1967-05-18

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform hon. members that I have received a joint memorial from the Senate and House of Representatives of the legislature of the state of Idaho conveying the best wishes of that legislature on the occasion of our centennial. I am sure hon. members will want me to reply on their behalf.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melforl-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of personal privilege having to do with a newspaper article written by Peter Newman which attacks me as the Tory whip supposedly appointed by my leader to the dismay of the caucus at large. The article also refers to my having ordered buses to take Conservative M.P.'s to Expo and reserving most of the seats for Diefenbaker loyalists.
This article is a fabricated lie. It attacks my leader and myself, and every Conservative knows it is a lie and would back up my statement. Peter Newman and I both came from Europe, his name originally being Peter Neuman. We know there was in Europe another who always fabricated lies. His name was Dr. Goebbels. Peter Newman has now taken on the role of Goebbels here in Canada.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, also on a point of personal privilege in view of the fact that my name was mentioned in that article, I feel I should like to put on the record the fact that to the best of my knowledge there is no foundation whatever for certain inferences which have been drawn in regard to myself. It would appear to me from the wording of the article that there is an implication that I may not have been a
supporter of the leader of our party. I should like to go on record at this time as saying that I doubt very much whether there is anyone in Canada who is a greater supporter of our leader. I feel this way, Mr. Speaker, because I believe he is one of the greatest Canadians of our first century.
I also do not agree with the inferences which have been drawn about the whip of our party. I for one am heartily in agreement with the choice of the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale as whip of the Conservative party.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Welland) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-115, to amend the Criminal Code (destruction of criminal records).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Donald Ross Tolmie: Mr. Speaker, I introduced this bill in June of 1966, incorporating the principle of erasing criminal records. The purpose of this bill is to relieve many Canadians who have paid their debt to society and are now law abiding, but are still suffering from the continuing stigma and disadvantage of a criminal record.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



VISITING FORCES ACT


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-3 (from the Senate), respecting the armed forces of countries visiting Canada.
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, I would ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has

May 18. 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry been directed to the views expressed in the United States Senate by a number of senators, including Senator Mansfield, a Democrat, and Senator Aiken, a Republican, both of whom visited Ottawa last week in connection with the meeting of the Canada-United States parliamentary group.
In view of the danger pointed out by them that further increases in military activity against North Viet Nam might foreclose the last possibility for a peaceful settlement and bring red China and the Soviet union into the war-warnings that are serious to Canadians and people all over the world-would the Prime Minister now agree that a resolution should be introduced in this house so the United States may understand the attitude of Canada, in view of the divisions which have been apparent in the cabinet until yesterday, which resolution would call upon the United States to discontinue bombing or, if not, to restrict it to those areas of ingress and egress, in other words to communication roads, so it never could be said that in this parliament we failed to act at a time of grave and international peril.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have seen press reports of the statement to which my right hon. friend refers. I should like to have the text of that statement before making any comment whatsoever on it. I am not at all sure that the procedure suggested by my right hon. friend would be the best way to accomplish the purpose which all of us have in mind. However, I will be glad to consider it.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the Prime Minister or to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can a statement be made to the house concerning the information the government has regarding the situation in the Middle East? In particular can we be told in what way Canada is using her good offices to help resolve this serious situation?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Secretary General met with the countries which are contributing to the United Nations emergency force in the Gaza strip. The government of the U.A.R. has served notice on [Mr. Diefenbaker.l
the commander of that force that in the interests of its security the United Nations patrols should be withdrawn from the armistice line dividing the U.A.R. and Israel. The commander has taken the position that this course could not be followed unless he received instructions from the Secretary General.
The Secretary General now has asked for clarification as to whether the U.A.R. merely wants a withdrawal from the armistice line or the withdrawal of the force from the U.A.R. He has stated that if one of the host countries, in this case the U.A.R., should ask for withdrawal of the force from the U.A.R. itself he would have no alternative but to accede to that request. I must say that is not the position which was taken by Dag Hammarskjold, nor was it the position taken at that time by the present Prime Minister, who in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs expressed the view that in giving its consent to the establishment of the force the Egyptian government accepted a limitation of its sovereignty, and that it is now the prerogative of the United Nations rather than of the U.A.R. government to determine when the United Nations force has completed its task of restoring peace and when it should be withdrawn.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the date of that statement?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: March, 1957.


Mr. W. B. Nesbill (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I am wondering whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs or perhaps his colleague the Minister of National Defence could tell us whether arrangements are being made to remove Canadian forces should hostilities break out and, if so, what is the nature of the arrangements.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, because the forces are under the command of the Secretary General of the United Nations no steps have been taken in this direction. There does exist, however, a contingency plan which is available in the event a decision should be taken to withdraw the force.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question arising out of the answer given by the Minister of National Defence. In the latter portion of his answer he said a contingency plan had been determined upon for use in the event of
May 18, 1967

the Canadian contingent in the United Nations force being withdrawn. Does this mean a decision will be made by the Canadian government as to whether the Canadian force should be withdrawn regardless of what the Secretary General of the United Nations might have to say in that regard? Second, are there any Canadians at all in the area in respect of which the present difficulties have arisen?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would not want to give the impression that we would take unilateral action in this case. We would not. It would be in concert with a decision taken by the Secretary General of the United Nations. As to the second question, we have no troops patrolling the armistice line. Our troops are all in support of the forces committed to the United Nations.


John George Diefenbaker: But are there any
Canadian troops in the particular area between the U.A.R. and Israel? I thought there were none there. Am I wrong in this regard?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not on the armistice line, if that was the question. They are in the Gaza strip and at El Arish, but they are not on the armistice line.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: I
should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister advise the house when the government expects to make public the specific reductions in tariffs on foreign manufactured goods entering Canada which will result from the recent Geneva agreement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am wondering
whether this is not the same question that was asked yesterday.


George Harris Hees: May I ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: If I am correct in thinking the hon. member is repeating a question which has already been asked, he may not ask a supplementary.


George Harris Hees: Then may I ask another question in a different form, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise the house whether the government has any plans for modifying the impact which these reductions in tariffs on

Inquiries of the Ministry goods entering Canada will have on sales of Canadian manufactured products in this country?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: This seems to be a question of a very general kind. It is my belief that the over-all effect of the Kennedy round upon sales of Canadian manufactured products will be very good.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Simpson: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister advise the house whether his department is currently working upon, or intends in the near future to work upon, the development of means to extend the shipping season at Churchill?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: This is a matter to which regular -"continuous" is perhaps too strong a word -attention is given and every possible avenue which might enable us to extend that shipping season is explored whenever any suggestions are made in that connection, because we regard this port as being very important and one which should be developed.



COLUMBIA RIVER-STATEMENT BY B.C. PREMIER RESPECTING SIGNING OF TREATY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address to the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question of which I have given him brief verbal notice. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a statement by Premier Bennett that the federal government signed the Columbia river treaty too hurriedly, as a result of which costs on the Canadian side have increased and benefits which should have been received from the United States have not been forthcoming? Has the minister any comment to make on this unusual statement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think this is an acceptable question. The comments the minister might make at the suggestion of the hon. member could not be considered as of sufficient urgency to allow them to be made at this time.

May 18, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
Could he tell the house whether discussions have been held with representatives of the Quebec government with regard to the construction of an access road from the Abitibi area up to James Bay, under ARDA?


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



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question, directed to the Minister of Industry, is based on the proposals and allegations made here in Ottawa yesterday by Ralph Nader. So we may have public performance and safety standards financed by public dollars, will the government now seriously consider the building of a Canadian prototype safety car?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder again if this question is not so general in nature that it cannot be asked at this time. The answer to the question would not seem to be extremely urgent.


William Heward Grafftey: I would reword my question. In view of the great urgency, Mr. Speaker-and it is urgent because Mr. Nader yesterday told us-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Heward Grafftey: -that the automobile lobby had killed this proposal in the United States. In view of the urgency in proceeding, and in view of the fact that the automobile lobby has killed this proposal in the United States, will the government immediately get on with the consideration of this matter in order to get progress?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


William Heward Grafftey: I have been fighting for two or three years-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I appreciate the interest of the hon. member and of all hon. members in this matter, but perhaps the question could be put on the order paper.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I have been fighting for this for three years and we have had no action.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, for three long years I have pleaded.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows this is not in order. If he believes the question is one of urgency-I am not referring to the subject matter, I am referring to the question he wants to ask-he can give notice to the Chair that he wants to debate it at the time of adjournment tonight, which is a few hours from now.


William Heward Grafftey: I believe the minister was going to answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is not relevant at all. Even if the minister was going to answer, the question is still not acceptable at this time.


William Heward Grafftey: After three years I think it is urgent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the way I word this question will be satisfactory to you, and that it will come within the rules. Would the Prime Minister say whether the government has given or is now giving consideration to providing funds to construct a safety model automobile, so the number of deaths on the highways may be reduced in consequence of such action?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been taken in this matter, and indeed as far as I know no consideration has been given by the federal government to the construction of a particular automobile for this purpose.



CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RESPECTING ESTABLISHMENT OF BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to ask the Minister of Industry. Could the minister
May 18, 1967



indicate whether a decision has been reached on the recommendation of the justice and legal affairs committee calling for the establishment of a federal board to concern itself with all matters of motor vehicle safety?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, the recommendation of the committee has been studied. It is quite clear that the Canadian government specification board, which up to the present has taken the initiative in discharging federal government responsibility in the matter of motor vehicle safety, is not the appropriate body, and consideration is being given as to what would be the most appropriate body and how it should best be done.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Fisheries.
Has the minister recently received reports advising him that along lake St. Peter and down the shores of the St. Lawrence, vast quantities of dead fish are found allegedly due to excessive pollution of the water?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member believes that his question is urgent, he might want to give notice to the Chair, but I hardly believe that this is the type of question that may be put immediately.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize that the urgency of the question arises from the fact that, in that area, a large number of people draw their livelihood from commercial fisheries; the season is approaching and their livelihood is destroyed.


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, if I may reply to this question, I wish to advise the hon. member that the situation has not yet been brought to my attention. I shall take this question as notice and ask the officials of my department to make immediate inquiries.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister
Inquiries o/ the Ministry of Public Works. In view of the fact that we are already somewhat behind schedule on the next portion of the Northumberland strait crossing, can the minister tell the house when we might expect the awarding of this major contract so the next section can get under way as quickly as possible?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minisier of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add at the present time to my earlier statement on this question.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: As a supplementary question, in view of the fact that each passing day reduces the amount of time available, will the minister assure the house that within the next two weeks he will have an announcement on this matter?


George James McIlraith: I expect we will have it within the next two weeks, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a most important question to the Minister of Finance. I should like to ask the minister whether he has been or contemplates being in communication with Premier Bennett of British Columbia, in view of the premier's recent statement that he could reduce federal expenditures by $300 million without affecting efficiency or the administration of the minister's department.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the question is acceptable.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I wonder whether the minister has received a wire from the mayors of various municipalities complaining about the timing and stopping schedule of the train "Chaleur" which is going into service at the end of this month. Therein lies the urgency of this question. I should also like to know whether the minister would look into the complaints about that service that have been heard in this house and in the many letters he has received.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my memory is failing but I thought I had written a long

May 18, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry explanatory letter to the hon. member about this matter. It may be that I am confusing him with someone else. It is quite a lengthy explanation, and I would be very glad to send the hon. member a letter.


James Russell Keays: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether he would advise certain employees of Canadian National Railways that we expect the same service that is given to all other Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a representation and not asking a question.



QUEBEC-REFUSAL TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION TO OTTAWA FOR FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and follows that put yesterday by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) concerning the request of the Catholic Farmers Union of the Saguenay-Lake St. John region to put at their disposal additional coaches for May 24.
Could the minister tell us whether he has contacted the C.N.R. in connection with that matter and whether the farmers of the Saguenay-Lake St. John area can count on special coaches for May 24?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Even before I was asked any questions about this matter I had received the same telegram and, as is usual in these cases, I got in touch with the Canadian National at once. Hon. members will of course realize how difficult it is to meet the ordinary demands for space this year, but I am sure the railways will do their very best.



REPORTED COMPLAINTS RESPECTING FERRY SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of complaints in recent days that Canadian National ferries are apparently carrying cattle and empty trucks in preference to carrying passengers, thereby sometimes leaving people stranded overnight at certain Northumberland pier points, would the minister investigate these complaints with Canadian National Railways?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a representation.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the unanswered questions about the C.N.R. service, can the minister say whether he has information that the C.N.R. officials would be ready to appear before the committee at the earliest possible time, which I understand would be next week?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I feel quite sure that the management of Canadian National Railways would come before the committee at any time the committee wished to receive them, allowing of course for the conveniences as between one day and another.



DOMINION DAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the uncertainty and confusion that seems to be developing regarding the celebration of July 1 as a legal holiday this year, since July 1 comes on a Saturday, would the government see whether something can be done so we may have a uniform recognition of the following Monday as a legal holiday?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to look into that matter, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure my hon. friend would not want us to make any arrangements this year by which we would lose a sitting of the House of Commons for one day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. In view of the answer he has given me, may 1 ask the Prime Minister whether he understands that I was asking my question not with regard to the House of Commons but with regard to a general recognition of the day throughout Canada, since July 1 this year comes on Saturday. The Prime Minister realizes that if it came on Sunday, the holiday would be on Monday. Why not do the same thing in this instance?
May 18, 1987


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. friend. We will certainly look into this matter. I think there is some reference to this possibility in the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, but we will look into it.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
For the past several months hon. members have been asking the Prime Minister when they might expect the Laurendeau-Dunton report on bilingualism, and the Prime Minister has been putting off the tabling of this report from month to month.
Could he now tell the house whether we may expect the report before July 1?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I discussed this matter as recently as last evening with one of the cochairmen of the commission. They are hard at work preparing the report. I certainly share their hope that it will be finished before the end of this year.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My optimistic mood today leads me to ask the minister whether he can tell us about the establishment of the base line co-ordinates for our fishing zones.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is coming along, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether he is not a bit worried that if he does not make this announcement very soon-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



VIET NAM-PROPOSED CHILDREN'S REHABILITATION CENTRE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. When the minister testified before the external affairs committee he said, in response to a question of mine, that a Canadian representative was then en route to Viet Nam to pursue our proposal to establish a children's rehabilitation centre there, and he expected to be able to report on that matter very shortly. Is the minister now able to tell the house the outcome of those discussions in Saigon?	[DOT]


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, Mr. McLaren of the external aid office was sent to Saigon to investigate the situation and we also called in Dr. Vennema, who has been in charge of our anti-tuberculosis centre. We are now discussing this matter in the light of reports which both these officials have made to us.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the same treatment be given these reports as was given earlier to the Gingras report, and the earlier expectation that under external aid certain people might be brought to Canada for rehabilitation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I might say, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday Dr. Gingras and Mr. Strong of the external aid office discussed this matter with me.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. We are all impressed with these discussions, but when may we expect some answers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, May 17, 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. J. E. Brown (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted I should like to make a

May 18, 1987

The Address-Mr. Brown brief intervention in this debate, and my remarks will be very short. There are only four subjects I want to speak on, and I hope I will not be longer than an average of two minutes on each. The first subject is one of local concern and affects my constituency and neighbouring constituencies. The second refers to the province of Ontario, and the other subjects affect people living in all parts of Canada.
The first subject relates to the reception of C.B.C. television programs in Brantford and the surrounding area. There is a great need in my community for a relay station to be located between London and Toronto to facilitate the reception of these programs by the great number of people who live in my area.
The amount of money spent by the C.B.C. last year in respect of television was colossal, in fact something over $88 million. The people of Brantford pay plenty as their share of the cost of this venture, yet really cannot see the programs. If they can see them at all the reception is very poor. I live in the centre of Brantford, and I cannot see them at all. Some people may suggest that I move out, but that is something I will never do, particularly at this time of the year when the show of daffodils and tulips right in the centre of Brantford is such that I would not want to miss it.
Let me now refer for a minute or two to the operation of the general social welfare program adopted by this house and the Senate last year and made retroactive to April 1, 1966. I refer, of course, to the Canada Assistance Plan. More than a year later the Ontario legislature passed the family benefits act to make the Canada Assistance Plan operative in Ontario. What do we find in the province of Ontario more than a year after the Canada Assistance Plan came into effect? Nothing but chaos exists at local public welfare offices in this province since this legislation came into force. I do not wish to play politics in respect of the operation by the Ontario government of the family benefits act, but the people of this province will have something to say about this when the next provincial election is held.
This House of Commons did its best to make adequate provision for the blind, the disabled and the otherwise unemployed when this legislation was passed, and it was the wish of every member of this house that the people of Canada should benefit greatly from this legislation. These people are not receiving the results which each and every member who voted for the Canada Assistance Plan


last year expected, at least not the people in the province of Ontario.
This week I inquired about a disabled citizen whom I reported to the officials at Brantford nearly a year ago as one who required assistance. The officials replied just the other day that they were still waiting for word from Toronto as to whether this gentleman could qualify for assistance under the Ontario act, and no reference at all was made by those officials to the Canada Assistance Plan which was passed in good faith by this house. As a matter of fact I do not think they have ever heard about it. It was my feeling that I should advise this house how this legislation is being operated in Ontario. I believe at most two or three extra individuals would be required in my own city for the proper operation of this legislation. In other words I believe the Canada Assistance Plan is not being operated properly in Ontario.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Would the hon. member permit a question, Mr. Speaker. Is he aware that there has been a delay in the implementation of the Canada Assistance Plan, and that provinces such as Manitoba have not yet received the necessary information from Ottawa?


James Elisha Brown: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why provinces cannot obtain this information from Ottawa, and this is a most interesting observation. However, this bill was passed by this house last June, and it was made retroactive to April, 1966.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It was not implemented.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When was it proclaimed?


Mr. Lambert:: When was the plan proclaimed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


James Elisha Brown: Mr. Speaker, I now come to my third subject, which relates to the pensions of veterans. These pensions were increased last year so far as the veterans were concerned but were not extended to veterans' dependants. I know the minister and his department are considering a change in this regard, as the minister has advised the house, but there is a great need for consideration at the ministerial level so far as an extension to these dependants is concerned. I am sure the minister will do something in this regard after the committee which is studying the matter brings down its report.
There is another matter in respect of veterans which puzzles me, and that is the fact
May 18. 1987
that veterans files are secret so far as the veterans are concerned. I think I know what 1 am talking about in this connection. When a veteran is admitted to a hospital everyone from the orderly to the physiotherapist can read the file, except the veteran himself. A file may contain secret information such as a report that the veteran has a personality problem, and everybody knows about this except the individual concerned. Surely these files should be made available to the veterans so they can read what the officials have said about them. I am sorry the Minister of Veterans Affairs is not in his seat at the moment, but I know he understands the problems of veterans and I urge him to act upon these matters to which I have referred in a way more favourable to the veterans, keeping in mind their personal rights as individuals.
I now come to my fourth subject. As a member of this house I wish to stress the seriousness of the housing situation. There is such a widespread need for housing that I think for at least the next two or three years we should have a special department to deal exclusively with this matter. I know the Minister of Labour who is vitally interested in the nation's business, himself feels there should be a minister dealing exclusively with the matter I have spoken about. As a matter of fact he said just the other day that a cabinet minister should be appointed who would devote his full time to Canada's housing problem, at least for the present.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
In Brantford recently I attended a meeting of tenants of housing projects financed by the federal, provincial and municipal governments. I was very much impressed with the testimony of those tenants. They were all fine young men, some of them with many children to support. They stated that the monthly rentals they had to pay were too high, and I agreed with them. The rentals were fixed in accordance with the wages earned by the tenants and they went up sharply every time the tenants received a raise in wages, to such an extent that they were prevented from even attempting to purchase homes. In this way they were really discouraged from ever owning homes.
I believe this matter should be reviewed by the authorities. I attended this meeting as Brantford's member of parliament, and I am very glad I was present to meet and hear these tenants. Again I say housing should be the exclusive responsibility of one minister, and I intend to press for this from now on.
349
The Address-Hon. Martial Asselin
These are my points, Mr. Speaker. They may seem small and insignificant but they are all vital, and I intend to use what influence I have as a member of parliament to pursue them on behalf of my constituents.
In conclusion I should like to speak of the war in Viet Nam. I have little doubt that there is a strong feeling across Canada against the escalation of this war. I could become very much exercised over the prosecution and operation of this war by our good friend and neighbour the United States. There is only one thing which holds me back in this regard, and that is that in my opinion we can be thankful we happen to have as leader of the government a gentleman extremely skilful in the field of external affairs, a man of the highest moral calibre in whom the Canadian people can have the utmost confidence. I refer of course to the present Prime Minister of Canada, Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson.
These are not idle remarks nor wishful thinking on my part. I say we can be thankful here in Canada that we have Mr. Pearson. He will never lead our nation astray among the nations of the world. We can have faith in him and in our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin). I know we will continue to have faith in them both until these disturbing times are over and peace becomes firm and real.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, last night, before the house adjourned, I sought to explain to hon. members that it was urgent, in this centennial year, to revise our Canadian constitution.
This morning, I would like to conclude my contribution to this debate by saying a few words about this country's policy on Viet Nam.
Recently, Mr. Speaker, the secretary general of the United Nations dismayed the whole world when he predicted that the Viet Nam war was putting us on the brink of a third world war. Such an important statement by the chief of international diplomacy cannot be taken lightly.
When the secretary general of the United Nations accepted the renewal of his mandate, members of the general assembly of the United Nations promised him that he could count on their co-operation to bring an end to the war in Viet Nam and to restore peace in south-east Asia.

