1967-05-17

CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South) moved: tor leave to introduce Bill No. C-lll, to amend the Canada Elections Act (university students' franchise).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to avoid any repetition of an unfortunate occurrence during the last general election when a number of university students were disfranchised by virtue of a provision in the Canada Elections Act. This bill proposes to place students in the same position as members of the Canadian forces and veterans in an election.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the press correctly reported a most unusual occasion today, at which the Prime Minister advised the press as to what had taken place in cabinet. In particular, did he say that he had outlined in cabinet in very considerable detail the policy of the government by quoting from statements made by him as well as by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, so it would be clear to every member of the cabinet exactly what the policy was? Did he say "We all agreed that this was the right policy to follow-"


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman knows that a question has to be asked directly and that it cannot be in the form of requesting confirmation or denial of press reports.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege, then. The Prime Minister is reporting what took place in cabinet, and this is so
contrary to constitutional practice that I have to quote what was reported in the press.


Mr. Speaker:: I must rule on the question of privilege that there are no exceptions provided in the precedents which would allow the right hon. Leader of the Opposition to put the question in the way he did.


John George Diefenbaker: This has never happened before, so there are no precedents. May I ask the Prime Minister this. Did the cabinet agree that the members of the government would follow the policy enunciated in cabinet this morning and say or do nothing which would make its implementation more difficult? I ask the Prime Minister upon what basis the statement was made, and whether there is a precedent for revealing what takes place in cabinet.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Oh, Mr. Speaker, there are lots of precedents for telling the press the subject matters discussed in cabinet. My right hon. friend will recall many occasions when he indicated what was discussed or not discussed in cabinet. There is no precedent for giving the details of cabinet discussions on any matter, nor was that done this morning. I merely said, and it was quite in order to say so, that the cabinet reaffirmed its adherence to the policy adopted by the government in regard to Viet Nam, in view of the questions that had been raised about that policy in the house and elsewhere. All members of the cabinet not only reaffirmed their confidence in the wisdom of that policy but they all reaffirmed that they would say nothing or do nothing to make more difficult its implementation. I am sure my right hon. friend will be the first to congratulate us on this reaffirmation of cabinet solidarity.


John George Diefenbaker: Having been asked
whether I congratulate the government on cabinet solidarity, I may say that I do; because this is so abnormal that it deserves congratulation. Now I ask the Prime Minister, will he let the house and the country in on what the secret is, what the policy is? Is the Gordon version no longer agreeable to the cabinet?
312	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be delighted to let my right hon. friend into that great secret. Cabinet policy in this matter was stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on April 11 before the committee on external affairs; it was indicated in a letter of mine to certain university professors which was made public on March 10, and it was dealt with in this house in February of this year. We reaffirmed this morning the wisdom of that policy as enunciated in this house and outside. I know my right hon. friend is quite familiar with it.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I ask the Prime Minister to table the letter of March 10 to the professors so we will have it clear and definite, and so Mr. Gordon will understand it as well as Mr. Turner.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I will be glad to do that.
I may be wrong, but I am under the impression that letter has already been tabled. I think it was tabled some weeks ago. If I am wrong I apologize. If it has been tabled I am sure my hon. friend has read it by now.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to see how consistent it is.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question, because this subject is one of great importance to the country. I should like to know whether the Prime Minister's statement means that the statement of the President of the Privy Council was repudiated by the cabinet.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I know how important this matter is to the New Democratic party, but my hon. friend will have to draw his own conclusions from what I have just said.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Was the President of the Pricy Council present at this cabinet meeting and did he subscribe-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that question is out of order.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will table the contents of the press release issued after the cabinet meeting this morning, as well as the one issued after caucus.

DEBATES	May 17. 1967


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker. I believe it has appeared verbatim in the press, but I would be very glad to table it.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I should like to know whether, as a result of the statement made by the President of the Privy Council on the situation in Viet Nam, the government or his department have received protests from Washington?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouetle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of the fact that Canada is participating extensively in a two billion dollar project financed by the World Bank to assist Pakistan in the construction of an irrigation system, is the minister aware of the existence of slave labour camps in Pakistan, while financial assistance benefits but a few individuals? Has the government been informed of this situation and what measures are intended by the minister to have these people toe the line?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I shall take this question as notice and reply tomorrow -



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is he now prepared to give some additional details about the kind of assistance the federal government is prepared to offer the ranchers and farmers of southern Alberta who were severely hurt by the recent storms, particularly in regard to long term credit assistance, which I think he mentioned in his press release in western Canada about a week ago?
May 17, 1967


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I attended the area in southern Alberta where these very grave problems have arisen. We provided short term assistance by way of helping to get feed to the cattle by means of mobile equipment, etc. This can help in the short term.
I had a meet.ng with some 40 or 50 ranchers, and the situation is that when they have been able to determ.ne the long term harm that has been suffered as a result of this storm the ranchers association will submit representations to the government as to the kind of a d, credit or otherwise, that they deem would be advantageous to help them overcome their very serious difficulties.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question. Does the minister intend to make some arrangements w.th the Farm Credit Corporation for deferment of the payments that are due in 1967?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the officials of the Farm Credit Corporation have already visited the scene on my instructions. In the event that a moratorium in regard to the 1967 payments is required or desired by the ranchers who have been seriously affected, and provided this ,s permissible under the act and the regulations as they now stand, I am sure this matter will be given every consideration.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should l.ke to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he has had any discussions with the premier or prov ncial government of Alberta with regard to any joint undertaking to provide assistance; and have any suggestions come from that government in this connection?


John James Greene: I did have discussions with one of the ministers about providing the emergency equipment and feed which was requ red, but there have been no discussions or suggestions as yet with regard to any long term help.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister of Agriculture initiated any discussion of this matter with the provincial premier?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, there is no way as yet of assessing the long term injury that has been suffered; the ranchers themselves have sa d this to me. It will probably be some weeks or months before they know the cost of this unfortunate occurrence, and I think it might be premature to suggest methods of aiding them at this time.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



INQUIRY AS TO AMENDMENT OF ANTIDUMPING PROVISIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister advise the house whether Canada's anti-dumping regulations were dealt with in the Kennedy round negotiations? If so, has a decision been reached to amend these regulations and procedures?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, during the negotiations which have just been concluded Canada subscribed to a new international code of anti-dumping legislation; and if these agreements are confirmed, as I expect they will be, there will be legislation to implement that agreement.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say when he might expect to make a formal announcement in this regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: At the same time as the tariff schedules are revealed which, as I and the Minister of Trade and Commerce said yesterday will probably be after June 30.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say whether anti-dumping legislation with regard to fruit and vegetables will be changed? Will there be a change in the estimation of fair value for duty with regard to these two categories?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the question of valuation for duty is quite separate from that of anti-dumping legislation. I hesitate to give an unqualified answer but I think I can say that valuation as such, is not affected by the new rules.



FOOTWEAR-DISCUSSION RESPECTING IMPORTS FROM CZECHOSLOVAKIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinihe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Would the hon. minister tell the house whether he has had the opportunity lately to discuss with the president of Czechoslovakia or the minister of foreign affairs of that country the matter of massive importation of shoes, as complained of by Canadian manufacturers?

May 17, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, that matter was mentioned.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the hon. minister tell us whether the importations will be decreased or increased?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a matter for the consideration of the government of Czechoslovakia, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs assure the house that no steps will be taken that may injure Canadian-Japanese trade?



PORK-INQUIRY AS TO REOPENING OF BRITISH MARKET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Dryden Hales: My
question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Has the British market for pork and pork products been reopened to Canada? If so, what are the Departments of Agriculture and Trade and Commerce doing to break into this market and to make Canadian pork products available in large quantities to English buyers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the matter is of such national urgency that the question ought to be asked at this time.



REQUEST FOR DETAILED STATEMENT ON NEW GATT AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: My
question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the Japanese government has now released a list of considerable length showing tariff reductions arrived at as a result of the Kennedy round of negotiations, would the minister reconsider his reply to the request I made yesterday that he issue a list setting out these reductions as far as Canada is concerned in order that manufacturers and others interested may be better able to assess their position and determine what to do?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think if manufacturers and others in this country wish to assess the position adequately they should know both sides of the bargain. Therefore I think it would be better to release the information as to changes in our own tariff schedules and those of our principal markets at the same time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In view of the fact that the Japanese government has already released this information what reason could there be for Canada not following the same course?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is not in order. The hon. member is suggesting that an argument be entered into.


Douglas Scott Harkness: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I fail to see why the question is out of order. It is an urgent matter, and the minister is prepared to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member asked the minister to explain why a particular decision had been reached, and I do not think that is a proper question.


David Vaughan Pugh: May
I ask the minister whether there will be any tariff changes in relation to fruits and vegetables. I ask this question because crops intended for sale later in the season have to be planted now, and a situation very harmful to some areas of Canada may develop unless the farmers are given this information at the present time.


Mitchell William Sharp: I can assure the hon. member that we have this question very much in mind, but I reiterate my statement that I believe it is better for all concerned to know both the advantages we are receiving in foreign markets as well as the concessions we have made in order to buy those advantages.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: My question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can he inform the house whether he has further information as to the date on which we might expect a decision from the federal power commission in Washington on the Great Lakes application to build the pipe line for Trans-Canada Pipe Lines through the United States?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Unfortunately I cannot, Mr. Speaker.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform the house whether on behalf of Canada he made representations to the F.P.C. that it might expedite its processes, in view of the disadvantages to Canada of long delays?
May 17, 1967	COMMONS


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, representations were made in the past. The federal power commission is quite aware, and it has stated it, of the urgency of this matter for Canada.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Defence whether Canadian troops are to be withdrawn from the Gaza strip.


Mr. Hellyer:: May I refer this question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary General of the United Nations has called a meeting of those nations contributing to the United Nations force in the Gaza strip. I would prefer to wait until the conclusion of that meeting before replying.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. If hostilities break out in that area, will attempts be made at peace restoring in accordance with the policy the minister announced on December 7 last?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It would appear that the question is hypothetical.
(Later:]


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question with regard to the serious problem developing in the Near East. In order that Canada's policy may be clear and definite, will the minister hold prior consultations with the President of the Privy Council?



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Was his attention drawn to a May 8 resolution of the Rimouski Chamber of Commerce, which is supposed to have been sent to him in connection with the Com-pagnie de navigation Nord-Sud Limitee and the construction of a wharf at Pointe-Michel, between Baie-Comeau and Forestville? If so, is it his intention, in compliance with that
DEBATES	315-
Inquiries of the Ministry resolution, to take immediate action to have the construction of a wharf at Pointe-Michel started as soon as possible?


