1967-05-16

Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with government policy to provide the Indian people with the greatest opportunity to choose their own way of life, provision has now been made to extend housing assistance to Indians who wish to live away from reserve communities.
Effective today, employed Indian people can obtain assistance under the off-reserve housing program which will enable them to live closer to their work, to broaden their opportunities for continued employment and to live in the community of their choice. It will assist them to take advantage of the home ownership finance facilities which Canadians generally have available to them.
Under this program the Indian Affairs branch will provide a conditional grant up to a maximum of $6,000 for a house and $1,000 for furnishings. The amount available to each Indian will relate to his income and his ability to meet mortgage payments on the cost of the home over and above the conditional grant.
An arrangement has been made with my colleagues the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Minister of Labour responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, to assist in carrying out this program. The Department of Veterans Affairs will supervise the program. Their role will be to assist the Indian in his selection of a home suitable to his needs, and they will make certain that each home, either constructed or purchased conforms to the standards of the National Housing Act. Central mortgage and housing will be responsible for providing the mortgage funds required to cover the costs involved above the amount of the conditional grant.
The conditional grant will be secured by a second mortgage which will be forgiven if the applicant lives in the house for a ten year period. As hon. members know, Indians who live in reserve communities are now given
grants up to $7,000 for houses built on the reserves. It is one of the purposes of this program to ensure that there are not only no obstacles in the way of Indians who wish to live away from reserves, but that there are no financial disadvantages. It is the government's policy to encourage the Indian people to choose their own role in the Canadian community, just as every other Canadian does. This program will assist in meeting this objective.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
An initial amount of one million dollars has been provided by my department to initiate the program.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, this announcement has been anticipated with a great deal of interest, particularly by the members of the Indian communities across Canada and also by all the members of this house. I am sure I can say that, because in recent months and years there has been a growing interest in the welfare of those to whom we like to refer as our first Canadians. When the minister announced the housing program for Indians on reservations last year it was felt it would have a negative effect unless some provision was made to meet the even more critical housing demand among our Indian citizens, that is accommodation for the Indians moving off the reservations.
The policies which have been established in recent years for our Indian citizens, the improvements in educational opportunities, the job counselling service which has been set up within the framework of the old unemployment insurance commission and now the National Employment Service, and of course the extension of the vote to our Indian population, all have had the beneficial effect of encouraging Indians to move into the general economy of Canada.
I know that one of the recommendations which recently came out of the committee, whose members have been active in examining the growing problems' of our Indian citizens, was that provision be made along the lines which have been announced here this morning. It was my privilege a few weeks ago to attend the conference on Indian affairs in Winnipeg which is sponsored every year by
May 16. 1967

Assistance to Off-Reserve Indians the greater welfare council of Winnipeg. This year it was handled entirely by the Indians themselves, and housing was one of the main problems discussed during that conference.
We hope the benefits of the program will become available immediately. One of the difficulties in recent policy announcements on Indian affairs has been that the announcement has been followed by a gap in activity at the local level. Naturally the Indians are tremendously interested in this program. They will be making inquiries and applications and I trust the program has developed to such an extent that it will be possible to implement it now at the local level.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, ever since parliament approved by a special vote the principle of broadening the housing program for the Indian people the members of this party have been anxiously awaiting the announcement of the details which the minister has given us this morning. We certainly subscribe to the statement in the minister's announcement that the Indian people themselves should have the broadest possible freedom of choice as to the area in which they live and the role they wish to play within the general framework of our society. We welcome the special provisions that are made within this program to assist them, although we recognize that the value of this program, particularly for those Indians who are in the higher income levels, will be subject to the same limitations of high cost financing which apply to our general housing programs in this country. So, when we approve of this proposal it should not be construed that we fail to recognize the limitations which it has.
I feel the suggestion the minister made in his announcement to the effect that supervision of the program should be in the hands of the Department of Veterans Affairs is excellent. I believe most of us recognize that over a period of years in the administration of the special program for veterans housing a great deal of expertise has been acquired by the personnel of that department. The only query in my mind in this connection concerns the availability of field personnel in the Department of Veterans Affairs to advise the Indians. I hope the agreement the minister has reached with this department has adequately covered that point.
I believe most of us agree that the Indian people have been subjected to very severe hardships in trying to find any kind of decent housing in communities outside of their own 
reserves. They will welcome and take advantage of this program in increasing numbers. Certainly I know I have been receiving a good many inquiries as to how and when they were going to be able to approach this question. I hope the detailed administration of this program in the field will be advanced more rapidly than some of the other programs the Indian affairs branch has been attempting to initiate. We sometimes become aware of the limitations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take the liberty of interrupting the hon. member to remind him of the provisions of the relevant standing order which enjoins members commenting on ministerial statements to make brief comments. I know the term "brief" is relative. The hon. member may like to bring his remarks to a close rather soon.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, I was just on the point of terminating my remarks. I do not want to get into competition with the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) or any other member.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, just a few words, for I shall be very brief, to congratulate the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing) on having announced a housing program for the Indian reserves.
I believe the allotment of that amount, namely one million dollars, was anxiously awaited by the Indians and I trust those public funds will be spent in the direct implementation of the government's goal of handing over to the Indians the administration of their reserves, and not in such a way as to allow those now in authority on the reserves to go on exerting their influence. I think the hon. minister is aware of this and of the fact that Indian reserve councils as well as responsible Indians in my riding, are anxious to manage their own affairs without always having some white manager, or even five or six of them, to embroil matters.
I wish with all my heart that the program announced by the hon. minister to enable the Indians to administer their own affairs will be implemented as soon as possible and by so doing, I think that I am expressing the wish of the people mainly responsible for our Indian reserves. I am sure that once in possession of the necessary power to administer their reserves, they will find qualified people. In fact, I think that there are as many
May 16, 1967	COMMONS
qualified people among the Indians as anywhere else. It is simply a matter of finding them and especially letting them do their job, instead of expatriating them or forcing them out of their reserves so that only the middle class remains there. It is imperative to leave on the reserves Indians who are able to do things, in order to give them the opportunity to work for their fellow-citizens.
[DOT] (11:20 a.ra.)



DOMINION DAY


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-108, respecting the observance of Dominion day.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am once again placing this bill on the order paper to draw attention to the need for changes in our legislation to help ensure that Canada's national day can be observed in an appropriate manner throughout our country.

The object of this bill is to have our national day celebrated in an appropriate manner all over the country.

I should like to draw attention to the fact that the original version of this bill drew important non-partisan support in the last session. For example, a number of suggestions made by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) will be incorporated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. These remarks are not in order.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-109, to amend the Criminal Code (raffles and bingo for charitable purposes).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am again placing this bill on the order paper to draw attention to the continuing need to amend the Criminal Code so that service clubs and other nonprofit community service groups that wish to
DEBATES	241
Inquiries of the Ministry do so can raise funds in the manner referred to in the bill, in the amount and in manner sufficient for the charitable and religious objects of these groups.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-110, to amend the Food and Drugs Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, this bill is the same as the one I introduced in the last session but I forgot to include it in the draw. It provides that the Food and Drugs Act be amended to include fabrics, detergents, paints and dyes and to give the consumer the same protection for these products as the act does for food and drugs.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INTERPRETATION ACT


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: the first reading of Bill No. S-6 (from the Senate), to revise and consolidate the Interpretation Act and amendments thereto, and to effect certain consequential amendments to the Canada Evidence Act and the Bills of Exchange Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, as the cabinet
has shown marked division, amounting almost to discord, in its views regarding Viet Nam, and considering that the views expressed by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon) and the Registrar General (Mr. Turner) are dissimilar to the views expressed by the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), will the Prime Minister now arrange to set aside a day or two so the House of Commons may deal with this matter?

May 16, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as we are in the throne speech debate there is an opportunity to make statements on this matter. After the throne speech debate we hope to proceed to consideration of the estimates. The opposition parties, of course, will be consulted about the departments to be considered. If the Department of External Affairs is to be considered at an early date there will be ample opportunity then to discuss this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Prime Minister not answer the question? Will he not lend his prestige to having a resolution brought before the house so the question of Viet Nam may be discussed by parliament, not by some committee but by the House of Commons in session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if the estimates of the Department of External Affairs are before the House of Commons this matter can be discussed in the House of Commons. No resolution is required for that. I do not think any special procedure is required at the moment to bring about this discussion, considering there has been no change in government policy.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister on this occasion will not be able to say that he did not read the remarks of the President of the Privy Council and is therefore unable to comment thereon. Will the Prime Minister say whether he approves of the views expressed by the President of the Privy Council which are in contradiction to everything that has been placed before the house by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Lester Bowles Pearson: My right hon. friend is confusing views and policies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I repeat to my right hon. friend that there is no change in government policy as laid down by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on April 11 and by myself in a letter dated February 21, which was made public on May 10. I also referred to the question in the house the other day.


John George Diefenbaker: A further supplementary question. Is the Prime Minister now suggesting that there is no such thing as cabinet solidarity? Are we witnessing, as a result of these statements, the absurd and ramshackle idea of cabinet solidarity practised by this government?


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Considering the trenchant and clear statement made by the President of the Privy Council to the sixth arts of management conference at Toronto on Saturday, May 13, may we assume that what he said was government policy with respect to Viet Nam? Has that been endorsed by the cabinet as the policy which is to obtain for the Canadian government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot prevent the hon. gentleman from making any assumptions he cares to make. I have already said this morning that government policy on this matter is that which has been laid down by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and that has not changed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then may I ask the Prime Minister whether the policy of cabinet solidarity has changed?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The principles and obligations of cabinet solidarity are well understood.


John George Diefenbaker: But not followed by this government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: In the light of the questions which have already been asked with regard to cabinet solidarity, and bearing in mind the speeches made by the Registrar General and the President of the Privy Council on the Viet Nam situation, I should like specifically to ask the Prime Minister whether he supports the theory that responsible parliamentary government demands cabinet solidarity on major parliamentary issues.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question is much too general in nature to be asked now.


William Heward Grafftey: The question is general in nature but I related it to the specific instance which is exercising the minds of Canadians right now. Does the government feel that cabinet solidarity is called for with regard to the subject of Viet Nam policy?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope that in due course the hon. member will learn from experience what cabinet solidarity means.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
May 16, 1967


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: To put
the question much more succinctly, can the Prime Minister tell us what is going to happen to the President of the Privy Council?


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: My question is for the Prime Minister. Press reports of the right hon. gentleman's conversations with President Novotny of Czechoslovakia indicate a surprising extent of agreement, particularly on Viet Nam. Could the Prime Minister tell the house whether the statement in this morning's Globe and Mail, which in effect places the onus for dissolving the conflict on the "actions of the United States", was part of that agreement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. The agreement which was reached between the president of Czechoslovakia and myself on this matter was that the war should be brought to an end as quickly as possible, and that to that end the bombing should end as soon as possible.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: My question relates to the sessions conducted in the last few days by the Canada-United States interparliamentary group over which you, Mr. Speaker, presided, and I should like to direct it to the Prime Minister.
In view of the very misleading statement which appeared in an Ottawa newspaper on Saturday that pressure was applied by the Canadian delegates on their United States counterparts in regard to certain topics under discussion in the defence and security committee, and in view of the fact that extremely important and enlightening information was freely conveyed to us concerning United States views on the most recent developments in Viet Nam, would the Prime Minister consider giving the Canadian people through a news release a correct report of the true nature of these valuable discussions?
Would he also inform the Canadian public that the majority of the members of the committee, while deeply deploring the conflict, emerged from the meetings assured and convinced-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. McIntosh: -that the United States government is doing everything in its power-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member will admit that this is a statement rather than a question.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister and relates to another matter than that just dealt with.
The Prime Minister invited provincial premiers to attend a Canadian constitutional conference to take place early next July. Now, as the premier of the province of Quebec has stated that that sort of conference would take place between two cognacs, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has begun to increase his supply of cognac for that occasion.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with the recently concluded international wheat agreement. Has any provision been made in that agreement for a minimum amount which the consuming or importing countries have agreed to take? If so, what is that amount?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: No, sir, there are no minimum amounts provided for in the agreement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question with reference to the cereal grain agreement and the GATT negotiations. What are the arrangements for the contribution of this 4.5 million tons of wheat for needy countries? The minister said Canada will contribute half a million tons. Will we be paid for that amount, and then make a financial contribution to whatever fund is set up?


Robert Henry Winters: No, sir. It is my understanding that the contribution will be made in kind, in wheat, flour or some equivalent foodstuff.

May 16, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River): In
view of the minister's statement last night -some of us have had time to read it now -I wonder whether he could clarify this point. In view of the fact that the European common market is a protected market for the member countries, does the international wheat agreement entered into in Geneva between certain exporting and importing countries guarantee a price that Canada will get from Great Britain in reference to exports of wheat to that country?


Robert Henry Winters: I am not sure I understood that question.


Mr. Woolliams:: I will put it this way. Does the agreement in question, if it is in question, guarantee a price for wheat exported to Great Britain from Canada after Great Britain joins the European common market?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the hon. gentleman tell us whether a decision has yet been reached on the unanimous recommendation of the justice and legal affairs committee calling for mandatory breath tests for drinking drivers?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: The Department of Justice has examined the report of the committee and has reached certain conclusions which will be incorporated in amendments to the Criminal Code. The introduction of these amendments is, of course, a matter which involves the parliamentary timetable and I cannot answer that part of the question.



REQUEST FOR DETAILED STATEMENT ON NEW GATT AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce following those which have already been addressed to him on the subject of wheat. In view of the interest felt in all parts of the country in the minister's statement yesterday, and the attempts to explain it which appeared in the press today, would the hon. gentleman consider giving us more information about the agreement, particularly as to its likely effect on consumers in Canada

both in the short term and in the long term? I am thinking now of the effect on such basic products as newsprint, aluminum and so on. Would the minister consider making a statement on motions?


Robert Henry Winters: I will be glad to do that as soon as I can, but it will not be possible to make such a statement for some time. This was an agreement reached among the major trading nations. It must be considered by all the nations participating in GATT, and it will probably take until the end of June for them to work out all the details and announce them. But as soon as it can be done I will be glad to comply with the hon. gentleman's request.


John George Diefenbaker: Can the minister indicate what is the average reduction in tariffs to which Canada is committed in connection with manufactured articles entering this country from the United States? He does not need any information of the kind he has just mentioned in order to answer that question. With our tariffs so much lower than United States tariffs, if the cut goes too far the result cannot be beneficial to Canada. Would the minister say what will be, and I repeat "what will be", the average reduction on manufactured goods coming from the United States into Canada if the present negotiations as concluded are carried out?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, the level of tariffs is a matter for the Minister of Finance, and I would be glad if the question could be redirected to him.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy for assistance from the Minister of Finance.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it has been announced a number of times in this house, both prior to and during the negotiations, that Canada would not agree to negotiate on the basis of across the board tariff cuts, and it would be quite impossible and quite meaningless to give any percentage figure.


John George Diefenbaker: You simply don't know; that is all.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question either to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or to the Minister of Finance. How soon will the government be in a position to issue a paper showing in detail what the
May 16, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	245
various tariff changes will be, and thus put the house in a position to debate or discuss this matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to answer the part of the question that relates to the Canadian tariff which, of course, comes under the Department of Finance. It would be my intention to bring in resolutions to implement the reductions in tariffs that have been negotiated but it would be impossible to do this, as my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said, for some time. I might say to the house now that for this reason I think it might be useful if in the debate on the budget the resolutions themselves were not entirely disposed of until I could bring in resolutions dealing with the tariff cuts.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Can the minister indicate how soon a paper can be issued showing what these changes will be, thus putting the house in the position of being able to come to some conclusion in regard to what their effects will be on the economic life of the country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said, I do not think this will be possible before the end of June.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: May I ask a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance has said these negotiations will take some time. When he says "some time" are we to assume it will take as long as it has taken the Secretary of State for External Affairs to negotiate the boundary lines for the 12 mile limit?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the recent statement by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration that training will continue to be accorded to the retarded under the Vocational and Technical Training Act, and in view of the fact that the House of Commons at the end of last session repealed this act, making it impossible to carry out the minister of manpower's wishes, will the Minister of National Health and Welfare give consideration to the setting up of so-called
Inquiries of the Ministry sheltered workshops in all parts of the country for training the mentally retarded in physical skills essential to their self sufficiency?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is possible under the terms of the Canada Assistance Plan for the federal and provincial governments to co-operate in the development of work activity projects which could be applied to the mentally retarded in an effort to bring them into the active labour market. I am sure this is possible under the terms of the Canada Assistance Act. My hon. friend may be interested in knowing that recently the government took a decision to provide $2J million over a period of time to develop needed research and demonstration projects into the whole complex field of mental retardation.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: As a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, would the minister mind informing the house whether there have been any consultations with the provinces on this subject, or any agreements to date?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, a number of agreements have been concluded between the provinces and this government giving effect to the Canada Assistance Plan. I would be happy to investigate whether any work activity projects under the plan have been put into motion in any of the provinces.



EXPO '67 PROVISION FOR ATTENDANCE OF PEOPLE ON LOW INCOMES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-
Grace): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Since many needy Canadians, especially welfare recipients and pensioners, find it difficult to visit Expo '67, would the government consider making arrangements to provide these people with special admission passes, at least on certain days of the week or during certain months of the year?
Robert Henry Winters: As the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, Expo is a corporation run under a tripartite agreement participated in by three levels of government. However, I shall be glad to take the question as notice.

May 16, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinihe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence, I will address it to his parliamentary secretary.
In view of the massive importation of eggs into the province of Quebec, which penalizes intolerably our own producers, would the parliamentary secretary tell us what steps the minister will take to remedy this situation which is detrimental to our farmers?


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy to bring this question to the attention of the minister. I am sure the hon. member will agree that any announcement with regard to the policy of the government should be made by the minister later.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
["You are a little afraid of the results, aren't you?"]
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council, who has had a very easy morning. In view of his espousal of the right of free speech in matters of conscience, will he now recommend the reinstatement of Mr. John Kroeker, whom he as minister of finance had fired for the same reason?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Augusfe Choquetie (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Will the government carefully study the idea of the abolition of the royal power of dissolution put forward by that anti-crown minded member for Carleton (Mr. Bell)?


Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I rule the question out of order. I understand the hon. member for Carleton is rising on a question of privilege.


Richard Albert Bell: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Twice the hon. member has made this statement, once yesterday in my absence. I did not

raise a question of privilege earlier because I did not wish to advertise this stupid remark. There is no truth whatsoever in it.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would direct this question to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the statements made by Mr. Gerald Clark, associate editor of the Montreal Star, and corroborated by Mr. Tim Ralfe of the C.B.C. Now that the Montreal Star has editorially stated that Mr. Clark's statements are true, that Canadians on the international control commission are passing, in their official capacity as members of the commission-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: -information to the
United States intelligence-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the right hon. gentleman asking a question directly?


John George Diefenbaker: Now that this has been reported and confirmed, will the Prime Minister arrange to give an opportunity to these two people to establish what they say they can, namely that the government misled the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the confirmation by an editorial in a newspaper of its reporter's statements does not necessarily mean a confirmation of the facts. I have stated in the house that there was no spying or clandestine activity by the Canadian members of the commission, and I stand by that statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Prime Minister not give these men the opportunity to establish what they know? Surely he is not going to deny them that, having said it was not correct and was not true?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. While he has said there has been no spying, the statement to the effect that documents, tape recordings and photographs were transmitted to the United States authorities by military personnel attached to the Canadian delegation on the I.C.C. has not been denied. May I now ask
May 16, 1967

the Prime Minister is he prepared, having made full investigation, to deny that statement which was made by both Mr. Clark and Mr. Ralfe?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already dealt with that point in an answer to a question when I said, among other things, that the Canadian members of the commission reported only to the Canadian commissioner and the Canadian commissioner to the Canadian government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, the Prime Minister also said at the time this matter arose that he would be quite prepared to have the two gentlemen in question appear before the external affairs committee. I asked him the other day would he be prepared to introduce a motion referring this matter to the external affairs committee, and the Prime Minister offered to take that as notice and look into it. Is he now in a position to say the government is prepared to initiate discussion and investigation of the matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think the external affairs committee is in a position to express its own interest in this matter if it so desires. However, my hon. friend knows it is not usually a very productive process to inquire of newspaper men the sources of their information.


John George Diefenbaker: You are a little afraid of the results, aren't you?



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. J. Orange (Norhwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and I join with other hon. members in welcoming the minister's announcement today about the off-reserve Indian housing program which will have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows the rules do not permit him to comment on ministerial statements. He should ask his question.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Try the
caucus tomorrow.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Will the minister indicate whether the off-reserve housing program announced today will also apply to the Eskimo people who move from their traditional settlements into areas where economic opportunities are available?
Inquiries o/ the Ministry


Arthur Laing: Not at
the present time, Mr. Speaker, because we have a separate Indian-Eskimo housing program which is exceedingly generous but which is not designed to bring Eskimos to southern Canada.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: I have a supplementary question. Is the minister now considering the establishment of a program similar to that announced today for the Metis population of Canada?


Arthur Laing: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that within the last few years a number of Indian people have become integrated in the industrial employment areas and enfranchised, will they qualify for the benefits under the housing program announced by the minister?


Arthur Laing: If they are currently on reserves, yes.


Robert Simpson: I have a further supplementary question. In view of the fact that a number of Indian people have become integrated in the industrial employment areas in the last few years and are residing in areas where Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will not grant housing loans unless they are guaranteed by the industry, will the minister assure the house that any Indian who qualifies for the $6,000 grant will also qualify for a C.M.H.C. loan in order that he may complete his house?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I think my statement clearly indicated the purpose we have in mind in respect of providing housing for Indians who elect to leave the reserves and move into settlements. I expect if this is carried out in the spirit in which I made the announcement my hon. friend will be satisfied.



PROVISION OF EXPERT ASSISTANCE FOR MEMBERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Souiham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Has that right hon. gentleman received representations from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture under date of May 10 to the effect that in view of the growing burden of responsibility on members of parliament, expert and specialized

May 16, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry personnel should be made available to members of our Commons, similar to the assistance provided members of the United States House of Representatives and Senate; and will the Prime Minister give serious consideration to implementing such a proposal?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest this question be placed on the order paper.



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the very strong speech he made yesterday in Montreal urging the importance of aid to developing countries, will the government consider inaugurating a crash program so that Canada this year might achieve the goal the government has set for 1970?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have already increased our program very considerably, and it will be further increased next year. We expect and hope that by 1970 we will reach the figure of 1 per cent of our national income, in which case we will be the only major economic and industrial country in our position to have reached that figure. I think we are doing very well, and I doubt that any crash program is required.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister feel that a figure of 1 per cent will match the spirit of the speech he made yesterday in Montreal?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Defence. Is he aware of the numerous complaints against the military manoeuvres being carried out at Bagotville during which the flyers break the sound barrier and cause real damage, in the country as well as in the cities?


Mr. Speaker:: This question should be put on the order paper.
[Mr. Southam.l



FOREIGN TRADE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	.
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and concerns the overall agreement achieved yesterday in the Kennedy round of negotiations. Is the minister in a position to tell the house whether an agreement has been laid down as regards the exports of textile products to Canada and whether our country should expect an increase in the imports of such products?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, that question can be answered when a broader statement is made in respect of the context of the agreement reached. I hope that can be done as early as possible, but certainly not within the next few days.


Maurice Allard: A supplementary to my first question, Mr. Speaker.
When the hon. minister makes his statement soon, as he just told the house, will he be able to tell the house whether there will remain, in this overall GATT agreement, the rule that enabled a country to protest whenever it was submerged or too heavily affected by foreign importations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is not in order.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: My question is directed to the hon. Minister of Transport. Has he anything new to tell this house as regards the building of an air terminal in Yal d'Or, which has been referred to in this house for at least three years? Has the minister arrived at a decision concerning this matter?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is moving a great deal faster than it has in previous years.
May 16, 1967



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. O. Bower (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact that storms and the prolonged unseasonably cold weather have restricted the lobster catch to much below normal proportions in district 4, Nova Scotia, with only 15 days left in the season, will the minister give an assurance that the season in this district will be extended by at least 15 days in order to give the lobster fishermen there a chance to reap something at least approximating the normal harvest which will help several thousand people to avoid winding up in debt as a result of this activity on which they depend fundamentally for their annual income?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot at this time give an assurance that the lobster season will be extended in district 4. As I said earlier in this house, an assessment of the catch will be made toward the end of the regular season, and if it is judged advisable to extend the season it will be extended at that time.


John Oates Bower: I have a supplementary question. Will the minister make up his mind earlier than just before the end of the season, because by then the people will have abandoned their efforts in this line of activity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Pritlie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I think I should direct my question to the Minister of Public Works, and in his absence 1 will place it on record. Has an order been issued that the Library of Parliament be closed and blacked out every night from now until October while the son et lu-miere spectacle is taking place?



INQUIRY AS TO INCREASE IN INITIAL PAYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Roslhern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade
Inquiries of the Ministry and Commerce. Now that the price under the international wheat agreement has been raised is the minister in a position to indicate an increase in the initial payment for wheat to producers in western Canada?


Robert Henry Winters: Not at the moment, Mr. Speaker.


Edward Nasserden: I have a supplementary question. When can we expect an announcement in this regard?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, this is a policy decision which can only be announced after it is made, and no decision has been made as yet.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the question I placed before the Minister of Trade and Commerce regarding an early decision on an increase in the initial payment for wheat-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INQUIRY AS TO SHIPMENTS THROUGH PORT OF CHURCHILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister now in a position to say what may be the expected tonnages of grain shipments through the port of Churchill this year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking for statistical information which cannot be given at this time.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister of health and welfare regarding the statement by Dr. Ralph A. Connor, chief of the dental division of the Department of National Health and Welfare, who said:
If a provincial government wanted to sponsor a comprehensive dental insurance scheme and it could exert sufficient pressure on the federal government, there is no legislative barrier blocking it.
I should like to ask the minister whether this means that the federal government now is prepared to accede to the request of any provincial government for either a dental insurance program or for an optometric care insurance program.

