1967-05-10

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SILVER CROSS WOMEN

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house will bear with me when I mention that in the gallery there are a very large number of members of the Silver Cross Women's Association, women who gave their husbands or their sons in the last war. To them this house would wish to do honour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I know the house is grateful to my right hon. friend for calling our attention to the presence of these distinguished visitors. There are no people in Canada more worthy of our honour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



IMMIGRATION ACT


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Immigration Act to increase from twelve million dollars to twenty million dollars the present limit on the total amount of outstanding advances at any one time that may be made to enable the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to make loans to immigrants to assist them with the expenses of their transportation to Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Jean Marchand: that the house go 27053-3J
into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the establishment of a Canada manpower and immigration council, of advisory boards and of regional and local manpower committees; to provide also for the appointment of the members thereof, their remuneration, allowances and other expenses; and to provide further that all expenditures for the purpose of the act shall be paid out of moneys appropriated by parliament therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: that the house go into committee at the next, sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Parks Act to authorize the establishment of a crown corporation to be known as the National Parks Leaseholds Corporation to develop, manage and maintain property in national parks of Canada; to provide for the constitution, organization, financing and powers of the said corporation; to authorize the Minister of Finance to lend money to the corporation up to twenty million dollars; to authorize the governor in council to add crown owned lands to existing national parks; to establish a procedure for transfer and retransfer of the administration, management and control of certain property in the national parks to and from the National Parks Leaseholds Corporation and to provide for property management agreements between the minister and the said corporation; to provide new legal description for certain national parks and to establish' another national park in Nova Scotia; and finally to provide for other consequential changes in connection with the establishment of the corporation and the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the
32	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to an article by Gerald Clark, associate editor of the Montreal Star and to a C.B.C. statement by Tim Ralfe which placed before the Canadian people a situation in regard to Canada's membership on the international control commission which, if untrue, in the interests of our relations with the United States and with the free world demands the strongest condemnation and, if true, requires full and complete investigation of the operations of this commission.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my attention, of course, has been drawn to these articles. I have already issued a statement emphatically denying their accuracy. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has also issued a statement denying the accuracy of these reports and I would be glad, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps not at this moment, to table both these statements to show there is no foundation for these allegations.


John George Diefenbaker: In the interests of securing the widest possible publicity for the denials that have been made would the Prime Minister have both these gentlemen, who were in Viet Nam and who have always had a reputation for responsibility, brought before a committee of parliament-the external affairs committee would be an example-so they may tell their story there and be subject to cross-examination?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be very glad indeed, Mr. Speaker, to give consideration to this. I think it is an interesting and important suggestion by my right hon. friend that when the committee on external affairs is meeting it might be a very good thing to have these gentlemen appear before the committee and substantiate their statements.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member for 'Greenwood a supplementary question?


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition asked the supplementary I intended to ask.
tTranslation]


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouelie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Further to statements and rumours of all kinds, is the minister in a position to advise

DEBATES	May 10. 1967
the house whether Prince Albert de Liege, accompanied by his wife, will visit the city of Quebec?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I believe so. The government of the province of Quebec has invited the prince to visit the city of Quebec and we are all very happy that he has accepted to travel to the old capital.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister received from the premier of Quebec, Mr. Johnson, some details as to the recognition by Quebec of the status of Mr. Paul Tremblay, Canadian ambassador to Belgium?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the question is in order.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries regarding what is almost a disastrous situation in the fishing industry at Prince Rupert, British Columbia. Is the minister or the government in a position to establish an inquiry into the problems in the fishing industry of Prince Rupert, which are seriously interfering with the fishery and preventing the fishermen from engaging in the halibut fishery which opened a few days ago?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, I fully share with the hon. member his concern about this serious problem involving a dispute between two unions on the British Columbia coast and affecting the halibut fishery. I have received a number of telegrams regarding this situation. I also contacted the minister of labour of that province in this connection. Although I have been advised that it is only the provincial government which has legal jurisdiction in the matter, I am prepared to consider any useful assistance which my department might render in an effort to settle the dispute if such assistance is requested by the provincial minister of labour.


Frank Howard: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Because of the seriousness of the matter, and knowing of the minister's undoubted interest in it, as well as the fact that I understand the representations to the
May 10, 1967
provincial government were made some time ago, would the minister mind once again taking the initiative in contacting the provincial government to solicit their interest and support, in this question?


Mr. Robichaud:: I will give consideration to that request.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can the minister give the house any idea when the Indian claims commission which was promised several years ago will be set up?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I am committed to one section of the Indian population, namely that in the province of British Columbia, to postpone introduction of such a bill pending their having an opportunity to get together to discuss with us the so-called British Columbia land question. I have told them we cannot wait indefinitely. I understand at the present time they are trying to get together a representative organization which can meet with us.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, just before the prorogation of the last session I asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the findings of the women's bureau of the Department of Labour that women workers in Canada lack maternity protection-and I do not refer to the pill-whether the government would take the necessary steps to secure this protection for women workers under federal jurisdiction. The minister was kind enough to say he would take the question as notice. Has he been able to look into this situation?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minisler of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give a short progress report to the hon. lady, but that is as far as I can go at this time. There have been discussions with the provinces regarding the
Inquiries of the Ministry I.L.O. conventions which are involved. I regret that I cannot give more than this very limited progress report at this time.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and relates to the very unusual and serious ice situation in district 7B. I am wondering whether the minister or his department will give consideration to the introduction of a special fall fishing season this year because of the late date on which fishermen will be able to begin in this area this year. This is a question of some urgency, because the fishermen are now wondering whether there will be any season this year during which they can fish.


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, no decision can be made until after the spring season is completed. I realize that the date of the opening, which has now been fixed for May 16, is very late. However, toward the end of the lobster season in the last week of June we will be in a position to reassess the situation and decide what action it would be desirable to take in this regard.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have a supplementary question. Can the minister give us some assurance that it will be possible to open the season next Monday as he suggested a moment ago?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No, Mr. Speaker, because this depends on the ice conditions.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piclou):: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister is making a decision as to whether there should be a fall fishing season in district 7B will he have his officials check all parts of that district before reaching that decision?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: We always do so, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question to direct to the Minister of Fisheries. I wonder whether, in light of the very serious situation that is developing on the eastern and southwestern

May 10. 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry shores of Nova Scotia, the minister would approach his colleagues and ascertain whether there is any possibility of easing the net fishing regulations so as to offset the very extensive damage to the lobster fishery in those two areas.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member understands that we also have the responsibility of protecting the salmon fishery, which is sometimes affected by the use of certain types of net for fishing cod. In this connection I am aware of the situation and have asked officials of my department to report immediately, and if we could ensure that the salmon fishery would not be affected we would be prepared to ease the present regulations.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour concerning the announcement he made on January 30, 1967, when he said that loans were to be granted to contractors for the building of 20,000 houses.
In view of the strong demand under this program, would the minister tell us whether he would agree to raise the quota announced on January 30 last?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, when it was announced earlier this year that the government would direct C.M.H.C. to make 20,000 direct loans to builders without pre-sale guarantees, it was explained that this was intended to get a spring house building program under way with a minimum of delay. It was also intimated at the time that consideration might be given to increasing the number of direct loans available without pre-sale guarantees later in the year. Yesterday I indicated I would be making a statement in this house within the next day or two. In the meantime I can only tell the hon. member that the chances of increasing the number of direct loans at this time are not great. I am happy to say that such action may not be necessary for the present at least.


Gérard Laprise: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

On April 20 last, the minister stated that the program he had announced on January 30 would not in any way reduce direct loans.
Could the minister tell us why the corporation refused recently four loans in the town of Amos?


Mr. Speaker:: That is an argument. The question is not in order at this time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Has he had an opportunity yet to investigate my question of yesterday regarding the Greek situation, and Canada's annual grant to the Greek army through the NATO defence assistance program?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have asked for the facts in respect of this matter. I have not received them yet, but I hope to be able to answer the question tomorrow or the next day.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the creation of an international association of French-speaking parliaments.
Has the central government invited the Quebec government to send representatives?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think that in such a matter, and in order to achieve what we have in mind, we must have the co-operation of all sections of the Frenchspeaking world, of sovereign countries and sections of sovereign countries.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Precisely to get delegates from all the French-speaking sections of the world, could the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs suggest to the heads of that international association of parliamentarians coming from Frenchspeaking countries that Quebec should be authorized to send representatives of the Quebec parliament?
May 10, 1967	COMMONS



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Is it a fact that the Shoe Manufacturers' Association of Canada has made representations to the government to the effect that their production last year decreased by 2,750,000 pairs of shoes and 3,000 workers are out of work because of importations from low cost countries-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman should ask the question directly without supporting it by a statement as he is now doing.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have sometimes found it necessary to give the government information.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I understand these people have asked that some effective action be taken. If representations of that kind have been made, has any action been taken?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, because my right hon. friend has indicated a number of facts in his
question which may not have very much relevance to the question, I should like to take the question as notice. We are conscious of the problem of the shoe manufacturers, but I should like to make sure that representations have been made and what our response was to those representations.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Were not the representations made to the minister?


Edgar John Benson: I believe I received a copy of the representations but they were made, as they should have been, to the Minister of Finance who is in charge of tariff policy in this country.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the
DEBATES	35
Inquiries of the Ministry Solicitor General. This question has nothing to do with fishing. Has the minister been informed of the organizations, groups or persons in Canada who have received financial assistance directly or indirectly from the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This would be a good question for the order paper.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence concerning a program last night at 10.30 on C.B.C.-T.V. showing the equipment and training of the armed forces. Did the minister authorize the preparation of this film and approve of the distorted and inaccurate statements of the commentator?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, how do I get
information as to who authorized the showing of an inaccurate film? Is the minister not responsible?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am not the minister through whom the C.B.C. reports to parliament.


