rally together to bring about the achievement of those goals. The New Democratic party believes that If we are to make our second century an even greater one than the first the governments of this country, particularly the federal government, must play a more effective and dynamic role in the social and economic affairs of Canada. This does not imply the imposition of restrictions, the erosion of freedom or the loss of private initiative and enterprise. On the contrary, through our democratically elected governments we Canadians can broaden our freedom, provide increased opportunities for our people and assure higher standards of living. Above all, we can impart a new dimension to our national life.

I am sure those who have visited Expo '67 must be proud of this great accomplishment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It demonstrates what Canadians can do given participation by all levels of governments and all sections of the community.
The role of government has always loomed large in Canada's history. In 1867 the setting up of confederation was a political act in defiance of geography. It called for government intervention and for government direction. The national policies on tariff protection for infant industries, western land and resource development, the building of an east-west railroad, the building of a water transport system, and later the building of the greatest inland seaway in the world, all called for far reaching political decisions. The depression period compelled even reluctant governments to intervene in the economy in order to combat the waste of unemployment, to control the issue of currency and credit through a central bank, to control monopolies and to provide a more equitable distribution of income by fiscal policies and a greater measure of social security through a system of family allowances and the Canada Pension Plan. And now we are to have medicare.
In spite of those who talk about laissez faire economics, we have developed and are developing in Canada a mixed economy in which government enterprise at all three levels of government, private enterprise and co-operative enterprise are working together for the benefit of the people of this country.
As we move into our second century we must clarify what the role of the federal government is to be. The need now is for more dynamic and creative government leadership in social and economic affairs. There has been a failure on the part of this government to fulfil its well-established responsibilities. Even worse has been its dismal inertia in facing the challenges of a rapidly changing world. The performance of the Canadian economy has lagged far behind its potential capacity. Let me give the house a few indications of the extent of this failure: (1) Recurrent heavy unemployment; (2) slow rate of growth in our per capita income; (3) successive spurts of inflation and price increases; (4) periodic international imbalance of payments; (5) mushrooming foreign ownership and increasing foreign control of the Canadian economy; (6) regional disparity of income and economic growth.
May 11. 1967

Some of these factors are due to external forces beyond our control but most of them are cases where the responsibility can be traced to the weak policies of the government and its reluctance to intervene in the economy with the necessary vigour, imagination and long range common sense.
If we are to progress as a viable and expanding nation in Canada's second century there are seven goals which we believe the government and the parliament of Canada should set for this nation. In the time at my disposal I can mention them only briefly. First, there must be greater economic growth and increased productivity. The Economic Council of Canada points out that between 1957 and 1965 Canada fell $21 billion short of its potential production. That is $1,200 per capita or $6,000 for a family consisting of a husband and wife and three children. Had we been able to maintain across Canada the same unemployment rate in 1966 as obtained in the province of Ontario, 2.4 per cent of the labour force, we could have increased Canada's wealth production by $650 million.
The O.E.C.D. report points out that the output per man employed in Canada from 1960 to 1965 was lower than in any other member nation except Great Britain where the figure was 2.5 per cent. In Canada it was 2.6, in the United States, 2.9 and in Japan 8.3. The average for all the O.E.C.D. countries was 3.7 per cent. Had we had that rate of economic growth the increased wealth production would more than have paid for all the economic programs that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) said would cost $900 million when we proposed them in the house during the last session of this parliament. In 1965 Canada's gross national product increased in real terms by 6.9 per cent. However, in 1966 it increased by only 5.9 per cent. That is a loss of over $500 million of wealth we did not create, wealth we did not enjoy.
[DOT] (12 noon)
The second goal we must set for ourselves is full employment because only by full employment can we hope to have adequate incomes for the great mass of the Canadian people. The Economic Council of Canada says we must keep our unemployment figure to a maximum of 3 per cent. It is now running around 4 per cent, and most economists are predicting that this year it will be about 4J per cent. The last figures obtained, I think on March 18, show 400,000 unemployed in this country, with unemployment in some areas 27053-61
The Address-Mr. Douglas much worse than in others. The government is not grappling with this problem.
The training and retraining program is ineffective. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) has already built for himself a bomb-proof shelter against future attacks by saying that we must depend on the provinces to supply the training facilities. By loading on the provinces the responsibility for upgrading educational qualifications of unemployed persons, and by making the provinces responsible for supplying the facilities for vocational training and retraining, the government has put the major part of the burden on the provinces and now hopes to evade its responsibility. I warn members of the government that the people of Canada will not allow them to evade their responsibility in this manner. It is a disgrace in a country which needs homes, schools and hospitals, which needs reforestation and anti-pollution measures, that we should have 400,000 unemployed persons at any time of the year.
The third goal we must set for ourselves is price stability. Where economic growth has been experienced inflationary pressures have stolen back from people some of the gains they have made. Every once in a while the Minister of Finance assures us that the economy is cooling off. It is cooling off because we have deprived old age pensioners and other people on fixed incomes of part of their real income. Every time the cost of living goes up their standard of living goes down. We are cooling off the economy at the expense of the section of the economy which is least able to carry the burden.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In its annual review the Economic Council of Canada said that we must set 2 per cent as the maximum increase in prices per year. In 1965 prices went up 2.8 per cent and in 1966 4.6 per cent. According to the figures which came to our desks just this morning the price index rose from 143.2 in April, 1966, to 147.8 in April, 1967, an increase of 4.6 points.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the most inequitable form of taxation. Inflation puts its hands into the pockets of the people and takes $4.60 out of every $100 from their savings accounts, from their insurance, from their pay cheques and from their old age pension cheques.
The government has been content to depend on the Keynesian techniques of monetary and fiscal policies. We believe those policies by themselves are not sufficient and that
May 11. 1967


made by the Deputy Governor General winding up the last session the government boasted about the fact that under the new Canada Labour (Standards) Code working conditions have been improved. Why does the government not tell the Canadian people that because of its dilatoriness, because of its supineness, 95 per cent of the workers who come under federal jurisdiction are not getting any benefit from the national labour code. If we are to have a better distribution of national income, labour legislation must affect 100 per cent of the 'workers who are supposed to benefit from it.
There must be income support measures for farmers and fishermen, and at this point I want to mention the fact that there are things the government can do for farmers and fishermen that would not cost it a nickel. For 40 years the co-operatives in this country have been asking for legislation on co-operatives. For the last four years the government has been promising at every session to bring down a co-operatives bill.
We are repeatedly told the matter is being studied, the matter is before a committee, the matter is being looked into, but the government has not yet produced a co-operatives bill. I want to tell members of the government they are going to get no peace until they do produce a bill. Private corporations can organize and register on a federal basis and do business all across Canada. Why cannot the co-operatives be allowed to do the same thing? It is because the government lacks the initiative to bring down the necessary legislation.
If we are going to improve the distribution of income in Canada we must improve minimum wages, -we must provide for price supports for farmers and fishermen and, Mr. Speaker, we must have programs to deal with drop-outs, unskilled people, so that we can put every able-bodied person in Canada to work to help increase our productivity and to provide them with an adequate income.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
If we are to deal with the problem of poverty in this country there must be an increase in the old age pension across the board for all old age pensioners, without any means test. The so-called guaranteed annual income which has given some of the old age pensioners an additional $30 a month has resulted in a situation in which the federal government is giving the money with one hand and the
May 11. 1967

provincial government is taking it away with the other hand by reducing the provincial government supplementary old age pension contribution. If we are to improve the lot of those in the low income brackets in this country medicare should be brought into operation much sooner than July 1, 1968. If the Minister of Finance last year had any excuse-and I do not think he had-for postponing medicare because of the threat of inflation that threat now is gone. There is no longer any reason for delay. Under the act the government has the authority to introduce medicare by July 1 this year or at the very latest January 1, 1968.
The fifth goal is better allocation of the wealth which we produce. The keynote of this second century should be equal opportunity for every Canadian irrespective of where that Canadian may reside. It is not enough to raise individual incomes. We must also improve the social amenities by providing better schools, better hospitals, better homes and better recreational facilities. We must have clean air and clean water.
I suppose there is no question before the Canadian people today which is so demanding of attention as housing. Housing now has reached the proportions of a national crisis. The Economic Council of Canada says that it will be necessary to build 170,000 new houses every year just to hold our own. That will not cut into the backlog of the half a million families who are living in substandard housing in Canada or the 20 per cent of the homes in Canada which have only primitive toilet and bathing facilities. To meet the needs of the Canadian people we ought to be building at least 250,000 houses a year in order to keep pace with the annual demand and reduce the backlog of substandard housing. The other day the minister told us that the best we can hope for is 150,000 to 155,000 housing starts this year. We not only need houses but we need them at a price which people in the middle and lower income brackets can afford to pay.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Some of my colleagues will be having more to say about this in greater detail as the debate progresses.
The sixth goal is that we must have greater Canadian control over the Canadian economy. No one denies that foreign investment has benefited Canada, particularly in securing technological and managerial skills. But we have reached the stage today where some 67
per cent of the major segments of our economy are in the hands of foreign investment. We have reached the stage where the decisionmaking power which affects our daily fives and our economic expansion is in the hands of investors outside this country. The government as usual is playing the role of "Mr. Facing Both Ways". The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon) is going around the country making speeches in which he mentions the danger of foreign investment. The Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve) is going around the country making speeches in which he says there is no danger in foreign investment, that foreign investment is fine and we need more of it. It may be a marvelous political attitude to be all things to all men, but surely the time has come when we ought to know what this government is going to do about the increase in foreign control of our economy.
The government says there will be a task force to prepare a white paper and that it will be headed by the President of the Privy Council. The President of the Privy Council was appointed by a previous Liberal government to head up a royal commission on Canada's economic prospects. He made a full report in that regard. He also wrote a book entitled "Whither Canada". He is supposed to be an authority. Why do we need another study and another white paper? Does the government not have a policy? It pretended it had a policy when it faced the electorate during the elections of 1962, 1963 and 1965. We have reached the crossroads in Canada. We have reached the point where we are losing the decision-making power in respect of decisions which will affect our future welfare and development. We have come to the place where the interest and dividends on past investment are affecting our balance of payments. Retained earnings are now pyramiding our indebtedness. As we enter our second century we ought to ask ourselves who will own Canada by the year 2067? How much of Canada will our children and their children own, control and direct?
We are reaching the point in Canada where the decisions concerning whether our economy is to increase, stagnate or expand are not being made by the government or by parliament but by foreign corporations outside the boundaries of Canada. The making of economic decisions also has some effect of course, upon the making of political decisions. There is no doubt that the timidity of this government in matters pertaining to foreign policy
May 11, 1967

The Address-Mr. Douglas is a direct reflection of the economic control which already is exercised on this country by the United States.
For years members in all parties of the house have paid lip service to the idea of recognizing mainland China and voting for its admission to the United Nations. Why does the government not do this? It will not do it because it does not want to incur the displeasure of the United States government. There is no doubt in my mind about that.
Our policy in respect of Viet Nam is one of timidity and hesitation which the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) calls quiet diplomacy. It is a policy of neutrality under which last year we sold $318 million worth of armaments to the United States, one of the combatants. When Pakistan and India were fighting we stopped shipments to both sides. When Turkey and Greece were fighting over Cyprus we stopped shipments to both sides. When Israel and Egypt were fighting we stopped shipments to both sides. We have sold armaments to the United States with no assurance that they are not being used in Viet Nam. In Washington they have their hawks and doves and in Ottawa we have our parrots.
I say to the government that we must have something much more satisfying than the denials we have had from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) regarding the serious accusations which have been made by Mr. Gerald Clark of the Montreal Star and Mr. Tim Ralfe of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. They are highly reputable and highly regarded correspondents, and when they state they are convinced that films, tape recordings and information of an important military nature are being passed on to United States authorities by Canadian military personnel attached to the Canadian delegation to the international control commission, this warrants a full investigation. It is not enough for the Prime Minister to rise and say there are no spies. I do not think anyone has said there are spies.
e (12:20 p.m.)
What we want to know is whether or not Canada's role as a neutral in Viet Nam is being undermined. We want to know whether or not our honour is being impugned and whether or not any official or officials connected with the Canadian delegation are passing on information to one of the combatants in this very unhappy and undeclared war. If the government is serious about this situation
[Mr. Douglas}

it should bring in a motion to send this matter immediately to the parliamentary committee on external affairs. That committee should not only call the two correspondents but also those who have charge of the international control commission so that we will know exactly what is done with information collected by the Canadian delegation.
The seventh and last goal I want to suggest is that during its second century Canada must help the underdeveloped areas of the world. McLuhan has said that the world is now a global village. We cannot build an island of prosperity and stability in a sea of human misery. Peace in the world depends on our narrowing the gap between the per capita income of the "have" nations and that of the "have-not" nations. That gap is not narrowing but widening. More than half the people of the world are living on per capita incomes of less than $150 per year. The gap between the wealth of the western nations and the poverty of the underdeveloped areas is widening year by year. No wonder Secretary General U Thant said:
The world will not live in harmony as long as two-thirds of its inhabitants have difficulty in living at all.
Social justice demands and common sense dictates that we should be giving a greater share of our wealth production to help the needy people of the world. I do not need to point out to this House of Commons that this does not mean shipping dollar bills but rather shipping Canadian goods, food, material and labour. It means laying the basis for future trade with those countries when they have been properly established.
Aid in itself is not enough. There is an old Chinese saying that if you give a man a fish you solve his problem for today but if you teach him how to fish you solve his problem for the rest of his life.
What the western nations must do as their real contribution is help these underdeveloped countries to help themselves by giving them the benefits of our modern technology, by persuading thousands of our young people to go as doctors, nurses, scientists, teachers, engineers, agronomists, forestry experts, trained artisans, social workers and psychiatrists to help these people acquire some of our western technology and some of our social organization so that they can raise their living standards. Our task should be threefold, to give aid, to promote trade with these countries so they can sell some of their primary products to us without prohibitive
May 11, 1967	COMMONS
tariff barriers, and to help them acquire some of our technology.
This country needs bold leadership as we enter our second century. This government and this parliament must set themselves the task of making Canada a place where every child will have enough to eat, where every student who wants to study will have the opportunity to do so, where every person who wants to work can find a job, where every family that wants to own a home can build one. We must make this a land where old people can walk the earth with dignity and young people can live useful and meaningful lives. Above all, we must make this a land that shares some of the gifts of divine providence with those less fortunate than ourselves.
There is a sentence in the throne speech which says that what we have tomorrow will depend on what we do today. I endorse that sentence. If it is true that what we will have tomorrow depends on what we do today, let us get busy. In the words of the late President Kennedy, "Let us begin".


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I did not want to interrupt the hon. member in his remarks, because I was interested in what he had to say and also out of courtesy, but as soon as he moved his subamendment, I got a copy of it and was surprised to see that there was no French copy.
I assume this is a clerical error or an oversight. I cannot believe it as a deliberate action on the part of the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas).
Anyway, may I ask him whether there are French copies and whether we can have some?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I make my apology to the hon. member and to the house. Yesterday I fulfilled an assignment from the Canadian Centennial Commission accepted some weeks ago to address an international convocation on Canada's centenary. I got back very late and had little time to work on the subamendment. I have not yet had the translation completed, but I assure my hon. friend that we will do so as quickly as possible and see that he gets a copy.
DEBATES	75
The Address-Mr. Caouette
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


Mr. Real Caouelie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be to congratulate the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson), and the seconder, the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Cote).
I listened attentively to the mover who, only 18 years ago, was not a Canadian citizen-he was a Newfoundlander-and I greatly appreciated the way he talked about Canada, because 18 years ago he voted against Newfoundland joining Canada. But after 18 years as a citizen of this country, the hon. member tells us with sincerity and enthusiasm about the happiness and satisfaction he now feels about being a Canadian citizen and that he would not change his identity for any other in the world. He is proud to be a Canadian.
The mover of the address in reply belongs to a well-known family whose roots run deep in the province of Quebec. He took pleasure in praising the government. He talked about something which is close to our heart, namely the farm problem, and I will say a word about it later.
Before dealing with that part of his speech on agriculture, Mr. Speaker, I must say how disappointed I am with the speech from the throne. It is a disappointment which I have felt every year now for five years, I would even say for 21 years. As a matter of fact, I was elected member for the riding of Pontiac in 1946, and the speeches from the throne over that long period of 21 years look very much alike.
It contains vague statements and good intentions, but if the road to hell is paved with good intentions, it is to be wondered where we are heading with those senseless words. The measures being promised are only repetitions, as pointed out yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). For instance, the proposed establishment of the Canada Development Corporation is again included in this speech from the throne. It was mentioned last year, the year before and even three years ago.
All I can find in that speech likely to open the eyes of all Canadians is the following statement:
With our forefathers, the fight was against the immense odds of nature on our half of this contingent. Today the main struggle is against social injustice, against cultural mediocrity, against spiritual stagnation and against all forms of intolerance.
May 11, 1967

The Address-Mr. Caouette
Now, Her Majesty's advisers, namely the government, recognize that we must fight against social injustice, because such injustice actually prevails in several areas of our country and not merely in one.
The people in Quebec are heard to say that poverty exists in their province because of the presence of French-speaking Canadians there. In every part of Canada that I have visited, I have seen social injustice among English-speaking Canadians. I have seen poverty-stricken English Canadians in the western provinces. Therefore, the province of Quebec is not the only one justified in complaining.
The second point is cultural mediocrity.
We agree or recognize that our intellectual culture is mediocre in the sense that we do not know exactly whether we have a true and distinctive Canadian culture.
We are wondering rightly whether our culture is not more American than Canadian. Since we are living on the American continent, we may be influenced by the United States from every point of view, cultural, economic and even political. Anyhow, we realize that in Canada we must fight against cultural mediocrity, spiritual stagnation and all forms of intolerance. We have suffered from intolerance for many years.
Mr. Speaker, our country exists in its present form, or nearly so since 1867, and we are now celebrating the centennial of confederation. Some people are happy to celebrate this centennial, others are not. Some criticize the celebration of this centennial, others accept it willingly and most cordially.
When the Fathers of Confederation, Cartier, Macdonald, and the others, in 1867 put on paper the terms which gave or were to give birth to the Canadian confederation, they were looking forward to a promising future for all the provinces then joining the Canadian confederation, as well as for the provinces which would join in the years to come.
Everyone admits that confederation has gone through difficult times. Everybody also admits that confederation has had its weaknesses. It is also admitted that confederation has suffered its fanatics on both sides. We know some of them, particularly in 1967, at a time when we are celebrating the centennial of this confederation.
Mr. Speaker, even with all its defects, confederation has nevertheless enabled the whole country, all the Canadian provinces to

develop at a pace unknown in almost all the countries of the world.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
In fact, we have reached in Canada a standard of living far superior to that of many other countries in Europe, Asia, Africa or elsewhere.
We may have suffered from injustice, but this has not been felt by one isolated group only. It has perhaps been the result of a lack of understanding and contact between the various elements which make up our country, now and in the past. When I was a youngster, I was taught that the English, or Englishspeaking Canadians, were fanatics, all of them. English Canadians were taught the opposite, the French-speaking Canadians were all fanatics and people with whom it was impossible to come to an understanding.
When people are isolated, each in his corner, and when there are no communication facilities, these things become ingrained in their minds, as they were in our minds some 30, 35 or 40 years ago. However, Mr. Speaker, when we have the opportunity of communicating with Canadians of other origins in other provinces, we realize that there are real and good Canadians everywhere.
For the last five years, in particular, I have had the opportunity of visiting the western provinces and the maritimes, where the majority of the population is English-speaking. For example, I met in the west workers and farmers as well as university people. I had the privilege of going to the University of Toronto, for instance, in our neighbour province. I gave a conference at Trinity Hall, in Toronto, where thousands of students came to hear me. I also had the privilege of speaking to university students in Manitoba, in Regina, Saskatchewan, in Vancouver and Victoria in British Columbia, and also at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton.
Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that I am a French-speaking Canadian and that I fight for the recognition of French Canadians throughout Canada. It is indeed a duty for me to say that I have had a friendly reception in all those provinces; I might even say that I have had a warmer welcome in the western universities than in the University of Montreal, in my own province of Quebec. And these people out west, these young students, these farmers or whoever they are, are most hospitable. We are welcomed like kings in those provinces. Even if these young people do not
May 11. 1967

speak our language, they are eager to welcome us, to hear our problems, to learn to know us, to know what we want and who we are. It was most interesting to meet these people, irrespective of political affiliations, as Canadians from a province other than theirs.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we certainly agree that there are fanatics in those provinces. As a matter of fact, we have some in Quebec too. And it is precisely those fanatics who jeopardize Canadian unity because they adopt a definite position and will not listen to reason. They think they live in a different kind of world than the one in which we live at the present time. Instead of seeing the human being in mankind, they see only their own sect and they believe that their own sect has every right, while all the others are completely wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I maintain that the Canadian confederation has enabled the two main ethnic groups of Canada, the Ukrainians, the Poles, the Italians, the French, the Germans, in short, everybody, to develop according to their own aspirations, inasmuch as financial system made it possible. Both parties or elements, the two main ethnic groups of Canada, are suffering from the evils of the same system which is leading them to dissension, misunderstanding and even hate of each other.
Mr. Speaker, I often repeat what John Adams, President of the U.S.A. from 1825 to 1829, said more than 125 years ago and I quote:
The difficulties, the confusion and the anguish of the United States are due less to the weaknesses of their constitution or their confederation, a lack of honour or virtue, than to sheer ignorance of the nature of currency, credit and money circulation.
Mr. Speaker, one could apply the same statement to Canada, today in this centennial of our confederation, when there is confusion and worry in some parts of the country. People do not understand confederation, they do not know the Canadian constitution, yet, they denounce that pact, that confederation and that constitution without having considered the pros and cons of the system.
Mr. Speaker, we could now apply to Canada the words of President John Adams who said: The difficulties, the confusion and the anguish of Canada, in 1967, are due less to the weaknesses of its constitution, of confederation, a lack of honour or virtue, than to sheer ignorance of the nature of currency, credit and money circulation.
DEBATES	77
The Address-Mr. Caouette Mr. Speaker, the amendments moved during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne deal precisely with matters concerning confederation and the constitution.
The main amendment read as follows:
This house regrets that Her Majesty's advisers have failed to submit any program to give effective direction with regard to Canada s constitutional development in this centennial year and has failed to provide for the calling of a national constitutional conference-
Imagine the benefit the Canadian people will derive from this, Mr. Speaker.
-to be widely representative of the governments, federal and provincial and of the territories, and of all political parties for the purpose of repatriating Canada's constitution-
Mr. Speaker, this motion was moved by the Conservatives, and see how many of them are in their seats. Not a single one. There is one who is coming in because he heard me. That shows how serious is the amendment for repatriating the constitution. The hon. member is here doubtless to repatriate the Canadian constitution.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
But, Mr. Speaker, what is repatriating Canada's constitution going to give us? It is not even respected and there is talk of repatriating it. People are not familiar with it and yet speak of repatriating it. It is not being studied and yet there is talk of repatriating it. For five years now we hear on all sides: repatriate Canada's constitution. Let us get those sheets of paper in London and bring them to Canada. What is it going to give us if it cannot be respected? If the Conservatives and the Liberals in Canada had only started by respecting the constitution such as it is, we would not witness today such anxiety and confusion with regard to the Canadian confederation.
The amendment goes on:
-revising and amending it as agreed upon.
Mr. Speaker, what has been agreed upon for amending or modifying the constitution, so that Canada's future policy might be aimed towards the interests of the people as a whole, through a declaration of national objectives based on the assurance of success so selflessly and patriotically displayed by the fathers of confederation.
Merely from a literary or logical point of view, Mr. Speaker, something is askew here. Based on the assurance of success. There was

The Address-Mr. Caouette no assurance of success, especially as displayed so selflessly and patriotically by the fathers of confederation.
Mr. Speaker, I met members of the Conservative party two days ago in order to ask them this: why do you not bring in an amendment for the revision of the agricultural policy of the government, because that is more important than repatriating the constitution. The Conservatives were afraid to move an amendment dealing with Canadian agriculture in general which is the basis of this country's whole economic structure. To prevent us, in the Ralliement Creditiste, from moving an amendment dealing with the dairy industry, for instance, we are served a terrible constitutional mess which the Conservatives themselves do not understand.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: With regard to the subamendment, Mr. Speaker, it must of course relate to the amendment; so, it is virtually as bland as the amendment itself.
And in addition to that, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) fully realizes that I am right, for he says: "Hear, hear". They are obliged to move an amendment which is meaningless.
What does the subamendment say? I have to read it in English, Mr. Speaker, since we have not yet received the French copy. I quote:

By striking out all the words alter the words "centennial year" in the fourth line thereof, and adding the following thereto:
"and has failed to prepare and present to this parliament proposals for amendment to the constitution of Canada as a necessary preliminary for a national constitutional conference, and has failed to make the proposals necessary
(1) To set out the legislative powers of parliament necessary for the maintenance of an effective confederation;"

The first point, Mr. Speaker, is that the powers are actually defined or established in the present constitution: provincial and federal legislative powers. But they are not observed. There is talk of repatriating the constitution to amend it. Let us first follow it. Let us avoid trespassing on provincial fields; let us deal with the federal areas, yes, let us deal with them.