May 18, 1967

The Address-Hon. Martial Asselin
It seems to me that up to now, the secretary general has not received from the members of the United Nations all the co-operation he was promised. For some months, the United States have been escalating the war in Viet Nam with such atrocities that world opinion is now disturbed. True, measures must be taken to stop communist expansion in south-east Asia, but, I have never heard that force of arms could check ideas or a philosophy.
We are faced, Mr. Speaker, with an undeniable fact: the United States have gone into South Viet Nam and Washington is quite determined to pursue this war to final victory.
It seems that any political solution to the Vietnamese conflict has been set aside and a military settlement is being sought instead.
Bombings have caused heavy casualties among civilians and I shall refrain from describing all the atrocities committed on both sides since the beginning of that conflict. I think that the literature received by my colleagues in this connection speaks by itself.
It is not for me to pass judgment on the presence of the United States in South Viet Nam, but the United Nations charter provides specifically that every country has a right to self-determination and also has the right to have the government of its own choice.
Some will claim that the United States are there under international agreements whereby a country may ask another for assistance in case of aggression. However, without probing too deeply into all those reasons, I think we should look for the most useful means to put an end to that war which could have very harmful repercussions on a third world war.
Mr. Speaker, Canada has no definite policy about Viet Nam. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) have already said that they endorse the American policy about the Vietnamese conflict.
The government has also stated on many occasions that it was against the escalation and extension of the Viet Nam war. Canada hs also tried to apply with regard to that conflict a certain policy of neutrality; it has tried to act as an intermediary between the belligerents; it has even proposed compromise solutions to put an end to that war.
But, Mr. Speaker, we must now ask ourselves the following question: Could Canadian foreign policy concerning Viet Nam help end hostilities today? As we know, under military agreements, Canada is providing the United States with armaments which apparently are used in the Viet Nam conflict.


Recently, the Canadian members of the International Control Commission were publicly accused of supplying information concerning their mission to the American authorities. In this context, how can Canada be taken seriously by the government of North Viet Nam, when it proposes a political solution to end the conflict? How can North Viet Nam determine whether Canada makes its peace proposals in good faith when it knows that our country supplies arms to the United States which will be used in the fight against North Viet Nam?
It is obvious that our foreign policy is timid and uncertain, and Canadians certainly have the right to ask themselves questions, especially these last few days, knowing that the cabinet is divided on Canadian policy concerning Viet Nam.
[DOT] (12 noon)
I think all Canadians are interested in this Viet Nam question, Mr. Speaker. Last night a C.B.C. program called "Tirer au Clair" presented ten newspapermen who discussed Canada's position with respect to the conflict in Viet Nam. And, strange to say, these journalists who, in my opinion, were representing several thousands of Canadians, were almost unanimous to say that Canada should reconsider its policy concerning the Viet Nam war.
I think that the very fact that we witnessed recently, within the cabinet, divergence of opinions concerning our foreign policy should give the Prime Minister as well as the Secretary of State for External Affairs, cause for reflection and that both should consider revising their policy.
As I said earlier, regardless of cabinet solidarity, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon) claims that Canada should dissociate itself from the United States concerning Viet Nam. The Registrar General of Canada (Mr. Turner) did the same, in a speech made in Montreal recently and, yesterday, the Prime Minister reaffirmed the policy of Canada with regard to Viet Nam, stating that no attention must be paid to the statements made by those two ministers and that only the statements of policy issued by himself and his Secretary of State for External Affairs must be considered.
That statement made by the Prime Minister, cannot satisfy us. All the people in Canada ask this government for a definite, clear and unequivocal statement on its policy conerning Viet Nam. First of all, our foreign
May 18, 1967

policy must be built upon that question so as to save the world from a third universal conflict and to ensure a lasting peace in southeast Asia.
For too long now, our foreign policy has only been a policy of mediation, without any originality. The time has come for Canada to show some maturity in that field and to make its views known without taking into consideration the opinions of Washington. Since our country was a member of the International Control Commission set up to supervise the implementation of the 1954 Geneva agreements, it had good reasons to assert its neutrality in the Viet Nam conflict, but it seems that this option was rejected and that Canada accepted Washington's invitation to provide a more or less symbolic contribution to military operations to fight aggression and infiltrations by North Viet Nam. Moreover, Mr. Paul Sau-riol of Le Devoir used those words in his editorial of May 16, 1967, I believe.
In my view, given the present circumstances, it is hard to envisage a solution of the Viet Nam war if we cannot convince the parties concerned that they must accept the good offices of the United Nations and especially of the secretary general in bringing together to the table of negotiations all the parties involved in this conflict. In my opinion, it is to that effect that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should make his proposals and offers of mediation exclusively to the United States and North Viet Nam.
Under the present circumstances, Mr. Speaker, Canada has no other possible choice in that conflict. Therefore, I appeal to the Prime Minister whose qualities as mediator have won him the Nobel prize for peace. The Prime Minister should have enough prestige,
I believe, to convince the United States and North Viet Nam that it is more than ever time to trust the United Nations and the secretary general in their efforts to restore peace in south-east Asia.
I wanted, Mr. Speaker, before concluding, to launch an urgent appeal to the Prime Minister of my country, in order that future generations may not accuse us of having failed to avoid a third world war.


Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Vicloria-Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate because I feel this is a most important year. This is the year of our Lord 1967, which is the one hundredth year since the institution of the confederation of the 27053-231

The Address-Mr. Flemming great country called Canada of which we are all so proud. I feel, therefore, a special urge to have something to say in connection with the speech from the throne which has been delivered to us by His Excellency.
Before proceeding with any remarks I want to congratulate the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) upon the fine speech he delivered in moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I should like to congratulate, too, the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Cote) upon the very fine speech he made. I have been here since 1960, and I do not believe I have ever heard any better speeches made in moving and seconding the address in reply. These speeches were most impressive. The mover especially, as I understood his remarks and his general attitude, indicated he was in complete control of the situation. He was very eloquent and very capable. He is a distinguished broadcaster by profession, and his broadcast to this house that afternoon enhanced his reputation.
I confess that I enjoyed his speech. At times when he expressed certain ideas in the course of his remarks I felt that he should have been speaking from this side of the house rather than from the other side, because he was advancing ideas which I consider are definitely Conservative doctrine. To give an illustration of what I mean I will paraphrase his remarks. He said Newfoundlanders had demonstrated that in order to gain the new it is not necessary to disregard or eliminate the old. New experiences can enrich an established and proud culture. He said Newfoundlanders continued to give loyalty to the land that made them but they were totally committed to the broader objectives to which we all aspire. He went on to suggest that the promise of confederation had been renewed and the wisdom of its founders vindicated.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I agree most enthusiastically with these words. I consider, however, that they could be condensed into two words if we wished to condense them. Those two words would be "One Canada". This would be the idea we could extract from the language of the mover, one Canada, and that is the national policy of the Conservative party. This is the policy that will stimulate and encourage the unity so important to us all. This is the policy that will make an already great Canada even much greater.
May 18, 1967

The Address-Mr. Flemming [DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
I believe, Mr. Speaker, located as we are in the northern part of the continent of North America, we should continue to make progress within the framework of this confederation called Canada. There should be no question about that at any time anywhere in this country. We should continue to be strong as one country, united as one people, diversified perhaps yet still united and speaking with one voice. Around the family conference table at meetings convened from time to time by the central government we should continue to advance our individual and provincial claims and aspirations; there is nothing wrong with that. At the same time we should be continuing to think at all times and in all places in the country of going ahead as one country and one Canada.
I believe I can safely say that in the year of our Lord 1867, 100 years ago, the province of New Brunswick was relatively well off. We were building wooden ships, and we built a lot of them. We had built the Marco Polo, the fastest ship in the world of that day. We were trading with the New England states of the United States, and were trading to our very great advantage. So we were not a weak colony at the time; we were a province which, considering our population, was comfortably well off.
After discussions and consultations with the representatives of the three other provinces New Brunswick was invited to become one of the founding provinces of the confederation called Canada. We decided we would join; we did join; we will continue to belong. It is our duty as a partner to continue an association which has now been enlarged from the four original partners in confederation to ten. The country has grown from colonial status to that of a nation. There is no such thing as turning back; no such idea exists in Canada today. We have put our hands to the plan and we should go ahead, and go ahead with great confidence in the future. We are committed to joint action with national objectives in mind.
The speeches made in connection with the motion presently before the house might very well be considered comments on the program the government has enunciated. As I said at the outset of my remarks I believe this year this debate is a little more than that. The fact that this is our centennial year is one reason to bring about a review of the past, an assessment of the present and a statement of objectives for the future. I think dealing with these three particular phases of our history, past,

present and future, might properly illustrate the opinion of members.
In dealing with the past I think we must bear in mind the progress that has been made by Canada as a nation. To start at the beginning, everyone will recall that the four provinces that agreed to the terms of confederation and made confederation possible went through a period of gradual development. History records that these were difficult years.
Professor Creighton in his book "Sir John A. Macdonald, the Old Chieftain", records many more interesting happenings. For example, there was the building of the Intercolonial railway linking the central part of this country with the maritime provinces, the link of that day which bound together the central part of Canada with the east. Then the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway subsequent to the entry of British Columbia into confederation was carried out according to commitments made to British Columbia when it entered confederation. This was the most important link of that day which bound together the central part of the country with the west.
This was no small undertaking, Mr. Speaker. Even today people who make the trip on the Canadian Pacific Railway through the rockies cannot help but be impressed with the magnitude of the task which must have been presented in those days. At that time the equipment we have today did not exist. There were no bulldozers or carryalls to move large quantities of earth. All they had were picks and shovels, horses and carts and some dynamite. These were the essentials of construction equipment of that day, and I marvel that they were able to find a pass through the rockies and put the railway through. It must have brought to the government of that day a tremendous satisfaction and stimulation in the knowledge that they were able to accomplish that which they set out to do, namely the building of a new and great nation.
And so it is today, Mr. Speaker, that confederation comprises ten provinces. One hundred years ago there were but four. After the turn of the century Canada entered world war I. The men of Canada who participated in that conflict covered themselves with glory, and the fame of this country spread around the world. Much sacrifice was entailed at that time, but those who fought in that war brought credit, honour and glory to this country.
Then 21 years later again came the call to arms. Canada once more responded, and
May 18. 1967

again great credit came to the country. Our fame and glory once more became known the world over. I have said before and I say again that it is the performance of our men and women in two world wars which has brought to Canada a great deal of the international prestige which as a country we have at this time.
Now, Mr. Speaker, 22 years after the close of world war II we are celebrating our centennial. We live in the northern half of the continent of North America which in area constitutes the second largest country in the world. We have made tremendous strides and now have over 20 million people, whereas 100 years ago we had only three and a half million people. This is great progress indeed, and we are on the threshold of even greater progress.
I believe the speech from the throne can be divided into two parts. The first part is a preamble dealing with the past; the second part is a summary of the government's proposed program. There are certain parts of the speech from the throne that particularly appeal to me. I am impressed with the place that the following paragraph in the speech from the throne, as reported at page 2 of Hansard, gives to the individual and to the development of the individual:
It was possible to think, in 1867, 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 efforts of all our people. In this time of fast-changing dimensions, the central concern of Canadian society must be the well-being of each individual, so that, regardless of his place or station at 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.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
With this part of the speech I agree completely. I believe all governments charged with the responsibility of presenting a program to parliament ought always to place the emphasis on those parts of the program that will contribute to the well-being of every Canadian. Nevertheless, as those of us who have had much experience in the past recall, what was done in the past by individuals was usually done with a desire to create conditions under which individuals could develop their talents and give full scope to their ambition, energy and desire for progress in an economic and social sense. By following that principle this country has progressed.
The Address-Mr. Flemming
I say to the government that progress will not continue to be made if handouts are promised to people without regard being paid for the need to produce. A government cannot keep adding people to its payroll, cannot compete with private industry for skilled and executive talent, cannot keep wasting money needlessly and recklessly, without running into deficit financing and being obliged, to avoid disaster, to borrow money to pay for current expenditures. Disaster will overtake us because we shall not be able to sell our goods in the markets of the world if those conditions I have mentioned prevail.
I listened with great interest yesterday to the speech of my hon. friend and colleague the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), who confirmed what we all know-though some do not admit this-that today people are worried about the reckless waste and extravagance of this government. Everywhere they look they see evidence of that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: It is not difficult to see.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: The people are worried because that expenditure is causing the cost of living to increase. Every time they buy groceries or other necessities of life they see that the buying power of their dollar has dwindled. And the reason for this decline, as I said a few moments ago, is that so much is being paid for so little.
The people are worrying because they see much evidence of the government competing with business; they see groups of people doing work that formerly was efficiently performed and at a fraction of the cost efficiently by private industry. Groups of people are now doing work that was formerly undertaken by private industry. Money would be available for many more good things in this country if certain government operations were performed in conjunction with private industry, if private industry were asked to undertake certain matters, rather than harnessing groups of people who have been collected together because somebody wanted to build an empire, to perform them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: That is happening in this country, and I warn the government that unless that sort of thing ceases the country is heading for trouble and may be faced with disaster.
May 18, 1967

The Address-Mr. Flemming
The people also are worried because they see money that is voted for crown corporations being disposed of by those corporations as they see fit, usually for useless or nonsensical purposes. Within the last hour we listened to the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown) talk about television. He said that on television alone the C.B.C. was spending $88 million. I ask, Mr. Speaker, where does that money come from? The answer is perfectly obvious. It comes from taxation, because it could come from nowhere else.
When the people of this country see that sort of thing I think in the first place they become discouraged; they wonder where all this will end. Second, they say "Well, if this is the way the government is throwing it away I might as well get all I can out of it." I am afraid that is the sort of reaction brought about by the situation I have referred to. I should be glad to go into more detail, but time does not allow me to do so.
Again I wish to refer particularly to those portions of the speech from the throne which refer to our natural resources, and to pollution. I might say I am inspired to quote what I am about to quote by the excellent speech made the day before yesterday by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Cantelon). He went into the subject thoroughly. What he spoke of as being an interprovincial problem in Saskatchewan in my province is approaching the proportions of an international problem. The difficulty in my province is that much worse. I quote from the speech from the throne:
The great natural resources that we take into our second century will be vital to us in meeting our needs and in maintaining our position as a major world trader.
That is what I said a few minutes ago:
Measures will be introduced by the government at the present session arising out of the need to conserve and preserve the great wealth with which Canada has been so richly endowed. Water itself is becoming a more and more valuable resource. Efforts to combat pollution are taking on an economic as well as a social significance and the federal government intends to press forward in cooperation with the provinces. In keeping with this objective, you will be asked to approve a new Canada water act which will provide a framework for the improvement and implementation of Canadian water policy.
I draw the attention of the house to the sentence "Efforts to combat pollution are taking on an economic as well as a social significance and the federal government intends to press forward in co-operation with the provinces." I am pleased to see that sentence, and I shall remark about it.
One of our greatest worries arises from the pollution of our water; and in New Brunswick, which is my native province, the problem of water pollution is most serious. We have eight large pulp and paper mills now operating, and another has been announced for the reasonably near future. We have mineral developments which are operating, and more are to come; also we have industries based on farm products. We need federal action because some of our pulp and paper mills are on interprovincial waters, some are on international waters, and we have a disposal problem. We need a regulating agency in which the federal government, with the provincial government, shall have a part. In other words the agency must have authority to act. As matters stand now the question always arises "Who has jurisdiction? Under whose jurisdiction does this matter come?" The house is indebted to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) who has spoken about water pollution time and time again.
New Brunswick has six good salmon rivers which must be protected and, where needed, improved. Those rivers should be preserved, for they are tremendously important to all New Brunswickers and to our tourists. We make tourists a business, yet we allow our waters to be polluted. We take no care of that which appeals to the tourists. Why do tourists come to our province? Because they want to get out of the cities. Canada at present has wide open spaces which attract the tourists.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
So I commend the government on this part of the speech from the throne, while urging them to do more than talk. It is not too late to effect an improvement, and it is not too late to clean up the mess. And there is a mess; I think this applies to nearly every province; I am not talking about New Brunswick alone, where I know there is a mess to be dealt with. The federal government must give leadership; it must co-operate with provincial and in some cases municipal authorities. The need is urgent, and action must be taken without delay. I hope no time will be lost before presenting something to this house which will set the machinery in motion for immediate action and subsequent improvement.
Having spoken in these general terms I wish to be more specific. At the present time we have a definite and pressing pollution problem affecting the Saint John river, one which is especially urgent on account of the large hydro-electric development 15 miles

May 18, 1967

north of Fredericton in central New Brunswick, where the dam across the river will be in operation by late 1967.
This will transform the Saint John river at that point and for a long way upstream into a virtual lake 55 miles long and as much as a mile wide in places. This water will not be fast running; indeed it will be stagnant for a portion of the time. It is clearly evident that a great effort must be made to keep such a large body of water free from pollution. Incidentally, something similar to a lake will be created by the building of this dam and will lie roughly parallel to the trans-Canada highway.
Having said this, and having asked the house to keep the need for action very much in mind, I wish to give some information relative to the Saint John river which will indicate the extraordinary difficulties of the situation and the need for special and immediate attention by the federal authority. The Saint John river rises in the state of Maine and flows a distance of approximately 50 miles or more entirely in that state of the United States until it becomes the international boundary between New Brunswick and the state of Maine beginning at St. Francis, Maine, and Clair, New Brunswick. It then flows a distance of something like 100 miles as the international boundary between New Brunswick and Maine until it reaches the town of Grand Falls in Victoria county.
Below Grand Falls and its mouth the river is all in New Brunswick, and it flows roughly parallel with the boundary for about another 100 miles until it reaches a point at or near the town of Woodstock, after which it swings to the southeast, away from the state of Maine boundary, and finally empties into the bay of Fundy at Saint John, New Brunswick.
It is hard to imagine any body of water having more difficulties of jurisdiction than has the Saint John river. In rough terms the river runs about one third of its course in Maine, about one third as an international boundary and the remaining third in the province of New Brunswick. I doubt whether a more difficult stretch of water could be found as far as jurisdiction is concerned.
The upper portion of the river, particularly the international portion, has town and villages on each side all the way down to Ed-munston. Edmundston is a city of over 10,000 people. On the opposite side of the river is Madawaska, Maine, another fair sized town. In Edmunston there is a very large pulp and