Michael Starr: Who reports to you?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a supplementary question, then. Does the minister not give authorization to people who wish to take photographs and film strips of the equipment and training of the armed services?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is argumentative.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then I have another supplementary question. This is a search for information, Mr. Speaker. Can I not ask who on the government side gives authority for films of that nature to be made? Is that not a fair question, sir?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether it is a fair question, but it is not one that can be asked at this time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I respectfully ask you when that question may be asked?


Mr. Speaker:: That particular question cannot be answered by the Speaker.
May 10, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



CONSIDERATION OF DIVORCE REFORM AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton, (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker,
I notice that the house leader is not present today, so perhaps my question can appropriately be addressed to the right hon. Prime Minister. It has to do with the forecast of legislation dealing with reform of the divorce laws and of the Criminal Code with respect to capital punishment. The question is as follows. In view of the successful and purposeful obscurity in the speech from the throne on this particular point, can the Prime Minister tell us whether these measures will be discussed and decided so far as the government is concerned free of the pressure of the party whip, or whether they are to be regarded as questions involving confidence in the government?
Lester Bowles Pearson: It is a matter for consideration, Mr. Speaker, and that consideration, in respect of one of these matters, and perhaps in respect of both, should be reserved until we receive the reports of the parliamentary committees which are dealing with these matters.


Mr. Fulton:: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister inform the house what parliamentary committee is dealing with the question of capital punishment?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I must have misunderstood my hon. friend. I did not know he had mentioned capital punishment. I was thinking of divorce and the amendment of the Criminal Code, both of which will be before committees very shortly.
So far as capital punishment is concerned, it will be decided by the government how and when to introduce it and, as I have already stated, I think there will be a completely free vote on it in the sense that every hon. member, particularly on this side, will vote according to his conscience, irrespective of the manner in which it is introduced.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Transport is now in a position to


answer the question I asked him on Friday, April 21. The question was as follows:
In view of the request of the International Transport Workers Federation that jet airliners be prohibited from using JP4 because of the high inflammability of this fuel, is the minister considering taking steps to ban the use of this fuel by Canadian air lines?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: No, sir, because it is felt that the information, or perhaps I should say the opinion, contained in the hon. gentleman's question is not supported by such scientific evidence as is available.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Perth):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue. Has he received an application for income tax exemption for donations to the Huron-Perth tornado fund, and if so has such exemption been granted?


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



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: would like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Before going ahead with the debate on the motion regarding the setting up of a crown corporation to deal with property in the national parks of Canada, would the minister consider referring the legal aspect of this matter to the Supreme Court of Canada? I placed this question on the order paper last session but it was not answered.


An hon. Member:: No answer.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I placed my question on the order paper at Your Honour's direction, asking whether the matter of perpetual renewal leases would be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada. The answer I received on May 8, 1967 was that the perpetual leases
May 10, 1967	COMMONS
were not legal. However, before the parliamentary committee in Banff the deputy minister, on the advice of his legal officers, expressed the opinion that these perpetual leases were legal. Therefore there is misrepresentation on the part of the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: That is a point of debate, not a point of order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member knows that to insist on an answer is not a point of order. He has the right to ask a question, but the minister has the right not to answer it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I feel I have the right to ask the question but the minister has the duty to give the proper answer and not to misrepresent the facts in this House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is not a question of privilege to disagree with an answer given by a minister.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I speak further on the point, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no question of privilege, unless the hon. member has a different one.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Your Honour did not hear me very well so far as the point of privilege is concerned. The minister has misrepresented the facts. This is why he will not answer my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member can say that the facts have been misrepresented. He cannot say, and I am sure he does not want to say, that they have been knowingly misrepresented. I suggest to the hon. member that there is neither a point of order nor a question of privilege which the Chair can accept at this point.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is obvious the minister is convicted by his silence.



EXPO '67 INQUIRY AS TO PRIORITY GRANTED TO ROYAL ANTHEM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister who attended as I did myself, the official opening of Expo '67 on April 27 last.
DEBATES	37
Inquiries of the Ministry
I should like to ask him why the army band played, on three occasions, the national anthem of Great Britain before our official national anthem "O Canada"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is out of order. The hon. member can place his question on the order paper, but under the circumstances, it is out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think Canadians were somewhat disturbed to hear the national anthem of another country played at the world exhibition.
Since there are regularly official manifestations at that place, I should like to know why the anthem of another country is played instead of ours?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may also put this second question on the order paper.


Gilles Grégoire: At ten o'clock tonight for the show.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the report issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics this morning showing an unprecedented rise in the cost of living in Canada during the last month, is the minister planning any emergency measures to prevent a further drastic rise in the cost of living?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I looked into the reasons for the increase in the cost of living, and was informed that two of the most important reasons were the increase in the sales tax in Quebec and the increase in doctors' fees in Ontario. There are other factors involved also, but those were the two main reasons for the rather remarkable rise.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance.
As he has just mentioned, the sales tax has brought about an increase in the cost of living in Canada, the Quebec sales tax and medical costs in Ontario, but have the tax increases of the present Minister of Finance not equally contributed to raise the cost of living in Canada?
May 10, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr, Speaker: Order. This is an argument rather than a question.



VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL TRAINING

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO ASSISTANCE TO HANDICAPPED On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, following requests from the employment office coming under the manpower centre, I put this question to the minister concerned.
Could the Minister of Manpower and Immigration tell us whether the adult occupational training program provides for special assistance for the handicapped, as was the case in the past under program 6?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, our present program for the handicapped is being continued, providing there is an agreement with the province.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Can the minister of manpower tell us whether handicapped persons in Canada will be retrained?



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
LANGUAGE USED ON OPEN POSTCARDS TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Postmaster General. In so doing may I follow the lead of my seatmate, the hon. member for Kootenay West, by saying this is a most urgent and serious matter of great importance to all hon. members. May I ask the Postmaster General whether he read, agreed with and endorsed the written statement, which I now have seen, issued by the director of postal rates and classification concerning the open postcards being sent to members of the House of Commons containing such phrases as "Anglo-Saxon chauvinism; the enforcer R.C.M.P.; the intimidator, Ontario provincial police; the Bible thumping hypocrite; the Jew Fascist; the black Uncle Tom, and that other whoreson, the pseudo-reformist representative". Here I quote the director of postal rates:
-while the writings might be somewhat abusive, they are not considered objectionable-*
May I ask whether the minister agreed that they were abusive but not objectionable? Did he authorize that statement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 9, 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.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we have now embarked on the centennial session of parliament. My first words must be to express agreement with the eloquent words and expressions of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson). His speech was one of those that make parliament the institution it is. I congratulate him, as well as the seconder (Mr. Cote, Nicolet-Yamaska), for the power and eloquence which each of them displayed. To the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo I would say that through the years I have followed him and listened to him but not with the same degree of agreement that I did yesterday. However, the manner in which he spoke to this house when he moved the address in reply leads one to believe that if perchance the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) decides that the minister reporting to parliament for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should be one who understands it, then the hon. member would be able to accept the position without having the high ambition to occupy the presidency of the C.B.C. which apparently is the privilege of another.
So far as the seconder is concerned, his speech was not his first in the house. He dealt at length with the agricultural situation. As an experienced farmer, he spoke for himself alone when he said how happy the farmers are. Indeed, if he ever delivers such a speech on May 24 when the farmers gather in Ottawa the reception he received yesterday will be nothing compared with that which he will receive from them.
I join too in the expression of all good wishes to the new Governor General and to his wife. He was a House of Commons man. In the intervening years he has had experience in diplomatic affairs. We know that he will discharge his duties in a manner worthy of the traditions and greatness of his office.
I should like also to mention that I was somewhat surprised that in the session to celebrate our centennial we should have produced to us a throne speech containing many words and much repetition. Canadians in future generations, as those of today, will look
May 10. 1967

on that speech as one that contains very little vision and inspiration. As I listened to the hon. member who moved the address it occurred to me that the house may yet expect an even greater speech when, some time in the future, he speaks on a subject more productive of inspiration than the document which is before us. If he could be stirred by that document, what would he do when there was one with some material in it?
I wish to begin by speaking of my country, the country of which all of us are proud to be members. It is not a time for effusive oratory but a time when we, as Canadians, look back over 100 years of our confederation and from a knowledge of the past secure a vision of Canada's future. Canada is a land of opportunity, a land which, beginning with two basic races, has welcomed people from all parts of the world with their cultures and their beliefs. One thinks too of the dramatic history of this nation, of the first hunter, the first human being seeking game, who crossed the Bering isthmus. One thinks of the Vikings, those mighty men of valour, who ventured forth into the uncertainties of the sea and came back to report to their homeland of this land beyond the sea. We think of the navigators and explorers, the priests and the peasants, the traders and the millions that have come to this land for freedom. It is a story to inspire. Too often Canadians are afraid to speak out.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
One of the great and powerful instruments that has contributed to making the United States great is the knowledge of history by its citizens from school age up. They have an appreciation of the past and a unity based on the achievements of the present.
We are all deeply proud to be called Canadians. We hope that we shall never falter when principles are at stake and that we shall never falter in the face of false pretence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not often refer to words I have used on other occasions but I shall refer to something I said in 1960. From earliest days I looked forward to the time when I might contribute to bringing about within this nation a Canadianism that would know no discrimination and in which colour, race, religion and those things that separate us sometimes would not be regarded as disqualifications for Canadian citizenship. I summed up those views in these words:
I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, 27053-4J
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.
That, sir, during the years has been my purpose and objective. When some look at the other side of the house and wonder whether there is anything in public life, my answer is that monetary satisfaction cannot equal that which comes to those who endeavour to do what they can do for their country, in peace and war.
Before I deal with the speech from the throne I shall refer to some of the events of the years. They will show something of the history of this country and its background, something of the speeches made at the time of confederation and prior thereto, something of the general sentiment held by Lord Dorchester, Richard Uniacke, Chief Justice Sewell, Bishop Strachan, Brenton Haliburton, William Lyon Mackenzie, who had the idea of confederation before he became a rebel, Alexander Morris, today often forgotten, a strongly prophetic and compelling advocate of confederation for Canada and the man who first uttered by motion a resolution in favour of confederation, and Alexander Galt. I also think of Cartier, one of the first in French Canada to support confederation, despite the fact that he had been with Papineau in 1837.
George Brown joined with them at a historically critical moment, acting in a manner that permitted others to push ahead with the great design. And, of course, there is Sir John A. Macdonald, the indispensable, without whom confederation would never have been possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: No one denies him the title of the great architect of Canadian confederation, except in some of the literature put out by the Centennial Commission. To those who share the view expounded in that literature I recommend the words of Laurier. This is not a centennial for Liberals alone. This is a centennial for all Canadians. This is not a centennial to rewrite history.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: This is not a centennial where any leaders of the nation may say to any member of the Centennial Commission, "Forget about the Tories of confederation; let us think about the present." This is Canada's centennial. I am sorry to have to say this, but often one wonders these days whether the
May 10, 1967