May 11, 1967
Second:

(2) To provide an appropriate special status for the province of Quebec;

Undoubtedly, that is the reason why we do not have French copies of the amendment. I understand the explanation of the leader of the N.D.P. but translating seven or eight lines does not take that much time. There are competent people here in parliament who can easily translate that subamendment.
If this were the first time it happened, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) should be excused. We would say: It is not for lack of goodwill he did not have the time. But the same thing happened last year and, the year before. In fact, this is the third time I have to tell the hon. member of Burnaby-Coquitlam that under the special status the province of Quebec should have, according to him, he forgets to introduce his subamendment to the House of Commons in French also.
Mr. Speaker, we must nevertheless be logical. It is simply to win votes in the province of Quebec that some speak of a "special status". No doubt it is for that reason that Mr. Cliche calls for a special status especially for the Montreal area. I think it is for Montreal only, a special status for Montreal, in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, what do they mean by "special status"? Isolate Quebec from the rest of Canada? What do they mean? They give no explanation. Is it mere window-dressing for Quebeckers-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: -that they are told: You are entitled to a special status.
I am a genuine Quebecker. My forebears arrived in what is now Quebec city on the St. Lawrence in 1668. My family has therefore been in Quebec for quite a long time. I never asked for a "special status". I do not need one.
I want to be a French-speaking Canadian I want to preserve my French culture; I want to be respected by all other Canadians who have a different language and culture. That is all I ask for.
When I hear what some nincompoops have been asking for in the province of Quebec: a "special status"-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
May 11, 1967	COMMONS


David Réal Caouette: -I wonder if it is a special status or special statues that are requested for the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, the third point:

(3) To provide tor a constitutional bill of rights;

A bill of rights probably. Of course, rights must be respected. We agree. The fourth point:

To provide for the patriation of the Canadian constitution.

The same thing for the Conservatives. But the main point is left out.
I understand that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has to dress up his subamendment to make it consistent with the rules, which provide that the subamendment must relate to the amendment.
It is a little embarrassing for everyone. It is embarrassing for me, because to relate a subamendment to an amendment such as that, it is embarrassing. You have to be very well educated, Mr. Speaker, to present an amendment to an amendment which means nothing.
All this means that the Conservatives should have moved an amendment concerning an important sector of our national economy, that is farming.
I am led to deal somewhat with the speech made by the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska. Do we adjourn at one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Yes, the house is to adjourn at one o'clock.


Mr. Churchill:: One o'clock.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members that the fact that the hon. member's time will expire at one minute after one o'clock. It is just about that time now and he may have about one minute left. Would hon. members suggest that he be allowed to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: I have only one minute left, Mr. Speaker?
DEBATES	79
The Address-Mr. Caouette


Mr. Speaker:: According to our rules, and the hon. member is quite aware of this, speeches are limited to thirty minutes during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The hon. member has about one more minute.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, as I would need ten more minutes, I wonder whether the hon. members would not agree unanimously that I continue at two o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree unanimously that the hon. member continue his remarks for ten more minutes?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, you should permit the hon. member to have his ten minutes at 2.30.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed that the house will recess until 2.30 and that the hon. member for Villeneuve will be allowed to pursue his remarks for a further ten minutes?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think people will now see the disadvantage of allocation of time. It destroys a really good speech.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock, this house stands adjourned until 2.30 p.m.

At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, before the sitting was suspended for lunch, I was saying that I would like to deal this afternoon or rather right away with the speech of the member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Florian Cote) who supported the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I respect the member for Nicolet-Yamaska highly. He is a farmer, he knows agriculture, he is a very active member of the organization grouping Quebec farmers, that is the C.F.U. But note, on reading his speech, that the member for Nicolet-Yamaska did not speak on behalf of the C.F.U. but on behalf of the Liberal party.
80	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Caouette He felt it was his duty, under the circumstances, to support the dairy policy of the present government and not the repeated requests of the members of the Quebec C.F.U.
He forgot that he was a farmer and considered himself only as a Liberal member; that is what I gather from his speech. If he were not a member of parliament and if he were a supporter of the C.F.U. of the province of Quebec, he would have delivered quite a different speech on agriculture and, more particularly, on the government's dairy policy.
The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska says, for instance:
In 1957, on my own farm, I was selling milk at $2.90 per hundredweight; with a production of 300,000 pounds of milk-

May 11, 1967
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well aware that farmers who turn out 300,000 pounds of milk per year, in the province, are relatively few. In fact, most of the farmers we meet do not produce more than 100,000, 135,000 or 150,000 pounds of milk.
To produce 300,000 pounds of milk, Mr. Speaker, a dairy herd of 55 to 65 head is needed; that also means a big farm. And even if the hon. member realized on his own farm a gross income, not a net income, of $8,700 he is well aware that to earn his salary of $18,000 a year as a member of parliament he has to work much less than he did to keep a herd of dairy cows sufficient to produce 300,000 pounds of milk which brought him a gross income of only $8,700 a year.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member added:
From 1963 to 1966, under an administration which perhaps understood the problems of eastern Canada and of the Canadian dairy industry, I could sell milk for $4 per hundredweight for a production of 300,000 pounds of milk, which means that I could receive an income of $12,000.
Then again, $12,000 is a gross income. But are there any farmers with a $12,000 gross income in the province of Quebec? Where are they? The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska may have made that much money, but once again, it was a gross income. Tractors, a small truck were required to operate that farm, it was necessary to feed the cattle and so on.
Last Sunday, I was in Quebec and I met a farmer of Joly, in the riding of Lotbiniere, whose dairy production reaches 138,000 lbs. per year. That farmer, considered well off in the province, had a gross annual income of approximately $5,800.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska maintains-


Mr. Cote (Nicolet-Yamaska):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want the house to be induced in error, according to the Farmers Association a proficient farmer should produce from 175,000 to 200,000 pounds of milk-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order.
The hon. member for Villeveuve. *


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Cote) thinks that a proficient farmer should produce 160,000, 170,000, of 175,000, pounds of milk. However, facts are facts.
In the riding of Lotbiniere, those who produce 150,000 pounds of milk are considered as real dairy producers.
In my neck of the woods, we have farmers who produce 200,000 pounds of milk, others who produce 150,000 pounds, but also some who produce only 75,000 pounds.
Now, according to the government's recent policy, a farmer will get nothing at all for any increase over his contract or his production of last year. And the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska will approve the government to introduce such a legislation in the House of Commons, which is detrimental to farmers and adverse to an increased production in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I maintain that the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska speaks here as a supporter of the Liberal party and not as a farmer, on behalf of Quebec farmers.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity of meeting officials of the Catholic Farmers Union, and when the hon. member says that the farmers are preparing to come to Ottawa on May 24 next, not to blame but to commend the government, I will tell him that he is wrong. The C.F.U. people I met will be here on May 24 because they are dissatisfied with the dairy policy of the present government.
Moreover, when the hon. member says that if the farmers claim $6-this is serious-some members are prepared to rise and ask for $6. Should the farmers ask for $7, members would rise and ask for $7, and should we ask for $8, the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) would rise to ask for $8, I must say that I am bewildered.
Mr. Speaker, if that is how the hon. member views the agricultural question in
May 11, 1967	COMMONS
Quebec, I can assure you that the professional farmer's association to which he belongs himself will not take him very seriously, for he takes a stand in parliament but he has another story when he comes before the farmers.
When the hon. member met the members of the C.F.U. in his own constituency, they asked him to demand in Ottawa $5.10 per hundredweight of manufacturing milk. The hon. member accepted and told them that he would be their spokesman in the Canadian parliament.
Mr. Speaker, who is in a position to determine the minimum price asked by farmers and dairy producers in Canada or in Quebec. Is it the members of the house or rather the experts of the C.F.U. or those working for the Canadian farming association or the dairy producers of Canada?


Mr. Cole (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow me a question?


David Réal Caouette: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Desmond Morton Code: Mr. Speaker, did the hon. member understand, as the Canadian press did, the statement of the member of Nicolet-Yamaska who asked the representatives of all the political parties to refrain from playing politics with the agricultural class, contrary to what he is now doing? I did not speak against the farmers, but on the contrary I tried to persuade the members of the opposition not to play politics, petty partisan politics with the farmers. And yet, this is what he is now doing.


David Réal Caouette: Precisely, Mr. Speaker, such a foolish statement as the one made by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska is received with applause. Can one imagine that the member for Nicolet-Yamaska should fear that we play politics with agricultural class when he has never done anything else in his own constituency and the whole province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, those are the people who go about rural areas asking the people's support so that they can make claims on their behalf here in parliament. But when we assert their rights, we are attacked, we are accused of trying to use the farmers for political reasons. The member for Nicolet-Yamaska brought up the matter himself here in the house the day before yesterday.
I ask the member for Nicolet-Yamaska who knows the C.F.U.: who are the people aware of the needs of the farmer? The farmers and
DEBATES	81
The Address-Mr. Patterson their specialists have stated that $5.10 per hundredweight of manufacturing milk is the minimum price-minimum and not maximum price-which can enable the farmers to make ends meet.
I meet farmers. I have some in my constituency. I meet some elsewhere in the province and when it is recognized today-the hon. member would be the first to do so if his government were not in power and if he was not a government member-that the farmer barely makes $1,900 to $2,250 net per year. That is the farmer's income. Yet, the hon. member is against our giving $5 or $5.10 per hundredweight of industrial milk. When I moved an emergency debate on the government's dairy policy the other day, why did the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska not rise at that time to defend the farmers of his own constituency of Nicolet-Yamaska? No, he stays in his seat.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. I understand there was some agreement as to the extra time to be given to the hon. member and I must advise him now that his time has expired.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I shall close my remarks by saying that we clearly maintain our attitude towards agriculture and milk producers. We maintain that Canada can improve its economic, political and social position insofar as everyone co-operates to its improvement. We can make Canada a prosperous country by permitting the provinces to develop according to their own aspirations and by consolidating our unity in the greatest national respect.


Mr.  A. B. Pailerson@Fraser Valley: Mr. Speaker, on taking part in the throne speech debate I would first like to offer my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Jamieson) and seconder (Mr. Cote, Nicolet-Yamaska) of the address in reply. One may not altogether agree with everything that was said by these two gentlemen but I believe they made a contribution to this debate consistent with their convictions and discharged the role assigned to them in a very commendable fashion. The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo presented in a very clear and concise manner many of the views and convictions I had intended to stress during the course of this debate. But even though it may be somewhat
82	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Patterson repetitious and even though my remarks will possibly be expressed with less emphasis and clarity, I would crave the indulgence of the house as I make some comments on the speech from the throne and on Canada's centennial in general.
One hundred years ago Canada was born as a nation and we are now in the midst of our one hundredth anniversary party. Already across this nation from coast to coast celebrations are taking place in all sectors of the population, in the provinces, the cities, the villages, the towns, the hamlets, and in many of the rural communities. These celebrations are being participated in by people who are proud to be Canadians, who appreciate the foundations that were laid for this great nation and the fact that over the past 100 years Canada has moved forward to achieve a place in the history of nations that I believe is very commendable. Elaborate planning, prodigious labour and substantial financing have gone into the arrangements, and with the advent of the summer months we anticipate an unprecedented flood of visitors from all parts of the world who are coming here to meet with us and to share in the celebrations of this memorable occasion.
Of course, at the very heart of our celebrations is Expo '67, an event which has been referred to as the greatest exposition ever held. Opened by His Excellency the Governor General, the personal representative of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada, on Thursday, April 27, it is a huge, spectacular exhibition which many of us have already been privileged to attend. It now appears that the success of this great project will be far beyond the greatest dreams of those who have had the responsibility for the planning and programming of this event.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
As we begin this centennial session it is only natural that we should look back to the years which have gone by. I remember a quotation from Edmund Burke often referred to in this house and elsewhere. He stated that people will not look forward to posterity who never look back to their ancestors. It would seem to me that in this our centennial year we ought to look back and remember with pride those very fine and courageous men and women who laid the strong enduring foundations of this great nation. They were representatives of many nations. They were adherents of a variety of faiths. They were subscribers to different political philosophies. By setting aside their natural differences they

DEBATES	May 11. 1967
accentuated their common purpose. As they laboured and toiled together they hewed out a kingdom in this land. They were the men and women who in full measure paid the price for what we are as a nation today.
While we pride ourselves on the marvels depicted in "A Man And His World", let us not forget the pioneers of this and of other lands who braved the dangers of their day, who travelled thousands of miles by canoe to search out and chart the vast expanses of this continent, who travelled in creaking wagons to build their homes on the frontiers of civilization and beyond and who, while not realizing it, set the stage for the vigorous and growing nation which we are proud to call our homeland today. So it is well, in this our centennial year, that we should pause to pay tribute to those who laid the foundations of our nation. May I say also that we should not fail to give thanks to God for the achievements of these 100 years and for the blessings of which we in this nation have been the recipients.
Having looked back, we think of the challenges which confront us today. I should like to refer to several of these challenges which I believe are most important. We must continue the development of our many natural resources. I do not think anyone would disagree with the statement that we have made tremendous progress materially in Canada. If we contrast present-day conditions with those which existed in pre-confederation days, and if we contrast as well what we have today with what we had in those days, I am sure all of us will agree that we have made tremendous progress from the material point of view. We must admit too that we have made tremendous gains technologically. While this country saw its beginnings in a mainly agricultural economy, and very limited at that, Canada today has achieved great success in the development of an industrial society. When we think of our resource development, again we have something of which we ought to be proud.
When we contemplate the progress which has been made in the development of our material resources, I think we ought to remember that the contemplation of this development alone will tend, rather than having beneficial results, to react unfavourably on mankind. Dr. Werner von Braun, director of the development operation division of the army ballistic missile agency, was asked recently:
Do you feel that modem man worships too much the golden calf of material progress?
May 11. 1967

His reply was:
Nothing has probably retarded human progress more than idolatry of our own achievements. By worshiping our own scientific achievements we kill humility. By adoring our own technological advancement we kill the urge for improvement.
I think these words should have some application and that we would do well to remember them on this occasion. We must remember as well the importance of the development of our human resources.
It is not my intention to deal specifically with the items in the speech from the throne. Actually it was rather difficult to find them. One had to wade through a great deal of verbiage to find the proposals and suggestions. I will not deal with many of them specifically today. I do, however, recognize the fact that there are references in the speech from the throne to a number of very important issues such as housing. I suppose that is one of the major problems facing us today. In the course of the debate it has been pointed out that we are not even keeping pace with the demand for new units. Because of our immigration policies and the natural increase in population in this country we all know there is a growing demand for housing.
I believe, therefore, that the government must take this whole matter under careful advisement and not be satisfied just with surveys, studies, analyses and the other exercises in which they are so prone to engage. They should come forward with very constructive proposals in order to meet this crisis.
As I say, housing is an important issue. Health care is also an important issue. Job opportunities present another tremendous challenge. Then there is the subject of education. We must remember that all these matters are important only because they contribute to the welfare of men and women, the citizens of Canada. Therefore even in the light of the emphasis which has been placed on increased productivity and so on we must ask what is the purpose of production. It is to meet human need. Therefore I believe there should be consideration of all these problems. We must relate them to men and women who today require that their needs be satisfied and who must have the right and the opportunity to provide for these needs in this affluent society.
It has been said that inadequate men are a social liability. Perhaps this is true. The Royal Bank of Canada monthly letter of June, 1964, had something to say about this. Some people may not think that a bank document

The Address-Mr. Patterson can say anything too important to us today. The newsletter states:
Being forced to live on anything below adequate food makes a man a social liability.
It is speaking of only one area.
He cannot work effectively on an empty stomach; he cannot study and learn as he must in order to improve his condition; he cannot think beyond the dominant immediate need, which is his next meal; he cannot build up resistance to wasting disease; he holds back not only the economic and social development of his own country but also the prosperity of the world.
I say this afternoon that what is true with regard to food applies to all the major needs of mankind. If man's needs are inadequately met he is ill prepared to meet the challenges of today and provide for his own needs, let alone make a contribution to the common good of his nation and other countries round the world. Therefore, in considering all the legislation, proposals and recommendations that come before this house, some of which have been referred to in the speech from the throne, we must remember that they must be related to humanity and individuals. Only in this way can they fulfil their function in our society.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Drastic changes are taking place in Canada and in our world. I believe that all these things to which I have referred as well as training and retraining must prepare our people to fit into their particular role in society and in the changing situations in which they find themselves. We believe in the development of human resources and the importance of the individual. I read a very interesting statement in the notes for the Prime Minister's speech to the national centennial conference dinner on April 24. On page 3 we find this statement:
As we move toward our second century, I dream of a Canada where the individual is never forced to shape himself inflexibly to economic and political systems, but where he can enjoy a maximum of freedom and opportunity to fulfil his most cherished personal aspirations; and to develop his full potential as a human being.
One would almost think the Prime Minister had for once become a Social Crediter because that is exactly what we have been emphasizing throughout the years. One of the very first principles underlying our movement is an emphasis on the importance of the individual and his right to the opportunity to develop his personality as he sees fit as long as he does not endanger the same privileges of his fellow man.
May 11, 1967

The Address-Mr. Patterson


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does the hon. member not realize that the Prime Minister once voted for Social Credit?