The Address-Mr. Flemming paper mill which dumps its waste into the river; in Madawaska, Maine, a finishing mill.
After leaving Grand Falls the river flows in a southerly direction and practically parallels the Maine boundary from Grand Falls to Woodstock, New Brunswick, a distance of approximately 100 miles. Within this distance on the western side of the Saint John river there are many fair sized rivers which empty into it after rising in the state of Maine.
There is the Aroostook river on which are located the towns of Fort Fairfield, Presque Isle, Caribou and Washburn, small rivers by the names of Big Presque Isle and Little Presque Isle and, finally, the Meduxnekeg river, upon which the large town of Houlton is located, flowing into the Saint John at Woodstock. Raw sewage, industrial waste from starch factories and waste from sugar beet processing plants are among the pollutants which eventually find their way into the Saint John river across which, as I have said, a power dam is to be built 50 miles below Woodstock, creating a 55 mile lake into which all the up-river pollution will flow. Is it any wonder that I am standing here and pleading with the federal government to do something about this situation because of the international implications involved?
I think at this point I should mention with much appreciation the tremendous effort which has been made by the mayor of Woodstock, Mr. Gerald Gallop, and the council of that town to secure co-operation from the state of Maine in improving the situation, and in pressing the provincial government to take all possible measures to improve the condition of the river in the New Brunswick portion of its course. They have worked ceaselessly and effectively to correct the situation to the extent of their ability to do so. But their authority is limited. The prestige of the federal government is needed. We need agents of the federal government who will step in and say "We represent the government of Canada. We are here to co-operate with the town of Woodstock. We are here to help them and to work with them and the provincial government in solving this problem." Incidentally, the authorities of Woodstock have had good results so far following their contacts with Senator Muskie from the state of Maine, and the response from a number of the town authorities in that state has been quite satisfactory.
My main point concerns the importance of finding someone who can speak for this nation with prestige and authority.
May 18, 1967

The Address-Mr. Flemming


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house consent that the hon. member may continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hugh John Flemming: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank members of the house for their consent and assure them that my remarks will not be lengthy from now on.
The Woodstock Bugle, a weekly newspaper published in the town of Woodstock, also deserves special mention and appreciation for the campaign it has waged to inform the public of the seriousness of the situation and the need to press for all possible measures to effect an improvement. There has been a favourable response. I urge the government to initiate action in co-operation with the United States authorities to co-operate with the town of Woodstock and other towns up river in Carleton and Victoria. It may be said we should invite the International Joint Commission to pass on this whole situation and make it the subject of a study.
Mr. Speaker, we need something which will be more prompt and more effective than a study. This has already been studied to death. The question of pollution in this particular part of Canada has been studied again and again. Yet everyone who wishes to pass the buck says "We can do a study". These studies last for years. It is time action was taken. It is time to apply remedies. I believe the government should immediately send a member of the staff of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to the town of Woodstock to consult with the mayor and the town council, to ascertain what has already been done, agree on a further course of action, and then pursue it.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
Having agreed on a course of action, and ignoring jurisdictional difficulties, they should bring back a report, they should recommend something to be done about this. Then the appropriate federal department, I presume the Department of External Affairs, could get busy and the provincial government could likewise get busy, and the state of Maine and the federal government of the United States would co-operate. There has never been any lack of co-operation in that respect. I think we are in a little better situation than that referred to by the hon. member for Kindersley

(Mr. Cantelon) yesterday, who said they were getting no co-operation. We are getting lots of evidence of a desire to co-operate, but there is no overriding authority under which the various bodies can co-ordinate their efforts and effect an improvement.
I believe the situation should be brought under control before the Mactaquac dam goes in this fall and the river becomes a 50 mile lake at this point. Therefore I appeal to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to give this matter immediate attention and provide immediate action. I appeal to the Secretary of State for External Affairs to deal with the matter in the light of the information I hope he will receive in such a report and in co-operation with the federal government of the United States of America.
I must say in all seriousness that the usual procedure is just not good enough in this particular instance. We are now well along in May, and I understand that the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission expects to have power from the Mactaquac development project by Christmas of this year. This means that the river will probably be dammed up in September or October. Therefore there is no time to be lost. Action must be taken immediately, and I appeal to the minister to lose no time.
So, in summary, I urge the minister with all the force at my command, and all the force I am able to convey, to secure immediately a report relative to the pollution situation on the Saint John river in New Brunswick. There are other rivers in the same province which require attention, but I believe it is quite appropriate to say that the Saint John river is the most urgent problem at this particular time.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, in participating in this throne speech debate I wish to raise a problem which we have tried to raise with only relative success over the last four or five years. That, of course, is the problem which confronts our people in Canada because of the housing shortage that we face, which is daily growing more critical.
I know that every time we raise this question we are accused by the government of making political capital out of it, and perhaps to some extent that charge is justified; but in a way that is our job, to raise these issues and to attempt to pressure the government as much as possible in order to have it take action. I think the record should show that there is not a single solitary minister in the
May 18, 1967

house at the present time when we want to discuss matters of this kind.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, when one examines the whole housing problem as it confronts us here in Canada, in a way one almost despairs of ever being able to move the government or to make any impression on it which will steer it on to greater action. Every session we go through the same charade, when we place all the dreary facts on the record and nothing ever happens. When I was coming down to the house today to speak I picked up a speech I delivered four years ago, and I could bring it in and read it into the record verbatim because nothing has happened since and nothing has changed. So we will go through it again and hope something will happen, and that the government will take some concrete action.
I read the speech delivered by the minister in this debate and I could not believe my eyes. It was one of the most pathetic, inadequate, incomprehensible attempts to deal with the housing crisis that one could possibly have imagined. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, if you examine the record and look at the facts you will find that after 40 years the situation in Canada is that people in 1929 were actually able to buy better housing with a lower percentage of their income than they are in 1967.
That is the devastating comment that I make upon the history of North America's and Canada's attempts to house our people. We are actually further behind than we were 40 years ago. What are the dreary facts? Some of them should be placed on the record.
Fact: 100,000 Canadians are living in absolutely appalling conditions.
Fact: 20 per cent of all our dwellings have primitive bathing facilities and toilet facilities.
Fact: one out of every three Canadian homes is in bad condition.
Fact: we have a shortage of half a million houses just to catch up with the backlog of the last war.
Fact: half a million Canadians are living in substandard homes.
Fact: the economic council says we need a minimum of 170,000 homes every year from now until 1970, and 200,000 from that point on. We have never come close to achieving that target.
Fact: because of the housing shortage rents are going up 20 per cent each year and more and more of our people are being gouged.
The Address-Mr. Reid Scott
Fact: Canadian consumers spend more of their income per annum on housing than consumers in any other industrialized country in North America or western Europe.
Fact: a world survey shows us sixteenth among the countries of the industrialized world in terms of what we have to spend for housing.
Mr. Speaker, one could go on and on and on. Those of us who are interested in this subject have files five feet high indicating and documenting the total inadequacy of the attempts of the various levels of government in Canada to solve the housing problem. In my own city of Toronto we are in need of a minimum of 40,000 new homes a year, and we are building 21,000.
The cost of homes in Toronto is up in the stratosphere with the astronauts. In 1964 the average cost of a home was $19,000. In 1966 it had risen to $27,000 and today, 1967, the average home being sold in metropolitan Toronto costs $30,000. That, Mr. Speaker, is totally beyond the capacity of the vast majority of our people. That is why we on this side of the house get so annoyed when the minister gets up and mouths statistics about the number of housing starts and the amounts of money he is putting into the mortgage market, because all he is really doing is permitting people to build homes that 85 per cent of our people cannot afford to buy anyway. There is no percentage in such a proposition.
It is futile to say we have a housing crisis in Canada. To make such a statement is trite. It is perfectly obvious. It is the solution that is much more difficult, and that is where we are having our major problem here in the House of Commons. If you review the activities of the government in this year I think the first thing you have to conclude is that the present minister has to be removed. He is a fine person individually and nobody has any quarrel with his personal qualifications, but it is perfectly clear from his public utterances that he understands nothing about housing and is not prepared to assume any responsibility whatsoever.
For example, on January 25 the Toronto Daily Star reported a speech he made as follows:
Federal Minister J. R. Nicholson said last night said the housing crisis is a problem for provinces and municipalities to solve, not the federal government.
If the minister starts out with that type of attitude there is no hope at all of our ever solving the housing crisis. I know there are great constitutional difficulties in this field,
May 18, 1867

The Address-Mr. Reid Scott but to me it is fantastic that the federal government takes the position that we do not have a responsibility in this field. Housing is something that affects every Canadian from coast to coast, and every Canadian in every age group. It affects our young people who are getting married. The tragedy today is that most young couples getting married will never be able to own homes as long as they live because the costs are too fantastic and are going up all the time. It affects out old people who, because of our crazy tax system, are losing their homes because they cannot afford to maintain them. It affects the man with a family who is paying so much to buy or rent a home that he is depriving his family of all the other social amenities that are required for their well-being.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
Yet the government sits here in Ottawa and takes the position that this is not a responsibility of the federal government. To me this is incomprehensible and fantastic, particularly when the department is headed by a minister who takes the view that this is so and all we have to do is vote money for mortgages, which permits builders to build homes that people cannot afford to buy anyway. I think it is absolutely desirable now, unfortunately, that the present minister be removed and someone put in his place who is prepared to give leadership and assume responsibility.
I remember that four years ago when the minister took over this portfolio we were congratulating him and saying how much we admired the opportunity he had, that he had it within his grasp to sort of paint the broad sketch for Canada and to really build for himself political epitaph by initiating and inaugurating a great new, imaginative housing scheme for our country. And he has done nothing. Unfortunately he will be remembered as a minister who did not accomplish anything substantial in this whole field.
Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but because of the complexities involved-and no one denies this; we know there are constitutional difficulties, that it is hard to come to grips with our provinces and the prejudices of our municipalities-it seems to me we need, as we have been asking for years, at least a full time minister. We have a part time minister of housing in Canada now; most of his time is occupied by the problems of labour, which probably accounts for the fact that nothing very much has happened in the field of housing. We have been requesting for years that if we are to deal with this problem adequately we should at least have a full time minister.

It seems to me that even if we had a full time minister he could spend the next five years doing nothing but trying to come to grips with this tremendous crisis that we face.
We sit here and quote statistics and figures, forgetting that people are involved. Old people, young people, citizens from coast to coast are involved in this question. It makes one ashamed to tour one's constituency and see the conditions under which so many of our people are condemned to live. I wish the minister would get off the cloud that surrounds him at C.M.H.C., where they feed him all these cooked-up statistics that he brings to the house, and would get out and see the conditions under which Canadians are forced to live. If the minister did this I think we might then get some sort of action.
I believe also we have to admit to the Canadian public that there is a crisis. This government have never even admitted that fact. They stand up in this house and tell us there is no problem and everything is rolling along well. I think once in a while we ought to be honest with the public and admit that there is a tremendous problem in this area, and there is not any easy or quick solution to it. We should admit that it will take the ingenuity and talents of people in the House of Commons, in our provinces and our municipalities for as long as we can foresee in order to come to grips with this particular problem.
One of the difficulties we face is the traditional constitutional prejudice of our provinces, which feel that any activity in Ottawa is an intrusion into their fields of jurisdiction. Surely this is something we have to fight against. I remember that when I used to be a member of a provincial parliament at Queen's Park in Toronto, every time a problem was raised I was told it was up to the federal government to deal with it. Now I am here listening to the federal government, and they say it is up to the province. Each side seems to spend its time hiding behind the British North America Act and shoving off the responsibility to somebody else.
If we do not accept some leadership in this area future generations will curse this parliament, because the whole housing crisis epitomizes the great dilemma of our generation, which is the urbanization of Canada, the flow of people to the cities and the increasing trend away from rural communities. By 1970 probably 80 per cent or 85 per cent of our people will be living in the cities. This creates tremendous problems for legislators, not just
May 18, 1967

in the field of housing, although that is more immediate and obvious, but in every conceivable area-education, culture, communications, transportation and revitalizing of the cities. This is the great problem with which North America will have to grapple over the next few decades. That is why it is frustrating to us in opposition to see a federal government that is not prepared to assume any responsibility at all, that takes the view that it can write off this whole problem, pass it over to the provinces and not give any real leadership or action.
Who is taking this attitude? It is the great Liberal party, the so-called party of progress, the new people, the young people, the ones who are going to lead Canada into the great new community. These are the ones who run around the country telling everybody that they are familiar with all the questions and know all the answers, yet when we raise a question of tremendous importance we are told it is not their responsibility and is not their sphere of activity. As I said earlier, if they continue in this way I believe future parliaments will curse us for having sat back and permitted this tremendous social problem to continue without attention, without leadership and without action.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment I was outlining the very critical housing crisis which faces Canada, and in the first part of my remarks I indicated that one of the major roadblocks was the minister himself. I know he will not take that comment in any personal way, but in view of his negative attitude and many responsibilities as Minister of Labour it is obvious to everyone that he cannot possibly attack this problem in any real way.
It is trite to suggest that we have a housing crisis in Canada. The solution to the problem is the difficult thing. We must find some way to come to grips with it and to make concrete suggestions as to what we ought to be doing. In the 15 minutes left at my disposal I should like to make an attempt in this regard, but hon. members will understand that in 15 minutes one could not possibly outline in any detail a complex attack upon a complex problem.
27053-24 j

The Address-Mr. Reid Scott
There are some things we can do in both the short and long range categories. In the short range we should start by tearing up the National Housing Act. I prefer to call it the national hoaxing act because it was designed over 20 years ago under conditions that no longer exist and in circumstances that no longer prevail. It was designed as the working man's housing act, but in these days one cannot qualify to buy a house unless one earns $8,000 to $8,500 or more per year. This is nothing but socialism for the rich and de-prival for the poor, and it is totally out of touch with today's circumstances. We must begin again by rewriting the National Housing Act.
Second, we must try to do something about the prices of homes. This is not going to be a simple problem because so many complex ingredients go into our houses. However, there are many things that can be done. All kinds of new building techniques exist which are more economical and there are new concepts of holding land such as the idea of leasing it, which we do not accept. There are a multitude of new ideas that we could adopt in Canada if we were not operating, as the N.H.A. does, with a set of blinkers over our eyes. This is one area where we must start again under entirely new terms of reference.
In Canada we have never developed a sensible way of financing houses. It has been dealt with in the last 25 years by means of the method of pump priming. When unemployment becomes high we flood the market with mortgage money. This merely results in inflated land and house prices. We have never developed an orderly system for arranging for the financing of homes, and this must be the responsibility of the federal government because nobody else has the capacity. We need a national housing fund, if you want to call it that, which is financed by the government, and the government must be responsible for providing an orderly system of supplying money to builders and individuals for building and buying homes.
Next we must be concerned with the whole method of providing rental homes in Canada. Under the circumstances existing today it may well be that the great North American dream of every man having his castle has disappeared because the costs are becoming so great that most people will probably never be able during their lives to undertake the purchase of a home. As our cities become
May 18, 1967

The Address-Mr. Reid Scott larger and our population grows we are simply going to have to think in terms of different ways of housing people in multiple dwellings or apartments, much as I dislike that idea.
Our national policy in respect of public housing is a disgrace. In the whole of Canada we are not doing the same amount of work or accomplishing as much as some of the cities in the United States. In the whole area of public housing our policy has been a total flop and a national fiasco. The responsibility in this regard rests upon the government here in Ottawa, because it is only here that there is the financial power to promote these types of schemes.
We are doing virtually nothing about the problems of urban development and urban renewal. No matter where you go in the cities in Canada you find they are rotting at the core because of the dilapidation and decay of houses as they get older. I know of no real urban development scheme anywhere in this country that is genuinely being put into effect. Again we must have some leadership in this area.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The seventh point is that we have to start simplifying the regulations. Under the National Housing Act we have tried to process applications. In some cases one must go through 52 different steps in order to process a building program. This takes years and before it is done everybody gives up in disgust and drops the project. This again has to be completely re-examined.
The next matter I wish to mention is the fact that we have done nothing really solid in the way of public housing in Canada. It is given a bad name. Our municipalities will not encourage it because they have an antiquated idea that public housing means a lot of undesirable people and therefore they have a built-in bias against it. We have not been successful either in Ottawa or in the provinces in overcoming this idea.
The eighth point on which I would like to say a few words is the necessity of dealing with the problem of the government's participation in land assembly and land development. Leaving it to private people simply has not worked in this country. This is not a criticism of them. They are in the business to make money. But the net result has been that land assembly and development have been undertaken by private individuals who have been constantly bidding the price up and up and charging what the market will bear.
(Mr. Scott (Danforth).]
Housing lots in metropolitan Toronto which were selling for $4,000 a few years ago are now selling at $12,000 because of the speculation that has gone on. The price of houses will never go down to where ordinary people can buy them unless the government is prepared to take over the land and assemble it.
My next point is that we have to do something about the tremendous responsiblity of the municipalities. Many municipal councils are driven out of their minds by the taxation problems facing them. We have loaded them with all kinds of responsibilities without give-ing them a tax basis upon which to carry them out. For example, it is an anomaly on the North American continent that the cost of education should be borne by the people who are least able to bear it. Almost nowhere else in the world is this the case. We have to re-examine these matters in conjunction with the provinces.
I wish I had more time to discuss some of these problems and I will try to do so on supply motions. These are some of the immediate steps which we could be taking if we were prepared to do so. However, the main problem is that this government will not accept responsibility. It does not take the view that housing is a matter of national importance and national concern. It is, without exception, the greatest social problem facing this country and affecting every Canadian today. Yet the minister in charge of housing goes around the country telling everybody it is a provincial and municipal responsibility. This is a complete negation of the duty which we owe to the people of this country. Before we can hope to accomplish any of these things, and none of them is easy, the government must stand up and be prepared to say that it accepts full responsibility nationally in the field of housing.


Mr. Trudeau:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Does he not see a constitutional difficulty in the assumption of these responsibilities by the federal government?


Reid Scott: Of course there is a constitutional problem. I was coming to that. I was going to say that so far as I am concerned I believe the constitution is being used as an excuse. Each level of government passes on the responsibility to another level. The municipalities say that the provinces should accept it, the provinces say the federal government should, and the federal government says it is not its responsibility.
May 18, 1967	COMMONS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Is the hon. member saying that public housing is under federal jurisdiction?


Mr.   Scoll@Danforlh: The minister must not put words in my mouth. I am not saying it is a matter of federal jurisdiction. I am saying this is a federal responsibility which the government is evading and refusing to discharge. This is the point, it seems to me.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: May I ask another question? How can it be a federal responsibility if it is not a matter under federal jurisdiction?


Mr.   Scoll@Danforlh: This is just ridiculous. I hope these questions will not be counted in the 15 minutes left to me. Housing affects the life of every Canadian from the cradle to the grave.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: So does education.


Mr.   Scoll@Danforlh: What is the use of
spending millions of dollars on educating our people if we let them live in substandard housing? We get sick and tired of seeing the government hide behind the B.N.A. Act every time we want it to do something. Of course housing is not solely a federal responsibility, but how will the government solve the problem of housing in this country? No level of government alone can possibly take care of it. It should not be the sole responsibility of the municipalities, the provinces or the federal government. What is required is a gigantic partnership of all levels of government, and even then we will be lucky if we solve it. We should start by appointing a minister who will devote all his time to dealing with the problem instead of having a minister who can only deal with it when he is not looking after all the labour problems in the country, which are numerous enough. What we need is a ministry of urban development and housing. Let us start by appointing a full-time minister who will devote his brains and intelligence to the whole problem of the urbanization of Canada. This will not be rejected by the provinces because they are desperate for aid in this area. Talk to any of the provincial ministers or municipal leaders. They are desperate for leadership, assistance and help.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Including Quebec?


Reid Scott: Yes, including Quebec. Quebec is no different from any other province. Quebeckers are Canadians also.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Then why does the hon. member's party ask for a special status for Quebec?
DEBATES	361
The Address-Mr. Reid Scott


Reid Scott: This is an entirely different area. Hon. members on the government side are getting excited, but I suggest to them that the people of Quebec are Canadians first and Quebeckers second. The government is afraid to test them on it. That is the problem. It would like to play Quebec off against the rest of Canada. That is how it has remained in office for 20 or 30 years. It is about time this finished.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Why did the hon. member's party ask for a special status for Quebec?