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker centennial celebrations are not becoming the monopoly of the party in power.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: We see that happening everywhere. One of the most interesting examples is Expo. That is now embraced as a Liberal project. We brought it in, we fixed the site, and they finished the work because they won the election. All that we did is now forgotten as the present government apparently concludes that the centenary is a time for national partisan celebration.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: In the centennial document I have it is set out that George Brown brought in Macdonald and his Tories and that this finally resulted in confederation. For those of another view I recommend the words of that peerless parliamentarian, that orator among orators, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who said:
-the place of Sir John Macdonald in this country was so large and so absorbing, that it is almost impossible to conceive that the political life of this country, the fate of this country, can continue without him-
I think it can be asserted that for the supreme art of governing men, Sir John Macdonald was gifted as few men in any land or in any age were gifted; gifted with the most high of all qualities, qualities which would have made him famous wherever exercised-
Then he goes on to say that no one can deny Sir John Macdonald a position above all others among the makers of this nation. I find it necessary to refer to these words because the Centennial Commission has begun to rewrite history in 1967.
Then we come to the debates, and it is well to read those debates. I suggest that hon. members read the speeches of Macdonald, Cartier, Brown and D'Arcy McGee, made in 1865. Those men knew what confederation was. One thinks of Cartier when one hears of the doctrine of two nations in Canada. That doctrine was swept aside by Cartier 102 years ago. He said it was a preposterous notion. He went on to say this:
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
It is pretended it will be impossible to carry out confederation on account of differences of race and religion. Those who hold that opinion are in error. It is precisely on account of the differences in race and local interests that the federal system should be established and that it will work well.
We have often read in the newspapers that it is a great evil to have such different races, such a distinction between French Canadians and English Canadians.

He goes on:
We shall form a political nationality-
Not a dual nationality.
-with which neither the national origin nor the religion of any individual will interfere.
Today we should reread what the fathers of confederation said. When they finally concluded their deliberations they celebrated the event. A few days ago there was a celebration in the city of New York. The press of Canada wrote it up. I should like to read a description of another event.
A few days after the close of the circus

That is the way the meeting of the fathers of confederation was described.
-a great public ball and supper is announced; the evening of the day arrives; the proud and the gay, arrayed in fashion's gauds, flock to the scene where revelry presides ... Pleasure, panoplied in smiles, meets and embraces joy-the fascinating dance goes merrily, and the waltz with its entwine-ments, etc.
It is the story of a great revel. In those days the press wrote like that. It is not a picture of the recent ball in New York. This was the ball given at Province House in Charlottetown at the end of the conference in 1864. Read the story of confederation. Let Canadians know.
What about the centennial train? That too has been appropriated by those sitting opposite. In 1942 I suggested a train to go across Canada to display the cornerstones of our freedom. When we set up the Centennial Commission we stated that first priority should be given to arrangements for a centennial train. This has done a great deal to show Canada to Canadians. But it lacks something. It lacks the inspiration which comes from the greatness of the lives of those of the past. For some reason or another Sitting Bull was made the representative of the great Indians of Canada until the train arrived at Calgary, when Sitting Bull sat. They put an end to that. What about Tecumseh and Piapot and Mistawassis, those great Canadian chiefs? They were forgotten on this train while an American was named as a great Canadian.
The Queen had no place on this train until I raised the question and the Queen's picture went in. No Canadian entering that train will ever see the Queen's picture unless he walks backward. When we complained to the Centennial Commission the answer over the telephone was: "This is a Canadian train".
Let us catch something of the inspiration of this nation's past. Let us not forever chisel away at our traditions. There has taken place
May 10. 1987

in this country in the last four years a denigration of the principle of monarchy. Tradition is removed from our armed services. "Royal" disappears. They reveal this government's course.
I hope something will be done this year to give young Canadians a knowledge of their country. Many Canadians ask: "Why should I worry about history?" Mr. Speaker, "he who does not history know, does not know his country".
Let us build in this nation this year something of that inspiration which I had hoped to secure on reading the speech from the throne. Let it not be said that such sentiments cannot be embedded in the speech from the throne, that they are too general for inclusion. If ever a speech from the throne was packed full of generalities it is this one. It is a serious matter to put into the mouth of the new Governor General 45 minutes of words constituting in large measure a repetition of what has been said in the past containing nothing to inspire or lift up the heart. There is nothing which will ever be quoted except in this debate. Instead of this speech from the throne being a prospectus for Canada it is a record of unfulfilled promises. Those who have responsibility for drafting these speeches have been working on it for a long while. They have produced a pale, colourless creation, vague and uncertain. It contains 29 different items or promises of expected legislation, only three of which are new, and nothing at all regarding the constitution in this year of 1967 except "we are looking into it".
Well, Mr. Speaker, there used to be governments called "Breeches governments"-foolish governments-in the United Kingdom. We have never before had a government which qualified to be called the "we-are-looking-into-it" government. Now we have. On April 21 we heard an embryo speech from the throne by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). We shall have another today, no doubt-a new compendium of broken promises and unrealized aspirations offering to the Canadian people the pretence of action.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I am going to review the recommendations in very short order. They include a department of consumer affairs, long-term loans to a agriculture and fishing co-operatives, and a crown corporation to run the Nova Scotia coal mines, something that the members from Cape Breton on our side of the house have been trying to bring about for a long while.
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker So far as agriculture is concerned it is a wonder that the seconder of the address in reply said everything is well. All that is going to be done for the farmer, with prices falling and the cost of the things he has to purchase rising, is a task force for agriculture, as if agriculture is not in enough difficulties now.
There is nothing in the speech from the throne to premise incentives for free enterprise and there is no hope of tax reductions. The government would not set out tax reductions at this time but it could give an idea of what it is going to do on behalf of tax-ridden Canadians.
What do they promise? I have referred to the B.N.A. Act. Then they are going to extend the designated area program, amend unemployment insurance provisions, and bring in a white paper on investment. This is an example of the government's "Gordon syndrome." Every time he does anything he gets them into trouble. They cannot live with him, they cannot live without him. They are going to have him as chairman of a committee to decide whether foreign investment is any good. Well, Mr. Speaker, we know he is free from bias in that connection. That is the reason he was chosen as chairman of the committee.
There is another victory over the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) and those of the right in the Canada Development Corporation. That hoary chestnut has been dug up for the third or fourth time; this is resurrection in triplicate.
Sir, the speech from the throne is an amazing document. There are going to be amendments to the Indian Act but we do not know what they are going to be. We gave the Indians the vote when we were in office. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) brought in a bill for votes for Eskimos and we supported it.
There is something amazing about international affairs. Here is a government full of international experts. Yet what do they produce in respect of Viet Nam? The government, knowing that the United Nations turned down the proposal of Canada and associated nations for the setting up of a peace force, under the United Nations, now proposes an international presence. General Allard says that our forces are going to be made over as an international force. There is nothing in the speech from the throne to let the Canadian people know that without NATO freedom cannot survive.
There is to be a complete revision of the Immigration Act. This has come back for the
May 10, 1967

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker second or third time. It is only a few months since the government brought in changes through the medium of a white paper. This was revised when it became evident, as we pointed out, that they discriminated against sponsored immigrants. Now there are to be further revisions.
Urban development is also resurrected. I can just see the members of the cabinet saying to each other, "What did we ever say that we did not carry, out? Let us put down our broken promises in order." There are to be new housing programs. Canada is in the worst housing mess it has ever been in. Nothing would be more beneficial than the removal of the sales tax on building materials. But the government will not do that.
It has also produced a rephrased vision of the north. Members of the government now recognize Canada's northland which they once ridiculed. Now they want to do something about it.
They brought capital punishment and divorce together in the one line. One ends trouble and the other begins it.


Miss LaMarsh:: Which is which?