Mr. Patterson:: We hope the time will come when he will vote for it again.
In spite of what the Prime Minister has said or may say, we are living in an age when government intervention and control are extending into every avenue of life. This is one thing about which Canadians are becoming very disturbed. In fact, there is a reference to it in the speech from the throne. I shall not take the time to look it up but it related to the government and the increasing role it plays in the affairs of the citizens of Canada.
I have before me an editorial which appeared on May 9, 1967 in the Globe and Mail.
I will read two brief portions of the editorial:
Toward its end yesterday's speech from the throne referred to "the involvement of the government in many matters." Those eight words somehow capsule the intention of this centennial speech from the throne. In the early years of our history the tendency of governments was toward participation in those areas of our society where we could not individually achieve our aspiration-we went on the basis that the best government was the least government. The trend has been manifestly in the opposite direction since the second world war, but perhaps it has never been stated with such emphasis before.
Toward the end it goes on to say:
But what distinguishes this speech, apart from its scope, is its preoccupation with an intensification of governmental presence as Canada begins its second century. The speech puts it this way, "We who find ourselves in positions of authority must always remember that it is our responsibility and our opportunity to serve the needs and aspirations of the Canadian people."
The difficulty, of course, will lie in making sure that those in "positions of authority" remember the word "serve".
It is a word that is often forgotten when the emphasis is on "the involvement of the government in many matters."
I suggest that the Prime Minister and the government pay attention to those words because they are significant in light of the Prime Minister's emphasis on the right of individuals to live their own lives and develop their own personalities according to their wishes.
There must be a development of our moral and spiritual resources. If we follow Canada's history from its beginning we will see the important place that faith and religion have occupied in the development of this nation. Today as we face change, with old concepts discarded and old foundations crumbled, we must ask ourselves what is to happen to the


old precepts, concepts and foundations upon which this nation was built.
Let me refer again to a statement in the speech from the throne which has already been placed on record:
With our forefathers, the fight was against the immense odds of nature on our half of this continent. Today the main struggle is against social injustice, against cultural mediocrity, against spiritual stagnation and against all forms of intolerance.
This is a rather gloomy portrayal of the Canadian scene today. One wonders how this statement fits into the rest of this document which refers in glowing terms to what the government has accomplished and what it intends to do in the future. In the middle we find this dismal portrayal of the scene today. Without over-emphasizing its importance, I think we should give some consideration to the meaning of that statement. If it is accurate the time has come for us to look to our moral and spiritual moorings. I confess that one cannot legislate righteousness but I say that we ought not to legislate anything that will undermine righteousness. This statement should give us plenty of food for thought as we consider the situation which exists in this country today. Perhaps that thought was in the mind of Right Hon. Vincent Massey, a former Governor General of Canada, when he said some years ago that Canada's centennial would provide a good opportunity for spiritual stocktaking.
In the midst of our material progress and technological development, as well as the development of our human resources, let us tie in this other consideration because it has application and a message for us today. Canada has come a long way. Evidence of this is all around us, but we must not neglect those things upon which our nation was originally founded. If we do we do so at our own peril.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Earlier I mentioned that I did not intend to deal specifically with the speech from the throne but I should like to mention one or two things generally. The time has come when we in this house and in this parliament ought to set our house in order. This is a trite statement, I suppose, and it has been said over and over again, but I should like to place additional emphasis on it today. We must set our own political house in order right here in the House of Commons. The country is not impressed with the way its business is being handled. I do not think there are very many in this house who would disagree with that
May 11, 1967	COMMONS
statement. In fact, many have made similar statements in the past. I suggest that if the democratic processes are lost to us it will not be because some military force has moved in and deprived us of them but because of our own failure to use them wisely and effectively in the discharge of the nation's business.
Reference was made in the speech from the throne to the rules changes that have been implemented and which will be considered still further. I believe we have made good progress in streamlining our rules and procedures in the house, but I suggest we have only made a beginning. I say this because our last session lasted 15 months. We will either have to shorten debate or lengthen the year. I sometimes think it might be easier to lengthen the year than shorten debate. Nevertheless, I believe that this matter must be pursued actively and resolutely in order that our rules will provide for the effective dispatch of the public business in a reasonable length of time.
I believe the time has come when we must give some thought to the Canada Elections Act and parliament as a whole. I suggested some time ago that perhaps we should consider the system in use in the United States where there is a stated period of four years for the term of office of a government. I believe this would have two very beneficial effects. First, it would curtail a lot of the politicking that takes place under our system. It may be said that this is the place for politics. Perhaps it is a place for some politics but it is certainly not a place for continuous politicking. If there were set times for the sitting of parliament and perhaps the provision of safeguards and opportunities in respect of want of confidence motions at certain stated times, I believe this would contribute substantially to the effective discharge of the nation's business. Furthermore, it would cut down on the number of election campaigns in this country.
I know that some of our friends in the official opposition say that the reason for so many long sessions is that there are too many parties and we ought to get back to the two-party system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I notice that our friends in the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, for example, do not look at it this way, because as soon as a provincial election is called they are right in there pitching, trying to upset the two-party system. What
DEBATES	85
The Address-Mr. Patterson they really mean by two parties is Liberals and Conservatives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Surely not. I suggest the reason we are so far behind in the nation's business is not that we have too many parties but too many election campaigns. Therefore I believe that the proposal that there be a four-year period of office for a government is worthy of consideration. I believe also that there must be stated times for sittings and recesses of parliament. If we cannot organize our business any tetter than we have been doing in the past several years, how in the world can the people expect us to discharge their business effectively?
I know it has been and will be said that we should sit all summer in order to get through the business before the house. It is said that we should make martyrs of ourselves in this respect. But the people are a little wiser than that and they do not think we are martyrs; rather, they think we are stupid because we cannot discharge our responsibilities in a reasonable length of time and get back to our ridings to discharge our obligations there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Time allocation for debates is another matter I bring to the attention of the house. I know this has been suggested before. It is said that there must be freedom of speech and we have heard cries of "guillotine" and so on. But I do not think the people take such cries seriously any more. In fact, I think the guillotine, if that is what it is to be called, should have been used a good deal more than it has been. I say that necessity requires and common sense demands the orderly dispatch of the nation's business.
There should also be a system of priorities so that we do not become bogged down in relatively unimportant matters while major issues facing the country remain unattended to. I believe that if we set our political house in order we must also recognize our responsibilities farther afield. Canada is in a wonderful position and has a wonderful opportunity, after it sets its political and material house in order, to make a contribution to the world and assist those nations which require assistance. I have before me statements pointing out the needs of people in various countries of the world who are hungry and starving to death, living in alleys and so on. In this respect I am reminded of the words of the Scriptures where it is said, "Give ye them to
May 11, 1967

The Address-Mr. Crouse eat." I believe that we, with our superabundance of material things, are well able to provide a goodly measure to meet the needs of the hungry in other lands as well as technical assistance which will help them raise their standards of living and provide for their own needs.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I believe that Canada must press forward and fulfil its role in the world as a peace keeping, peace loving and peace making nation. Canada has fulfilled its responsibility in this respect. It has risen to the challenge and we have made a tremendous contribution in this regard. Our serving men abroad have established an excellent record. I believe that we must continue to do so in order that Canada will be looked upon as a nation which not only knows how to organize its own affairs but is able to contribute from its abundance and play its part in order that people everywhere may enjoy the fruits of their labour and their rights in keeping with the dignity of mankind.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker as one of the representatives from the province of Nova Scotia, which was one of the four original provinces which joined in confederation to form Canada, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the throne speech debate in our centennial year.
First of all I wish to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the family of the late Governor General Vanier who served Canada with such great distinction. I also wish to take this opportunity to express my congratulations to the new Governor General, His Excellency Hon. Roland Michener, who I know will carry on his duties with dignity and in a manner befitting the high office to which he has been called.
I also extend my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address, the hon. members for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) and Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Cote). They expressed their viewpoints very well and in a capable manner, reflecting credit on the constituencies which elected them to this house.
One hundred years ago Nova Scotians had already developed many proud traditions, and following confederation we looked to the future with confidence. The throne speech states the following:
One hundred years ago, our predecessors-men of many races, creeds and tongues-embarked upon a great exercise in statecraft of which we, today, are the trustees. They laid the foundations. They anchored them in a fundamental sense of unity 
that generations of conflict had taught was vital to the common weal. With this realization they erected a structure of government for the freedom, welfare, and prosperity of all who might come in time to inhabit this land. They built according to a federal plan because they knew that unity, with cultural and regional diversity could be harnessed to a positive and enriching role in no other way.
This was the concept. However, many of our hopes and ambitions have never been realized, and our dreams of equal opportunities with other Canadians have all too often fallen short of accomplishment. Despite these facts we have always tried to carry our share of the load, to be builders of this nation, and I hope the ideals of our forefathers will serve as a guiding light to future generations of Canadians who will be faced with the task of continuing to build a stronger and a united Canada.
Nova Scotians have learned a great deal in the past 100 years, and it is useless for us or for anyone to minimize our problems. We have them in both human and material terms, in the expansion of our primary and secondary industries and in the proper development of our educational facilities. However, in recent years we have gained recognition in the international industrial world for our stable institutions, our intelligent and adaptable labour force, and for our strategic location in the trading world.
Progress, however, is not just a matter of new and bigger industries, but also of people at work, trained in new skills so that they can take their place in performing new and exciting tasks. If progress is to have any real meaning it must be related to improved living standards for all our people. When we examine the present and look at the past we have a right to feel encouraged, but we can hardly feel satisfied. Average incomes in Nova Scotia are rising. In fact in 1966, according to the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, our average income increased to $1,586 from $1,485, which is the highest per capita income in the four Atlantic provinces.
Despite this fact we have not narrowed the gap between average incomes in Nova Scotia and those in central and western Canada. We still lag behing in the Atlantic provinces, with average incomes a third below the workers in the rest of the nation, and our unemployment rates are double the national average. The third annual review of the Economic Council of Canada leaves no doubt that the relative standards in the Atlantic provinces, when compared with the nation, are not improving, and that the gap is not closing. It would
May 11. 1967	COMMONS
appear that we are still too dependant upon forms of employment which do not offer good prospects of growth.
It is evident that we in Nova Scotia must continue to modernize our economy. We must emphasize the importance of Nova Scotians changing with the times. To do this we need help at all levels, both federal and provincial. For these reasons I wish to make some proposals which I hope will have the support of the federal government and which will be beneficial to the people of the Atlantic provinces and to Canadians as a whole.
A visit to the French pavilion at Expo '67 is an exciting experience at any time for anyone. However, in my opinion, one of the outstanding exhibits is the detailed description of the hydro power development through the use of the high tides near the river Ranee in Brittany. I would suggest that anyone who has any doubts about the feasibility of generating electricity in this manner should take time to study the French exhibit. I believe that if members of the present government followed this course, steps would be taken to speed up the engineering studies and the development of the tidal power potential of the bay of Fundy. It is my understanding that a study is planned by some nine companies, but it is estimated this survey will take some two years to complete at a cost of approximately $1.5 million. While this study is welcome news, I cannot help but express regret over the delays during the past four years in starting this survey. Studies of Fundy power development were to be undertaken, away back in 1963, under the Atlantic Development Board. In fact, one of the main reasons for the establishment of the board was to carry out tidal power development if feasibility studies justified it. All the preliminary work at that time indicated that it was an investment that would offer immense rewards.
I ask this government, why the delay? Why is it dragging its feet on this project? The tides at the eastern end of the bay of Fundy rise 40 to 50 feet, day in and night out, carrying a 60 million horsepower potential in a six and one half hour period between high and low tide. Even 10 per cent of this is almost twice the total power capacity in Canada today, and even this small portion of recovery would make this the largest single power development in the world.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, why is the government dragging its feet? It is possible that the joint findings of the nine companies recently appointed will confirm the belief long held by
DEBATES	87
The Address-Mr. Crouse experts that tidal power installations in the area could produce power at a price to compete favourably at the present time with nuclear energy. But I would point out that the cost of nuclear power is bound to escalate, because the prices of raw materials and wages are certain to increase over the years. However, in the case of tidal power, once the initial capital investment is made, the amount of manpower required to maintain the operation is small, and the motive power is provided forever by the sea.
According to the speech from the throne the government is concerned about inflation, and with good reason. It does not say so directly, but there can be no other meaning to the paragraph on page 2 of Hansard of May 8 which reads as follows:
Today relations among industry, labour and governments at all levels are taking on a new significance. To maintain and improve Canada's economic strength it is necessary to exercise wisdom and restraint in our demands upon one another; to show a high degree of co-operation and a sense of responsibility in dealing with each other and with our respective institutions, including all levels of government.
On page 5 the words are a little different, but indirectly they imply a concern over inflation. They read:
In the highly complex society of today, the interests of the consumer must be taken fully into account in the formulation of government policy. It is abundantly clear that in the whole area of matters affecting the investor and the consumer, the federal government has special obligations arising out of its general responsibility for the economic well-being of the nation as a whole.
These are high sounding phases, but I say this to the government: If it wants to do something for the benefit of the Atlantic provinces, it should proceed immediately with tidal power development. This power would afford the best possible protection against inflation. Once it has been developed, the price of power becomes constant and operating costs are constant. The ebb and flow of the tides, properly harnessed, provides on conversion very cheap and economical power, with the cost factor stabilized.
Think of what this would mean to future generations. The government's present fiscal policies are causing Canadians outside and inside the present cabinet to call out in dismay. They are saying to this government that in times of so-called prosperity it has a responsibility to bring revenues and expenditures into balance. Surely we can pass on to our children something permanent besides our debts, which are looming high and stand as a monument to this government's inability

The Address-Mr. Crouse to manage our finances or take advantage of our opportunities.
This government and the Canadian people should not look upon tidal development as an Atlantic project. It is a national project, one that should commend itself to the Canadian people as a whole. In my opinion the development of Churchill falls in Labrador and the mighty power of the Fundy should go hand in hand in lighting the North American continent. A combined power grid from both these sources would more than satisfy Canada's demands, and we would have surplus power to export to the United States.
There is no fear of saturation, for the power needs of New England and New York double every ten years. I believe one of the most important reasons for speeding up this tidal development program is the fact that nuclear and thermal power plants must be fuelled by uranium, coal, oil or gas, which are nonrenewable resources. If we hope to improve the over-all standard of living of Canadians, we cannot be wasteful of any of our resources. With the rising demand for energy in our modern society, it is nothing but sheer waste to ignore this vast source of power, which could bring about a golden era of industrial development in the Atlantic provinces.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
A moment ago I mentioned the Atlantic Development Board. I think it is imperative that the present Liberal government cast partisan considerations aside and make available to this board funds in relation to the magnitude of the problems with which the Atlantic provinces are faced. This board, established by a Conservative government, only started to function in April, 1963. In the past four years the board has done as much as possible within the limitations imposed upon it by the financial resources provided by the federal government. The initial conception of the board called for a substantial federal investment over a ten year period. It was hoped that this would stimulate private investment.
This is exactly what has happened in connection with Expo. We see massive capital investment by the federal government, and this in turn has encouraged investment from other countries and by private industry. This is what we had hoped would happen in the Atlantic provinces. However, when the government changed in 1963 a new act revised the original conception and only $100 million was allotted initially to improve conditions in this vast area called the Atlantic provinces. A 
DEBATES	May 11, 1967
further $50 million was later voted, and a special road investment of $30 million was added, bringing the total resources of the board to some $180 million.
Now, what does the throne speech say about the Atlantic Development Board? This is what it says:
The government will also take special measures in particular designated areas where human resources are not adequately utilized. While efforts by the government in this regard during recent years have met with a large measure of success, they are to be made even more effective. Parliament, therefore, will be invited to broaden the scope of the area development incentive program and to provide increased funds for it. Continuing encouragement will be given to the work of the Atlantic Development Board in promoting industrial development in the Atlantic region.
This is fine.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what do we see when we turn to this year's estimates? On page 508 of the blue book an amount of $33 million is to be credited to the board to assist in financing programs and projects, while $14 million will be voted as the federal share of the cost of a trunk highway program in the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. This represents a total of $47 million. It is simply not enough, Mr. Speaker.
Is there no one in the present government aware of the vast area over which these funds will be spread, or of the tremendous economic problems faced by the people of the Atlantic provinces? When we look at the funds allotted for development in the Atlantic provinces and compare them with the government's bill for housekeeping, for example, we begin to realize the lack of consideration being given to our problem. Let me point out, just for the record, that the administrative overhead for the nation's government in terms of staff and office cost was $1 billion in 1963. However, the cost jumped to $1,325 million last year, a whopping 30 per cent increase. What possible justification exists for this astonishing increase, nobody knows. Apparently nobody in the government is troubled by a feeling that a full explanation is owed to parliament and to the taxpayers of Canada. But when we ask for development funds in the amount of $1 billion spread over a ten year period in order to provide self-liquidating projects in the Atlantic provinces and raise the standard of living of our people a bit closer to the national average, our request is denied and we are turned away with a pittance.
It is not my intention to criticize the board when I say that, to date, far too little has
May 11, 1967

been done. However their first task was supposed to be an assessment of the Atlantic region, and the over-all provision of a development plan to overcome the disparity of wages and incomes between this area and the rest of Canada. To the best of my knowledge, no such assessment has been made public up to the present time. This assessment would have to include fisheries, agriculture, mining, manufacturing, all secondary industry and, last but not least, a study of transportation costs since these costs alone influence all other sections of the Atlantic economy. Members from the Atlantic provinces were trying at the tail end of the last session and the beginning of this one to find out from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) where we stand on this study of transportation costs in the Atlantic provinces, but to no avail. In my opinion, until this type of assessment is completed and recommendations are made concerning our special problems it is evident that the assistance provided will only continue to be on an ad hoc basis.
However, sir, let there be no doubt that our problems are real and very serious as revealed by the third annual report of the Economic Council of Canada. The Atlantic Development Board was set up to remedy these conditions, and this it has failed to do. In this year of our centennial celebrations I feel I would be remiss in my duty as a representative of the Atlantic provinces if I did not do everything in my power to make the government conscious of the deplorable results of confederation in this region of Canada. The Atlantic provinces have suffered from a system which has provided protection for the industries of central Canada. We have to pay through the nose for the necessities of life. Manufacturers, under the protection of tariffs, have allowed Canadian prices to be raised at our expense. The price of everything from a bag of groceries to a motorcar is higher here than in the United States, so that Canadian manufacturers in central Canada may prosper.
Despite these facts the federal government, instead of providing the help required, continues to pass legislation which imposes additional tax burdens upon the provincial governments. It is much more difficult, for example, for the Atlantic provinces to find the 50 per cent required to pay their share of costs in joint programs than it is for the wealthier provinces in Canada. It therefore follows that a national standard of public service cannot be enjoyed in the Atlantic provinces without imposing an additional tax burden upon our

The Address-Mr. Crouse people. Unless this fact is recognized, we maritimers cannot enjoy national standards of public service. In fact the system presently followed actually accentuates the differences in our national standards.
Generally speaking, the people in the Atlantic provinces find themselves in a position where projected expenditures are increasing more rapidly than sources can be found to pay them. For example, in the field of education costs, our requirements in the years ahead are frightening. While the federal government has taken on a greater share of the cost of secondary education, it is equally true that it has moved out of the field of paying for vocational training, except in the case of adults. Vocational training is the most vital requirement in our system of education today. The Atlantic provinces need even greater aid to cover the extension of their highways programs.
Unless this money is forthcoming from the Atlantic Development Board in greater amounts in the future than in the past, we shall continue to place a severe strain on the financial resources of the people living in those provinces. One project I suggest which is worthy of consideration by the Atlantic Development Board is the establishment of lobster trap depots in the Atlantic provinces. For example, on April 28, 1967, a freak storm of severe proportions dealt havoc and destruction to the lobster traps set along the coast from Guysborough to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. In some areas trap losses may exceed 90 per cent of the fisherman's entire holdings. I point out that while the loss of the traps creates severe financial problems for the fisherman concerned, this is not his greatest loss. In this business, time is of the essence and when a lobster fisherman loses his traps at the beginning of the season his major earning period may well be wiped out, along with the traps, because it will take him three weeks or longer, working around the clock, to rebuild his traps.
This industry is worth something like $23 million to the Atlantic provinces and something like $13 million to the fishermen of Nova Scotia. I mentioned that the recent storm destroyed approximately 90 per cent of the fishermen's traps in some areas of Nova Scotia. This is not an isolated catastrophe but one that occurs with harsh frequency. In fact, only two years ago pack ice, which is always a menace on the east coast, destroyed a large number of traps. I believe the lobster fishermen have suffered five major disasters in the past seven years.
May 11, 1967

The Address-Mr. Crouse [DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
In order to make it possible for these lobster fishermen to continue immediately in the lobster fishing industry following a heavy trap loss, I wish to propose the establishment of at least four major lobster trap depots in Nova Scotia. One of these depots could be located in the Yarmouth area, another on the south shore in Queens or Lunenburg counties, another on the eastern shore between Halifax and Guysborough and a fourth in the Pictou area. Each depot would carry a stock of at least 6,000 lobster traps, and in times of disaster lobster fishermen could draw upon these pools for new supplies. These wooden traps could be made by shore fishermen during the closed season; and since each trap is valued at approximately $7, the total cost of 24,000 traps held in reserve would amount to $168,000 plus the cost of four storage sheds.
The cost of this project could well be borne by the Atlantic Development Board in support of one of our major inshore industries. It is an idea that could well be applied not only to the lobster fishermen of Nova Scotia but to all lobster fishermen in any one of the four Atlantic provinces. Once established the stock of pots could be maintained by the lobster fishermen.
When the loss is sustained, three quarters of the loss is generally covered by lobster trap insurance, which the fishermen could sign over to the administrating authority in payment for the traps obtained, or they could replace the traps by constructing them when the season closed. The design of traps varies in different areas, but the design to be stocked could be worked out with the fishermen concerned. I hope some action is taken on this proposal, which I believe would be beneficial to many of Nova Scotia's lobster fishermen.
While I am on the subject of fishing, I would refer to the recent news release put out by the Department of Transport concerning the loss of the trawler Cape Bonnie which was believed due to a navigational error. This tragic event will long be remembered by the people of Nova Scotia. It would appear the report of the accident as prepared by the officials of the transport department is factual and complete. However, the report does state that the Decca navigator chain which serves the area did produce an unreliable signal for a period of time, and if the captain of the Cape Bonnie was depending on his Decca navigator entirely and took a reading during the period the signal was unreliable, it may

well have caused him to set the wrong course for Halifax harbour.
In the light of accidents which have occurred in the area of Halifax harbour in recent months, it is my opinion-one that is endorsed by many mariners-that in the interests of protecting the fives of our seamen the government should give favourable consideration to returning the Sambro lightship to its regular station. I believe a lightship was on station in the area for some 52 years, and with the strong signals sent out by this ship there was no question in the minds of our mariners about their proper location.
Since we hope and believe that Halifax will become the Nova Scotia terminal for giant bulk cargo vessels in the not too distant future, and we want to encourage as many deep-water ships as possible to call at our capital city's port, I believe maximum assistance in navigational aids should be provided them when approaching the harbour. For these reasons, and for many others I could cite, I hope the government will take early action to see that the Sambro or a similar ship is put back on the job.
Another development which should be studied and supported by the Atlantic Development Board is the proposed construction of a corridor road through Maine. This is not a new proposal, but I ask the government what progress is being made in discussions with our American friends on this important trade and tourist route, which would shorten the distance between the maritimes and central Canadian marketing areas by approximately 140 miles.
Reference to the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, reveals the following paragraph, to be found at page 3 of Hansard:
Parliament will also be asked to enact a measure further to assist Canadians when moving from their homes in order to obtain employment.
Shades of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon). We in the maritime provinces have heard this old chestnut ever since the hon. member produced his report on our economic prospects. This has become a standing joke in our area. We would like him to know-and I think I am speaking for all maritimers when I say this-that we want to stay in the Atlantic provinces. We feel that, given the right opportunities, we can build our part of Canada equal to any other part of this nation. We do not want a one-way ticket to some other part of Canada, and we resent this intimation that we do.
May 11, 1967