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, there have been many interjections from across the way. I do not suppose they will appear in Hansard, but my experience has been that those members who are in the habit of interjecting are also those who sit on their brains trying to keep them warm. This may be an old cliche but it is true.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member insists that it appear in Hansard, may I ask him another question? If the hon. member feels Quebec is no different from the rest of the country, why did his party move an amendment a few days ago suggesting that the constitution be amended so as to give a special status to Quebec?


Reid Scott: I know the Minister of Justice is very anxious to put me on the horns of an imaginary dilemma but I do not intend to permit him to do so. What he is really trying to do is to get himself off the hook. I am attempting to discuss the restricted field of housing but the minister is trying to divert me into discussing the whole problem of the province of Quebec with its particular difficulties. It is neither appropriate, reasonable nor fair to attempt to do that at this time. Speeches on the constitutional problem have been made by hon. members sitting on our side of the house.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is nice to be consistent.


Reid Scott: A plea for consistency is a novelty from that side of the house. The other day we were told that a cabinet minister can take off his ministerial hat, put on his private hat and make any kind of statement he wishes without having any effect on the government. So consistency is not something about which hon. members on that side should be talking.
May 18. 1967

The Address-Mr. Reid Scott
I see I am almost running out ot time and I want to conclude on a friendly and constructive note, as we always do. We have suggested a full-time minister of housing, which I know many hon. members opposite support and have spoken in favour of in caucus. It is not a novel idea. We know there is good support for it. We hope we will be able to convince the government. They will never solve the housing problems otherwise. We need a minister who can spend all his time roaming around the country trying to co-ordinate all the great jurisdictional problems which we know exist.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Three years ago we asked for a royal commission because we really do not know the problems connected with urbanizing Canada. We need to know what types of housing we are going to require for the next 20 years. We need a blueprint for the next 20 years. We have not done that and we have not got the information. If the government desires, perhaps a special committee of the house, with an adequate staff and facilities to travel, could try to assess the type of program which would be satisfactory to the provinces and in which the provinces would feel we could help without infringing on their jealously guarded jurisdictions.
Everyone agrees that there is a crisis for which no one group can offer a solution. As I said earlier, it is going to require a great partnership, a great deal of co-operation, a great deal of giving on the part of these various jurisdictions. I suggest that even if we started with the best will in the world it would take 10 or 15 years to come to grips adequately with the housing problem. We cannot evade it any longer. We cannot just sit on the sidelines-


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


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Reid Scott: I thank hon. members, and I will only be a couple of minutes-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member wish to continue?


Reid Scott: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give its consent to the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Reid Scott: I should like to thank my colleagues on both sides and I will not take very much more time. What I was trying to say, Mr. Speaker, was that this problem is so critical, so deep rooted, that we cannot sit here in Ottawa and say it is not our problem. Our provinces are desperate for help in this area. Our municipalities are desperate for help in this area, and our people are desperate. I am ashamed, as a Canadian, to go to see how our old age pensioners live. I am saddened to see how our low income people live. I am ashamed of the rotting, decaying centres of our cities. The federal government must assume some responsibility and some leadership. If it does not, the crisis will merely grow and grow. It will never be solved. It will be our shame that one of the most affluent and supposedly advanced nations in the western world did not have the ability or the ingenuity to ascertain how to house its citizens adequately. As I said ealier, if we do not solve this problem, then future parliaments and future Canadians will curse us.


Mr. Jean-Paul  Malle@Champlain: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join all those who spoke before me in congratulating the mover (Mr. Jamieson) and the seconder (Mr. Cote) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They discharged their duty with eloquence and great distinction.
Mr. Speaker, surely the centennial year will be an excellent occasion, for all Canadians, to strike the balance of achievements and failures having marked the last one hundred years of their history, to look at themselves, to look straight at the country and to consider the means of preparing a future capable of meeting their high aspirations. On this occasion, the question is to examine our past and scrutinize the future, as this will enable us to better understand what we are today and what we must do to become worthy of tomorrow.
Perhaps Canada has not accomplished everything it could have, but if we measure our progress, there is no reason to be pessimistic. There is no need to be ashamed of our past, on the contrary. If we look at what has been done by the 20 million people who succeeded to the 3,635,000 inhabitants of our country a hundred years ago, we see thousands of industries, skyscrapers, railroads, harbours, power plants, asphalt roads used by a great number of car drivers, airfields, thousands of homes and a lot of other things which are that many signs of material progress.
May 18, 1967	COMMONS
We can also see the sun shining on the roofs and spires of thousands of cathedrals, churches, colleges, universities, cultural institutions of all kinds which are a tangible proof of our respect for moral values.
The collective letter published by the Catholic bishops in Canada on the occasion of the centennial of the confederation-a very realistic letter which I should like everyone to read-takes an objective and impartial look at our problems today. The words justice, fraternity and understanding are used again and again in the document.
I shall now quote a passage from the letter:
Canadians today are faced with many problems: incipient inflation, persistent pockets of poverty, economic or political instability. For some, however, the greatest and most difficult problem is to find a solution to the troubles arising in Canada from the coexistence of the two main linguistic and cultural groups which, strangely enough, constitute two opposing majority groups.
In some ways, this is a very basic human problem, for it involves important values and concerns people both materially and spiritually.
The bishops consider that the disquiet now prevalent in the Canadian community arises, on the one hand, from the dissatisfaction of an increasing number of French Canadians with the problems facing their ethnic group in their search for fulfilment and, on the other hand, from the concern entertained in other areas of Canada over their demands.
Consideration is also given the problems of minorities and I quote:
The minorities living in Canada are not all in the same position. Care must be taken to guarantee fair treatment to each of them and the sacrifices such treatment involves in the cost of some services, education for instance, in the provinces, must be accepted.
The prelates give us a warning and I quote:
Canadians will live through dark days, through fruitless and impoverishing strife, unless the various groups inhabiting their country, particularly the two main linguistic and cultural groups, cannot accept and recognize without reserve or misunderstanding the legitimacy of their differences and of their own destiny and if they fail to accept, in mutual respect of their rights, the compromises required by their special position.
Mr. Speaker, residents of Canada may have different traditions, cultures, religions, forbears and incomes, but they must feel they are essential parts of the Canadian community.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
There is talk of separatism, of an associate state, but our whole history proves that breaking up Canada in small states would be like snuffing the candles in a castle, blowing
DEBATES	363
The Address-Mr. Matte them out one by one until the whole castle is in the dark.
I say and repeat that if as much had been done previously as the Pearson government has since achieved toward a better understanding of the French-Canadian people, of the aspirations of the French Canadians and of the province of Quebec, there would be no question today of separatism, associate state nor, for some people, of joining the United States.
The province of Quebec has no desire for a special status, although it is not a province like the others. It does not look for privileges but it wants its right to be respected 100 per cent; just as it respects the rights of others, it wants the rights of the French Canadians respected throughout Canada.
Doubtless, the constitution needs some changes, some explaining. Indeed, each new act adds something to it and even now we are having a closer look at the fundamental problem.
Mr. Speaker, to love one's country is, among other things, to know what it was, to know what it is and whit it can become, and then to reach for the indicated ideal. With some perspicacity, and the firm and generous resolution to do the utmost, Canada can achieve great things in its second century, achievements which Canadians can be proud of when the second century is celebrated.
Mr. Speaker, before I conclude my remarks, I would like to say a few words about my constituency of Champlain. All our rural parishes, all our small communities want industries that will enable them to develop. They are ready to any sacrifices necessary, and they await with anxiety the industrialists and industries that our governments could send to them. We have a sound population, and it is unfortunate that the people in each parish cannot develop for themselves a future at home.
Many of them, mostly sons of farmers, have to migrate to larger centres, often increasing the number of unemployed.
I asked the Minister of Industry and Defence Production (Mr. Drury) to declare the whole new Champlain county a designated area. Part of it is already designated; the rest should also be designated, and this is urgent. I refer specifically to that part of the county of Portneuf that will fall in the county of Champlain. Several industries, one of which is one hundred years old, were shut down, leaving the population unemployed and in a disquieting economic situation.
May 18, 1967

The Address-Mr. Orange
In the past, I also talked about expanding the port of Trois-Rivieres to the east, that is at Ste. Marthe, of Cap de la Madeleine, as a means of developing the northern economy. We are still waiting, and I think that the matter has been under consideration for quite a long time.
Mr. Speaker, I would not want to repeat the speech I made the last day of the last session about agriculture. An amendment was moved by the opposition, but it was strictly for political and partisan purposes; that is why I voted against it, because this government has done more for agriculture in eastern Canada than any other government.
Our friends opposite are ready to do anything today and they criticize-which is an easy thing to do. However, what did they do for our eastern farmers when they were in power and even had an absolute power?
I recognize that the new dairy policy, although not complete, is a step forward, but it does not meet fully the requests which were made. The matter of quotas, especially, is a puzzle-for instance, the withdrawal of the subsidy on surplus liquid milk. But I know that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) is doing and will continue to do everything in his power to give as much satisfaction as possible.
On May 24 next, that is next week, the farmers will march on parliament. We shall be very happy and very proud to receive them.


Mr. R. J. Orange (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join other members of the house in congratulating the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson), and also the seconder, the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Cote) on the fine contribution they made to this debate. As one who is relatively new to this house, and having heard only one other debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I must say that I think the standard set by the mover and seconder will be held in high regard in the years to come.
In the course of this debate many members have made most appropriate references to the role of parliament as it exists in the twentieth century and as we move toward the twenty first century. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) set out a 15-point program dealing with what he thought

would speed up and possibly modernize the effectiveness of parliament. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) in his thoughtful presentation last week outlined his views on committee responsibility and on the role of the private member of parliament and his relationship to the executive.
We have also discussed the use of television both in the house and in committees. Yesterday, I believe, one hon. member suggested that the government might examine the kind of facilities that are available to members of parliament in Canada compared with those available to their counterparts in the United States.
As one who is attending his first parliament I must say that I was somewhat surprised and possibly a little disappointed with the kind of assistance and benefits-I am not talking of financial benefits-afforded to hon. members. Having been elected for the first time a member approaches his new role with a great deal of enthusiasm and, hopefully, energy. Suddenly he finds himself in the position at times of feeling frustrated by his inability not only to do the kind of job he hoped to do but just to carry out those responsibilities which the people who voted for him in his constituency asked him to undertake. There has been a great deal of discussion along this line. My only contribution at this stage is to say that I hope the discussion will continue and that as a result the facilities available, particularly to private members of parliament, the backbenchers, will improve in years to come so that we may do what we were sent here to do by the people who sent us.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I was greatly relieved, Mr. Speaker, as was the mineral industry of Canada, by the announcement the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) made earlier in the session. The concern caused by certain recommendations of the Carter commission on taxation with respect to the mineral industry was such that some believed that this year's exploration program in some parts of the country would be seriously curtailed. I refer to the possibility of changes in the tax structure affecting that industry. The minister's announcement, made without prejudicing the government's final decision, helped to resolve some of the concern felt by the industry. In considering the recommendations to which I have alluded, particularly those dealing with the tax free period, I hope that the government and its advisers will consider carefully any changes
May 18, 1967

to be made and will make only those changes that benefit the development of this major industry in our country.
Let us look for a moment at what the mineral industry means to Canada. In 1966 the value of mineral production, which amounted to 7.2 per cent of the gross national product, was approximately $4 billion, eight times the 1945 dollar value. This does not include moneys expended on exploration and development, nor goods and services associated with the industry. The industry has been of basic importance in the economic development of Canada, being the second leading industry in terms of dollar earnings. At the same time it is not without serious problems. It has a labour shortage partly because of the nature of the industry and also because of where some mining developments are located. The spectre of the Carter commission hangs over its head. Finally, certain sections of the industry such as gold mining are plagued with special problems of prices and costs. I hope the cost-aid program for the gold mining industry will be continued and possibly expanded. Otherwise a number of communities throughout Canada will be affected seriously.
I heard with a great deal of interest the announcement of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing) in the house regarding the off-reserve Indian housing program which, as has been openly acknowledged, is long overdue. It will assist the Indian residents of Canada to move to areas of economic opportunity away from the traditional reserves. Most important, I believe the program will aid young Indians who wish on completion of their education to work in metropolitan or other areas of Canada and find opportunities to make a decent start in life in the same way as many of us have been helped by our parents to get off the ground.
I asked the minister if a similar program could not apply to the Eskimos. In asking that question I was concerned about the Eskimo people who leave their homes and hunting communities to move to areas of economic opportunity. I think particularly of the Eskimo people working on the Great Slave Lake railway which is operated almost entirely by Eskimo employees. I think also of the Eskimo working in the mines at Yellowknife and Lynn Lake, Manitoba. All these people want to integrate into the community in which they live. Quite apart from the problems of language and culture are the problems of becoming established in a community,
The Address-Mr. Orange and I think that the government and all Canadians have a responsibility to help in the initial process of integration.
In 1963 a number of Eskimo families were moved to Yellowknife to work in the mines. In the four intervening years some have returned to their original homes at Rankin Inlet and Keewatin and others have persevered. Those who have are first class miners who earn bonuses larger than those earned by the majority of their fellow employees. Yet because they have large families they are expected to live in accommodation which, to my way of thinking, is inadequate. What does one say to a man who approaches and says, "I want to stay here in Yellowknife so that my children can go to school, so that they can have the same chance your children have, but I must have a decent place to live in"? If the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development were in the house I would appeal to him to extend his program to people such as I have just described. I also asked the minister if he had any plans regarding the Metis people and I did so recognizing that the government of Canada does not have responsibility for these people. Their education, welfare and economic development are the responsibility of the province in which they live and they are treated as other citizens of that province are treated. I regret that the Metis, who did so much to open up the west and north in early days, have become the forgotten people of our nation and I hope that in our centennial year the government of Canada, in co-operation with the provinces, will put aside political differences, will not ask who will pay for what, but will try to work out a viable, exciting and dynamic solution to help the Metis of Canada to enter the mainstream of the life of our nation in the same way as it will help the Indians and, I hope, the Eskimos in the years to come.
In the first session of this parliament we enacted legislation amending the Northwest Territories Act. Though, as was said, it was housekeeping legislation, it did something that was most important. It extended the franchise, the right to vote, throughout the Northwest Territories. Up to that time people who were living in Keewatin and the eastern Arctic could not vote in territorial elections although they could in federal elections. Since then there have been exciting developments. The franchise has indeed been extended and an election held. Three representatives from the Arctic region sat with the council at the last two sessions, one held at Resolute Bay
May 18, 1967

The Address-Mr. Orange and the other in Ottawa. Yellowknife was declared the capital of the Northwest Territories and the governor of the territories was moved from the south, from beneath the umbrella of the federal administration, to the north. At the same time an announcement was made that as a result of the recommendations of the Carrothers commission on government in the Northwest Territories a white paper would be produced setting out, in effect, the government's position with respect to the over-all development of government in the north.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I appeal to the cabinet to ensure that this white paper becomes a centennial project and thus a centennial present to the people of the north to assist them in getting their territorial government on the ground. I hope this white paper will be available not later than the coming fall. I also hope that when the white paper is available and open for discussion the views of northerners are taken into account. I expect they will be. Knowing the manner in which government sometimes tends to operate, however, I think it should be clear that if the views expressed in the white paper do not reflect the views of northerners there might be problems about approving the kind of legislation brought forward to bring government to the north.
In the course of the decision to declare Yellowknife the capital, the town of Fort Smith became concerned, not because it was not to be the capital but with respect to its future. Positive steps have been taken by the territorial government to ensure that this community will continue to grow as a northern settlement. I should like to think that the federal government, recognizing its responsibility because it made the decision, will continue to provide the impetus necessary to assist the town planners in that community to solve the problems they now face. I trust the federal government will make a decision regarding the future of Fort Smith.
I am happy to see the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) in the house because I wish to pay him a compliment which I hope will result in the continuation of the good work which has been done by the department in the last few months in the north. I refer to the decrease in parcel post rates and air freight rates which has taken place as a result of an evaluation of postal facilities and charges by the department. However, I suggest that the steps the minister has taken are not sufficient. We still suffer from an irregular service and a lack of

proper post office facilities in many places. There are even inconsistencies in the new rate structure which has been established. The Postmaster General assured me that he is undertaking a further study of postal services in northern Canada the results of which will be available in the fall.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation began television service in Yellowknife on May 14. We now have one station in the north and the corporation is to be commended for its forward approach. We know there is another station planned for the Lynn Lake area and a third for the Seven Islands area. We hope the C.B.C.'s plans to provide television service for the larger communities in the isolated northern areas of our nation by means of a "frontier package" will move ahead quickly. When I realized the cost of setting up one of these small package units and maintaining it for a year I became concerned lest the corporation might not move ahead as quickly as we would like it to do.
In the course of the past month the Department of Manpower and Immigration has opened employment offices in the Northwest Territories. This development will go a long way toward resolving some of the problems connected with local hire with which we in the north are faced. All too often in the past, particularly in connection with construction programs, contractors from the south have brought complete labour forces into the area thus denying the opportunity of employment to our own people. Among the greatest offenders have been oil exploration companies-at great cost to themselves, I may add.
I should like for a moment to examine the government's external aid program in relation to the development program designed to help underdeveloped areas in this country. We know that this year the external aid program will contribute through grants, loans and direct aid approximately $300 million to the development of nations throughout the world. I think this is the least Canada can do. We like to think of ourselves as an affluent nation and if we wish to take our place in the community of nations we must also accept some responsibility. The only complaint with regard to aid being granted outside our borders is that perhaps it is too little.
There is, however, one aspect which bothers me, and I know it bothers many who live in the northern territories. With so many things needing to be done in terms of northern development in order to allow those who
May 18. 1967	COMMONS
live there, particularly the Eskimos, the Indians and the Metis, to enjoy a reasonable standard of living, the northern development budget could surely be increased by more than 5 per cent a year, the total amount of the increase which took place last year, bearing in mind that the external aid budget has increased by some $50 million a year. Yet in the last four years the budget has doubled from about $16 million a year to $32 million in terms of real federal expenditures, not including provincial expenditures.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The throne speech made reference to a system of industrial incentives to encourage development of regional economic growth and to encourage further development in the north, and it was suggested that by regional economic planning some of these incentives might come into being. What I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, is whether this is to be merely an extension of the many federal programs such as aid to industry, rural development and designated areas, which do not apply north of the sixtieth parallel, or is this something new and exciting that the government is proposing? I sincerely hope it is a combination of both.
There is a tendency on the part of many people to suggest that because the population of the north is small, which we acknowledge, what we as a nation are doing for the north is adequate. Maybe this would be true if we were talking in terms of numbers of people, but I suggest that what we are seeking is not only growth in our population but greater investment in the growth and development of Canada as a whole. We hope that when the time comes that the vast mineral resources of the north are being fully exploited-we see One example in the Pine Point development where as a result of the opening up of this one mine the mineral production of the north tripled in the space of one short year-the north in turn will be able to repay not only the contribution made by the nation to its development but also assist in the growth of the country as a whole. It is on this basis that I draw the comparison between what we are doing in external aid and what I would like to see happen in the northern territories. The programs of government have been good but we have a long way to go.
Housing for our Indian people does not compare with the liberal program that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development introduced for the Eskimo people and yet, Mr. Speaker, I ask what is the
DEBATES	367
The Address-Mr. Orange advantage of building a home if water, supplies, garbage disposal and electricity are not available or are available only in a pretty primitive way? In the settlement of Inuvik, now the town of Inuvik, a number of local people, Indian, Eskimo, Metis and white, banded together in 1963 to launch a co-operative housing program. Inuvik is a town which was built by the government in the last decade to take account of the need of the government for an administrative centre in the Mackenzie delta. The town was built in two ways. Members of the northern affairs committee who visited it saw how this was done. I refer to the serviced area and the unserviced area. By this I mean that government employees live in modern standard housing serviced by water and sewers through a very practical although expensive utilidor system, which also includes heating arrangements, but the people who come from the Mackenzie delta by and large live in the west end where there are no services other than a primitive trucked water supply and a pretty basic garbage disposal system.
The members of this co-operative, all of whom are fully employed, have been pressing the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for three years in order that at their own expense they too might enjoy the very basic amenity of being able to turn on a tap in their kitchens and have running water. But this year again, and for reasons which I do not know except possibly the old chestnut that it might cost too much, the government has indicated to the local residents, according to an editorial in the Inuvik newspaper, the Drum, that possibly next year but not this year something will be made available to the people who live in the co-operative development.
These people want facilities, Mr. Speaker. They are prepared to pay for them. All I suggest is that somehow or other, in co-operation with the federal government in particular and with the territorial government where necessary, some system be worked out to provide basic services to the people who were born and brought up in the north, who are making their whole living in the north and who feel they should have the same opportunities as their white cousins or their cousins who come from the south and who live in modern fully serviced government housing while working for the government.
We can also look across the Arctic to a community called Eskimo Point in Keewatin. A new housing program is intended for that

May 18, 1967
The Address-Mr. Noble community this year, but when we ask about water, garbage and sewage services we get the answer that they really are not available. From Eskimo Point it is eight miles to the nearest lake where water is available. In wintertime ice is cut from a lake closer to the settlement. This might not be of much concern except for the fact that over the years this community has suffered a series of medical disasters to the point that in 1963 half of the population was moved to a hospital in the south because of an outbreak of meningitis and tuberculosis.