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


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a welcome back question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have not had an opportunity to send him notice, but I am sure he will give me a precise answer. In view of the fact that Canada has refused to sell arms to Israel, the Arab states, Pakistan, India, Greece, Turkey, Angola and Malaysia, how does the government justify the sale to the United States of arms, some of which are used in Viet Nam?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question, I regret to say, is argumentative.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: My question
is directed to the Prime Minister. Would he give consideration to circulating to hon. members a bulletin outlining the itineraries of visiting dignitaries? I believe this information is now available to him.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be very glad to inquire whether this can be done. I think it would be very helpful if it could be done.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister receive a communication from the Ontario division of the Canadian Council of the Blind pointing out the degrading and demoralizing effect of the means test and the difficulty of pensioners carrying on with their present pensions because of the spiralling increases in costs? If the government has received that telegram is it giving consideration
May 17. 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry to the removal of the means test, a step which on its face appears to be one that would be generally acceptable to the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is my impression that I did, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to confirm that a telegram to this effect came to my office yesterday and that I sent it to the office of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and asked for his views on it. I will check that when I get back to my office.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Has the minister received from the C.F.U. of the Saguenay region a telegram protesting aga nst the refusal of the C.N.R. to put at their disposal 17 passenger coaches to take 1,000 farmers to Ottawa for the farmers' march scheduled for May 24?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am under the impression that it is a march that is supposed to take place on May 24, but in any case I will contact the C.N.R. management about that.


Mr. Gauthier:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister convinced that this march will be profitable to the C.N.R.?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking the minister for an opinion and his question is out of order.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING JURISDICTION IN EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerns the statements he made yesterday in Fredericton on government jurisdiction with regard to international matters.
Can the hon. minister tell the house whether he or officials of his department have held meetings recently conferred or exchanged correspondence as concerns the wish expressed by the province of Quebec to become a member of international organizations such as UNESCO? Has an agreement been reached between the two governments?
[Mr. Diefenbaker.I


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, what we want, especially in matters which concern the provinces from a constitutional point of view, is effective co-operation with them. That is why we are pursuing a program of co-operation and collaboration.


Maurice Allard: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Can the hon. minister tell the house whether he has received recently from the premier of the province of Quebec a letter making a request in this regard?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall find out, Mr. Speaker. I have received several letters from the Quebec premier; it may be that one of them concerns this matter, and I shall inquire about it.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance whether changes in the present federal-provincial tax-sharing set up are planned for the current session of parliament.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. We have just approved legislation that applies in the immediate future, and I have no intention of bringing in further legislation.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I want to ask the Prime Minister. Having in mind the presence on the order paper of a number of bills, put there by private members of the three main political parties, all calling for the same thing, namely a reduction in the voting age, is the government giving consideration to this important question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be very glad, Mr. Speaker, to look into this very interesting proposal to see whether it could be implemented.
May 17, 1967	COMMONS



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lee Grills (Hastings South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Yesterday between four and five o'clock I had the unpleasant experience of missing a train due to the fact that no taxicabs were allowed on parliament hill. I wonder if the minister could do something about this. I have heard several complaints, and I ask when the situation in this respect will be rectified.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to hear that the hon. member missed his train; I thought that was something that happened only to some of the rest of us. As to taxicabs not being allowed on the hill during certain ceremonial visits I shall look into the matter.
I was not aware of it.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquetie (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which closely relates to the business of the house and which I wish to direct to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Auguste Choquette: If I am not allowed to ask a question of the right hon. gentleman may I direct the question to the government house leader. Since erosion of the crown prerogatives is quite incompatible with Conservative philosophy, will the minister ask the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) to withdraw notice of motion No. 1 on the order paper, which deals with the abolition of the royal power of dissolution?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will again rule the question out of order. I assume the hon. member is rising on a question of privilege.


Richard Albert Bell: I only wish to say that each court should have a jester and each parliament a clown.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
DEBATES	317
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Is the right hon. Prime Minister rising on a question of privilege?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was just going to speak on the question of privilege, to say I would be glad to discuss the matter with the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think it would be wise if at this point I ruled there was no question of privilege.


Auguste Choquette: On a question of personal privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I bring to the attention of hon. members that there are only 30 minutes for questions this afternoon, and I would ask for the co-operation of all hon. members including the hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Auguste Choquette: It will be a very short question of privilege. I am glad to understand that the hon. member for Carleton is the clown of this house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Considering the widespread speculation that it will not be available until after May 29, could the minister tell us when he will be prepared to present the budget?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, a final decision in this respect has not yet been made.



MR. JUSTICE LANDREVILLE INQUIRY AS TO ACTION PROPOSED BY GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think about ten days ago was the last occasion when I asked what the government's attitude is going to be regarding Mr. Justice Landreville. Has the government come to any conclusion in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the question of the best procedure to be followed in this very important,
May 17, 1S67

The Address-Mr. D. S. Macdonald and I believe for our parliament unprecedented, matter was again discussed by the government this week, and I hope to be able to have an announcement to make next week.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister in a position to advise the house of the time and place of the meeting with the farmers' union, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and other farm organizations who are coming here to discuss the milk question with him; and will members of parliament be allowed to attend that meeting?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I have been instructed by the proposed marchers that they will be here on May 24, I believe at ten o'clock in the morning. With respect to the question of the actual place where they will be, I think it is on parliament hill and I am very certain everyone will be welcome.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when I announced a program on Indian housing the hon. member for Churchill asked me a question which I have since had the opportunity of reading in Hansard. I have discovered that the question he asked me involved enfranchised Indians, indicating to me that I misinformed the house; because I said, as recorded at page 247 of Hansard, "If they are currently on reserves, yes." If Indians are enfranchised they are no longer Indians under the Indian Act.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 16, 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. Brand.
Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, at the close of the debate last night I had made some remarks indicating that I felt the system of criminal justice in this country was heavily weighted against the individual, and particularly in connection with the provision for custody pending trial and bail. I also indicated that I should like to discuss this under a second heading, the question of availability of counsel before trial. As will be clear to hon. members from Professor Friedland's remarks which I read last night, the problem of custody before trial is directly related to the question of counsel before trial.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we please have more order. I am sure it is difficult for the members in the chamber to follow the hon. member's remarks.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The question recently has been before the highest court in our country, the Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of Regina v. O'Connor. In that case, a motorist had been taken into custody on suspicion of impaired driving and was submitted to a number of tests by the police at the police station without being informed that he was under arrest, and that he had a right to refuse to submit to the tests, without having the opportunity to seek independent legal advice. Only after being tested was he advised that he was under arrest and only at that time was he given permission to seek legal assistance. He was permitted to make one telephone call. When his solicitor happened not to be there, he was denied a further right to seek assistance.
The Canadian Bill of Rights appears to be quite clear in this regard. It affirms the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law. It goes on to prohibit any law of Canada from being construed or applied so as to-
-deprive a person who has been arrested or detained
(i)	of the right to be informed promptly of the reason for his arrest or detention, and
(ii)	of the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay...
Prima facie it would appear that the Bill of Rights applies directly to the situation. The Supreme Court of Canada, however, has held that those provisions did not assist the accused under those circumstances. In my opinion the Supreme Court's judgment, which 1 do not deny was probably correct on the law as it stands, has indicated a very fundamental gap in our system of criminal justice.
May 17, 1967	COMMONS
We have adopted the English system of criminal justice, which is an adversary system; it assumes that the best means of arriving at the truth of the case is by contest between the prosecution and the accused in open trial. In fact, of course, many of these contests are notoriously unequal. But I may say that at least one of the long standing bases of inequality has been met in part in my own province at least by the new legal aid system. I am not referring specifically to that problem, but rather to the importance of ensuring that the accused, rich or poor, be not held in custody without the opportunity to secure the assistance of independent legal advice.
Curiously, we set great store by the common law canon that no man shall be compelled to testify against himself, and then ignore the fact that the fairness of the trial, in this adversary contest, may be irretrievably prejudiced before trial by the gap in the law which permits the police to hold the accused incommunicado and subject to a variety of pressures, not excluding the physical, designed to break down his will to resist the state.
My suggestion is that the criminal law should impose a positive obligation upon the police to advise an arrested person of his legal right to have counsel and to facilitate his early contact with counsel. I do not accept the adequacy of the traditional one telephone call referred to in the O'Connor case. It may indeed be a lot easier to secure convictions under the present system, but I would remind hon. members that the function of our criminal process is not to secure convictions but rather to do justice.
A word should be spoken here about organized crime. The hardened criminal is far less subject to the psychological pressure of arrest than is the person who is in conflict with the law for the first time. The professional knows he does not have to talk and that any inducements offered to him by the police are illusory. He may well have greater cause to fear physical violence, but then he may be more hardened to it. Not without reason, he may have cause to believe that his associates already have set in motion the process of habeas corpus or otherwise to secure his freedom. Once again, the very class against whom law enforcement officers cite the law as being required is frequently least subject to it.
It seems to me these are two aspects in which the power given the state unreasonably outweighs the rights of the individual. I have 27053-2U
DEBATES	313
The Address-Mr. D. S. Macdonald a deep suspicion that many more such anomalies exist in our Victorian criminal laws.
The second of the major areas in which I feel that our slowness in law reform has worked prejudice for the individual has been that of the civil law under federal jurisdiction. Here again I should like to pick two examples: The priority over other creditors which the crown claims for taxes; and, the heavy stick which crown expropriators swing against small property owners. In respect of the first, a brief review of the federal taxing statutes illustrates what an advantage the treasury claims over other creditors. With regard to income tax and sales tax, for example, the respective laws provide that all taxes, penalties and costs can be claimed by the crown as a debt due in either the exchequer court or other competent court.
In the case of income tax, what the Department of National Revenue commonly does is to issue a certificate that the tax has not been paid. That certificate simply is registered in the court as proof that there is a sum due. It is entirely equivalent to the situation of a businessman who has sued and obtained a judgment for a debt. The difference is that the crown is given the right to skip the ordinary court proceedings and has the amount of the debt set at what it claims, not at what a court has found. This situation works a particular hardship on other businesses in the case of the bankruptcy of a debtor business. Under the Bankruptcy Act the crown is given a priority over other creditors, so, with only a limited body of assets left, the crown can move in and claim payment in full before any of the suppliers of the bankrupt business can collect a nickel. This kind of bad debt which a business failure generates falls particularly heavily on the small supplier who has neither the leverage to compel earlier repayment nor the financial resources to sustain a loss. The inherent weakness of his position becomes a disaster when the agents of the government move in like a flock of gulls and eat up all the assets.
In another situation, the priority given for government taxes works a particular hardship in the case of the intrepid creditor pursuing the hidden assets of a chronic non-payer. The writ of extent, which is the authority issued by the exchequer court to collect the tax debt against property, can be used by the department to claim prior security in hidden assets smoked out by an energetic creditor. The creditor does all the work and the revenuers move in to reap the benefit, like a
May 17. 1967