May 16, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker; that conclusion would not be warranted from the statement read.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: May I ask a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is there not a provision in the medicare legislation to the effect that if a province wishes to include services other than those specified in the act the federal government under that act has the authority to make the additional provision?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker; the act provides that the governor in council, under conditions laid down by the governor in council, can act in concert with any province to add further services. That is the authority in the bill. The policy of the government at the present time is not to add further services except to recommend to the governor in council, as indicated during the debate, that certain surgical procedures would be shareable at the option of the provinces.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether any province has requested an extension of the health insurance field to cover services other than the medical and surgical services?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in the strict sense I think the answer is yes; certain provinces have requested the extension of particular services. The matter was discussed fully at the conference of ministers of health held earlier this year. There certainly was no consensus for the extension of any particular services among the provinces. Certain provinces, I believe, would like to have certain services extended at this time. Others were non-committal and others were opposed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether the act requires a consensus before any of these services are added, or whether they can be added province by province.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question obviously is argumentative.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question

to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as government house leader. In view of the several references made this morning to matters which might be dealt with by committees, for example the external affairs question, can we be assured that the committee to strike the standing committees will make its report in a few days so the standing committees may be established?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is my expectation that the motion to set up the standing committees will be proposed immediately after the adoption of the address.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, May 15, 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.
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, in making a few comments on the speech from the throne I should like to refer directly to the document itself and to some of the plus factors, you might say, and many of the minus factors which are evident in the speech.
On hearing the speech from the throne I believe the first thing which came to one's mind was the fact that this government is unsure of itself. We find in the speech that the government wishes to have a great deal of room to manoeuvre. Then sadly we notice that the only conclusion to which we can come is that the government's priorities are not necessarily the nation's priorities. At page 2 of Hansard we find this in the throne speech:
It is also conscious-
That is the government.
-that the advantages and disadvantages of the present constitutional structure are deeply intertwined.
Then it goes on:
Studies to obtain the best advice on this important matter are now under way with a view to subsequent consideration of the whole problem by parliament.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is an accepted fact that the reform of Canada's constitution is something that demands immediate and open discussion. It is now nearly three years since
May 16, 1967

the party I represent proposed a national conference on confederation. In those three years numerous studies have been made, numerous books have been written and numerous speeches have been made. Surely no one will deny that this subject is one which requires a thoughtful, reasoned and even cautious approach. But neither can it be denied that there never has been a time more opportune or a moment more significant than this centennial year to bring into the open the question of reform of the constitution of our country.
It is all very well to say that the study is going on. But why has this study taken place in darkened rooms with the doors closed and shutters drawn, with not even a flicker of a candle flame to cast a little light on the goings on? Why can it not be brought into the open in an open forum of discussion and opinion? Are we not a country which is mature enough to sit down and reason what our course must be?
I do not think there is any doubt that we are such a country. No one asks that this discussion be concluded overnight. We ask only that the people who love this country be given the opportunity, whether they be scholars or anything else, to express the spirit of their nationhood on the 100th anniversary of this country. After all, a constitution is more than a set of laws; it is the embodiment of a nation's conscience.
I do not suggest for a moment that the government should cease the studies it has undertaken. Rather I suggest that men with piles of books in these darkened rooms cannot capture this conscience for our nation. Let us cast aside every partisan consideration on the part of this government and convene this great constitutional conference. We cannot harm ourselves, and surely we can aid our progress through this second century. Let us have debate and discussion from one coast to the other coast. Let us instil in our people a sense of pride, and future pride, in their country, a pride proceeding from their full participation in deciding the destiny of our country. I think we should write an exciting prologue to parliament's consideration of our constitution. Let us do it now, to have in our remembrance of the centennial year this vital contribution to our future.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
Farther along on page 2 of Hansard of May 8, the speech from the throne goes on to read:
Today the main struggle is against social injustice, against cultural mediocrity, against spiritual stagnation and against all forms of intolerance.
The Address-Mr. Brand
These are fine words indeed. Let us take social injustice first. Where in this document is there an indication of one piece of legislation to ease social injustice? Where is the promised war on poverty? Where is there concern about the disabled and the sick? Where is there concern about mental illness, the greatest single cause of illness in our country? Yet the division of mental health in the Department of National Health and Welfare has been repositioned to a lower level. Apparently it is not considered important enough to be given the type of attention that it should be given. Does the government think its job is done in this field, or does it think that the setting up of another bank or network of computers will solve it? Does the government care? I am sure the people wonder if it does.
The throne speech mentions cultural mediocrity. Who are the government accusing of cultural mediocrity? Is it Expo '67 perhaps, or our musicians, our writers, our artists and our poets? Is it accusing Maureen Forrester, Leopold Simoneau, Glenn Gould or Wilfrid Pelletier? Does it accuse Donald Lautrec, Gordon Lightfoot, Harold Town, Hugh Mac-Lennan, the Royal Winnipeg Ballet or Les Feux Folets? Are those the people and the groups whom the government is accusing of cultural mediocrity? Someone says it did not accuse anyone. Perhaps this is a self accusation, because I think in Canada we have a very proud culture. I am quite sure that the people who are best known in this country are not the members of the government opposite but people like L. M. Montgomery, who wrote Anne of Green Gables in Prince Edward Island and Pauline Johnson in British Columbia. These names are well known in Canada, but how many know the Prime Minister? We know about the Group of Seven and W. O. Mitchell, but how many know the members of the government? I think it is indeed a strange thing to accuse anyone in this country of cultural mediocrity. This government seems to be blind to the enthusiasm, the excitement and the energy we have in our country.
The speech from the throne speaks about all forms of intolerance. I cannot agree more that we must fight against all forms of intolerance, but for whom is the government fighting? Is it fighting for our Indians and Eskimos? Perhaps the government have not yet seen the Indian pavilion at Expo. If they did they would see how the Indians speak with great eloquence in this pavilion. What indeed has the government done for these
May 16, 1967

The Address-Mr. Brand native peoples? We hear promises and platitudes; today we are told we will build a few more homes for the Indians off the reserves and this at a time when the Indians themselves are pointing out that not sufficient is being done on the reserves. It appears that this government is blind to the needs of the people of Canada.
Then there is mention of spiritual stagnation. The speech from the throne has certainly covered the field. Who is the government accusing of spiritual stagnation? Is it accusing itself again? Is it accusing the men and women of this country who seek a new kind of Christianity? Is it accusing people such as the author of The Comfortable Pew and the people who have been debating it ever since? Is it accusing those who are responsible for the Christian pavilion at Expo? Is the government accusing our late revered Governor General Vanier of spiritual stagnation, or perhaps Cardinal Leger? Does the government know whereof it speaks? Surely it is the government which increases bureaucracy that can be accused of mediocrity and stagnation. Let us not accuse the people of Canada just because the government has no faith in them. The people all across this nation are waking up. They are not going to stand much longer for this type of nonsense.
On page 2 of the throne speech we find the following statement:
The government will also take special measures in particular designated areas where human resources are not adequately utilized.
How long have we waited for this? How long has the government diddled and dawdled around letting the blind lead the blind before action is taken? The government goes on to say that it will take further measures for the retraining of adults, yet it seems to me that a few weeks ago in this house they were hurrying a bill through which had to do with the occupational retraining of adults. What was the matter with that bill? Did the government forget something? Is it adding something to it even before the legislation has had an opportunity to be carried out properly? This government is very strange; one end does not seem to know what the other end is doing. In the last few days we have had ample evidence of this strange polarity in the cabinet.
The throne speech refers to the involvement of the government in many matters; and so it should, because this government more than any other has continued the process of involvement and control. It takes money away and then gives it back with strings attached. Last year alone 11,000 new


civil servants were hired by the government, making a total of nearly 250,000 in the public and related services. A short while ago I read somewhere that under this present administration bureaucracy has increased by almost a third. When this government is unable to act and unable to take initiative it puts another group on the top and pays its salaries. It answers problems with more bureaucracy.
I am sure the hearts of the members of this house go out to the people of Canada who, petted, pampered and paid for from cradle to grave, are being protected from evil, shielded from thought, muzzled from expression by this government which admits in the speech from the throne that it is becoming increasingly involved.
No one wishes that there be people without food and shelter, without medical assistance or without the opportunity for advancement. In its half hearted attempt to protect the people of this nation the government has ordained that its task must be to stamp out spiritual stagnation and cultural mediocrity. It says to the people that it will take care of them, that it will raise their culture and spirit with bureaucracy and increased taxes. What a way to raise one's spirit. Thank God I have more faith in the people of this country than has this government. I am sure members on this side of the house would never be caught losing faith in the people who sent them here.
Undoubtedly there are some areas in this speech which are open to approbation. Even in a hash of analogies there is bound to be some truth. However, I will not go into them today. Many apologists from the other side will have already done this. I am sure their words are accurate in this regard, but I would rather spend a few minutes on what is lacking in the throne speech.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
Somewhere in this throne speech, Mr. Speaker, amidst all these platitudes and hyperbolic overtures there is a program. Most of it is old, weather beaten and a little cracked here and there. Some of it reflects the fact that the government cannot make up its mind whether or not to be Canadian. Part of this program, if it were only more specific, could help the country, although the government appears to want to help this country for the wrong reasons. However, as I pointed out before, the priorities are reversed. There are problems and questions facing this country that require solution. Some of these the government says it will face, but some are not even mentioned.
May 16, 1967

Where, for example, is legislation for the control of air pollution? Where is there any mention of action on the recommendations of the committee on drug costs and prices? We spent a long time in that committee, had many meetings and made many recommendations in a lengthy and reasoned report. Where in the speech from the throne is there any mention of an attempt by this government to do something about the cost of drugs in this country? I have the report here, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to refer to page 51:
Your committee has therefore come to the following conclusions:
1.	That the price of drugs in Canada is at least higher than it need be:
2.	That no significant change has taken place in the drug cost structure since the recommendations of the Hall commission which were primarily based on the recommendations of the restrictive trade practices commission;
I will skip a few recommendations, and then I find this:
7.	That the Implementation of the recommendations could alter in some respects the form of the drug industry as it exists today, removing inefficiencies in the industry and increasing competition;
8.	That in anticipation of national and provincial welfare programs or the further development of other forms of health services, it is of paramount importance that legislation be introduced at the earliest practical date to implement the recommendations of this committee.
I will repeat that:
-it is of paramount importance that legislation be introduced at the earliest practical date to implement the recommendations of this committee.
I could say a great deal about this problem. I have marked certain portions of the summary of recommendations contained in this report. Action could be taken by this government this session to lower the cost of drugs to the consumer. What has the government done? It has not even appointed a minister, though that is usually what they do, appoint another minister. I shall read recommendation No. 2:
That the personnel and facilities of the food and drug directorate be expanded to make possible the implementation of the recommendations of the Boyd committee, the Hilliard committee and this committee.
I shall not read all the recommendations, but I should like to refer hon. members to recommendations Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 17, 18, 20 and 21. All these recommendations clearly show what this government could do to bring forward legislation to amend various acts and introduce other measures to help the food and drug directorate bring down the cost of drugs 27053-17
The Address-Mr. Brand to the consumer. I should like to read recommendation No. 13:
That the federal sales tax be removed from the sale of prescription drugs.
I remind hon. members that instead of removing the tax this government has raised it from 11 per cent to 12 per cent. Instead of helping the people who need help, the old folk with large drug bills, what have they done? They have added another 1 per cent to the tax, which in reality amounts to about a 9 per cent increase in the tax itself. This is what this government has done to help the people of Canada. It is no wonder we feel that government has its priorities backward.
Where is legislation to protect our dairy farmers from bankruptcy? Where is legislation to guard against inflation and stop the spiralling cost of living? Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, there are two things that are bothering the people of Canada today. The first is the increase in taxation and the second is the ever increasing cost of living. These are the two problems which are becoming an increasing burden to every Canadian. If something is not done about them soon I would not be the least bit surprised to see more than the farmers marching on parliament hill. I think it is about time some of the people who are going to visit Expo stopped at this place on their way to express some of their views on taxation and the cost of living.
There are many other matters with which I should like to deal, but time is of the essence in this debate. I should have liked to discuss parliamentary rules and procedures. Perhaps at some other time I can do so. I should have liked to go into this question in detail because it seems to me this government, although it is suggesting changes, once again has its priorities backward. I believe the government is suggesting changes in the wrong way. I just say that I do not agree with the priorities suggested.
It is not merely an allocation of time, not merely the shortening of debate or the rushing through of legislation that we need. What we need is an expanded opportunity to study legislation, to understand the implications of the legislation brought before the house. I believe we require a further change in the committee system, perhaps allowing the committees more freedom to frame legislation. Members should be given assistance beyond that rendered by the parliamentary library, the type of assistance which is so necessary to make a member a good parliamentarian. I must say I was very pleased to hear the

May 16, 1967
The Address-Mr. Brand Canadian Federation of Agriculture suggest today that research assistance be provided for members.
I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, that no legislation had been announced to protect our dairy farmers from bankruptcy. In this connection I should like to refer to two articles in Farm and Country, the first of which is dated March 28, 1967 and headed "Ontario Industrial Farmers Must Have $5 Milk". This article is by Charles Munro, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Let me just read one paragraph:
The demand for $5 per hundredweight for milk used for industrial purposes is neither frivolous, greedy or unreasonable. As a recent resolution of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture says, even this price is still short of economic equality for producers.
This should not surprise anybody.
The second article which appeared in the same paper is dated April 11, 1967 and was written by the same gentleman:
Government policy is supposed to help the people, not drive them up the financial wall.
This is a thoroughly bad, thoroughly unacceptable policy. Mr. Greene was able-
I presume the writer is referring to our disabled minister or whatever he should be called:
Mr. Greene was able last summer to divert the wrath of dairy farmers toward Queen's Park and Quebec city, thanks to the unsophistication of those heading the protest movement. If he hopes this year to continue avoiding criticism by putting up another false front in the form of the Canadian Dairy Commission he is wrong. Farmers now have a little less Greene in their eyes than they did.
This seems to say a mouthful, as we used to say out west. I am not going to go into all the reasons this dairy policy is not acceptable. I believe the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State put the case very well yesterday, and I refer to what he said at page 230 of Hansard. This is one statement which I believe is rather good, if I can find it:
I would agree that such an argument might be true, but for an area such as Bonaventure and other less advanced areas where the number of dairy producers is less than a thousand with about 40 per cent having to look elsewhere for a supplementary income, those claims are fair and legitimate.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
That is a member of the government, a parliamentary secretary, speaking. I could not agree more. In view of this, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Moore):
This house regrets that Her Majesty's advisers have failed to submit a program to give the dairy

farmers of Canada a guaranteed return on their product of $5.10 per hundredweight for all manufacturing milk.
With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I wish in closing to say a few things about the speech from the throne. This speech makes pretty statements about confederation, but it ignores the meat of the matter. It ignores the fact of this nation and the strength of the nation. The strength of this or any other nation is in the strength of the individual and the collective strength of its peoples. Aside from these pretty statements, this government would have us even in this special year ignore the people. It would have us ignore their strength. It would even have us ignore their patriotism.
This is the government, Mr. Speaker, that takes away from our nation the heritage of our first one hundred years. This is the government that sneers at royalty, that would denigrate the fact that we are a constitutional monarchy, an example of the most stable form of government the world has ever seen. It is the same government that gives its people not leadership, not spirit or enthusiasm or even faith, but gives them commissions, studies, white papers, officials and ministers.
As we begin our second century as a nation, Mr. Speaker, let us recognize the needs of this great country. Let us recognize that there are two languages and two cultures. Let us allow our people to know one another, to understand one another. Let us give to our people no matter what language they speak the leadership they need in the cause of this unique country. In this centennial year let us rededicate ourselves as Canadians and as members of parliament to the principle that we are, above all, the representatives of the people who sent us here. Let us join with members of all parties to make this house more effective, with new rules, with television, if you want, with whatever is necessary. And let us never forget that this is the forum of the people; to use an old phrase, it is the wellspring of democracy.
We must protect and guide the interests of those we represent. We must encourage those who report our doings to them to be as objective and as factual as possible. But above all, Mr. Speaker, we must remember that if we are to have a new, proud Canada we must work to the limit of our abilities as individuals to preserve the freedom of purpose and choice that our people must have.
May 16, 1967

I conclude with one final quote from a former political science student at McGill University, Gerald Haslam; it is a very good one and I want to put it on the record:
Let us go forth together, and work as we must. Let us hold high our heads and be proud. Let us make of this nation of ours, greatness.


Mr. Speaker:: I assume that the hon. member wants to complete the form of his amendment and add at the beginning that the following amendment be added to the address. That is a technicality, but the motion will be amended accordingly.


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to extend congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Like other hon. members who have spoken I too was impressed with the style and the manner in which both the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) and the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Cote) carried out their duty.
Although I do not mean this in any unkind personal way I must say that I was left greatly confused, particularly by the subject matter of the speech of the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska. He would have us believe that the farmers of this country are quite satisfied with the current state of their industry and with the current price levels prevailing in agriculture. As has been said by the last speaker who just moved an amendment, this is certainly far from the case.
One reads in the throne speech paragraph after paragraph about the legislative intent of the government for the year 1967. A first reading of the speech would lead one to believe that this government has a lengthy list of legislative items with which it is very anxious to proceed in this special year. However, Mr. Speaker, it is the fact-I believe this has already been said-that of the entire throne speech only four items are new or original in this session. The others are items which have been carried over either from the preceding year or from the year before that. As my leader said on a previous occasion, this speech from the throne is a potpourri of leftovers.
I, like others here, should like to take the exhortation of the Prime Minister to heart, and would like to avoid making critical comment about this government's activities and the state of the nation. This after all is a special year, and the Prime Minister is no doubt right when he says we should not tear our hair as frequently as we have in past 27053-171
The Address-Mr. Schreyer years but should do a little more tub thumping. Yet surely it is not unreasonable, Mr. Speaker, to suggest and suggest strongly that there are hard pressing problems in the country today, and that because they are hard pressing we must engage in hard hitting debate. We must engage in a thoroughgoing analysis of these problems.
It does not take any precision in research to determine what are some of these hard pressing problems. They affect certain income groups and certain occupational groups with particular severity. The first hard pressing problem-and I use every word with deliberate intent-which exists in 1967 and which has existed for a decade or more is that having to do with the level of income being received by the food producers of this country. The hon. member for Saskatoon has just moved an amendment that is sharply critical of this government for its indecision, its procrastination and apparent intention to do nothing to adjust its milk policy so as to enable those who are engaged in milk production to remain in it and continue producing this necessary and vital commodity, not just in the short run but to make their income prospects and therefore production prospects viable and healthy in the long run. That is not being done, and that is why the amendment was moved. I hope that independent minded members on the other side will join this party in supporting that amendment.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
In recent weeks there have been new developments in agriculture. The Minister of Trade and Commerce told us something of the new wheat agreement which has been arrived at during the Kennedy round talks, and we gather from the minister's statement that the range of wheat prices under the new agreement will be increased by about 21 cents per bushel. That should be cause for neither joy nor gloom, and the government's optimism should be taken with a grain of salt. An increase of 21 cents means a 10 per cent increase, but in the last three or four years farm machinery has increased by more than 10 per cent, as anybody who has bought a combine in 1964, 1965 or 1966 is aware. A 12 foot self-propelled unit which then cost $9,000 now costs $12,000 to $14,000. The new unit may have a greater work capacity, but that is not enough to justify that degree of price increase. To be realistic, the new agreement does not cover the price increases of the last few years, so we farmers are in the same relative cost-price position we occupied in
May 16, 1967

The Address-Mr. Schreyer 1964. The president of the Manitoba's Farmers Union said to the press yesterday that a 40 cent to 50 cent per bushel increase was needed to ease the lot of the farmers he represents.
Farmers have been dissatisfied generally with this government's agricultural policies. When the Minister of Agriculture announced the new diary policy about a month and a half ago he tried to leave the impression that there would be substantially increased federal assistance, but had no satisfactory answer to the point that I raised, that the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Moore) repeatedly raised and that other hon. members raised, which was that it was illogical to draw artificial distinctions between surplus fluid milk and manufacturing milk. The minister says fluid milk comes under provincial jurisdiction, and that the federal government therefore ought not to be involved with support payments on fluid surplus milk. The fact is that all surplus fluid milk can be regarded as manufacturing milk and, taking the minister's own words, support for the price of manufacturing milk is a federal responsibility.
The new policy, resting on the foundation of artificial distinctions, does not help dairy farmers but aggravates problems which have grown more serious during the past several years. The Minister of Agriculture, in some of his actions and attitudes, reminds me of a jackass in a rainstorm. The jackass turns his back on the storm, hunkers up his back and takes it without doing anything about it. When the Minister of Agriculture is faced with the legitimate and organized storm of complaints of dairy farmers and spokesmen for the agricultural industry, he stands in one spot, hunkers up and refuses to say whether he will reconsider his policies. In the past I have accused the minister of revealing an attitude of indolent nonchalance toward agriculture, and I repeat that description today. The attitude of the government on agricultural commodity prices is one of indolence and nonchalance. That attitude is evident in other fields also.
Because the government, according to the throne speech, will appoint a special task force to look into agricultural problems we are to infer that we may rest easy. Yet clearly, that task force is an indication that this government has no farm policy it may call its own. There is nothing wrong with the federal and provincial ministers of agriculture and federal and provincial departmental officials meeting and formulating policy at some sort


of national farm policy conference. Spokesmen for the farmers unions and the federations have been urging for the last year or two that this be done, yet the minister has not said whether he will accommodate them. The task force mentioned in the throne speech may mean a royal commission, a special ad hoc interdepartmental committee of the federal government, or a similar committee composed of personnel from provincial and federal departments. Nobody knows. In the meantime we may be sure the government will use the task force as a pretext for obtaining the maximum delay, thus avoiding concrete action.
Why do I make this accusation? It is evident that the federal and provincial departments of agriculture have assembled most competent and professional staffs both in production and economic research and analysis. The cost-price squeeze has existed for so long that the term has become a cliche. Surely by now the high ranking officials have coordinated and marshalled all sorts of data about this cost-price squeeze, and possible approaches to ameliorate that condition. Do we, then, need some special task force to look into it?
I am suspicious that this government will use the task force to buy time as it did for example, regarding veterans pensions. I am not well versed in the functioning of that special committee on veterans pensions. I make reference to it for one specific purpose. Ever since I came here as a new federal member almost 18 months ago one of the things promised us almost from day to day, was that the Wood report was to be tabled very soon. It was to serve as a basis for the immediate adjustment of veterans pensions so as to reduce the disparity between those pensions and levels of income received by certain civil service classifications which were at parity decades ago. What has happened? Today, almost 18 months later, we are still waiting for that report. Veterans pensions remain far below parity and they lose more and more purchasing power each year.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
Any reasonable man can assume that at times there will be delays in submitting reports that last for a day, a week, a month, even for six months. But for a whole year? When there is such a delay in the presentation of a report which was promised us about 16 months ago and which we were then told was due any time, there is a credibility gap which cannot be closed. To put it in everyday language, who are the authorities trying to kid? They are using this report as an excuse
May 1G, 1967	COMMONS
to buy time because they have not been able to co-ordinate their policy thinking with regard to veterans pensions.
The fact is that decades ago veterans pensions were on a par with the salaries of certain job classifications, for example. This is no longer the case and now veterans pensions are as low as 60 per cent of that wage level. Is this acceptable? Obviously these veterans are at a disadvantage today in terms of purchasing power compared with their situation 10 or 20 years ago. Such discrepancies will arise in any dynamic society, in any moving economy, and this presents a problem which governments exist to cope with. It is one of the raisons d'etre of government but the administration opposite has not been acting effectively in this, their basic duty.
The cost of living has increased dramatically in the past two years. I know the Secretary of State for External Affairs and others who have made public comment on this subject in recent days would like Canadian citizens to believe that the rate of increase in the cost of living is lessening. Let us pause for a moment and examine the record of the government with regard to the rising cost of living syndrome. Last fall when the housewives were marching in chagrin and anger to protest the rising cost of living, the government was very accommodating and within a few days, not more than two weeks, it indicated that the whole serious subject would be referred to the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on consumer credit, a committee which then reconstituted itself somewhat into a committee on consumer prices.
There was nothing wrong with that move. It gave an opportunity to interested groups to make representations, file briefs and put forward submissions. It gave opportunities to members of parliament to probe with varying degrees of effectiveness into what appeared to be the major causes of these unacceptable increases in the cost of living. After deliberating for some time the committee handed in a number of interim reports.
I do not wish to be critical of that committee; in fact I am not. Nor do I wish to praise its efforts without reservation, because in my opinion in its work there was one serious omission. Adequate reference was not made to the very core of the subject which had been referred to it, namely the cause of the increase in prices. I know some of the chief accountants for the wholesalers and general
DEBATES	257
The Address-Mr. Schreyer stores appeared before the committee and were able to persuade certain members-not the majority, I hope-that the prices charged by wholesalers and chain store retailers were not unreasonable because after all, profits amounted to only 1 per cent of sales. The expert witnesses who use the profit to sales ratio are calculating to mislead.
I never could find any testimony in which specific reference was made to the level of profit in proportion to equity input or initial capital investment. Is it not disturbing to realize that there was no consistent pattern of questioning to invite these spokesmen to indicate their returns on equity input? I have here an Annual Report of a firm that is wholesaler to chain stores in the grocery business. I find that after seven years of operation-in the course of those seven years-the business enjoyed a profit of around 1J percent of sales, which is not much out of line with the figure mentioned by some of the other firms. This will not arouse much attention and some hon. members will say that is small profit. But here is the rub. In terms of return on equity input or investment the profit comes to a 29 per cent return on equity during each of the last four years of operation. I have it in mind to submit this particular report to the consumer affairs committee to find out, more than anything else, whether it is of a mind to ignore facts and figures of this kind.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)
Anyone who is at all involved in business and corporate affairs knows there is such a thing as a fair return, a reasonable return, an enticing return, a lucrative return, a return high enough to induce further investment. Similarly, however, any reasonable man should be ready to concede that there is such a thing as a unconscionable return. What will we do about it? Until such time as we have a price review board in this country certain sectors of the economy, certain wielders of economic power and influence, will be able to manipulate prices without much regard for public reaction.
The ladies were angry last year, and with cause. Their anger was diverted by the announcement that their whole area of complaint was being referred, that parliament was going to study it and presumably do something. Well, we are all members of parliament here, and I would like to arouse among my fellow members at least a trace of dissatisfaction with the work done so far and with the recommendations made by the committee on consumer affairs.
May 1G, 1967

The Address-Mr. Schreyer
We welcome the recommendation that a department of consumer affairs be appointed. Quite candidly I must say I am less enthusiastic about that proposition than most of my colleagues, though I am still on the positive side in supporting it. But one point of dissatisfaction is that the new department of consumer affairs will be combined with the administration of corporate affairs. One can just imagine which will get the short shrift when the chips are down. My colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North says it will be the elephant and mouse relationship, and I certainly do not disagree with his analogy.
I feel very much inclined to put more figures on the record with respect to this particular wholesale grocery chain store enterprise which over the past five years has been earning a return on equity input of the order of 28 per cent to 32 per cent, but it would be awkward to do so. However, I might add that during this period of time the equity itself has been substantially increased, not by additional subscriptions of new shares but simply by retained earnings from profits and all the while rather lavish dividends have been paid out-certainly on a scale high enough to have encouraged additional investment. The rub, though, was that these shares were not available to the public. At least they have not been available up until recently.
Putting it as an hypothesis, if in 1960 someone had bought 100 shares in this wholesale chain store enterprise he would have had to put up $200, the price then being $2 per share. In each subsequent year he would have received dividends as follows: in 1961, $5; in 1962, $7.50; in 1963, $7.50; in 1964, $10; in 1965, $12.50; in 1966, $18 and in 1967, $26, a total of $86.50 in dividends over six years on a capital input of $200. But that is only a small part of this story. The balance sheet reads like a fairy tale.
In addition to the dividend aspect there is of course the increase in shareholder equity simply because of profits kept as retained earnings and then being incorporated into assets held to the account of the company. I might made a correction at this point to say that the shares were put on the stock market two years ago, and the value of those 100 shares, bought for $200 in 1960, has fluctuated last year between $1,700 and $3,000. This shows the net worth and capital gains aspect of the question.
The more one looks at this kind of story the more one becomes convinced in respect to capital gains taxes, etc., that the Carter commission may well turn out to be one of the
[Mr. Schreyer.)
greatest and most worth-while royal commissions ever established in this country. There may be some aspects of the Carter commission report that will be unacceptable to the majority of the members of the house, but certainly no one will disagree that there are many features of it which are praiseworthy almost to the extreme, so praiseworthy that even Liberal candidates are calling for its implementation without qualification. I have here a Liberal by-election pamphlet-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edward Richard Schreyer: May I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: I have to advise the hon. member that it is after one o'clock, and also that his time has expired.


Edward Richard Schreyer: May I have the indulgence of the house for a minute in order to conclude?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking for additional time now. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: One minute.