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join all other members of the House of Commons who have offered congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I admire their worthy contributions.
The speech from the throne was only an exercise in words and it was very disappointing. People across this nation had expectations of a masterpiece on this special occasion that would overshadow any previous effort. During this centennial year, when Canada is receiving unprecedented world recognition, there is a rare opportunity for the government to spread its wings and introduce a program that would stir the heart and soul of every Canadian. Mr. Speaker, the government is negative in regard to that imagination which would visualize Canada's vast potential for her second century. The government's brain trust, with several years at their disposal to prepare another manifesto of action, have come up with another failure.
This is also a time for reflection, and at the beginning of our second century of confederation it is fitting that we pay tribute to those Canadians who have gone before, even to those who laid the foundations of this nation many years before confederation. Many of our forebears came to Canada to escape oppression and injustice, to a land where a new life could be lived in freedom. This was a way of life in which they took great pride and they sought to preserve it at any cost. The fathers of confederation, in their deliberations and when setting up their statutes, made freedom the first principle.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
We have fought in two terrible wars involving the supreme sacrifice of thousands of our people in defence of freedom. Canadians are well aware of the price of this God-given right. Surely we cannot continue to stand by and watch it disappear piecemeal by regimentation and legislation. The philosophy of the
[Mr. Orange.)
government is progressively removing the challenge from our way of life. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how far can we continue on the course charted by this government and have any real freedom left?
I bring to the government's attention those wise and enduring words of Abraham Lincoln when he said:
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift: you cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong: you cannot help the wage-earner by pulling down the wagepayer: you cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich: you cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
There is at least one cabinet minister who has registered some anxiety about the course of events in this nation. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters), when speaking to a Toronto Rotary Club a few days ago, said:
I am a businessman at heart and I believe it is the responsibility of the government to bring revenues and expenditures into balance and provide a balanced budget.
He stated further that the government must encourage exports and in so doing could build a good surplus on its trading account which would help reduce our international account deficit. He contends that most governments spend more than they should. Canadians, he said, are enjoying the second or third highest standard of living in the world, although we are living on borrowed money. The minister insisted that Canada must maintain a climate that is favourable to foreign investment. If we do not, he said, we just do not balance our international books. However, with foreign investment Canada gets a large measure of foreign ownership, which raises questions as to whether she is in danger of losing economic and political sovereignty. The trade minister said his own view is that it is not the fact of foreign ownership that matters but what use is made of the ownership. He also said that more than 99 per cent of the foreign-owned firms in Canada are good corporate citizens from a Canadian point of view. This minister, Mr. Speaker, is a sound businessman and the treasury benches are in short supply of men of his calibre. It must also be evident to the minister that the spiralling tax burden must be brought under control. Our tax bill, compared with that of other democratic countries
May 18, 1967	COMMONS
such as the United States, Japan and Australia, is already away out of line.
Another cabinet minister, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon), speaking in London last Friday said that there would be further government intervention in the economy and that a reasonably courageous government will not listen to complaints about high taxes from businessmen and the public at large. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) on one or more occasions has stated that a man should be guaranteed a livelihood whether or not he wants to work. No wonder we have many people who do not want to work. Such statements indicate that there is an urgent need for good businessmen on the front benches opposite. This government operates the biggest business in the nation; yet from all appearances it has phased out good business principles.
We have now arrived at the position where it takes one third of our gross national product to pay our taxes, and the trend can only continue upward. This fact was borne out on a recent television program when a commentator interviewed the Registrar General (Mr. Turner), a prominent, young minister of the crown. The give-away program he said he would support will make the socialists look like pikers.
This cradle to the grave security will certainly kill initiative and along with all the other lavish spending will eventually bring this nation to the point of no return. There is a faction in the government leaning far to the left. Their statements and actions leave no doubt as to their philosophy. Others are extreme socialists at heart but do not have the intestinal fortitude to be vocal at this time. However, their performance before being elevated to posts of influence leaves no doubt about their philosophy.
The Governor of the Bank of Canada last March expressed his concern over the fact that Canadian costs and prices rose faster last year than productivity and that demands placed on the economy outstripped the economy's ability to produce. Ironically enough, the governor's warning of economic stress and strain coincided with the government's disclosure of its spending program for 1967-68. This was an unprecedented government housekeeping bill for $11J billion with a good possibility of $250 million to $300 million more to be tacked on before this year is over.
In 1963 the Glassco report called for major cuts in our large and often inefficient civil
DEBATES	369
The Address-Mr. Noble service. It has become a top-heavy bureaucracy. Instead the government has increased the civil service by 71,445 since October 1, 1964. New departments appear to be the order of the day and indications are that thousands more will join the civil service within the next few months. Mr. Glassco claimed that savings of $500 million could be effected annually if his recommendations to streamline government were implemented. The government has been slow to take action on these recommendations, and 150 of them have not been implemented.
There is a proverb that sums up in a few words this government's position.
We do not what we ought,
What we ought not we do.
And lean upon the thought That chance will bring us through.
I am privileged to be a member of the public accounts committee and am deeply concerned and astonished, as the people across this nation must be, at the many items of careless and extravagant spending by the government. The Auditor General has made these revelations to the committee, which in turn submitted strong corrective recommendations. But the reaction of the government has been indifference. Repercussions to the government's actions are beginning to register right across the country. One day last week Premier Bennett of British Columbia said that federal waste, extravagance and patronage are costing the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
This government talks about a better way of life for Canadians. What is being done about it? Every part of the nation is in need of housing. This problem has reached emergency proportions; therefore every obstacle should be removed. Removal of the sales tax from housebuilding materials should take effect at once. Builders should be mobilized in areas where the need is most urgent.
We are worried about our talented young people migrating to the United States. This can be expected, and even more so if they cannot secure the first requirement here at home, namely, a roof over their heads. This raises the matter of immigration. How can we justify enticing more people to our land when housing accommodation is not available? If the government had really taken the welfare of the people of this nation to heart, this centennial year would have been the milestone in our history when all our people were provided with respectable housing. We have
May 18, 1967

The Address-Mr. Noble all the elements in human and material resources but the leadership is conspicuous by its absence.
I turn now to another serious problem that involves every citizen of this nation. I refer to safety on our highways. I believe I made the initial approach to the government on this matter by way of a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in 1963. I have continued to request action on the various aspects of the problem by way of questions in every session since that time. On February 2, 1966, I brought to the attention of the house viewpoints on highway safety as expressed by the provincial minister of highways, Chief Justice McRuer, the commissioner of the R.C.M.P., and the chief coroner of metro Toronto.
It has been proven that drunk drivers and air pollution from carbonmonoxide are creating the greatest hazards. My questioning has been concentrated on these two problems because statistics have shown that only one per cent of highway accidents can be attributed to defective automobiles. Other members of the house have joined in the crusade to reduce the tragic death toll on our highways, but the government has declined to take action on one particular matter that would have a telling effect. I refer to making the breath-alizer test mandatory. I urged the government to take this action many months ago, and no reason has been given for the delay.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Surely the government does not fear the liquor and beer interests, or are they hesitating hoping that the provinces will take this responsibility? Such legislation has proven useful and successful in New York and other states, so I see no valid reason why it should not be given favourable consideration here.
Over 5,000 people were killed on our highways last year and in over 50 per cent of these fatalities alcohol was involved. There were also 160,000 or more injured, many permanently. Liquor would also account for more than half of these. The law will not tolerate such behaviour on trains, planes or in industry. It is beyond me why the government treats the matter so lightly. Rather, the government is showing great concern for the welfare of criminals when it proposes to bring up the matter of the abolition of capital punishment again. It has ignored the decision already made and wants to have the matter decided again.

I am concerned about the problems of the farmers and the need for a constant supply of food to take care of our domestic needs with enough to continue to fulfil our obligations to our customers and other needy people. There is a tremendous migration from rural to urban life, partly due to uneconomic units but chiefly on account of better rewards for an hour of work. Governments cannot continue to ignore the just requests of agriculturalists without jeopardizing our food production.
Next week we will witness a march on parliament hill in protest against a poorly conceived dairy policy. It seems the minister was ill advised and the proposition he put forward brought scorn upon his head. On this occasion the minister might have been in a more favourable position if he had paid attention to the practical information made available to him. I believe it to be the urgent responsibility of the government, especially of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene), to be on hand to meet the farmers on May 24, a date they have designated well in advance and one that comes at a time when there is a lapse in their seeding activities. I make a strong appeal for favourable consideration of the request that will be made regarding the price of milk. If the farmers were paid on the same basis as industrial workers, even without giving any consideration for their large investment the price of milk would be higher than what they are proposing. These people are essential to the health and welfare of this nation.
This government is so neglectful on many occasions that a crisis develops before any attention is given to the problem. The militia had to be called out in Ireland a few days ago to restore order when the farmers' requests there were ignored. We would not like this to happen in Canada, especially in our centennial year.
Milk producers plan their operations for months in advance and it was folly for the Minister of Agriculture to expect our farmers to accept a drastic change in policy without a protest. The sudden announcement that quotas for manufacturing milk produced in 1967 and 1968 will be based on 1966-67 production means a substantial drop in their incomes and it was especially disappointing to those who had increased their herds. The fluid milk producers felt that a reasonable period of adjustment should have been provided in respect of terminating the federal subsidy. The government is now faced with a disagreeable incident created by their own procrastination and poor judgment.
May 18, 1967	COMMONS
In conclusion I want to say that I am proud to be a Canadian, as I am sure we all are, and I believe we would all agree we have the best country in the world. We have the potential for a future of fullness and plenty. We are richly endowed with vast renewable natural resources in our agriculture, our fisheries, our forests and our waters. It is our responsiblity to see that these riches are preserved and improved for posterity. We must also rally round those leaders who will preserve the freedom of the individual so that he may be privileged to develop his own life, his own talents and his own self-expression with special privileges to no one.


Mr. John R. Maiheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I pay heartfelt tributes to both the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I doubt that anyone reading Hansard will fully sense the command of this house obtained by both those able speakers, speaking as I recall without notes but with enthusiasm in developing their thoughts. It is my belief that the mover, with carefully chosen words, expressed what was very much in the hearts of us all.
In referring to the speech delivered by His Excellency on Monday, May 8, I find these words:
A country is a home; it must be built and furnished for the good life of its people.
His Excellency concluded his memorable address with words of the first Governor General of our country uttered some 100 years ago. He said:
-a blessing to yourselves and your posterity, and a fresh starting point in the moral, political and material advancement of the people of Canada.
The subject I should like to deal with briefly is penitentiaries and parole. As we start out on a new century I think we would do well to face seriously the problems relating to crime and punishment in Canada. I rejoice in the fact that on January 1, 1966, the government saw fit to make a full department of the office of the Solicitor General and that as a result penitentiaries and parole now fall under the jurisdiction of the new minister and deputy minister. I am also pleased that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who have been such an important element as anti-crime experts in maintaining the good life in Canada over the past 100 years and more, now balance the punishment side of the department engaged in incarcerating the offender and assisting him later by way of parole.
DEBATES	371
The Address-Mr. Matheson
The minister who is responsible in this regard I know is determined to play an extremely important role. I have read several speeches delivered by the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell), some of which have been published, and I find him to be a thoughtful, philosophical and idealistic man who is quietly and very successfully accomplishing reform in this long neglected field.
It is a fact that no one likes to oversee prisons. We all seek to avoid looking at the unpleasant. I happen to know that very few members of this parliament or the parliament which preceded it in the last few years have visited federal penitentiaries. There are some who have made a study of our institutions but by and large even members of parliament, who are their brothers' keepers in this regard, have taken little time out to visit the penitentiaries, save happily for the penitentiary committee. What can be said about members of parliament applies with even more force to society generally.
The Solicitor General is reported in the Optimist magazine of June, 1966, as having asked this important question: "What does Canada owe her criminals?" Then he reviews briefly something of the history of punishment in this country. He told us that in the ancient world the generally accepted idea was that a prison was regarded solely as a useful means of safe custody pending trial or punishment. It was not thought to suffice as a form of punishment in itself because in early days death was the penalty provided for most offences. There are records throughout Canada of the harsh penalties that were then imposed.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
He writes that when England began at last to move away from the death penalty it moved toward the more humane concepts of banishment and transportation. Finally, imprisonment was accepted as punishment. Incarceration in prison changed, at last, quite naturally toward the present day advocacy that the prison should not function merely as a place of confinement for docile, well disciplined human beings but instead should be a dynamic place, a laboratory in which character disorders and anti-social attitudes are examined under the microscope of modern knowledge, a workshop in which twisted personalities are straightened and disoriented men and women are given some sense of direction.
May 18. 1967

The Address-Mr. Matheson
I was intrigued by the article written by J. Alex Edmison, Q.C., of the national parole board on crime and its treatment in Canada. He writes about the various alternatives to imprisonment which have been fully tested in Canada. These penalties applied in Ontario, Quebec and other parts of our country long before confederation. There was the pillory in which a man was held firmly by the neck and wrists. People could assist in the punishment either by whip or by throwing something at the man. The pillory was abolished in Canada by statute in 1842. The stocks were used in upper Canada in 1804. William Lyon Mackenzie, carrying out his duties as first mayor of Toronto, presided over magistrate's court in 1834 and required a man to suffer this ignominious treatment. It was abandoned in England in 1872. Branding was a very common punishment. In 1798 the Chief Justice of Upper Canada had criminals branded in open court. The practice was abolished in 1802, except for manslaughter. Banishment, of course, was a common punishment, and so was transportation.
1 mention these specific punishments because when we look back over the short period of a century it is clear that the penitentiary has been a rather late sociological device to punish and reform the prisoner. I think that by now we have had sufficient time to make certain deliberate estimates of the efficacy of this form of punishment. Inherent in everything I say must be the question: Why do we punish at all? What is the philosophic or moral reason for the punishment of a person who has breached a code which we call the Criminal Code? I suppose of the traditional explanations, one is based on retribution or revenge, another on deterrence and still another on the rehabilitation factor and together the protection of society at large.
But it would be well for us, as modern people with modern problems and a new sense of total responsibility for the ills of our society, to consider the total cost of the program, the penitentiary approach to punishment. It might surprise Canadians to know that the cost of a cell in a maximum security institution is now between $20,000 and $25,000. The cost per year for an inmate in a maximum security institution today is approximately $3,650, or $10 a day, which is not really an unusual price for a hotel room. In the case of an inmate with a wife and dependent children the total cost to Canada, to the province and to the municipality can often reach the annual figure of $10,000. The desira-
ble size of a penitentiary does not exceed 450 inmates and any institution of that size now costs approximately $10 million. But by way of dramatic contrast I would invite Canadians to note the fact that the cost of a paroled prisoner is approximately $250 per year. Perhaps it is my highland background, but something in all these figures worries me a great deal. Imprisonment is costly.
A few days ago I spoke to the John Howard Society in Fredericton. My remarks were reported in the Daily Gleaner under the headline "Men Want to be Forgiven". This brought a few letters which I read with some interest. In one letter was an editorial from the Gleaner of April 24,	1967, titled
"Kindness To Criminals", the final paragraph of which reads as follows:
We believe that criminals should bear the stigma for their crimes, and that this is not only a part of their punishment but a part of the protection of the innocent.
I quite understand how it is that an editorial writer who is on the outside and knows something about the statistics of crime in North America, particularly in the United States, or the crime statistics in Great Britain, could come to the conclusion that harshness presents some sort of solution. But the real fact is that our prisons are not succeeding. The recidivist rate, that is, the rate at which persons go to penitentiary after having been in prison before, remains constant at approximately 80 per cent. On the other hand, the parole failure rate in Canada stands constant at the figure of 10 per cent.
I believe that through the efforts of the Solicitor General and the type of program that is at last being implemented we are seeking to close this gap. We hope to drop the parole success rate of 90 per cent and thereby substantially reduce the recidivist rate and thus sharply reduce the cost to the taxpayer. However, my argument is based not on vulgar economics, important as they may be, but on something which I think is very much more important than economy, namely, rehabilitation. After we have examined these figures carefully we must come to the conclusion that locking people up does not solve very much.
I was interested in the report appearing in the Ottawa Citizen today of the address John Braithwaite, our expert on corrections, gave to the annual meeting of the Elizabeth Fry Society of Ottawa last evening. He made the point that the basic danger is that the offender is psychologically cut off from society. He
May 18/ 1967

pointed out that throughout the world there is growing criticism of and inquiry into the traditional methods of reform. Exactly the same kind of inquiry is proceeding presently in the office of the Solicitor General. He speaks about the trend toward increasing community involvement. He mentions certain organizations, societies and groups that must become involved in rehabilitation. I could not agree more, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Throughout Canada and the United States and particularly in northwestern Europe studies and experiments have been conducted on the subject of rehabilitation. You even find this same spirit of reform, the trend toward rehabilitation and the tendency to the people out of institutions just as rapidly as possible, in the far east. I think it was Winston Churchill who said more eloquently than I could, that you assess and judge a society by the manner in which that society cares for those people who are held in custody.
I was delighted by the scholarly and wise address given on civil liberties by my colleague the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald). It seems to me that crime and punishment is closely related to the attitude we entertain toward civil liberties. I believe when we look at the special problems of the offender we would be wise to make comparisons with other exceptional or different people in the community.
I admire, sir, the work that is done in the town of Smiths Falls where there is a hospital carrying the considerable burden of the care of retarded children for the province of Ontario. The magazine, "Canada's Mental Health", had a special issue in November on mental retardation. In it I find an article by an old friend. Dr. H. F. Frank, a psychiatrist who has devoted himself to the care of the retarded. Speaking of the disability of mental retardation, Dr. Frank said:
The idea that a child who cannot come up to average community requirements should be "put away" in an institution, dies very hard... We are just beginning to learn that a large number of exceptional children must be integrated into every day community life and helped to achieve the best of their ability ... Working an ill adapted child into society cannot be achieved only through institutionalization ... the community has to realize that a large number of children should continue to live in the community where their educational, recreational and other needs must be met.
Anyone who goes to Smiths Falls and sees what has been done in that institution for thousands of unfortunate exceptional little
The Address-Mr. Matheson people, some of whom stay there for many years and become exceptional older people, will appreciate that it is not possible for us to send all our troubles to one community and hope that that community, with all the medical skills it may possess, the devotion, the care and concern and loving attention, can right these wrongs. I would urge, with John Braithwaite, that the time has come in Canada when there must be a much larger element of total involvement in problems of problem people-both patients and prisoners. Years ago Eugene Debs said, "While there is a soul in prison I am not free."
The fact is that many of the best people in our Canadian society do not care about this prisoner problem, do not know anything about the problem and never have become involved. We have, therefore, the extraordinary situation of recidivism staying at the high figure of 80 per cent and parole staying at the low rate of 10 per cent. Society tries to protect itself against these evil and different people getting out and being rehabilitated simply because as a society we are not prepared to share the burdens, the risks and the responsibility of making rehabilitation work. We take a false pride in our low rate of parole failure. Someone has suggested the analogy of a baseball player with an exceptionally high batting average being kept out of the game and on the bench to maintain his high batting average.
We are proud of our parole service. We are proud of our penitentiary service. Of course, both of these could be better than they are just as anything we do could be better. I feel we have come to the point where collectively we must take the risk and share in the responsibility of a much higher parole failure rate in the hope that we substantially reduce the recidivist rate. Although it may not be obvious to everybody this is what the Solicitor General has begun to do. During the few months in which he has held this portfolio he has already managed to accomplish a great deal. It may not be known, but he has already caused a larger number of people to be paroled. Although it is difficult to obtain these highly qualified people, he has taken on more parole officers. These are specialized social workers.
The fact is that the increased number of paroles has not resulted in any marked increase in the failure rate. In spite of our sharply increased population and particularly juvenile population, the number of inmates in federal institutions has declined this year by
May 18, 1967