I would suggest to the government that they spend some of this money in an effort to try to develop a corridor road through Maine. Has nothing been done in this regard? Is there no one on that side of the house who can tell us what progress is being made with this international development? Surely they could ask somebody in the United States to give us a report on the possibilities of working out a joint highway development in Maine. My understanding is that a bill has been introduced in the Maine legislature calling for construction and improvements on several portions of state route No. 6, a section of the long proposed corridor road. In my view, this is a step in the right direction; but I ask the government whether any representations have been made to the governor of the state of Maine by the federal government indicating our interest in developing this corridor road.
Think of the tremendous savings in transportation costs for our fishing industry, for our farmers and for our newly developing secondary manufacturing industries if a road between Nova Scotia and Montreal could be built which could shorten the distance by 140 miles. This is a project which has been sleeping for far too long, and I hope that some action is taken immediately by the government to bring about international co-operation in this matter, which would be beneficial to a large area of both countries.
What action has been taken to establish a second ferry between New England and Nova Scotia? Our tourist industry is calling out for this type of assistance. Yet all we hear from the federal government are vague promises. There is nothing in the speech from the throne about this particular project, Mr. Speaker. In view of the importance of a second ferry to our agricultural industry, our fishing and tourist industry, I think it is high time that some action was taken on this important matter.
The throne speech states that legislation will be put before this session for better regulation and use of broadcasting privileges and responsibilities. In my view, this cannot be introduced too soon. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is literally like a rudderless ship without a captain, drifting about in a fog on a sea of uncertainty. It is way past the time for the government to take some action in appointing a program boss for this organization, a crown corporation which is causing great concern to many Canadians.
The Address-Mr. Crouse
I say this, Mr. Speaker, because we see in this year's estimates the amount of $143,960,000 for the C.B.C., which is an increase of $29,476,000 in one year. In its original concept the C.B.C. was to operate as a free agent, but we are now aware that there is no such thing as free speech. If this were a private organization, by this time it would have gone broke. With the so-called creative minds in charge of the C.B.C. today, it is evident to the public that they believe this gives them the right to be irresponsible, to deal in sensationalism and to show bad taste.
There are times, Mr. Speaker, when I doubt whether the C.B.C. employees want freedom for the C.B.C. I think they want freedom only for themselves. When I was first elected in 1957 the C.B.C. estimates were approximately $52 million a year, and I can well remember making a speech about it at the time and remarking that $1 million a week seemed to be a lot of money to subsidize one service. I thought the figure was too high then, but today the figure is almost three times that amount. It is high time that we carefully examined this entire organization and its spending program.
Part of the throne speech calls for assistance to housing and urban development. I say that this proposal is fiction, not fact. It presents the vision of new urban living, small towns with their own community life, instead of the present concrete jungles that we call our cities. I am not going to criticize the government for looking ahead, but dreams are no substitute for necessities. Canada today is in the grip of a serious housing crisis. Rents are skyrocketing, and as a result of high levels of taxation imposed by this government in the wake of wasteful extravagance, the price of homes has reached a level far beyond the capacity of the average wage earner to pay.
It is in the Atlantic provinces, in my opinion, that Canada's policy makers should be putting forward a tremendous effort. I say this because, though we have manpower resources, we need new job opportunities. Great progress has been made, but more needs to be done and I hope the government will realize that though we have moved forward we still require assistance from the Atlantic Development Board armed with sufficient funds to help finance continued economic expansion in our area. This should be the goal, and there could be no better undertaking for the Atlantic provinces and for Canada in this our centennial year.
May 11. 1967

The Address-Mr. Nicholson [DOT] (3:50 p-m.)


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate my first words must be words of congratulation to the mover (Mr. Jamieson) and seconder (Mr. Cote, Nicolet-Yamaska) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Rarely, if ever, on the several occasions when I have been present as a member of this house for the past five years and as a visitor during earlier years have I heard a more thoughtful, more inspiring or more eloquent address than that made by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo on Tuesday afternoon. The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska also acquitted himself with distinction, and I heartily congratulate them both on their contribution to the debate in this chamber.
I also wish to avail myself of the opportunity to join in the expression of good wishes and congratulations to His Excellency the Governor General upon his assumption of this responsible and onerous duties. As has been said frequently during recent weeks, our new Governor General has served Canada with great distinction both at home and abroad. If you, Mr. Speaker, will permit a reference to a personal experience I am sure hon. members will find it of interest.
In January of 1966 I had the honour to represent Canada at the funeral in New Delhi of the late Prime Minister Shastri. While there I was a house guest of His Excellency and his gracious lady. As one might expect, during the two days I was there I saw a great deal of His Excellency who was then serving as our high commissioner. I was in his company when we met the acting prime minister, other leaders of government and equally prominent people in India. I was most impressed. I was very proud as a Canadian of the way in which our high commissioner was received by almost every person with whom we came into contact. He was received not only with respect but with warmth and, on one or two occasions, almost with affection. I was very proud, as I have said, to know that we were represented by such a fine person. I am sure his excellent work in India enhanced our prestige and that his work in the important new office he now holds will further increase that prestige.
Under normal circumstances a member of the government taking part in the debate on the address might be expected to deal at some length with the amendments which have been proposed to the motion. In his excellent

speech yesterday, however, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) dealt so effectively with the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and also, perhaps by way of anticipation, with the points raised by the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) in his remarks earlier today, that I do not feel it is necessary for me to do so. The speech of my right hon. leader-and reference to Hansard will bear this out-dealt with those submissions so effectively that I feel my time could be spent to better advantage if I were to supplement what the Prime Minister had to say about Canada's serious housing situation. Your Honour will recall that some days ago I assured hon. members that I would be making such a statement and I am afraid I shall need all the time permitted under the rules if I am to do so even in what might be regarded as an inadequate way.
In view of the serious setback that we faced last year because of the disturbing drop in housing starts amounting to roughly 30,000 fewer than we would have liked, housing has been the focus of attention for a great deal of comment or criticism, if you like, during recent months both inside and outside this house. It might be advisable to point out that in many instances the critics have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the true situation, and this applies to the remarks made on the subject yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition. Repeated attempts have been made to magnify our difficulties out of all proportion to the actual position. Hence the importance of an up to date report on Canada's housing situation.
I would begin by saying that the government is fully aware of the large number of new housing starts necessary to maintain and improve our national stock of living accommodation. But if we are fair with ourselves, however, we must recognize that housing is inevitably subject to the same economic pressures as is every other major industry in this country.
In this connection let me make it clear to a great many people who do not seem to appreciate it that the disquieting experience of 1966, and admittedly it was a disturbing one, does not represent anything new even in our postwar housing experience. Hon. members from western Canada, more particularly from British Columbia, will recall the situation which developed some years ago in downtown Vancouver when people moved into the old Hotel Vancouver, walked in from the street
May 11, 1967	COMMONS
and took over. This is nothing to be proud of but these are the facts of life. The significant thing is that great progress has been made in housing within a period of 20 years. We can look with great satisfaction on the housing record from 1962 to 1966. Every year from 1962-63 through to 1966 there have been not only more completions but, with the exception of 1966, more starts. And even in 1966 we reached a figure within approximately 1,000 of our target for completions. How many people in Canada know that? We have maintained a good average over a period of years.
I am certainly not suggesting there have not and may not be times when certain problem areas in Canada exist and will continue to exist, areas where a shortage of housing will bring hardship to many families needing new homes. Nor would any responsible person suggest that this parliament or the government could sit back and allow the situation which we know exists in some of these areas, especially in metropolitan Toronto, to continue simply with the hope that sooner or later it will correct itself.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The Prime Minister in his remarks yesterday made the government's position perfectly clear. Aggressive action was needed and undoubtedly further action is needed at this time, but I might remind the house and the people of Canada that very effective action has been taken by this government during recent months. The mistake has been that we have been too busy with other things and have not told the people what has actually been done in this field.
And I would also remind the house, as became clear through a series of meetings I attended earlier this year, that the solution of our problems will not be found through the efforts of the senior government alone. Housing today is a most complex problem. In one province in order to get a public housing venture under way you have to go through some 14 different boards, agencies and bodies, which on occasion has taken as long as 28 months. Housing is a complex problem that will be resolved only with the full support of governments at all levels and with the wholehearted support and co-operation of every other responsible body and organization genuinely interested in finding a solution for the problem.
It was our attempt to find an answer that lay behind the series of meetings I convened 27053-7
DEBATES	93
The Address-Mr. Nicholson earlier this year, not on my own but in cooperation with my provincial colleagues, endeavouring to generate a concerted program of effective action which would produce not only the greatly increased number of homes that were needed but housing of the type required to match our expanding variety of needs, including the replacement of near slum areas with decent, clean and warm housing.
I see some hon. members in the house who attended some of those conferences and I am sure they will bear me out that the conferences were well attended and were very worth while. They were informative. The responsibility was placed where the responsibility should be placed, and if there were shortcomings on the part of the federal government those shortcomings were pointed out, but the greater part of the criticisms was not directed toward what the federal government was attempting to do and was doing in this field.
There were nine of these meetings, jointly convened by the provincial ministers and myself, and they have been followed more recently by meetings with the representatives of the principal groups of private mortgage investors in this country, operating in both the conventional and N.H.A. fields, including the banks, trust companies and assurance companies. Yesterday I met for four hours with the presidents and senior vice presidents of every major assurance company in Canada and of many of the smaller ones.
Both series of meetings, the ones sponsored jointly with the provincial ministers and the ones attended by the representatives of the investment institutions, have given me confidence that notwithstanding a very slow start during the first quarter of 1967 this year we will see, and in fact are now experiencing, a very substantial return in housing. It was unfortunate that we had a very slow start in the first quarter of the year, but how many people stop to think that the reason we had such a drop in starts in that quarter was that we had diverted funds that would normally have been made available early this year to the last quarter of last year in order to improve the situation in 1967? I might say that the upturn in housing will surpass by a good margin our earlier expectations for the year.
My confidence is borne out by a reference to some figures. The figures indicate that as of the end of last month, April 30, loans under the National Housing Act were running at during the same period of 1966. In the last approximately three times the level reached
May 11, 1967


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must advise the minister that his allotted time has now expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I do not know whether it is agreeable to hon. members for me to continue for a few moments.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to allow the minister to complete his remarks?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, under ordinary circumstances we would allow the minister to continue. However, this government insists on the allocation of time by compulsion and I think we should follow that procedure.

DEBATES	May II, 1967


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I shall, of course, abide by the wish of the house, but I recall that additional time was granted to two of the last three speakers from the opposite side as well as others.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with others who have preceded me in offering sincere congratulations to the mover and seconder of the speech from the throne, the hon. members for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) and Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Cote). As usual they lived up to the traditions of this house in the quality of the speeches they delivered as their maiden contributions. I am sure we will hear from them again but I should warn them that sometimes the heights which hon. members reach in delivering such formal speeches are never again reached as long as they sit on the government side. I hold out to them the inducement that in the not too distant future, perhaps at the time of the next election, they may yet come over to this side where they may enjoy the greater freedom which comes to those who are members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. At that time they may give full effect to the quality which they displayed and which I doubt they will have the opportunity to display again.
Let me apologize to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) for not dealing specifically with the subject matter of his very interesting speech. Let me assure him, however, that in the opposition lobby the line is already forming of hon. members who are eager and anxious to come to grips with the minister on that subject matter.
We are still involved in wrangles about the constitution and federal-provincial relations. The government has moved a step closer to the position some of us advocate and have advocated for a long time, namely, that there should be wider and more public discussion of this problem. Frankly I do not put too much stock in what was said in the speech from the throne, and this feeling was borne out by what the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said when he spoke yesterday. It seems the government and its senior advisors cannot get it into their heads that this issue at this time should not be the prerogative of a privileged few. True enough, any changes made must take into account the existing jurisprudence, and the views of all experts in the respective governments will be needed when in due course firm proposals are drafted and legislation enacted.
May 11, 1967

In the first instance, surely these are matters which deeply concern the average Canadian. Surely he is entitled to participate in the discussion, to hear what is being said and to indicate whether in his view the federal or the provincial government is the instrument he would select to exercise jurisdiction in certain fields. These might include educational television, about which we have heard much lately, as well as external affairs, air and water pollution and assistance to urban development. The average person living in this country, regardless of whether he is a resident of Quebec, Ontario or some other province, is deeply and continually concerned about these issues. He may decide in his judgment that these things could best be handled by the provincial governments or by the federal government. It seems to me that what the government is doing by referring this matter to its technical committee is refusing to bring it into the open for discussion, and this is not consistent with the idea of hearing the views of the majority of the people. I suggest this idea of "big brother knows best" is a most aggravating and arrogant assumption.
I feel I am entitled to make these comments because my position has been consistent. I first raised this matter in this party four or five years ago and have dealt with it in speeches in the house. I placed a resolution on the order paper on March 13, 1964, reading as follows:
That, In the opinion of this house, the government should forthwith consult with the provinces for the purpose of establishing a centennial constitutional conference to consist of a given number of Senators and Members of Parliament and an equal number of members of all of the provincial legislatures: which conference should meet in Ottawa and in all of the provinces to consider amending the British North America Act in accordance with the experiences of the past, the exigencies of the present and the needs of the future, including in such consideration the determination of those subject matters which are logically suited for general federal-provincial consultation-
That was well over three years ago and no attention was paid to it at that time. I placed another resolution on the order paper, in somewhat different terms but dealing with the same subject matter, which was debated on February 14, 1966.
If such a conference has been initiated in 1963, 1964, 1965 or even 1966 we might at this time be crowning the results in this year of our centennial celebrations by a new and useful approach in legislative form to our federal-provincial difficulties. Instead we see the problems magnified and deepening, dividing our country regionally and, unfortunately at
The Address-Mr. Baldwin times, racially. I can only say that the government's oiler is too little and too late.
I cannot support the subamendment offered by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), without quarreling with its content. That attitude is consistent with the position I am now taking in that it is premature in the same way that the government's proposal is premature at this time. The result will be to bury this matter by referring it for consideration by a few technical experts. The first thing that is essential as a condition precedent is a thorough and wide-ranging public discussion on all levels.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
After those words of criticism I am glad to say a word or two in commendation of the government for its proposal in the speech from the throne to consider new incentives for industrial, regional and economic planning in the north. I came into this house over nine years ago primarily to push the government into projects of this kind and became immediately concerned with the construction of a railway to Pine Point, which had been talked about for almost 40 years but which no government had ever looked at. The issue involved not only the railroad but the route, and it ultimately proved necessary to have the then government set up a royal commission to consider this issue. Despite opposition which came from all sides of the house and from many of the larger companies and industries involved, the former government was persuaded ultimately to select a route through Peace River and the railway was launched and built. Because it was built, and was built on the right route, the costs of construction were decreased, the time for building was lessened and the great mine at Pine Point came into production, other mines and mineral fields were discovered, and great timber resources which we knew of were opened and are now producing large quantities of lumber and plywood. The construction of the railroad and the collateral improvement of the Mackenzie by the government of Alberta and the federal government accelerated the exploration and discovery of oil and gas in the huge Rainbow lake fields, and thousands of people came into the country. Exploration was stepped up in the Northwest Territories. This was all done through a partnership arrangement among the government, the railway company and industry. To the extent to which the present government will take this as a model in their development of the north, they can count on my completely non-partisan support.
May 11, 1967

The Address-Mr. Baldwin
For the rest of my time, Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss two statements contained in the speech from the throne which are worthy of consideration, and in fact should be enshrined in the annals of this house. The first one is this:
If the century that has passed can be characterized by the development of the resources of our land, it is likely that the century to come must be marked by an increasing concentration upon the development of the resources of the mind and the spirit...
In one form or another science is already reaching into the very heart of the community to transform the lives of each of us. It is essential that the control and development of our environment keeps apace. We have built towns and cities, canals and railroads, highways and other great works of construction at an unprecedented pace. But we have too often in the past made beauty the poor sister of material gain and careless workmanship the price of easy profit. We must lose no more time in making ugliness in our environment as unwelcome as financial losses in our balance sheets.
And so on ad nauseam. If I were allowed to wear a hat in this house, I would take it off and bow three times at those beautiful words, words with which we must all agree but which have no place within the four corners of the speech from the throne which the government gave to His Excellency to read. The speech from the throne, as I construe it, ought to be a document envisaging a legislative program that this parliament will be asked to deal with in the course of the session to come.
I can only surmise that somehow these fine words were misplaced and were probably intended to be used by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) at some ceremony in the future when he would be receiving an honorary degree at a university and have by error found their way into the speech from the throne. The fact is that these statements and others like them, and the whole tone and content of the speech from the throne, are an indication that this government has now come into the open to indicate its determination to involve itself directly and substantially in all aspects of human life. Its actions in the past and this speech from the throne in the present is a periscope to look ahead into the future.
I recognize that governments must be strong and powerful within the limits of their authority; they must be armed with the right to act swiftly. But the point I wish to make is that this must always go hand in hand with the necessity of making a government accountable, and answerable, and if it is the intention of this government, as appears certain, more and more to take over the authority to tell


people what to do, how to do it and when to do it in every field of human activity, then some way must be found to make them responsible.
Governments are becoming increasingly activist; they are moving into all areas of human activity. They act as transfer agents to redistribute wealth. They invade our privacy. There is not one area of human relations where this government is not intending to move. In short, they propose to become allpowerful and all-encompassing. This might be all very well if wisdom, intelligence, moderation and understanding were present to modify and mould their decisions. But governments are in the grip of and held firm by ordinary human beings. All too often politicians are looking to the next election, civil servants are engaged in empire building and struggling for prestige and promotion, pressure groups are seeking special privileges, there are even and a few purveyors of corruption. They are no worse, but certainly no better, than the rest of us ordinary people.
The laws that the government does pass are increasingly restrictive, curtailing and intruding upon our lives; and this means more than the laws we see on the statute books. Hardly a bill is brought into the house today that does not give to the executive uncontrolled discretion to legislate in secret by order in council or ministerial regulation. They even demand that we delegate this right to boards and tribunals. In this respect, unlike most other democratic countries, this backward and reactionary government has so far refused to establish machinery to permit this type of delegated authority to be examined and scrutinized under formal procedures.
Some years ago when we were debating the report of the first committee on procedure I asked the Prime Minister whether he was prepared to establish a committee to examine the delegating of authority. At that time he said he would consider the question and went on to say that the government was considering appointing an ombudsman. He said this consideration was to continue. It is still continuing. The time has come when members of this house must tell the government to do something about it. I hope that through the medium of the procedures committee some improvement may be brought about in this regard, because there must be some reform to compel the ever-growing power of the executive to be answerable and responsive in these matters.
The speech from the throne makes special reference to parliamentary reform, and I am
May 11, 1967

happy to see that this question is contained in the speech. I should warn the government that there is more to parliamentary reform than merely arming the government with the guillotine to shut off debate and curtail discussion at their whim. Our rules and standing orders are not the property of this or any government or of any group or person. The right to set conditions under which the house operates is and must continue to remain the exclusive privilege, collectively, of the individual private members, without regard to political affiliation.
It is for all of us in our capacity as members to arrange these rules so that we may do our duty according to the oath which we took upon becoming members, which takes precedence over all other loyalties. After all, this is not a private debating club nor is it an institution which meets meekly to place the seal of approval on the proposals of the government. Many of us are here because our people sent us to find answers to some of the tough and complex problems which perplex us. If we cannot even come to grips with the necessary requirement of our own procedures to permit us to do this job, there is not much hope for the country.
Yet this does not have to mean that the writ of the government must run 100 per cent in every matter of detail and on all collateral issues. Surely, once the basic policies and fundamentals of spending and legislative proposals have been adopted and decided in the house along party lines, there should be opportunity for the private members from all parties to speak, act and vote on the details, particularly through the committees system, with a less rigid party system than is now the case.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I am glad to hear the Prime Minister suggest the likelihood of this on some of the issues proposed for the coming session. Certainly on capital punishment and divorce and certain proposed changes in the Criminal Code and on several other items, there should be declarations as soon as possible that on matters such as this, which to a greater extent than in other issues so deeply affect the individual conscience and beliefs of the members, there should be complete freedom, even though the measures may be introduced, as they should be, by the government.
I hope that we will come to this position in a great many more of the questions which we have to consider. It is my belief that the party system has substantial benefits, but it

The Address-Mr. Baldwin can go hand in hand with more objectivity and independence on the part of the private members. As a matter of fact, I believe this objectivity and independence will strengthen the party system, certainly in the eye of the public.
We all belong to a party because we have great belief in the creed which it professes, and on the fundamental and philosophic problems there is an opportunity for parties to consider their positions and vote accordingly and to divide on such lines in the debates in the house on the basic programs. But there must be freedom of conscience and opportunity for the private member on the question of detail. Hand in hand with this we need to remove from the government the fear that every defeat need mean an election.
Procedures which will permit a more objective examination of bills and estimates before they have been poured into the mould of government enactments which harden and become inflexible must be worked out. For this to happen there will have to be a greater emphasis on quality rather than quantity.
Today when I hear the Prime Minister and other members of the government gloat and boast over the variety and number of the bills which they have enacted and intend to enact, I suggest to them that they restrain their enthusiasm until these bills have come back for amendment, change and modification in the light of the facts, because most of them contain substantial defects.
Governments-and this government in particular-have forgotten the cardinal principle of legislation, namely that the best bills and the best acts and legislation are those which conform to and follow the normal pattern of human behaviour, rather than run contrary and adverse to human nature. All too often in the last three or four years we have passed bills with too little regard for the capacity of the economy to absorb these measures or of the ability of the people to digest them, or even of the civil service to carry them out.
Without weakening government or diminishing leadership, it is plain that the elected members must assume a more useful and meaningful role in the machinery of democracy, and the frustration and weaknesses of the present system are not an environment in which freedom and independence can flourish.
All too often the decision a member has to make on a vote is a difficult and an agonizing one. This is particularly so for those who might harbour the treasonable idea that the
100	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Baldwin pronouncements from the top and the dictates of party may be loud, but are not always clear. It is only given to the truly faithful to be able to detect the divine nature of some of these revelations.
However, partly because of the shrill cries of those who are still fighting the doctrinaire battles of long ago, sometimes to carry out the pet schemes of civil servants, and frequently because of pure, political opportunism, the state is moving constantly and on a broad front to legislate, tax and spend: legislate, tax and spend.
I readily concede that there are still large areas affected by poverty, disease and ignorance where the public sector must intervene because the private sector has not been capable of solving the problems. This is something which is accepted in our society as it is today. But I dislike the interference, the red tape the increasing bureaucracy and the dwindling freedom of the ordinary citizen which this government involvement means. All too often, in an effort to deal with a particular evil, we end up by legislating in such a way that we invade the general rights of everybody and affect the entire community. We invoke the whole massive apparatus of the state when a more selective approach would be adequate. It is like using a nuclear missile to gun down a marauding crow. There is this constant deterioration in the capacity to enjoy freedom, to live life as a human being, fashioned in the image of the Creator, as a separate, distinct and highly individualistic person.
The state towers above us, huge, immovable, impersonal, with all the rules in its favour; with forms, red tape and bureaucracy squeezing out the colour and life of ordinary human beings, and with a future ahead of us looking more and more as a dreary, dull wasteland, adjusted to conformity, with the ultimate loss of the divine spark of individuality. No wonder people are being driven into the bog of television and other synthetic enjoyments, despite the bad taste of some programs, and the mealy-mouthed mediocrity of many of the public affairs programs and commentators.
The question which comes to me over and over again on these issues as they come up in the house for discussion, consideration and voting is: What is the real cost, not only in terms of actual dollars, but remembering that after the tax structure established by spending programs is reflected in the cost of living there is a very little real net return to those