Mr. Speaker:: The consensus of the house is that the hon. member should have another 60 seconds.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Unfortunately I will not be able to deal with the housing crisis, which is another pressing problem that I referred to earlier in the debate, and will not be able to deal with certain aspects of Indian affairs and the Indian Act. However, I would like to conclude by saying that with respect to these unrelenting problems the government is portraying an attitude of cynicism; that it is using all kinds of methods and pretexts to stall or delay. There is the danger that our festive mood may distract us from our real work. At this time, centennial year or no, people on fixed low incomes, wage earners, and in particular farmers have a reason to expect concrete action to ward off farm bankruptcy and to erase urban slum housing even though this be the year of our nation's one hundredth birthday celebrations.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the
May 16, 1967	COMMONS
last speaker before the noon adjournment concluded his remarks by expressing regret that time did not permit him to cover a wider range of the subject matters raised in the speech from the throne. I find myself in somewhat the same predicament after reviewing the subjects in the speech from the throne which have been referred to during the past week of debate. Generally speaking, however, speeches have been related to two items, the need for further parliamentary reform, and reform of our constitution.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Speeches in the latter category regarding the constitution have ranged all the way from the very thoughtful presentation of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) through to what I thought was the firebrand oratory of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I was really pleased when the hon. member for Yukon spoke the other evening after his prolonged absence from the house. I noted that he had not lost his willingness to malign the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) or to distort historical facts. I prepared a rather lengthy rebuttal to the remarks of the hon. member for Yukon but since he spoke my attention has been focused rather on the turmoil which exists in the New Democratic party on this subject. I was not concerned the other evening when they presented a subamendment to the effect that there were two nations in Canada. They include this theory in their constitution which they have distributed in the province of Quebec for some years. They easily get around the question of the two-nation theory by emphasizing that of course they recognize the existence of two nations in Canada but only in the cultural sense and not in the political sense.
From the result of the vote the other evening it is obvious that no one took the subamendment too seriously because everyone knew full well that within the next day or so some socialist spokesman for the New Democratic party would tour the country explaining that they really did not mean there should be two nations in this country but that they were speaking of two nations in the cultural sense. I was more concerned when I read some of the remarks of the leader of that party when he spoke over the week end at a convention in Quebec and formally announced that his party now recognizes a special status for the province of Quebec. I intend to discuss that special status in the short time available to me. I might also review the speech which I had anticipated someone
DEBATES	259
The Address-Mr. Mackasey would make in the next day or two after that convention. In this case it was the speech of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) who quickly and efficiently placed on the record the interpretation of the New Democratic party concerning specifically what Quebec's special status is, at least as they understand it.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Would the hon. member permit a question? In all fairness, would he admit that the word "nation" can have a sociological connotation and a different juridical or political connotation?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member for Verdun is not very good at subtleties. The hon. member has just emphasized what I started to say. In that party its members find many opportunities to say one thing in Quebec and another thing in the rest of Canada. They go to Quebec and say they recognize two nations. Then they say they do not mean exactly that there are two nations but rather two nations in a cultural sense. The point is that the time has passed when the New Democratic party can go into Quebec and preach one doctrine and go to Vancouver and preach another.
Before I get too far into this subject I should like to say something about parliamentary reform. I hope no one interprets my remarks as an indication that I am against parliamentary reform. On the contrary. I think most of the rules and regulations which were introduced, particularly under the previous Speaker, have done much to speed up the deliberations of the House of Commons. This is necessary in order to get through the house the amount of legislation which is before us.
One thing, however, which has provoked me a little is that in our obsession to increase the efficiency of the committees we do so at the expense of the House of Commons. Not too long ago I was upset when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) made a very important statement on Viet Nam in the house when there were precisely 31 members present. Where were the other members? They were attending committees such as the food and drugs committee, the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs and others.


Mr. Orlikow:: Where was Walter Gordon?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Is there someone else over there who wishes to make a speech?
COMMONS DEBATES	May 16, 1967
The Address-Mr. Mackasey


David Orlikow: I was asking, where was the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon) when the Secretary of State for External Affairs was making that important statement?


An hon. Member:: Obviously the hon. member was not there himself.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I have not met a thinner-skinned bunch in this house than the socialists. There must be some ways and means to protect the House of Commons. One problem which we must face in respect of the committee system is that all too frequently we grant permission for committees to sit while the house is sitting. In the final analysis this is a house of debate and unless we make certain there is a sufficient quorum in the house at all times, for matters to be debated efficiently then, as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) said, one of the basic principles of democracy will disappear, the right to stand up in the House of Commons and debate the issues of the day.
The hon. member for Yukon mentioned the two-nation theory. While he appeared to attack the N.D.P. for the two-nation theory he laid the blame directly on the shoulders of the Prime Minister. I did a little searching in the meantime to find out what noted parliamentarian or politician first discussed two nations in a cultural sense. Not too long ago-100 years-Sir John A. Macdonald said this about our French speaking Canadians:
Treat them as a nation and they will act as a free people do-generously. Call them a faction and they become factious.
Lord Durham stated in his writings that he found "two nations warring in the bosom of a single state." Eugene Forsey, writing in the Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, said:
Canada is both two nations and one: two nations in the ethnic, cultural, sociological sense:	one
nation in the political, legal, constitutional sense.
Perhaps the greatest authority of all is the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) who on July 2, 1963, as found on page 2442 of Hansard, said:
When confederation took place a new nation was created in the partnership of two basic nationalities.
This is the reason I could not become too upset the other evening when the New Democratic party, in an attempt to infiltrate the province of Quebec, advanced the two-nations concept as a subamendment. I knew it would be only a matter of time before one of them would get up and say that they are

emphasizing culture, as the hon. member for Springfield did a few moments ago.
I am more interested in the special status the leader the New Democratic party seeks for the province of Quebec. I am a resident of the province of Quebec. Contrary to public opinion there are more English speaking Quebeckers at the moment than there are people in some of the other provinces. There are over a million of us. Quebec does not need special status. If the leader of the N.D.P. had said that Quebec is different from the other provinces I would endorse such a statement. Certainly it is different. It is the homeland of one of the founding races of this country. It is populated by the great majority of French speaking Canadians. It is different culturally, linguistically and in many other ways. Its civil code is different.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
But Quebec does not need special status in 1967 or in 1970 to attain its full maturity under confederation. What it needs is respect for the constitution by other governments and respect for the constitution could have very well been exercised by the New Democratic party during the 16 years that it formed the government in Saskatchewan. What did that party do in those years for the French speaking minority? It did nothing. It was a disgrace then and it is still a disgrace. When the leader of the New Democratic party comes to the province of Quebec, as he did last week end, and says that Quebec must have a special status in this country so as to survive, he is fooling no one. In this day of modern communications, to preach one message in Quebec and another in Vancouver will have its repercussions, as the socialists will find out.
Of course I was not invited to that particular gathering of would-be socialists, and I had to rely on the Montreal Star of Monday, May 15, to find out what happened there. According to this newspaper the leader of the New Democratic party said:
-the position of the N.D.P. "is that the sensible and long-range solution lies in the constitutional recognition of the fact that Quebec is not a province like the other provinces and that its cultural needs and objectives cannot be fulfilled, except that they are met by special arrangements."
What are the special arrangements which the leader of the N.D.P. proposes for Quebec? He did not outline them. All he did was voice platitudes. So I waited, knowing full well that within a day or two a senior spokesman of the N.D.P. would get up in the House of Commons and attempt to put on the record a
May 16, 1967

message diametrically opposed to that of his leader, so that out west the members of that party could quote Hansard and in Quebec they could quote the Montreal Star. Sure enough, the hon. member for Greenwood made just such a speech on May 15. Again I can only go by Hansard because I was not here to hear him. But I read his speech not once but two or three times. His words, as found on page 203 of Hansard, are very noble and are bound to please the most nationalistic of Canadians. He said:
We ought to entrench in our constitution a constitutional bill of rights. We have at present a bill of rights which was passed by parliament, but its inadequacy is obvious. It does not apply to provincial legislatures, and may be repealed by parliament at any time-
This is precisely what the Prime Minister said earlier. I agree with it. It is also exactly the same message as was contained in brief of the different trade unions from the province of Quebec. However, farther on in the same column he went on to say:
The other point to be borne in mind is whether it is wise, in our revised constitution, or necessary to allow Quebec a special status.
Note, he is beginning to doubt the wisdom of the very statement that his leader made over the week end. The headline in the newspaper to which I referred reads: "Special Status Avoids Turmoil". Then he said:
The expression "special status" is very general, and it is necessary to be precise when dealing with it, and I propose later in my remarks to define more precisely what we in this party mean when we say we are in favour of a special status for Quebec.
I read this with anticipation. I said to myself, here is one member of the socialist party who is going to tell us what he means by a special status for the province of Quebec. Should Quebec become an associate state in a two-nation confederation? Will Quebec go one way and the rest of Canada another, meeting periodically to split the budget? I read on, anticipating the hon. member for Greenwood would explain to us what he means by special status.
Incidentally, one thing that intrigues me is that members of the New Democratic party, who never tire of quoting Sweden as an example and whose philosophy is based on a strong central government, now pretend to be the greatest exponents of decentralization. But here is what the hon. member for Greenwood had to say:
To this end we believe that federal authority must be preserved in such fields as credit, banking, investment, monetary and fiscal policy, tariffs and transportation, to name a few only.
261
The Address-Mr. Mackasey
According to him these are the areas in which the federal authority must remain supreme. After removing all these fields from provincial jurisdiction, one assumed that he had reached the area of special status which, according to the leader of the New Democratic party, Quebec should have if Canada is to survive. Instead the hon. member for Greenwood said the following, and we hear this from a spokesman of a party which is advocating decentralization:
We have been concerned about the gradual erosion of federal powers in the fields I mentioned which has become apparent in federal-provincial conferences over the past few years.
In other words, the hon. member for Greenwood, at the same time as his leader was making a speech in the province of Quebec advocating a special status for Quebec and increased provincial jurisdiction in these particular areas, was preparing a speech to be delivered in the House of Commons in which he bemoaned the fact that too much federal jurisdiction in the areas I have just mentioned had been transferred to the province of Quebec. Perhaps it was time that this authority be removed from Quebec and from other provinces and returned to the central government he suggested. I do not necessarily disagree with his principle. I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of his message. He says one thing and his leader says another.
Since the hon. member for Greenwood has decided that jurisdiction in these particular fields should not be transferred to the provinces, and therefore to Quebec, I thought he perhaps meant that Quebec should assume a special status in other areas. This is what he said at page 204 of Hansard:
It is desirable to have federal control in fields such as family alowances, non-contributory old age pensions and the like. There are some fields such as hospitalization and health services where the present system of provincial administration and partial federal financing works well-
So far he has not advocated one single, solitary change in the present constitution. He went on to say:
-and where it should be retained with great advantage in transferability of benefits throughout Canada. Here also the federal contribution helps equalize the burden as between provinces.
In other words, the hon. member for Greenwood is advocating precisely what we are advocating, namely, that the have provinces help the have-not provinces. What is revolutionary about this? Realizing that he had not said anything endorsing a special
May 16, 1967

The Address-Mr. Mackasey status, he went on to support his argument by saying:
-it is merely a recognition of the facts of life, namely that people with a special culture of their own are entitled to retain complete control, if they so desire, over matters intimately connected with that culture such as education.
Who has ever denied the province of Quebec control over education? If for the past 30, 40 or 100 years, Quebec chose to put emphasis on a classical education, that was the province's prerogative and privilege and nobody has tried to interfere with it. One thing that needs to be done is for parliament to define education one of these days. But that is not what the hon. member for Greenwood said. He went on to say in his dramatic way that we should recognize the rights of the provinces in the field of education. This is one field where the provinces have been and should always be supreme, but since there were no tangible suggestions in the rest of his speech I suppose the hon. member had to say something.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
The hon. member was not even willing to give this to Quebec without some restriction because he goes on to say:
On the other hand, it must be recognized that it is the people in the other nine provinces who ought to be most insistent that Quebec should have a special status and that federal intervention should not be restricted to the level desired by Quebec.
How are you going to tell Quebec that it has autonomy in the field of education and a special status at the same time, but that the federal government can intervene at a level not necessarily desired by Quebec?
It is contended by the member that in fiscal, tariff, transportation, banking and credit, and investment matters the federal government must remain supreme. This is what the hon. member for Greenwood contends. The federal government must remain supreme also in the field of vocational allowances, old age pensions and the like he says. In so far as hospitalization and health services are concerned, joint participation seems to work well according to the hon. member for Greenwood and should not be altered. The only area which he concedes to the province is the area of education which it has always had.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin), who is an expert in this field and has made many speeches throughout the country on federal-provincial relations and the constitution, intervened. I should like

to refer to his question which is recorded on page 205 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, if I may I should like to direct a question to the hon. member. Am I right in thinking that special status as he defines it implies no change in the present constitutional situation toward a further decentralization in favour of Quebec particularly?


Mr. Brewin:: I do not think it implies any change.
Of course it does not. Knowing that his leader has come out with his two-nations concept in the province of Quebec and had advocated a special status in confederation for the province of Quebec, the hon. member for Greenwood rushes into parliament to correct what his leader has said. If the leader of the New Democratic party believes Quebec should have a special status, then let him tour the country and say so. He does not do so. I can understand the problem, and it is a serious one. He goes to Montreal on the week end and finds that the Quebec wing of the New Democratic party has adopted a resolution stating that the province of Quebec is supreme in international affairs. The province can make what agreements it wants on any level with foreign powers such as France, Belgium and perhaps even Ireland. The leader of the New Democratic party on Saturday had to rely on his troops to defeat this resolution which had been adopted by the Quebec wing.
I ask the 19 or 20 members of the gallant little band in the corner, whose philosophy do you follow, that preached by your leader in Quebec or that preached in the House of Commons by the hon. member for Greenwood? Do you accept the resolution of the Quebec wing to the effect that Quebec can make international treaties or do you accept the philosophy of your leader which denies this privilege? In other words, Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats are on the horns of a dilemma. They forget that this is 1967 and you cannot go into Quebec with one philosophy and to Vancouver with another. This practice is catching up with them and I am not sorry. They have been playing with both sides of the coin too long. Once upon a time the leader of the New Democratic party may have been able to get people to stand up in the House of Commons and refute what he said outside the House of Commons in the hope that these statements could assume equal validity across Canada. However, this cannot be done today.
There is nothing in the speech by the hon. member for Greenwood that defines what the special status for Quebec is to be. I suggest to
May 16, 1967	COMMONS
the members of the New Democratic party that the unity of Canada is too sacred to be subjected to party politics. You have to be consistent. If you believe, and I do not, that Quebec needs a special status to remain in confederation, then say so in the house as well as outside the house. Let the leader of the New Democratic party take advantage of this debate or some other occasion to get up in the house and state what is to be the special status for the province of Quebec. French speaking Canadians do not want to be isolated from the mainstream of Canada. They do not have to be. They have something to offer and they have offered it. This is manifest to anyone who takes the trouble to observe. Their contribution to this country has been as great as that of the English speaking people of this country. They have supplied not only a prime minister and a governor general but the leader of the army and the head of the Supreme Court of Canada. Leaders in the fields of culture and science are found in great numbers amongst the French speaking people. They do not need a special status to contribute to this nation, only an opportunity and a climate devoid of intolerance and prejudice.
The province of Quebec has complete control of the field of education as well as other areas outlined in the constitution. All Quebec wants and deserves is respect for the constitution as it now exists. The only sensible suggestion which has come out of the House of Commons in relation to this Whole problem has been the one made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) the other evening and also on several occasions by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). What we need to do in this house is to thresh out a bill of rights for this country, without denying the one in existence. It was a milestone in the history of Canada when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) instituted a Bill of Rights for this country. It is one of which we should be proud and it is above partisanship. However, we want to know what provincial rights and municipal rights are, not merely the rights of individuals.
When the Prime Minister stated provincial leaders should meet later this year to define our objectives before we find a way to amend the constitution, or to add to it or remove the redundant sections, he was talking common sense. Newspapers close to the scene such as the Montreal Star know this. It is an English language newspaper in the heart of French Canada, one that knows the problems of the 27053-18J
DEBATES	263
The Address-Mr. Mackasey French Canadians and the English speaking minority.
The Montreal Star is a newspaper which has always been responsible when discussing the problems of the constitution and the need for changes in it. In an editorial dated Saturday, May 13, 1967, this newspaper states that the Prime Minister suggested a most sensible and pragmatic way to approach the very complex problem of confederation. The editorial continues:
The Prime Minister is, to begin with at any rate, against the formal, committee type conference which leads only to a public display of individual political postures. He will resist any "constitutional leap in the dark."
But he offered what seems to us a highly sensitive first step which could be taken by all without impinging on the particular positions of any. Mr. Pearson hoped the first move in the constitutional field could be an agreement by all the premiers on a common bill of rights. Such provincial bills would be based on the existing federal bill which will always be, as Mr. Pearson noted gracefully, associated with the name of Mr. Diefenbaker. Then he continued:
"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."
The first positive step that should come out of that conference, Mr. Speaker, is to make the district of Ottawa truly representative of the two founding races of this country. Politician after politician, in this house and outside, condemns the potholes in Ottawa. This is not what we should condemn. We should condemn the unilingual aspect of this area. We should make the Ottawa district truly representative of the two founding races of this country. If we cannot come to that conclusion as a result of one of these conferences, then how in God's holy name are we going to agree on changing the constitution or any part of it? This is a test of good will.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time allotted to the hon. gentleman has expired. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I only wanted to ask about Walter Gordon.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
May 16, 1967

The Address-Mr. Simard
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Sainl-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not sound a discordant note in this general harmony, and I shall maintain the tradition of this house in congratulating the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Jamieson) and the seconder (Mr. Cote).
If my information is correct, Mr. Speaker, I am told that the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne has made his maiden speech in this house. In this case, I can tell him that his first try proved to be a master stroke, and I hope that he will make many speeches like this one, so that I myself may benefit from this lesson in eloquence.
Now Mr. Speaker, if I may, I shall comment some of the items contained in the speech from the throne and I will quote word for word:
Our country was not founded in 1867. It is far more deeply rooted in time than that. But, one hundred years ago, our predecessors-men of many races, creeds and tongues-embarked upon a great exercise in statecraft of which we, today, are the trustees. They laid the foundations. They anchored them in a fundamental sense of unity that generations of conflict had taught was vital to the common weal. With this realization they erected a structure of government for the freedom, welfare, and prosperity of all who might come in time to inhabit this land. They built according to a federal plan because they knew that unity, with cultural and regional diversity could be harnessed to a positive and enriching role in no other way.
And further on.
The path of confederation has been beset with great difficulties-some natural, some inevitable and some of our own making.
I gather, Mr. Speaker, that it was those two items that the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste (Mr. Caouette) wished to comment especially in his speech of May 11 last in this house. I will quote word for word the following, which appears on page 76 of the May 11 Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that I am a Frenchspeaking Canadian and that I fight for the recognition of French Canadians throughout Canada. It is indeed a duty for me to say that I have had a friendly reception in all those provinces: I might even say that I have had a warmer welcome in the western universities than in the university of Montreal, in my own provinces of Quebec.
That is saying a good deal, Mr. Speaker.
And these people out west, these young students, these farmers or whoever they are, are most hospitable. We are welcomed like kings in those provinces. Even if these young people do not speak our language, they are eager to welcome us, to hear our problems, to learn to know us, to know
[Mr. Deputy Speaker.1
what we want and who we are. It was most interesting to meet these people, irrespective of political affiliations, as Canadians from a province other than theirs.
Mr. Speaker, although some of our opponents make unkind remarks about the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste, it must be recognized that he does make allowances and gives everyone his due. In this connection, I take it upon myself to repeat a sentence spoken by our leader, and I quote:
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
-and I would even say that I was made more welcome by the western universities than by the university of Montreal which is in my own province of Quebec.
Just to corroborate that statement and that tribute, I will relate an incident I witnessed, as did several of my colleagues, when the government invited us to visit Expo and Habitat on April 8 last.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, as a French-speaking Canadian, I was far from edified. If the house will allow me, I will describe the experience several members and senators, accompanied by their wives, went through.
We were greeted warmly at Expo, particularly by the commissioner general who, when we set foot on the grounds, shook hands with us and smiled broadly at us. But I guess it was only to make us accept meekly what was to come. In fact, when the time came for Expo's commissioner general to introduce the hon. members and senators to those present, he found nothing better than to make his whole speech in English from beginning to end. I am not holding it against my English friends who were made so welcome. But we, the French Canadians, were ignored to such an extent that, while the commissioner general was speaking, my wife who was with me on that occasion asked me: Does that man not speak French? I will not repeat the reflection I made to my wife, because I do want to respect this house of parliament, but let it be known that my words were not in praise of the commissioner general.
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to my colleagues that this happened last April 8, in the very heart of the province of Quebec, in the second French city of the world, Montreal, which, this year, plays host to some 60 exhibiting countries on Terre des Hommes. That treatment we cannot be proud of. As a snub, as a rebuff, as a stinging slap in the face of this country's French Canadians, it could not have been better. For my part, I
COMMONS DEBATES	265
The Address-Mr. Simard
May 16, 1967
call that the unkindest cut of all. Fortunately there are contrasts which are a little more encouraging and comforting.
During the hockey finals between the Montreal Canadiens and the Toronto Maple Leafs-we noted this fact right here and, as I said, I am not criticizing anyone, even though several members stayed away from the house to watch television; I readily admit that I cheated myself-I noticed, along with several other members, I am sure, that before every game, both in Toronto and in Montreal, the national anthem "O Canada" was played.
Last Sunday, Mr. Speaker, I attended the two consecutive ceremonies on parliament hill in honour of the fathers of confederation.
And after each of those ceremonies, the national anthem "O Canada" was sung in English and in French.
I think that everything is completely changed. Those who were charged not so long ago with fanatical intolerance are now giving us a good lesson of patriotism and national pride. And some people will then talk of separatism, independentism; some will bellow to everyone that the last hundred years of Canadian confederation have been one hundred years of injustice for French Canadians, and all sorts of slogans like that. To these people who fish in troubled waters, I will suggest that respect is not commanded but imposed.
Mr. Speaker, I recollect the kind exhortations that the gracious Queen of England and of all commonwealth countries made to us on her last trip to Canada. After having suggested and urged that the two great nations making up this country, which have inherited the most refined of western civilizations whose influence has been felt by almost all the peoples in the world, work towards unity and mutual understanding, she summed up her thoughts as follows. Listen well, my dear colleagues; I hope this exhortation by the Queen of England will remain deeply imprinted in your minds:
Our patriotism must never lead us to forget the patriotism of others.
That is the challenge presented to us by the next hundred years of our Canadian confederation. This challenge we can and will meet.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Now, I shall quote another part of the speech from the throne, which I shall comment briefly:
In 1867-
That was a hundred years ago.
-it was possible to think of the public responsibility primarily in terms of state responsibility. The new challenges, which we must and will meet, require the involvement of the whole society and the effort of all our people. In this time of fastchanging dimensions, the central concern of Canadian society must be the well-being of each individual, so that, regardless of his place or station of birth, he will have an equal chance to realize his full potential in the economic, social, political and cultural sense. A country is a home; it must be built and furnished for the good life of its people.
Do you not think that is beautiful?
With our forefathers, the fight was against the immense odds of nature on our half of this continent.
That is the heritage our forefathers have passed on to us so that we may live better.
Today, the main struggle is against social, injustice, against cultural mediocrity, against spiritual stagnation and against all forms of Intolerance.
Mr. Speaker, at this point of my remarks, I shall try mainly to emphasize the economic value of the individual, of the Canadian citizen. The first part of the Canadian Bill of Rights reads as follows:
[DOT]-it is recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a)	the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b)	the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;
(c)	freedom of religion;
(d)	freedom of speech;
(e)	freedom of assembly and association; and
(f)	freedom of the press.
Mr. Speaker, in 1960, when the Conservative party was in power, two Liberal members at least asked for the addition of the economic rights and freedoms to those mentioned above. The intervention, at that time, of the hon. member who is now a minister in this cabinet, appears in Hansard of July 5, 1960.1 quote:
Yes, political freedoms are referred to in this bill, but it is not as a result giving to the citizen a greater security of enjoyment than what is now provided for in the law. Our legal liberties are partly mentioned but not our economic liberties, except for section 2	(a) referring to property.
There is no mention nor is there any declaration of the conviction that must stand behind even these newly conceived rights. It may be that it is difficult to put into a charter like this what we mean by economic rights; but at a time when society is evolving and when the poltical philosophy of every party in this house subscribes to the view of full employment, is it unfair or extravagant to suggest in this twentieth century
May 16, 1967

The Address-Mr. Simard
that we have the right to place alongside our political freedoms, with no less effect, those rights that affect the economic well-being of the citizen?
Then further he goes on to say:
I say that a bill of rights is not complete that does not take into account these economic rights. Nor does this bill deal with liberty in what one might call its human rights or egalitarian sense; such things as fair employment practice laws, fair accommodation laws, equal pay for women laws-
He did not even forget the women.
-all laws which emancipate women, the right to election, the right to medical care, the right to disability pensions, and so on. Are we to say that these are not rights? Are we to say that in the objectives we have placed for ourselves we are not to regard these as legitimate aspirations?
Mr. Speaker, in 1960 another Liberal member corroborated the statement and the stand taken by his colleague. I quote:
Furthermore, the Criminal Code provides for arrest for failure to provide of any head of family who does not meet that obligation. If it is true that, for any obligation which is placed on the shoulders of a citizen, the state has a duty towards him, if it is true that the legislator imposed upon the Canadian citizen that obligation to feed and maintain his family, I think that it is only fair and legitimate that the same legislator should give to that man the means to fulfil that obligation. I submit that a bill of rights that does not take into account these economic rights is not complete at all.
The two Liberal members were then criticizing the introduction of the Canadian Bill of Rights by the Conservatives.
Those claims are based on section 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and can be summed up so:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person, and enjoyment of property.
Those are rights the Social Credit party wants for every single Canadian citizen. Here is a declaration of principle as stated by the Canadian Social Credit Association:
Social Credit firmly believes that the individual is the most important factor in organized society. Because he is a divinely created being with spiritual, mental and physical needs and potentialities, he has inalienable rights which must be respected and preserved.
Mr. Speaker, if I may, I will now add a few comments.
What is Canada? Canada is a country which comprises mainly-let this be emphasized- 20,400,000 human beings, 4,800,000 families and 400,000 corporations.
The 4,800,000 families of one or more persons live in the 4,800,000 housing units or castles; in addition, there are slums which

one can see, when visiting our country, Canada.
Tremendous prosperity, inhuman distribution. Let us correct the situation right now, instead of losing time blaming the persons responsible, instead of looking for guilty parties, for wrong-doers. Let us suddenly become benefactors of our own humanity in Canada.
Each of the 265 Canadian members of parliament was elected by the people who live in each of Canada's ridings. The companies do not vote. Therefore, the companies do not elect the members of parliament. Why be afraid of the companies once we are elected?
The companies are only institutions made up of groups of human beings, but the companies themselves do not exist, are not alive, do not vote. They are the instruments of production or administration of the material, intellectual or spiritual goods and services which meet the needs of the people.
There are in Canada 265 members of parliament and 26 ministers, of whom only one is Minister of Finance. If Canada's prosperity depends on all the people and all the companies of Canada, the distribution of that prosperity rests mainly with the Minister of Finance, the 25 ministers and the 265 members of parliament.
If production is abundant in 1967, there is no reason why distribution in 1967 should be a failure and a disaster for the great majority of the population. What is produced in 1967 should be distributed that year.
Production takes place within our present monetary, economic and political systems. Distribution must therefore be properly done within the framework of the same monetary, economic and political systems.
There is no need for a new constitution, new political parties, another election, new departments or new instruments of production or administration.
What is lacking is a simple pressure adjustment in the money circulation, in the present capitalist system of Canada-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, taking part in the debate in reply to the speech from the throne on our hundredth anniversary imposes a requirement on every member to review the last 100 years of the
May 16, 1967	COMMONS
history of this country and to try to project the lessons of those years into the future problems facing Canadians. As a result of my consideration of this matter 1 have decided to make my centennial remarks on the subject of three choices for Canada.
Before I embark on a discussion of these three alternative courses of economic policy for Canada I want to preface my remarks by saying that as one reads the debates of 100 years ago it is amazing to find the similarity to the discussion we hear in this debate today. Today I had the privilege of listening to a Liberal member from the great city of Montreal, representing the constituency of Verdun, who was taking issue with the remarks made by an N.D.P. member from Toronto in the house the other day. Just now we have listened to a member from rural Quebec outlining some of the problems he sees. The remarks made today by these distinguished members of the House of Commons can all be duplicated in the debates of 100 years ago. Instead of the term "special status for Quebec", in those days members used the term "co-ordinate sovereignty". It is the same thing, I suppose, as the phrase used by the members of the N.D.P., and I would expect that 100 years from now it is conceivable that the debate at that time will have a new phrase but the subject will be the same.
Having said that I want to move on to the question of what were some of the issues that forced our forebears 100 years ago to accept the concept of a federal system of government in this great sprawling country. Certainly the need for defence against the victorious armies of the northern states was paramount in their minds. Certainly the depression in what we now call the Atlantic provinces was a great spur to the delegates from that area to accept another form of government. Above all, I would think that the political stalemate in the two Canadas we now call Quebec and Ontario was a reason for men with widely divergent views to come to a common conclusion.
In our review of the debates of 100 years ago we are lucky now to have available to us a history written by Canadians. To me personally it was always almost an intolerable insult that Canadians never had an authentic source of their history to which they could refer. We have been forced over the last 60-odd years to use an English history, the Cambridge History of Canada, for the authentic documentation of our story, but as part of
DEBATES	267
The Address-Mr. Hamilton the centennial observations the government of which I was a member had, I believe, the foresight to ask our historians in Canada to prepare for the first time some form of authentic Canadian history written by Canadians. This centenary series is now being published. It will consist of 17 volumes and I expect they will all be published this year.
I am going to ask the permission of the house to include the list of these volumes in my speech as part of the written record of this second debate dealing with confederation.
I would like to take the time to read just a few of the names, but suffice it to say that the Canadian centenary series is headed by Dr. Morton, the executive editor, who was professor of history at the University of Manitoba. Dr. Creighton from Toronto is the associate editor. These two men correlated the work of all the specialists on the various segments of our history.
The volume I hold in my hand is volume No. 12, written by Dr. Morton on the subject of confederation. It deals with the years 1857 to 1873, a 16-year period. It is not written in a light reading form. It is a straightforward account of what happened. I think that every member of parliament now and for many years to come should have this 17-volume history of his country in his library at home and possibly in his library in his office. Certainly every school teacher who has been given the responsibility of teaching the history of his country should have these volumes available for reference. I personally, and I hope on behalf of all Canadians, want to thank these distinguished historians for giving their time, almost for nothing, to provide us for the first time with an authentic history of our country written by Canadians.
Rather than read all their names and the subjects they dealt with I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether I could have the permission of the house to have a list of these authors and their subjects incorporated as part of my address at this point in my speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Has the
hon. member permission to have this list included as part of his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The list referred to above is as follows:]
The Canadian Centenary Series A History of Canada W. L. Morton, Executive Editor D. G. Creighton, Advisory Editor
1.	Tryggvi J. Oleson "The North" to 1632
2.	Marcel Trudel "New France" 1524-1662
May 16, 1967