The Address-Mr. Matheson approximately 500. I should like to see an even sharper decline. This has been accomplished by a process of segregation, determining whether a person must be cared for custodially or in some rehabilitation centre.
We must acknowledge there are some people who are not likely to be redeemed. However, I believe many more can be rehabilitated than has been achieved in the past. Last week I spent some hours with the warden of Joyceville. We had a long talk about the successes and failures of that institution. He speaks with a background of 25 years experience and a recollection of the various things that have been done during his service to improve vitally the facilities for effecting reform. He told me how much the penitentiary officers care about their work. Basically the thing that counts is personal involvement. He referred to his wife Stella. He said that Stella had no particular training in penology and had never taken a course in psychology. He mentioned the number of people in the institution whom Stella had befriended, in some cases elderly men committed to a life of crime, a life of failure. She had brought them into her home. She had trusted them and reached out to them. This made all the difference. The victories were personal victories.
There is only one way to redeem people, I believe, and that is by recognizing the person as an individual. One of the letters I received from Fredericton tells me what is really needed is hope. This person writes that the prisoner has lost hope, a lot of people have lost hope and find it hard, if not impossible, to get it back. According to the ancient legend, Mr. Speaker, Pandora was a woman whose curiosity caused her to slip off the cover of the jar containing a multitude of plagues for hapless man, namely, gout, rheumatism, colic, envy, spite and revenge and many other ills. Pandora hastened to replace the lid but all these evils had escaped and were scattered far and wide. Only one thing remained at the bottom of the jar-hope. So to this way, whatever mischief is abroad, while we have hope we are not entirely wretched. Some men in our institutions have lives which have been confounded by illness, hatred, mischief and malice. If we seek to build the good society we must build on individual lives and on the only foundation of character that remains -hope.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Our neighbour to the south has started to show the way. The United States federal department of justice was permitted as of 1965

to release incarcerated offenders to work in the community and return to custody at night. This many sound revolutionary to Canadians, Mr. Speaker, but other countries do likewise. As of now over 2,000 persons have been involved in this United States program. Their gross earnings are in excess of $2,147,000. Of this sum, $203,000 went to pay their room and board at the penitentiary $303,000 was paid by way of various state and federal taxes, and what was left over went to support the inmates' families or to await and to hasten their day of release.
Not many weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, I was in a penitentiary at Taipei which housed over 2,000 men and women. Bear in mind that our institutions house approximately 450 inmates. This institution was built at very low cost in our terms, something like a quarter of a million dollars in American money. It had no armed guards. I was in a concert hall with over 500 prisoners present listening to a 15-piece orchestra with one custodial officer in attendance unarmed. There were many women prisoners. The social conditions of the country were such that these women prisoners, who were mainly narcotic addicts, were compelled to bring their children to the penitentiary to reside with them.
Does this sound shocking, Mr. Speaker? In fact it was not because that excellent penitentiary had gardens and play yards and attractive facilities. The inmates of the prison were working on embroidery, making rattan furniture, sculpting and doing many other things for gain. Everyone in the institution was being paid. Some of the prisoners were receiving psychiatric care. The time within which prisoners were released was dependent in part on the money that they had earned and their attitude of mind as they prepared to go out to meet society.
I believe that incarceration is sometimes good. I have before me a letter from a minimum security institution written by a once successful professional man who did an evil thing. In this letter to me he says:
It is a strange thing to say, but I am happy that I have spent this time in prison. I have rediscovered myself, my family and life.
His wife, Grace, has written a very touching letter, much of which tells how this experience of humiliation and separation has redeemed their life together and given the family new hope. Although much has been destroyed, on the basis of this hope much can be rebuilt.
May 18, 1967

I think that as we desire and search as a people for a better country and the good society, we all must become deeply involved. Industry has not cared nearly enough about the penitentiary services of Canada. In some respects it has impeded progress. Organized labour has not cared nearly enough about our penitentiary services, and in some respects has impeded the rehabilitation and restoration to society of people who have offended. Our service clubs should be challenged to participate fully in this program, just as industry and labour should become a mighty industrial partnership to ensure that something better is provided.
I would leave with the house some of the thoughts of George Scott, a psychiatrist in the Kingston complex. He envisions a community which he calls "reward city" where people are moved progressively from maximum to medium to minimum security, until finally we have the open community where people work hard and live under free conditions and with good pay, developing their skills and attitudes of self-care and responsibility. Perhaps industries will compete one with another to establish plants in such rehabilitive communities.


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


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lamblon-Keni):: In taking part in the debate on the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, my first words, of course, must be of commendation of the high quality of debate in this chamber during the last few days. I would be remiss if I did not comment on the efforts of the hon. members for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) and Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. C6te) who started the debate.
Many interesting subjects have been covered but probably more time has been devoted to a discussion of constitutional matters and the streamlining of the procedures of this house than to any other subject. For my part I do not feel qualified to discuss either of these subjects, though I am quite sure that lack of qualifications and knowledge of a subject does not always rule out participation.
Reference was made in the throne speech to housing. I listened with intense interest to the remarks of the minister who is in charge of housing when he spoke in this chamber last week. I was particularly concerned to see whether there was to be a change in government policy toward alleviating what has been
The Address-Mr. McCutcheon referred to in the house as the crisis in housing. Apparently not, though the minister did state in reply to the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays) on orders of the day on Friday that his remarks contained very interesting material.
While I have the greatest personal admiration and respect for the minister, I cannot agree that there was much in his remarks to lend hope to the many people who are alarmed at the housing situation. Really what the minister said in essence was: "Everything will be O.K., everything will work out, if we just let the money lenders get more out of mortgages."
An increase in the mortgage interest rate may be essential, Mr. Speaker, but it is not the whole answer to the housing crisis. I feel sure that the minister realizes this as well as the other members of the house. The minister referred to his meetings across Canada this winter and reported on some of his findings in these words, which are to be found on page 93 of Hansard for May 11:
-the greater part of the criticisms was not directed toward what the federal government was attempting to do and was doing in this field.
The minister admits that criticism exists but he sidesteps responsibility, saying in effect that other levels of government are to blame. Nobody likes to take the blame, and it is very comforting to attempt to place blame somewhere else. However I suggest it is up to us all in the federal government to provide more leadership in the matter, and we should be more actively engaged in efforts to lower the price of houses and of mortgage money -both equally essential. There ought to be more money at lower rates.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Were the minister in the house I would suggest to him that merely to sidestep the responsibility, as he appears to be doing is not the answer. We ought to be conducting research into streamlining building procedures-and when I talk of building procedures I refer to all phases of the industry, ranging from financing into research into new materials.
The minister also said that we have maintained a good average of housing starts and completions over a period of years, and this I do not deny. It is easy for one to rise in his place and be critical, just for the sake of being critical, but that is not my intention. I hope to be constructively critical, and I hope to draw attention to the inadequacy of the
376	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. McCutcheon housing starts. I want to make certain suggestions, which I think are important for lowering the cost of housing.
A review of what has recently taken place in the housing industry might be helpful to understanding the problem better. This, briefly, is what happened last year and the year before that. In 1966 there were 134,474 starts, while in 1965 there were 162,192. In April the minister suggested in parliament that with an increased flow of mortgage money 155,000 starts might be made this year. He revised that figure in May and suggested that 160,000 houses would probably be started. Even that figure is 10,000 units short of the requirements as submitted by the Economic Council, which asks for 170,000 new housing starts for each year of this decade, and up to 200,000 yearly starts in the next decade.
Many things happened in 1966 to depress the building business, and here I wish to quote further statistics. Private lenders reduced mortgage loans. For example the trust companies reduced their loans by 48 per cent, the insurance companies by 31 per cent. The loan companies were down by 32 per cent. All lending was reduced from $2.5 billion to $1.6 billion, a reduction of $.9 billion. In an effort to alleviate the situation C.M.H.C. advances, taken from the consolidated revenue fund, were increased from $3.25 billion to $4 billion. This increased lending did not inject as much into the housing industry as was necessary. C.M.H.C. gave direct loans on 35,567 units; the private sector of the house building industry must have accounted therefore for 98,807 out of the 134,474 units started.
The life companies, on a dollarwise basis, disbursed more money in 1966 than in 1965, despite a marked decline for these companies in mortgage payments. Dollarwise and volumewise their business was up, but on a per unit basis it was down, serving to show how costs have accelerated. For example, in 1962, we see that 3.4 per cent of National Housing Act homes cost over $20,000; in 1966, the figures show that 27.5 per cent of National Housing Act homes cost over $20,000. I shall say more about that later, but at the moment I am particularly interested-


Mr. Lind:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: If it is a reasonable question. If I can answer it; I shall try to.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: How many homes were built in 1962?

DEBATES	May 18. 1967


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: That is a very interesting question and I shall take it as notice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Also, it is irrelevant.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Yes. It is also irrelevant, as my colleague says.
As I was saying-and I expect the hon. member for Middlesex East knows about as much about housing costs as I know-costs for housing in 1966 increased at a greater rate than incomes and wages increased-taking into account even the Pearson 30 per cent formula for wage settlements. Here we see history repeating itself. In 1956-57 when costs advanced more quickly than incomes, we had a similar situation. In the year 1956-57 as in 1966-67 a Liberal government was in power, and I doubt whether these similar situations occurred through coincidence. It seems to me that here emphasis has again been put on the wrong priorities and no regard has been paid to the pocketbook of the little fellow who desperately needs a house.
In 1966 construction costs, per square foot for bungalows averaged $12.56. The increase over the year 1965 was from 8.1 per cent to 12.4 per cent, depending on location, and this compares-to answer my hon. friend's question indirectly-with an average annual increase of 1.4 per cent only for the ten years 1956 to 1966. Just think of it-costs rose in one year by as much as they had risen in the previous six years. In all fairness these increased costs cannot all be blamed on the government; nevertheless because of its lack of enlightened planning it has contributed toward this increase. Almost everything that has been done in housing has been done to take the easy way out.
I talked before of the increased C.M.H.C. ceiling, and I must mention in fairness that legislation was brought in last year providing for national housing money for older homes. The government also changed the ratio for calculating rental housing loans to 90 per cent of lending value from 85 per cent of lending value. This is not enough, certainly, "to excite the daring". A borrower needs 5 per cent less down payment, but the price of the house has increased by 8.1 per cent. That is not much of a gain, and the poor borrower is obligated for a bigger mortgage, and probably for a longer period.
I shall now speak of what the government did not do. It did not call more than just the organizational meeting of the committee of
May 18. 1967	COMMONS
this house on housing. There was one meeting, after which the committee was promptly disbanded because the government had not sent it a single thing to do.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Now a few words on the subject of the cost of money. The extent to which money and the cost of money affect the cost of residential accommodation is not often realized. Virtually all single family dwellings and apartment buildings in our metropolitan area, and indeed in every area are mortgaged in value to an extent ranging from 70 to 85 per cent. For every $10,000 of mortgage amortized over 30 years at the National Housing Act rate of per cent, the debtor pays back $24,300. In other words, he pays back almost two and a half times as much in total as the original debt. While there has been a great deal said in the past six months about how tight money is and how more money should be made avail-ble, there is not enough being said about the cost of this money and its effect on the cost of residential accommodation.
A loan of $10,000 amortized at 7J per cent over 30 years carries exactly the same debt service as $11,100 over the same period amortized at 6i per cent. In other words, the one per cent increase in interest costs has had the same effect as an increase in building costs of 11 per cent. We must bear in mind that buildings available be for rent or sale today were, for the most part, mortgaged prior to the time of these higher interest rates, enabling us to say that the present cost of housing accommodation does not yet reflect the higher cost of money which has occurred within the past year. This added cost must be borne by the renting or buying public in the months ahead, and must of course support the proposition that costs have not yet reached a peak but will continue to rise due to this pressure.
The federal government, I believe, can assist the mortgage market to a very marked degree. The present policy of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is to tie the National Housing Act rate to the long term yield of Dominion of Canada bonds. To the extent that this policy, recently adopted, induces a greater flow of mortgage money to the residential mortgage market, it is a good policy. I cannot, however, accept the principle that a 1J per cent differential between the National Housing Act rate and Dominion of Canada bonds is reasonable, bearing in mind that the security of both is identical. The major difference between a government-guaranteed National Housing Act mortgage
DEBATES	377
The Address-Mr. McCutcheon and a Dominion of Canada bond lies in the liquidity of the investment and in its cost of administration. I believe that the federal government can, through C.M.H.C. or its subsidiary, incorporate and operate a mortgage bank for the trading of mortgages. While it may be too much to expect that the future will see a National Housing Act mortgage being traded over the counter with the same kind of movement and price that exists today with a Dominion of Canada bond, I believe that substantial narrowing of this differential can be obtained with reasonable market conditions.
If trading in mortgage money were to operate on almost an over-the-counter basis, as is the case with the bonds, the construction industry could plan for much longer periods at a time. This would mean a great improvement in efficiency as well as lower money costs and I firmly believe this is one way-indeed, it may be the only way-in which we can make the best of a bad situation. The construction industry admits to its own inefficiency of operation in many instances; but while admitting that improvements could be made, it quickly points out that the present method of financing each year's operation after a mad scramble each spring for funds is one of the main causes of present difficulties. Those directly concerned do not know whether they have enough money to operate for a year, so their employees are faced with lay-offs. And they do not know how much work will be available next year.
The government tried the $500 winter incentive plan, which obviously failed to work. I think the answer to improved efficiency in the construction industry, hopefully with lower costs, will be found by making a regular, planned flow of mortgage money available and allotting it over a longer period than is now the case, when only a season to season supply or forecast is available.
This may be the case-if the government does not decide in its wisdom on a tight money supply for next year or the latter part of the present year. There are many "ifs". I maintain that planning in all its phases, including financing, should be on a two to five year basis. Housing should not bear the brunt of any artificial tinkering with a supply of funds for the industry. House mortgage funds should not be used to dampen a business cycle or to accelerate one. There should be a steady flow based only on demand.
Regardless of any so-called lack of criticism of the federal government as reported by the
May 18, 1967

The Address-Mr. McCutcheon minister, only the federal government has the facilities to be able to envision a nationwide situation. Provinces and municipalities just cannot have this type of over-all perception.
In my opinion we missed a golden opportunity to rationalize our house building requirements when in our haste to implement the Canada Pension Plan we let the funding of the plan slip through our fingers, as it were, and allowed the provinces first claim on the assets.
This fund, which we are aware is only short lived, could have provided the massive injection our housing industry required on a temporary basis, that is to say, until we got caught up. Then in an orderly fashion the mortgage bank concept could have taken over. What a tremendous incentive it would be. How in keeping with a security program, that the funds collected under the pension plan could be used to provide homes for the population-the same homes, in many cases, which would shelter pensioners in their old age.
Another area of great concern is the tremendous cost of legal fees in connection with almost every house or property transaction. Time is money, and too often there are almost interminable delays in conveyancing. Naturally, delays can be very expensive. I do not think we can afford this luxury much longer and unless some streamlining can be achieved the system of land titles will have to be overhauled.
I think the provision of title insurance should be examined to see whether reasonable reductions in cost could be obtained by this method. The lawyer members of this chamber may not agree.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
It is my opinion that lot sizes can and should be reduced. Through arbitrarily fixing minimum standards for lot sizes, in Canada we have added miles and miles of sewers, pavements and other services, so much so that our municipalities cannot stand the costs of servicing land for development. It does not matter who was responsible for these things in the first place. It seems to me that now each government level says, "This is not our department. We cannot do anything about it." Surely it is time we quit passing the buck. We are all in this mess together, all levels of government, and the thing to do is to pull together to get us out of it.
I suggest that it is just as important, yes more important, to Canadians to have the price of housing lowered as it is to have the

moneylenders back in the business at a very high rate of interest. With this in mind I suggest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp)-and possibly since he is not in the chamber now the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) will convey the message to him -that he should have another look at the tax on building materials.
Much has been heard about removing this tax. I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting something else, a relocation of it. I presume that the government will find it necessary to continue collecting this tax. You do not forget $180 million just overnight, but I submit to the minister that this tax should apply at the retail level rather than at the manufacturer's level. Why should Canadians have to pay a percentage profit markup on a federal tax at every level of business-first the jobber, then the wholesaler, then the retailer? This tax by the time it hits the consumer has been marked up at least 50 per cent, and then in most of the provinces we add on a sales tax.
I would suggest that the Minister of Finance give some thought to relocating this tax. I think he could automatically reduce it by 50 per cent and the government would not be out anything, but it would be very helpful towards lowering the price of housing. In summary, Mr. Speaker, if the relocation and reduction of the tax were accomplished, if the construction industry could be encouraged to improve efficiency by a few percentage points through long range government planning, with a reduction in mortgage rates obtained-and believe me, Mr. Speaker, all these things are possible-then a 10 per cent reduction in housing costs would be quite possible and no better project could be envisaged for this the centennial parliament.


Mr. A. M. A. McLean (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, along with my colleagues, and other hon. members, I wish to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Their speeches were not only a credit to themselves but a credit to Canada.
As a backbencher I have many grievances and frustrations but I am not going to dwell on them today. I am going to speak on something that I think is very important not only to Canada but to the entire world. On reading the speech from the throne, which I was not privileged to hear, I was struck by this one paragraph that deals with natural resources:
The great natural resources that we take into our second century will be vital to us in meeting
May 18. 1967

our needs and in maintaining our position as a major world trader. Measures will be introduced by the government at the present session arising out of the need to conserve and preserve the great wealth with which Canada has been so richly endowed.
Now Mr. Speaker, I thoroughly agree with the foregoing. Canada to my mind is not only one of the richest but the richest country in the world, richest in resources and in her people. But I notice one great natural resource with which Canada is endowed from coast to coast but which apparently is being neglected. As Canadians we are adopting an attitude toward this resource which not only will affect Canada greatly in the future but will affect the entire world. The resource to which I refer is gold.
Since before history was written gold has played a great part in the development of mankind, not only in the monetary field but in the fields of the arts and industry. We know that the people of Mesopotamia were working in gold more than 5,000 years ago. Their gold vases have been unearthed in Iraq, dating back to 3,500 B.C. Their workmanship showed that these goldsmiths knew the skills of working and shaping the precious metal.
At one time gold was Canada's foremost metal and brought in more money to Canada than any other metal. It is still greatly used as a commodity in the arts and in industry, and was the backbone of our monetary system up until a few years ago. I am not speaking of gold as one interested especially in gold mines but as one who has been in world trade for the last 45 years. The companies with which I have been associated were generally doing business with more countries than are at present exhibiting at Expo '67. I have found out that when tariffs were raised, when quotas were put into effect and other obstacles raised to world trade it was the lack of gold, or its equivalent, which was the cause.
Before the first world war Britain acted as the world's banker and all settlements of world trade were made in London. Britain was a free trade nation. She had currencies of all nations generally surplus to her own requirements, and it needed very little gold to resolve any balance of payments. The surpluses which Britain did not require were invested in other countries. No one at that time gave much thought to central banks or central bank reserves, as we did not seem to have any balance of payments problems. World trade kept moving along on an even keel, and increasing.