The Address-Mr. D. S. Macdonald bunch of in-laws. But I hasten to say, quite unlike my in-laws.
As between the small businessman and the government, why should the government have all those advantages? Why should not the government be confined to the same rights as any other creditor? I suggest that the respective taxing statutes should be changed to take away the crown's priority for taxes and put it in the same position as other creditors. Surely the important principle here in connection with bankruptcy or non-payment of debts is who can best afford to bear the loss, the small businessman or the vast resources of the government? The answer is obvious.
It seems to me that the wide array of pre-emptive weapons which the tax collectors have been given has grown up not as a result of conscious policy, but through the draftsman's habit of sticking into the various taxing acts rights which were in the original precedent. I think the time has come to reverse that process.
Another example of unfair advantage between government and a citizen is in the case of expropriating small holdings. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) already has set out a critique of the expropriation procedures and has questioned some of the basic principles. I do not intend to cover the ground again. What I should like to refer to is the unfair position in which a person of limited means finds himself when faced with the land taking juggernaut.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
As the hon. member for Bow River has stated, it is the policy of federal expropriation authorities to make a first offer which, on any objective standard, is absurdly below the real value of the property. In the case of larger holdings in the hands of people with financial resources, their bargaining position is better because they have recourse to legal proceedings in the exchequer court, and in the general perspective of reported expropriation cases the landholders seem to have done pretty well.
But in the cases of smaller properties of $3,000 or $5,000 value, the exchequer court is not an option because the very cost of the proceedings would eat up the award. I have a suspicion, for example, that the National Capital Commission in its expropriation for the Ottawa river driveway was in a position to force small cottage holders into settlements that on an objective basis would not be regarded as fair. The problem in this type of

case is that there is no objective basis such as a court hearing in which the fairness of an offer can be tested. What is called for, it seems to me, is some sort of small claims tribunal for expropriations so that by an inexpensive and relatively rapid procedure values could be ascertained if no settlement is reached. Perhaps the Tax Appeal Board could serve as an example of the type of relatively informal tribunal in which these claims could be adjudicated.
In each of the instances which I have given the existing procedures are unduly rigid. The state has, it seems to me, armed itself with far heavier weapons than effective government requires, and the use of the weapons does needless damage.
The final aspect of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, would be with regard to an administrative review procedure, which was referred to in the speech from the throne of April, 1965, but I regret was not mentioned in the last speech from the throne. Certainly the critical nature of the problem has not diminished. We have heard discussions from time to time of a possible administrative procedure for Canada and three foreign examples have been cited, namely the Scandinavian institution of ombudsman, the American federal example of administrative review procedure, and the French system of the conseil d'etat.
Looked at objectively I would say that the third is probably the best precedent and certainly the most successful, but perhaps we should in this regard invoke the caution that the institutions of other states should not be copied without a very profound appreciation of their historical evolution and of the society in which they were produced.
First with regard to the ombudsman, this has certainly been very much in vogue, but how much do some of its advocates really know about it? I would suggest that in view of the nature of the problems in Canada there are reasons why the ombudsman would not be desirable. In Canada the ombudsman must be bilingual, he must be able to deal with a broader range of problems, larger geography and larger population than in the case of some of those countries which already have an ombudsman. Countries like Denmark and New Zealand are homogeneous, unilingual, unitary states of relatively small size and geography. In countries such as these the system appears to work well, but in the case of a country the size of Canada the problem is one of sheer volume, which will therefore require
May 17, 1967

more than one person; it will require, in essence, a panel. To this extent it begins to resemble the conseil d'etat. There is the further problem that if you have more than one person acting in this role there is the difficulty of assuring uniformity of treatment and continued efficiency of the system.
The American administrative procedure act that has been put forward can, I think, be dismissed fairly rapidly because of its limited application. In essence it provides an entry into the general legal system, but these administrative proceedings in the United States have been notable for their complexity, length of time and amount of legal costs. The history of the conseil d'etat has, in my opinion, been distinguished by a very high quality of performance, rapidity of dispatch and relatively low expense. The essentials in this type of administrative review are speed and low cost. This, if I may say so as a member of the profession, should at once rule the lawyers out. In this regard I would say that the Tax Appeal Board, for example, has not been a success when judged by this standard because it is too much like a court.
There must be consistency of judgment. This is why I make the choice of a conseil d'etat over an ombudsman. If you want to assure equal treatment for all cases across the country, in my opinion the conseil d'etat is the best system because cases are dealt with by a panel. There must be equality of treatment in this respect and there should be ease of access to the tribunal.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the cost of appearing before the tribunal should not only be inexpensive but I would suggest there should be a system instituted which would not prevent a person of limited means taking advantage of the system. I would suggest that in this regard there should be something perhaps in the nature of veterans advocates who are now available to deal with applications to the Canadian Pension Commission. This type of institution might be extended for the purpose of general administrative reviews.
The practical and essential characteristic of a good administrative review procedure is surely obtained through the production of documents. Surely in any case affecting the individual and the state there should be the production of documents. The individual should have the right to have produced to him the government's file about himself. In the long run the mere right to the production of documents is perhaps the individual's best opportunity for an administrative review. The
The Address-Mr. J. H. Horner exceptions, of course, will be in security cases and a limited number of other cases where the security of the state must be pre-eminent, such as cases concerning defence and negotiations between states and others in the field of external affairs, and private and personal information relating to other individuals. I am not satisfied that at the present time there is an effective means for protecting the individual in matters of Canadian administration.
These, Mr. Speaker, are some of the points I should like the government to examine for the purpose of introducing legislation that will make the right of the individual pre-eminent over the great power of the state.


Mr. Maiheson:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member a question on the matter of an ombudsman. Would he feel that there might be virtue in testing the ombudsman principle departmentally? I am thinking particularly of certain departments such as Veterans Affairs, which has had its problems respecting pension appeals, and National Defence in view of the unification program we are commencing and which will obviously present new problems. I would suggest also the penitentiary and parole services under the Department of the Solicitor General. Would the hon. member feel that there might be any virtue in an ombudsman being established within certain departments, to see how the ombudsman system would work out?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would adhere to the argument I made earlier. I think the more efficacious institution has been that of the conseil d'etat. I would like to see an administrative tribunal made up of more than one individual; I would like to see it made up of a panel of individuals who could share the same, I hesitate to use the word "jurisprudence" but who would have the same philosophic approach to administration. In this way I think there would be consistency applied to cases across the country. The ombudsman system has received a great deal of popular support, but I am sure the conseil d'etat could be made to work more effectively in a country of our size and population.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on the speech from the throne I intend to deal to a great extent with the subjects of agriculture and transportation. In opening my remarks I
May 17, 1967

The Address

Mr. J. H. Horner
would say that I agree with the previous speaker and have grave doubts that the ombudsman system would be a solution to all constitutional problems and problems of constituents, in view of the continuous build-up of bureaucracy by this government, provincial and municipal governments.
Having said that, I shall leave that subject and concern myself with the question of agriculture. We notice in the speech from the throne that some mention is made of agriculture. I am pleased to hear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) is going to set up a fact finding policy group which will be able to devise an agricultural policy for him, something which he has been unable to do in the 21 months he has been in office. If one were to study his background he would find that the minister was born and raised in Toronto and that he is a lawyer by profession. Later he moved to the small town of Arnprior. So one can readily see that he has had very little to do with agriculture, and therefore is at a loss to devise an agricultural policy for Canada. I as a western farmer have often wished that the former minister of agriculture had the silver tongue of the present minister. Perhaps the combination of the former minister's knowledge and the present minister's silver tongue might have produced a spokesman for the farmers of Canada. We in western Canada have recognized the grass roots knowledge of the agricultural industry possessed by the former minister of agriculture, who is now a senator. Unfortunately he was not able to provide us with leadership, partly owing to the fact that he was unfamiliar with parliamentary procedure and thus was unable to transmit his ideas to paper.
The present minister is given to the use of verbiage and very little else. So I take heart, with many other western farmers, in that part of the speech from the throne in which it is said that the Minister of Agriculture will be charged with the project of setting up a special task force which will be recommending policies to meet agricultural goals. I hope that after 21 months in office the minister will have found himself and placed his feet firmly on the ground. I sincerely hope he will be able to deal with the agricultural problems which are facing this nation.
There are grave and serious problems before us. Never before have we had a society so affluent and so able as the one in which we live today. Yet, never before have we seen so much unrest in the agricultural industry.

Milk prices have been low and subsidies have been paid. Nevertheless the farmers are prepared to march on Ottawa. We must try to analyse the problems which confront our farmers. Wheat marketings have been higher than was expected a few years ago; yet there is dissatisfaction among the wheat farmers. The recent international wheat agreement recommended an increase of 21 or 22 cents in the price of wheat. When the president of the Alberta wheat pool was informed of this by a newspaperman he said he could not believe it, that he did not think Canada would accept so small an increase. I point this out, Mr. Speaker, to convince you and the rest of the house that wheat farmers are not satisfied, nor are dairy farmers. I could go down the list and mention the vegetable growers, the beef producers and others who are dissatisfied. We find ourselves in an affluent society, at a time when our economy is booming, and yet every segment of the agricultural industry is dissatisfied. The minister is unable to devise a policy, and so our hopes lie in the speech from the throne in which we are told that a special task force will be set up to try to devise a policy. It is the first time in Canada that we have found it necessary to import butter, eggs and all kinds of vegetable crops. The prices of the staple commodities which can still be exported are going down, and there is dissatisfaction all across the board.
In recommending an increased price for wheat the international wheat agreement did not specifically state that the committed countries have to buy grain at that price. This is the crux of the problem. Why post the minimum price of over $2 a bushel if the committed countries do not have to purchase grain from the exporting nations at that price? It is nothing more than a guide, and it is a well known fact that in the long run farmers expect to receive half or less than half of the 21 or 22 cents which was negotiated not so long ago.
Recently we have heard rumours that wheat farmers all across Canada will be seeding more wheat this year than ever before. This is very doubtful, in view of the adverse weather conditions which we have suffered in western Canada this year. Nevertheless I am still hopeful that encouragement and leadership will be given by the government, and that farmers will make an all-out effort to seed more wheat because there continues to be a large market for wheat in the world today. We are not told about the goals which
May 17. 1967	COMMONS
the special task force mentioned in the speech from the throne proposes to set for itself. The government is a little late in setting up this task force, to say the least.
Last fall the house dealt with a major transportation bill, and yet there was no mention of it in the speech from the throne. That measure has not been enacted in full. Only part V was enacted; but part I, which sets up the new Canadian Transport Commission and which contains clause 16 giving guarantees to the shipper, has not yet been enacted. Why is the government so reluctant to set up the commission and to get it going? Last fall we were told that this legislation had to be passed by January 1, 1967. I am sure every member of the house realized at that time that the debate was urgent and the bill had to be passed. It was passed on January 31 of this year but it has not been fully implemented by the government. What is the reason for this? Why has there been no enactment of the safeguards, which under clause 16 the bill purported to include for the shippers? Shippers all across Canada are being faced with freight increases. Nevertheless protection is not being accorded them. The new Canadian Transport Commission has not yet been fully appointed, and although the legislation enables the two railways to be competitive they are continuing to set equal freight rates. When I consulted the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission and asked them whether or not this is in accordance with their position, I was informed that they were not sure, that they would like to look into it. If competition is to exist between the two railways-and transportation means a great deal to the agricultural industry-then the Director of Investigation and Research, under the authority of the Combines Investigation Act, should look into the pricing of freight rates by the two major railroads.
Both last year and this year there has been a great deal of concern about food prices. The cost of living index went up considerably last month. What does the speech from the throne say on this subject? It sets out clearly that we are going to have a department of corporate and consumer affairs, stating:
Within this department there will be created an organization responsible for developing new policies and co-ordinating programs undertaken within the federal government to assist the consumer and protect the small investor.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
What are we going to do? We are going to put the consumer in a position of being more rigidly opposed to the producer. Everywhere
DEBATES	323
The Address-Mr. J. H. Horner we go in today's society we find the producer on the short end of the stick. The corporate entity which is going to be set up by this government will mean the placing of one more government body against the primary producer. We will then have the government providing no leadership at all in the field of agriculture. Already we have the government providing weak leadership in the field of wheat production. We have the government providing no leadership at all in the field of transportation. They introduced a piece of legislation to cover the transportation industry in this country, yet they failed to provide safeguards for the shipper. The government has not fully organized the departments to police the transportation companies, yet they were in such a rush to pass this legislation.
So we find agriculture gravely concerned about its future. We find the farmers marching on Ottawa because of milk prices. All across the country the farmers are concerned about the prices they are receiving for their agricultural products in the marketplace. Basically we find the farmers asking for greater bargaining power in the marketplace. This is what they really want-more bargaining power in the marketplace. What is this government going to do about this situation? It would seem, according to the speech from the throne, they are going to do very little, other than establish this task force.
We are told in the speech from the throne that more money will be made available for long term loans under the Farm Credit Act. There is one sentence in the speech that gives one some little hope, and it is this one:
During the present session you will be asked to approve legislation to provide long term loans to agricultural and fisheries associations-
What does that really mean? Are we going to allow the agricultural institutions or organizations to borrow huge amounts of money-and it will take huge amounts of money-to market their own products? If this is what this sentence means, then perhaps there is a ray of hope for the agricultural industry in the speech from the throne. Speaking generally, it is interesting to note how the subject of agriculture is dealt with in various speeches from the throne. One finds that it is dealt with in general terms; there is never anything specific for which the government can be held accountable in the following years.
Last year we saw consumer prices become a real problem. Meat prices were one of the things that consumers thought were too high.
May 17. 1967