The Address-Mr. Hamilton
3.	W. J. Eccles "New France" 1663-1701
4.	Jean Blain "New France" 1702-1743
5.	G. F. G. Stanley "New France" 1744-1760
6.	Hilda Neatby "Quebec" 1760-1791
7.	Gerald M. Craig "Upper Canada" 1784-1841
8.	Fernand Ouellet "Lower Canada" 1792-1841
9.	W. S. MacNutt "The Atlantic Provinces" 1712-1857
10.	J. M. S. Careless "Canada" 1841-1857
11.	E. E. Rich "The North" 1670-1857
12.	W. L. Morton "Confederation" 1857-1873
13.	P. B. Waite "Canada" 1874-1896
14.	G. R. Cook "Canada" 1897-1921
15.	F. W. Gibson "Canada" 1922-1939
16.	Morris Zaslow "The North" 1870-1965
17.	D. G. Creighton "Canada" 1939-1967.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Coming to my subject, three choices for Canada, I wish to say that Canada today is a far different country from what it was in 1867. We have learned a great deal in the last century not only about our own geography and our resources but about the technology of government. For instance, with our modern knowledge of monetary and fiscal policies it is thought that never again will the countries of the industrial world have to endure great depressions such as those that were characteristic of our economy in the last century. This knowledge must be utilized not only by the members of the federal parliament but by all legislatures in the world to make certain that the growth rate of our countries can be maintained at a pace that balances full employment with the best possible stabilized price structure. It is on this basis that one can, as a parliamentarian, now set oneself clearly defined targets and hope to achieve them.
If one examines the growth rate of our great neighbouring country to the south in the last 100 years and particularly notices the last few years one finds that it has tended to have an annual growth rate of about 4 per cent per year. Then if one examines our own growth rate since 1961 and even earlier and works out an average, it is very clear that economically at this moment in our history we should be setting ourselves a target which past experience shows we can achieve to get maximum employment and stabilized prices at the same time.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I want to suggest as this target, which I have arrived at with great timidity in trying to find something that is practical, that we as the Canadian legislative group responsible for the economic health of our country should this year on our one hundredth birthday set an average growth rate of 6 per cent per year. If we can maintain our growth rate between 5 per cent and 7 per cent over the next two or three decades then Canadians will know that
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard).]
in comparison with the United States growth rate, which I think will average about 4 per cent based on past experience, on a per capita basis we will be equal in wealth to our neighbours to the south. I think an average of 6 per cent is a reasonable, practical and possible rate to achieve. This is an objective we can very well set ourselves and we can have confidence in our ability to reach this target.
If we have the confidence we have the resources. The inventory of our resources is much clearer now than it was ten years ago. We certainly have the energy, and the inventory of potential energy resources is much clearer than ten years ago. We also have some knowledge of our water resources and our basic resources both renewable and nonrenewable. With this energy, water and resources there is no reason we cannot maintain a growth rate average of 6 per cent which will make us on a per capita basis the wealthiest nation in the world in the next quarter century. Surely that should be our target.
It is passing strange that with the Canadian characteristic of lack of confidence in ourselves we have to learn from the United States that all these things are possible. We have to learn this from reports such as the Paley report of 1952 and the Landsberg report of 1963. With our resources, energy and water and the targets I have mentioned we have the potential to become the most wealthy nation in the world. That is the key of my message for 1967. If my colleague from Queens, Prince Edward Island is correct, that no one today will pay any attention to what I say, I hope that 100 years from now those people who read the record of what has been said during this debate on the anniversary of our first century will realize that these remarks have been vindicated.
To achieve this growth rate we have to make one major decision. We must decide which of three economic courses to follow. Let me outline these courses in a succinct way. We may choose the course of continen-talism, we can go back to the old traditional policies of restrictive nationalism, or we can choose the course of expansionist nationalism. Those are the three courses.
Continentalism is a phrase used to describe the conviction held by many Canadians over the last 100 years that it is the ultimate destiny of Canada to become part of an economic union with the United States and eventually part of a political union. Great Canadians have held this view and sincere Canadians hold this view today, with the same sincerity
May 16, 1967

The Address-Mr. Hamilton
I trust as those who held it in the past. One of the greatest Canadians ever to grace this Canadian assembly, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, all through his life as a young radical, as a growing power in the political world, and finally as a senior statesman held the view that the ultimate destiny of our country was some form of union with the United States. Only once or twice in his political career when he was angry with the United States about one or two things did he ever veer from this view.
This view is held by many people today in the Liberal party, as was demonstrated last September in Ottawa at the policy convention. At that great policy convention the majority of Liberal delegates indicated with full sincerity that they were in favour of a commercial union with the United States. This view is held sincerely by many people. I do not know that all people in Canada want to accept it, but I know there is no question about the feelings of those of us in this part of the house who call ourselves Progressive Conservatives.
The second choice, restrictive nationalism, has been the traditional policy of both Liberals and Conservatives for the last 80 years. This is the policy under which we try to build walls around our country to protect our workers and our business elements and to make sure that the level of living in this country is reasonably fair to all segments. It was in this traditional policy of restrictive nationalism that we built our industry, but we now know it has become obsolete and out of date over the last quarter of a century.
At the present time this type of policy is followed intensively by one of the Toronto members on the government side, whom I admire for his sincerity. I suppose there are many members in this place who support him. The use of the phrase "restrictive nationalism" may be argued, but generally the feeling is the same, that the people who hold to the choice of restrictive protection are accurately described as restrictive nationalists. They follow this course for good motives. They do not want to see Canada drifting because of a lack of action into an economic part of the United States and eventually a political part of that country. Those of us who are nationalists can admire those people in all parties who support restrictive nationalism because they do so for a good purpose.
There is a third choice, and that choice is expansionist nationalism. It does not depend just on flag waving or on drifting along and
letting things happen. It depends on a government which believes there is a place on the north half on this continent for a country that is peculiarly our own. The word which describes that kind of a government is "dynamic". Such a government must meet the pressures of modern corporate capitalism. This is universal, not just peculiar to one country or one continent. It exists all over the world as a type of economic organization which sees no boundary lines and pays no attention to morals or national aspirations.
In a system which produces so much wealth what are we as Canadians to do? Some would turn back the clock and try to deny these benefits to our people. Others want to succumb to them and say that if we were all to become the same all over the world this would be an end in itself worthy to be desired. There are others who say, let us make use of the larger producing capacities of this system and yet, because we are the sovereign people in this parliament, live up to moral principles by developing in a moral way those things to satisfy all forms of basic need of life, and above all to serve the interests of the group.
The group to which I refer is made up of those who call themselves Canadians. There is a place in mankind's struggle for a better and better life for the group. This is not a world in which everything comes down to the individual benefit. There is a place for the family, for community values and for a group such as a nation. You do not necessarily have to be bilingual or eloquent; you just need a mere consciousness that you are a group slightly different from other groups. This is not bad; it is good. It inspires people to do many things that the theory of individualism cannot inspire a person to do.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I hold the view that no culture can survive based on the theory that as long as an individual gets the most for himself the sum total is a good society. I reject that theory of complete individualism. We use it, I know, to get economic development, but at the same time I know there must exist along with that the awareness that there is a value in group loyalty and group discipline. I am a Canadian. This may be a miserable culture on the northern half of this continent but, by Jove, it is our own and I think we should work to maintain it. I do not think we should build walls between the free parts of the world and the others. I do not think we will achieve this group consciousness by sitting
May 16, 1967

The Address-Mr. Hamilton here and doing nothing. I believe we can build this country only if we work dynamically, positively and constructively to do so.
Therefore there is a third choice, expansionism at home and abroad. We all know, however, that we have slipped a longways down the slippery slope of union with the United States. First of all, the natural economic structure of our two countries has tied us together so that we are like Siamese twins who cannot separate without mortal harm to one or both. We know that during the last war we joined our war efforts and this has pushed us once more into the arms of a continental economic system. It disturbs me to watch the development of my country and see a failure to realize opportunities to be positive, dynamic and expansionist in building up the country. I bleed a little for my fellow Canadians.
What are the techniques of this dynamic positive expansionism? I will not recite all of the things of the past but let me mention a few. In Canada we must have a consciousness of a development policy for our resources so that regions are deliberately built up when they fall behind. In Canada we must have a deliberate policy to help those segments of the population which do not share reasonably equally in the wealth of this nation.
As I said earlier, to achieve these ends we must use our monetary and fiscal know-how which we have accumulated over the last 15 or 20 years. That would be a speech by itself. We must realize that our trade techniques are tying us more and more to the industrial world and are making the gulf between the newly developed nations and the industrial wealthy nations greater. We deliberately, dynamically, positively and constructively must build those institutions to bridge that gulf.
I spoke on this matter on October 8, 1964, I believe. If anyone wishes to go back and read some of my proposals he will find them in that speech. We must think deliberately of how by positive means we can get more processing in Canada. I might mention an example. Last year a Canadian company wanted to bring more western gas into eastern Canada and reduce the price below the level of the United States price. This would have meant more industry, lower costs in Canada and more businesses without any artificial restriction. This is the reason I took the stand I did in this place at that time. I thank the government for changing its mind once the facts were made known.

I deplore the situation when I see the provinces of Newfoundland and Quebec left alone in respect of the great power resources of the Churchill river which formerly was called the Hamilton river. We should have helped those two provinces. The situation is the same as that in respect of the power on the Nelson river in British Columbia and the Yukon Territory. This government, as a positive dynamic undertaking, should have built a national power grid so that those provinces which own this power could have pumped it east and west before they put in a north and south extension in order to give Canadians first chance at this power on an economic basis and in order to provide greater availability of markets to these provinces or the private companies, whoever owns the power. I do not care whether the resources are owned by a province or by a private company. If it is Canadian, we should back it in a positive, constructive way to get our costs lowered.
As I go through all the various things I want to say here my enthusiasm for Canada rises. Last April Japan made a proposal that Australia, Japan, the United States and Canada join to set common growth rates so that we could meet problems in the same way the common market meets them. There has been no response from either the United States or Canadian governments. These are the failures which depress me. There is so much on the optimistic side, however, that I keep on fighting.
We must have devices in Canada to encourage Canadians on a voluntary basis to take an interest in equity investment. I am not thinking merely of investment at the stabilized stage of industry where we would get 5 per cent on our money. I have in mind the exploration and development stage. This is where the wealth is developed and where the ownership and control are. This is coming, but there is no help from the government. We started a trade promotion drive in 1960. Our exports were $4 billion then. They have risen to $11 billion just because the government gave the leadership. I need not go into the details of that operation, it is well known. I know Canadians have the resources and the know-how. If they have the will, they can do it. If you speak to me in this centennial year about uniting Canadians, I say we can unite Canadians through equality of opportunity and with the knowledge and confidence that we are going to be as wealthy a nation as any industrialized country.
May 16, 1967	COMMONS
Finally, we must make another decision separate from the economic decision involving the three courses I have outlined of continen-talism, restrictive nationalism and expansionist nationalism. I think most of us know where I stand on the economic course. We have, however, another decision which is just as important. I see a trend toward a policy of handouts. I know that 25 per cent of Canadian people live at levels below that which we can tolerate. I know that one and a half billion people around the world live at levels below that which we can tolerate. But there is another way to take action than by handouts. There are programs of self-help. We introduced one when we were the government. It is called ARDA. In this program surveys could be made and knowledge furnished to any group of people who wished that knowledge. Not only would we drain the places which need draining and dam the waters which need damming but we also would get the local people-farmers, businessmen and professional people-working together to raise the income of marginal areas, not just to some miserable level of $3,500 but to a level equal to that of any other family group in the country.
As I travel around world and hear the phrases "ugly Russian" and "ugly American" I know I do not want to hear my country called "ugly Canada". We must promote these self-help programs to give respect to ourselves and those we help. I cannot speak for 100 years ahead, but I hope that in the next century Canadians will back the course of self-help rather than just try to appease their conscience by handouts.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I join other hon. members in congratulating the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I thought both hon. members did an excellent job.
In my opinion the most crucial problem besetting parliament today is the need for reform. I know this is a most hackneyed subject and I am almost reluctant to bring it up again. However, I feel that if by repetition we emphasize the importance of this subject our remarks will be justified. We have a grandiose and imaginative program of legislation before us, but there is one point which should be made. We will not be able to enact this legislation quickly and efficiently unless we modernize our parliamentary machinery. What has amazed me since January, 1966 is the amount of legislation we have been able
DEBATES	271
The Address-Mr. Tolmie to enact. This simply means that we could have done more had our procedures been improved. What we have done has been at the expense of long hours and a great toll upon the members of the house.
We have had a spectacular record of achievement. I do not say this in a partisan manner. I believe that all members of the house, even though some may do so grudgingly, give the government credit for its achievements. I say this because if we can eliminate some of the antique procedures which now harass the house we will be able to be much more productive.
What about the future? In the throne speech we are faced with a veritable avalanche of legislation designed to cater to the interests of urban dwellers, interests in the field of domestic relations and in the field of criminal law. I believe this to be good. The veering away from social welfare programs is good. We are now directing our attention to social reform programs. But again there is a catch. If we wish to implement these programs, then not only do we have to tinker and tamper with the machinery of government but to take it apart and reassemble it.
My thesis is very simple. I believe that parliamentary reform should have priority. It should be the bedrock upon which our legislative house is constructed. We have taken a good step in setting up a committee on parliamentary procedure, and I earnestly hope that the committee will undertake its task most seriously. It will delve into the mechanics of parliamentary procedure and into the underlying concept of parliament itself. One might properly ask: If parliamentary procedure is so important then why do we rush so impetuously? The answer is fairly simple. Lurking in the background for years has been a desire for some reform. However, in the past few years, in view of government intervention, social reform and social welfare programs, and problems respecting management and labour relations which confront us, we have needed more legislation. In this very complex society we are besieged by requests for remedial legislation from all types of groups. We have more work, and we are not able to cope with it properly.
There is one very strong factor militating against parliamentary reform and that is the strong clash of opinion as to the role of parliament itself. Some people believe that this chamber should basically be a debating forum. They feel there should be an almost unbridled expression of opinion and that any
May 16, 1967

The Address-Mr. Tolmie step to curtail this will impair the very essence of democracy. This is understandable. I would certainly not want to see any procedures introduced which would in any way stop vigorous and fiery debate or which would make parliament subservient to the whims of the government. However, I believe there is a somewhat pernicious preoccupation with this role of parliament while insufficient attention is paid to the other role of parliament, its duty to transact the country's business. I think we must face the fact that we are running a multibillion dollar business and that we cannot run it with the same rules as we had a hundred years ago. If we are going to translate into action the hopes, aims and aspirations of our people and do it efficiently, we have to change the rules and change them fast.
I make no apology for making certain recommendations. I know they are not original. First of all may I say it is appalling to see new members coming into this chamber without having the slightest grasp of the rules and parliamentary procedure. Most members have no penchant for procedure and no flair for it. They become discouraged and frustrated and thus cannot play a useful role in parliament. On the other hand, there are certain hon. members who have a flair for the rules. In some cases they become very familiar with them but sometimes they use them to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of the house. Therefore I think it would make good sense to train new members. I feel that before any new member takes his seat he should be compelled to listen to lectures for at least one week in which parliamentary procedure, behaviour and ethnics would be explained. I believe this is essential. I also believe we should have a condensed handbook on parliamentary rules. At present we have a large volume but it is difficult to understand and very perplexing. I think such a handbook could be written in the form of questions and answers. It should be available to all members and should contain the highlights of parliamentary procedure.
I believe that sessions should start and end at a specified time. This is necessary for good organization. We will then be able to organize the work of the committees and our own free time, as well as our debates here. But most important of all, we will be able to organize our private lives. Many hon. members realize that our long-suffering wives are harassed by the uncertainties and vicissitudes of politics, and I think it is about time we paid some [Mr. Tolmie.1
attention to this aspect of parliamentary life. If we could organize our leisure time we could make our wives happy. When our wives are happy we are happy and more productive and thus can serve our country better.
I should like to speak now about votes of confidence. I submit that the present situation, if not idiotic, is completely irrational. At present, if the government introduces a bill which is voted down the government falls and we are faced with an election. Such a situation could take place if, for example, 15 or 20 government members were caught in a snowdrift. This is ludicrous. I believe that if the government has to fall this should happen by way of a formal vote of non-confidence at a certain specified time.
If we change this procedure we will eliminate a lot of petty political interplay and petty manoeuvring for advantage. Naturally the opposition would wish to catch the government off guard. So would we if we were in the opposition. But this is something we could do without. No efficient company would allow its directors to be ousted because some shareholders, even a majority of them, disagreed with one facet of their policy. They would only be asked to resign if they lost the confidence of the majority of the shareholders.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Turning to the actual conduct of the house I suggest, in the first place, that there are many things we could improve. For example, we could improve our procedure in connection with ministerial statements. They could be tabled and printed in Hansard. After distribution to the leaders of the opposition parties the debate could then be restricted to five minutes.
I feel that the provision for emergency debates has been much abused. My understanding of the purpose of an emergency debate is to give the opposition an opportunity to bring to the attention of the government something of the utmost national importance which would affect the general welfare of this country. This is not what happens. A member rises in the house fresh from his constituency and presents a local problem. He addresses the house before the assembled press representatives. He makes his point and then he is called the guardian of his constituency. Actually he is wasting the time of the house. Most of these motions are disallowed. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you should have the privilege of disallowing these motions without debate or that debate be restricted to five
May IB. 1967	COMMONS
minutes with one representative from each party participating.
I believe also that our question period should be completely revamped. I believe in the question period. I think it is essential that the government should be scrutinized and if there are any weaknesses or injustices it is the duty of the opposition to probe deeply. However, I believe this can be done and time saved. What happens now? We have between 20 and 25 well paid executives sitting for an hour a day listening to questions of all types from all sources and without notice. I submit that these gentlemen should be devoting more time to running this country. They should be devoting time to the formulation of policy and to the administration of their departments. This objective could be accomplished if we copied the British system and had certain ministers come into the house for a couple of days a week at scheduled times. They would have notice of the questions to be asked and we would receive better answers. We would have more efficiency.
I believe it is self-evident that we should limit the time spent on debate. All members in this house realize that in most debates we become repetitious and waste time. Most members realize that after a certain length of time a question has been completely aired. They know they are not going to convince anyone to change his mind. They know they are tired and nauseated by the repetition and they know that the country is. I feel that if we cannot allocate time for debates by agreement we should do so by a vote of the house.
I believe speeches should be limited to 20 minutes, Mr. Speaker. In certain cases this time could be extended. I also believe in the principle of filing speeches. This simply means that a person wants to get on the record,-


Mr. Churchill:: You had better file this one right away.


Donald Ross Tolmie: -and he could do so by filing his speech. This is done in the Congress of the United States and there is no reason why it could not be done here.
I believe too that the throne speech debate and the budget debate could be restricted to five days. If members could file their speeches it should be restricted to three days. The mid-Victorian method of voting by standing up is ridiculous and time wasting. There is no reason why we cannot have some kind of electronic voting system installed such as the United Nations has. If we can put men on the
DEBATES	273
The Address-Mr. Tolmie moon and can develop I.B.M. machines, then certainly we can introduce a modern voting system.
The committee system has worked very well but it should be improved by better time allocations for sittings and more research staff. My thesis is very simple, Mr. Speaker. I believe that parliamentary reform should have priority over all other legislation. I believe that from it will flow good legislation and efficiency in our operations. Perhaps this should be our parliamentary centennial project.
Why do I say this? May I outline my three reasons for advocating parliamentary reform. Many new members come into this house and become disenchanted, discouraged and disillusioned. They are cast into this mood by the obvious, stupid waste of time. They become disgruntled and discouraged. If we are going to retain members and attract good new members, then we should streamline our procedures. Second, as I said before, if we are going to transact business we have to improve our procedures. At this particular time in our history when we are enacting social legislation to bring about social reforms, we need to be able to proceed quickly. Each day we delay is a day of suffering for those waiting for divorce reform, for those waiting for penal reform, for those waiting for reforms in connection with juvenile delinquency, for those waiting for protection against hate literature, for those desperately needing housing and for those who should be protected against the ravages of pollution. The totality of human suffering and economic waste caused by outdated ritualistic parliamentary procedures staggers the imagination and cries out for help.
Perhaps the most important of all the reasons for a drastic change in our parliamentary procedure is the need to uplift the image of parliament itself. Bluntly and starkly said, rightly or wrongly our parliament is held in low esteem. A vivid picture of endless, futile debates has seeped down to the grass roots of this nation and conjured up an image of bungling, inefficient parliament. We must raise the standards of excellence in parliament so the people of this land will respect this institution and we will thus impart strength and vitality to it. We must increase the prestige of parliament so that parents across this land will be proud tc see their sons adorn this chamber. We must increase the prestige of parliament so that well motivated, well qualified young men in our nation will seek a seat in this venerable house. We cannot do
May 16, 1967

The Address-Mr. Irvine it by tinkering with the procedures of parliament. We must do it by a drastic and brutal assault on the rules of the house and the basic concepts underlying parliament.
In this our centennial year we are looking for projects, so let us make this our project. In this our centennial year Canadians are told, in flaming, emotional speeches, of the unlimited riches, individual dignity and security awaiting all of us as we enter the second century. Let us provide the means of achieving these most laudable and attainable goals.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member permit a question? Did I understand the hon. member to say that a centennial project for all of us should be a brutal attack on parliament?


Donald Ross Tolmie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman misconstrued my remarks. I said that what we should do in this centennial year is to bring about a realistic, brutal assault on the outdated parliamentary procedures but not on parliament itself.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London):: It had been my intention in entering this debate to say a few words about our centennial year and the great celebrations we are having throughout the country, and also to say something about our constitution. All these things have been said so many times, and in such an effective way, that I feel perhaps anything I might add would be somewhat redundant. However, to those of others I should like to add my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am sure that this has been a wonderful opportunity for these two new members. Certainly they should be congratulated upon their sincerity of purpose. I do not go along with everything they said, but naturally I would not. At the same time I do want to pass along my congratulations to them.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne might be termed an exercise in futility. I think it conceals a great deal more than it actually reveals. There is an abundance of quantity and an almost complete famine of quality. There is nothing of a very constructive nature. It contains a rehashing of what the government has done, but very little is said about what it intends to do in the future, which I think is so important in this our centennial year. The speech was of extraordinary length and according to one of the editorials I read, had a looseness of
(Mr. Tolmie.]
composition. It was not a reliable forecast of legislation, but an inventory of the desires and dreams of a floundering government.
Some of the items mentioned in the speech are the following: the expansion of designated areas; a job finding program; mobility financing; again the Canada Development Corporation; aid to Indians and Eskimos-all very worthy objectives. There is to be additional foreign aid in the amount, I believe, of $300 million, again a worthy objective. However, perhaps we should think for a little while and ask ourselves whether true charity does not begin at home.
There was no mention of solutions for such things as the staggering national debt that we have at the present time, the terrific burden that is placed upon the taxpayer and the hundreds of thousands of people who are unemployed. The government contend that more people are employed, but this is only natural because there are more people in Canada today. The law of nature sees that we have an increase every year, and people also enter the country as immigrants. Naturally there are more people in Canada today and so more are working; but there are also more unemployed.
Nothing was said, to my knowledge, about what was going to be done to control the spiralling cost of living, or what was going to be done about protecting the man who carries a lunch bucket against the present inflationary economy of this country. What is going to be done about increased government spending year after year, as evidenced by the estimates? The dessert was mentioned, Mr. Speaker, but there was little or no thought given to the main course.
Another matter to which I would draw the attention of the house, and about which I have spoken to the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell), a man for whom I have the greatest admiration, is that no mention was made in the speech of hate literature and the prohibition of the dissemination of such literature. Last session there were two private members bills on the order paper dealing with this subject. There was Bill No. C-45, to amend, I believe it was, the Post Office Act to forbid the distribution of this type of literature through the mails. Then there was Bill No. C-98, which I believe ws sponsored by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), having to do with group libel, the dissemination of group hatred. I should have liked to see some reference to this matter in the speech.
May 16, 1967

I have before me a copy of an item which was distributed in my home city of London, as well as in Windsor, Toronto and perhaps other cities. 1 am not going to give the name of the person involved because I am sure that what this individual wants is a little notoriety; but I do not think that this sort of thing is going to contribute very much to the success of this country in our next century. This material is published by a nazi group, so-called, and we surely had enough of them during the second world war and immediately preceding it. It bears the sign of the swastika, and beneath it, at the foot of the page appears the following:
The symbol of the movement which alone can prevent the Star of David from being forced on to us as our flag.
This is hate literature in its worst form, Mr. Speaker. It goes on:
The flag of a mixed racial society must not be forced on us!
Then it goes on to say we should keep our country white and our race pure. This literature is directed at the Jewish people, a people who have made such great contributions to our business, economic and cultural life.
There are those who say, Mr. Speaker, that it is not in the interest of freedom of speech, one of the freedoms which we cherish, to pass legislation prohibiting this kind of thing. However, I contend that a failure to pass legislation forbidding it ignores freedom of religion. We would be picking out one group, then another, and which group would be the next one?
I understand from talking to the Solicitor General that the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons have been instructed to recommend some kind of legislation to this house in this regard, and that they should do this very soon. I hope that this type of legislation will be presented to us in the immediate future. We have to do something to protect this segment of our society, so let us not hedge or equivocate. These citizens are entitled, the same as any member of this house, to the dignity of the individual. They are also entitled to freedom of religion. I hope that this government does not consider them as second class citizens.
Another subject with which I should like to deal is the maltreatment of children. At the last session I introduced a private members bill, Bill No. C-219, dealing with this very subject, and it was still on the order paper at the end of the session. We have a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, but we
The Address-Mr. Irvine have no society for the prevention of cruelty to children. How wrong can we be?
The province of Ontario brought in legislation to make it mandatory for people to report any knowledge they had of maltreatment of children, but there were no teeth in that legislation, Mr. Speaker. The bill I introduced last session, and which I intend to reintroduce at this session makes it a criminal offence to fail to report cases of cruelty. It imposes a fine and/or prison term on those working in the medical profession for failing to report cruelty cases and imposes a lesser fine on other individuals. I submit that in the interests of humanity cases of this kind should be reported. Many cases of this sort have come to the attention of hon. members, and many have come to my attention during the four years I have had the privilege of sitting in this chamber.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
One of the most deplorable incidents that happened recently in my riding was where a young couple punished their three and a half year old child for misdemeanours by holding it in boiling water. The child died, and the couple was sentenced to two years imprisonment. That crime was despicable; it was terrible. People who let a child suffer like that ought not to be returned to society until they are psychiatrically sound. They are sick; and there are many like them throughout the country.
Next I want to speak about pension plans for retired civil servants. I wish to quote from a document printed by the public service superannuates. It contains interesting information which I have checked and find to be true, and I wish to put some of it on the record. Our civil servants have served their country well, but are receiving pitiful pensions, although the money is there to increase their pensions; it is their money. I now quote from the document:
The superannuation plan for civil service employees of Canada has been in operation since 1924. The Public Service Superannuation Act contains the authority for its establishment and the provisions for its administration. Section 34 of the P.S.S. Act-
That is the Public Service Superannuation Act:
-requires that the Minister of Finance "shall lay before parliament each year a report on the administration of this act during the preceding fiscal year. . ." Section 32 describes the "amounts to be credited to the account in each fiscal year", and section 35 of the P.S.S. regulations provides how much and when the interest earned on the balance of the account shall be calculated and credited.