The Address-Mr. A. M. A. McLean
However, after the first world war Britain had lost at least $50 billion in her overseas investments and she could no longer act as banker to the world. As the United States was then the most financially powerful nation, she inherited the role that Britain had played for over 100 years. But the United States was a high tariff country and would not receive the products of other nations as payment for their debts. Consequently, the United States gradually stripped the world of gold and the nations of the world were forced off the gold standard. The various countries of the world had no common denominator on which to base their currencies, and so there was chaos in world trade. This caused a falling of prices and brought on world depression.
In 1934 the late President Roosevelt raised the price of gold from $20.63 per ounce to $35 per ounce, and in the legislation there was permission for a further raise to $50 per ounce, but this legislation was allowed to lapse in the United States as it had a time limit. The world then had in the American dollar a common denominator on which to base its currencies. There was an immediate increase in world trade, profitable prices were restored and we saw the lifting of the depression that had held the world in its grip for many years.
The rise in the price of gold not only revived Canada's gold mines but created many new ones, and gold became our foremost earning metal. It brought into circulation an enormous amount of gold which various peoples of the world had been holding because they distrusted the paper currencies of the world, thus making world reserves at that time adequate for the world trade that was carried on.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
In 1945 the United States, along with the United Kingdom, was anxious to get a multilateral agreement with reference to monetary affairs. The result was the Bretton Woods agreement and the establishment of the international monetary fund, to which all nations joining contributed a definite amount of their currency backed by a 25 per cent gold deposit, and obtained certain drawing rights on the fund's balances. The United States agreed to buy and sell gold at $35 per ounce, and every nation signing the agreement agreed not to pay more than $35 per ounce for gold even if it was mined in their own countries.
Canada was the third largest gold producer in the world, and according to the Governor of the Bank of Canada and also the chairman
May 18, 1967

The Address-Mr. A. M. A. McLean of the Federal Reserve Bank in the United States, gold is a monetary measure. Then if we agreed to a fixed price, we sold our sovereignty; not internally, because gold does not affect the issue of currency in Canada, but it does radically affect the settlement of external balances.
If gold is a monetary measure, as the Governor of the Bank of Canada states, it should have the same purchasing power in 1967 as it had in 1945. But it is agreed by all economists that the purchasing power of the American dollar is down to 44 cents. Then the gold dollar should shrink to 44 cents in gold content. But I am also advised by no less an authority than the Governor of the Bank of Canada that gold is a commodity. If we are in a free enterprise country, the price of no commodity should be fixed in Canada by a foreign country.
The $35 per ounce for gold that is being paid by the United States today is not sacred. When the United States treasury pledged that the price of gold would not be raised by the United States, they were not speaking for the United States alone but for the entire world, and they were saying something that was just impossible. The price of gold is a world problem, not a United States problem. At the present time, with the American dollar depreciated to 44 cents, we are asking our gold mines to accept $15 or $16 per ounce for gold. This is an impossible situation.
If it was my voice alone that was raised you might ask: What does he know about the world financial situation? But I would repeat the words of Sir Roy Harrod, the economist who was consulted at the time the International Monetary Fund was formed, who advocates the doubling of the price of gold as a preliminary to the reorganization of the International Monetary Fund and the establishment of a new unit for world settlement-just as a preliminary. He states:
I regard gold as a sheet anchor of liberty- so it has been for many hundreds of years of civilization.
This is not only the opinion of Sir Roy Harrod; it is also the opinion of another noted economist, Sir Ralph Hawtrey, who stated that "gold is an anonymous asset." It is also the opinion of Jacques Rueff, a French economist. Sir Roy Harrod states that the International Monetary Fund should be reorganized with greater flexibility. Under present conditions certain nations have their currencies designated as reserve currencies, that

is, the pound and the dollar which are supposed to be on an equal basis with gold. These currencies are not sufficient for the reserves needed to keep world trade flowing smoothly and increasing. At the present time, although the United Kingdom quota to the International Monetary Fund is $2,450 million, the United Kingdom has borrowed through drawing rights $2,410.6 million. The United States gold quota to the fund is $1,290 million, and the United States has borrowed in gold from the fund $905.2 million. So it is quite apparent that the nations whose reserve currencies are supposed to finance world trade are the principal borrowers from the International Monetary Fund.
We certainly need a new international unit of settlement to help finance our world trade, for when the United Kingdom and the United States try to resolve their balance of payments problems by withdrawing pounds and dollars from circulation, they are simply drawing the sinews of world trade that are supposed to be financing it. All this is related to the position of gold, and gold is certainly one of our great natural resources in this country, which commodity the two eminent economists I have mentioned state should be doubled in price before creating a new international unit of settlement.
The First National Bank of New York, which is quite well known, especially to those of us who were members of the finance committee, states in its May magazine issue:
Lifting the gold reserve requirement for domestic note circulation does not mean that the United States could dispense with gold internationally. Even with all its productive capacity to give real value to money, the United States, as an international banker, requires a strong gold reserve. Foreign governments and central banks holding large dollar deposits and other short term assets in the United States, are fully aware of the intrinsic strength of the U.S. economy as well as of the fact that the dollar has, throughout the years, lost less of its purchasing power than any other major currency. Nevertheless, they expect us to maintain a suitable gold stock to provide what in their eyes is an assurance that the dollar will remain at all times a reliable and freely usable currency.
Yet people all over the world are holding billions of dollars of gold which they consider to be worth more than what the United States is paying for gold at the present time. If the price of gold was raised to what it should be, the United States would have no balance of payments problems; there would be free movement of capital around the world and there would be no inflation because other currencies would be adjusted to the gold
May 18, 1967	COMMONS
price, the same as in 1934. There would be plenty of liquidity, which is needed to finance world trade.
I am not interested in gold mines, as I stated before, but the very life of the companies with which I have been associated practically all my life depends on world trade. World trade in 1947 amounted to $48,549 million. In 1965-world trade amounted to $164,700 million. The reserves and liquidity that were adequate in 1947 are certainly not adequate today. Last year, with $2 billion worth of gold mined and put into circulation, not one dollar went into the central banks to finance world trade-it simply disappeared. The previous year, of the nearly $2 billion worth of gold that was mined, only $250 million got into the central banks. So no matter what the bankers think or say, the people of the world think that gold is the backbone of the financial system and a store of value. We have that opinion confirmed by the First National City Bank of New York.
Canada is one of the nations among the so-called Big Ten who are supposed to bring forth a realistic policy to solve the present monetary situation so that world trade can move smoothly, and increase. But I have watched the press in vain for the voice of Canada in relation to an increase in the price of gold, which to my mind and that of many world economists would be the first, preliminary step in solving our present international financial situation. I might say that the United States seems to have a closed mind on Viet Nam and a closed mind on the gold situation, for I addressed a letter to the Christian Science Monitor, which they refused to print, and I also addressed a letter to the New York Times which they refused to print, simply because they said their government would not agree with the policy.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Democracy.


Allan Marcus Atkinson McLean: Surely, Mr. Speaker, Canada's gold, as a great natural resource, should be given priority in any exploitation of our natural resources. The feeble excuse that a rise in the price of gold would benefit only Russia and South Africa is certainly not valid, for the western world produces three times as much gold as Russia, and if there were any benefit to accrue, three times as much benefit would accrue to the western world as would accrue to Russia.
DEBATES	381
The Address-Mr. Coates [DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
If Russia were given increased purchasing power she would buy a great deal more of our products, and this fact is evidenced by the wheat purchase paid for in gold. Russia is not bound by the international monetary fund and she is allowed to put any value she wants on the gold produced in Russia. She can put a price of $35 an ounce or $75 an ounce and still put it into international currency. In this way Russia would have this extra purchasing power and this would be of great benefit to our industries in the western world.
South Africa in the same way could use her extra purchasing power to diversify her economy and would then be buying machinery of all kinds from the western world. Her Bantu population, which now has the highest standard of living in Africa, would certainly benefit through increased wages from a rise in the price of gold.
So, as one of the Big Ten let Canada's voice be raised loud and strong in the financial councils of the world for a doubling of the price of gold, not selfishly for the benefit of Canada, but for the benefit of all mankind.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: In entering this debate on the throne speech I must first of all say there is little in it to give Canadians the kind of confidence one would hope would be installed in their minds as we enter upon the second century of nationhood. I had hoped this speech would be inspirational, and one which historians could look back upon as an indication that Canada entered its second hundred years with inspiration for the continuing development of a better nation. I had hoped the speech would be one that would always be remembered by Canadians as the great turning point of this nation's history in the development of unity and purpose. Instead it reminded me of what a housewife might prepare for a light supper, much like what we in Nova Scotia have always called plain simple hash.
Everything in this speech has been talked about, dropped and then revived. It could almost be referred to as garbage except for those few things which will probably be of some benefit to someone. It certainly contains nothing inspirational. I am afraid that Canada will end up her first hundred years in the red, just as we have ended up consistently at the end of each year for the past ten years. The total sum of Canada's deficit from the fiscal year 1957-58 to 1966-67 amounted to $3,908 million. We are no longer spending our own
May 18, 1967

The Address-Mr. Coates money, we are spending our children's money. I have one little boy who will soon be 12 and a little girl who will soon be 10, and in my opinion we in this parliament are doing a mighty poor job as administrators and guardians on their behalf. By the look of the estimates for the coming year we will probably end up with another deficit for 1967-68, and will have to tax the people to a greater extent than ever before. This seems both alarming and ridiculous.
Our present Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) and Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) keep telling us that things are great, that this country is moving forward, that investment is at an all time high and that the business community is confident. At the same time this government is allowing its cabinet ministers to spend more money than is being received in revenue. It is continually interfering in the affairs of the people of this country to a greater degree than ever before, by spending the taxpayer's money, when it should be allowing the taxpayers to spend it as they see fit. How much longer can we live in this fools paradise?
We were told that the fiscal year 1966-67 was one of the greatest years in Canada's history, that the economy was booming, and that there was more employment than ever before; yet this government committed the Canadian taxpayer to $230 million more than will be received in federal revenues. This was a time when the government should have been allowing the private sector of the economy to maintain the buoyancy, and a time when it should not have been meddling in the affairs of the public. I do not know how much longer Canadians are going to allow the government to press forward with legislation for the benefit to 10 per cent of the population, paid for by 90 per cent.
We must create a spirit of initiative on the part of the people and we are not going to do so by continually giving them everything they ask for without asking them to do any work. We should wake up to this fact, and wake up to it very quickly. I have no argument with deficit financing or with social justice, but I do suggest that neither is good if the result is national bankruptcy. Surely it must be becoming more evident to us that we are living far beyond our means.


Mr. Chretien:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Robert Carman Coates: I will answer all questions of hon. members after I have completed my speech.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
For a period of time after 1957, we had to put more money into the economy because of a period of recession. According to some we came out of that recession in 1961, and according to others, in 1962. In any event we did come out of it. Surely to goodness we have to face the fact that if now, in a period of prosperity, we cannot pay our bills, then we will never be able to pay them. If that is the case, where are we going to end up? Surely we should expect enough responsibility from the government to at least balance our budget when times are good. Surely we should expect from the government enough responsibility to leave individual freedoms alone when there is no reason to be meddling around with them.
From time to time I am impressed by the concern which the Canadian people have voiced from time to time about the fact that parliament is debating certain subjects for long periods of time. These people ask: Why do you not get on with the work and be more businesslike? I often reply to them that they do not know how lucky they are, that parliament has long debates on some subjects, because when parliament is being efficient and passing legislation it is doing one of two things: it is either passing a piece of legislation which infringes on and limits a citizen's freedom, or it is passing a piece of legislation which will cost the taxpayer more money. So the more time parliament spends debating these subjects, the less time it spends dreaming up new plans, and the better off the taxpayers are.
However, what we can expect and what we get from the government are two different things, and this is very evident today, as it has been in recent years. But what we as members of parliament have to do is to realize the heavy burden we are placing on people who have to foot the bill for the legislation we are passing. If it were only the taxpayers of today whom we were asking to carry this very heavy burden it would not be so bad, but as long as we keep running up deficit after deficit we do not stop with the people who are paying taxes today but are saying to the taxpayers of tomorrow: You will have to pay for the things we thought the country should have, for the things that we want but cannot afford. I am tired of
May 18, 1967	COMMONS
doing this, unless it is absolutely necessary or unless we are in a period of recession.
While I am not committed to any of the leadership aspirants who are putting their names forward at the present time, I think that Senator Wallace McCutcheon at least talked good common sense when he laid down what he thinks a political party should be doing in this day and age. I believe the first thing that any political party should do is to try to look after the financial affairs of its people in a proper and prudent manner, and I do not think this government is doing it today or giving any indication that it will do so in the days ahead.
The legislation on medicare is to be implemented in 1968. The sad thing is that as soon as we are through with medicare, the N.D.P., the socialists in this house, will probably be proposing that we take over car insurance, or something else.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Robert Carman Coates: Then the Liberal party will say: We cannot let the N.D.P. or the socialists get the kudos for this, so we will go ahead and do it. After car insurance it will probably be free haircuts for everybody in Canada: We will nationalize all the barbers. And then what next? This is a sad and ridiculous situation in which we find ourselves today. What we are doing is to make it more and more difficult for people to use their initiative, because if one makes a great amount of money, the government is going to take it away and the gap between what one can make and what the fellow who is on the dole will get will narrow down. This is the sad and stark reality of life in this nation today .We should wake up and forget about these socialists in the corner, because there is less and less support for them today, and this will continue in the days ahead.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member had better whistle a little louder.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I should now like to move to a different subject. Unfortunately I have to take the house on a tortuous trail along which the people in my constituency, and especially the people in the town of Springhill, have travelled since 1962. I will lay the facts before you, sir, because I feel they warrant and demand a government inquiry or investigation immediately. The facts that I have been able to secure from this government indicate a scandalous disregard 27053-251
DEBATES	383
The Address-Mr. Coates for the taxpayer, and certainly for the people of Springhill. They are as follows: On February 7, 1962, Hon. E. D. Fulton, who was then minister of justice, announced that a young offenders penal institution would be build in the town of Springhill. The cost estimate on that penal institution at that time was set at $2.5 million. On September 12, 1962, Hon. Donald Fleming, who was then minister of justice, announced that the size of the institution to be built in Springhill would be doubled, and the estimated cost of the institution was listed at $4.5 million.
Mr. Fleming also stated in that announcement that in the fiscal year 1962-63 the department would spend $345,000-$45,000 for land, $50,000 in fees and $250,000 for site engineering. In the fiscal year 1963-64, Mr. Fleming said the main contract would be let at an estimated cost of $3,474,000, with a target date for completion of the institution to be in August 1964.
The Conservative government was defeated in the election of April 8, 1963. The people of Cumberland county in general and those in Springhill in particular waited and waited. The first thing that we discovered was that this government, upon taking office, fired the architects who had been appointed and in their place appointed friends of the government.
On April 13, 1964, as reported at page 2070 of Hansard, the then secretary of state who is now Senator Lamontagne, informed me that construction of the penitentiary would start in the summer of 1964 and that the contemplated date for completion would be the fall of 1965. I was also informed at that time that there would be 170 employees with an annual payroll of $800,000.
On page 10103 of Hansard of November 16, 1964, the then minister of public works, who is now Senator Deschatelets informed me that the contract for the penitentiary in Springhill had been awarded to the Foundation Maritime Limited on November 9, 1964. He further informed me that the completion date of the penitentiary would be May 9, 1966. In other words, because of the delays that were forced upon the construction of this institution by the present government, the people of Springhill had to wait more than a year and a half for completion. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but the cost of the institution in the contract originally awarded to Foundation rose from the initial estimate of $3,474,000 to a contract price of $8,890,000.
May 18. 1967

The Address-Mr. Coates [DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
As we went along, Mr. Speaker, we discovered still further delays in the completion of this institution. Although the date of completion was May 9, 1966, in early 1967 I was informed that it was now to be January 3, 1967, and that up until January 23, 1967 the government had spent $8,825,438. I was also informed that the government had spent $99,000 to erect a fence around the institution. One would have thought that for the protection of the public, and to make certain that the inmates stayed where they were supposed to stay, a very substantial fence would have been built around the institution; but the sad fact of the matter is that at the first good gust of wind the fence fell down. And it is still down, Mr. Speaker: I do not know when it will be re-erected.
Not only that, but I do not know when the penitentiary will be opened, Mr. Speaker, I am now informed that it will be opened in August, but according to the information I have I am indeed doubtful that it will open in 1967. As a matter of fact, I am informed that at the present time there is no water supply for this institution. This is an institution which to date has cost the Canadian taxpayer $11,502,000 but which has no water services. While I have no accurate information as to what it will cost to supply water, I do know that there is a good deal of talk that to supply water to the institution another $1 million will have to be spent. I am also informed that as the institution presently stands it has toilets which cannot be flushed, and the workmen there have to bring their own drinking water in their lunch cases. Surely to goodness, Mr. Speaker, one would have expected that a suitable water supply would have been assured before the institution was constructed.
The picture today is that $11.5 million has been spent on an institution which cannot be put into operation because no water supply is available and it is possible that it may cost another $1 million to supply that water before the institution can go into operation.
I am also told, Mr. Speaker, that the construction of the institution is of very poor quality; that there are walls dividing the cells that can be pushed back and forth. If this is the case it will not be very long before they are down. In view of the kind of criminals who are incarcerated in penitentiaries today,
I do not think we can expect that these walls will receive the fatherly attention that one might give his own home. I trust that the


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: May I ask a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. gentleman want to ask a question?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have to advise the hon. member that the time allotted to the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) has expired.