The Address-Mr. J. H. Horner I should like to put on the record the amount a family spent on food in 1949. In that year a family spent 24 per cent of its disposable income on food, and in 1965, 20.3 per cent of disposable income was spent on food. Of the amount spent on food in 1949, 22.4 per cent was spent for meat, while in 1965 the amount of the food budget spent on meat was 21.7 per cent. In other words, the percentage of the working man's income spent on food has decreased over the years; also the amount spent on meat has decreased over the years.
These figures would lead one to believe that the consumer is either buying less meat or poorer quality meat. However, this is not the case. In 1946, for example, the average consumption of meat in Canada was 60 pounds per person. In 1960 it was over 80 pounds per person. The consumer was therefore buying more meat with less money than he did back in 1949.
Then, you might ask yourself if the consumer is buying better quality meat. The answer to that is obviously yes. In 1949 about 6.4 per cent of the slaughtered cattle in Canada graded choice, the top grade. In 1965, 33 per cent of the cattle slaughtered graded choice. The farmer's product has increased tremendously in quality, while the consumer has increased the amount he uses. At the same time, the amount he spends on food in relation to the amount he is earning has decreased. Surely one would argue, therefore, that the farmer should have more bargaining power in the marketplace. One would have thought that would be obvious; but this is not the case. He finds he has less and less bargaining power in the marketplace and his product is selling for less and less.
We find monopolies developing in the transportation industry, monopolies developing in the cattle marketing industry, monopolies developing in the milk marketing industry. One has only to study the companies that bottle and pasteurize the milk the dairy farmers haul in, to realize the truth of this statement. We find that the monopolies developing are encouraged by this government. For example, in the meat industry one could cite Canada Packers and one could go into the set-up of Safeway stores and their purchases of many of the dairies throughout Canada. The transportation industry speaks for itself. No action has been taken by this government to watch over the competitive factors that must be the key to that industry.
Returning to the beef packing industry, last year Canada Packers told the consumer prices


committee that they handle 28 per cent of the slaughtering of beef animals in Canada. They are prepared to maintain their control of that 28 per cent. In the United States one observes the packing plants moving into the feed lot business. Last year a Senate committee studied the whole problem of whether or not packing plants in the United States should be permitted into the beef feeding industry. Today in Canada we see the packing plants moving more and more into this feeding business.
The farm paper called Country Guide, which is published in Winnipeg, produced an article which clearly set out the fact that Canada Packers had attempted to control meat prices. They realized they could control meat prices if they had a source of supply to keep their packing plants busy. Today in Canada we see the packing plants purchasing more cattle and operating more feed lots than ever before. They have a fully integrated business. Perhaps this procedure is economically justifiable if one is the operator of a packing plant, but it puts the primary producer at a grave disadvantage. This is one more instance in which we find the primary producer on the short end of the stick. It is no wonder the farmers are demanding more bargaining power in the marketplace. We see the farmers in the United States and Canada coming out with a resolution that they will not buy farm machinery. They feel this is the only weapon they can exercise to try to convince the authorities.
Really, though, this is a negative approach. If they need new machinery to take the place of hired help or reduce the number of man hours needed to produce their commodities, then the most efficient thing for them to do is to buy new equipment. If one really wanted to analyse the situation, then ceasing to buy new machinery to reduce the cost of production is really a negative approach. It may be successful however, in convincing the authorities, in a sense, that this is a serious factor in the economy of this country.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The agricultural industry still employs more people in Canada than any other industry. Yet the government is paying less and less attention to this basic industry, the industry on which Canada was founded and which still has a major part to play in society. It is often said by the experts, by professors and by anyone who feels he can offer advice to another industry, that the agricultural industry must become more efficient and must
May 17. 1967	COMMONS
modernize. Above all, it is said that there are too many farmers, that the small farms must disappear.
This, Mr. Speaker, is not necessarily so. The farmer is the most efficient producer in society today. It might interest the house to know that I have before me some figures produced by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics relating to the agricultural efficiency index, using the year 1949 as 100. To the question as to whether the efficiency of agriculture increased or decreased compared with other industries, I would answer that the agricultural efficiency index now stands at 276, compared with the general manufacturing index which stands at 176, and the commercial, non-agricultural industry index standing at 152.5. So that since 1949 the agricultural industry has increased in efficiency far more than any other single industry in Canada.
The agricultural industry has also in many cases increased both the quantity and the quality of its products. Yet these experts and professors are telling the farmers that some of the small farms will have to go. The only reason to justify such a suggestion, Mr. Speaker, is if the industry is not increasing in efficiency and is lagging behind society. But this is not the case; the industry has increased its efficiency tremendously.
What the industry does lack, however, is power at the market place.
The agricultural industry was shortchanged by this new wheat agreement which provides a 22 cents a bushel increase, announced with great fanfare last week. The president of one of the biggest marketing agencies in Alberta exclaimed that surely this was not so, that Canada would not agree to the stated amount. He said that they know we need more. Yet Canada did agree, Mr. Speaker, and naturally the wheat farmers are disappointed, as they should be.
Last session this house enacted a transportation bill to aid the railways, but the primary producer was once again on the short end of the stick. We see the milk marketing situation going from bad to worse, with no real intervention being made by the government to police the operation, and monopolies are moving into this industry to a greater and greater extent.
The Minister of Agriculture announced in Winnipeg that there will be no further subsidies to the milk producers. Naturally, Mr. Speaker, that made them happy-happy in their efforts to rid Canada of the present
DEBATES	325
The Address-Mr. J. H. Horner government. That is really about all that could make them happy. What they need is more power at the marketplace. If they cannot market their milk and milk products under more suitable arrangements than at present, Mr. Speaker, then they should be given a subsidy. If they are to be asked to subsidize the consumers of Canada, then they in turn should be subsidized. They should not be required to produce the primary products of this country at a rate which will not give them an equitable return for their labours.
We also see agitation from time to time in the cattle marketing industry suggesting that what is required are marketing boards. Let us be quite frank, Mr. Speaker; marketing boards would not raise the price of cattle one little bit in Canada because the price of cattle in Canada bears a close relationship to the price of cattle in the United States.
Today, 10 per cent of the fat cattle sold in Toronto sets the market price for the other 90 per cent. The packing plants are buying cattle direct, either from the feed lots or the farmers. Ten per cent of the fat cattle that are sold set the price for the other 90 per cent that are sold to the packing plants. Calgary calls itself the cattle marketing king of Canada, the centre where more cattle are raised and marketed than anywhere else in Canada. But even in this free enterprise society the packing plants buy 66 per cent of the fat cattle direct from the feed lots or the farmers, and the other 33 per cent set the price. This cannot continue. I would say to this fact finding group, that is going to devise an agricultural policy for a minister who cannot devise one for himself, that we in Canada need a cattle marketing commission to aid the farmers and to give them more power in the marketplace.
A number of years ago we set up wheat pools for the marketing of wheat in western Canada. That was followed by the wheat board, which was designed to give more power to the farmers in the marketplace in marketing their wheat. It now appears that it is not the wheat board that negotiates wheat prices, but that in many instances it is the government of Canada that is the sole negotiator of those prices. Two years ago this government failed to argue its case with the United States government and as a result the price slipped something like 17 cents a bushel. This was due to the inactivity on the part of the minister of trade and commerce at that time.
May 17, 1967