May 16, 1967
The Address-Mr. Irvine
According to these annual reports the Minister of Finance shows that the balance at the credit of this account as at March 31, 1965, was $2,161 million-
It has increased since then:
-and that this amount was $304 million higher than the balance at the previous fiscal year end ...
Also, interest alone on the cumulative balance year after year is more than the total annual expenditure. In other words the receipts into the fund are more than three times the expenditures from the fund.
That needs to be looked into carefully. Continuing:
In January of 1966 in answer to questions asked in the House of Commons it was revealed that 5.330 retired civil servants and 6,775 widows of civil servants receive pensions of less than $50.00 a month. Those getting under $100 monthly include 13,109 civil servants and 11,923 widows. It has recently been said by welfare authorities that a couple getting less than $300 a month are living on the fringe of poverty .. .
Coupled with these figures the Dominion Bureau of Statistics tells us that in February the consumer price index rose to a record 142.1 based on the 1949 consumer prices equalling 100. In addition, from the beginning of the war years to the 1949 establishment of this consumer price index, the cost of living rose approximately 60 per cent.
In 25 years the cost of living has doubled, yet the pensions of our retired civil servants have remained the same. Continuing:
The reason why the P.S.S. fund is in the red is because section 3(2) of the P.S.S. Act places the superannuation account in the consolidated revenue fund and the money is thereby used for purposes other than superannuation. The Glassco Commission revealed a shortage in the superannuation account. Moneys collected as contributions toward a pension plan by the administrators or trustees from employer and employee cannot be classified as revenue in the sense that postal, customs, excise, income tax, etc., returns are considered as revenue. Contributions toward the Canada Pension Plan are not being included as revenue. These moneys are being made available for investment.
The provinces are clamouring to use this money at the present time. Continuing:
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have compared the P.S. superannuation plan with outside pension plans, and have said that by granting pension adjustments in favour of federal superannuates they would be discriminating against Canadian citizens. By the way are federal civil servants not Canadian citizens? These gentlemen have omitted to mention that this is a contributory plan ...
In January 1965 employees of the Ford Motor Company of Canada obtained an adjustment in their pensions of $1.45 per month for each year of service. A pensioner with 30 years service thus got a pension increase of $43.50 per month...
Revision of the P.S.S. Act is long overdue. In any revision, consideration should be given to inserting a provision whereby pensions will be adjusted in line with the consumer cost of living

index, as is now being done for the Canada Pension Plan, the Old Age Security, and in the case of salaries and wages paid throughout the civilized world. The British Pensions (Increase) Act has provided pension increases in 1920, 1924, 1944, 1947, 1952, 1954, 1956, 1959, 1962 and 1965 for retired public servants.
It is time that we acted on behalf of our civil servants, many of whom have given dedicated service to this country.
Next I refer to page 590 of Hansard for April 26, 1965 where the following information is found:
The balance of $2,161 million in this account at March 31, 1965 is $304 million higher than the balance at the previous fiscal year end.
This money belongs to our retired civil servants, and we ought to be fair with them. Let us bring their pensions to a decent level.
Next I want to say something about empire building, government by bureaucracy. The figures I shall mention I have researched thoroughly, some of them going back to 1963, when this government took over. It will be interesting to compare these figures with those of today. For instance, in 1963 the C.B.C. had 824 employees; today it has 1,308-almost twice as many. In 1963 the Department of Agriculture employed 10,410; today it employs 12,442. The B.B.G.-much younger and probably much wiser then- employed 40, and today employ 94. The figures for the Department of Fisheries show 2,668 for 1963, and 3,285 employed today. In the Department of Public Works there were 9,290 in 1963 and there are 9,815 today. In the Department of Defence Production-and this is an alarming increase-we had 1,647 in 1963, compared with 5,430 today. The Department of the Secretary of State employed 824 as compared with 1,497 today.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Let us look at the spending estimates of these various departments and see how they have increased since this government took office. Estimates of C.B.C. expenditure have increased by $56 million, which is 70 per cent higher than the 1963 figure. In the ministry of agriculture the increase is $78 million, amounting to 45 per cent. The increase for the Board of Broadcast Governors is $691,000 or 90 per cent. In the Department of Fisheries it is $24 million-a 100 per cent increase. In Public Works it is $98 million or an increase of 55 per cent-I am quoting the nearest round figure below the actual amount in each case.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford that kind of government. The estimated expenditure in
May 16, 1967

the fiscal year just ended was $8,795 million. This year it is $9.5 billion-very nearly a billion dollars more. This is at a time when things are pretty good-we hope-and when we should perhaps be laying something aside for a day when it might be needed. Somebody has to pay the piper, and it is the taxpayer. It is the man in the income bracket between $5,000 and $10,000 who pays most of the income tax which is collected in Canada.
The present administration is spending money like a drunken sailor. This is an expensive government and the taxpayer just cannot afford it. If we consider this picture of taxation and expenditure together with the disunity which seems to be running through the cabinet at the present time it may be concluded that this is a good time for the government to resign. Let them resign now. Let us get ourselves a government which would protect the individual, the average person, so that he can live in at least a semblance of dignity.
Today the average person pays 34 cents out of every dollar he makes in taxes of one form or another. I contend that the burden of taxation has reached the point at which he can stand no more. Consider the increases which have taken place in the field of wages-increases which amount to about 10 per cent a year. Compare this rate of increase with the rate of increase of our productivity. Last year national productivity was supposed to have increased by 6 per cent but the influence of factors such as price indexes brought the net increase down to about 4-J per cent.
If wages are increasing at twice the rate of the increase in our productivity, something has to be done. If not, we shall price ourselves completely out of foreign markets-and when we do that we shall really be in trouble, because once we lose those markets we shall find ourselves facing mass unemployment, something we cannot afford with prices as high as they are at present.
I suggest to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson), who I see in the house now, that the government should take a good look at this situation. I am seriously concerned as to the direction in which we are going, and I know he is, too. What is the answer? In my own minimal way I have a few thoughts on the subject:
1.	We should bring about a gigantic cut in all expenditures. Let us cut and trim everything as closely as we can. Anyone who operates a business, whether big or small, public or corporate, knows that if the money going
The Address-Mr. Ryan out is more than the money coming in, something has to be done about it. This is the position in which we find ourselves today.
2.	We must increase our productivity by every means open to us.
3.	We must get back to common sense business principles-we cannot pay out more than we receive.
4.	We must return to the old fashioned, outmoded method of pay as you go, which is still, to my way of thinking, the ideal way. Why not a balanced budget for a change? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) will shortly be presenting a budget to us. I hope that somehow he will be able to present us with at least a balanced budget; we would like to think that in this our centennial year we are heading in the right direction. We should be looking forward and upward-and when I say "upward" I do not mean that our expenditures should be going in this direction. It is time for each of us in all parties in this house to get together and put our country first, and petty party grievances second.


Mr. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: I should like to begin by complimenting the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I believe all hon. members will agree with me when I say the house has two new found stars, one from Newfoundland and the other from Quebec. They are to be commended on the excellent manner in which they carried out their assignments.
As chairman of our Canadian NATO parliamentary association I feel I should take the opportunity afforded by this debate to speak for my allotted time with respect to certain aspects of foreign affairs which are dealt with in the speech from the throne. On the premise that our constant objective is to strengthen Canada's position in the councils of nations by the ardent pursuit of world peace, I believe we must, with strength, face up to current international problems.
We fear the proliferation of nuclear arms and are dismayed at the slow progress being made in the field of international disarmament. We recognize the urgent need for the reform of the NATO alliance and acknowledge that our NORAD arrangements require adjustment. The alternate periods of cold war and detente between east and west greatly complicate these problems.
As my time is limited, I intend to confine myself to speaking about the reform of NATO and the North Atlantic Assembly. I shall try to deal with these subjects as I see them, as chairman of our local NATO association and

May 16, 1967
The Address-Mr. Ryan as your representative on the standing committee of the North Atlantic Assembly. With respect to the reform of NATO, I shall endeavour to give hon. members some background on the origin of NATO, some details of Canada's present contribution to NATO, and the original and current Canadian view of it as compared with the American view. Then I shall deal with current problems and the need for reform.
During the second world war, Russia annexed Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, certain parts of Finland, Poland, Rumania, northeast Germany and eastern Czechoslovakia. She took over 180,000 square miles of territory and more than 23 million inhabitants. After the war, by 1948, Moscow controlled and swallowed another 363 million square miles of territory and 95 million people. Her pressure extended menacingly into various other parts of the world, ranging from Greece in the Balkans to Korea in Asia. The west was scared into action.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Free Europe turned to the United States, the only power strong enough to withstand the might of the U.S.S.R. On March 12, 1947, President Truman enunciated the Truman doctrine. Congress responded with $400 million in aid and dispatched military and civilian missions to Greece and Turkey. The Marshall plan extended aid to all Europe, including Russia and her satellites behind the iron curtain, but no Soviet state or satellite was permitted to accept this aid, and the conditions between east and west became what is described as the cold war.
On March 17,	1948, Belgium, France,
Luxemburg, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom signed the Brussels Treaty which pledged mutual co-operation in building up a common defence system and the strengthening of economic and cultural aids. Three months later the Russians countered with the blockade of Berlin. Canada welcomed the Brussels Treaty, and promised to support an effective system of collective security through regional pacts under the charter of the United Nations. The Canadian suggestion for a mutual defence alliance received support in Britain and in the United States. After a series of talks between representatives of Canada, the United States and those of the Brussels treaty powers, the text of the treaty was published on March 18, 1949. Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Norway and Portugal were officially invited to accede to the treaty, and on April 4, 1949, in spite of official protests

from the Soviet union, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington by the foreign ministers of 12 countries, including Canada, and the parliaments of all countries ratified the treaty within five months thereafter. Greece and Turkey were invited to join and formally acceded on February 18, 1952. The Federal Republic of Germany officially became a member on May 9, 1955, to bring the membership of the alliance to 15 countries.
Canada's contribution to NATO defence is a combination of land, sea and air elements of its armed forces. In West Germany, in the Soest area, we have stationed the 4th Canadian Infantry Brigade, consisting of approximately 6,300 officers and men under Brigadier Amy. This force is kept at a high state of readiness, at a cost of about $54 million annually, excluding weapons. The Canadian government is in the process of re-equipping the brigade with new and modern vehicles and weapons.
Our delegation to the NATO Parliamentarians Conference held in Paris last November had the privilege, before the conference, of visiting the 4th brigade at Soest and can attest to its superlative condition and spirit. The delegation also inspected two of our four air bases in France and Germany. At Marville, France, we saw the highly efficient CF-104 reconnaissance operations that are carried out by No. 1 wing of the air division. Later the group proceeded with Air Vice Marshal Lane to No. 4 wing at Baden Soel-lingen in Germany where we toured the facilities and were briefed as far as possible on the state of readiness of our modern aircraft. The high degree of professionalism possessed by our military officers and men was quite apparent, and we were very proud of them.
In addition we have other troops that are committed to NATO but are maintained in Canada. Also maintained in Canada is a special force, a 3,176 man battalion group for the ACE Mobile Force. ACE is under the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, SACEUR, and is designed for quick action to meet any aggression on the NATO flanks, such as in Norway, Greece or Turkey, or to meet any other similar contingency. The present commander of ACE is a Canadian, General Turcot. Last summer Canada offered NATO two more battalions for ACE Mobile Force and recently the offer was accepted in principle.
May 16, 1967

One of the most important roles that Canada played in the founding of the North Atlantic Alliance was to bring the United States into the treaty. However, from the outset there have continued to be basic differences in the views, aims and attitudes of the Canadian and American governments. Even today, while they both generally consider NATO to be indispensable, yet in need of change from its present form, they have come to these conclusions by different ways and for different reasons. Thus they tend to different solutions of the basic problems that are facing NATO.
Canada has always, from the beginning looked on the alliance as the basis of a future Atlantic community. Beyond the military tasks Canadians saw the ultimately more important political, economic, social and agricultural roles. She tried to incorporate specific proposals along these lines in the treaty itself, but failed because the larger powers were not too enthusiastic. The best that was achieved was the insertion of Article II in the treaty, that is the article which contains the nonmilitary provisions.
During the Truman-Eisenhower days the United States viewed NATO as a purely military association, with the one task of defending Europe, a policy with which Canada has never entirely agreed. The Canadian outlook has at no time considered NATO in its actual form as a solely military alliance for the defence of Europe. We have sought for greater unities, but despite disagreement as to the ultimate aims of the alliance Canada has supported moves toward the integration of the armed forces of NATO members, and opposed demands for exceptions.
Hopes were high at one time of NATO transforming itself into a close association of free countries on both sides of the Atlantic, but again the larger powers have not encouraged the extension of it into other fields. The United States Congress, for example, has continued to be opposed to any form of foreign control of United States policy.
As a defence alliance NATO has proven to be a tremendous success. Its existence has diminished the danger to western Europe, and that very fact has raised problems within the alliance. By 1958 the British were critical of the fact that NATO had failed to work out a common policy on a global basis, and France was not satisfied with preponderant American influence in NATO. President de Gaulle sought a permanent directorate composed of the representatives of the United States,
The Address-Mr. Ryan Britain and France to co-operate their policies the world over. The American response to this was chilling, and apart from the big three it was already clear that the other members of the alliance, including Canada, sought more consultation and less domination under the guise of co-ordination.
In addition to the political and economic problems of the alliance, the late President Kennedy had to come to grips with the question of control over nuclear weapons. He evolved a formula in 1962 which indicated that the United States would be ready to share a nuclear weapon partnership with a United States of Europe, but with the diminishing danger to western Europe it proved impossible to take even a first step in the direction of a united Europe.
Many Canadians, of course, did not like the idea of a dualist NATO, or a two-pillar policy, one pillar being in Europe and the other being in North America. This type of partnership would be entirely counter to our traditional foreign policy. What has been important to Canada is that her association be on an equal footing with all NATO countries, as only this structure gives Canada a degree of independence from the United States, a degree of independence that we have considered in the past to be essential.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Another Canadian consideration is that a two-pillar partnership would put Canada in the agonizing position of having to make a choice between opposing American and European policies, on frequent occasions. But the natural trends on both sides of the Atlantic are toward continentalism. Con-tinentalism is a process in operation today that is analogous to the process that brought about confederation in this country 100 years ago.
Canada does not seem to have changed her attitude with regard to President Kennedy's dualist NATO proposal, although circumstances in Europe may very well eventually dictate such a situation-at least with regard to the military aspect of the alliance. Britain's entry into the common market is an example. Will a United States of Europe follow? Will we be forced to change our attitude to remain in the alliance? We are going to need strong leadership and strong support in Canada to keep our independence in our second century.
The nuclear dilemma was not a problem during the early years of the alliance when the concept of the defence of Europe coincided with the concept of the defence of

May 16, 1967
The Address-Mr. Ryan America, and when all the partners in the alliance felt that an assault upon any one of the members would immediately bring forward massive retaliation. By 1959 however the strategic situation had changed. There was talk of a missile gap in favour of the Soviet union, which made Europeans doubt that the American guarantee was unequivocal, and would be instantaneously operative as had been believed earlier.
Then President Kennedy evolved the new look in American strategic thinking, based on the correlated ideas of flexible or measured response and strict central control. The intent was to avoid the necessity to meet every one of the enemies choices with the massive retaliation of the earlier era. The United States now wanted a range of options and the right to discharge its commitments in NATO according to the circumstances, with conventional arms at first and as long as possible, and with nuclear arms if necessary, but in that case with the discretion assured by the tightest and most responsible central control.
This de facto change has had an unsettling effect upon the European side of the alliance, as it did not meet European security requirements or European aspirations. However, today most Europeans are less troubled, now that they have witnessed the American response to the Cuban crisis and have been shown the plans for flexible and measured response. However, a continuing trouble with the policy of flexible response under central control is that it is inconsistent with the political concept of a two-pillar partnership; the latter policy envisages a united Europe with which the United States would share the control of nuclear weapons, and also the west's responsibility for peace, stability and prosperity in the world.
The idea of central control, on the other hand, is based on the idea of integration under United States direction. This apparent contradiction strengthens the European suspicion that the United States really wants acceptance of its military program and only holds out the additional promise of a true partnership in front of the allies to get them to accept such an arrangement.
So today the problems of consultation and the proliferation of nuclear weapons in NATO are two that are still to be solved satisfactorily. Mutual control may well be deferred until Europe achieves political status equal to the United States. In the meantime, it appears that the furthest the United States is willing to go is to allow participation in the formulation of a plan of priorities that will come into

operation in the event of an emergency. Mutual control continues to be, therefore, the major problem facing NATO today-although the West German desire for a greater role in the determination of alliance policy, and for a more tangible voice in nuclear weapon sharing has been met in part by the recent setting up of the nuclear planning committee.
Another key problem facing NATO today arises by virtue of the effects of French policies on alliance cohesion. Since 1962, the shape and purpose of NATO have come under increasing attack by France. Under the leadership of President de Gaulle, France makes three specific arguments.
The nuclear balance of power between the Soviet union and the United States has seriously impaired the credibility of the United States deterrent. France believes that it is unlikely the United States will risk its own survival in order to counter a Soviet attack in Europe, or that the Soviet union will doubt the will of the United States in a European showdown. In this respect France does not trust the United States; but other members of the alliance, including Canada, continue to do so.
Because of the strategic stalemate in Europe, the French believe that the real area of conflict between east and west has shifted from Europe to the former colonial territories. The French fear that unless they, and the other European states, remain aloof from these extra-European struggles, they may become involved in a war that is neither to their interest, nor of their own making.
Because a nuclear stalemate does exist, and because the main theatre of concentration is no longer in Europe, the French believe that there is no longer any need to maintain the NATO military structure. Indeed the French believe that this organization is merely a means of subordination. The organization, in President de Gaulle's view, is a method by which the United States maintains its domination of NATO.
By withdrawal from the military infrastructure of NATO, France has not broken the letter of the North Atlantic Treaty. This is apparent from a careful reading of the articles of the treaty. Whether it has, however, broken the spirit of the treaty, or any bilateral agreement in respect of the infrastructure, is another matter.
The French still want to be a partner in NATO politically, and in the event of an emergency, militarily, under French sovereignty. Furthermore they want partnership
May 16. 1967

in NADGE-the electronic curtain that will identify all aircraft crossing NATO borders and automatically institute action previously decided upon. The French withdrawal has embarassed the remaining 14 members. Their withdrawal has created many problems for the alliance, many of which have now been solved as the remaining partners have stood steadfastly together, bearing in mind that there are still 300,000 Russian soldiers in East Germany, and that there are six or seven hundred nuclear armed missiles aimed at western Europe.
The German problem is a key problem, both within NATO and between NATO and the Soviet union. After 22 years, the scars of war are not healed and Germany is still a divided nation. Berlin, the capital of a once united Germany, is still in the middle of communist East Germany. There has been no peace settlement; barbed wire and walls separate the east and west Germans. These conditions are highly volatile, and Europe will not rest until they no longer exist. And within the alliance West Germany is seeking to strengthen its political voice through greater influence on military strategic affairs.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
From all this it will be seen that Europe is no longer a downtrodden and helpless continent. The new Europe is now demanding political power commensurate with its potential military and actual economic strength. The United States having long striven toward exactly this situation of European strength, now finds itself somewhat uncomfortable. For the first time there is a challenge to Washington's leadership.
To the French, nuclear subordination seems to imply political subordination. It means that without an independent nuclear force there can be no independent European diplomacy. Even President de Gaulle admits that while his strategic force will have limited military effectiveness, there is every likelihood that it will carry diplomatic weight out of proportion to its size.
Another problem for NATO is the current globalization debate. The United States would like its NATO partners to recognize that it is in their international interests to take a more active role in conflicts and problems outside the Atlantic area, such as Viet Nam. Some other partners are interested in those areas, such as Africa, where they have special relations, but most of the NATO members are reluctant to have any part of globalization. The United States may be able to interest
The Address-Mr. Ryan some of its partners on a bilateral basis but it is fairly apparent that it will not be able to do so on a NATO basis.
When the 12th NATO Parliamentarians Conference was held at NATO political headquarters in Paris last November, two main events occurred; first, the name of the organization was changed to North Atlantic Assembly and, second, a Canadian, our colleague Jean-Eudes Dube, the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska, was elected first president under its new name. Among the many reports, resolutions and recommendations of the conference was one dealing with institutionalization or, if you will, consultative assembly status for the conference, under its new name. This was the second resolution of the political committee and it was adopted by the plenary session of the conference.
It is the hope of the North Atlantic Assembly that it will attain the status of a consultative assembly such as the consultative assembly of the council of Europe, and the European parliament; that it will have more status and influence and be of more assistance to the North Atlantic Council.
The consultative assembly of the council of Europe meets for about a month each year, usually divided into three sessions. It is estimated that an Atlantic assembly would need to meet each year for at least a week. The seat of the assembly would be at the headquarters of NATO in Belgium. It is suggested that the number of its members be 172 of whom 12 would be from Canada. Each member, or substitute, would have one vote and would speak and vote on his own responsibility. The assembly would debate issues currently before the North Atlantic Council for resolution, and would submit new proposals or recommendations. It would submit questions to the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Council and receive either answers or formal refusals to answer. It would invite representatives of the Secretary General or the North Atlantic Council to appear before the assembly or its committees, to question them orally. Such functions are among those possessed by existing European assemblies.
There would appear to be general enthusiasm in favour of the resolution by all member nations, save that certain difficulties may arise when it comes to obtaining ratification for the new status from the parliaments of all countries.
Our own Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) has already indicated
May 16, 1967

The Address-Mr. Cantelon
that the Canadian government favours increasing the importance of the NATO parliamentarians. He has qualified his approval of the proposal to change the NATO Parliamentarians Conference into a consultative assembly by saying, however, that it has not been decided whether the specific proposal adopted by the NATO Parliamentarians Conference represents the best means of giving effect to this objective.
The NATO Parliamentarians Conference now known as the North Atlantic Assembly, has its own secretariat and it is anticipated that this secretariat will be strengthened this year by the appointment of a new Secretary General and an assistant, in addition to the existing staff.
The debates and recommendations of the NATO parliamentarians have been quite influential in moving NATO from peace keeping to peace making, and from conduct of the cold war to a serious interest in the development of the current European detente. NATO parliamentarians are very much interested in exploring and exploiting a rapprochement between east and west, in the interests of a peaceful and lasting settlement in Europe. Increased stature granted by the award of consultative assembly status would likely improve east-west relations because it would be greatly concerned with them and may be the first basic step toward ultimate Atlantic union. Indeed it is possible that its establishment might lead in the future to a reduction in the number of international parliamentary bodies through a merging of the assembly and the assembly of Western European Union. Since the Western European Union is composed of seven NATO countries, such a merger could come about if it appeared to be in the interest of their governments. In this case the specialized functions of the Western European Union assembly could be performed within the framework of an Atlantic assembly, by the delegates from the seven Western European Union members.
In conclusion, I would ask that all hon. members of this house and the other place support the proposal to institutionalize the North Atlantic Assembly, in such fashion as you may be called upon to do so by our government.


Mr. Reg Cantelon (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I think I should like to ally myself with those who have congratulated the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne for the very able

manner in which they have discharged their responsibilities. Many have said that seldom have more efficient and capable speeches been delivered. I agree, although my experience here has been rather limited in that regard.
I do not feel I would like to make any general comments on the speech from the throne, because were I to do so I would be compelled to do what many other members have done; that is, suggest that it is so diffuse and so indefinite that it is very difficult actually to make any concrete suggestions about it. I should like to say also that, as this is our centennial year, I am happy that the centennial commission has done such a good job. In particular I should like to mention the name of the commissioner, but perhaps I should not mention his name because everybody knows who he is. I believe he has done an excellent job, although there have been occasions when he seems to have been pushed somewhat into the background. Nevertheless I am sure the work he has done will be recognized by the Canadian people.
I am happy also that in this centennial year our Expo shows evidence of being a great success. I have been very fortunate in having been there on several occasions. I can say, I am sure without fear of contradiction, that all those who visit Expo will enjoy their visit very much. If they wish to receive an education, they can remain there for a couple of weeks and have a rather broad general education in respect of all that is going on in this world today. In particular I think this is noticeable in the pavilions of what I might call the main powers. I refer to the Russian pavilion, the United States pavilion, the British and French pavilions. Since I am a western Canadian I should not like to let this opportunity pass without mentioning that the western Canadian pavilion I visited was I believe the most imaginative and interesting that one could see.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
In considering what I wanted to say today I thought I would like to deal with three topics. The first one is of course my own particular fetish. I suppose this is natural, since I am a schoolteacher. I should like to speak briefly about education and the place of the federal government in that field, because I am not one who believes that the federal government should play no part in education. In a modem and developed nation, such as we are, we should recognize the absolute necessity of a well educated population. We are lagging in this respect.
May 16, 1967

It has been said that in the 20 years after the first war we made very rapid strides, and this applies in particular to the province of Ontario. Since that time I do not think we have kept pace with the developments that have been going on in other countries. Certainly we have not kept pace in the numbers we are educating. The last figures I saw, and I will admit they are a couple of years out of date, showed that some 70 per cent of the Russian people go on to advanced education, that is university or its equivalent. In the United States some 33 per cent continue their education above the high school level, but in Canada only 17 per cent do so.
I know that some years ago we in Canada suffered under the delusion that we had one of the best educational systems in the world. I think it is one of the best for the people who get it, but the trouble is there are not enough people who get it and there will not be enough people getting it until the federal government gives substantial assistance to the provinces in a fund raising manner. One might say that this would be interfering with the prerogatives of the provinces. However, we manage to give educational assistance to the universities without interfering with the special educational prerogatives of the provinces. We manage to give vocational assistance and to pay the largest portion of the capital costs of vocational buildings. Unfortunately the present government has taken a very retrograde step in having removed this provision.
I think we could give that assistance to high schools in the same way. There is no earthly reason why the provinces cannot say to the federal government: we have a certain number of schools we wish to build, and we will require certain sums of money for that purpose. The federal government should be prepared to provide that money to the provinces. If to anyone here this seems too altruistic or too much in opposition to the B.N.A. Act then I do not think he is a modern Canadian and I do not think he really appreciates the difficulties which face education today. I do not think he realizes that unless we do this sort of thing this country in the future will not be able to maintain its position at the forefront of the world's industry, but will lag further and further back. I have some grandchildren in Canada. I hate to think that in the future they might find that this country has lost its place in the parade of nations because it has failed to do for education what obviously needs to be done.