John George Diefenbaker: But they left out the other corner of the Prime Minister's social trilogy, the abortion promise. They left that out.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are leaving that to the opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: The government's proposal respecting financial disclosure by corporations gives lip service to the principle of protecting the investor. They say they are going to revise safety standards. They forgot to put in the code of ethics. This, Mr. Speaker, is a cursory summary of what they say they are .going to do.
It is said, Mr. Speaker, that parliament is -not effective. It is just because of this kind of thing that it is not effective-a government that produces a speech from the throne full of generalities and replays its record of broken promises. One of the most effective portions of the speech by the hon. member who moved the address in reply came when he spoke of parliament. He said that he came in here believing that this institution measured up to the criticism of those who have never seen parliament.
Recently I talked to one of the outstanding Canadians of our time and he told me parliament was deficient and ineffective. I asked him, "How many times have you seen parliament in action?" He replied, "I have read

about it," Parliament is always criticized. It is criticized in Britain today. It is criticized in Australia and in New Zealand but somehow or other the critics in all generations find that what they criticize is the effective embodiment and protection of freedom.
Parliament is not a sausage machine to grind out legislation. Parliament is a place in which the freedom of the individual is preserved. That is its first purpose.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Parliament is not a place that is to be efficient. That is the civil service idea, that all that is necessary is for a bill to be introduced, a crank to be turned by the government and out will come an act of parliament. That is not the concept that has made for the greatness of this place in the British tradition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I know that those in the press gallery will not agree but I say to some of them who criticize parliament, as the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) said a few months ago, those who have the responsibility of communicating what happens in parliament to the public are not reporting what takes place here in a way that enables Canadians to weigh the issues. What is happening is that less and less space is available for factual reporting.
They complain about attendance in the House of Commons. Mr. Speaker, there is too much absenteeism. There is no doubt about that. I am not one of those who have insisted on a roll call but there is a roll call in the Senate and also in the Congress of the United States. But I do say that we members of the House of Commons cannot justify our absences unless we are on some business connected with constituencies or the responsibilities of office or the responsibilities of those who lead parties.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Then there is the idea that one can understand parliament by going upstairs and staying out of the house. I have heard that mentioned all through the years. The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo has been in the house. He has listened; he has caught something of the spirit of the house. He could not have got this by being absent from the house. We will not reform parliament until we have an attendance here which is not like that of the past few years. I know some of my colleagues will not like this. This has never been
May 10. 1967	COMMONS
a factor to impel me not to face facts. As members we need the determination to be here. We could do more for parliament provided the press, radio and television would report something concerning what is said by every member. When a backbencher gets up and makes a carefully prepared speech he does not even receive honourable mention. We will never build parliament in that way.
I notice that the new house leader has come up with a new idea. He says that he is not receiving enough advertising. In the Ottawa Journal of May 6, 1967 the following appeared under the heading, "Orders Surgery on Health Dept. Image."
Health Minister MacEachen has directed his department to adopt "a radical new public relations approach" to improve its present "poor image".
It does not say whether that is the minister or the department. He goes on to say that from now on he does not want the public relations men to inform the public of the programs but that what is needed is information.
That, above everything else, is what I suggest parliament needs today. Friends of mine have sat in the gallery and when it was all over they said to me, after they read the press account the next day, they could not recognize the parliament they saw. The number one project for this year is that parliament should project itself. Many changes in the rules are necessary to enable us continually and more effectively to discharge our responsibilities. These changes, however, should be made by agreement, not compulsion by the government as a matter of parliamentary expediency. The house would solve a great deal of absenteeism if some part of the proceedings were televised. It would not be very long before constituents in all parts of Canada would be pointing out that they could not find their member. The impelling result of this publicity upon all of us in public life would be amazing.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, there was very little in the speech from the throne. What are some of the things which should have been and are not in the speech from the throne? First, there should have been a declaration that parliament will put a stop to the removal of our traditions. Let us end this race to remove those things which made possible our sitting here. Had it not been for successive British governments Canadians would have had no rights. The argument advanced at the time of
DEBATES	43
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker confederation was that unless we confederated and stood together the rights of language and religion would be lost-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: -if we became a part of the United States.
I ask the Prime Minister, what has happened to the war on poverty? Certainly a cease-fire has taken place. It may well be that the war is over. We have been told nothing at all about that. Why is there no reference, except in a general way, to broadening economic expansion? Why is there no reference to what parliament will be asked to do in the event that the Kennedy round of negotiations collapses-and I hope it will not. They have been talking for four years and now the various countries face and impasse.
What is the government of Canada going to do provided the United Kingdom does what it believes is best for the United Kingdom and joins the European common market? What will happen to our agricultural market? I read the other day that the prime minister of the United Kingdom said that so far as possible the United Kingdom intends to preserve and protect those preferences. What has the government of Canada, aside from silence, done in the face of a situation which, if the United Kingdom enters the European common market without some qualification, will have a detrimental effect not only on agriculture but also on our aluminum industry and several other industries? Why was there no mention of that?
Why is there only a generality about confederation? In the last four years we have seen this government go through all kinds of transformations. To start with we had "two nations' and the "opting out" provision. Then we had one pension law for the rest of Canada and one for the province of Quebec. If the "two-nation" proposition was a good one when it was enunciated by the Prime Minister in April of 1963, then the idea that any province can enter into treaties is a tenable one. Why was nothing said about that in the speech from the throne?
When we convened a conference on February 4, 1963, to discuss Canadian confederation we did it on the basis of the words of Sir John Macdonald when in his seventy fifth year he said in the House of Commons:
I have no accord with the desire expressed in some quarters that, by any mode whatever, there should be an attempt made to oppress the one language or to render it inferior to the other. I believe that would be impossible if it were tried, and it would be foolish and wicked if it were possible.
May 10, 1967

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
That has been the stand of the Conservative party ever since 1890.
Confederation was achieved by a partnership of English speaking and French speaking men who believed that the destiny of the north half of this continent might be achieved in unity but not through uniformity. We have done well. Changes, however, must be made in the light of changing conditions. I opposed the setting up of the commission on bicul-turalism. I said it would not work. To this day they have spent $7!>- million and have divided this country as it never has been divided before.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: It would be easy to get votes to support that proposition. I thought it was wrong and my colleagues agreed. We wanted to bring the provinces together in what my friend the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) calls in his own way a "family gathering". We wanted a meeting for the purpose of restating the goals of Canadian confederation, a gathering designed to correct any injustices that have taken place during the past hundred years, a gathering of Canadians to round out and restate these goals for the second century, not for the purpose of splitting this nation. We were defeated. We sent out invitations but no meeting has been called.
In the light of our experience during the past four and a half years we believe that what we asserted as being necessary in 1963 has been proven so and that it is time now for action rather than this pusillanimous, diplomatic approach that somebody somewhere is looking into this matter who will finally come up with something so that we will be in a position to call together some kind of a meeting.
There Is not a word in the speech about crime. I do not intend to fill the record with statements of recent days about the Mafia but there is no doubt that there has been and is today a continuing disregard of the law by persons responsible for this situation. There are people who believe that by simply convening a gathering and endeavouring to bring pressure on the government they can destroy the rule of law. The time has come to do something in connection with the crime explosion.
We were criticized when we suggested a link between arson and bankruptcies. This is