DEBATES	May 11, 1967
who are on the receiving end of these programs?
A year ago, on April 22, I referred to this particular issue in the house when I said the following:
I have an idea that people would like us seriously to consider the problems presented by inflation. That word, of course, is a bland euphemism used by those in authority to express the fact that the prices of meat, milk, bread, shoes, taxes, rent and so on are all going up and up, so much so that there is reason to believe that one of the unidentified flying objects about which we have heard so much has been identified as the cost of living index.
Since I made that speech the cost of living index has gone up 4.6 points, and the cost of many of the programs which have been put into effect during the course of the last year has not yet been fed into the economy. This fact, the steady and relentless whittling away of the rights of the individual, and the enormous growth of the government, is the price we are paying for these reforms. The question then is: What must we do in this house to be able to reform our procedure and our rules so that when the government, as it apparently proposes to do, moves ahead on this broad front dealing with every aspect of human life, we in this house will be able to discharge the obligations to our constituents who sent us here to examine, scrutinize and analyse these things, to make sure that the price which is paid in the loss of human freedom and human rights is as small as we can possibly make it.
I fully realize that many bills will be passed, but the price which we are paying is far too great. We must have an opportunity to examine, scrutinize and make certain that the amount of liberty which is lost is as small as possible under the circumstances. More than that, when the government acting under the legislative proposals enacts orders in council and ministerial regulations there must be a procedure and a means whereby those can be brought back into the house for examination and scrutiny, so that we can ascertain their effect and impact upon the public. At the present time there is no means of doing this, and this constitutes a grave gap in the duty and responsibilities which we as members should exercise, on behalf of the people who sent us here. In looking many months ahead, which I believe we have to do if we take the speech of the Prime Minister and the speech from the throne seriously, we must organize, change and modify our rules and our means of carrying on the business of the country and the business of parliament so that the private
May 11, 1967	COMMONS
members, through the committees structure and through changes in the rules, will have opportunity to a greater extent than ever before to exercise the authority and the rights which we as private members must exercise.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
There are many ways by which this can be done and I am not at this time, Mr. Speaker, going to go into them. As a member of the procedure committee I consider it my responsibility to wait until the committee is in session to bring forward my ideas. I hope, however, that we will have an opportunity to change, to moderate and to improve our antediluvian and anachronistic practices. I think we are farther behind in this regard than any nation in the commonwealth. There are many reasons for that and I do not think I need to deal with them at this stage. 1 do not want to usurp the functions of the chairman of this committee, but as a member of the committee I would invite hon. members to bring forward their ideas since it is literally impossible for all private members to appear before the committee.
As you may know Mr. Speaker, there is a very interesting practice in the United Kingdom under which the very distinguished Speaker, Right Hon. Dr. King, the party whips and party house leaders do appear before a committee considering procedure. The proceedings of this committee are conducted with the help and assistance of these distinguished members of the House of Commons in Westminster. There are transcripts made of the committee proceedings. We find, however, that the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, the Congress of the United States, the House of Representatives and the Senate in Australia are all struggling with the same problem. They are all feeling the frustration of the private members who desire very earnestly to make some contribution to the government of the country, but the rules do not permit them to do so. They find the government becoming increasingly powerful and less and less inclined to listen to the views of members. They are trying to work out a means of accommodation between the necessity for carrying on the multitudinous activities of the country and at the same time reserving to private member every opportunity to intervene, when in their view they have a duty to do so.
In this country, Mr. Speaker, with its diverse economic and geographical conditions, it is more than ever essential that this right be acquired. I hope that hon. members who 27053-8
DEBATES	101
The Address-Mr. Deachman have been in this house for some time and who have, I am sure, experienced the difficulties and frustrations, sometimes the agony, of attempting to make their contribution on behalf of their constituents or their country, will let us have their views. I believe that only in that way can a consensus be arrived at. I believe this is essential. I think we are at the crossroads because of the activities of the government which I have mentioned, and so there must be some considerable reform of our procedure in the near future or else, in my humble opinion, the institutions of democracy as we know them will pass out of existence.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, while I have been sitting here this afternoon listening to the other speakers in this throne speech debate I was informed that Margaret Konantz, who was a member of this house in the years 1963 to 1965, had died while in Fredericton where she was preparing to address a gathering on the subject of UNICEF. As you know, Mr. Speaker, she was the Canadian president of UNICEF and had spent many years of devotion to the interests of children. I know that everyone in this house will be most saddened to learn of the passing of one of Canada's great ladies. I can do no more this afternoon in honouring her than perhaps convey to the house some of the achievements of this lady, for they are worth recording in Hansard as the achievements of a magnificent woman.
She was born Margaret McTavish Rogers in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Her mother's family was connected with the Hudson's Bay Company. Her great great grandfather, Sir George Simpson, was the first governor of the Hudson's Bay Company and one of Canada's outstanding pioneers in the development of the country. Her mother, Edith Rogers, was the first woman elected to the Manitoba legislature which Margaret Konantz herself adorned with such distinction. Not long after her marriage to Gordon Konantz in 1922, she began a long life of service to Canada in addition to rearing her family of one daughter and two sons through whom she gained seven grandchildren.
From 1924 to 1929 she was a volunteer worker and treasurer of a convalescent hospital in the city of Winnipeg. In 1929, and for the next two or three years, she was associated with the Junior League of Winnipeg and responsible for starting the Ellice Avenue Thrift Shop. She became Canadian representative from 1933 to 1935 of the Association of
102	COMMONS DEBATES	May 11. 1967
The Address-Mr. Deachman
Junior Leagues of America. Then she became campaign chairman of the women's division of the Community Chest of Winnipeg, at a time when the campaign was organized through volunteer boards of member agencies. From 1935 to 1938 she was a member of the board of the Council of Social Agencies. In 1936 Mrs. Konantz became chairman of the Manitoba campaign of the Canadian Welfare Council concerning child care. During the war years she was one of a committee of five women who between September and November of 1939 organized the registration of women for war service and community service in Winnipeg. There were 7,000 women registered, and a mass meeting of the group decided that the organization should be called the Central Volunteer Bureau. While Mrs. Konantz was president of the Central Volunteer Bureau from 1940 to 1943 it engaged in many other war activities in connection with the Community Chest and the Red Cross.
This organization was also involved with the Patriotic Salvage Corps, and Mrs. Konantz was a vice president and trustee of that organization. Mrs. Konantz was also connected with the Bundles for Britain program, since she organized and maintained the downtown workroom for sewing and packaging of bundles for overseas. She was involved with the Greater Winnipeg Co-ordinating Board for war and welfare agencies. She assisted the Council of Social Agencies to form this board in 1941 and it included the Royal Canadian Legion, Knights of Columbus, I.O.D.E., Salvation Army, Canadian Red Cross, Y.M.C.A., Y.W.C.A. and the Navy League.
In 1944 she was requested by the Minister of War Services to visit Britain and make a survey of women's voluntary services, then report back to the federal government. Her report was used by women's volunteer service of Britain as a handbook for many years. Following this survey Mrs. Konantz travelled across Canada telling Canadian women of the appreciation expressed by British women for work done for them by Canadian volunteers. She was involved in the White Cross Guild which was organized in 1946 to provide service to the Winnipeg General Hospital. She then became vice president of the Crippled Children's Society in 1950. In 1955 she was invited by Lady Reading, chairman of the Women's Voluntary Services of Britain, to go to England. She spent one year there as a volunteer working with women's voluntary services studying principally their civil defence arrangements.

[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
From November 1957 to February 1958 she visited the Asia region of UNICEF, now known as the United Nations Children's Fund. She saw work in Japan, Formosa, Hong Kong, Thailand, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. I recall her once telling us of her trip from Jordan to Israel and how she had to cross "no man's land" between those two countries. She had to pick up her bags at one station and walk several hundred yards across sandy desert to the gate at the other side, carrying her bags all alone through the desert, and how welcome she found the English voice calling to her as she entered the checkpoint on the other side.
She has promoted UNICEF work in Winnipeg since that time and has been speaking at many Women's Canadian Clubs in Canada. Many of us were familiar with her talks and slide shows and were immensely impressed by work of this nature which she did. In 1961 she was Manitoba campaign chairman for World Refugee Year. In 1961-1962 she was national vice president of the United Nations Association as well as national chairman of the membership committee for the United Nations Association in Canada. For her war service she was awarded the O.B.E.
Both this house and the country, Mr. Speaker, will indeed regret the passing of this woman and will rejoice that in Canada there has risen from such a distinguished family as hers a woman of such distinction to serve Canada.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Speaker, I deem it a pleasure as weR as a duty to participate in this debate on the speech from the throne. Like other previous speakers, I should like first of all to congratulate the mover and the seconder upon the splendid speeches they have made. I listened with a great deal of attention as well as pleasure to the speech of the mover and also to that made by the seconder. Afterwards I thought that if they had written the speech from the throne it might have something in it which was more in line with what they said, and would be of a nature which could be complemented.
I also listened with keen attention to the speech by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in this debate, and I should like to deal with some of the questions he brought up. I have no doubt that he was sincere in his statements when he said he wanted to make this parliament work, that he wanted first of all to
May 11, 1967

bring in measures which would improve the work of this parliament and make it more smooth and efficient. If I address a few remarks to the house along this line it might be of some help both to him and to other hon. members.
I have been critical before, Mr. Speaker, but I think that anyone dealing with a subject of this kind must be critical; one must come to grips with the problem. We were told by the Prime Minister that he is going to experiment with the use of television in committees, but he did not tell us why he wished to do so. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) suggested the use of television in this chamber so that our constituents and the people in the country could see what the members of this house are doing, what they are saying, be in a position to judge for themselves as to the attendance of hon. members and also to formulate their own opinions of the house. I see nothing particularly wrong with having television in this house, Mr. Speaker, but I do see a lot wrong with using it in committee sittings.
Let me deal with this point for a few moments. There are members of this house who, when the committees are set up, belong to three of those committees. Since there is no schedule man, there is therefore no one appointed to avoid the clashing of the times of committee sittings. Those who set up the committees simply go their own sweet way and schedule committee meetings, and if you are a member of two committees which meet at the same time, then obviously you cannot be in two places at once and have to choose one or the other.
Let us assume, Mr. Speaker, that the one you choose is not having its proceedings televised. In this event your constituents would note your absence from the other committee. The letters would start to pour in: "Ah ha, Mr. Member for East Kootenay, you were not in your seat in the committee". Of course, the reference might be to the member for Macleod or any other member. But the point I am trying to make is the practical one of avoiding conflicts and being fair to everybody. It would not be fair to the hon. member for East Kootenay if his constituents received the impression that he did not attend that committee simply because he had another committee to attend which, in his judgment, he felt of more importance. No one has yet come up with a solution to a problem of this sort, Mr. Speaker, and my guess is that no one has even thought about it.

The Address-Mr. Kindt
There are many other aspects to televising committee proceedings in order to popularize them. It might be used to force attendance of Liberal backbenchers in committees. I have attended committees on many occasions and waited half an hour before we had a quorum.


Auguste Choquette: Just look at the attendance
over there now.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I might say that we always waited for Liberal members to attend committees before we could proceed. The hon. member who has just taken his seat stated the other day-


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to mention the fact that there are only four Conservative members present in the house, and I want that to be recorded on Hansard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is no Liberal minister in the house either.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt) has the floor.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that at the present time there are only ten Liberals in the house, and I want that to be on the record. There are at least a dozen Conservatives behind the curtain smoking and listening.


Harold Warren Danforth: And there are no cabinet
ministers.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I am trying to deliver a talk here with some principles in it which will assist in the running of this parliament. The people who are laying down the ground rules for television are doing so to ensure the attendance of Liberal backbenchers and all other backbenchers. I am one hundred per cent opposed to using public money to buy T.V. time in order to ensure that backbenchers in the Liberal party attend committee meetings. Hon. members opposite can laugh and snort all they like, but he who laughs last laughs best. I am only telling them the truth.
Why is attendance at committee meetings so unsatisfactory? What is the basic cause of the failure to attract backbenchers? I will tell the house what the trouble is. These committees are not set up in such a way as to allow people to take part and feel that they are making a real contribution. That is the problem. This is a situation which has existed for
104	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Kindt a long time, and members opposite have perhaps inherited it. If these committees are to work properly, those who sit on them must be given something constructive to do. It is not enough merely to try to keep them busy.
There is a feeling among frontbenchers, none of whom is present to hear me-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I am talking about frontbenchers, there is not one of them here. They are very good at handing down rules for backbenchers to follow. But they never sit on these committees.


Mr. Winkler:: They never show up.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: When they do attend committee meetings they come to instruct backbenchers, not to receive advice. This is what has been happening ever since I became a member of this house, regardless of the party in power. This is the problem which must be faced if the weaknesses of the committee set-up are to be corrected. They will not be solved simply by putting television cameras into committees in an effort to ensure attendance, relying on the effect of letters from constituents, and so on.
As far as I am concerned I would be delighted to have television in committees.


Mr. Orange:: Colour?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Anything. As far as I am concerned it would be a good thing. But the principle of putting television in committees in order to attract attendance is a false one. It was inherent in the statement of the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: When?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Those members opposite who laugh are just types who will never do anything to contribute in any way toward improving the procedures of the house.
I served on the committee dealing with Indian affairs and northern development. We held meetings. Let me say, first of all, that every one of these committees has a preponderance of Liberals on it. All they do is pop up to support the minister and his policy. As far as the work of the committee is concerned, this is absolutely useless. If anyone cares to contradict what I have said I should like to hear him do so.


Auguste Choquette: Right now?
[Mr. Kindt.l
DEBATES	May 11, 1967


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I say that the committees simply do not operate effectively as they are at present set up. They do not work in a way which allows people who are elected members of parliament to be men among men. Members on the back seats over on the other side can snigger and try to poke fun, it does not disturb me one bit, because I just consider where it comes from. I take it as I would a kick from a mule, and say the poor brute does not know any better.


Mr. O'Keefe:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I shall be glad to answer questions when I am finished.
The front benchers of the Liberal party make decisions as to what backbenchers shall do. They expect backbenchers to sit on these committees. After all, that is why the committees were set up-to give hon. members something to do and make them happy. This purpose has certainly not been accomplished. The members on these committees are not happy, otherwise they would attend meetings and it would not be necessary for the Liberal whip to telephone government supporters in an effort to get them there, and then wait half an hour for the meeting to begin-and then, often, without a quorum. There is something fundamentally wrong.
Committees of this house lack basic, fundamental authority and this weakens the work of parliament. To correct this weakness a way must be found of giving to the people's representatives a role of importance to play; regardless of whether they sit on the front or on the back benches of this house an opportunity must be given for their thoughts to find their way into legislation. As things are now, the committees are not functioning effectively. Hon. gentlemen opposite intend to resort to television in an effort to make them function. Isn't that stupid? Is that not typical of a decision made by someone on the front bench who does not even sit on committees?


Edward Richard Schreyer: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: After I have finished I should be glad to answer all questions.
I have said before that if and when television is introduced into committees it will be necessary to appoint a schedule man to set up these various meetings at different times.


An hon. Member:: That's it.
May 11. 1967	COMMONS
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to ask that fellow to get out of the room because he is doing nothing but interrupting. I do not interrupt him when he is talking and I would ask the same treatment from him.


Auguste Choquette: Him? It's him.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: No, it's him.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: He is just an hon. member of the house and if he has not learned yet, because of his brief stay in the house, I will tell him he is supposed to keep quiet, and I think it is up to you, Mr. Speaker, to act on my request.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I should point out that the hon. member for Macleod has the floor and under standing orders he has the right to make his statement without being interrupted, except to ask questions or to raise a point of order. I would ask hon. members to observe the standing orders.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Auguste Choquette: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I have already indicated to others that I shall be glad to answer questions at the end of my speech because there is a time limit on it.


Auguste Choquette: Is it a long speech?


An hon. Member:: Is that your question?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: One of the things which the Governor General indicated in the speech from the throne is that the Prime Minister intends to have another vote on capital punishment. Much less than a year ago we had a vote on capital punishment. It was a free vote, but since then the government has not carried out the will of parliament. Therefore I ask, what is the use of backbenchers even attending or being in parliament? We voted on capital punishment but what has the government done? They have laughed at parliament; they have not carried out its will. Now they are going to have another vote, rigged in some way so that it is a government measure, and so that when the government pulls the string it will have the backing of its supporters, and thus bring about a favourable result. That is their intention.
I say to the government that if they want to have another test on capital punishment,
DEBATES	105
The Address-Mr. Kindt then let them put it in the form of a plebiscite to the people of Canada. Let the people of Canada decide, instead of the government deciding. Parliament has already decided and we don't need another vote: All we need is a government that will carry out the law as it now stands.
In my view all votes in this house should be free votes. The free vote on capital punishment was the first in my almost nine years in this house in which I thought my vote was helping to decide an issue. I thought that issue was decided; but now the Prime Minister says we are going to have another vote. He did not like the last one.
I do not want to become personal, but the people in the country are talking about this. They have talked to me in my riding and said, "You had a vote and decided the question of capital punishment less than a year ago. Why are you going to take another vote? The issue is just the same as it was six months or a year ago." My suspicion is that the government is going to wrap this thing up in some way that will make it more palatable to members of parliament.
We have laws concerning capital punishment on the statute books, and if the government is not going to enforce them, then what is the good of this parliament? What is the use of backbenchers if, following their vote, the government decides it will not handle things the way parliament wants them handled? I say we are up against dictatorship; and we are up against dictatorship when it comes to the workings of committees. These ministers opposite don't give one damn when it comes to committees. They pay no attention to committees. We have discussions in committees and make recommendations from committees, but the ministers go their own sweet way.
If parliament is to work we should have a proper mechanism whereby ministers attend committee meetings where committee members can ask them questions and ascertain their views on various subjects. It is our hope that the ideas which come from committees may be translated into legislation, but that for the most part does not happen now.
Frontbenchers on the government side listen to the civil service establishment but not to backbenchers on either the Liberal or opposition side. Ministers like to get committees working so that backbenchers will feel happy, thinking they are doing something constructive. Those ministers have a philosophy about committee work, that it is like a log going
May 11, 1967

The Address-Mr. Kindt
downstream with 10,000 ants on it, and they want backbenchers to feel that every ant is steering the log. But what ant has got anything to do with steering the log? Each ant is just there as a fixture-and we are all in the same boat.
What I am saying is that we are not grappling with the problem of making parliament work effectively. I have talked to many Liberal backbenchers, and much of what I am saying today stems from their reactions. Backbenchers on both sides of the house share these views. If the Liberal party now in power wishes to improve the working relations among members of parliament, let it grapple with this problem. Let it come up with some ideas that will meet this feeling which backbenchers have. Give backbenchers something to look forward to. Give them a feeling that they are a part of this show. Give them something to do that is constructive.
Ministers say committees will discuss this particular legislation and that particular legislation, but after the committees have done their work the ministers do not even read the committee reports. They don't even look at them: They laugh at them, and backbenchers know this. If you are going to make this parliament work, come down to brass tacks. This is a feeling which is shared on all sides of the house. We should get down to the fundamentals of change so as to make parliament work better.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
This is being disregarded. Cold water is being thrown on the efforts of parliament from one end of the nation to the other. A provincial conference is convened, the federal cabinet meets with all the provinces, and then comes up with some finished thought on the subject. Then perhaps they put it in the form of a government motion, which means it is rubberstamped. But not even the backbenchers on the Liberal side of the house have anything to say even in caucus about this policy. This is what they tell me.
If we are to correct some of these things we must grapple with them and find a solution to them. Parliament in its present form and in the way its committees are set up is not working. We are not getting the best there is from these people.
I should like now to talk about one or two other points. First of all, this morning I mentioned to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing) that there are many things going on which he should
IMr. Kindt.3
know about. There is in particular the petition from 324 people of Banff who are protesting against the policy of this government on leases. In this connection I should like to read an editorial from the Calgary Daily Herald of Saturday, March 18, 1967. It reads as follows:
Residents of Banff and Jasper national parks have every right to be upset over recent news from Ottawa. A Commons committee which has been examining new parks leasehold policy being proposed by the parks branch of the federal department of northern affairs has approved it. In so doing, it has rejected objections which leaseholders in the two parks had registered against the new policy.
Under the new policy, commercial leases will be granted for a limited period of forty-two years without the leaseholder receiving payment for the improvements he has constructed on the property at the time the lease runs out. Vague assurance is given that the lease might be renewed under some partnership principle, but the simple fact is the investor will no longer own his buildings and improvements. Since it might be expected that a leaseholder would want to retire and turn his business over to someone else before the forty-two years was up, he would find himself in a difficult position. Who would want to buy up his business if it had only a few more years to run? Who wants to invest in a business which lacks the prospects of permanence? And who wants to build up a business which someone else is going to grab without compensation?
Furthermore, what businessman would continue to pay the costs of maintenance in first class condition of a building or buildings during the final few years of the lease, knowing that a fair value return could not be expected when the property had to be turned over to someone else without so much as a thank you when the inevitable deadline finally arrived?
Hon. Arthur Laing, the minister of the department in charge of the national parks, continues to have an unfailing instinct for keeping the people in the two big mountain parks in an unhappy state of alarm and dissatisfaction.
Despite his many protestations to the contrary, he and his staff of Ottawa civil servants still cling to the outdated concept that the mountain parks must be maintained in a semi-wilderness state to be passed on unimpaired (which can only mean practically unused) to future generations. This constitutes an utter denial of the more realistic view that the great scenic regions should be opened up in reasonable measure to growing numbers of scenic-hungry people.
What is the point of having beautiful scenery if it cannot be enjoyed at leisure except by a fortunate handful of people?
The towns of Banff and Jasper are there, whether or not some people wish otherwise. The railroad lines, the modern highways are there. And people want to travel over them. They want to find hotels and motels and camp grounds and services there. They want modern services and amenities. And who is supposed to provide these things? Not the government, we hope. This sort of thing has to be done properly and governments rarely do anything properly.
May 11, 1967

The Address-Mr. Allmand
If private enterprise and private investors, who know how to do these things properly, are to be expected to go in and develop the service areas, they have to have inducements of reasonable financial rewards and reasonable treatment.


The Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


An hon. Member:: Continue.


The Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the hon. member may continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is high time the mountain parks were taken out of the hands of bumbling Ottawa bureaucracy and placed in the hands of someone, not a new wing of bureaucracy such as the proposed new leaseholds corporation which is a creature of the federal department based in the east, but someone who knows what the problem of park development is all about.
We have here and now a vivid example of that.
So, Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude by saying that I could go on to mention half a dozen other matters which I have on my list, all of which I feel are problems which should be solved by this government, not only in order to ensure that the work of the house would be carried out properly but also in order to get things going properly in the country.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin this afternoon by expressing my sympathy to the family of Margaret Konantz, a former member of this house, who died this afternoon. Although I did not sit in this house when Mrs. Konantz was a member, I have known her for many years through her work with UNICEF. I always admired her. On several occasions I had an opportunity to meet her at conventions of this party. As has been mentioned by another hon. member, she leaves a great legacy for Canadians.
I should also like to congratulate my colleagues of the backbench who moved and seconded the speech from the throne. I believe the speech given by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) was one of the greatest I have heard in this house in the year I have been here. He certainly makes it difficult for other backbenchers, including myself, who follow him.
In the speech from the throne which was given this week there was mention of parliamentary reform. It seems that many members of this house are interested in this subject
because many of them have used it as the basis for their speech. As a matter of fact, this afternoon three speeches have been on the subject of parliamentary procedure. The speech from the throne in one part said:
Canada in embarking upon its second century of federal government, must provide its parliament with every facility to ensure that efficiency and thoroughness of deliberation, which, in the consideration of every item of public business, is alone the sure protection of the liberty and well-being of our people.
[DOT] ( 5:40 p.m.)
In his speech to the house yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) reiterated that wish and made more specific recommendations. This afternoon I should like to take the opportunity to support those statements and to make a few observations and recommendations of my own. Let me refer to some of the things that the novice member of parliament, immediately to reform our rules to put parliament, when observed in action from the floor or the galleries.
We often find it difficult to understand why there is so much irrelevancy and repetition, why the house often is empty, why it takes so long to introduce and pass a bill, why a small minority can obstruct the country's business, why the house cannot defeat a government bill without defeating the government and many other similar things. Many such things disturb observers of this house in action. After one hundred years of confederation the people of Canada are no longer satisfied with either the productivity or performance of parliament. They feel something must be done immediately to reform our rules to put parliament into the twentieth century.
In his speech yesterday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) said that parliament is the embodiment of our liberties and freedoms, and therefore it cannot be efficient in the same way as a business or company is efficient. That is true, because parliament is a debating forum and a place where policy is discussed and ideas are exchanged, rather than a monolithic administrative process similar to a business or a company. As the Leader of the Opposition said, parliament cannot grind out legislation like a sausage producing machine.
Nevertheless this does not mean that our rules are as satisfactory or as efficient as they might be in order to promote the real purposes of parliament. Before we can really discuss reform of our parliamentary rules we must decide what are the real purposes of parliament, for it is only in knowing where
108	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Allmand we are going that the purposes, goals and ends of parliament can be determined. Once we have decided this we can determine how effective are our rules.
Let me refer briefly to the functions and purposes of parliament. Among other things parliament is a legislature in which we enact legislation. It is a forum in which to discuss the policies of government; a body to keep a check on the administration and to examine their spending estimates. It is a body to vote funds necessary to support government programs. These are the purposes or parliament and our rules must serve them effectively.
At this point I should like to make some recommendations in respect of our procedures. I realize I am a relatively new member and that many of these recommendations may have been made before, but I should like to put them on record. Perhaps they will be of some help to the parliamentary committee on procedure. It was the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) who said this afternoon that he was a member of that committee and would welcome recommendations.
First, with respect to irrelevancy and repetition, standing order 34 (2) reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the house or of the committee, to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance, or repetition may direct him to discontinue his speech, and if then the member still continues to speak, Mr. Speaker shall name him or, if in committee, the chairman shall report him to the house.
It would seem to me that one of the rules which is violated more often than others in this house is that rule in relation to irrelevancy and repetition. I have often wondered why that rule has not been enforced more strictly.
I think if it were we would have a much more efficient and interesting parliament.
Second, I should like to propose that the debate on the speech from the throne be limited to three days. The eight day period may have been acceptable 20 or even 10 years ago, but today we no longer have time for such indulgences. In the United Kingdom the debate on the speech from the throne is limited to five days, and I believe they have more uian twice the number of members we have in Canada.
Third, I should like to recommend that the debate on the budget speech be limited to three days, and that members be restricted in their speeches to matters referred to in the budget or to matters of national economic importance omitted. Again in the United
IMr. Allmand.]
DEBATES	May 11. 1967
Kingdom the debate on the budget speech is limited to three days.
Next, and fourth, I should like to recommend that speeches in the house be limited to thirty minutes, and in the commitee of the whole to twenty minutes. It is my belief that anything one might want to say can and should be said in that time, and that such a rule would provide for a greater number of speakers and greater interest in the house. It becomes very boring when one sits here for 40 minutes or an hour listening to a speech. If we had shorter speeches we would have a greater variety. They would then be of greater interest and more members would be able to participate.
My fifth recommendation is that the business committee be used throughout the session of parliament and that an allocation of time be given to all items. When a session opens, the government should immediately place a great portion of its business on the order paper to be referred to the business committee where it would be given a priority and allocation of time.
Sixth, I would recommend that parliament itself should be given a fixed timetable for its sessions, adjournments and recesses. In this way the government, opposition and all members of parliament would be better able to plan their programs.
As my seventh recommendation I would suggest that when divisions are called in the house the ringing of the division bells be limited to a maximum of 15 minutes. I cannot remember the number of times I have sat in my seat for 30 minutes or more while the bells rang, waiting for members to come in to vote. Again to refer to the United Kingdom, there the division bells are limited to six minutes; yet the city of London is much larger than Ottawa and it is more difficult to get to parliament to vote. I do not think we can afford the luxury of an unlimited time in this regard. It only encourages absence and inefficiency.
As my eighth recommendation I suggest that votes in the committee of the whole be organized so that they may be allowed to stand at the request of a certain number of members. When we are dealing with a long bill with hundreds of clauses, such as the transport bill which was dealt with last session, there may be as many as 20 votes in an afternoon without any bell or notice. In such a situation it is necessary for all members of the house, including members of the cabinet to be on hand at all times. I might note that on one
May 11. 19S7	COMMONS
occasion the government was defeated on one clause by one vote. This is a serious hindrance to ministers and members of the house who must remain in attendance and leave their departmental work and other commitments.
May I offer as suggestion number nine that the question period should be organized so that each minister .will be scheduled to answer questions at certain set periods throughout the week, and that they be given at least 24 hours notice of each question unless it is of urgent national importance. Again, this is the rule followed in the United Kingdom.
This system has several benefits. It allows ministers to better organize their time for departmental duties and helps them to prepare answers to questions. I believe it would also provide a more useful question period with better questions and more information, and with less time devoted to political barbs and announcements. On several occasions in this house during the question period I have observed that more than half the allotted time is used for asking questions which are ruled out of order, and rulings by Mr. Speaker giving reasons why they are out of order. If 24 hours notice were required and questions addressed to specific ministers were limited to specific times, I believe we would have better questions and answers and a better question period. I might add that under such a system, just as in England, supplementary questions are allowed from the floor. I think that is quite proper.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
My tenth suggestion is that it might be a good idea if private members had the right to second any government or private members bill or motion and that this seconding should be registered in the orders of the day and Hansard. In this way a private member would be able to come out in favour of a bill or motion without making a speech, and he would be on record in Hansard as being in favour of the particular proposal, whether it be a government or private members bill or motion.
Eleventh, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that the reading of newspapers in the house be banned. We do not allow smoking, eating or drinking in the house, and I do not think we should allow the reading of newspapers. I very often hear from visitors to our gallery that the thing that disturbs them most, although it is really not that important in substance but causes the greatest scandal, is the reading of newspapers in the house. We do
DEBATES	109
The Address-Mr. Allmand not allow the smoking of cigarettes or cigars, eating or drinking in the house, and I do not think we should allow the reading of newspapers, because of the scandal that is caused in the public mind. The reading of reviews and textbooks is necessary in the house because sometimes hon. members need them in making a speech, but I do not think the reading of newspapers is necessary and it should be banned.
Twelfth, with respect to committees I would propose that they be given a larger staff and budget in order to do a better job. Committees have done a very good job. In this respect I differ with the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt), who thinks they have not done a good job. If committees were permitted a larger staff and budget they would be able to do the job still more properly. I think committees are an excellent way of studying legislation in detail and bringing expertise and outside opinions before the house. In the United States and Canada experts cannot come to the house and give their opinions, but through our committees system we could hear expert opinions and thereby do the best job for the Canadian people.
Also with respect to committees, I recommend that they be allowed to sit throughout the session, including periods of recess, and have the power to travel whenever they decide to do so. I also recommend that the quorum for committees be reduced to one third from the present one half of the members. I have studied the rules that apply in the United Kingdom and the United States Congress, and in both those places the quorum is one third. I believe that the volume of business we have to do in the house, in our offices and the library, and considering the number of committees hon. members have to attend, makes it impossible to achieve a quorum of one half of the members. I think this quorum is unrealistic. I disagree with the hon. member for Macleod that many committee meetings had to be delayed because of lack of a quorum. I know that the committees of which I was a member, and I was a member of four, were not delayed for this reason, although I have heard from time to time that committees have been delayed because of lack of a quorum. However, I think this has been the exception rather than the rule.
My thirteenth recommendation is that the proceedings of parliament be made more acceptable to the public. In addition to the televising of parliament and committees, I think something should be done to make Hansard more attractive and more widely distributed.
no
May 11, 1967

The Address-Mr. Allmand Before dealing further with that matter I should like to make a few remarks on the comments made by the hon. member for Macleod. In the speech which the hon. member made just before I rose, he suggested that the Prime Minister had recommended the televising of committee work in order to guarantee the attendance of members. To put the record straight I should like to read what the Prime Minister said. From my reading of Hansard, he recommended that the televising of committee proceedings would help to communicate to the public the work of parliament. He said nothing whatsoever about the attendance of members. The Prime Minister said, as reported at page 55 of Hansard:
I would like to join with the right hon. Leader of the Opposition in expressing the hope that during this session some experimentation in regard to televising our procedures might be attempted, beginning perhaps with committee deliberations. In this way the people of Canada themselves could be brought more intimately into contact with the processes, the aspirations and the problems of their government institution. This might have quite an effect on the attitudes, the words and the manner of our debates, particularly if we knew they were going into the drawing rooms of the nation.
The Prime Minister said nothing about the attendance of members. I agree that the televising of our proceedings would have something to do with the way in which debates are carried on, because when we know there are people from our constituencies in attendance in the gallery we try to put on a better performance than we would otherwise.
I made reference to Hansard and said that I thought it should be made more understandable and accessible to the general public. I think that Hansard right now is too much like an academic treatise and is too foreboding for the general public. In addition, it is too difficult for them to obtain. I think Hansard should be printed and bound more attractively, better indexed and perhaps accompanied by monthly summaries. In this way the ordinary man could have access to it and find out what his member of parliament has done and said with respect to a particular subject. Hansard should be distributed in a way in which it will reach a much greater number of Canadians than is now the case.
Fourteenth, Mr. Speaker, I believe that parliament should be provided with more research staff. This should apply not only to the cabinet and the official opposition but to all private members. With respect to private members, I liked the private members resolution which was placed on the order paper last session and discussed during private members

hour, to the effect that a certain number of graduate students on a special scholarship should be assigned to assist private members with research. I believe the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) made that suggestion, and I supported it at the time.
Finally, and fifteenth, with respect to votes on government bills and motions it is my belief that they should not be considered as votes of want of confidence. In the present situation, whenever an hon. member votes on a government bill he is not only voting on the goodness or badness of the bill but also on the acceptance or non-acceptance of the government. From time to time a member is faced with the situation where he cannot support a government bill but still has complete confidence in the government. Faced with this situation, he is usually forced to vote for the bill or abstain, rather than defeating the government and forcing an election. I believe that parliament would function much more efficiently if the government could be defeated only on specific non-confidence motions. Such a system would encourage greater responsibility by individual members, would result in more research, better informed members and probably better legislation.
As I said at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, I am putting these suggestions on record not because I believe they are necessarily new, the last word or without flaw, but merely as a basis for discussion perhaps by the committee on procedure. One thing of which I am certain is that we must do something in this house to improve our procedures and rules, because the volume of business before the house demands it and the Canadian people demand it.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have consulted the house leaders on the other side of the chamber and it is agreeable that we revert to motions in order to permit the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) to make a short statement. If this is agreeable to the house, I ask that it be done.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree to revert to motions for the Minister of Finance to make a statement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)



FINANCE


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government has announced
May 11. 1967

that it does not intend to come to any conclusions concerning the recommendations of the royal commission on taxation until after it has had an opportunity to receive the views of taxpayers, experts and various associations. We plan to begin taking decisions in the fall of this year as to the major aspects of the tax reform.
In the meantime a number of taxpayers have made representations to us that in some instances the very uncertainty introduced by the royal commission report is causing them to act as though the recommendations of the commission had been adopted by the government. This is particularly so with respect to the incentive provisions which the commission recommended be withdrawn.
We have given careful study to see what we could do at this time to minimize these uncertainties without prejudicing the government's freedom of action in determining the ultimate shape of the tax reform it will propose to parliament. We have concluded that it is appropriate for us to give two undertakings so that people can carry on with the development of important projects in respect of which the incentive provisions now in the law are quite important.
The first undertaking concerns the three year exemption for new mines. We have concluded that should the government decide to propose the removal of this incentive, it would not do so in a manner that would remove the exemption with respect to income earned before January 1, 1974, nor would it in any essential manner change the method of application of that exemption before that date. The effect of this undertaking will be that companies which now have projects in the planning stage will have the years 1968, 1969 and 1970 to come into commercial production in time to receive a full 36 months exemption. In establishing this period we have taken account of the time required to bring large projects into production, particularly in areas where transportation and weather are important factors. This period will afford companies the time necessary for the extensive preproduction development work and the construction of ore processing facilities required before commercial production can begin. It is felt that this undertaking should permit companies which will be faced between now and the end of the year with decisions involving a commitment of substantial sums of money to proceed in the expectation of receiving the benefits of the three year tax exemption.
Business of the House
The second undertaking concerns the treatment presently accorded to prospectors and their backers under section 83 of the Income Tax Act. Should the government decide to propose the withdrawal of this incentive, we would not do so with respect to amounts received before January 1, 1969 that relate to properties or interests acquired before January 1, 1968. We believe that this undertaking should minimize the effect of the commission's proposals upon 1967 exploration programs.
I wish to emphasize that this announcement does not mean either that the government has adopted the commissioners' recommendations or that we have rejected them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, all I want to say is that in the absence of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) who asked yesterday whether the minister would make a statement, and on his behalf, I should like to thank the minister for clarifying the situation.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I also asked this question several days ago and received the same answer as did the hon. member for Skeena I wish to say that I too am very pleased, and I am sure that the government and the people of British Columbia will be very pleased by this announcement, because some half a billion dollars worth of projects were put on ice as a result of the uncertainty with regard to this situation.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway would allow me to make a short statement. The house will then be able to hear the hon. member at eight o'clock.
Before leaving the chair, I think it might be helpful if the Chair were to make a brief reference to the adjournment proceedings.
In accordance with section 3 of standing order 38, the subamendment proposed earlier this day by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), must be disposed of before the house adjourns at the close of this sitting.
That being the case, it is the opinion of the Chair that the adjournment proceedings which might otherwise have taken place at 10
May 11, 1967

The Address-Mrs. G. Maclnnis p.m. tonight, will be suspended. In this regard, I should read to the house section 5 (b) of the provisional standing order 6 which, in the opinion of the Chair, applies in this case. That standing order is as follows:
When a sitting is extended pursuant to section (6) of this order, or when it is provided in any other standing order that the business under consideration at the ordinary time of adjournment shall be disposed of or concluded, the adjournment proceedings in that sitting shall be suspended and that sitting shall not be adjourned except pursuant to a motion to adjourn moved by a minister of the Crown.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Don Jamieson for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Douglas.
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne was awaited impatiently this year by all Canadians from the Atlantic to the Pacific. They were waiting hopefully, expecting that in this year of the centennial, the government would mark this anniversary by giving a clear indication of the first legislative steps essential to resolve some of the most urgent problems facing the families of this country. Their hope and their expectations were increased when the Governor General said these words:
This centennial session of parliament provides an opportunity to begin to give effect to our aspirations for the second century of confederation.
What did the government give them? A legislative program? Not at all. A 5,500 word composition filled with pompous generalities. A vision of the promised land without a single road map to reach it.
But even before the speech ended, one could not avoid the suspicion, almost the certainty, that with the present leadership, we would never reach it. There are too many studies in

depth, too many white papers, too many task forces that risk misleading us.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in order to prove myself bilingual I shall turn to the language I know better. I want to say that the speech from the throne sounds very impressive until one begins to reflect on the wide gap between the government's glowing promises of a Canada filled with many, many good things, and its actual performance. Consider the question of housing, for example. I do not intend to deal with it in detail because some of my colleagues will do that, but I wish to refer to it. At the moment this is Canada's No. 1 domestic problem; yet in this 5,500 word speech there are just 38 words devoted to the problem of housing. I shall read them:
You will be invited to consider new housing programs which, while recognizing the primary responsibility of the individual and the other levels of government in the provision of housing, will help to fill requirements that clearly lie ahead.
I want to say that, in my view, today the primary responsibility for providing the housing that is needed in Canada lies with the federal government. In addition the federal government, together with the provinces, should make an over-all assessment of what is required. In my view, that is the primary responsibility today. It is not the primary responsibility of the individual, as the government claims, because today many individuals are quite helpless in so far as their housing needs are concerned.
This afternoon the minister responsible for housing spoke to this house. In view of the statements made in the speech from the throne, we expected he would give us at least a brief outline of what was in store, in the line of housing legislation. He did not do so. Actually what he gave us was a review of the policies of the last few years which resulted in a shortage of at least 20,000 homes, last year to say nothing of the great backlog of housing needs that has been piling up over the years. He referred, in a tone of satisfaction, to the years between 1961 and 1966-I believe those were the years he mentioned. He said that we could look with great satisfaction, and he repeated "great satisfaction," to our achievements in the field of housing. Yet just two years ago, within the compass of the period he mentioned, the minister made this statement with regard to housing:
For all the talk about what we intend to do, for all our efforts, nearly 100,000 Canadian families live every moment of their waking lives under housing conditions that are really appalling-a disgrace to the communities in which they reside.
May 11, 1967	COMMONS
I may add that they are a disgrace to the country in which they reside and to the government which is charged with looking after the needs of these people. I see no cause for complacency. I know the minister is deeply concerned about this problem, but I see no reason why he should be complacent about it or mislead people to believe that the problem is under control. It is very far from being under control today. The situation is infinitely more serious than it was when the minister pronounced those words two years ago.
One does not have to take my word for this or the word of housing people or social welfare workers. The joint Senate and House of Commons committee on consumer credit and the cost of living has just tabled a report in which the committee used these words,-and I want to emphasize them:
Your committee feels that there is an overwhelming need for a national housing plan based on the premise that every Canadian deserves a decent place to live in. Good intentions in this field have abounded but progress has been unsatisfactory ... After hearing testimony on the subject your committee concludes that housing has been a neglected poor relation for far too long.
The report ends by recommending that the federal government assign a higher priority to the problem of housing in Canada than is the case at the present time. We must remember that this was an all-party committee composed of members of the Senate and the House of Commons. It was the considered opinion of that committee, after taking testimony across this country, that for far too long housing has had a low priority on the government's agenda. The committee urged that it be given that low place no longer, that it no longer be considered a poor relation. Probably the minister hit the nail on the head this afternoon when he said the mistake had been that we had been too busy with other things. I sincerely believe that has been the case, and that these other things were not half as important as the question of housing.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I turn now to that part of the speech which deals with the government's intention to set up a department of corporate and consumer affairs. I would recall to the house that the establishment of a department of consumer affairs has been demanded for years. It was first of all demanded by the Canadian Association of Consumers, now known as the Consumers Association of Canada. In the last three sessions this demand has been put forward in the house, first by the hon. member
DEBATES	113
The Address-Mrs. G. Maclnnis for Danforth (Mr. Scott), then by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie), and last session by myself.
It was not until food prices had risen to twice the level of other items in the cost of living index that anything was done by this government to deal with food prices. In the comfortable insulation of this chamber we find it very difficult to realize just how these boycotters and protesters felt as week after week and day after day they watched the price of food creep upwards in our supermarkets, with the knowledge that the portion of their income which was left after food bills had been paid was shrinking in proportion to the increase in food prices. It was not until the boycotters and protesters from coast to coast rose up and took action that this government referred the matter of the cost of living to the committee on consumer credit.
I now want to recount briefly a few of the things that have happened since then. Let me say very bluntly that the major recommendation made by the committee was for the creation of a department of consumer affairs with a full time minister in charge. The government has given notice in the speech from the throne that it is going to thumb its nose at our major recommendation, that it is going to thumb its nose at the committee. Because instead of saying that the government is going to put forward legislation to establish a department of consumer affairs, the speech reveals that the government is going to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs.
In the committee we made it perfectly clear, in the first instance in our recommendation last Christmas and in our later report, that what is needed in Canada is a department the sole purpose of which is to protect consumers. We recommend that we should gather together the bits and pieces of consumer protection which are scattered throughout various government departments and bring them together into a single department, the sole purpose of which would be to protect the consumer.
This point was made by every organization which spoke on the subject as we travelled across Canada. Not one single organization asked for a department of corporate and consumer affairs. Neither was there a single organization which asked to have consumer affairs dumped with any other affairs into one government department. This was to be something new. At long last we had risen to the point where we hoped this government would be ready to establish a department to look
114	COMMONS
The Address-Mrs. G. Maclnnis after consumer affairs, not to look after sectional interests in the community. We have the agriculture department, the fisheries department, the labour department, the industry department, and so on, and we hoped that the government would now be ready to set up a department which was consumer-oriented, the sole purpose of which would be to protect the consumers of this country and recognize them as such.
Mrs. Plumptre, the long-time president, recently retired, of the Consumers Association of Canada, made it crystal clear in her evidence that what we needed was a department in charge of consumer-oriented people who would study the needs of the consumer and the effect of various conditions upon him and her.
But, Mr. Speaker, what action do we find the government taking? We find this government sneaking a sectional interest in by the back door, presumably because it is handy for them to do so. I want to say with all the strength at my command that in my view this will nullify any effect that this department would otherwise have had. The people of this country ought to be told that the major recommendation of our committee is being summarily thrust aside, even before we have had a chance to discuss it in this parliament.
A tremendously important step is being taken here. We find that what is being set up is a department where the loyalties of the minister will be divided. We are told that a man cannot serve two masters. Yet this government deliberately sets up a department the minister of which will be asked to serve, on the one hand, the consumers, and on the other hand a particular section of the community-the investors.
I realize that there is reference made to "small" investors in one part of the speech. That is a modern version of the widows and orphans who from time immemorial have been trotted out as a screen behind which the big corporate interests and other great concerns were looked after and protected. This practice is wrong. This corporate and consumers affairs department which the government proposes to set up will be the hole in the dike through which a whole flood of special interests will be allowed to rush in, completely destroying the dike which should protect the consumers of this country. This I say as clearly and loudly as I can, because I think the consumers ought to know what the government is proposing to do.