The Address

Mr. Cantelon
The second subject about which I wanted to speak briefly is that of chemical tariffs. It can be only a few words because new developments are taking place in this particular field and I hesitate to comment on this topic in any depth until I have had an opportunity to review the recent work, in particular the publication that came out today. I want to speak about chemical tariffs and what needs to be done for the chemical industry in this country. This is a subject which I as a Sas-katchewanite hold dear to my heart. I believe that Saskatchewan has the industrial base to become the centre of a great new chemical industry in this country. The largest known potash deposit in the world is to be found in Saskatchewan. There are huge deposits of low-grade lignite coal in the south. There will be an adequate supply of water, once we get the South Saskatchewan river dam properly working. There is much oil in my province, and there will be more, I am sure.
I think these three things alone are enough to provide a base for a tremendous development in industrial chemicals. However, there are difficulties here. Until the present time the chemical industry has had to be supported by tariffs, and these tariffs are in the process of revision. As I have said I hesitate to comment on this topic at the present time. Nevertheless I do think we should remember that if we are going to develop an industry in this country, we will have to continue to give it protection. We are a comparatively small country and our production will be small for many years. Therefore we cannot compete with the huge industries that are located in countries like the United States, which is so close to us and so easily able to ship to us the chemicals we want. I think this is probably all that I will say about that particular topic today, although I hope to say more about it some time in the future.
The third subject I want to discuss is that of pollution. So far it has not been too serious in western Canada, but I can foresee a future in which it will be a very serious problem. Generally speaking, there are of course two main classes of pollution with which we as a nation have to deal. The first is air pollution which is caused by two main sources, industrial plants and automobiles. In the west, automobiles do not cause much trouble because there are miles and miles of roads and not too many motorcars to run on them. To those members who like driving a car I would
May 16, 1967

The Address-Mr. Cantelon
suggest a trip to the west because I can assure them they will enjoy it there, tar more than driving on the streets of Ottawa.
I will dismiss rather unwillingly the latter form of pollution by saying that this government, in spite of the lead given it by the United States government and by the vigorous representations made by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), has made it very clear that it intends to continue its standard policy of moving only when forced to do so. It would be so easy to start now, but of course it will not, as it has told us over and over again.
Fortunately for most of us, industrial air pollution is almost invariably accompanied by such a disagreeable smell that public outcries usually bring some measure of treatment. Nevertheless, both the municipal and provincial governments are very loath to act before the industrial pollution begins. They want the business to come into the province so will not propose the restraint before the industry locates there.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
In Saskatchewan large quantities of salt waste produced as a by-product of the potash industry are almost certain to be blown over many square miles of good farmland. This is a new type of pollution, and there is of course no actual measure to control it at present. I hope that before this pollution becomes very harmful there will be steps taken to prevent the areas around these potash mines from being turned into agricultural deserts.
It is true, of course, that some research is being done. As James H. Gray put it in the Ottawa Citizen for January 23, 1967:
Research is now being done on the effects of airborne salt dust on soils and agricultural crops.
The federal government, I think, would do well to assist in this research as it ought to do in all industrial airborne pollution. I would hope that it would not adopt the attitude of the manager of the Saskatchewan Power Corporation who was quoted as saying:
Water is for use and if some of it gets polluted in the process, the people should try to live with it.
I cannot imagine a more iniquitous type of statement. I cannot imagine, either, the previous manager making that kind of statement. Since the present manager is an appointee of the Liberal government of Saskatchewan, he evidently mirrors the opinion of that government. I hope the premier of Saskatchewan does not feel that way. If he does, I hope he does not delay too long in calling an election

so the people of Saskatchewan can get rid of him and put in a party with more concern for the welfare of the people of my province.
A great deal of attention has been focused on pollution of the Great Lakes watershed. The United States is fortunate in that some ten states are concerned. The federal government there has therefore seen pollution as a national question and has taken an active interest in the problem. As the Winnipeg Free Press put it in an article on April 18, 1966:
The U.S. government appears to be moving in to grasp control firmly on its side of the border, using a combination of legislation, knuckle rapping, potential court actions and money.
It is just too bad our federal government has not the same sort of courage. In 1966 President Johnson proposed to spend $20 million on pollution control research and as much as $10 billion in the next ten years. He estimates it will take $30 billion to clean up water pollution in the United States. I hope we never get to the stage where it will take $30 billion to solve this problem; but if we go on doing nothing, as we have in the past, then we can expect it will cost that amount some day.
Is it that we do nothing because we are afraid to interfere with provincial rights? I believe that is the excuse the government uses today. This is the excuse the government uses to do nothing in spite of the great damages that failure to act has done and continues to do to the national heritage of the people. Dr. Vance of the Ontario Water Resources Commission says:
They're Ontario waters but they're also national waters. As far as I know, it isn't a case of disputed jurisdiction, but clarification is needed.
The Canadian government has evaded its responsibilities long enough. I hope a bold enough step will be taken to do some good. I cite this situation to illustrate the fact that where pollution is worst the government has taken no steps. As the Ottawa Citizen of February 14, 1966 put it in reporting the words of George Burt, Canadian director of the united auto workers at a water conference:
Mr. Pearson's office backs on the Ottawa river which is full of pollution .. . Just across from his office, the E. B. Eddy Company every day dumps tons of sulphur, which I understand is a fish killer, into the river.
Referring to the minister for external affairs he said:
I don't think Paul Martin should be hesitant in making a statement either. He lives on an open sewer-the Detroit river.
May 16. 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	285
The Address-Mr. Cantelon
So we have, as the headlines put it, "politicians living by open sewers", and doing nothing about it. The government certainly has done nothing concrete in the rest of Canada.
In the fall of 1966 there was a conference held on pollution which produced 15 pages of recommendations. I should like to review them briefly, and will condense the recommendations by lumping them under six headings.
First, they decided there was a great need for a federal organization or agency which would develop a pollution abatement code and co-ordinate and disseminate any available information. This organization, too, would conduct research and co-operate with other agencies that might be working in the field. It was also their considered opinion that there should be some form of national standard set up in the pollution field.
Third, they believed that anyone who pollutes should bear the cost of treatment of the pollution damage which is inflicted on other people by the failure to control the pollution. Fourth, the conference considered there ought to be financial incentives to industry so that industry would improve its anti-pollution measures.
Fifth, they noted that there was a shortage of trained experts in the field of pollution. Finally, they thought that the best way to attack pollution control was to do it on a regional or water-shed basis, and to attack it on a multifunctional basis. There were some 600 experts at this meeting and these recommendations were the consensus of their views. This being so, I hope this government, which has never been too willing to accept suggestions, and certainly not too prompt to carry them out, will move rapidly to implement the suggestions that have been made. It is now more than six months since this pollution control group met and brought out these recommendations. I hope it will not be six months before we hear of them again from the government.
Two Ottawa scientists recently presented a paper on the subject of pollution to the Canadian Operational Research Council which was meeting at the University of Ottawa. Dr. R. W. Durie and Dr. R. F. Fletcher of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources presented this paper last Wednesday, May 10. Dr. Durie offers this broad definition of pollution, that it is any effect resulting from the use of natural resources which is deleterious
to man, to his use of natural resources or to his esthetic sense.
In his view, the tendency now is to concentrate on individual problems instead of finding out the best way of using all natural resources. He thinks that we must make an immediate attack on the pollution that exists. He would set up some demonstration projects to show the public what alternatives are available in any plans for pollution control. He believed that the matter of pollution control requires top to bottom planning, because the broad goals must first be set out. I am not too sure what he means by top to bottom planning, but if I were to interpret it I would say it means from the federal government down to the municipal government, as well as the industry or individual which does the polluting.
In the west, and particularly in my own province of Saskatchewan, a study of the industrial pollution of rivers has recently been undertaken. Recently in Saskatchewan an organization was set up by the provincial government to review the matter of pollution. In my own constituency of Kindersley, and also in The Battlefords, this matter of pollution is one that has aroused some interest in the past and is still arousing a good deal of interest because the Saskatchewan river goes through our constituencies.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The city of Saskatoon has been turning its sewage into the South Saskatchewan river for a great many years. The municipality of Cory which surrounds the city has obtained an injunction to prevent this; but in sp'te of this the city has gone on pollut ng the river. The main argument of the city of Saskatoon today is that it cannot afford present requirements for pollution control unless more aid is forthcoming from the senior levels of government.
This, in effect, was the basis of a brief which was presented to the Saskatchewan Water Resources Commission by the utilities manager for the city. I will not debate the arguments pro and con between this gentleman and the members of the committee. Suffice it to say that there was some conflict of interest between the two and the city was accused of not doing anything. I quote from the Saskatoon Star Phoenix of May 1, 1967:
The brief said pollution programs can cost individuals and organizations large amounts of money with no direct benefit. However, this should not relieve them of the responsibility of protecting a natural resource.
May 16, 1967

The Address-Mr. Cantelon
Since many urban centres are encumbered to the limit with other heavy costs of rapid growth, further extensive costs for pollution control cannot be met from the present available sources of capital and revenue, it said.
Further on it says:
The city felt financial aid offered by the federal government to finance the cost of trunk collector sewers and sewage treatment facilities is inadequate.
The city of Saskatoon's main contention was that it needs more help and, in particular, needs help from the federal government. This is the common complaint of municipalities today.
The North Saskatchewan river runs through the cities of North Battleford and Prince Albert. The city of North Battleford presented a brief to this same committee of the Saskatchewan government in which it said that some provinces tend to claim sole rights to water flowing in any river within their boundaries, and that they claim the right to use and dispose of this resource as they see fit without regard to people who are living outside the provincial boundary. Of course, it is quite evident that this type of thinking is wrong, because a river does not stop at a boundary, either toward its mouth or toward its source. Therefore something should be done to change this sort of provincial attitude.
To my mind it is the sort of thing that demands legislation and action by the federal government in order to prevent those places that are down river from being bothered by pollution from cities that are in other jurisdictions than their own. Certainly it emphasizes the need for national control.
The city of North Battleford has had a good deal of trouble with pollution of the North Saskatchewan river, and has had very little satisfaction in its attempts to try to correct this pollution. Until measures are taken by the federal government in conjunction with the provincial governments to prevent pollution of this type, I doubt very much that anything satisfactory will come of the city's attempts.
The development of effective pollution controls in Saskatchewan cannot be successful unless there is agreement between the province of Saskatchewan and the province of Alberta. And of course, since Manitoba is down river, they have the same right to satisfactory agreements. Since this is so, it seems to me that there is very little possibility of

any satisfactory arrangement unless the federal government can step in and arrange controls that will satisfy all provinces. I think it is particularly important that the federal government should assist, because as the Star Phoenix of May 4, 1967 points out:
Municipal governments across the land are feeling the strain of demands upon property taxes. The problem is particularly acute in cities like Saskatoon where services must be supplied for many residents whose employers pay taxes to other municipal governments.
Further on it says:
We believe that those primarily responsible for causing pollution should also be primarily responsible for the cost of reducing or eliminating that pollution. But some assistance in these matters from provincial and federal governments can be justified.
Then it goes on to say:
The province should have a clear policy on such assistance before it starts to enforce rigid pollution controls-as it hopes to do this summer.
But it is perfectly clear from this, to my mind, that the province cannot have a clear policy on assistance or on rigid pollution controls until it knows just where it stands with the federal government on these matters.
Before concluding this particular portion of my remarks I would like to say a few words about what is going to happen to the South Saskatchewan river dam if something is not done to control pollution in the South Saskatchewan river. Just last summer one of the residents of Saskatoon, Mr. Hugh Arscott, with his son made a trip down the South Saskatchewan river. He came to the conclusion that lake Saskatchewan behind the South Saskatchewan river dam would slowly fill up, without adequate protection from upstream pollution. In his words, "It could very easily become the cesspool of the prairies". He told of a situation near Estuary at the junction of the Red Deer and Saskatchewan rivers where there were brownish-orange suds forming on the river surface, and again, to use his own words, "I cannot tell you what it was, for my fear of disease was greater than my scientific curiosity and no samples were taken for analysis".
In the Red Deer river, which is a tributary to the South Saskatchewan, he noted a chemical factory spewing large quantities of industrial waste into the river. It resulted in a thick brown scum which formed on his boat cover and on the gravel of the river bed. In his own words again, "It doesn't take any talent to pollute a waterway; it's easy". This seems all too true.
May 16, 1967

It will be a shame il the large lake behind the South Saskatchewan river dam does become polluted, for the people of Saskatchewan hope that it will not only be an assistance to industrial development in their province through the power generated at the dam and through the irrigation water they can take from the lake, but that it will also provide a large summer resort area in which all types of water sports can take place. I am sure they hope that it does not become a second lake Erie.
I am not sure whether my time has nearly run out, Mr. Speaker. If not, I should like to call it six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I should advise the hon. member now that his time has expired.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The time of the hon. gentleman has expired.



PROVISION FOR MOTION TO GO INTO COMMITTEE

Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, with
leave, and following consultation with the house leaders, I should like to make a motion in order that we might have on Tuesday and Wednesday of next week a supply order for consideration by the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Does the house give unanimous consent to revert to motions?


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


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, notwithstanding the provisions of any provisional or standing order, Tuesday and Wednesday, May 23 and 24th next shall be appointed for the consideration of the Order for House in Committee of Supply for the purpose of moving "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair"; and
That on Wednesday next, unless previously concluded, the proceedings on the said order shall be disposed of as follows:
(a)	At 4.15 o'clock p.m., the question shall be put on any amendment or amendments then before the house;
(b)	At 6.00 o'clock p.m., the question shall be put on every question necessary to dispose of the main motion; and
That, upon the adoption of the said motion, the house shall forthwith resolve itself into committee of supply and there shall be no restriction on the number of departments to be first taken up and 27053-191
The Address-Mr. Cantelon-entered for consideration on this occasion except as provided in paragraph 5(b) of the second report of the special committee on procedure as adopted by the house on April 26, 1967; and
That the consideration of private members business be suspended on Tuesday and Wednesday next.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows:	the
hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), federal-provincial relations-agreement between Canada and Belgium; the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), external affairs-Quebec-status of the Canadian am-1 bassador to Belgium; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), water resources-reported agreement to establish national advisory council on pollution.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Don Jamieson for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Brand.
Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the hon.
member for Kindersley (Mr. Cantelon) whose time had just about expired when we adjourned at six o'clock, would like the consent of this house to pursue his remarks a little longer. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: I should like to thank hon. members and I assure them I will take only a minute or two.
I wish to close my remarks by making a few comments upon a situation which ought to concern all Canadians. It ought to concern them because we all want to take pride in our* national capital. Across the river from our:

288	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Cantelon parliament buildings lies the plant of the E. B. Eddy Company. It is a modern plant and it is becoming more so as its operations are updated. No one will deny that the company has made laudable attempts to beautify its area, but it is certain that these efforts will result in only limited success. Piles of logs and industrial buildings cannot be turned into things of beauty.
There is only one solution as far as I can see, and that is to move the plant. This is not impossible though it would be expensive. I believe we ought to accept such an expense if we consider that this nation of ours has a future. The immediate question is: what will it cost? My inquiries have obtained the following answers. The plant is worth about $40 million and the 80 acres on which it is situated are assessed at approxiamtely $250 million.
Let us say, then, that the relocation of the plant might today cost the Canadian people about $300 million. If we leave the plant where it is until some time in the future when, I am certain, we shall decide that it must be moved, it would cost a great deal more to do so than it would cost today, besides leaving us for many years with what I was about to call an unsightly sight-perhaps that expression is a little too Irish, but I shall use it anyway-across the river from our beautiful parliament buildings.
We ought to move it, and we ought to do so before the area becomes so crowded and so valuable that to do so would cost the people of this country a great deal more than it would today. Here is a case where Dr. Durie's definition of pollution to which I have previously referred fits very well. This plant discharges waste into the Ottawa river. It discharges gases into the air which, fortunately for the Ontario side of the river, are generally swept away by the prevailing wind. Even more important, it occupies an area which should be beautified for the nation. Those of us who have any aesthetic sense at all are convinced, I am sure, that this building must be moved out of Hull.
Because I say this, I do not want anyone to consider for a moment that I do not realize the practical difficulties. There are thousands of people in Hull who work at this plant. Their rights must be protected, and they can be protected if this plant is moved a few miles down river and good roads are put in so that they can travel easily to work. They might even find it easier to get to work than they do now; so there need be no real hardship to workers.
[Mr. Cantelon.l
DEBATES	May 16, 1967
Will the government do this? I am sorry to say that I doubt it. There may be some hope, however, for there seems to be talk of a National Capital Commission study of the project, and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) had some things to say about the plans of the commission for beautifying this whole area. I hope we can begin with a study of the suitability of moving the plant. I am certain that if we can go that far, then in the not too distant future another government, if not this one, will take the final step and move the plant out of the environs of Hull and the immediate area of the capital of this nation. I hope it will be done sooner, not later, for the benefit of all our people.


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


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: I am sure the hon. member realizes that my time is used up.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think Mr. Speaker will be lenient. The hon. member has talked a great deal of common sense. With reference to the pollution of the Saskatchewan river, does he know that his leader, when in opposition, introduced a bill in the house to correct that situation, and did so repeatedly for a number of years? When he became pr me minister I immediately adopted the bill and moved it for nine years thereafter. But no action was taken.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps you should not have adopted it.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-R'vieres: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I should like to offer to His Excellency the Governor General my respects and those of my electors who repeatedly asked me to do so at the first opportunity.
Like everyone else, I listened carefully to the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson). He d:d not surprise me, since I have known him for several years through his association with radio, in which I am personally interested. He did not disappoint me either, because I noted that his thinking was full of good common sense, thorough experience, and a certain independence of mind that I find comforting when I see him in the ranks of a party which should be strictly disciplined and organized.
The seconder (Mr. C6te), who is from the constituency next to mine and was even at
May 16, 1967

one time an organizer of mine, did not surprise me either, for I realize the tremendous amount of knowledge he has about agricultural problems. He even scandalized some members, Mr. Speaker, because he was accused pf making somewhat partisan remarks. I say to those who blamed him for that: Let the one who never sinned throw the first stone. Surely it is not from the Conservative side that stones can be thrown. Besides, he spoke with some reservation, which is to his credit, and it is an edifying experience for me to see a young farmer leave the green pastures of his farm and the peaceful company of his cattle to come and find himself, all of a sudden, in this chamber discharging so brilliantly the responsibility his superiors entrusted to him when he was asked to second the motion on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. So, I congratulate him.
I take the liberty, Mr. Speaker, of making two digressions. The first one is to congratulate the leaders of the two great parties on the tone of their speeches. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) said that it was the spirit of the centennial. Well, it is to his credit if he felt that in the spirit of the centennial he had to show a little less pugnacity, and I think that the Prime Minister followed suit in very edifiying manner.
The second one is to thank the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) for granting us, after months and months of representations which threatened to become brutal, and one night I practically lost my temper, for granting us, as I say, the simultaneous publication of the French version of the Labour Gazette which, for two months, has been published almost at the same time as the English version. And I thank him not only in my name but in the name of all labour movements which, for months and years, have been asking me to make certain interventions. I realized the problems in this direction, but he found a solution over which we are rejoicing without claiming a victory. This is simply another proof of co-operation which, I think, is to the credit of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson).
Mr. Speaker, my remarks, which I will keep as brief as possible, may seem to some of my colleagues as if I were blowing my own horn, because I will be dealing with something of concern to me. I hope it will be understood that if I do so, it is because it might be helpful in opening new vistas to those among us whose vision is necessarily
The Address-Mr. Mongrain limited by party discipline at a time when our viewpoints should be aired and when things change so rapidly.
A few days ago, I read in a magazine called the Canada Month a statement by a young Liberal member, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) who wrote something like this, and I quote him textually in English to avoid any misrepresentation:

I don't like labels; I don't want to be branded under a label. I would rather have people take my political beliefs and examine them on their own merit, rather than say "He's right" or "left" or "a Liberal" and then examine them under that light.

Mr. Speaker, I find it edifying to see that a young Liberal, newly elected to the House of Commons, can express such "in" opinions, as one would say today, at a time when he will probably need all the condescension and support of his own party. This, in a way, reflects my own feelings. I want to speak of this tonight, Mr. Speaker, because in the sixteen months I have been sitting in this house, I have been reading in all sorts of newspapers in my province that the independent member for Trois-Rivieres is about to join the Liberal party, that he always votes with the Liberals and that he has probably committed himself to the Liberals.
For some years now, newspapers have stopped publishing serial stories that were popular at one time. But certain journalists sometimes write their own serial stories and forget to consult the persons concerned, thus imputing to them motives of all sorts.
Therefore, I would like to throw some light on those matters, if only to explain certain interventions. It is generally believed in our country that someone who is unaffiliated to the party in power must necessarily be in the opposition and put grit in the bearings. If I was elected in my riding, it is because I declared myself an independent. And I want to say it loud and clear this evening, because several of my colleagues do not seem to understand that.
Among other things, I remember some sharp remarks made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition in my direction a few weeks ago, when he said: The independent member for Trois-Rivieres is as independent as he wishes to claim, but that is all. Well, it is because I was elected at home, by Conservatives and Liberals to whom I said: I am going to Ottawa with my own experience,
May 16, 1967

The Address-Mr. Mongrain not to fight against the government in power, but to co-operate with it as much as possible; whether it is Conservative or Liberal, I will endeavour to co-operate, so that we may not be compelled for finicky and childish reasons to hold an election every six months or every year.
Therefore, I am fulfilling the promise which I made to my constituents. It happens that I am co-operating with the Liberal party. I frankly admit that it seems to me infinitely easier, for me at least, than if I had to cooperate with the Conservative party which is now experiencing a disintegration period. I am not glad about it, because it had a good record and I hope it will recover. However, I tell you quite simply that it is easier for me to fulfil that promise made to my constituents during the last election.
I then promised to co-operate with the party in power for the good of the country, because non-confidence motions as well as elections in my opinion, are three quarters of the time, if not nine times out of ten, a waste of time.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I am among those who would recommend that the length of a parliament be fixed at 'four or five years and that votes of confidence be limited to very rare occasions.
Mr. Speaker, there is another reason why I decided at one time to run as an independent. It is the present rather delicate period of adjustment between Quebec and the rest of Canada. I am a Canadian and proud of it. I am also a federalist, sometimes I say I am an eleventh hour federalist, but one nevertheless. I should like to be completely free to study the conflicts which may arise between the government of my province and that of my country, so that I may take a position which does not depend on my political affiliation.
Mr. Speaker, I will go even further and say why I decided one day to stand as an independent, when I had fought before under the Liberal banner. Those who, in this house, have been active in politics for some years, will remember that I travelled through all the cities of the province and that I have been active in the Liberal party with all the vigour and the means available to me. I had voluntarily offered my services at the time without being solicited or promised anything, and it is .of my own free will and by principle that I .-decided one day that I would- be once again what I had always been: an independent.

I never swore that I would always remain independent, but I promised my constituents and myself that if ever I changed my allegiance, I would do so through convictions and principles, and you will understand better after a while, when I finish explaining what I mean.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I believe I was right in running as an Independent, because my electors seem to like it better; in fact, every time I ran as an official Liberal candidate, I was rejected, whereas when I ran as an Independent, I was elected with a substantial majority. This, I think, is a good argument, if it is true that vox populi is vox Dei.
I also have another more personal reason. In my province, we have a saying: "Once bitten twice shy". I am greatly disappointed by the old political parties, Mr. Speaker, and to be fair to the Liberal party, I should say that this disappointment occurred mostly with the provincial Liberal party which, at that time, was a Siamese twin of the federal Liberal party.
Fortunately, a separation has been going on since that time, and I think it will be beneficial to the two parties, at least I hope so, but until it is completely achieved, I believe I am still under the influence of this disappointment arising out of my allegiance to the Liberal party. I would not wish the Conservatives to think that I would have been happier with them; I think this is a case of the lesser of two evils.
In the 16 months I have been sitting here, I have supported the government. I think I have supported them loyally every time I could do so; a few times, I voted against the government, but most of the time, I voted for them, and I still think it was my duty, because I do not believe it would have been beneficial to my province and my country if I had hindered or obstructed those who currently lead the government and who are trying, according to their conscience, to do their best in difficult circumstances.
Coming back to what I was saying, if I made the decision to become an Independent and to act as an intelligent Independent, it is because I was betrayed brutally by the Liberal party at a time when I was the official candidate of the Liberal party elected by regular conventions. I will not give the details to avoid taking too much of the time of this house, but I should simply mention the conventions which preceded the 1953 and, I think, the 1958 elections.
May 16, 1967	COMMONS
I realize that, at a time when it was claimed that the party was being democratized, certain powers behind the throne carried more weight than the duly elected representatives of the people. They seemed, thus, to poison the minds of the leaders of the party and mislead them into the defeats which we have suffered.
Mr. Speaker, I would still add that I have the distinct impression that the situation has improved in recent years. I have confidence, especially, in the leadership of the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) who strikes me as a realistic politician.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Mongrain:: I also decided to be an Independent because the former Liberal party -once again, this applies more to the provincial party-betrayed those whom it had asked to go and extol the Liberal gospel. It had promised them things which were not delivered once they were in power.
I apologize for merging the two parties, federal and provincial, into one, but at that time they were Siamese twins. For instance, it was clamoured that the party would be democratized, and I find today that it was nothing but camouflage at the time.
This is evidenced by the fact that they talked about democratization in 1955, 1956; and, in 1967, they talk about beginning to democratize the Liberal party. Here I say that there remains progress to be accomplished in the federal Liberal party, because there are still too many candidates who are imposed directly or indirectly, and too many candidates who, after being democratically nominated, find themselves abandoned directly or indirectly. You will understand what I mean; they can abandon a candidate nominated at a convention by cutting out the funds, for instance, during the election campaign. And there are still too many Liberal associations which exist but on paper or which, if they do exist actually have no power whatsoever, nor anything to say. And that matter of election financing is still used too often to muzzle the people who would have something to say even in caucus.
Therefore, I feel that it is definitely one of the tasks, at least of the provincial leader of the Liberal party in my province, to try to complete that rejuvenation, that renewal within the Liberal party, if he wants to deserve the confidence of those who fought for
DEBATES	291
The Address-Mr. Mongrain it in the bad years when it was not always interesting or profitable to do so.
There is another reason which makes me hesitate to join the Liberal party. And I would like my Liberal friends who are listening to me to understand that whoever spares the rod spoils the child. I do not want their destruction but I want to use my status as an Independent to say openly things which are whispered.
The fact is that there seems to be a lack of confidence in the Liberal party, toward its own members. The federal Liberal members are left to be called weaklings, with $18,000 per year, and no one protests. The provincial minister of justice, in Quebec, may call federal justice authorities anything you can imagine. No one seems willing to defend those people.
Party leaders are recruited outside the structure of the party, as though it was believed that none of the members who were elected by the people in the province of Quebec were competent enough to assume responsibilities within the party. And backbenchers or young men, young in age or mentality, are condemned to a kind of idleness, of muteness which eventually bores them and prevents them from playing the part they could in society.
If the people in the Liberal party do not even trust their own members, those like me who tend to be independent will continue to hesitate before binding themselves to the Liberal party.
Mr. Speaker, I would have many more remarks to make on that subject, but I do not want to search the whole conscience of the Liberal party tonight. I want to leave some for the Conservatives and the third parties. However, I shall simply add this: beside that, it seems to me that the program of the Liberal party has been improvised. Those considerations in the field of federal administration seem to be a kind of trip to nowhere, where one goes and borrows from the third parties what seems to be good. And I should like some day a book to be published which would include a consistent, comprehensive and complete program about the objectives of the Liberal party, so that we might know those who are already registered in the party or those who, like others, consider taking an active part in the party, know exactly where they are going, so that they may not be forced to accept those things which seem a little too much like an improvisation.