now accepted and there are today over 200 investigations taking place. We believe that the crime situation must be faced by this nation; otherwise everything we hold dear will be eroded. I suggest a royal commission to look into the whole picture of crime and its expansion. That commission should report within a period not exceeding six months. The records show there is increasing crime in the United States and the United Kingdom. They are trying to do something. Because of divided jurisdiction within our country this problem is not being faced on a national level.
What about a national transportation policy in order to make available greater facilities and shorter routes? I will go into that in detail on another occasion, but there is nothing in this speech except generalities.
Let me now turn to a matter which was dealt with by the mover of this motion, and that is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. No one in this house is more qualified than the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. He knows about the problems. What did he warn us of yesterday? He warned us of the danger to Canadian thinking resulting from a mass application of propaganda through the medium of radio and television.
Last night one of the reporters for the C.B.C. told about conditions in North Vietnam, confirming what Mr. Clark, the assistant editor of the Montreal Star, had stated. No matter what is done the seeds have been sown by that broadcast and that article in the minds of the Canadian people to the effect that we in Canada are a variety of high class international double-crossers. That is what it amounts to. We are accused of using our neutral position as a member of the international control commission to help the United States. That is a very serious matter and I hope action will be taken to look into it.
To be perfectly frank, is there any hon. member who can deny that more and more the C.B.C. is not giving the people of this nation a reasonably equal presentation of the viewpoints? There is great conflict within the news operations of the C.B.C. There are charges of power grabbing. Serious infighting is taking place in this government organization because of the lack of leadership. In this regard the government is responsible because of its failure to appoint a man in charge and a vice president. Everybody is boss now and those who should be running the organization have abdicated their authority.
May 10, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
The C.B.C. is not a plaything. It will spend We stopped that. I feel that it should be $150 million of the Canadian taxpayers' under the C.B.C. and there should not be an-money this year. There are reports that the other member of this vast, increasing family Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) offered to 0f bureaucracy. Indeed, sir, in the last three take the job of running this organization but years the government has become the biggest apparently there were no takers. Operating business in Canada.
costs for this year have increased by $29 Next 1 deal with a matter about which we
million; yet my information is that the C.B.C. is at least 16 to 20 months behind in its routine bookkeeping and accounts. Money is being wasted on every hand. The organization sent a crew to Uruguay to cover the O.A.S. conference at a cost of $20,000. It set up a West Indies broadcasting service and sent a man from Toronto at $29,000 a year to direct it. This kind of spending cannot continue.
The C.B.C. was set up by Right Hon. R.
B.	Bennett and his government as an institution to make available Canadian culture for Canadians. It has become an institution engaged in a race with private enterprise to obtain advertising. Chaos now reigns in the
C.	B.C. What is the government going to do about it?
The director of news and public affairs for the C.B.C. has only very recently been confirmed in his position. The news department is in a state of disintegration and one has only to listen to the news to realize how the quality of news items has deteriorated from even a year ago. Yet the news department spends $4 million a year.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Surely Canadians have a right to expect that the C.B.C. shall preserve a pride in their nation, shall let them know something of our various cultures. I am told that the national television news on the opening day of Expo was half an hour late in its broadcast. Whether this was because of disagreement between Toronto and Montreal, I do not know. But the C.B.C. is leaderless and rudderless today. I asked the question yesterday, and it has not yet been answered, whether an agreement had been entered into with any foreign government, in particular with the U.S.S.R., for the purpose of ascertaining what that agreement was and what the circumstances were. The C.B.C. in 1967, our centennial year, should be made to realize that its purpose is to play its part for Canada and build in this nation a feeling of Canadianism. Canadian culture is dealt with in C.B.C. broadcasting in a very minimal way.
Next I come to the question of educational television. The government decided to bring that in by the back door through an estimate.
will not be told anything today by the Prime Minister-tax reduction. I hope that action will be taken to reduce taxation and cut out wasteful expenditures. I can give particulars of these wasteful expenditures at any time. The implementation of the Glassco report is long overdue. These are matters we should be facing this year. We should be carrying out a re-examination of Canada's fiscal policies and arrangements, keeping in mind the principle that in the interests of confederation the collecting authority should wherever possible be the authority which spends.
There should be the immediate establishment of a national scientific institute to enable Canada to restore prestige in the scientific field, to mobilize scientific effort in industry, universities and government and to achieve a better balance in co-ordinated scientific advancement. Today there is duplication between government and industrial activities. In this technological age we need to move forward in that direction, not by replacing and supplanting the efforts of the National Research Council but by setting up an institute as a co-ordinating and assessing body not engaged in actual experimentation.
In agriculture what is the situation? Talk to the farmers. Despite the eloquence of the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Cote), the farmers of this country are up in arms. There must be legislation at this session to ensure a fair deal for agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: What about relations between labour and industry? The Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) is repeatedly saying that everything is out of date and something should be done. There was nothing in the speech from the throne to meet this problem, one that is exercising the leadership both in the United States and the United Kingdom and one that cannot be indefinitely postponed. Pollution has been mentioned. Over and over again various hon. members have raised the need of a national crusade against pollution in co-operation with the provinces. True enough there is some reference to this matter in the speech from the throne, but a policy must be formulated that will be effective.
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker This is a matter that could be placed before a committee of the house to go into the problem in detail at this session and thereby assure that this question, which is assuming proportions far and above anything that could have been contemplated a few years ago, will receive attention.
Mention was made in the speech from the throne of some action for Indians and Eskimos. I suggest that the government might set up a department of native affairs having as its deputy head a native Indian of Canada or an Eskimo, and that senior positions on a representative basis be filled by natives wherever possible. These are just a few of the matters that have been left out.
Now I come to a major matter, the question of education. Education falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provinces and it must so remain. But surely we are not going to leave Canada in a position behind the other countries of the world in the tremendous impetus that is being given to education. When we were in office, as a result of the efforts of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) and my colleagues we were able to bring about a system acceptable to the provinces in the setting up of technical and vocational schools. That is ending now; this government does not want it to survive.
We must face immediately the need of a massive educational assistance plan for both universities and secondary schools. Somebody will say this will cost money. I will not be asking for the expenditure of moneys in respect of matters that are not of vital importance to the nation. What happens in the cities and towns today? The man who owns his home is the one who is paying a major portion of the taxes for education. Too great a load rests there. I would like to see a committee of the house study fully the whole problem of education and then in co-operation with the provinces we would nationally provide assistance while fully respecting and regarding the jurisdiction of the provinces.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I mentioned earlier that we wanted to convene a national confederation constitutional conference. We have tried to get this government to act on it. We have been put off from month to month and from year to year. The constitution is being eroded by private deals. The culmination of this-the fruit of the family tree planted by the Liberal party in the last few years-was the declaration, acceptable to both parties in the legislature of
May 10, 1967
Quebec, on the subject of international relations and the making of treaties. Where are we going? Are we going to be a series of Canadian satrapies with each province entering into international agreements? They may be the popular thing to support but, sir, popularity comes second to the future of this country. Canadian unity cannot be preserved if we continue to chisel away the principles that made confederation possible and which are still the law and constitution of this country.
We suggest that a conference should be convened at once to be attended by federal and provincial representatives as well as representatives of all the political parties. I would like to see representation from all classes and groups in our society, including labour, industry, business, agriculture and so on. This would not be a conference for a day or two but a conference of Canadians for Canada's future.
There is a spirit today in this nation that I have never seen before. There is a willingness to co-operate. I have noticed the change in the years I have been here.
I have noticed a tremendous change in the thinking of Canadians in all the provinces. There is a willingness to try to bring about a rapport that has not existed for many years. When I came first to parliament when anybody spoke French everybody else left because they did not understand it. It was slightly different when somebody spoke English but those who were English speaking often left also. A few years ago, we made this House of Commons bilingual as the constitution provides. It is very interesting today to watch questions being asked in English and answered in French and vice-versa. When we made this house bilingual it was not popular but it is now. There is an attitude among people in all the provinces that if they could only get together and understand what each one wants there might be not too great difficulty in arriving at arrangements acceptable to all. What better year than the hundredth year of our confederation to sit down at a conference methodically and purposefully, without heat, bias or prejudice. We do not want to limit the conference to a few days. It took weeks and months in 1864 and 1866. Such a conference would bring about a fair and reasonable assessment of what changes are necessary and practical. All those present, if I mistake not the feeling of the Canadian people, would be activated by a single aim and

May 10, 1967

by one desire, namely the common good of all Canadians and of Canada as a whole.
I make this appeal again to the Prime Minister. I say that the tinkering that has gone on is arousing antagonism throughout the country. The constitution cannot be changed by whittling it away. If I am charged with overstating the question, I will refer hon. members to the speech made the other day by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) in which he said among other things that opting out and the like have weakened the Canadian constitution.
At a confederation conference I would look for representatives of every province in Canada to appear with solid, practical suggestions. I would hope that representatives would come with open minds and in a spirit of Canadian fraternity to endeavour to meet the situation. It will not, in my time, tear this nation asunder but if the constitution is to be circumvented, undermined or departed from on an ad hoc basis, Canada will not long survive.
That is the essence of what I have to say today. I make this appeal to the house. To secure the viewpoint of the members of this house I shall move an amendment. What should be put in it? I do not like omnibus amendments. I like an amendment which will strike at the heart and raise the hope of men and women across this nation. We could incorporate in the amendment that Canadian-American relations are in a very bad state and that internationally our image as a result of our stand on Viet Nam is one of pusillanimous neutrality. We could incorporate an item to the effect that nothing has been done to meet the overriding problem in so far as the economy and industrial and labour relations are concerned. It could include a demand for a reduction in unnecessary expenditures and an end to those climbing expenditures which have gone up $3 billion since we held office.
I hear so much about youth today. Where is there anything for youth in the speech from the throne? I hope that today the Prime Minister will announce again the 10,000 scholarships which are like sugar plums hanging in the air for four years. Those who expected them and voted for them have graduated. I could deal with the cost of living which according to the latest record rose 1.3 points over the month of March, the April report being in today. I could deal with the failure to assist the farmers and agriculture with the exception of the addition of one more task
The Address-Mr. Pearson force which will have only one effect. Nobody needs to assess the task; everybody knows it. The force, however, will postpone action. We could include the housing crisis. According to the Financial Post of April 29, and it is always right in financial matters, the crisis is the greatest ever. We could deal with the need for action, as the No. 1 project of parliament today, in the reduction of taxation. All of these things could be included. However, this is centennial year and in my opinion, as well as in the opinion of all hon. members I am sure, national unity comes first. These other matters, therefore, may be dealt with when the budget comes up or when motions to go into supply are advanced. In order to give Canadians an opportunity of knowing whether this parliament means to act effectively in connection with our national problem of unity, I shall not deal with these several matters and many more with which I could deal.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard):
This house regrets that Her Majesty's advisers have failed to submit any program to give effective direction with regard to Canada's constitutional development in this centennial year and has failed to provide for the calling of a national constitutional confederation conference to be widely representative of the governments, federal and provincial and of the territories, and of all political parties for the purpose of repatriating Canada's constitution and revising and amending it as agreed upon so that Canada's future course may be charted in the interests of all the people with a declaration of national goals based on the confident assurance of success that was so selflessly and patriotically displayed by the fathers of confederation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My first words, Mr. Speaker, must be to join with the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in congratulating the mover (Mr. Jamieson) and seconder (Mr. Cote, Nicolet-Yamaska). I have been in the house a good many years, not as long as the right hon. gentleman but long enough to have listened to a great many speeches moving and seconding the address. I have never heard it done better. I think the two hon. members are to be very sincerely congratulated. I am sure they will get satisfaction out of the fact they know they have done their job well and will be appreciated in the parts of the country from which they come.
I should like, if I may, to congratulate the right hon. gentleman in opening this debate
The Address-Mr. Pearson in predictable fashion. I feel a sense of relief, however, because his speech was less predictable in one sense. He was not quite as hard on the government and the leader of the government today as he has been on other occasions. Perhaps he is saving that.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the centennial spirit.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to reciprocate that centennial spirit by taking out of my remarks anything that might indicate a reflection on the wisdom, energy, devotion, determination and all the other good qualities which the right hon. gentleman possesses. At the end of his very interesting statement, he said that he was not going to move on this occasion an omnibus amendment. I must say that at first glance this one seems to be rather omnibus, although it does concentrate on the calling of a constitutional conference to revise and rewrite our constitution. I shall have something to say about this later.
At one point in his remarks he stated that this country was never so divided as it is now. I do not agree with that. However, I do agree with what he said later and which I hope represents his more considered opinion. He said that there is in the country now a spirit of unity and willingness to co-operate of which we all, as Canadians, can be proud.
In his introduction to his remarks the right hon. gentleman presented his own version of Canadian history. He was very eloquent indeed, and with what he told us I have no quarrel except perhaps to point out that when he charges us on this side, as he so often does, with trying to put into effect in this country a two-nation policy in the political sense, and when he quotes Sir John A. Macdonald to underline the enormity of that kind of policy he should remember, and I am sure he does remember, that it was Sir John A. Macdonald who said once of French speaking Canadians, "Treat them as a nation and they will act as a free people generally do."
The right hon. gentleman complained, and I certainly do not quarrel with this, about the length of the speech from the throne and the inadequacy of the material in the speech having regard to its length. It was a long speech, Mr. Speaker, though I seem to remember when I was in opposition standing behind the bar in the Senate chamber for more than 41 minutes on more than one occasion. I promise to do my best next January, February or March to keep it down to about 25 minutes, 
May 10, 19G7
and I am sure the Governor General will co-operate with me in that regard.
Having mentioned the length of the speech, however, the right hon. gentleman quarreled about the fact we had not included in it a great many things which he mentioned and which, if we had included them in the speech, would have extended it another 40 or 45 minutes. It is quite true that no speech from the throne, however long it may be, can encompass all the legislative plans of a government over a period of what is now normally about 12 months. I will try to mention some of the things in detail that were not included in the speech from the throne but with which I hope this parliament will be able to deal in our centennial year.
The right hon. gentleman referred to us as a "look-into-it" government. When we are faced with problems we look into them by setting up commissions of inquiry. This is quite true. My own experience has taught me that it is quite wise to look into things before you act. But having complained about this weakness, as he termed it, on our part, he proceeded to recommend two further inquiries, both of which might be quite useful but which would require in one case setting up a royal commission and in the other a parliamentary committee into education.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I wish to make another promise to my right hon. friend which arises out of the statement he made in Winnipeg when he intimated that as a crafty, cunning politician-those were not his words but that is what he meant-


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and I know that he meant these words in a kindly way-


John George Diefenbaker: I had not that in mind.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I never had it in mind either. But the hon. gentleman, speaking as a politician, said that I might well take advantage of any disunity and division in the Conservative party and call a quick election in centennial year. I wish to assure him and the house that I have no sudh intention.