The Address-Mr. Laniel
I suggest that agriculture has really become a less important cabinet portfolio than it was. The government are setting up new departments, most of which are a hodgepodge of other departments. The government set up the Department of Industry, which is a hodgepodge of the former Department of Trade and Commerce. The Department of Manpower and Immigration has come into being, and this is a combination of the former departments of labour and immigration. We now see another department is to be created -for a department, in essence, is what it is-a consumer affairs department. We have also set up a Department of Forestry and Rural Development.
I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that in the building up of all these departments less and less importance is being attached to the Department of Agriculture. And above all, the government appoints a Minister of Agriculture who knows very little about the subject, and who after 20 months in office has to be given aid in developing a policy. I would urge this task force to give speedy aid to the Minister of Agriculture.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks, I must, like all my colleagues, congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I do so with great pleasure, inasmuch as everyone is unanimous that the hon. members for Bu-rin-Burgeo and Nicolet-Yamaska (Messrs. Jamieson and Cote) have fulfilled their task exceptionally well and have brought honour to the people of their respective constituencies.
Mr. Speaker, this session of the centennial of confederation, to my mind, is a very special one. It should, I think, be one of the outstanding events of 1967 and help enhance parliament in the eyes of the Canadian people, not so much by the quantity of legislation which will be enacted as by the atmosphere it will achieve across Canada namely an atmosphere of understanding, dialogue and confidence in our institutions and in public men, and finally a guarantee of a better future in the economic and social fields.
Perusal of the speech from the throne shows a noticeable intention of the government to create such an atmosphere. Realism

was sought by the avoidance of over-simplification of the problems and a general review indicated the considerable task remaining to be done, if the lives of all Canadians are to be improved as they should be.
Obviously, some people have claimed as usual that the speech from the throne offered nothing extraordinary or exceptional. But, on the whole, the comments are favourable on the government's listing of its responsibilities in different areas and of its determination in finding final solutions.
Towards the end of the speech from the throne he was reading, His Excellency the Governor General, to whom I would pay homage for his appointment and for the way in which he fulfils his duties, quoted the remarks of the first Governor General of Canada. It is surprising to realize to what extent this 100 year old text is still applicable today, in this centennial year. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I take the liberty of quoting them again:
Within our borders peace, security and prosperity prevail, and I fervently pray that your aspirations may be directed to such high and patriotic objects, and that you may be endowed with such a spirit of moderation and wisdom as will cause you to render the great work of union-
Those words were spoken 100 years ago.
-which has been achieved, a blessing to yourselves and your posterity, and a fresh starting point in the moral, political and material advancement of the people of Canada.
As you can see, the centennial message refers to peace, security, prosperity, aspiration, moderation, wisdom and finally a fresh start.
That fresh start is just as real today as it was 100 years ago, but today we also have to face an overall change in our twentieth century world where everything is put to test and where only progressive and determined men will manage to get the confidence of the people.
The time of small electoral promises and great oratory is gone, because many of our problems have a world or North American background and the people expect us to face them in a serious and responsible manner. When looking back, we can easily appreciate and assess the progress made in the last 100 years. Our country has reached a standard of living which is coveted by other countries in the world. We are still developing rapidly and there is more in store for us in the future.
Such assertion is surely an actual fact which deserves a celebration in this centennial year, but we must not stop there,
May 17, 19G7

because the challenge of the years to come, especially in the economic field, goes far beyond what we can imagine today.
There is also, Mr. Speaker, the problem of our constitutional evolution, which many put in the forefront on account of its effects on the relationship between our various levels of government, and its consequences-which is of significance-on the formulation of future policies in the various fields of jurisdiction.
Yet, it seems easy for some to extol overall solutions, such as writing immediately a new constitution. But I wonder how we could achieve this in a short time, when we have yet to agree on a formula to amend the present constitution, precisely because the province of Quebec fears that it would lose, through future amendments, some of the rights it now holds.
In addition, so far as I know, promoters of a new constitution have not yet put forward definite proposals that might serve as a basis for an immediately study.
As far as I am concerned, I believe it is our duty, as members of this house, to work within the bounds of the present constitution and to continue, under the skilful leadership of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), to make the country progress economically and socially, while doing our utmost to maintain a spirit of co-operation, of dialogue with the provinces.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that this centennial session is the appropriate occasion to pay tribute to all the great Canadians, to all those who contributed to our country's development during the last hundred years and particularly to those who assumed successively the functions of prime minister of Canada.
We have here in this house the present Prime Minister and his predecessor, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), two Canadians who spent their whole life serving the nation, and I think it is our duty to thank them for it and to pay tribute to them.
To come back to the debate on the government policy stated in the speech from the throne, I find it impossible to deal with the 25 or so matters mentioned therein. That is why I will limit my remarks to some specific points.
First of all, I was very happy to see emphasized the need for a revision of the rules of the house, and I hope we may agree on certain changes which will make our proceedings more efficient.

The Address[DOT]-Mr. Laniel
The preface to the second edition of a book distributed by the Interparliamentary Union entitled "Parliament", which is a comparative study of the structure and mode of operation of representative institutions in 55 countries, says that:
Parliamentary reform, greater control by parliament over the executive, new parliamentary procedures to meet greater needs-all these are being studied and greatly discussed.
A little further on, there is this passage:
The institution which best represents a nation and serves its true interests is not necessarily one which has been laboriously developed during a determined period in history. On the contrary, it is one which has changed and developed through constant effort in the light of experience accumulated under changing conditions.
This means that the problem of parliamentary reform is universal and that we should examine this question in the best interest of our democratic system. Personally, I think that, in addition to the changes which should be made in the rules of the House of Commons concerning the elimination and restriction of certain traditional debates which lead nowhere, the elimination of certain stages in the passing of government legislation, and the consideration and adoption of estimates, it is of the utmost importance that we re-examine thoroughly the status of the standing committees of the House of Commons. Those committees provide us with an instrument which can be very useful to parliament, and I think that the house should modify their structure so as to grant them a greater degree of autonomy, greater freedom in organizing their work and the funds necessary to hire research personnel.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
As chairman of the committee on veterans affairs this past session, I would have liked the committee to sit from last fall until the end of the session, a few days ago, in order to complete the comparative study of our veterans pension plan.
During our trip to Europe in July 1966, we gathered in various countries some very interesting information on the benefits enjoyed there by veterans. It would have been most useful for the committee to have had the opportunity, on returning to Canada, to study this matter more thoroughly and to ask the departmental officials to testify before it, so as to obtain more information and their views.
Since we had already referred the departmental estimates back to the house and submitted our report on Dr. Richardson's study on Hong Kong veterans, we had no authority
May 17, 1967

The Address

Mr. Laniel
to meet, and we lost four or five months during which we could have prepared more properly for the work still to be done on the Woods report to be submitted shortly.
Mr. Speaker, in that connection, I must say I was disappointed at not finding in the speech from the throne any reference to veterans, to those who went overseas to defend their country and democracy and who sacrificed part of their health to enable younger generations to live in peace and freedom. I fully agree that the government is concerned with economic development, manpower, scientific progress, trade, etc., but I feel that nowadays those who served their country as gloriously as our Canadian soldiers are easily forgotten.
It is true that we pay them a very moving tribute on Remembrance Day, but after all, those of our veterans who suffered the hardships of war and came back marked for life should not be considered as second class citizens. At times, I deplore this modem world in which everything seems to be discarded in favour of technology and electronic machines and everything is judged and appraised according to its effectiveness, output and future potential.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that our assistance program for veterans is better than in certain countries, if not in most. May I add that these benefits must relate to the North American context and bring about a measure of wellbeing equivalent to the average of the population.
People talk about retraining and increase of workers' income, but the fact remains that the veteran is the worse paid Canadian considering the services he rendered to the nation, to society and to the world. Retrained or not, he will never regain what war atrocities took away from him.
I recognize that the Woods commission was created to consider the functioning and administration of the Canadian Pension Commission, and that we could hardly expect in the speech from the throne proposals for important reform to existing legislation.
At this stage, I take the opportunity to inform all members and perhaps to correct certain remarks made yesterday, that the Woods commission enjoys the full confidence of the veterans' associations and especially the Canadian Legion. I know that these same associations readily accept that this report may be somewhat delayed, because they are convinced that the commission has carried out its work in an unbiased and responsible

way, and that the recommendations will be more effective for it.
However, Mr. Speaker, I think that, in this centennial year, the speech from the throne should have included at least a statement of intent, and even certain projects concerning matters not provided for in the studies of the Woods commission.
Before passing to another matter, I shall simply mention a few, namely: the basic rate of pensions and allowances, which should have been changed long ago, a system allowing for automatic pension increases based on a definite standard, such as the cost of living, salaries, etc., and let us not forget the project of a memorial for the veterans of the two world wars in the national capital, and the eventual development of the Vimy park, that Canadian soil to the memory of veterans in France.
Therefore, I hope that before the end of the year the government will bring forward some concrete measures to show its concern for war veterans, through the good offices of the minister in charge of this department.
Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne refers to regional development, foreign investments, retraining of workers, for which the government should be congratulated, but I take the liberty of adding that, at the same time, we should not forget our responsibilities, especially as concerns existing industries, and our duty to maintain in our country an environment conducive to their development.
I refer especially to the textile industry which is now experiencing a very heavy competition from foreign imports, especially Japanese, which have increased by 72.7 per cent from 1964 to 1966 inclusive. It is a known fact that the industry which was going through a serious stagnation period in 1950 has succeeded in recovering and investing from 1961 to 1966 an amount of $635 million. However, the present situation shows that a major deterioration can be expected in 1967, unless the government takes some action to protect that industry which provides employment for 200,000 persons.
I know that the government is conscious of the problem and that it will succeed in taking a firm stand during negotiations which are under way with Japan, so as to avoid disastrous effects for the Canadian textile industry.
In the field of urban development, I am pleased to congratulate the government for the step taken last year, when it signed an
May 17, 1967	COMMONS
agreement with the government of the province of Quebec among others, in order to undertake pilot surveys in certain municipalities which will lead us, I hope, to the establishment of a general program of urban development throughout the province. In the past, such an endeavour had generally been left to private enterprise or to individuals but it is advisable that the two levels of government should take some practical measures in that field which are bound to complete the services already offered under the National Housing Act through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
As the problem of water pollution, which seems to be on the priority list of the government, cannot be solved at the national level only, I hope that the central government, in addition to passing this new water legislation, as announced in the speech from the throne, and in addition to co-operating with the provinces, will not forget to amend the National Housing Act, which provides for municipal loans for building water purification plants and sewage systems. As many initiatives in this field can originate at the municipal level,
I am of the opinion that the remission of part of the capital and interest during the construction period, which is now 25 per cent, should be raised to at least 50 per cent or more, for I am convinced that will mean concrete services and give immediate results.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
With regard to agriculture, Mr. Speaker, at a time when Ontario and Quebec farmers talk of marching on the Canadian capital because of the dairy policy of the government, it is still comforting to see that a special team, headed by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) will be entrusted with defining our objectives in the field of agriculture and with recommending such programs as will be considered necessary to attain those goals. Poultices have been used far too long to solve agricultural problems and it is good to see that a solid foundation is being sought on which to develop, in conjunction with the provinces, a national farm policy. Still, that will not solve anything this year and, especially, not satisfy the dairy producers. I trust, however, that as a result of surveys now under way on the dairy policy for the current year, and representations from the majority of the members, certain anomalies will be corrected on which the present discontent is founded. One of my colleagues on this side of the house will go further into that matter this afternoon.
DEBATES	329
The Address-Mr. Laniel
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people are certainly not indifferent about what is going on in Canadian politics and in each capital throughout the country, as people everywhere, they expect from those various levels of government measures which will help them continue their efforts towards the progress and development of the country. I think, however, that they are worried about a problem which affects them perhaps more deeply than is imagined, namely that of the political context in which we have been living for the last few years, where overbidding, shattering statements and public conflicts make the headlines every day and give a false idea of our Canadian society.
It is true that we are now going through a period of political evolution, that many matters are being re-examined and that the aspirations of the various Canadian groups are becoming increasingly distinct. But I wonder nevertheless whether we might not succeed in solving our problems in a more discreet and perhaps more enlightened manner around a negotiation table, through open and constructive discussion.
Of course, it is sometimes necessary in political circles to arouse public opinion. But I wonder if it is really enlightened by some of our attitudes and our off-hand approach to certain problems, especially constitutional problems.
At this point, I am not speaking of those who do not believe in Canada and who would destroy it; I am thinking mostly of our public men who are in power and who all seem to want the same thing, namely to reinforce Canadian unity through a better understanding of each others' problems.
In this year of the centennial of confederation, during Expo '67 whose theme is "Man and his World", at a time when His Holiness Pope Paul VI is appealing for brotherhood throughout the world, should we not open up our minds to the world by starting to practice those great principles of brotherhood which were suggested, particularly by the Canadian bishops in their letter to all Canadians on the occasion of the centennial of confederation?
I shall close by quoting a paragraph of that letter:
It is not being brotherly to be content with abstract formulas, verbal statements or sterile hopes, be they as generous as the whole world is big. It is not being brotherly to love mankind in the abstract or to make noble dreams of solidarity with far-off brothers while taking an attitude of meanness or hostility towards those nearer to us. True brotherhood must create immediate and practical
May 17, 1967