DEBATES	May 11, 1967
In the committee we proposed that the consumer be given protection. Protection from what, Mr. Speaker? Here I think the committee was of one mind up to a certain point, and I want to make perfectly clear where the majority opinion lay, and where the minority opinion departed from it. I want no misunderstanding about this.
All of us believed that a department of consumer affairs ought to protect the consumer from abuses in the marketplace; from unjust practices, I will put it that way. We wanted to protect the consumer from unjust practices. Our report put forward a great many excellent recommendations for doing this. We made recommendations for consumer standards having to do with labelling, packaging, weights and measures and other matters. In the second place, we made recommendations for protecting the consumer from deceptive practices of various kinds. In the third place, we made recommendations for protecting the consumer from her own lack of knowledge and her own misplaced trust in others than herself.
One recommendation, about which we were all very enthusiastic, was that it should not be left entirely to the consumer to make herself into a good, all-round shopper, though the consumers association does hope to do this. However, she does need help and information. We all felt that a department of consumer affairs should have as one of its objectives the handing out of information and the establishment of good, regular consumer information programs; not dead, dull, factual things but good, lively television shows which could hold their own with programs like "Yogi Bear", or advertisements for "whiter than white", or "the hands you love to touch", or similar advertisements which hold many people spellbound-at least according to the advertisers.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
This is what we want done; this is what the whole committee agreed to do. Every one of us believes that the consumer should be protected from unjust practices in the market place. There was a minority on the committee-I wish to make it perfectly clear that it was not a large minority-which thought that more was necessary. We believe that not only should the consumer be protected against unjust practices but that he should be protected against unjustified prices-note, I said "unjustified", not "unjustifiable". This is why we feel that as part of this new department a prices and practices review board
May 11, 1967	COMMONS
should be established for the purpose of protecting the consumer from unjustified prices as well as from unjust practices. We believe that manufacturers and processors should be brought before this board to justify price increases which are deleterious to the consumer. This view has not yet been accepted by the committee as a whole. In my opinion this issue is part of the unfinished business before the committee, and I hope that in future sittings the majority may be persuaded to accept such a course as I have suggested.
Should anyone think this is nonsense, let me draw to the attention of the house the fact that it was unjustified prices rather than unjust practices which gave rise to the pressure of public opinion which resulted in the reference of this whole subject to the committee. Consumers will not be well served nor will they be content until machinery for dealing with unjustified prices as well as unjust practices has been established. I will have more to say on this when the legislation is introduced.
I wish to comment now on the generality of the report. We pointed out that a survey made in 27 countries showed that Canada is not faring badly by comparison with other countries with regard to the trend of consumer prices from 1958 to late 1966. Indeed, Canada showed the second lowest rise in consumer prices during that period. Other countries were suffering more. We made no reference to a statement which I believe to be most apt in this context. When the head of the Swedish economic council appeared before us he pointed out that in Scandinavia the effect of high prices was cushioned by government pensions and allowances set in accord with the cost of living and the level of productivity in order to protect lower income groups.
However, we did say this in our report. I think it is important, and I wish to quote it:
Any general and persistent increase in the price level has a profound effect on both the economic and social fabric of a country. When the rate of increase exceeds some critical level it produces unrest and inequities and may create economic problems which have a high social cost. Parts of the population may be able to adapt to rising prices but in general these will be those who have economic or market power and whose earnings increase sufficiently fast to maintain their real income. That part of the population which is disadvantaged and economically weak will usually suffer. The handicapped, the aged, the pensioners, the underemployed and the unskilled workers bear an undue share of the burden of rising prices. One major contribution which could be undertaken by the federal government would be to carry out surveys of family expenditure patterns at frequent intervals to provide some objective assessment of the impact of rising prices on the disadvantaged.
DEBATES	115
The Address-Mrs. G. Maclnnis While it was not your committee's duty to inquire in detail into incomes policy, your committee feels that one aim of such studies would be to facilitate studies of the feasibility of establishing guaranteed minimum incomes for all citizens.
I am sorry the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) is not in his place; he likes to "rib" me about my views on a guaranteed annual income. I am in favour of it today, I was last June, and I was last December. But I was not in favour of what the minister put forward last fall under the guise of a guaranteed annual income, when he brought down the supplement to the old age security pension. That was as bad a case of the prostitution of the English language as I have seen for a long time.
Even members of the government are beginning to realize it will be necessary to establish a guaranteed annual income in this country. But they will have to produce a much better specimen than was produced last December in connection with this income supplement for old age security pensioners, which no more resembles a guaranteed income than a piece of jagged glass resembles a diamond. A guaranteed annual income must be based on what it costs to sustain a modern standard of living-modest, if you like, but modern-and it should rise both with the cost of living and the productivity of the country.
Let the government provide a guaranteed income of this sort and they will find that we in this group will be the first to support it wholeheartedly.
I feel that our committee has produced an excellent report as far as it goes. As I say, there is some unfinished business to be dealt with. I have mentioned the establishment of a practices and prices review board. Included among this unfinished business is consideration of the whole sector of selling costs-the business of promotion and advertising generally. We made no recommendations in this important sector, which in my view is responsible for a great deal of the rise in the cost of living which has occurred. Nor did we deal with another great sector, the monopolistic character of industry today. We were appalled, like everyone else, at the revelation as to the extent of the Weston empire. We felt something definite would have to be done about it, but we were not prepared to make a recommendation with regard to monopolistic control of industry. We did say this, though:
Your committee noted that the director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act reported the discontinuance of a study of concentration in the food retailing industry
May 11, 1967

The Address-Mr. Nielsen in Canada on March 15, 1963 (Report of the Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act for the year ended March 31, 1963). Your committee recommends that this study be resumed on a continuous basis and broadened to cover both food retailing and manufacturing in Canada with a particular view to examining concentration, market power and trade practices in the relations between retailers and suppliers.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
There is another subject I wish to mention. The committee took no stand one way or the other on the value, either actual or potential, of the consumer co-operative movement.
Some of us are very strong in our view that the consumer co-operative movement is one of the best agencies for standing up to private monopoly control in this country. We know its effect is potential rather than actual, but our committee did make a recommendation. We said that quite regardless of the value of the co-operative movement, actual or potential, we felt that "legislation governing the incorporation of co-operatives is long overdue."
I think I have just about taken up my time and covered my points, and am about to bring my remarks to a close. I believe the members of the committee were hard working and co-operative. They were a fine group of people to work with, and I felt we advanced well, working together and sharing each other's points of view. We were clear and open about our differences but we found that the edges of our agreement were quite numerous.
In closing I would emphasize that the longest journey begins with a single step. In my view the first steps to the promised land are legislative measures designed to meet the bread and butter needs of the people. I do not think there is any use talking to a man about a glorious sunset when his stomach is empty. There is no use talking about the glorious things that can be introduced by way of legislation in years ahead if we are not going to deal with the bread and butter needs of the people today. I hope the government will concentrate on the first steps which are necessary to achieve this better living about which it is so eloquent in the speech from the throne. If it does so, it will have the co-operation of all of us, all the way.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I join with others who have extended their congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) and the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Cote), who have done as best they could with a document

which can only be described as a political catch-all in an effort to cover up and to fill in the terrible gaps and the deficiencies of the government in this centennial year.
We in the Yukon, sir, are very cognizant of the issue that has been raised by the amendment put forward by the official opposition. We have been pressing the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing), who I am happy to see in his seat this evening, for a greater measure of self-control, but we have had nothing from him, from his officials and from the government but lip service, empty promises, meaningless phrases and downright, fraudulent answers to our legitimate demands. The minister has said that we are moving toward a greater control of our own affairs in the Yukon. Nothing could be further from the the truth: Indeed we are moving in the opposite direction. But there will be other occasions upon which I can deal specifically with the Yukon.
Today we are dealing with a matter of transcendant importance to all Canadians, a description by which Yukoners are very proud to call themselves, in this day of division and this day of confusion, confusion which has been aided and abetted by the N.D.P. with their subamendment, which we find completely unsatisfactory. The only result that can be expected from the N.D.P. subamendment is further delay and further division. If accepted it would delay any hope of a constitutional conference this year. It would divide those already estranged by the failure of the government to act in the critical area of national unity.
The subamendment is typical of the party that produced it: long on theory and surface gloss and completely lacking in practicality. The N.D.P. subamendment is simply a smokescreen. It is, sir, a watered down version of Liberalism and an escape hatch for the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the government. I am sure those on my left know that the Prime Minister desperately wants to avoid a constitutional conference because the inevitable result of such a conference will be to expose the folly of Liberal policies of opting out, the two nations theory, the two pension plans, from which the Prime Minister is desperately trying to disengage himself.
The subamendment that the N.D.P. proposes gives the Prime Minister a way out, and this in itself is regrettable because if such a conference is to be at all effective, the maximum effect can be attained in this year above all other times. There is great danger
May 11, 1967	COMMONS
in waiting; but that is what the N.D.P. would have us do, by their subamendment.
The basis of the deterioration in the relationship between Quebec and Ottawa was laid by the policies of opting out, of two nations, of treaty making powers for the province of Quebec. There is only one author and originator of these policies, and he is the Prime Minister.
The subamendment suffers from further defects. It suffers from a basic disability to understand or appreciate the constitutional issue, or even the nature of the constitution itself. It sets out "proposals for amendment to the Constitution of Canada as a necessary preliminary for a national constitutional conference." This shows the shattering inability of the N.D.P. to seize the nature of the issue. The whole purpose of the conference which has been proposed by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), first in the last days of the session of 1963, is to work out an agreement whereby specific amendments would be arrived at which would provide the basis of a new unity in the country.
This was the same folly and the same danger as was inherent in the Fulton-Favreau formula adopted by the government so short a time ago. It was a pig in a poke. We were opening the door into a constitution with no indication of where we were going after the door was opened, and the N.D.P. want us to repeat that error.
A confederation conference, as we understand it, would set out in specific terms those matters upon which agreement could be obtained, as being necessary to Canadian unity in the future. No such conference can be in the position where the government or the parliament dictates ahead of time what that course will be, and yet that is precisely what the N.D.P. subamendment would have us do.
Those who vote for the N.D.P. subamendment are voting to bind the conference in advance, and are voting to place Quebec and French speaking Canada in a position of increasing isolation. That way lies, not survival, but a continuation of the erosion begun four years ago.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Subparagraph 3 of the subamendment refers to "a constitutional bill of rights." What is a constitutional bill of rights? A Bill of Rights has been passed by parliament. How many do they want? Section 4 of the subamendment speaks of repatriation of the con-

The Address-Mr. Nielsen stitution. That will come following the agreement on amendments arrived at at a constitutional conference and following the adoption of those recommendations by parliament. The recommendations of that conference would be brought before the house, and parliament would enact a new act having as its base the B.N.A. Act with amendments as proposed by such a conference. I believe that across this country there is a demand for the resolution of this question of unity. Since this government assumed office we have had a continuing and worsening constitutional crisis. This was aggravated by the unskilled attempts of the government to produce one of those quick and easy solutions for which the Prime Minister now is becoming notorious.
There has been only one constructive proposal

and one only-for the resolution of the constitutional problem, and that is embodied in the amendment of the opposition. It is the proposal put forward by the then prime minister of Canada in 1963, in the dying days of the session, for a national constitutional conference. That proposal since has been embraced by the premiers of Ontario and Quebec and has been given the tacit approval of the premiers of Manitoba and Nova Scotia. It is a concrete and positive proposal for bringing together those elements in the Canadian political structure whose views must be recorded and whose consent must be obtained in order to resolve the question of unity.
The Prime Minister has a different view. He wants to be the sole architect of the constitution, just as he was the sole architect of unification, and just as he was the sole architect of the new flag. He wants a constitution disinterred from the subterranean recesses or the back room of the Liberal party, a constitution presented as a fait accompli, a constitution under the new rules designed and brought about in this house, which will be shoved down the throats of Canadians. Nothing could be more damaging to the unity of this country. The Prime Minister and the government have dealt destructive blows to national unity. Who else is the architect of the two nations theory? The Prime Minister. Who else is the inventor of opting out? No one else but the Prime Minister. No one else is the designer of one pension plan for Canada and another pension plan for Quebec. No one else is the designer of a student loans plan for Canada and another one for Quebec.
The Pearson government has followed the course of separating Quebec from the rest of Canada through the opting out formula, and
May 11. 1967

The Address-Mr. Nielsen all the other divisive policies. Time and time again the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) has spoken about one Canada. What are we getting? We are getting divisive and destructive policies. Above all, in this year of the centenary of our confederation, as I have said before, instead of opting out we require opting in, recognition of the existence of two cultural groups, the founders of the original confederation. We require for all French speaking Canada, not just Quebec, an emphasis on the recognition of the cultural identity and cultural integrity upon which our country must be built to survive.
The Prime Minister is the originator of the two nations theory. Here is what he said at La Malbaie, Quebec, on August 17, 1963:
At this time when we are preparing to celebrate our centennial, it is advisable that confederation should be reshaped to meet the requirements of the present hour. We want a nineteen sixty-three model.
In his speech yesterday he threw this completely overboard. The answer is that under the leadership of the Prime Minister the Liberal government consistently has pursued a wrong and dangerous course on the question of national unity, since assuming office. They have opted out; they have created two nations; they have set Quebec apart, and they have provided the machinery whereby Mr. Lesage has signed international treaties. Now they see the end of the road. At the end of the road is dissolution. They draw back in fear, like the Hindu snake charmer who has lost his flute. They have no alternative to offer. This government, following the Prime Minister's leadership, has created a Frankenstein monster of division and discord.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: I hear jeers. Let those who jeer listen to another statement of the Prime Minister made at La Malbaie in 1963 when he enunciated the motherland theory. He said this:
I know, as well as you do, that the province of Quebec is different from others, because, while being a province of Canada, it is the motherland of people living in other provinces.
Constitutionally it is the federal government, not any one of the provinces, which is the defender of minorities. If we are to adopt the principle espoused by the Prime Minister on that occasion, then we must say that it is logical that the government of Manitoba should concern itself about Ukrainians in Montreal, that the government of Ontario 
must take an interest in English speaking citizens in Saskatoon. What a crazy quilt of national chaos this conjures up. This is the motherland theory unveiled by the Prime Minister in, 1963.
In the same speech the Prime Minister said that he would work to establish a status of equality between the two partners-Quebec and Ottawa. What that status of equality was, never has been explained. According to Premier Johnson it never existed. All along, the Prime Minister and his government have committed the blundering error of failing to distinguish between Quebec, a province, and French speaking Canada, a cultural entity recognized in the constitution of 1867 but not necessarily identified with Quebec, any more than English Canada can be identified with Ontario. Is any English speaking person living in Montreal-I ask this question of the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey)- any less English speaking because he lives in Montreal?
This kind of Balkanization of which we have been warned by the Leader of the Opposition, has been deliberately fostered by the dangerous, destructive and divisive policies of the Prime Minister and this government. The Prime Minister bumbled into an impossible position and now is trying, with the rather desperate assistance of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) to extricate himself. Meanwhile Canada's unity has suffered and is suffering irreparable damage. That speech at Murray Bay was the classic unfolding of the co-operative federalism doctrine, embodying the theory of two nations, a blueprint for disaster. The Prime Minister took the attitude that Quebec in fact is a separate and distinct political entity, like Switzerland or Ghana, and dealt with it at arm's length from then on, as though dealing with the ambassadors of a foreign state. He forgot that Quebec is part of Canada. It is time he took off the rose coloured glasses.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
For three years there has been a concerted attempt in the Liberal press to make black look like white and to cover up the dangerous and damaging errors of this government. The fact is that when this government gave to Mr. Lesage the right to deal with foreign states it dealt national unity a blow from which it has not recovered. The right it created for Mr. Lesage it now withholds from Premier Johnson, and unity deteriorates. This government grovelled before Mr. Lesage and gave him everything he wanted-everything for
May 11, 1987	COMMONS
victory. No price was too high, including the wooing of the Creditistes and the aid of Mr. Doyle, who at the time was being pursued by the former government for $3 million in income taxes; and he still seems to be the recipient of preferential treatment.
There is one statement in the Murray Bay speech to which no one can take exception, and it is this:
I believe that there can be a Canadian nation within which the two basic cultures can develop in full and equal partnership.
No one has ever disagreed with that. It is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition said earlier and better in February of 1963. The quarrel lies in the means of carrying this principle into effect.
The other day the Prime Minister produced the incredible argument that we must not have a confederation conference because some provinces might demand the right to deal with foreign states. What does he take parliament for, a kindergarten class? Judging by some of the jeers which I have heard from those opposite, he may have a point. It was he and his government who created the treaty signing rights enjoyed by Mr. Lesage. Now the Prime Minister employs it as a cheap threat to discourage a confederation conference.
A confederation conference could agree on amendments to be made, and the constitution would then become a Canadian document. We would then have laid the foundation for a second 100 years of unity. There is no other way in which this can be accomplished. Premier Robarts knows this; Premier Johnson and others know it, and the Prime Minister also knows it. But to adopt it would be an admission that for four years his policies have been divisive and abortive. This government has placed the prestige of the government above that of Canada-and not for the first time.
This government has not only embraced but has propounded the theory that federal legislation would commence its application in the west, proceed to Ottawa, stop at the Ottawa River and resume in the Maritimes -having leap-frogged over the province of Quebec. This is a philosophy that is destructive of our national integrity, ruinous to our sovereignty, and that isolates the province of Quebec from the rest of Canada. It was cooked up between Liberals in Ottawa and Liberals at Quebec for the sole purpose of producing seats. It did that, sir, but in the process it did that at the expense of Canada.
DEBATES	119
The Address-Mr. Nielsen
We now have heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) in his speech to the Reform Club denounce those very terms which formed the basis of the Prime Minister's co-operative federalism. In so doing he showed a concept of Canada and a personal integrity that might stand as an example to a government not conspicuous for any determination but partisan determination in the past three years.
One cannot but wonder at the latest stand by the Prime Minister. It seems to be a product of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) just as his earlier stand was a product of Mr. Lamontagne and Mr. Favreau. His attitude now is: The constitution, right or wrong. He seems to be saying: It has served us for 100 years, why change it? A few years ago the Prime Minister said in one of his celebrated sweeping-away efforts: We need a constitution for 1963. Do we not need a constitution for 1967? Perhaps 1963 was a vintage year for constitutions.
Let me quote now from an article which appeared in the Montreal Star in July of 1962 of a report of a speech made at Brockville by the Prime Minister. He is reported to have said:
Re-examination of the whole basis of confederation will be one of the first tasks of a new Liberal government.
Liberal leader Pearson told a rally here Saturday night that the confederation worked out in 1867 was no longer satisfactory for 1962.
'As Prime Minister, that's one of the things I'd like to deal with,' he said.
What a metamorphosis in the Prime Minister. As I have said on past occasions, he is one with an elastic mind, and this is but another example of that. What a change from the Prime Minister of the Charlottetown conference in 1963, when Mr. Lesage said "I don't like it-" and went on to deal with section 91 (1) of the B.N.A. Act. There were no scruples then, and no qualms.
Can this be the same Prime Minister who in 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966, was ready to drive a truck through the constitution with the Fulton-Favreau formula-who said over and over that the constitution had to be brought up to date? It must be brought up to date, but not by a hand picked task force with no responsibility to the people. What hypocrisy this is.
The Prime Minister's speech yesterday was most revealing of these facets of his character; his readiness to throw overboard previously held convictions when he thinks the
May 11, 1967

The Address-Mr. Nielsen wind has changed, as it has in Quebec; his determination to deal with problems in the back room, the responsibility relegated to experts, rather than face the light of day and reasoned discussion, and his penchant and the penchant of his government for producing a fait accompli such as the flag and unification bills, assuming a take it or leave it attitude. They adopt the position that they are infallible because they are Liberals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: That applause is another example of the myopic view those on the other side take. These are the same people who were here in 1956. The Prime Minister is now at the height of his power, basking in the sunlight of approbation, riding along on the publicity of a centennial for which the groundwork was laid before he came to office. But, his method of procedure, the reluctance to stick to his convictions and to take the people into his confidence, and his refusal to take the clear and direct course, have led ihcreasingly to an accumulation of vexations for Canada. These are matters that are increasingly under question.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The Prime Minister has been able to overcome his difficulties. He has been able to turn political gerrymandering into an appearance of statesmanship, something to which his backbenchers would dearly love to aspire, especially those who do not have the courage to say on their feet what they say from their seats. The Prime Minister has been able to survive the debacles which should have destroyed his government, one reason being the unfailing and unswerving support of his allies in the press. Every word, every gesture-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: Hon. members opposite laugh, Mr. Speaker, but their leader himself makes the same criticism. As I was saying, every word, every gesture of the Prime Minister is magnified out of all proportion by those journals committed to his cause. They have forgiven his gaffes-and they have been many, God knows-placed his career above Canada's needs, and stuck to him through thick and thin. Even a milk and water production like the so-called throne speech, which gave no indication of any plan or program and was simply a turgid collection of gleanings on the style of Whitaker's Almanack, was hailed by one paper as the second Sermon on the Mount. As soon as that publication printed 
those words they retracted them in this morning's issue. This government has come to represent mediocrity enthroned. It represents willingness to sacrifice at every turn the very basis of our democracy in order to secure seats. That cannot go on indefinitely. Already the wheel is beginning to turn and Canadians want and expect something more.
All the distinguished state visitors, all the Expo puffs, all the banquets, dinners and speeches cannot conceal the fact that national unity is in trouble and that this government is doing absolutely nothing about it. This was the enunciation of the two nations theory. It was the genesis of opting out, the two pension plans, the two flags and all the other divisive theories moving Quebec away from Canada, including the signing of treaties with foreign states. This was dangerous and divisive, not only because it was destructive of Canada but because it was untrue.
Quebec is not more than a province, any more than Ontario is more than a province. To erect one province above the other provinces is not only to destroy that province through isolation but it is to destroy confederation. What this government should have said was that each and every province is equal and will get equal treatment under the constitution, rather than treatment proper to a foreign state. This is what the Leader of the Opposition has been saying for so many years when pleading for one Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: The
hon. member for Laval (Mr. Rochon).