John George Diefenbaker: Of course the Prime Minister said the same thing in 1965.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If there is an election this year it will be only because of defeat in the house on a motion of non-confidence. My

May 10, 1967

right hon. friend has just moved such a motion of no confidence, and that of course cannot be supported by those sitting on this side of the house.
I was moved by what the right hon. gentleman said about the effect of centennial year on the national spirit and national unity. I agree with him, and I am sure all hon. members share my feeling, that this celebration of our centennial of confederation is strengthening the pride and confidence of Canadians in their own country. This spirit has given us a greater sense of unity and strength and an appreciation and understanding of what we have achieved and what we can achieve.
It seems to me that we have arisen from the psychoanalyst's couch; we are up and doing things again. We are more aware also of what we have done, and therein lies the value of the lesson of history. We have a strong faith in our future and in our ability to solve the difficult and complex problems facing us. I think that Expo '67 has itself made a brilliant and important contribution to this new Canadian feeling.
The right hon. gentleman mentioned some of the proposals in the speech from the throne. I should like to deal with some of those and some that were not mentioned in the speech. No speech from the throne includes all of a government's legislative proposals. I remember that when I was sitting opposite the right hon. gentleman produced some most exciting proposals after the speech from the throne had been read.


John George Diefenbaker: They were only amplifications.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I have improved on that technique by bringing forward certain proposals before the speech from the throne was read. A good deal, of course, is before us, and I hope that the house is able to take action before any summer adjournment on certain matters which I shall mention. The debate on the address has to be disposed of. We must have approval of the main estimates and the budget has to be introduced and debated. Certain bills I think ought to be dealt with before any summer recess. These are the immigration bill, the Cape Breton Development Corporation bill, the Canadian Wheat Board bill, the Canadian citizenship bill and the interpretation bill. Because I agree completely with what the right hon. gentleman has said about the importance of broadcasting in our national life and the necessity for action by the government and parliament, I hope that we shall be able to
The Address-Mr. Pearson introduce before the summer recess the broadcasting bill, even though it may not be dealt with until autumn. I also hope it will be possible to introduce in an appropriate way the resolution on capital punishment.
We have a list of legislative proposals, and a good deal of this legislation appeared on the order paper in the previous session. A good deal of this legislation ought to be completed during our centennial year. It includes the budget bill and appropriation acts-these can be left until autumn if we make satisfactory progress-changes in the divorce law, criminal code amendments, including provisions relating to abortion, contraception and hate literature, the revision of the rules of the house-we have already set up a committee for that purpose-the revision of the Canada Corporation Act, Food and Drugs Act amendments, amendments to the Publication of Statutes Act, an amendment to Parliamentary Secretaries Act, the Canada manpower and immigration council bill, the National Museum bill, and certain other measures not previously introduced or mentioned in the speech from the throne but which may be dealt with either this summer or autumn.
If I seem to have produced a long list, may I remind hon. members that in the last session of the House of Commons we brought into law 83 bills. If we could pass 83 bills during the last session with all the diversionary difficulties we encountered I hope we shall deal without too much difficulty with the following list of legislation: National Parks Act amendments, the federal co-operatives bill, Pension Act amendments, Post Office Act amendments, National Energy Board Act amendments, Juvenile Delinquents Act amendments, Farm Improvement Loans Act amendments, Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act amendments, Canadian National Railways Financing and Guarantee Act amendments, 1967-68 Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act amendments, Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act amendments, and hazardous substances legislation.
That is the kind of program I hope we shall accomplish during our centennial year, and there are other, smaller, non-controversial bills which I hope by agreement may be brought forward whenever the opportunity arises. I have listed these pieces of legislation, apart from those which I hope will be passed before a summer recess, not in any necessary order of priority. I am aware that if we are to pass these bills, if we are to accomplish this
May 10, 1967

The Address-Mr. Pearson program, we shall have to organize the business of government and the business of parliament. I hope, with this organization in mind, that there can be advance planning with the house leaders meeting regularly so that the business of parliament and the legislation I have listed in Hansard may be proceeded with expeditiously. I hope that this organization can be worked out by collaboration and agreement, after discussion with representatives of all parties, even before the question of the priority of legislation is discussed at all-party committees. If we can do that, if we can work out general agreement as we approach specific pieces of legislation, not only will we get through this centennial program of legislation but we shall have added greatly to the effectiveness and efficiency of our parliamentary system, and that is something we all wish to do.
The last session was the longest in our parliamentary history. It was also one of our most productive. Eighty three bills, not including appropriation bills, became acts of parliament. I should like to discuss this afternoon some of the actions that still need to be taken and why I think they are required. Many of these proposals could not be brought forward during the last session, not because they were not on the order paper but because of the time required to pass the 83 bills to which I have already referred.
The speech from the throne reflects in general terms the need for government to improve the opportunities for every Canadian to live a better life. A great deal of the legislation I have mentioned comes within the context of improving people's opportunities to better their own lives. Like people everywhere, Canadians want at least a basic minimum of economic opportunity and social justice as a starting point for personal fulfilment. I believe we have made good progress in this parliament and in this country in establishing this basic level of opportunity and social security. We have achieved a national living standard and a system of social security of which we can be proud.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course, there is always room for improvement even though the basic structure has been well laid. There is, for instance, a growing interest in this country as in other countries in the idea of a guaranteed minimum annual income for every family or even for every citizen. This is a sweeping idea

and an increasingly popular one with many complicated and far reaching implications. There is one view that the provision of a guaranteed income might be a more effective and more economically efficient approach than separate pensions and social security measures in ensuring that basic human needs are provided for. It may be that we could provide the social welfare services we are now providing at a smaller cost even through such an approach. But the opposite might be the case.
Studies have been made in this field for the purpose of obtaining further information. The report of a Senate committee went into it many months ago, not in an exhaustive way, of course. Perhaps it would be useful at some fairly early date, in line with my tendency to look into things, to have all the implications and possibilities of the idea of a guaranteed income thoroughly examined. Such a study ought to be made solely as a means of determining as authoritatively as possible whether this idea is a desirable and practical one which should be considered by parliament.
Having said this, I should add we must never forget that only out of an expanding economy with full employment and rising production can social security be maintained or strengthened as required. In that sense, financial and economic policy is an essential part of social security progress. I do not intend to deal with financial and economic matters today. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) may have an opportunity to participate in this debate as, indeed, may other ministers.
We have a well developed economy and this poses for us the challenge of how best to use and enjoy our unprecedented progress and good fortune both in our national interest as a society of free individuals and in fulfilling our international responsibility in this world community of man. I think most Canadians now realize that social justice cannot be measured in economic terms alone. It must also be measured in terms of standards which are more than material and of opportunities for personal development and fulfilment. This means we must be prepared to recognize in our laws changing social values. It is with this approach in mind that parliamentary committees have been set up by this house and are considering what might best be described as new social law dealing with matters like divorce, contraception, abortion, capital punishment, penal reform and that kind of thing. It is my hope, as I have just indicated in the list I have read, that this
May 10, 1967

session we shall at least be able to make certain changes in this area which are required to bring the legislation into line with current conditions and current thinking.
We are also, as the speech from the throne states, giving consideration to what I consider to be an important and legitimate new federal initiative in the area of consumer affairs. Until the day comes when individual and collective integrity are to be depended upon as the only regulation which is required-in other words, until we reach Utopia-Canadians will expect their governments to do what is necessary to protect the public interest and ensure fair and honest practices for the protection of consumers.
We intend to meet whatever federal responsibilities are required to be met in this area using the present Department of the Registrar General as a department of consumer and corporate affairs and, as such, the main instrument for discharging and coordinating federal responsibilities in this field. We intend to recognize the growing demand for greater consumer protection in so far as these matters fall within federal jurisdiction. And when they are not within federal jurisdiction there is no reason why we should not take the initiative in discussing them with the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are also considering with a view to parliamentary action certain recommendations made by the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on consumer credit including a proposal that large companies should be required to make public more information about their business operations. Whole sectors of our economy today are, if not dominated, very largely influenced by a few large corporations. This may well improve our capacity to compete effectively in international markets through specialization, consolidation and maximum efficiency but at present there is not enough information disclosed about their business operations to permit Canadians to judge whether companies wielding such large influence are doing so with the public interest primarily in mind.
For instance, so-called private companies have the right under existing law to keep all their activities private not only from governments but from economists, lawyers, politicians, the rest of the business community and prospective investors. There is a growing and,