The Address-Mr. Fulton solidarity; it must be real and materialize in an actual interest for the welfare of a group, an area, a specific human family. But, on the other hand, to conform to the Gospel, concrete brotherhood must not be restrictive. No group has the right to feel it is the centre of everything to the point where the call of others is no longer heard nor their needs heeded.
The true drama of human history, is that man too [DOT]often yields to the temptation of building self-centered brotherhood.
Mr. Speaker, I realize the time allotted to me has gone by faster than I expected. I would have liked to deal a bit with two or three other items, namely broadcasting and television as well as the arts, but I shall do so during some future debate.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, although wishing to join sincerely in the congratulations extended to the mover and seconder of the address in reply, and of course wholeheartedly in the cordial sentiments expressed to His Excellency, nevertheless no one participating in the debate on the throne speech itself can fail to feel and to express regret that the speech should be so bare of outline of any statement of objectives which might give some encouragement and leadership to the Canadian people as we enter upon the one hundredth year of our history.
Indeed one of the things the throne speech has done, and unfortunately about the only thing it has done, is to increase the sense of concern, the sense of frustration of the Canadian people who are looking, longing and waiting so anxiously to see some signs that their government is going to come to grips with the problems that concern the people and give some program to launch us on the direction that the country needs in the second century of our existence.
People are looking and waiting to see these signs, Mr. Speaker, I have been across Canada quite extensively during the past few weeks and I find that the Canadian people are deeply concerned about the attitudes of governments and the role and relationship that should prevail between government and people. They are deeply concerned about the weight of government, the weight of the different levels of government but primarily of the federal government on their backs. They are deeply concerned over the inefficiency of government. They are deeply concerned because they find that notwithstanding increasing expenditures and increasing taxes, the problems that require action by government do not seem to be receiving the attention of the government.

The people are concerned because the problems mount, and the lack of action mounts in direct relationship, it appears, to the cost of government. They are concerned over taxes. They are concerned over the fact that property taxes across Canada this year have gone up an average of 11 per cent in a single year as municipalities, especially with inadequate revenue bases, seek to discharge all the responsibilities saddled upon them and which should no longer be saddled upon them.
The people are concerned over government spending, and over the fact that federal estimates for all expenditure this year have gone up over 13 per cent in a single year, with no encouragement to hope that there will be any increase in efficiency or real action on the problems that concern the people.
They are concerned over the cost of living which mounts steadily, unheeded and unchecked by anything done by government, indeed with the increase stimulated by the kind of programs that this government in Ottawa has been following. The cost of living has gone up over one point in just this past month, probably a record increase in a single month, and the people are concerned because the government appears to be unconcerned about it, unhurried to do anything about it, concerned only to pass the buck. The best contribution the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) could make was to say that the main reason for the increase lay at the door of the increased sales tax put on in the province of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, of course one regrets any increase in sales taxes. But what a feeble and impertinent excuse it is for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), who maintains a 12 per cent sales tax on building materials, construction machinery and equipment, to seek to lay the blame for this sort of thing on a sales tax applied by a province.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The nonsense of this position is demonstrated by the fact that the increase in the cost of living went up 1.7 points in Montreal. To be sure, perhaps the sales tax in Quebec had something to do with it, but did the sales tax in Quebec account for the fact that the cost of living in Vancouver rose by 1.3 points? Is the minister going to blame that on the province of Quebec, or will he accept his responsibility for the policies which has contributed to the inflationary pressures? When will he accept his responsibility to take action to establish the kind of program and tax policy-a kind of over-all governmental policy-which will give the Canadian people some relief from the
May 17, 1967

crushing burden of government, and which will bring about some efficiency in the spending of the money which is collected from them in the way of taxes?
This is what the Canadian people are concerned about. Later in my remarks I should like to suggest some of the progressive things which should be done to give us a sense of direction and prosperity as we enter upon our centennial year in the second century of our history. First, I believe it is necessary to analyse the things that concern our people, in order to understand what the problems are in the sphere of governmental responsibility in respect of which it is essential that action be taken. I am satisfied that there is a growing feeling on the part of the Canadian people that they want a government with a basic philosophy, a basic understanding, and a declaration of what should be the role of the government and the relationship of that government to the people-a government which will set forth the principles it intends to follow and state its position as to whether it intends to do more and more things for more and more people at more and more cost, or whether in fact it is going to have confidence in the ability of the Canadian people to do things for themselves and be guided by the belief that the primary responsibility of the government is to establish the atmosphere and lay down the general policies under which the Canadian people in fact can do more and more things for themselves.
This is what concerns our people; they want more freedom to move. They feel the crushing weight of government on their backs. You, Mr. Speaker, I, and everybody in this house know that the people of this country have a tremendous talent and ability-a latent talent-for doing things. The Canadian people should be able to move; they should be given the freedom to move. They want to be free to move ahead in order to insure their own future. This is the instinct which is in the heart of every Canadian. He wishes to do this so that he will be better off at the end of the year than he was at the beginning. He wants freedom; he wants the government to get off his back, at least a little, so that he will be relieved of the weight which grinds him down and freezes him in his present position.
Primarily there is one way in which Canadians can be allowed to move and improve their own position; that is, if the government will follow a general policy, a basic philosophy, which leaves to the people a little
The Address-Mr. Fulton more freedom at the end of the year, a little more to invest for themselves, and a little more to enable them to have a stake in and be part of this growing and developing nation, so that they will be able to insure their future. That is what the Canadian people want. The government should set forth and follow that basic policy. It should encourage the movement forward of Canadians and the investment by Canadians in a stake in Canada itself.
But, Mr. Speaker, instead what do we find? We are served up with this throne speech, this mealy mass of words. There is no sense of direction, no clarity of position and no indication of any real understanding of the very basic nature of the country and its people. The throne speech in fact can lay only one claim; that is, if the philosophy of the present government is to be followed, the government which already occupies so many fields which it should not occupy will occupy the few remaining fields in which it does not yet intrude. That is the whole policy in the speech from the throne-a further extension of government intrusion into the management of people's affairs.
Can't you just see the Prime Minister and the members of his cabinet when they sat down to draft the speech from the throne. Perhaps this is the reason the Prime Minister called back the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon). Perhaps he wanted him to write it from the left wing point of view, along with the points of view of the other members of the government. You can just see them sitting there as they ponder it. One can picture the Prime Minister asking the President of the Privy Council what should be their basic theme, and the President of the Privy Council replying that perhaps it should be a further extension of the government's activities. I can just hear the Prime Minister replying, "I guess you are right. All right, we have made a first class mess of the others; let us see what kind of a mess we can make of these." This is precisely what will be done; they have started already. They certainly are making a first class mess of their own cabinet, and of the doctrine of cabinet solidarity and responsible government.
What a mockery it is when a Prime Minister excuses, apologizes, and walks around the fact that one of his senior ministers has come out with a statement on an important fundamental matter of policy which is radically different from the policy enunciated by that responsible spokesman the Secretary of
May 17. 1967

The Address-Mr. Fulton State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), and himself. What a mockery this makes of the system of responsible government. If in fact-and I suggest that the Prime Minister's attitude comes very close to it-this government and this Prime Minister no longer believe in and have decided not to be bound by the doctrine of cabinet solidarity and responsible parliamentary government, why do they not be honest enough to say so, so that there can be frank discussion, instead of seeking to hide it away while they deliberately follow courses which are meaningless.
Mr. Speaker, responsible parliamentary government means that this parliament is able to hold the government responsible. The government is responsible to parliament, and in this parliament to the people; but how can you hold the government responsible when its policies and positions are like little quicksilver fragments, and when five or six ministers are able to state five or six different positions and then say that they are speaking as private citizens and not as cabinet ministers?
When a man is called upon, and agrees to assume the solemn duties and responsibilities of cabinet office then he must assume those responsibilities and be bound by them. If he does not care to assume them, then he should not join the cabinet. If he should find that the policies of the government are those which he cannot support, then, as a matter of conscience, he should resign. But he cannot, and the country cannot, afford the luxury which allows a cabinet minister the right to speak as a private citizen and continue to be a member of the government. Those two things are simply incompatible. They make a mockery of responsible government. And responsible government is not just a hollow form of words; it is what this parliament is here for, it is one of the chief things parliament is all about.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I address these remarks to hon. members on the other side of the chamber, who I am sure are as much concerned about this situation as we on this side. Hon. members opposite also have the responsibility to their constituents of holding this government to account. How can members of parliament hold accountable a government whose position is completely indiscernible and is fragmented into as many variations as there are members of the cabinet?


Mr. O'Keefe:: Where do you stand?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I stand here in the House of Commons endeavouring to bring to the minds

of hon. members opposite, including the hon. member who just interrupted, some sense of their responsibilities and duties, and indeed rights, as members of parliament. I suggest to the hon. gentleman who interrupted that he has as much of a duty, right and responsibility-I refer to the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. O'Keefe)-as I have to hold government accountable and responsible. But because of interjections of the kind he has just made, I fear-if I may suggest this to him kindly-that he is not showing a very great readiness to discharge that aspect of his responsibilities.


Joseph Phillip O'Keefe: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Fulfon:: So, Mr. Speaker, we see the spectacle of a government and a Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) unable or unwilling even to resolve the difficulties in their own cabinet, a government frozen into inaction with respect to the things that really matter and the problems that concern the Canadian people. We see the situation as exemplified by the travesty enacted here by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon); we see it in the travesty represented by the lack of information on the Geneva agreements on tariffs and trade.
Heavens, Mr. Speaker, this government has been negotiating those agreements for about two years, and one would have thought that in that length of time the ministers would have become reasonably familiar with the effects of the tariff changes. If they have not become familiar with them, I am sure their advisers, those who conducted the negotiations in detail, are familiar with them. Yet we are told by the government that they are completely incapable at the present time of outlining for Canadian industry, Canadian agriculture, Canadian business and Canadians generally what will be the effect of the tariff changes which they have now agreed to and to which they have committed the country.