May 16, 1967
The Address-Mr. Mongrain
There are certainly other questions which shock me like many others, or at least surprise me to avoid any exaggeration, because I do not want to resort to demagogy in what I say here-but for instance the stand taken by the Liberal party with regard to Viet Nam, is something that I do not quite understand. I realize that international diplomacy has its requirements which are not very clear to us, the laymen, but to me there seems to be an incomprehensible inconsistency in the fact that we allow the sale of arms to a belligerent country at the very time we are trying to act as peacemakers.
I think that our influence in Rhodesia would raise some doubts. I do not have the time to elaborate on those matters, but I simply want to complete my search into the conscience of the Liberal party by mentioning that it is not that story which I recall since 1952 and which turned the convinced and active Liberal I was into an Independent who is asking questions with regard to the philosophy and the executive of the Liberal party.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I would merely like to recall that during the last federal election, a Liberal minister came to my constituency to stand up for the two organizers of impersonation who, the morning after, pleaded guilty and were properly sentenced by the courts while I was appealing for honest elections.
If I mention this, it is not to upbraid my friends of the Liberal party but to tell them openly what many people think and to make them understand that if they are now winning in the province of Quebec, they are doing so by default, because the Conservative party is not ready for elections and the other parties lack the necessary framework, organisation and perhaps also a platform set out so as to be understood by the people.
Maybe the future is holding surprises in store for our Liberal friends if they are today without friends to remind them of the deficiencies of their party.
I now come to the Conservatives. Mr. Speaker, the Conservative candidates in my riding and the surrounding area made a terrible blunder, in my opinion. They were ashamed to show off their party leader.
However, experience teaches us that they should have produced him, because the former member for Nicolet-Yamaska did so in Sainte-Perpetue; besides, that is what is known as the miracle of Sainte-Perpetue. In

the other ridings, the leader of the Conservative party was camouflaged; they were ashamed to show him off and they were defeated.
I think that is another weakness, and I mention that not in order to humiliate the Conservative party but to remind ourselves again that our two great parties have played a role in confederation for the past one hundred years. They have adopted progressive measures, and I think that they should be reorganized in the interest of the country. However, they will not serve Canada if they disintegrate through cases of flagrant misconduct such as I mentioned earlier.
In my opinion, the leader of the Conservative party is a politician who deserves respect, for he is brave, a man of energy and personal integrity and a keen worker. But his time is obviously past and he should retire today quietly without waiting for his supporters to stab him in the back, as some have already started doing.
In that connection, I merely wish to give them an example showing them that if they do not change their method, they will not survive in the province of Quebec. In the case concerning my riding, their candidate organized a convention, after a secret agreement with one of the organizers, in a matter of 24 hours. He tried to abuse the Conservatives' good faith, with the result that the Conservatives who usually got 15,000 or 16,000 votes, woke up with four thousand and a few hundred votes and a lost deposit.
Mr. Speaker, I urge our Conservative friends to lose no time in reorganizing themselves to continue being useful to the country. For that they will have to rely on what are commonly known as back-benchers, the younger members, not necessarily the youngest in age, but those who remained young in spirit, who understand the national problems as one should understand them in 1967 and consign to some areopagus a few of their old dodderers who have become some sort of fossils and prevent others from being useful within their party and in parliament.
I may appear cruel, Mr. Speaker, but I believe it is the only way to say such things. Otherwise, you will have third parties that will soon come to take the leading role and if they have not enough members to manage the affairs of the country, they will have enough anyway to control the government.
May IS, 1967	COMMONS
I must now say that I personally believe the party with the most complete, most comprehensive and most sincere program is probably the New Democratic Party. And do not think for a moment that I am necessarily becoming a member of that party. But I believe the truth must come out.
I have considered the various programs and I still do. Some say that the members of the New Democratic Party are socialists; it is possible. What does it mean, a socialist, in 1967? That is a question we should ask ourselves. My concern over our friends of the New Democratic Party is that they seem to suffer from excessive control by the big bosses of the labour movement. They do not seem to understand that there is a difference between the orders of the big labour unions and the needs of their members. Another concern I have is their relentless defence of spies, prisoners, unreliable people, unwarranted immigrants and I think they are wasting precious time which should be better spent, on normal preoccupations, that is to say the social welfare of the people.
I think that another of their weaknesses is that they should have a clear definition of their objectives in this socialization they promote, their purpose, the extent to which they will socialize and nationalize and also what they will nationalize. Further, I think they should mostly try to project in Quebec a clearer image than they are now projecting for it is quite unclear, and mostly prejudiced and misunderstood.
What about our friends the Creditistes? We are used to taking them lightly. As far as I am concerned, I believe they are sincere people who deserve to be heard and listened to. They are great workers. They may be excessively insistent on their aim of reorganizing the financial structure and they fail to explain adequately what they would do if they achieved a financial reorganization. They may also lack a complete program. This may be. Nevertheless, to my mind, and I am saying this most objectively, they are playing a useful role in this house and we should all go to the trouble of listening to them. I do it because I stay here as long as I possibly can, and I try to determine what is serious and what is not in what they bring up.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, it will be guessed that a newspaper made a remark when it claimed that I had decided to join the Liberal party again. I am still in the position of a citizen watching developments; I am still in the position of once bitten twice shy. My
DEBATES	293
The Address-Mr. Mongrain mind is open to the Liberals as well as to the other parties, but have been elected as an Independent and I intend to end my term as an Independent.
After having somewhat examined the old parties by auscultation-and this may seem pretentious to some of my colleagues who should understand that there are few in this house who can allow themselves to speak as freely, at least not my two Independant colleagues because they seem to be prejudiced, which I am not since I praised all parties, Mr. Speaker-I would say that what is urgently needed, because I believe it behoves the old parties to do so, is a speedy reorganization of their members in a democratic way, the delegation of more constructive business to those who are considered young, even though perhaps not in years, and who are called the back-benchers. The old parties perhaps could also refrain from childish play, such as those interminable debates on the flag, the unification, the Munsinger affair and the Spencer affair, and others.
They should also hurry up and publish a consistent program that does not change every six months or every year, a comprehensive program on the basis of which people can tell the difference between a Liberal and a Conservative, if there is one, and which would make it possible for those who want to vote, and those who want to militate, to know where the old parties are going. Otherwise, people will continue leering at third parties saying: We have nothing to lose, the situation is so bad that we will try something new.
Besides, my advice to both parties is free. I do not charge anything for the consultation, and this is something. In fact, they did not even contribute to my election fund-and that is already something.
I conclude by reminding the minister that I represent a riding which is located in the very heart of Quebec and which is one of the most French cities in North America. I conducted a survey recently on certain matters and the results will be known next week. The compilation will be made by a committee.
And I would remind the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) in particular that there are deplorable situations in my area which are yet to be solved, such as that night train between Montreal and Quebec that we asked for to promote Expo and which the Canadian Pacific will not give us. They are so extraordinarily unyielding on this that they do no longer reply to the letters sent to them because they find us too persistent.
294	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Boulanger
I would also point out that the port ol Trois-Rivieres needs redevelopment in order to expand further, since the plans have been changed because of the bridge being built.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I should like also to remind the minister that I have another complaint, two rather, about that matter at Baie Jolie where the engineers of the Department of Public Works or the Department of Transport spoiled, near Trois-Rivieres, a summer resort area in which millions of dollars had been invested because on a distance of approximately one mile across from the beach some kind of Sahara desert which is absolutely worthless and unfit for anything has been created. Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand that engineers with any intelligence, supervised by senior officials and deputy ministers, take the liberty of spoiling scenery to that extent, in short to destroy, eliminate and make useless everything that had been invested there in the last forty years at least. Once again I ask the minister to intervene so that this situation will be remedied as soon as possible because it is a scandal throughout the region.
Mr. Speaker, I shall close by apologizing to my friends if they found my remarks pretty blunt. I think they are true. I shall even add that I said openly what many Conservatives or Liberals are whispering and are afraid of saying openly in this house, namely that the leaders of the two old line parties would be well advised to heed that criticism if they do not want to see before long the old line parties completely discredited and to witness the rise of aggressive third parties which have somethng concrete to put before the people.


Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, it is naturally a little difficult for me to speak in this house immediately after my colleague from Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain). He is well known for his eloquence and, although I do not agree with everything he said, it is nevertheless somewhat embarrassing for a newcomer like me to follow him.
In entering this debate, Mr. Speaker, I want as a member of the house to express our gratitude to His Excellency the Governor General for the way in which he has distinguished himself in the exercise of his duties since assuming his high office. May I express once again the great feeling of loss shared by all Canadians at the passing of our late Governor General, General Vanier. He was a truly great Canadian and his contribution to

DEBATES	May 16, 1967
the unity of our country, which we are celebrating in this centennial year, cannot be too greatly praised.

I must congratulate my hon. friend from Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) for his eloquent speech when moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Having visited his riding I know his electors are justly proud of their member of parliament. I note that he commented upon the fact that Newfoundland has been a part of Canada for only 18 years. However, in that short period of time it has sent many distinguished representatives to the house, and I think one of the highest tributes I can pay to my hon. friend is to tell him that his eloquence was such as to match that of our colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill).

To my colleague from Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Cote) I add my congratulations to those he has already received. An expert in agriculture, I am sure that he will make a great contribution to the House of Commons especially at a time when agriculture is finally receiving the consideration it deserves from the government. In this connection I think of the many bills passed at the last session and of the results that will be forthcoming from the task force mentioned in the speech from the throne.
I congratulate also all my colleagues in this house who have taken part in this debate and who have done it in such a progessive way.
I join with my hon. friend from Nicolet-Yamaska in congratulating our new Quebec leader, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand). As a Quebecker and a French Canadian I am proud to be associated with him. As a Liberal, I am proud to serve under him. As a Canadian, I am proud of his great contribution to my country.
I must also congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on his fine speech and I am looking forward to hearing another similar speech from him in the next throne speech debate or, rather, debates.

To the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) may I say that my delight in having heard another of his speeches is, however, tinged by sadness when I think of the centennial project of Mr. Camp.
May 16, 1967



A moment ago I mentioned the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I join with him when he says:
As a French Canadian, I am celebrating the centennial of confederation because there is something to celebrate.
I am going to talk for a few minutes on some of the achievements of the past and some of my hopes for the future.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo mentioned the poverty that faced his riding before Newfoundland joined confederation. This threat of poverty was widespread throughout the then colonies in 1867. We have since built a country whose standard of living is envied by nations around the world. Poverty has been almost entirely wiped out. This is something to celebrate.
Here I want to pause, because I just said that poverty has been almost entirely wiped out. Alas, it still exists in some parts of the country. As long as it does, as long as some of our fellow-citizens live in conditions of deprivation, we cannot take total pride in being Canadians. The fact that the country as a whole is growing richer, the fact that the number of poor is diminishing does not detract from the urgency of the problem. Indeed, it makes it even more urgent. The fact that we have not used our great wealth to abolish poverty in Canada is a disgrace. It is as simple as that.
This government has done much to fight poverty. I am thinking in particular of some of the programs of the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve).
I must congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) for his proposal of a study on the possibility of a guaranteed income for every Canadian. But more remains to be done. We have the capacity. Everybody knows that. Let us use it. The elimination of poverty in Canada must be our first priority and perhaps it should also be our greatest Centennial project.
I turn now to the matter of the constitution. Of course, I am not an expert in such a field, but nevertheless my few years of experience with the constitution allow me to utter a few words about it. One must however admit that the constitution has, over 100 years, served us very well. We have progressed from a small colonial federation to a great independent nation, the senior member of the Commonwealth and a potential founder of "la franco-phonie". Despite many disagreements, we 27053-205
The Address-'Mr. Boulanger have become what we are by using our constitution. However, there is no doubt that constitutional revision is necessary. After all, it is only natural that a document written in 1867 might need some changes in 1967.
The question is how can these changes best be agreed upon. We are unanimous in this house, except for the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire)-and perhaps the hon., member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), about whom I am not so sure-that we want changes that will strengthen Canada.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Before bringing about these changes, we must study carefully all the possibilities and then decide on which are best. Studies take time, it is true. I also feel that they are not dramatic, which is also true. But the fact remains that they produce concrete results.
Let us ask ourselves what would be gained by calling together some great conference. What would be its probable results?
I for one, Mr. Speaker, think that first of all, it would make headlines every day it met. Differences of opinion would be magnified to look like gulfs-this is what I fear-that could not be bridged. I doubt if such an initiative would strengthen national unity. You know that the Prime Minister has already likened such a conference to a National Estates General.
I do not need to tell you what the result was of the last Estates General that were called to draw up a constitution. And I ask'1 every member in this house: Is there an hon. member who advocates revolution?
Mr. Speaker, if I may shift slightly from the constitution, I should like to speak for a moment on what I consider to be the greatest achievement of confederation: that is the harmonious relationships between the two founding races of this country. While the tensions of the last few years have been overemphasized-there have been tensions indeed-I say that the policies of the Prime Minister have been such as to ensure the future harmony between the two founding races. Our achievement makes me proud to be a Canadian.
But it also augurs well for the future on a much wider scale.
My colleague from Burin-Burgeo has spoken of the tremendous impact of what can be called the communications revolution. One of its results, as we all know, has been the growing interdependence of nations. National boundaries mean less than they used to and
296	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Boulanger world federation has become a distinct possibility and not merely a pipe-dream. The successful relationship between the various groups in Canada may very well be used as a model for a future world community.
This is a year, Mr. Speaker, when there is much to look back on and also much to look forward to. I think immediately of the tremendous success of Expo '67 which is due to the close co-operation of the last two federal governments, the last two Quebec governments and, at the same time, to the tremendous municipal government headed by mayor Drapeau and Mr. Saulnier, that is the government of the city of Montreal.
It shows what Canadians can accomplish by mutual co-operation. But more important, Expo seems to be a model of the future. Its distinctive architecture, the technological exhibits, the beauty of its open spaces, of Habitat '67 show what tomorrow will be like. It shows a world where materially speaking life will be rich, and the standard of living very high indeed. After all did not Laurier say that the twentieth century belonged to Canada?
Because I am talking about the future, I think of the throne speech. Normally, a throne speech is criticized for being behind the times, for dealing with yesterday's problems and not today's, for not even anticipating those of tomorrow.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the throne speech we are now debating is being criticized for looking too far ahead.
I believe that this deserves praise rather than condemnation. The present government is not only facing the problems of today, but it is planning for the future. It was about time a government took the lead instead of following in someone else's footsteps.
I congratulate the present government. There are measures which deal with broadcasting and agriculture. I will not go into them because they were so well covered by the mover and the seconder.
The speech of the throne provides for programs dealing with the pressing social problems of today. The problem of housing is critical today. The Prime Minister mentioned that measures in this regard will be taken in co-operation with the provinces. For too long, the right of property has been interpreted in a very narrow sense, that is the right to maintain the property one already has. This right must be broadened to mean the right of every

DEBATES	May 16, 1967
family to have a decent home. Much has been done in this respect in the past few years but much more remains to be done. I am looking forward to the measures that the Prime Minister has assured us will be taken as a great step towards this goal.
I welcome the steps that the speech from the throne mentions with regard to the gathering of scientific and technological information. We must not allow the communications revolution to pass us by. I shall say no more on this subject, for it has already been outlined. However, I would like to deal with a matter which concerns me deeply, that is the appointment of a department of corporate and consumer affairs? The consumer needs protection today, especially because of the new techniques adopted by advertisers. The new department will deal with the protection of the public in a most important way.
I am interested also in the division of the department regarding corporate affairs. The Prime Minister has talked of the need to eliminate the secrecy that prevails in corporations and I agree with him 100 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, I do not like to see minor governments operating on the fringe of governments. I worry about the policies of large corporations which seem to reward the privileged few at the expense of those who have talent. I hope that the new department of consumer and corporate affairs will work to remove the obstacles to the progress of Canadian society.
The throne speech also mentioned the need for planning urban development. I sat during a number of years on the city council of Montreal. We heard about town planning for many years in Montreal.
I have read lately that experts can see one city stretching from Quebec city to Niagara Falls. If this is inevitable, we do not want to see that giant city develop in a haphazard manner as happened in the past.
The Prime Minister has described the type of city he would like to see. This requires planning and I am happy to see that it will be started soon in co-operation with the provinces which have prior but not exclusive jurisdiction in these matters, and this must not be forgotten.
Personally, I can see the effects of urban development in my own riding and my hope is that the development will be orderly. What is more important and it cannot be stressed too highly, is that priority must be given to enhancing the living standards. I repeat, Mr. May 16. 1967	COMMONS
Speaker, priority must be given to the living standards.
The Prime Minister has mentioned the possibility of enshrining a Bill of Rights in our constitution. Mr. Speaker, I am far from being an expert in constitutional matters, but I can still talk about them and say that everyone in this house is I am sure in agreement with the proposal of the Prime Minister. However, I should like to say what type bill of rights I want to see embodied in the constitution. That Bill of Rights would protect more than just the fundamental rights of freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of rel gion and other such rights. The rights I should like to see protected also may not be able to be enforced immediately, but must be enforced as soon as possible. These rights belong to what my hon. friend the Registrar General of Canada (Mr. Turner) has called an economic bill of rights. That is the expression he used, his very words.
Every Canadian must be ensured the right to work, the right to leisure, the right to re-training if his job is made obsolete by automation, the right to a decent home, the right to a decent standard of living. It is a question of thinking about it, of facing reality.
These are rights which are as essential in our society as the basic human rights that I mentioned. As a matter of fact, the basic rights mean little without the new economic rights.
The right to starve, the right to live in conditions of deprivation, are not rights that Canadians should enjoy. That is why the government must protect economic rights as well as human rights.
I look forward to the day when such a Bill of Rights is part of our fundamental law and may I say that the social measures that this government has been responsible for have considerably advanced that day.
I talked earlier about the high standard of living Canadians as a whole have achieved. Looking back on that, I can only say that there is no reason why Canada cannot become the first country in the world where the rights that I have outlined are part of our everyday life.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)

The right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) has said there is nothing for youth in this speech from the throne. I do
DEBATES	297
The Address-Mr. Boulanger not like to disagree with my right hon. friend, and I hope he will pardon me for doing so in this case.

Everyone agrees that the youth of Canada is our greatest national resource. For these young people, the leaders and the workers of Canada tomorrow, what better move could be made than to solve problems that they would otherwise face tomorrow?
For example, automation continues to make some jobs obsolete. The throne speech previews measures that will be taken to improve existing re-training facilities and to help workers who have to move to different areas for new jobs.
This problem is a problem not only of today but also of tomorrow. Measures that are taken to solve it are measures that help the youth of our country.
The throne speech mentioned that there will be an increase in foreign aid this year. This is a welcome announcement and I hope that, this time, increased use will be made of the Company of Young Canad ans as part of an expanded foreign aid program. This will give our youth an opportunity to serve, so to speak.
What else is in the throne speech for youth, Mr. Speaker? I mentioned a moment ago the emphasis laid on urban development planning. The youth of today will be living in the cities of tomorrow and if they can become what the Prime Minister has suggested, then surely youth today will have benefited from the measures outlined in the throne speech.
The criticism has been made that the university scholarship program to which the Liberal party is committed has been left out of the throne speech. Perhaps it has, but as the Prime Minister has said, all government legislation is not included in the throne speech.
The Liberal party remains firmly committed to the scholarship program and I hope to see it implemented at this session of parliament I have mentioned many programs for the future, all of which must be planned in some degree if not in entirety by government.
Everyone knows that government becomes more and more complex. The work of parliament becomes heavier and we also know it. This means that we must adapt our institutions to changing conditions or see the institutions destroyed. We must expedite the work
May 16, 1967

The Address-Mr. Boulanger of parliament without taking away the rights of the opposition. I fully agree and I am sure that we all think the same way.
There is no question of taking the rights of the opposition away. I hope that the all party rules committee which has been created will come up with proposals which will bring the rules of the House of Commons into line with the needs of the House of Commons.
Before concluding my observations, Mr. Speaker, I should like to echo the remarks of my hon. friend from Nicolet-Yamaska about the pride he felt at the opening of Expo when the Canadian flag was raised.
I shared his pride at the time, Mr. Speaker, not only at being a Canadian but also at being fortunate enough to have the opportunity to serve under the right hon. Prime Minister.
I thought about how fortunate Canada has been in the leaders she has had in the past, regardless of their political affiliations. Hon. members, especially the Conservatives, will probably agree with me that no man other than Sir John A. Macdonald could have created confederation in the way he did.
It must also be recognized that only Mackenzie King could have led Canada in time of war without allowing a conscription crisis to tear us asunder. It should also be said-

The present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is the one man who was capable of keeping this country together in the last few years, the one man capable of creating the social revolutions that we have been going through since April 1963, the one man capable of leading us into the first phase of our second century as a nation.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the house to join together to make this centennial session of parliament the most productive in Canadian history, the one that will have done more to raise the level of Canadian life than any other, the one that will have done more for more citizens than any other, in short, the one that will celebrate the centennial of confederation by making every citizen of this country capable of holding his head high and saying: I am proud to be a Canadian; je suis fier d'etre Canadien.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to enter this historical debate, having spent some months in preparation for such an occasion. However, the length of time occupied by my discourse this evening will not be long.
At the outset I would join with others in congratulating the mover and seconder of the address in reply, the hon. member for Bu-rin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) and the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Cot6). The topics they chose were important ones, and their eloquence measured up to the responsibilities that they accepted.
I should like to discuss some features of the speech from the throne. It does not say much about the financial and monetary policies of the government, and we of the Social Credit party wish that it did say a little more. At the moment, Canada is in a somewhat brightened situation as far as credit and money supply are concerned, but I would warn the house that already the storm signals are out. This morning's Montreal Gazette carried a column headed: "Is the economy moving once more toward monetary restraint?" It seems, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot go very long without a tightening up of the money supply, and we have only to remember the severe tightening that took place during the winter months. The Bank Act was passed and the money supply seemed to ease somewhat. I trust this article means there is not an election in the immediate offing, though I submit that it does mean that there will be one some time in 1968 and that a tightening of the money supply toward the fall and winter of this year will allow for subsequent expansion to coincide with political demands. I am afraid that it will be a long, long time before our monetary policy functions separate and apart from the political demands of the moment.
I was happy to see in the speech from the throne that the government will move to broaden the scope of the area development incentive program. I trust that when these words were written into the speech from the throne one of the broadenings that the government had in mind was to allow for an extension of this program to allow for development in the tourist industry. Coming from the province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, where the tourist industry is the second most valuable industry at the present time, I believe the time is long past when it
May 16, 1967	COMMONS
should receive more consideration than it has been receiving from so many federal statutes.
I cite, for example, the Veterans Land Act and the area incentive program, which operate as if the tourist industry had never been heard of or, if it existed at all, was not worthy of either assistance or commendation. We in British Columbia know that this is now a long standing industry, a permanent one, and that it will shortly be the most important industry we have. It is time that this industry was recognized, and I hope that the section of the speech from the throne dealing with this subject is an indication that it will now be recognized.
I am also happy to see that a special study of the needs of urban development is going to be made. I hope that the study will be a rapid one and will be quickly translated into action. Certainly our present legislation dealing with urban redevelopment sorely needs rewriting. As the situation stands now, it is necessary for a section of a city to degenerate into an absolute slum before the machinery which provides federal assistance can swing into action.
At the present time it is probably more in the financial interest of a city to let an area that is degenerating go all the way to ruin than to move on their own, part way along the line, and attempt to rebuild. I trust that when legislation to deal with this subject is brought in it will enable the federal government to step in to prevent the degeneration of urban areas, and allow the hearts and cores of our cities and towns across the country to be reconstructed and rebuilt, as a better alternative to construction of new buildings on the outskirts, as happens at present. I know that the city of Vernon is interested in this proposed study. It hopes that the subsequent legislation will permit its most imaginative program to go ahead. The city of Revelstoke has also done work in urban redevelopment. Any change for the better in this area would be beneficial not only for my constituency, but also for the nation.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I was happy to see that the Farm Credit Act is to be revised to enable young farmers to benefit. Perhaps the government might also consider revisions to legislation dealing with death duties. It is useless to give a young farmer a good start if he is to be interrupted in his work by the death of his father. The Carter Commission recognized this problem and recommended that we go part way toward a system that will ameliorate the lot of
DEBATES	299
The Address[DOT]-Mr. Johnston those businesses and farm operations that are affected by death duties.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon) wrote a book about the takeover of Canadian industries by United States capital. When he makes his further studies into the matter I suggest that he look carefully into the part played by federal taxation, which has forced this development on many industries in Canada.
I am not enthusiastic about the proposed legislation that would set up a consumer affairs department. The government has not recovered from its last massive reorganization; the Department of Industry and the Department of Manpower and Immigration are still disorganized by the changes that were made a year ago. Though a young and able minister might head the new department we are not ready for it. The government knows what is happening in its departments. Most are short of staff, and one department cannibalizes personnel from another. Creating a new department will not help the situation. It, too, may encroach on other departments such as agriculture and finance.
During the past week we have seen some lack of cabinet solidarity, but we can look forward to much more if the consumer affairs department is created. It may come into conflict with the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce. Co-operation between various departments may be difficult. I am convinced that it would be better to amend our taxation policies to allow people to retain more purchasing power, rather than pretending to defend them by creating special departments which will add to the tax bill and ultimately reduce available income.
I was pleased that the throne speech announced a balanced national broadcasting service. We have looked forward to that for a long time, and I trust that the government will keep its word and will bring in the long awaited legislation. I blanched, however, when I noticed that the service would be for Canadians of all ages, interests and tastes. I do not object to catering to all ages-and quite possibly broadcasting should cover a broad spectrum of interest-but I submit that in the realm of taste there are certain areas where the government ought not to be involved. It has no business providing a service for certain sections of the population-we have already gone too far in that regard. More important than any legislation will be
300	COMMONS DEBATES	May 16, 1967
The Address-Mr. Johnston
to secure men and women of balanced judgment and courage who would have the fortitude to withstand the demands that some people would inflict on the Canadian public, who would resist programs that are unworthy of the broadcasting system or of the nation, and who would have the courage to provide balanced news reporting of Canadian and foreign news.
To bring up a small point, last evening when the national televised news at eleven o'clock mentioned the nomination day for the five by-elections to be held there was not a single reference to the Social Credit party or to the Ralliement Creditiste. That sort of thing makes those of us in this corner of the house lose confidence in the balanced judgment of the C.B.C.
I am worried though by the Prime Minister's announcement that this house and its committees are to be televised. I know that the justification for this is that, somehow, it will be more democratic, that somehow it will be more democratic for the public to see what goes on in this chamber. I warn the members of the house and the public of Canada that they will be seen and will see through the eyes of individuals, those who handle the cameras and audit the programs-who will not be members of this house. We shall turn over to others a vast source of political power over which we shall exercise no effective control-except by ending the broadcasts.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is right.