The Address-Mr. Pearson I think, justifiable demand within our business community and outside for more information about the operations of corporate business whether private or public, Canadian or foreign-owned.
In the course of his speech the right hon. gentleman mentioned housing. I should like to say a few words about it because I agree with him that this is one of the most important problems facing this country at the present time. There is today an urgent need to do all we can in co-operation with and by way of assistance to the provinces which have the primary constitutional responsibility in this field to make more housing available to Canadians, especially to those in the lower and middle income brackets. In the course of this debate my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) will, I hope, have the opportunity to say a good deal more on the subject.
But I think we should also pay more attention, as we are beginning to do, to the still larger problem of community development and environmental planning in Canada. I believe the federal government has a duty to suggest new ways in which it may help the provinces and the municipalities, without interfering with their responsibilities to cope more effectively with this larger challenge which is rapidly becoming one of the most urgent confronting every level of government in Canada today. I read the other night in a comment on the speech from the throne that in proposing to deal with these large subjects of community planning, environmental life and all that kind of thing we were off in the distant future speculating about what we should do in this field. There is nothing of the distant future about it. This is an urgent and immediate problem in Canada and it cannot be solved without the co-operation of all three levels of government.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
As the speech from the throne indicates, the government is seriously concerned about the need to find more effective ways for all levels of government to co-operate more closely in providing Canadians with a better living environment, both in our urban and in our rural areas. With the steady growth in our population the need for more housing can only increase in the future, and that need is great now. Virtually half of Canada's existing housing stock of 5,400,000 dwellings has been constructed since the end of world war II over a period of little more than 20 years. Much of this housing has been facilitated, if
May 10. 1967

The Address-Mr. Pearson not made possible, by federal assistance, as indeed has progress in urban development generally, assistance in a form which has been quite substantial but also acceptable to all the provinces and municipalities.
Despite generally good progress in the housing field so far, however, Canada's programs have fallen very far short of need, especially for persons of low levels of income. For example, of the approximately two and a half million new dwellings constructed since the war only 56,400 units were directly intended to meet the needs of our low income people. The challenge that this involves to all three levels of government in Canada today is going to increase in the future, and in the very near future. In little more than the decade that lies immediately ahead we will have to produce another two and a half million dwelling units just to ensure that Canadians are adequately housed. That is as many new units as we have produced since the war, and we are going to have to produce them now in less than half that time. That is the immediate and most urgent problem but there is a need also for a better quality of living environment in Canada which goes along with this need for housing.
Housing itself is of first importance but it is also important that we do not get just horizontal rows along streets and vertical rows up and down elevators. Therefore I hope the government will be able to put forward proposals for legislation at this session which will help the provinces and cities in dealing with the housing problem and also ancillary problems of urban development.
There is also a growing need for federal co-operation with the provinces in reserving land as open space within urban areas and in developing new suburban communities. Urban living is becoming steadily more concentrated. I was informed a few days ago, although I do not know whether the statistics are accurate, that in a very few years 80 per cent of the people of Canada will be living in half a dozen great metropolitan areas. This emphasizes the need for recreational open space to be shared in the form of parks and conservation areas.
It would not be sensible to offer assistance in the development of new urban communities without being able to see these developments as parts of a whole city and metropolitan region. It is only within a regional framework that intelligent decisions can be made about the main transportation routes and utilities, about open space and


built-up space, and about the focal points of communities where traffic, high density housing and commercial services will be concentrated. The federal government is prepared to discuss with the provinces-indeed discussions have already begun with my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) - how it can usefully co-operate in these wider matters, as it already does in urban renewal.
We have the same problems and same requirements existing in less developed and less urbanized regions of our country, and here the same kind of public effort and private effort at all levels of government is needed to solve them. For instance, the regroupings of populations in Newfoundland, New Brunswick and in the prairie provinces, aided both by the ARDA programs and the provisions of the National Housing Act, are also in a sense exercises in urban development. Better housing and community facilities are essential steps for many Canadians, and are essential steps to be taken by Canadian governments.
These ideas, Mr. Speaker, are ones which I hope we will be able to put before the house before the end of this session. They are very much before our minds as a government now. If they are finally agreed upon in whole or in part they would involve extensions and improvements in the federal assistance role under the National Housing act, and we propose to bring amendments before the house during this session which would make that kind of improved assistance possible. But before we do this, since on the federal level we do not have information on all our regional and local needs I think it would be desirable for the government to explore this idea with the provinces as to how best we can work out co-operatively programs of this kind. I hope we will soon be in a position to invite the provinces to join us in practical discussion of these matters leading to a co-operative inquiry. This would perhaps be something new in our history, and this is the kind of constitutional development that can take place without any amendments to the constitution. It would be inviting the provinces and the federal government to conduct a joint inquiry, if you like, a federal-provincial royal commission, reporting back to both levels of government. This, I think, is something worthy of consideration.
The right hon. gentleman had a great deal to say about the constitution and how we should take advantage of centennial year to set up machinery for its revision and alteration and, indeed, the amendment he has moved
May 10, 1967
deals with that particular question. Canada has accomplished great things under its present constitution. In the last 100 years that constitution has shown itself adaptable to change in days when change, I admit, was much slower than it is now. We have had our constitutional difficulties ever since the very beginning of confederation, federal-provincial constitutional difficulties almost from the first year of confederation, but those we have had have not prevented the great achievements of our first 100' years.
This is especially creditable when one considers that we in Canada are trying to do something that no other country in the world is trying to do in the same circumstances-to develop and administer with relatively few people a confederation that is continentwide, a confederation in a country of vast distances, east and west, north and south, which at its founding included two basic languages and cultures, and in its development many others, to the great advantage of the country. We are doing this, moreover, under a federal structure of government which is far more difficult to operate than the unitary centralized government which Sir John A. Macdonald and many others wished for in 1867. Canada has shown by its own record of achievement that a federal system does not mean weakness at any level and that a country can develop under a federal system of government.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The accommodations and compromises we have had to make did not mean weakness or we could not have done what we did and would not be here today. This, however, has not been easy. Our size alone creates problems of government, not only physical ones. It produces differences of interest, of points of view. It often makes for regional emphasis, politically and economically, especially when things are going well. Moreover, language and cultural differences introduce politically complicating as well as nationally enriching elements in our society. They bring about differences in value, attitude and viewpoint. But we have always reconciled these differences under our present constitution. We have made federal democracy work even though democracy requires a maturity, restraint and discipline which is far more difficult to maintain in the jet age than in the horse and buggy days of 75 years ago.
Today the constitution remains the most important single element in our government.
The Address-Mr. Pearson In some ways, perhaps, it is the most important single element in our achievements. It is the source of the rights and jurisdiction of the provincial as well as the federal governments.
It is a protection for all the people, especially minorities. So an obvious and vital factor in our national growth is our constitution. An obvious and vital factor in any constitution is a method for changing it. In 100 years we have not yet found a way to do that, although we came very close to it a few years ago.
Changes can alter and upset the balance of rights and powers. Indeed, they are bound to do so if they are of any substance. There are two possible ways to bring about changes in our constitution. The first is by the process of gradual revision of what we have. In this process we start out with the British North America Act. The first stage in that process is to agree on how to change it. If we cannot agree on that, we are not likely to agree on any substantial changes.
If we can agree on that, the second stage is to use the amending formula in order to make the required changes. We have done this three or four times in the last four or five years through the amendments concerning the retirement of judges in 1960, the retirement of senators in 1965 and the old age pensions and supplementary benefits in 1964. Changes of this kind can be relatively minor-two of the three I have just mentioned are relatively minor-or very far reaching as one of them was. Indeed, change of this kind could end with a total revision if all governments concerned so agreed.
The essence of this approach is not that it results in a limited change, a whittling away, or imposes restraint on what can or should be done. The essence is that it starts with what we have. It never incurs the risk of total breakdown by total agreement at a total formal conference. It permits of orderly change without limitation. It adapts to change and adapts the constitution to change by modernizing and strengthening an existing structure. In addition, constant and progressive adaptation of our constitution to new needs has been made outside formal amendment to the British North America Act through federal-provincial agreements and conferences.
This, of course, is the way the present constitution was developed over the century. It was done not by formal action but by consultation. So those who think that Canada is frozen in an ironclad constitutional document do not, in my opinion, show much knowledge of what our constitution is or how it works.

May 10, 1967

The Address-Mr. Pearson The fact is that the Canadian constitution has shown a very high degree of flexibility and adaptability. This flexibility, however, does not mean that the British North America Act in itself is a document which cannot and should not be re-examined and changed when necessary. As my hon. friends know, some provinces already have commissioned and published studies on constitutional matters and the experience of these commissions in the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario should be studied very carefully by those who feel that what we should have now is a full dress constitutional conference.
The province of Quebec, for instance, for a few years now has had a committee of the legislature studying such matters. I understand that it is not finding it too easy to come to any agreed conclusion. The province of Ontario also has authorized constitutional studies by experts. They reported to the government a few weeks ago their varied views and conclusions concerning what should be done. The government of the province of Ontario also has suggested the convening of a conference on confederation goals, the nature of which at the moment is not very precise. As to the federal government, apart from our special role-and I believe in constitutional matters the federal government has a special role; it is not one government among 11: it is the federal government and has a special role in these matters-in the field of federal-provincial discussions, interdepartmental studies have been under way during the course of the last year. We have been preparing for these discussions and for parliamentary discussion by an interdepartmental committee which has been studying from the federal government point of view our constitutional problems and what in our view might be done to make our constitution more effective in terms of the problems of 1967.
To expedite these discussions the government has decided to set up in the Department of Justice a section especially concerned with constitutional matters. I believe I mentioned this point in the house. That section will be under the direction of a distinguished Canadian lawyer with extensive experience in federal-provincial matters. We will be able to rely not only upon excellent departmental resources for advice but will also be able to call upon outside help if we deem this to be advisable. I hope that this section will be in operation within a matter of days.
There is, however, another way to bring about constitutional change, that is, to devise

a totally new structure or bring about an early and wholesale revision of the present constitution at a great constitutional conference, a national estates general with representatives, as the right hon. gentleman put it, of all governments, all parties, all leading agencies in the country, labour, business, finance and universities, and bring them together in a great centennial conference.