An hon. Member:: They will not even list them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They will not even list them. They refuse to answer questions in this respect. They are frozen into inactivity when it comes to taking action and giving information on the problems concerning the people. I am very much concerned with the government's position on the Geneva agreements because I read in today's press that whereas the United States does not intend to implement the
May 17. 1967	COMMONS
changes in detail except over a five year period, our government, although they will not inform the Canadian people of the effect of the changes, are committed to put the agreements into effect much more quickly. The indication is that these agreements will be put into effect this year.
This information should be given at once, so that we may have knowledge of what the effects and results of the agreements will be, so that parliament then, when the government's proposal is laid before it, will be informed and we will have an opportunity to discuss with those concerned the effects of the changes, and so that we may again, hold the government accountable and responsible. We want this information as quickly as possible.
1 see no reason on earth-and I see very grave dangers and disadvantages in Canada's actually implementng these changes in a hurry while the United States takes five years to implement theirs-why we should not be given this information now. Hon. members can be quite certain, can they not, that the last changes the United States will implement are those which give advantages to other countries? Yet Canada is going to implement the whole of the agreements straight off the bat, according to the best information we can get, making these concessions available to all other countries, including the United States; but that country will not make its concessions available to us except over a period of five years. I seriously urge upon the government that this is one case where Canada's actions need not be in advance of the actions of those with whom we have made these agreements.
I should like to express another hope, Mr. Speaker; that is, that the government has made sure that in the agreements and accords it has reached at Geneva adequate provision has been made for the inclusion of an enforceable and valid fair value for duty, an anti-dumping provision, in the interests of our fruit and vegetable industry, f know, as a result of my experience over the years, the difficulty of enforcing the present provisions because of the interpretation given to them and the position taken under the GATT agreements. I know also of the very real and continuing need of the fruit and vegetable industry in Canada, and particularly in British Columbia where it is so vulnerable to Californian imports. I know the need of that industry for continued concern on the part of the government that there should be available adequate and enforceable provisions to prevent dumping and to enable government officials to set fair values for duty.
DEBATES	333
The Address-Mr. Fulton
These are just some of the matters that occurred to me as I was thinking about the ways in which this government is frozen into inaction and the rising concern on the part of the Canadian people. The people are demanding that we get on with these problems and take action to solve them. The people want action on the real problems which face us today. These are new problems. They are the problems of now and of the second century of confederation. The Canadian people want to see their government and parliament come to grips with these problems, instead of having dished up to them the issues of three or four years ago, because these issues could not matter less to the people today. They want us to concern ourselves with the problems of today and tomorrow.
As I said, they are new problems. They are the problems of an urban society. Seventy per cent of Canadians now live in the cities and it is estimated that within 10 years this figure will have risen to 80 per cent. This is a new development that is entirely different from the situation that existed even 25 years ago, let alone 100 years ago. We face the problems of urbanization and the age of automation, which bring with them a whole host of related problems. The problems of delinquency are greatly accented in an urban society. When I was minister of justice we had a clear, concise, succinct report from a committee which studied these problems. That committee made over 100 recommendations, but not one of its recommendations has yet been implemented. This report has been in the hands of the government since 1965. The problems of delinquency are of growing concern to the Canadian people.
Urbanization has brought with it new problems of housing and transportation. The problems of transportation today are entirely different from those of 100 or even 25 years ago. There is the problem of pollution, the conservation of an adequate supply of pure, clean water and air to meet the needs of the present and future generations. Our people have a right to these things. Who would have said 25 years ago, or 100 years ago when this country was established, that we would today have a real and urgent problem of conserving Canada's water and cleaning our air?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The problems of education are also entirely different, not only quantitatively but in kind, from the problems of education 100 years ago or even 25 years ago. These are the problems which concern the Canadian people. They are
May 17, 1967

The Address-Mr. Fulton concerned because they can see no effect in the action to deal with them, while the cost of the government supposed to deal with them continues to mount. This is of concern especially to the average Canadian wage and salary earner. These things give rise to feelings amounting to frustration.
The problems today are new. They are new and different from what they were even 25, let alone 100 years ago. The problems have changed. The trouble is that this government is not applying to those problems any new answers which will enable us to deal with them. Because things change; Canada has moved forward and will continue to move forward at an ever accelerating pace. New problems will continue to arise. Problems change. It is true that principles do not change, but let us apply the principles to the new problems because, after all, what is policy but the application of a principle to a problem. Let us apply the principles to the new problems and come up with new and realistic policies which will solve these problems.
I suggest to you, sir, that in the area about which I have been speaking and in the general area of the responsibility of the government to take action on problems, the principle to apply is the basic concept of confederation. Let us apply that principle to the new problems and come up with a real policy which will give the real answers. To do that, of course, it is necessary to have some understanding of the basic concept of confederation upon which this country was established, and an intention and a declaration that we will preserve that concept and build on it.
What is the concept? It is the concept of the two founding nations, now joined by many others which have come to help us from elsewhere, joining together on terms of partnership and equality. The four original provinces have become ten provinces and have come together on the same basis and in equality. The concept of confederation was that they would come together in one political union, one whole, making a nation with a strong central government having the power and ability to bring the strength and the resources of the whole to the aid and assistance of the parts. Thus the parts would be greater and better off than they could possibly be without being part of the whole, and the growing strength of the parts would add greater strength to the whole, making the confederation, Canada, much greater than the mere sum of its separate parts.
[Mr. Fulton.1
Let us build on that concept. There can be no doubt that this concept is still valid and viable today. That is what must be preserved and built upon, because it is a splendid and uniquely Canadian concept.
When I hear people say that Canada does not have a distinctive character, I sometimes wonder why these people cannot see what is right before their eyes, namely that we have and have had a distinctive national character for 100 years. The very fact which makes us distinctive and different is this concept of partnership and equality, the very concept of confederation. On the basis of this concept our peoples have done great things together in the past. We have laid the foundations for a great nation, and in the first 25 years after confederation, in spite of enormous problems as compared to today, and very little in the way of technical machinery and equipment, we established within 15 short years a foundation for a nation extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific. However, not only is it necessary to have the confidence that we have done great things together in the past, such as our participation in two world wars and all the other things which went into the building of a nation, but also to have the confidence that we will do greater things together in the future, because that is what brings people together-the consciousness of having done great things together in the past and the determination to do great things together in the future. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that the machinery of the government is adequate to deal with the problems it is called upon to meet.
I go back to the fact that the problems have changed, and yet in so far as we attempt to deal with them we are attempting to deal with the detailed organization of a government of 100 years ago. Surely what is necessary is, first of all, a willingness to study and agree upon what are the problems requiring action and what is their order of priority. Should housing come first, or transportation or social welfare?
Let us get agreement upon what are the urgent problems for which people want answers, and then let us discuss the question of which level of government, the federal or the provincial, is responsible for action on these problems. Only then can we intelligently discuss the important question of dividing tax revenues to enable the government properly to fulfil the responsibilities which have been assigned or reassigned to them. This is the process which we are so anxious to see begun,
May 17. 1967	COMMONS
the process of discussion, of facing up to problems and bringing about an organization of government based on the concept of confederation which will enable the government to deal with the problems on behalf of the people.
I urge the government, in spite of the Prime Minister's reluctance to call such a conference, to bring the different levels of government together and work out the reorganization of the structure of the government so as to lay the foundation for the grand design for the second century of the confeder-tion.


Joseph Phillip O'Keefe: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of privilege? During the course of the hon. member's speech-and he is a member for whom I have a certain amount of respect -I believe he said, and I might have misunderstood him, that the hon. member for St. John's East was in some way not discharging his duties properly. I would appreciate hearing from the hon. member for Kamloops, whom we see here so seldom now, in what areas the member for St. John's East is not properly discharging his duties.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the hon. gentleman's question. I was dealing with the question of the ability of the parliament to hold the government responsible and accountable, and therefore the importance of preserving the doctrine of cabinet solidarity so we would know what the policy of the government was for which we are seeking to hold it responsible. I am glad to explain it to the hon. gentleman again.
I suggest to the hon. member that that is a right and a duty devolving as much on members on his side of the house as on members on our side of the house. I also suggest to him that the kind of interruption which he made three times during the course of my speech indicates perhaps that he does not have a proper appreciation of his rights and duties in that regard.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr.   J.-P. Racine@Beauce: Mr. Speaker, as the previous speakers, I should like to duly congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Messrs. Jamieson and Cote). Our two colleagues did a good job and the congratulations they got from all corners of the house were well deserved.
I do not intend to take all time of the house, this afternoon, but since agriculture is
DEBATES	335
The Address-Mr. Racine the current topic, you understand that, as the representative of the riding of Beauce, I want to say a word on this matter, especially in view of the new sub-amendment and even the previous one.
Naturally, farmers-and I refer not only to those in Quebec but to those of eastern Canada-have started asserting their rights as all unionized workers. I do not think we should blame them for it. And if they come to Ottawa on May 24, they will only be following the example of certain other organizations.
They will not come, at least from what I know after having met them, to blame the government, but rather to explain their position and make representations, just as labour movements such as the C.L.C., the C.N.T.U. and others do.
So I do not think we would blame them. However, I must say here-and farmers are aware of it-that in 1965, for instance, the price of manufacturing milk was $3.25, in May 1966, $4, and now, in May 1967, $4.75.
Our farmers' unions know that the government is getting to understand them better but the unions themselves realize that they must be better represented here. That is one of the reasons why they will come again on May 24.
Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been said about quotas here in this house. The farmers themselves have talked about them. Are quotas beneficial or prejudicial to farmers? I will certainly not settle the question myself.
We have created, as we had promised, the Canadian Dairy Commission which, I hope will settle the question to the satisfaction of farmers.
Incidentally-this is information I got not long ago and which proves that there must be quotas-quite recently, and this relates to the price of milk, three Montreal physicians purchased a 500-acre farm in St. Thomas d'Aquin, in the riding of St. Hyacinthe, to breed a herd of 48 cows which they wished to increase to 125.
Since the price of milk was raised to $4.75, we have seen the recurrence of a problem familiar in the past, that is, every time the government helps the farmers in one way or another, outsiders step in to get something out of the increase.
I feel, and I believe the C.F.U. agrees with me on this, that those quotas, which apply strictly to the farmer and not to the farm, will
May 17, 1967