Howard Earl Johnston: May I remind the house of the eloquent speech of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) who spoke of the power of television. We underestimate that power, and when we bring it to this institution we do not know what the effects will be. During the session we hope to legislate with respect to educational television. We move television into the classroom without knowing what we have done to that classroom or to the educational process. We know we have changed the process and changed it vastly.
We shall change this body by televising it, but we shall not necessarily make it a bit more democratic. I suspect that it will be somewhat less democratic, because the purposes of this chamber are debate and legislation, and not entertainment: And entertainment is the prime purpose of television. The throne speech with its inherent weaknesses was televised; its English has been criticized from end to end of the country; yet the one

thing we do know is that the process of televising did not improve it.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Democracy is a tender plant and is disappearing from many countries of the world. It exists, in the main, in countries that are constitutional monarchies. That is why in Canada's one hundredth year I am glad that we are still a constitutional monarchy-that we have a Queen of Canada. I trust this situation will continue through the next hundred years and longer because although this may seem contradictory, it is one of the guarantees of the democratic process. When we have moved in all the features of modern technology and stripped away all the mystery and all the ritual from our parliamentary system we shall not have made it more democratic; we shall simply have made it duller in the eyes of the public and the public may decide to do without it.
If we waste time in this institution we do not waste it on the day the speech from the throne is delivered or on the days when we go for royal assent. We waste it in this chamber because we cannot amend our rules and procedures so that we may have the ritual, the dignity, the pageantry, the democracy and the legislation at the same time.
Democracy is, as I have said, a tender growth. We cannot be over-confident about its continued existence. We must be prepared to fight for it. It can suffer, as plants do, from too much kindness; it can suffer from overexposure. I suggest that all hon. members as we begin this second century should think carefully about the purpose of this representative institution of parliament, which until now has been our best guarantee of the continuance of the democratic process in a nation. Although we may feel sometimes that by going more directly to the people and by involving them somehow in the day to day activities of this house through television we are making this institution more democratic, I suspect that the opposite would be true. Only if we could televise every speaker in every section of the house every minute of our sittings might we make it more democratic. But we could not afford the bill, and I submit that the general public would not have the time to watch the proceedings.
I have found in my constituents and in others a measure of trust in the democratic process and in the people they send here to represent them. I think we should be happy to see ourselves in the capacities of debaters and legislators. We can be entertainers during
May 16, 1967	COMMONS
the campaigns or when we go home to our constituencies. Our job here is quite different.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I wish to join others who have spoken in congratulating the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They made very imaginative speeches -perhaps I should emphasize the word "imaginative" because it takes a lively imagination to see a comprehensive legislative program in the speech prepared by the government.
There were a lot of words in it, containing high-sounding sentiments such as the following:
With our forefathers the fight was against the immense odds of nature on our half of this continent. Today the main struggle is against social injustice, against cultural mediocrity, against spiritual stagnation and against all forms of intolerance.
These are high-sounding words, but, as I say, there is little indication of legislation to put them into effect. There are many contradictions in the speech but I wish at this time to draw the attention of the house to two examples only. In the speech the government said it would take special measures in particularly designated areas where human resources are not adequately utilized. In this connection, so the speech says, parliament will be invited to broaden the scope of the area development incentive program.
This would appear to indicate that the government intends to see that all areas of Canada are assisted in reaching their full potent:al. However, further on in the speech we read that parliament will be asked to pass legislation to assist Canadians to move from their homes in certain areas in order to obtain employment in other areas. I fully support the area development incentive program, which can be of great help to the prairies. But I do not wish to see the government concentrating on moving people from certain areas to find work in other areas. I believe it would be much better to help establish industries and manufacturing plants in areas where there is under-employment.
In this regard I wish to refer to the latest press release issued by the Department of Transport-I take this as an example since I believe most of the departments work on similar lines. It refers to contracts issued during the month of April; it contains four pages listing contracts which have been awarded- $22,000, $26,000, $18,000, $76,000 and so on. Contracts are awarded to firms in British
DEBATES	301
The Address-Mr. Pascoe Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. Nothing at all to Saskatchewan. I have noticed this time after time in departmental releases; there are no contracts awarded to Saskatchewan.
This situation is causing considerable concern in my area. I have a letter here from the industrial commissioner at Moose Jaw and he says:
I am writing at the request of the Moose Jaw Industrial Commission to ask you to help us in our efforts to divert to Moose Jaw some of the contracts that are going to Eastern Canada.
He enclosed a copy of a letter he had sent to the secretary of the Department of Defence Production and I think I am at liberty to mention briefly some of his observations in the course of that letter. He wrote:
I have been instructed by the Moose Jaw Industrial Commission to write to you to explore the possibilities of increasing the volume of business that is being done or could be done by Moose Jaw suppliers and/or factories...
Our Industrial Commission can appreciate the importance of your placing orders for goods and services with firms with which you have had long association and most of which probably are located in Eastern Canada. However, a careful review of your records might reveal certain areas of work that could be, but are not now, performed in Moose Jaw.
The city of Moose Jaw is mentioned but there are other cities in the prairie region which are in a similar position. The letter goes on:
Our city is centrally located to serve the needs of your Western Canadian Bases and, in particular, we are thinking of the Canadian Forces Base that is located here.
Then the writer indicates just what goods and services could be supplied by Moose Jaw should the department wish to place orders there. It may not be the fault of the department that contracts are not awarded to Saskatchewan. It may be that bids are not received from prairie factories. I think more emphasis should be put on the fact that factories in the prairies could supply many of these goods and services. It says:
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Internal combustion engines of all makes and sizes are being rebuilt in Moose Jaw for the commercial trade. This is one area that probably should be examined closely by your department and we would welcome your comments.
I might add that there is a very modern garment factory in Moose Jaw and I would draw this to the attention of the Minister of
May 16, 1967

The Address-Mr. Pascoe National Defence. When it comes to making the new uniforms, the jolly green jumpers, for the unified services, the government will be spending millions of dollars providing these uniforms and I think it should take a look at the garments that can be produced by the Moose Jaw factory.
In the speech from the throne the government proposes changes in the rules of parliament, changes that will limit debate, in other words imposing closure. It is no less than that. The plan of the government is further indicated by the replacing of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) as house leader by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen). The latter will also be chairman of the house rules committee. His desire to curtail opposition speeches has been very evident during the past few sessions.
There is a contradiction in the speech from the throne in regard to house procedure. It is stated that the rules and methods of parliamentary government must be revised, but it is also stated that parliament must be provided with every facility to ensure that efficiency and thoroughness of deliberations which, in the consideration of every item of public business, is alone the sure protection of the liberty and well-being of our people.
Members on the government side apparently must have short memories, or perhaps I should say convenient memories. Some of them were not in opposition when the Diefenbaker government was in office and I suggest they should read Hansard of 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1962. There are some members on the government side who will remember their opposition tactics. They will remember how they criticized and debated government policies. They will recall the day after day wrangling over estimates of the various government departments, particularly the Department of Agriculture. Perhaps I should put on record some of their remarks as they defended their rights as opposition critics. Their statements appear in earlier issues of Hansards.
The Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) when in opposition stated on October 4, 1962, as recorded in Hansard at page 227 for that date:
All members of the opposition were elected for one purpose and that was in opposition to the government.
IMr. Pascoe.]
The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Hai-dasz), when in opposition, as recorded at page 398 of Hansard for October 11, 1962, said:
Since it is the duty of members of the loyal opposition to oppose I cannot see how one can have effective opposition without constructive criticism... before we realize it, Mr. Speaker, political criticism may unfortunately be regarded as an un-Canadian activity instead of democracy's greatest safeguard ... I believe that no reform can be achieved and no survival is possible without the freedom of honest and vigorous criticism.
The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) when he was in opposition had this to say, as recorded at page 349 of Hansard for February 4, 1963:
So, Mr. Speaker, surely it is the duty of all members of the opposition in this house to give the people a chance to return what they would consider to be a better government. We can only do that by getting rid of this one and that can only be done by taking a united stand.
I might point out that in that united stand the Liberal members voted with Social Credit for debt free money.
Here is a small quotation from the March, 1967, issue of Canada Month. I think it is written with tongue in cheek but it indicates the attitude of the government:
On January 18, for the first time since the fall of 1964, the ruling Pearson junta was defeated in a House of Commons vote. It was on an amendment to the transportation bill. The transport minister, J. W. Pickersgill, crystalized the good old Liberal attitude about governing with the classic comment that the defeat "humiliated" him. What makes these opposition fellows think this is a democracy, hmm? Where do they think they get off, voting against a government bill?
Parliament, admittedly, may not be perfect but it is far superior to any form of totalitarian rule or dictatorship. Parliament is not an assembly line process for the mass production of government measures. No democracy such as ours can ever streamline its political machinery to the point of curtailing free parliamentary debate-reasonable debate carried on for one definite purpose. In the nine years that I have been an M.P. I consider that house debates have been directed to the one purpose of improving legislation, or suggesting better legislation.
Opposition members not only help to amend legislation, they also inform Canadians of what is involved and how each measure affects national, provincial and individual interests. Sound legislation will come out of parliament only if there is constructive criticism and the presentation of alternative viewpoints. Despite government charges of delaying the business of parliament, and despite
May 16, 1967	COMMONS
unfriendly press reports I am sure Canadians understand that the role of an opposition member is to criticize government measures and try to improve them. This is democratic government.
The throne speech refers to the appointment of a special task force to propose longterm national agricultural policies. According to a press report the aim is to lift Canada's farm industry to a level comparable to that enjoyed by other segments of the economy. This is an admission that farm income under present government policies is too low.
The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Brand) has submitted an amendment seeking price improvements for the dairy industry. I agree with his arguments in this regard, but I want to make a few references to wheat farming, particularly on the prairies. A brief reference to a recent address by Dr. J. C. Gilson, head of the department of agricultural economics of the University of Manitoba, will put the situation in clear focus:
A truly national farm policy does not exist in Canada at the present time. Nor do we have a clearly definitive idea of what the philosophy and objectives of such a national policy ought to be. What we appear to have is a confusing collection of policies, many of which were created in times of emergency and which have been patched and perpetuated long after the original crises have disappeared.
The suggestions to the government contained in the report of the standing committee on agriculture should, I think, be used by this proposed task force when it meets, and I will deal with them just briefly. They suggest convening a national conference on farm policy under the auspices of the federal government. Perhaps this could start off the work of the proposed farm task force. They also mention the need for the production of a billion bushels of wheat per year in Canada by 1980, in order to meet world demand.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I suggest the government should not be too complacent about this. The latest D.B.S. review shows that exports from the United States and Australia were higher this year than last and that exports from Canada and the Argentine were lower. This report relates to the August to February period of the current crop year. The graph shows that exports of wheat and wheat flour from Canada were down.
The committee recommends a continuation of the Canadian food aid program, and I think we will all agree that there is a need
DEBATES	303
The Address-Mr. Pascoe for an expansion in this regard. The committee also recommended very definitely that the price of wheat be increased by 50 cents a bushel. The full implications of the recent increase in the price of wheat have not yet become apparent, but the 21 cent per bushel announced is far below the recommended 50 cent increase. The committee also recommended an increase in the initial price for wheat at the delivery point. Surely this is a logical move in view of the recently announced increased price.
It has been said that every effort should be made to ensure that tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway be either eliminated or kept to a minimum and that capital costs should be accepted as far as possible as a direct responsibility of the people of Canada under a national policy. I need not point out that not long ago the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) announced lockage fees for the Welland canal commencing April 1. This charge has been imposed, and I should like to read a few headings from the latest edition of the Ship-Shore news of April this year. These headings are: "Lockage charges will harm Quebec says Trois-Rivieres"; "Fees hinder export, domestic trade says Maple Leaf Mills", and "Flood of protests greets announcement of lock fees".
A telegram from Charles W. Gibbings, president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, was sent to the Minister of Transport, and I should like to read part of it. It states:
Prairie farmers greatly disturbed at federal government decision to reimpose a toll structure called a lockage fee on the Welland canal which Canada has long considered a domestic waterway and which now will become the only domestic waterway in North America to carry user tolls.
I think that pretty well explains the stand taken by the shippers and the prairie wheat pools regarding these lockage fees.
The committee also said that country elevators must not be considered as places for storage but should have storage facilities connected with them. In this connection let me point out the strategic location of the federal government elevator at Moose Jaw which has a capacity of 5,500,000 bushels. It is located on the main line of the C.P.R. and can also be served by the C.N.R. This elevator has a very important potential use in line with the committee's proposals. A number of members of the agriculture committee toured the southern part of our prairie provinces and visited this elevator. They were quite impressed with its facilities and I should like to urge the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters)
May 16, 1967

The Address-Mr. Pascoe and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) to give close consideration to the potential use of this elevator.
I might say that the elevator at Moose Jaw is nearly full of wheat. It is being used to a capacity of 5,250,000 bushels, with the rest of the space being utilized for wheat cleaning. It is in extremely good condition and can be put to good use, particularly in view of the reference to storage for emergencies. This elevator would be adaptable for that purpose. I intended to make a few other comments in this regard but I shall defer them until I have another opportunity to speak on the supply motion. In conclusion let we refer to an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Journal on May 10 regarding the extraordinary length of the speech from the throne and the looseness of its composition, which made it not a useful and reliable forecast of legislation but a kind of inventory of the desires and dreams of the government.
Dreams are not to be discouraged but there can be danger in too much dreaming. Government programs must give encouragement to initiative and hard work and there must be room for private enterprise. Care must be taken that Canada does not become a welfare state in which there is a concept that society owes every citizen a living, regardless of his willingness or ability to work. In this regard I draw attention to the front page of the May issue of Canada Month. The featured heading is "Allan J. MacEachen, minister of the workless future". Canadians do not want a workless future, they want an opportunity to earn their own living, and we in the opposition intend to see that these aspirations are fulfilled.
The throne speech has been aptly described as a "scatter gun" approach to pressing problems facing the government. It contains a long list of generalities, with little indication of a positive legislative program. We on this side intend to press for quick action on the agricultural cost-price squeeze and the housing crisis, as well as ever increasing consumer prices.
The government could delay tackling these pressing problems by stirring up early debate on emotional issues such as capital punishment, divorce laws and the national anthem. Vague references in the throne speech to regional, national and international issues make it possible for the government to have this session drag on as long as the last one. If this session is another year-long one, the blame will lie with the government in its priority 
list. Only the government can decide the order of legislation, and it is up to the government to have parliament tackle problems in the order of greatest need. We want this to be fully understood by the public. If there is a delay the fault must rest with the government.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commence my remarks on the occasion of this debate with words of congratulation to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The subject on which I should like to touch might perhaps be headed under the title of the public interest and the individual and I will commence with the recognition that big government is with us to stay.
There is no point in the kind of wishful thinking so often indulged in by members of the financial community, that suddenly in some way the vast apparatus of government will be dismantled. The fact is it will not be, because I believe the majority of people are in support of the benefits and improvements which have been brought about by government intervention. However, because government has become so big and because its operations have extended into so many aspects of our lives, I am concerned with whether it is being fairly administered in the individual case. My concern therefore is as to the quality of administration. Is it humane; does it do equity, and can it adjust itself to the rich variety of individual personality which is represented in our society?
My feeling is that the answer to those three questions is a qualified negative, and I should like to cite a number of examples which indicate to me that our apparatus of government is concerned too much with being efficient and not enough with being humane. I prefer to do so under three headings: First, suggested changes in the criminal law, second, suggested changes in the civil legal system under federal jurisdiction and, third, by suggesting an administrative review procedure.
Having regard to the Criminal Code, my first comment is how old fashioned it is. Basically it dates from 1892, and it in turn was based on the Stephen draft of 1880, which in turn largely codified the accumulated practices of centuries.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
We have had revisions, it is true, but they have been largely housekeeping changes in
May 16, 1967	COMMONS
the nature of tidying up the effect of court decisions and occasionally recognizing technological innovations such as the airplane or that famous card game 3-card monte. I should like to pick out two things to illustrate my point of view. The first is the regime for bail in lieu of custody pending trial and, second, the right to counsel before trial.
With regard to bail, in the Criminal Code it is not mandatory that in every case a person suspected of an offence be arrested and held in custody pending trial. Under the Criminal Code the local authorities are given a discretion to issue a summons to require the accused to appear in answer to the accusation rather than to issue a warrant for his arrest and detention. In a very large number of cases, however, the local authorities insist on using the arrest rather than the summonsing procedure, and therefore a problem arises.
Once an accused is arrested he then must use the bail procedure to regain his liberty pending trial. While the bail procedure is intended to relieve against detention pending trial, in my opinion it is more oppressive than it is relieving. What this means in practice, at least in the metropolitan area from which I come, is that a man, who in law otherwise is presumed innocent until proven guilty, must be able to arrange two things on short notice. First, he must find someone to provide cash or proof of property and, second, he must be able to arrange the attendance of a provincial official, that is a justice of the peace. Failing that-and I can assure you that it fails quite easily late at night or on a holiday-the law treats the accused in the same way he would be treated had he already been convicted of a major offence. He is locked up under maximum security conditions.
I should like to make clear to members of the house that they do not need to rely on my opinion of the way the bail system works. It has been thoroughly documented in the very able study by Professor Martin Friedland of the University of Toronto law school in a book entitled "Detention Before Trial". Before referring to some of his detailed findings I should like to refer to the following at page 172:
The period before trial is too important to be left to guesswork and caprice. At stake in the process is the value of individual liberty. Custody during the period before trial not only affects the mental, social and physical life of the accused and his family, but also may have a substantial impact on the result of the trial itself. The law should abhor any unnecessary deprivation of liberty and positive steps should be taken to ensure that detention before trial is kept to a minimum
DEBATES	305
The Address-Mr. D. S. Macdonald
By way of illustration of the effect of the administration of the Criminal Code in Toronto I should like to read the following summary of the facts in Professor Friedland's study. I am quoting from page 174:
Of those arrested by the police, which is over 90 per cent of those charged, approximately 85 per cent are kept in police custody until their first court appearance, many for substantial periods of time. Most persons arrested during the day are not brought into court that day, even though the court is sitting . .. The study revealed, for example, that in one division station over 80 per cent of all those booked between 7.00 a.m. and midnight were kept in police custody for over 10 hours before their first court appearance. For all of metropolitan Toronto, 84 per cent of all persons arrested for criminal offences were kept in custody until their first court appearance. Approximately 40 per cent of those who appeared in court in custody for their first court appearance, 95 per cent of whom did not have a lawyer, pleaded guilty at that time. A thorough revision of the procedural aspects of release before the first court appearance is clearly necessary.
He goes on to point out that many persons whose cases are not disposed of at the first court appearance spend substantial periods of time in custody pending the disposition of their cases. The use of cash or property bail as the determinant for securing attendance at trial inevitably involves a discrimination between rich and poor in the administration of the criminal law. Let the comparison be made between the treatment accorded someone accused of white collar crime, like Mrs. Viola MacMillan, with that accorded the poor unfortunates disgorged from the Don jail after a week end. I think it is clear that there is different treatment. The goddess of justice in the traditional statue may be blind, but one wonders whether it is cash that she is weighing on the scales.
Let us go back to the fundamentals. What is the purpose of custody pending trial, or bail in lieu thereof? It is to secure the attendance of the accused at trial. But, how often and in what kinds of case, do accused persons flee from bail, or more fundamentally, what probability is there that an accused will flee? I suggest that in a very high percentage of cases there are external non-legal factors which will deter the accused from disappearance such as family, business interests, roots in the community and insufficient means to evade justice. The minister suggests also a sense of honesty. In those limited cases where moments of panic cause the accused to flee, the efficacy of detection will secure the ultimate apprehension of all but a few.
At this point I should like to say just a few words about the hard core of professional
306	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion criminals who appear to be the standard by which some law enforcement officers regard the rest of society. The bail system need hold no terrors for organized crime in cases where the accused can expect to be eligible for bail. Bail money and counsel will be readily available for the professional criminal. I submit that a ready distinction can be drawn between those who are accused of major crimes against person and property, and the vast majority who run afoul of the law for offences such as impaired driving or a similar offence. My recommendation, therefore, is that the provisions of the Criminal Code requiring that an accused person be taken into custody for a broad spectrum of offences should be sharply curtailed and that many offences should be exempted from the necessity of custody and therefore of bail. I should like to spell out the changes I have in mind later.
Perhaps I might call it ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, on May 8 last, here in Ottawa, an agreement was signed by the governments of Canada and the kingdom of Belgium on the fields of culture, education, science and engineering.
Due to the nature of this international agreement, its implementation will affect fields of provincial jurisdiction, and the central government did not consult the provinces or the Quebec government before negotiating such educational and cultural relations.
This new procedure raises some doubts on the constitutional level, antagonizes Quebec, and departs from the procedure followed in the fall of 1965 when a cultural agreement was signed between Ottawa and Paris.
According to the letter and the spirit of section 93 of the Canadian constitution, education comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures. Culture must be related to education since it is its direct expression and since the fathers of Canadian confederation in 1867 did not dissociate education from culture in the distribution of government responsibilities.
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale)J
DEBATES	May 16. 1967
Furthermore, since the Statute of Westminster, that is since December 11, 1931, section 132 of our constitution became dead letter, and the central government can take its stand on no other section to assume the exclusive power to act in international relations, especially in matters exclusively provincial, as education, culture and natural resources.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
The argument is sound: if Ottawa does not have the right of implementation in a given matter, it could not have the exclusive right of negotiation. Indeed, it was in that spirit that, in 1948, Canada subscribed to United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, making known some reservations about provincial responsibilities in such matters.
In the 11 articles of the recent Canada-Belgium agreement, Ottawa included no such reservation; it did not have previous consultations with the provinces in general and with Quebec in particular and did not officially provide for the role of the provinces and of Quebec on the permanent joint commission created by that agreement.
Hon. Daniel Johnson, premier of Quebec, and some of his colleagues were entirely right when they protested against the offhand, autocratic and centralizing way in which this Liberal federal government again proceeded in this matter.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that if the Pearson government had decided to humiliate Quebec in its authority and its responsibilities, if it were trying by all direct and indirect means to weaken the provincial fields of jurisdiction, it would have acted exactly as it did in the negotiations about the signing of that agreement between Canada and Belgium.
In the interest of Canada, I hope that the stubbornness of the present central government will stop and that at the meeting of the prime ministers, next July 5, a clear and definite understanding will be reached.
In the field of international jurisdiction, I wish to make a few suggestions about the responsibilities which are exclusively provincial. In fact, I once said:
As far as I am concerned, I feel that the Quebec government can negotiate international treaties without the approval of the central government. But, in order to strike a proper medium in the implementation of true federalism and to enable Canada to put up a peaceful front before foreign countries, I would suggest that the Quebec government inform Ottawa of its initiatives so that Canadian policies do not appear incongruous and incoherent abroad.
May 16. 1967

In the field of shared responsibilities which are mentioned in section 95 of the constitution such as agriculture and immigration, the Quebec government should discuss these matters with Ottawa and come to an agreement beforehand concerning the division of responsibilities.
Finally, where responsibilities lie exclusively with the federal government, Quebec should submit its request to Ottawa and the matter should be decided jointly with the province.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the arguments of the hon. member, for I suggest that he, is confusing the negotiation of treaties, which is the exclusive right of the federal government and always has been, with the implementation of treaties which, depending on the subject matter, may be within provincial competence.
It has long been the practice of Canadian governments to consult the provinces before undertaking any commitment on their behalf, by entering into an international agreement which would require provincial legislation or other provincial action in order to be implemented. I can assure the house that there has been no departure from this practice in the case of the Belgian agreement. In signing a cultural agreement with Belgium the Canadian government has naturally committed only itself and federal agencies concerned with cultural matters. This was our constitutional right.
So far as the provinces are concerned, the agreement only provides a framework which could facilitate the participation of provincial authorities which might be interested in cultural exchanges with Belgium. The agreement clearly does not commit any province to do anything in connection with cultural exchanges with Belgium unless it wishes to develop such exchanges, in which case ample opportunity has been provided for full consultation. Thus the agreement will make it possible for Canadian efforts to strengthen our relations with Belgium through cultural exchanges at the federal and provincial level to be co-ordinated in a manner consistent with our constitutional requirements, and with the unity of purpose which must characterize our action in the international field.
The Prime Minister wrote each premier on May 3 to make it clear that there will be full consultation with the provinces as to any course of action they might wish to take in any matter arising out of this agreement which would involve provincial jurisdiction or require provincial implementation.
DEBATES	307
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
With respect to the right of the Canadian government to negotiate and conclude such agreements, both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have, on numerous occasions in the house, stated the constitutional position in Canada which clearly gives the federal government exclusive responsibility for the conduct of our country's external affairs and for the negotiation and conclusion of agreements with foreign governments in all fields.



WATER RESOURCES-REPORTED AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON POLLUTION

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, over a period of five years I have placed the following resolution on the order paper:
That, in the opinion oi this house, the government should consider the advisability of the creation of a water pollution control division, composed of representatives of the ten provinces, within the framework of the proposed national resources council, with powers and funds required to institute research programs, collect, collate and analyse water control data, and to co-ordinate the water pollution control objectives for the provinces; in addition, to further the study of water pollution control problems of a national character.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to read in the Vancouver Sun of May 6 a statement made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin). The heading of the article is "Ministers Agree on Pollution Group; National Council Offered as Solution to Problem". The article reads:
Federal and provincial resource ministers and government officials agreed in principle Friday to set up a national advisory council on water pollution.
It will set goals and co-ordinate the work of various government agencies in Ottawa and the provinces, Energy Minister Jean Luc Pepin told a press conference.
With representation from the two senior levels of government and probably some universities, the body will have a secretariat provided by the federal government.
Pepin said his proposal was received favourably but no firm decision could be made at a two-day round of meetings of resource ministers because some provinces wanted to clear the decision with their cabinets.
In making that statement, the minister no doubt accepted in principle the resolution I had been moving in the house for five years. In that connection, I was very interested to read in the Toronto Daily Star of Monday, May 15, an article written by Walter Gray, who is very interested in the conservation of
May 16, 1967

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion natural resources, entitled, "Will water pollution control sink in sea of provincialism?" The article reads, in part:
Little wonder that W. H. Herridge (N.D.P.- Kootenay West), one of the most outspoken conservationists on parliament hill-
I have to read this, although I do not like this sort of thing because I am so modest at heart.
-got up In the Commons the other day and cried plagiarism against the government.
For the last 15 years he has made an annual plea for the establishment of a national advisory council on water pollution, but every time his private bill was sunk without a trace.
Then, to his surprise, he received a press release from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, announcing that resources minister Jean Luc Pepin had proposed to the provinces the establishment of just such a council.
Pepin, of course, did not credit Herridge with the idea: rather, he said it came from last fall's national pollution conference in Montreal, sponsored by the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers.
I asked my question as a result of a number of people on this side of the house saying to me: well, the government has actually adopted a policy you have advocated for some years. It was for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I asked this question of the minister:
I wish to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources which is of urgent and prime national importance. Is it correct that the federal government has accepted in principle a resolution that has been placed on the order paper for over five years by the hon. member for Kootenay West, by an agreement in principle between the federal and provincial resource ministers to establish a national advisory council on water pollution? Can the minister inform the house of any such proposal or agreement?
However, Mr. Speaker, once again you nipped me in the bud when you rose and said:
Order, please. I do not think the question and the hon. member's assertions are acceptable at this time.
As a matter of fact, I was a bit nettled by that. It was for that reason I suggested I would have an opportunity of dealing with the question a little more fully after ten o'clock, as I am doing now. I hope when the parliamentary secretary replies to my proposal he will at least give some credit to the members of this group for advancing a constructive suggestion to the government over a number of years. I must say also I was not very pleased that the government acted along

the lines it did when making the minister's announcement.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kootenay West raises a very important subject, the pollution of water. He also makes what under other circumstances might be a very serious charge; that is, the charge of plagiarism.
His proposals of recent years have had to do with the setting up of a national board or council, with powers and certain administrative capabilities, as I understand it. This is not what is envisaged. This is not the subject which has been discussed by the Canadian council of resource ministers. Instead, what has been discussed is a purely advisory council, which perhaps would set up standards on an agreed basis which would be embodied in legislation, both federally and provincially, across the country. The council will advise as to areas of profitable research and as to successful methods of dealing with pollution. In other words, it would be an advisory body, not one with powers.
The hon. member made some reference to consistency. A few days ago his party moved a motion in this house to the effect that the government of the day-the present government-had not seen fit to give special status to one of our provinces, notably Quebec. I suggest that this was a recognition of the powers of the provinces, a la mode, so to speak. We have a division of powers as between provinces and the national government of this country. The advisory council, I submit, does recognize the fact that there is an area of divided jurisdiction in respect to pollution, and this can be covered adequately only by consultation at the federal-provincial level.
There was a meeting recently of the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers, and at that meeting the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources put forward the idea that an advisory committee be set up. This matter was discussed and the idea was received favourably by some representatives of provincial governments; others wished to consider the matter at some length. There were three main headings under which the council could study this matter. The council would study the possibility of setting up
May 16. 1967

agreed lists of objectives and standards Second, it would conduct research into causes and ways of reducing pollution, federal and provincial. Third, it would advise the governments, federally and provincially, on water pollution problems and programs for their solution.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has proposed that an advisory council be set up. This is under consideration, and the establishment of this council will be discussed again when the m.nisters meet this fall.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.15 p.m.

Wednesday, May 17, 1967