Mr.   Jean-L. Rochon@Laval: Mr. Speaker, we have just concluded the longest session in the history of our country.
The Liberal government, re-elected in 1965, in an endeavour to prove itself worthy of the trust of the Canadian people, has introduced and asked parliament to pass, despite what the previous speaker may think about it, a whole series of measures the benefits of which will be felt in every sector of our national activity and economy, from which every class of our society will benefit, rich and poor, powerful and humble alike. Those legislative measures will prove that on this
May 11, 1967

North American continent, there lives a noble people, who take pride in their past, who look with confidence upon the dawn of a new century, a people who live in a country with boundless horizons, and whose aspirations are worldwide in magnitude.
The violent discussions of the last session, the bitter wrangling which took place are now things of the past. The bitter blows that were dealt and sometimes hurt, are forgotten. The Centennial session started a few days ago. The first anniversary of confederation, which has perhaps not always been consistent with the aspirations of every ethnic group in our country, has nevertheless made of our country one of the greatest nations of the world, respected and heeded. On April 27 last, Montreal, its metropolis, welcomed the whole world and laid before it the exhibition "Man and his World" which will be, as reported in the world press, the event of the century.
Mr. Speaker, instead of going into an analysis of the major legislation announced in the Speech from the Throne, others have done it and more will do so; instead of taking you into the verdant areas of my great constituency of Laval and have you admire the sites; instead of speaking of this second largest city of Quebec, the city of Laval-I will have the opportunity during the budget debate to tell you of its needs-in short, instead of following the established custom I felt-after living through the historic moments of the official opening of the world's fair, as most of my colleagues-that I could take a few minutes to give you, in the name of my electors and in my own name, their impressions and mine of the century which is ending and of the next one opening before us into such a promising future filled with hope and days of glory.
If, Mr. Speaker, you will read the history of nations, if you will skim through each of the eras, you will realize that, in ancient times as well as in the Middle Ages, in the earliest times as well as in our modern days, when a state sought to increase its strength or enlarge its territory, it joined with its neighbours, and when a nation sought to acquire interior strength and foreign respect, it entered into alliances with its friends; the same was true when countering the aims of one or more overly ambitious neighbours was involved. History supplies the names of several well knows alliances entered into for common defence.
That is about what happened in Canada in 1867, when Upper and Lower Canada united

The Address-Mr. Rochon with the maritime provinces to protect themselves should the Americans have too great designs for our land, or should their influence be felt too strongly as compared to the extraordinary advantages arising out of the opening of the way to the Atlantic and the St. Lawrence, which provided the Maritime provinces with an invaluable passage to the sea.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Faced with this eventuality, and for other reasons also, the English Canadians of Upper Canada, who believed that if ever the country became American they would lose their own identity, and the French Canadians, who feared for their language and their religion, accepted without taking too much exception, what was a marriage of reason in which both groups saw one of the best ways to protect themselves and to remain themselves. Thus, in 1864, the Commons of Canada addressed to the government of Her Majesty Queen Victoria a request to have a measure passed. I quote:
A measure to unite the colonies of Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island under a single government.
The said measure was to be based on the resolutions passed at the conference held in Quebec city on October 10, 1864. The project was accepted and 1867 saw the beginning of that confederation whose centennial we are celebrating this year.
I was saying a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, that one of the reasons for confederation was to protect the identity of English Canadians of Upper Canada and the language and faith of French Canadians of Lower Canada. But the main reason was the magnificent dream of the fathers of confederation. At this stage, Mr. Speaker, I will undoubtedly be allowed to recall these words by Mr. Robert Choquette, former associate commissioner of the centennial commission. I quote:
For many, in 1864, whoever talked about a union between the Maritime colonies and Canada was slightly touched; those who were bold enough to imagine a Dominion from one ocean to the other were ready for confinement. However, a handful of men with vision materialized that thought. It was not easy. They had to struggle against ignorance here and chauvinism there, the distrust of some, the intolerance of others. They had to fight against all those who refused to look ahead for great things. To the defeatists, to the cynics, those dreamers replied with virile optimism. They did not delude themselves. They knew full well that nothing can be built without effort, that the only construction easily built is the sand castle due to vanish with the first wave. They did not
May 11, 1967

The Address-Mr. Rochon delude themselves, but they had confidence In themselves. That dream of a united Canada they believed with all their spirit and all their heart. They set to work and shaped a great country out of the future.
As remarkably conceived by the fathers of confederation, that union of the maritime provinces, of Upper and Lower Canada, that confederation system proved to be the most efficient means to make us grow up and to assert ourselves as a nation. I shall not go as far as to say, Mr. Speaker, that everything was perfect, that we in Quebec in particular, did not have any cause for complaint; I shall return to that in a moment, but the fact remains that this century, these hundred years from 1867 to 1967 enabled us, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said in Quebec city on April 24 last during the national conference on centennial, and I quote:
During our first century of Canadianism, we have built up a powerful and prosperous national economy.
A powerful and prosperous economy, Mr. Speaker, so that this dream of the fathers of confederation is no longer a dream but a wonderful reality extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific, making of Canada today one of the pillars of civilization and, for the people of Asia and the Far East, a centre of scientific, moral and material riches which enabled them to survive and often prevented them from dying.
Mr. Chairman, what is one hundred years in the life of civilizations that are thousands of years old? Nothing, or almost nothing. In the life of a young country, like ours, it is a great deal; it is even a whole era, and what did it mean to us? During that period the colonial status which was our lot disappeared; we grew in stature and asserted ourselves among the Commonwealth of British nations; trading posts disappeared to be replaced by the trading system which prevailed between great powers; Canada came to be represented abroad in all the capitals of the world; a mature Canada signed its own treaties, without having to call upon another country to set its seal upon them; Canada became the world granary, so to speak; on Vimy ridge in 1917, Canada suffered and shed its blood for the sacred cause of freedom; Canada was able to respond generously to the plea of one of the greatest men of this century, Sir Winston Churchill, who uttered within these very walls, when freedom was being crushed under Nazi heels, these memorable words: "Give us the tools and we will do the job!"

During that period also Canada became the sponsor of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to put a stop to aggression by the U.S.S.R.; Canada, through its various secretaries of state for external affairs, advocated steps accepted by the United Nations; Canada became a partner of its giant neighbour beyond the 45th parallel, in a position to act as a buffer between the two greatest world powers, Russia to the north and the United States of America to the south.
In certain quarters, Mr. Chairman, English-speaking as well as French-speaking confederation seems to be entirely wrong; one side feels it is the victim of an arrogant majority and the other blames the authorities for being too lenient towards a minority.
That we in Quebec have not always had our proper share, that the constitutional agreement of the British North America Act might not have been respected to the letter, I will not pretend that it is completely without foundation. Some of it even a lot of it is true; but if you stop and think, might it not be that we have been ill-served by our own individualism? Might we not have asked, at a conference table, a better observance of the agreements? Instead of crying "The damn English", instead of driving them to exasperation and insulting them, might we not have been more practical?
The unfortunate part of it might also have been our failure to reach an earlier awareness of our own worth, a worth which, today, brings home to all provinces of Canada the fact that the country needs Quebec, our thinkers, our scientists, our engineers and our technicians.
The unfortunate part of it also might be that we lock ourselves in our ivory tower and believe, as some of our compatriots, that we can live without Canada, not realizing that separatism would lead us to a very sad end. Fortunately, a very small part of the population thinks this way.
On the other hand Mr. Chairman, there are some who feel the authorities are too lenient towards the vocal minority of Quebec. I blame those of my Anglo-Canadian compatriots who look with a jaundiced eye upon our efforts to assert ourselves and who feel that we should be playing second fiddle. They do as much harm to the Canadian nation as those Quebeckers who favour a separate nation. Fortunately, there is only a handful of them, in a century that is above their comprehension, and they are condemned by those they would fawn upon. One thing they forget
May 11. 1967

which they should always bear in mind, when they think of the secondary role we should hold, and that is the past, the proud reply of those who, in 1815, answered General Washington who had sent commanding officer Arnold to take over our country. That answer gave history the glorious page of Chateauguay where de Salaberry and his light infantrymen put an end to the ambitious dream the United States had of making of Canada a new American state.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Rochon:: In this, our centennial year, Mr. Speaker, we must forget all those vicissitudes. We must look to the past so as to better prepare the future, look to the past without bitterness so as to correct, if possible, what faults there may be. For, lest it be forgotten, while we celebrate the first century of confederation, we also celebrate the dawn of another, o (9:20 p.m.)
Some would like that an interprovincial conference be convened immediately to study the possibilities of amending or redrafting the constitution. We must be very careful and proceed methodically, and I think the government and the authorities concerned are right when they say, in the speech from the throne:
During the past one hundred years the world has changed beyond the recognition of anything within the experience of those who laid the foundations of confederation. That our constitutional structure has endured and served so well the progress of our country is a measure of the basic soundness of its principles as well as the willingness of those concerned to adapt their application to changing needs and changing conditions.
It is in this spirit that the government has in recent years actively promoted the reform of detailed federal-provincial arrangements which, with the fundamental law, compose the constitutional structure of our country. While orderly reform may well be the best way of preserving and strengthening our heritage, the most careful consideration must be given to what we do. Studies to obtain the best advice on this important matter are now underway with a view to subsequent consideration of the whole problem by parliament.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government re-elected in 1965 understands the situation thoroughly and, in the conditions prevailing in Canada today, it is behaving as the Fathers of Confederation themselves would have. The government wants to adapt itself to the present necessities; they want to show themselves worthy of the past in order to prepare for the future; in short,
The Address-Mr. Rochon and I quote another paragraph from the speech from the throne, this is what they want to do:
With our forefathers, the fight was against the immense odds of nature on our half of this continent. Today the main struggle is against social injustice, against cultural mediocrity, against spiritual stagnation and against all forms of intolerance.
At the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I said that instead of trying to analyse the great legislative program announced in the speech from the throne, I would say a few words about the centennial of confederation. However, there are two points which I should like to refer to, because they are of very particular interest to my constitutency. The first is the proposed legislation concerning a better control of broadcasting and the establishment of broadcasting facilities for educational purposes, and the second is a special study on urban development made in close consultation with the appropriate authorities.
Considering that at the last election, I had more than 125,000 electors, representing a total population of nearly 400,000 or almost half a million; considering that that number, includes almost 125,000 school-age children; considering that nearly two-fifths of educational institutions at the primary, secondary and scientific levels are located in my constituency; considering that the second biggest city in Quebec, the city of Laval, has a population greater than that of Quebec city, Trois-Rivieres and other cities in my province and that it makes up half of my riding, one will understand why my electors and myself strongly support a plan to organize educational television in a way that would increase scientific progress.
We are convinced that such a step must be taken. We believe that it is one of the best ways to put a stop to those indecent or too daring programs which unfortunately corrupt our children when they do not deprave them.
Besides, as far as television is concerned, the speech from the throne provides for the granting of wider powers to the Board of Broadcast Governors which will be better able to see to it that the rules are obeyed.
I do not have to emphasize the special study on urban development; a city like the city of Laval which as I said, is the second in importance in Quebec, was created three years ago by amalgamating the 14 municipalities on lie Jesus. It is a wonderful site. The island is surrounded by two rivers: the Prairies and the Mille lies rivers. Secondary
May 11, 1967

The Address-Mr. Churchill industry is attracted and economic possibilities are tremendous. So many people are leaving the centre of Montreal to settle in Ville Laval, that local authorities need the assistance of the senior governments to settle their problems. The Quebec government, both the one in power before June 1966 and the present administration, have done their share. The central government has helped within the limits of its jurisdiction. It is therefore with enthusiasm that local authorities have learned about this important piece of legislation of which they expect so much.
Mr. Speaker, before concluding my remarks I would be remiss if I failed to say a few words about the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, like the previous speakers.
They lived up to their electors' trust. We are proud of those Canadians. I would also like to congratulate most respectfully the new representative of the Queen of Canada, His Excellency Roland Michener. May his reign be long and fruitful in the best interests of our country, our dear and great Canada.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I commence my remarks, Mr. Speaker, with my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Jamieson) and seconder Mr. Cote (Nicolet-Yamaska) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I thought they performed their tasks very well indeed. I was most interested in hearing from the mover of the motion, who eloquently and ably presented his opinions to the House of Commons. I was particularly taken with the common sense he showed when he told us he waited for a great many months before expressing his opinions in the House of Commons. This -very sound advice has been given over the years to new members, not to plunge in too rapidly but to find out first how this place operates. The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo apparently did just that. He waited, watched end listened and then finally made his contribution.
He touched upon a number of subjects which are of great interest. One of the points he made which attracted my attention was his acknowledgement that he had changed his opinion of this institution after arriving here as a member, from the opinion that he held before he entered parliament. Like a good many people across Canada, he thought that this institution was somewhat ineffective and outdated. However, having been here as a


member and having become acquainted with the nature of the institution, he has changed his mind.
I think that would happen and has happened to most people who enter this chamber. A great many have a wrong idea of parliament, and when they come here as new members, if they are patient and willing to learn they soon discover that, despite its weaknesses, which everybody acknowledges, this is still the best system that has been devised for the government of mankind. It is subject always to criticism. It is subject to improvement. We are living in an age when we have seen around the world the misuse of power and the overthrow of governments of one kind and another. I presume there is in the world at the present time almost every known form of government, but I doubt whether there are many people in Canada who would want to change what we have for what various countries abroad have. We do not want to be placed in the position where we can be subjected to a coup d'etat by military personnel who are unhappy about the way things may be going on in parliament. Neither do we want to be subjected to a revolution by a group that may want to change our whole social structure. Nor do we want to establish an absolute monarchy or a dictatorship.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
All of these things we have seen in the world within the last generation. In looking abroad at these other countries I think we can be very thankful that we have this type of institution, this type of government, which can be changed by the will of the people when the opportunity is presented. It does give one a chance, through the freedom that we enjoy in Canada, to express a variety of different opinions without any worse effect than, perhaps, the jeers and ridicule of those who have a different opinion; and that is not a very serious burden to bear. Sometimes I think we do not count our blessings. Yet we should, when we look abroad and see the disturbed state of the world.
How has it come about, Mr. Speaker, that during the 100 years of our confederation we have not been bothered by great upheavals within our society that have in any way affected the nature of this institution? The foundations have been well and truly laid.
May I interpose this comment, Mr. Speaker. I had not intended to speak tonight. However, I discovered that there were others here who
May 11, 1967	COMMONS
wanted to speak tomorrow or Monday and had a carefully prepared speech which they did not want to break up. I am also informed that there are some members of the House of Commons on both sides of the house who are busily engaged with our friends from the south and are counting on a little more time for their interviews and social intercourse. So there had to be a sacrificial lamb tonight to fill in the last 15 minutes, and it is a strange thing, Mr. Speaker, that on this side of the house my colleagues seem to think of me when these occasions occur.
Consequently, sir, I am now addressing the house, not because I had a prepared speech ready, with that profundity of thought that should be given to speeches that are presented in this house; rather I am here to express some of the thoughts that have occurred to me from time to time, and some of the thoughts that I would have put into a speech had I had the opportunity for preparation. For I am a great believer in this institution, and I think that people who enter parliament and students of the history of our country would do well to pursue a course of study that will give them the background of the development of our system of government. If people would do that I think there would be less careless criticism of this institution.
I recommend to the hopeful young people of this country who are looking forward to taking a place in the government of Canada, and who already know that they are much more able than some of us who are here in this building, that they make an intensive study of the development of parliamentary institutions. I recommend to them a study of the history of Great Britain in the seventeenth century, when the fundamental freedoms were established, when the absolute monarchy was reduced in its power, and parliament started on the course of becoming the supreme governing body in the kingdom. They should then pursue that study through the eighteenth century, and particularly the nineteenth century when the adult population, with the sole exception of the women, who did not reach our exalted state till the twentieth century, was given the right to select its rulers.
With that background of information with regard to this institution and our system of parliamentary government, I cannot understand, sir, how anyone could criticize this system, other than in its smaller details, such as methods of procedure and things of that nature. I cannot understand how, with that 27053-9
DEBATES	125
The Address-Mr. Churchill knowledge and understanding of the long years of struggle to obtain the freedoms that we enjoy, anybody could attempt to undermine in any way the foundations of this system.
I think that some of those who carelessly criticize parliament have not the background of knowledge that, in my opinion, they should have. It has been a long struggle over centuries to obtain freedom-freedom to do exactly what we are doing here, to express our opinion on any subject under the sun without fear or favour.
That freedom was not enjoyed in earlier years. There were great restrictions placed upon people who spoke out of turn, just as that restriction is applied in some countries today. It is only a few days ago that in the country in which human freedom originated, Greece, the liberty of the individual was restricted. Pleasant as it might be to imprison your political opponents to get them out of the way, and while we sometimes toy with that idea here, when we get a little aroused, nevertheless we realize that that is not the way in which free men can live and enjoy freedom and develop their country and civilization. It takes only a matter of hours with a properly prepared coup d'etat to destroy a free institution-whether temporarily or permanently, who knows?
There has been a great deal of criticism of parliament during the last few years. This is not new. I happened to be reading a book dealing with the year 1808, about the letter writer Creevey, who at that time was a member of parliament. He was a voluminous letter writer, and in one of his communications he was talking about the apathy and indifference of the public to parliament. This as I say was away back in 1808, Mr. Speaker, when the Napoleonic war was still going on. Great Britain became engaged in the Peninsula war assisting Portugal and Spain. Yet Creevey, a member of parliament, writes about the apathy and indifference of the populace of Britain to parliament.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
And so it goes on. We know of all the apathy and indifference in this country with regard to issues which we are discussing here, and which appear to make no appeal to people abroad. Nevertheless, despite the occasions on which parliament appears not to be in touch with the public and the occasions when the public appears to be disinterested in this institution, all that is required is some crisis and immediately the people turn their

May 11. 1967
Division
attention to parliament and ask for consideration of the problem which confronts the nation. And immediately the members of parliament flock into this chamber to listen to or participate in debates.
So in some ways we act as a fire department to protect our country and our people in case of emergency. Then on occasions, when there is no crisis, and no great issue is in front of us, we carry on at a lower level and our work is largely routine.
Mr. Speaker, I find I shall have to carry on with my observations tomorrow because there are some other thoughts creeping into my mind which I cannot develop in the course of the next minute or so. I do not intend to deal with the speech from the throne as a whole, because it has been effectively demolished by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker), the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Neilsen) and others.
I wish to deal specifically with the emphasis which the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is placing on the management of the business of the House of Commons. This has become a favourite topic with him. Periodically he talks about what we must do here to organize the business of the house so that things may be done more efficiently and effectively and so that there may be some streamlining of this institution. With this preview of what I shall say tomorrow, I now resume my seat.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 9.45 p.m. it is my duty pursuant to standing order 38, subsection 3, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on the subamendment now before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau).
Division


Mr. Tucker:: I was paired, Mr. Speaker. Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment.


[Stage Direction]
It being seventeen minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
27053-9J
[Stage Direction]

[Stage Direction]

Friday, May 12. 1967