The Address-Mr. Racine certainly be able to protect agriculture in that regard.
I have every reason to believe that the C.F.U., through its representations, will not only criticize but also help the government maintain its quota policy in order to protect the farmers.
It is true that farmers have asked $5.10 per hundredweight of milk. I agree with them; I am for $5.10 per hundredweight. I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) himself is for $5.10, as well as the Minister of Finance and Receiver General (Mr. Sharp). In fact, we all regret that we cannot grant that amount immediately, but nevertheless we have created, in recent months, a Canadian Dairy Commission and a Canadian Livestock Feed Board.
Now, what is important for farmers is not so much the price paid as the margin between what they get and their cost. It is the profit, that is the difference between the buying price and the selling price, or between the cost of producing and the selling price. It is the profit that counts.
I have the impression, Mr. Speaker, that thanks to the new Canadian Livestock Feed Board, the production cost will be lower and that the difference between the price of $5.10 and the cost of production will perhaps be spread out in such a way that a farmer will make a higher profit.
One often hears about the sale price, Mr. Speaker, but what matters to our farmers, ours at least, is what is left, and if the Canadian Livestock Feed Board can reduce the production cost, the farmers will certainly make a better profit.
Our farmers have often been blamed for asking. It is true that they have asked for things in the past, and at the present time, they are perhaps asking for several things because all together they have finally gathered a group of farmers and unionized them.
I do not think that the farmers should be blamed for getting unionized as the workers do. Our C.F.U. leaders, regardless of what may be said of them, are pursuing a very desirable objective. As in the other fields, they make requests. It is their right, and I think they are right to do so.
It has been said for instance in the past, that some members do not work extensively for the farmers and it is understandable. It is due to the fact that some members do not come from rural areas and they must defend either the workers or the consumers. But I

think that we, from rural areas, must not only protect them but work towards the best possible standard of living for the people who live in our rural areas.
I think that the leaders of the farm unions do not make excessive demands at the present time with regard to agriculture, and the delegation which they will send to Ottawa on May 24 will not come here to blame the government but rather to uphold their rights. If they keep it up, I think they deserve our congratulations. Coming from an agricultural riding as I do, I commend them for their objective working methods.
Agriculture in our province, and probably in the other provinces, is facing certain problems, of course, and without the C.F.U., at least in our district, we, in Ottawa, would never have heard about those problems and probably never could have studied and solved them.
Referring once again to the speech from the throne, I hope that the officials of the Department of Labour will keep on making representations to the United States government with regard to our lumbermen who work in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, since you were here a few years ago, you remember no doubt that I have often raised that problem. However, I am glad that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) continues to negotiate with the American government in order to obtain for Canadian lumbermen working in the United States the right to receive unemployment insurance benefits. The problem is important, for those who understand the lunber industry know that these people only work a few months of the year in the United States and that, since they normally work in another country, they have no right to unemployment insurance. Apparently, the American authorities are reconsidering the matter. I am glad to see that the minister and his officials continue to seek with them a solution to this most important problem, for it is a little difficult, in my opinion, to earn a salary during only four or five months of the year and, during the rest of the year, get an adequate revenue to meet the needs of one's family.
I shall say no more, Mr. Speaker. These were some comments I wished to make on this debate. Let me say, in concluding, that I just wanted to point out that the farmers belonging to the C.F.U. simply wish to discuss their problems with the government. In my opinion, that is very important. The farmers are not dissatisfied, but merely want to talk with the representatives of the Department of
May 17. 1967	COMMONS
Agriculture, the Canadian Dairy Commission and the Canadian Livestock Feed Board.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to say briefly, and I think hon. members will agree with me, that the march of the farmers on the 24th is like those organized by the other workers' movements and that we should welcome them, since they are coming to see us with good intentions and with very important problems to submit. We should give consideration to their claims, since they are part of the Canadian people whom we represent in this house.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, at the very beginning of my remarks, I should like to say that I have taken note of the statement made by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine) concerning the dairy policy of this government. I am happy to see that our friends in the Liberal party and, in particular, the hon. member for Beauce wholly support the claims made by our farmers in eastern Canada. I believe the hon. member understands the problem and I shall see later, when the vote is taken, if he will be consistent with himself and if he will vote for the amendment we are moving to improve the situation of the dairy industry among our farmers.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Messrs. Jamieson and Cote).
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
In my opinion, they have made to parliament an excellent contribution which deserves to be pointed out.
Mr. Speaker, the session which began on May 8, 1967, has an historic character since it is called the centennial session. And when we refer to the centennial, we recall the work of the fathers of confederation who, in 1867, succeeded in concentrating in he British North America Act, the aspirations, rights and privileges of the various ethnic groups which then made up the population of the country.
But in 1967, we should ask ourselves, in my opinion, if that constitutional act meets the objectives of a modem and industrialized Canada. Naturally, lengthy dissertations are unnecessary to prove that Canadians are dissatisfied with that constitutional act, a situation which refutes the arguments of those who would maintain the status quo in the constitutional field.
In the past few years, all Canadians have become conscious of the need for their elected
DEBATES	337
The Address-Hon. Martial Asselin representatives to stop, ponder, and study the means to revise this constitutional act which has become old-fashioned, obsolete and no longer adequate to meet the requirements and objectives of a modern community.
For the past four years, Mr. Speaker, our party has been advocating that a federal-provincial conference, grouping all the political elements of all parties, be called, and that it start studying the changes which would make our constitution more flexible in the context of our confederation. It seems-and I stress those words-that people are too often inclined to let the French Canadians bear the task of changing the terms of our Canadian constitution, but this need is also felt by our English-Canadian friends who have come to share this idea in the past few years, and I believe that unity has been achieved in that respect. I could state that the great majority of all Canadians demand these amendments to our constitution.
Quebec has established a parliamentary committee to study future participation of French Canadians in our confederation system and the Ontario government has decided to hold a constitutional conference next September to deal with the same problem. In Quebec, the parliamentary committee on the constitution has invited all intermediate organizations to file working papers so as to ascertain the opinion of all classes of the Quebec community on such an important problem. Ontario will invite the provincial premiers to set up an agenda on the subject and to lay down the basic principles which will guide the labours of those who believe in the future of our country but who, meanwhile, would amend our constitutional set up of 1967. It seems to me there is no point in shedding tears and going over the inequities this or that ethnic group has suffered in the past hundred years, but we should rather make use of our past to analyse this hundred-year-old coexistence in order to redefine the powers of each government in the light of the changes in our modern society.
But what is the attitude of the present government towards this question? The Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau)-we heard him several times in the house-seems to favour the status quo. He says that, in the course of time, we shall find solutions as to the changes to bring to our constitution.
It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that the government did not want to move for four years. It would rather let the technocrats establish a committee that was supposed to study our constitutional problems, and it denies the
May 17, 1967

The Address-Hon. Martial Asselin members elected by the people the right to sit at a round table, to form a parliamentary committee so as to discuss our constitutional problems very objectively.
And yet, this very difficult task cannot be entrusted to technocrats only; it must be committed to the elected representatives of the people who, alone, have a mandate to assert the aspirations of their social group.
In view of the government inertness, no wonder that there is among the young generation, in Quebec a feeling of dissatisfaction which is often expressed by separatist demonstrations. They want the quiet revolution, which is taking place in our Quebec society, to go beyond the limits of our province and tackle also the constitutional problems of our nation. I am convinced that the majority of French Canadians reject separatism, but, at the same time, they refuse to be active in antiquated and obsolete confederative frameworks which no longer meet the objectives of young Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I have often met young Quebeckers who do not accept separatist ideas, but who may do so some day if the federal government refuses to budge and continues to appear deaf to their claims. It is to this lack of leadership on the part of this government that is ascribed the present unrest, not only in Quebec, but also in English-speaking Canada.
According to the speech from the throne, in reply to Canadians who request an amendment of the constitution, the present government proposes to hold a conference of the premiers on July 1, 1967, at which time a statement of principle would be adopted and annexed to the existing constitution. That formula, Mr. Speaker, I say it again, is not bold enough, not imaginative enough, and cannot be accepted in the present circumstances. To paraphrase the now famous words of Andre Laurendeau, who wrote a few years ago when bilingual cheques were adopted that it was too little and too late I say that the formula suggested by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to have the provincial premiers meet in July simply to lay down a statement of principle to be annexed to our present constitution is coming too late. What we need at this time is to call our political leaders together, whatever their political allegiance for a discussion of the amendments to the constitution.
Mr. Speaker, now is the time to act, I think and to act quickly; this policy of nostrums must stop as far as our relations with the provinces are concerned. Up to now, we have succeeded in delaying the constitutional crisis

by allowing the provinces to exert their exclusive jurisdiction in certain cases. As far as the various jurisdictions are concerned, we should have a planned and not an improvised policy. It is high time to amend the constitution in this area; it is high time that powers of taxation be defined. It is high time that each government be given freedom to exert its exclusive jurisdiction in its own fields; it is high time that the federal government stop intruding on provincial jurisdictions as it has been doing too often in the past four years in education, in public health and in civil rights.
All that to say, Mr. Speaker, that when we call for a constitutional conference to study all those problems, it is not a whim but a necessity.
In Canada, there are two major groups, the English and the French, and they must have an opportunity to coexist in a climate of mutual respect. This respect will be achieved, Mr. Speaker, when those two main groups are convinced that they can grow together, according to their respective ideals, with an equal status, as the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) said this afternoon. The coexistence of those two main groups in Canada will be perfect when they have the feeling and conviction that they are equal partners enjoying equal rights within confederation.
It seems to me that when we speak, in this house, of a special status for Quebec, many hon. members are scandalized. Quebec is not a province like the others, as it has too often been pointed out perhaps. It has a different culture and it must have the opportunity of demanding from the majority of Canadians the rights and privileges required for the development of the Quebec nation.
Section 133 of the constitution which guarantees the use of both official languages must be extended. In my opinion, that section no longer meets the urgent needs of the Quebec society. That authority must be extended to give French Canadians the opportunity to make an adequate cultural contribution to Canada.
It is that stubborn determination not to look squarely at all the problems related to the revision of our constitution which will increase in Quebec the number of separatist and independence movements. And that must be avoided at all costs. The greatness and prestige of Canada are great because our country is made up of two majority groups, the French and the English, and of various ethnic groups which live within it. Refusing
May 17, 1967

to recognize that fact, Mr. Speaker, would be to deny Canada's destiny in America.
I therefore ask the government to show itself worthy of the task and to start studying right away that delicate and difficult matter: the revision of our constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is five thirty. May I call it five thirty?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being five thirty o'clock it is my duty pursuant to section 4 of standing order 38 to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on any amendment now before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. McCutcheon:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.

May 17, 1967
Division


Mr. Cameron (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Ormiston). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might have the indulgence of the house to rise for a moment on what I suppose
I can describe only as a question of personal privilege. I made two terrible errors on the orders of the day this afternoon. I attempted to be funny and spoke in a language which is not my native tongue. I used the word "promenade" when I should have used the word "marche". I did not intend to suggest that the farmers were going on a hike; I intended to say I understood they were going to walk.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 18, 1967