John George Diefenbaker: That would not be an estates general.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The idea has a great attraction for many, but I think it also has great risks. It is comforting to hope that problems arising out of our present constitutional structure could be solved most quickly and effectively by starting over again completely and putting up an entirely new shiny glass and chrome structure on the old foundation. But if a constitution has succeeded for 100 years in providing free, successful, efficient government resulting in a productive, affluent competitive society, in my view it would be irresponsible to scrap it.
We believe that as a government it is our duty, and we will abide by this, to resist any constitutional leap in the dark which might be proposed on the spin: of the moment or because of the occasional and temporary dissatisfaction of a particular government with this or that particular situation-a conference, for instance, where a province might bring forward a proposal to give any or all provinces certain international rights and obligations. Having said that, however, I should add that I admit that the federal government has a special responsibility to discharge its obligation in the constitutional field by doing what it should do through parliament to bring our constitution, as I have already said, in line with the problems of the day. We will actively pursue our own studies as a basis for federal proposals, and I hope we will not be too long in completing those studies. They will be used as a basis for consultation with parliament and the provinces.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Some weeks ago I wrote to all the provincial premiers suggesting that we should have an informal meeting in Ottawa on July 5, after the swearing in before the Queen of all the premiers as members of the Canadian privy council. This in itself I think is a significant centennial ceremony.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
May 10, 1967


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would hope that such a meeting would provide us with an opportunity tor a free exchange of views on how we see the future of our country and our confederation. While I would not expect such a meeting to go into detailed discussions of constitutional matters-indeed, it would be impossible at any such meeting to do so-I would hope that we could see whether there are likely to be some matters on which there is fundamental agreement among all concerned and which could be made the subject of an early joint effort in the constitutional field.
I have an open mind on this matter but it would seem to me that one of the most important items in the constitutional field with which we could start federally and provincially would be the adoption by all Canadian governments, provincial as well as federal, of a bill of rights for all Canadians, enshrined not only in federal law as it now is but in provincial law. This would be the first statement by all governments in Canada of the basic foundations upon which they want the Canadian society to be established and to grow. It could be argued that such a bill should even precede specific constitutional reforms. Surely, before we can seriously hope to agree on structural changes, we should endeavour to agree, federally and provincially, on a statement of common values and on a declaration of our basic individual and collective rights as Canadians.
This is an area where several provinces and the federal government have made progress during the last few years, and it would seem to me that the centennial year of our confederation might be a good occasion for all the provinces and the federal government to get together and try to define a common statement guaranteeing the basic freedoms and rights of Canadians. I would hope that this could be based on the existing federal bill of rights, which will always be associated with the name of my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition.
I have just one or two other matters I should like to mention. I think all members of the house will agree that the government has been trying to advance the idea of more open government, if I may call it that, at the federal level, based on broader parliamentary discussion through committees. Of course we have set up more and more committees during the last few years and the more we set up the more difficult it makes it for hon. members to acquire that educational benefit which my right hon. friend suggested should be available to all members.
The Address-Mr. Pearson We have shown a willingness as a government to submit policy proposals to parliament for real and meaningful discussion and for revision when the government is convinced that revision is needed. We have taken this approach on a number of legislative proposals, notably the transportation and immigration measures.
We want to make parliament a more efficient place so far as decision making is concerned, and a committee for that purpose was set up during our first day of meeting. We also want to give parliament a chance to become a more effective forum for debating and influencing the decisions proposed by government.
Governments can more effectively discharge their responsibilities to the public if they can have more freedom to bring forward ideas and suggestions for discussion first and then be able to make necessary changes in the light of such discussion in parliament without being accused of weakness or retreat. At the same time the government must be able to stand firm on what it believes to be a right course without being accused of obstinacy or without debate being prolonged to inordinate lengths in order to force a change.
Today's media of communication have completely altered the possibility of democratic debate on public issues. My right hon. friend referred to this aspect very impressively a few moments ago when he was talking about broadcasting. In a sense the swiftness and comprehensiveness of our communications make it possible to conduct political debate on a nation-wide basis as it used to be conducted at the town meetings of our distant past. Issues can very quickly be made the focus of a nation-wide debate through today's communications media, but the issues are far more complicated than they used to be. The public can very rapidly be informed of the pros and cons and can make its weight felt on one side or the other almost overnight. This provides a new element of protection for the public interest in open and thorough airing of public issues, provided the public is honestly, objectively and adequately informed.
I believe this necessity of public exposure to issues must soon be given greater recognition in the procedures of parliament. I would like to join with the right hon. Leader of the Opposition in expressing the hope that during this session some experimentation in regard to televising our procedures might be attempted, beginning perhaps with committee
The Address-Mr. Pearson deliberations. In this way the people of Canada themselves could be brought more intimately into contact with the processes, the aspirations and the problems of their government institution. This might have quite an effect on the attitudes, the words and the manner of our debates, particularly if we knew they were going into the drawing rooms of the nation.
If I may be permitted a personal reminiscence, when I was sitting in the chair as president of the United Nations general assembly I was, as is my custom, doodling while a long speech was being made by a delegate. I do not know whether this would happen if we should have television cameras in this chamber but in those days the cameras could take close-ups from long range. While I was sitting there doodling I received a note from one of our delegates in the delegates' lounge who was watching the proceedings on television. His note read: "The television camera is on your hand; stick to those geometric patterns." We might have to be a little more careful if we have television in the house, and perhaps we should start in the committee on external affairs.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that the only place they doodle?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are no geometries there.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In this way the people of Canada might be given a more meaningful picture of our debates, and the Canadian people might then get a better idea of the problems and difficulties we face in trying to govern this vast country in these most complicated and fast changing times.
I should like to conclude by saying a word about one aspect of international affairs. There may be an opportunity during this debate for the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) to take part, during which time he would deal at greater length with these matters. My right hon. friend said that one of the subjects for an amendment might have been-I hope I am quoting him correctly-pusillanimous neutrality with regard to Viet Nam. The alternative to neutrality is involvement; we can leave the "pusillanimous" part out. Involvement means supporting one side or the other. I do not think it would improve our opportunities in working for peace if we took an active position as a government, with the responsibility of government, on one side or the other in the particularly difficult and dangerous situation

May 10, 1967
in Viet Nam, because it is a dangerous situation and is, I think, causing more anxiety today than it has at any time since I have been trying to follow it. I think the present situation is making it more difficult for diplomatic initiatives to succeed in the direction of negotiation and p^ace and, if I may say so, there is no person in the western world who has worked harder to bring about negotiations for peace than the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If that is our objective, and of course it is our objective to do what we can with the means at our disposal, I do not think that as a responsible government it would be wise or desirable or necessary for us to publicly condemn or publicly proclaim. I think it is better for us to play our part as a member of the international commission and of the international community and work in a quiet, not spectacular but as effective a way as possible, to help bring about an end of hostilities and to work also as a good friend and neighbour of the United States of America, which does not prevent our speaking out when there is an obvious and inescapable duty to do so, whatever may be our responsibility as a government. But I think there is imposed on us the obligation not to do that unless it is inescapable; otherwise I believe we would not be able to act in a way in which our suggestions would be listened to by the United States government when we put them forward through the channels of diplomacy.
My increasing anxiety in regard to Viet Nam, which I know is shared by a great many people, arises out of my reading of the situation which indicates that the possibility of early negotiation has receded, that a quick military victory is not possible nor a military solution.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The situation, then, in these circumstances becomes more dangerous internationally. I have no comment, of course, to make on the effect of a prolonged military struggle on the United States itself. If the fighting goes on, it seems to me likely that its scale will increase-I believe the word we have to use now is "escalate"-and the ultimate result of this is an increasing threat that fighting will not only increase but expand and

May 10. 1967	COMMONS
in any event it will mean the destruction of Vietnamese people wherever they are.
I think it would also mean, if my analysis is correct, the indefinite involvement of the United States of America in Viet Nam militarily and politically, with all that this implies. It might mean the indefinite continuation of the cold war so far as the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. are concerned at a time when this seems to be the only major obstacle in the way of an amelioration of the cold war. If that is the case, it is likely to postpone indefinitely any hope for an east-west detente which will include the United States of America and the U.S.S.R. In that event there will be increasing pressure brought to bear on Europe to make its own arrangements with eastern Europe, with the damaging effect on the Atlantic coalition and collective security that this would have. As my right hon. friend said in his address, and I am only paraphrasing, NATO and collective security are still essential for the protection of freedom in Europe and the Atlantic area.
So, Mr. Speaker, all these possible results do not cause me to be very optimistic and they do not give me any cause whatever for comfort. But all we can do as Canadians-and we have a special responsibility as the Canadian government-is everything we possibly can to bring our worries and anxieties to the notice of those who are more immediately and directly involved in the hope that our advice and counsel will be of some help to them. I am thinking particularly of Washington and the terrible problems they face there. I hope we will be able to discharge that duty and continue to discharge it in the way that I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs has been discharging it ever since he took on this portfolio.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
DEBATES	57
The Address-Mr. Pearson


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think I should end where I began with a reference to our centennial year, to all that it means to us in terms of unity and strength as Canadians and what it is doing for us. I acknowledge the eloquence of the right hon. gentleman in this regard. As he has so often pointed out, in this house we have our strong and strongly expressed differences of opinion, but at a time like this these are very minor things compared to our pride in our country and our desire, indeed our determination, to do what we can to serve that country. There is nothing I would like better than to be able to say this is a good amendment on the part of the right hon. gentleman and we will all support it. Perhaps that would be my centennial project.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot go as far as that because this amendment is a vote of no confidence in the government and was moved as such. I hope that in view of the record of what we have achieved in the last four years this house will feel that we should not be defeated on a vote of no confidence of this kind in the centennial year of confederation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, having consulted the other house leaders may I, on behalf of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), move the adjournment of the debate. My motion is seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. MacEachen the house adjourned at 5.41 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 11, 1967