Mr. Eric Slefanson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to join with those who have already spoken and offer my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Being selected to move or second the motion for the
DEBATES	385
The Address-Mr. Stefanson address is a personal honour which also brings honour to the people whom they were elected to represent. This being Canada's centennial year, Canada's 100th birthday, one cannot help but take a brief look at our country's past history and achievements.
When Canada entered confederation there were roughly five million people in this land. In the intervening 100 years, Canada's population has quadrupled and the population is now roughly 20 million people. One hundred years ago the vote on the bill to establish confederation was taken at 4.15 in the morning. The confederation bill was carried, 91 votes to 33. When we concluded the first session of the twenty seventh parliament two weeks ago, it was 3.20 in the morning. It would appear therefore that the parliamentary system is still functioning in much the same manner.
I am sure no one will deny that Sir John A. Macdonald was the architect of this nation. The meetings that were held at Charlottetown laid the ground for confederation, and these have been recorded in the annals of history. The dreams of Macdonald, Cartier and the other fathers of confederation started to take shape after the passing of the confederation act. Sir John A. Macdonald became Canada's first prime minister and his vision of a great confederation, guided by a strong national government, started to take shape. Under his leadership and wise counselling Canada, as a nation, got off on the right track. His dream of building one nation, a united nation from sea to sea, became a reality. Macdonald's task was not an easy one, nor has the task of succeeding prime ministers been easy. The road was never perfect; potholes always develop that need care and attention.
During the past 100 years, Canada has matured and is today recognized as a country of peace and good will. Today, Canada is a nation built of a strong moral fibre, a nation highly respected around the globe. As I mentioned before, the road is not always smooth. Potholes have developed, and these need care and attention. Sometimes the reason for the development of these potholes is unknown, while in other cases the cause is very real.
I believe all of us need to rededicate ourselves to the concept of one nation and national unity. Personally, I felt that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) set up a royal commission on bilingualism and bicultural-ism, he made a mistake. This should never have been done. I have not changed my view in this regard. I firmly believe this is the
May 18, 1967

The Address-Mr. Stefanson cause of the development of some of the potholes. Most people were aware that some problems did exist, particularly between the two founding races. After the appointment of this commission, these problems became magnified and a divisiveness the like of which I have never seen before was created in this country.
This commission on biculturalism and bilingualism will not only be the most expensive commission in Canada's history, costing the people millions of dollars, but will bring about no solution to the problem. In fact I venture to guess that when this commission report that report will be put in a pigeonhole and left there. There were other ways of dealing with this problem. I feel that the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), that of convening a conference of government, of all political parties and representatives of all classes of society, to discuss the amendment and revision of the constitution, the bringing of the constitution back to Canada and the clarification and restating of our aims and objectives, was sensible and sound. This indeed would be a worth-while centennial project.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Canadians everywhere need to take stock of themselves and dedicate themselves to being Canadians first. There should not be any French Canadian, German Canadian, Ukrainian Canadian, Irish Canadian, Icelandic Canadian, and so on. I am not saying that one should forget one's racial and cultural background. I feel that everyone should be proud of his racial and cultural background, that one should use that background to become a better Canadian and a Canadian first. Then we would have Canadians of French descent, Canadians of German descent, Canadians of Ukrainian descent, Canadians of Irish descent and Canadians of Icelandic descent. In my opinion this type of attitude would help to make Canada a stronger and more united nation.
As a Canadian of Icelandic descent I suggest that each one of us, in this centennial year, dedicate ourselves to being a Canadian first, thereby helping to strengthen and unite our nation. This would be a good centennial project. I believe that people right across Canada are now in the mood to participate in the celebration of our country's one hundredth birthday. I think a lot of credit is due to our centennial commissioner, Mr. John Fisher, for radiating this centennial spirit among our people. I have heard Mr. Fisher
fMr. Stefanson.]
on radio and television, and read his articles in the newspapers urging all Canadians to join in and participate in Canada's centennial celebrations. I believe that Mr. Fisher is going to achieve the goal which he set and he deserves the whole-hearted support of all public minded citizens in bringing this about.
Expo at Montreal will be the biggest centennial event in Canada. It was when the right hon. Leader of the Opposition was prime minister that the world fair was awarded to Canada and the site of the fair chosen. The present government, when they took office, carried on with this project. All those who have been connected with this project deserve a lot of praise and credit, as there is no doubt that this will be the largest world fair ever. It will truly be a magnificent event, and something that should make all of us proud to be Canadians.
Another major event taking place this year is the Pan-American games scheduled for Winnipeg from July 23 to August 6. It was also when the right hon. Leader of the Opposition was prime minister that the pan-American games were awarded to Canada, and the site chosen. All those who are connected with the planning and staging of those games deserve a lot of praise and credit. The indications are that the entries for the pan-American games will be the largest in history and that they will also be the most successful. This will be another event that all Canadians can be proud of. I should like to mention here that the pan-American yachting or sailing races will take place on lake Winnipeg, near my home town of Gimli, Manitoba. That I suggest would be a good time for anyone travelling west this year to visit Winnipeg and take a sidetrip to Gimli.
Throughout the Selkirk constituency many centennial projects have been undertaken, including the building of skating rinks, curling rinks, community centres, parks, libraries and others. From this list one can see that lasting structures will be erected in many communities. Committees in charge of annual events throughout the various communities in the Selkirk constituency are going all out to make them bigger and better than ever before. Centennial committees have been set up in most communities and these are staging a variety of events through the year. The people of the Interlake area have caught on to the centennial spirit. This is a good year for people to pay a visit to the various communities in that area.
May 18, 1367

I wish to mention that the town of Selkirk is holding a fair and regatta from July 1 to July 9, and that the guests of honour will be Lord and Lady Selkirk. Also, during the Icelandic celebrations to take place at Gimli on July 31, the committee will have His Excellency, Asgeir Asgeirsson, the president of the Republic of Iceland, as its guest. He will also visit Winnipeg and Selkirk.
The speech from the throne was one of the longest on record but it was lacking in specifics. It dealt in generalities and hope. This is not good enough, when our nation is embarking on our second century. Most of the editorials which I have read have expressed disappointment with the throne speech, which consists mostly of words without substance.
What has happened to the 10,000 annual university scholarships promised by the Liberals in 1962, 1963, 1965-and promised here, in the house, in 1966? Education should be high on the list of priorities. Even though education comes within the jurisdiction of provincial governments, it has become abundantly clear that provincial governments cannot foot the bill for secondary schools, universities, technical schools, and the like. It is therefore necessary that the federal government share in the cost in order that our young people will be adequately trained. There is no mention of education in the throne speech, except a brief reference to the need for strengthening the adult retraining program.
This government has seen fit to discard the vocational and technical school program which was brought in by the Conservative government and which proved so successful. The federal government should sit down with the provincial governments to work out a cost sharing arrangement for education which would assure all our people of the fullest opportunity to acquire the best education and training possible. After all, our human resources are the most important resources in our country.
There is reference in the throne speech to the further reform of parliamentary procedure. Several members have already dealt with this subject. The member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) delivered what I considered an excellent speech on this topic. Personally, I do not think there is anything seriously wrong with our system. Freedom of speech and the freedom of the individual are
The Address-Mr. Stefanson freedoms that have to be guarded and maintained. When a parliament lasts over a year, as the last one did, the chances are that there is mismanagement, or that the government is being unrealistic in the amount of legislation it proposes. I believe that both of these were contributing factors in making the last session the longest in our parliamentary history.
The only reason parliament has to meet every year is to pass supply; its second function is to deal with legislation. The government has to gauge the amount of legislation to bring forth that can be dealt with in the time available. It is a mistake to have a session of parliament go over a year. The last session should have ended just before Christmas and the new session should have started in January, instead of in May.
The Prime Minister must be very careful in the choice of a house leader. The government house leader has one of the most onerous and toughest jobs in the House of Commons. One must possess many skills and virtues to become successful in this post. The Prime Minister, for the success of his government and indeed for the success of parliament, has to produce such a man. I do not know whether the newly appointed house leader has these qualifications. On his past performance in the house, it is very doubtful if he has; however, the challenge is his, and he may alter his ways and rise to the occasion-and I hope he does.
Another important factor is for members to discipline themselves and at times to practise restraint. I think this is more important than any rule change. Some of the vociferous members of this house should take stock of themselves and ask themselves whether, if every member took up as much time as they do, a session could ever be concluded. Some of these vociferous members are advocating rule changes and limitation of debate. Their motto seems to be that it is all right to deny other members the opportunity or right to speak, so long as they have their say. Here again it is self discipline and self restraint that is required.
With a government house leader who has good understanding and is capable of good management, and with properly disciplined members there would be no need for rules to curtail debates. Much more could be achieved by co-operation and agreement among members than by any rigid rule changes.
May I call it six o'clock?
May 18, 1967

The Address-Mr. Stefanson PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION



SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED

['I regret that the Minister of National Defence is unavoidably absent this evening, but I have listened with great interest to the remarks made by the hon. member for Roberval. I should like to reply to his question by saying that it is the practice of the Department of National Defence to conduct military manoeuvres away from the populated areas of Canada.\nAccording to the information I have received, there has been no over-all increase in flying training exercises carried out from the Canadian Forces base at Bagotville. Both the authorities at Canadian Forces headquarters and the authorities at Canadian Forces base, Bagotville are unaware of any recent complaints from civilians in that area. Any complaints from the civilian population in the area receive the personal attention of the commanding officer of the base. Additionally, Canadian Forces headquarters is informed by a message and a letter outlining the complaint and the action that is proposed to be taken by base authorities.\nI would suggest that the hon. member, who has given details with regard to incidents in the area, might, pursue the matter by direct contact with the commanding officer. Undoubtedly the Minister of National Defence will be examining the reports made and undoubtedly he will take some action.\nMotion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.', 'Friday, May 19, 1967']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), air transport-request for ban on use of highly inflammable fuel; the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Muir), health and welfare-inclusion of additional services under provincial plans; the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), national defence -Bagotville, Quebec-protests against military manoeuvres.
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.
Eric Stefanson: When the house rose at six o'clock I had made a few brief comments about the work of parliament itself. The Montreal Gazette of May 10, 1967, carried an editorial the heading of which read: "Yearlong Session Here To Stay". I think this is an assumption which is accepted by all parliamentarians. What we do object to are sessions extending beyond one year. The article outlines means by which the business of the house could be handled in a more orderly fashion. It states that the estimates should be brought down early in the session. I have always believed that parliament should deal first with estimates and then with legislation and that the work of parliament would be done in a more orderly and efficient way if this practice were followed.
The article goes on to advocate fixed adjournment periods for the Christmas, Easter and summer recesses. I do not think anyone would quarrel with that suggestion. I wish to

quote briefly from this article which appeared in the Montreal Gazette:
No government should overload parliament and then publicly complain that its measures are not being passed. One of the advantages of a well-programmed year-long format is that experience would show just about how much legislation may reasonably be presented for parliament's consideration. As one session would almost immediately follow another, there would be no serious need to press too much into any one session. The reality of year-long parliamentary session is being imposed on practices and customs that grew up when sessions lasted a few months only. Reality and practice have still a long way to go before they can be brought into alignment.
This government has complained a great deal about our failure to pass various measures, and then in the next breath it brags about the amount of legislation which has been dealt with. If the government did less complaining and concentrated upon better planning and management of our sessions it would help restore the image of parliament.
Perhaps I should say a word about the former leader of the house, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith). I feel he was a good house leader and that he had many good qualities. He understood the House of Commons, and this is essential. But he made one mistake; he allowed the session to run beyond 12 months. This is intolerable and must not happen again. I repeat, for the benefit of the new house leader, that no session in the future must ever run beyond 12 months; sessions should be so organized that they invariably end within the 12 month period.
I have always felt that my first duty as a member of parliament was to my constituency. I therefore intend to touch on some matters which are of direct concern to my constituents, though no doubt they are of importance to people in other parts of Canada as well.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
First, I wish to make a brief comment about the sales tax on drugs. I am not so naive as to say that the government's revenue can be cut. Therefore by cutting out a certain tax one would need to find other means of revenue. I believe that the sales tax on drugs is unjust, unfair and downright discriminatory and that it should be abolished forthwith. Chambers of commerce in my constituency have promoted resolutions to this effect, and a resolution of this kind was passed at the annual meeting of the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce.
May 18, 19B7	COMMONS
The special committee on drugs has recommended that the sales tax on drugs be abolished. In reality this sales tax is a sales tax on sickness and on those who are sick. I sincerely hope that the government and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) will see fit to act swiftly and remove this tax, because there must be a fairer and more just way for the government to raise the revenue it needs.
Now I want to deal briefly with water pollution. The throne speech makes reference to a Canada water act to combat pollution. At the present time one does not know what form this measure will take. It is abundantly clear that steps are needed to combat water pollution. Plans will be required to prevent further pollution of our rivers and lakes, and a definite plan has to be developed to clean up pollution in the rivers and lakes already polluted, and I think this includes most of the rivers in Canada.
To clean up the pollution in some of the rivers is going to be a massive job. The only government action to date is the amendment assented to on December 2, 1960, Part VI-B of the National Housing Act, which provides for loans for municipal sewage treatment projects. This section also provides for a 25 per cent forgiveness.
This act has been made use of by many towns, cities and villages, and a good start has been made to prevent further pollution, and also a start made to clean up existing pollution. However, much more needs to be done because the pollution problem is large. To make a thorough and successful job of combatting water pollution will require the co-operation and participation of all levels of government, of industry, of business, and the people themselves. I am happy to note that the government plans action to combat water pollution.
Next I wish to deal very briefly with national housing and the housing situation. In the throne speech there is reference to a special study of urban development. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson), who reports for Central Mortgage and Housing, has held symposia on housing and urban renewal in conjunction with provincial governments. These symposia have been held in every province of Canada. I have attended two of these symposia or conferences in Winnipeg, and one at Selkirk. I would think that from these conferences many of the problems facing urban communities are known to provincial and federal authorities and the time has come for action to be taken, and not just for 27053-26
DEBATES	389
The Address-Mr. Stefanson further studies, as is indicated in the speech from the throne. No doubt one could hold continual studies and keep on learning, but in my humble opinion the need for action and for plans to be put into effect to attack these problems is greater than the need for further studies which will only delay action.
The government and the minister in charge know that there is a desperate need for houses in Canada. They also know that the cost of houses is getting too high. Therefore the sales tax on building materials should be removed. Land price is getting excessive, and municipal taxes are getting too high. Action needs to be taken on these problems. If action is forthcoming on these matters it would encourage our young people to become homeowners. I believe it is important in our social way of life that a large portion of our adult population become homeowners. In this centennial year further studies are not the answer; it is action that is needed.
In the speech from the throne there is also reference to new incentives to promote industry in the north. I welcome anything that the government proposes to do to assist industry in northern Canada, and I can think of no better way to help promote industry in the north than to provide the necessary services such as roads and communications. I therefore would like to see the government renew the roads to resources program, which was of such great benefit, to help open up new territories in every province of Canada. I urge the government to renew the roads to resources program without delay.
Some time ago the government made a very grandiose announcement about convening a conference of ministers of highways to discuss highway policy for Canada. However, this conference has not been held to date, and I do not know whether the government has any intention of implementing its plans for it. There is a definite need for the federal government to have a highway policy because there is a need for it to participate in a second trans-Canada highway.
There is also a need for a policy to provide services for pleasure craft. The marina policy announced in the fall of 1965 is not working. The federal government must not shirk its responsibility here. It certainly has responsibilities to provide services for pleasure craft, just the same as provincial governments supply highways and services for motorcars. The marina policy has been in operation long enough for the government to realize that it is not functioning properly, and I hope it will
May 18, 1967


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, I must interrupt the hon. member to advise him that his time has expired.
Sone hon. Members: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to continue?


Eric Stefanson: Just for a minute, Mr. Speaker.
May 18, 1967

The Address-Mr. Guy LeBlanc


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eric Stefanson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to conclude by saying that the agreement covering the interlake area shows very clearly what can be done when all levels of government and the people work together. The ARDA program was started in 1960. The interlake was declared a test area in 1962. Subsequently it was declared a designated area, and this comprehensive agreement involving an expenditure of $85 million for the area is being made possible through the ARDA and FRED programs. This comprehensive program will give a real lift to the people of the interlake area.


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy first of all to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The mover, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) displayed a rare eloquence. As for the seconder, the hon. member for Nico-let-Yamaska (Mr. Cote), the Quebec farmers rightly see in him a true farmer who, in a simple and sincere way, has ably expressed his views on rural life in eastern Canada.
During these few minutes when I will have the privilege of giving my impressions on the speech from the throne, I will endeavour to speak at some length of regional and interregional development, within the framework of our confederative system.
According to some of our usual critics, there were few surprises in the speech from the throne. Would it be that those critics have forgotten the tremendous legislation and numerous achievements of the government in the first session of the 27th parliament, the longest in the history of Canada and one of the most productive if not the most productive? In this second session, Canadians expect the government to continue and consolidate the task already begun.
On May 11 last, in this house, the member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) asked what had happened to the war on poverty, whether an armistice had been signed. Still, the last speech from the throne proves that the government is still fighting against poverty.
Indeed, what about the measures it will take to create an increasingly favourable climate for industrial development and the multiplication of employment opportunities?
What about the other measures he proposes in order to promote regional development, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, to help Canadians who must travel to find a job, to make manpower centres more effective, to develop the adult retraining program?
What can be said about those measures except that they concretize a war strategy on poverty, so that every Canadian may enjoy life and be increasingly happy in his respective province, in Canada?
Is it not one of the reasons why the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was able to state, further on in his speech: "We can be proud of our country's achievements." In my opinion, he could have said just as well: We can be proud of our country's achievements under the leadership of our present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson).
In addition to the numerous proposals-I counted at least thirty-there is what the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) called a lot of fuzziness and nonsense. In my opinion, it was more than normal, after a hundred years of confederation, for the government to draw up a summary of the last hundred years and to outline a program for the hundred years to come. It did precisely that by making a historic review and stating the basic principles underlying Canada as it stands today at the beginning of the second century of confederation.
I think that most citizens of my riding share those few impressions on the speech from the throne, because they are in accordance with their hopes to achieve economic stability for their region and to progress at the same rate as the other regions of Canada.
-the main considerations involved in achieving regionally balanced development in Canada, consistent with our other national economic goals,-
And here I quote the Economic Council of Canada.
The Economic Council of Canada, as well as several other government and private institutions, mentioned them on various occasions. The council and I quote:
-noted, first, the importance of reducing the relative disparities in average levels of income as they presently exist among the regions; and second, the need to assure that each region contributes to total national output, and to the sustained, long-run growth of that output, on the basis of the fullest and most efficient use of the human and material resources available to the region.
May 18, 1967

The Address-Mr. Guy LeBlanc
The riding of Rimouski is part of the pilot 'area in which was applied the development program of the Eastern Quebec Development Board published on June 30, 1966. That plan is an ARDA project which cost $3,849,000, at least 50 per cent of which was paid by the federal government. It proposes long-term development objectives to 1982 and shortterm objectives between 1966 and 1972.
At present, the problems to solve is that of the agency responsible for implementing the plan. According to E.Q.D.B., it is a matter of
-identifying the agency responsible for the so-called implementation stage of the development logic which presided over the relationship established between the various programs and projects.
The organization of that agency is the problem that is of concern and particular interest to the people at the present time. In the meantime, other provinces receive through ARDA several millions of dollars to develop their territory.
* (8:30 p.m.)
For instance, the readers of a Rimouski weekly, L'Echo du Bas-St-Laurent, were informed last January 23 that $89,250,000, including $62,136,000 from the federal government, had been spent to implement the rural development program in the northeastern part of New Brunswick.
What we want is an efficient structure of consultation and pressure. As far as the implementation is concerned, we want the procedure to be determined in the spirit of our democratic traditions, in the respect of the freedom of each citizen. We are confident that the government of our province will assume its responsibilities in this field and co-operate with the federal government in the implementation of the plan.
According to an account of the visit of the Quebec minister of agriculture to Mont-Joli, published in the newspaper Le Soleil last January 13, the minister intends to set up this organization, appoint a committee of the legislature and name a regional co-ordinator.
In any event, we would like the federal government to maintain its present serious interest in this matter and appoint its own official, whatever his title, to co-ordinate the various services of the federal government with regard to the implementation of the program.
Therefore, the statement made by the hon. Minister of Forestry and Rural Development

(Mr. Sauve) on April 24 last, was a little reassuring, when he said:
It will be our pleasure before the fall, to sign an agreement which will be a feather in the cap of both the provincial and the federal governments involved.
My constituents from Rimouski were right, I think, to be skeptical, apprehensive and to fear being involved in an unfortunate experience, doomed to failure. Some past experiences can illustrate the reason for that frame of mind.
About 40 years ago, large numbers of pioneers who intended to be farmers were led into the forest hinterland.
In the framework of a colonizing policy, they cleared the land and toiled hard. Today, their children leave them for the big cities, and they remain alone on land which has not fulfilled past promises.
Here is another example: At Pointe-au-Pere, a municipality quite close to Rimouski, was located for many years the piloting station on the St. Lawrence river which kept, among other things, the economic activity of the municipality balanced.
At the time of the Conservative government after 1957, our friends in the opposition agreed to the removal of this piloting station without apparently thinking of the economy of the municipality.
Before 1957, the Liberal government of the time considered the possibility of improving the wharf at Pointe-au-Pere which could have been the home port of a ferry capable of serving both shores the year round.
At that time, service was supplied almost ten months a year by an old and well-established company which had already taken steps to build a powerful ferry capable of year-round service.
In August 1961-
And I am quoting from the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1964:
-the Treasury Board gave approval in principle to the granting of a subsidy.
This subsidy was a capital subsidy which proved to be an amount of $2,363,650, that is the purchase price of the ship, including taxes and it was owned by a newly-formed company, other than the one whose plans were prepared under the direction of another company. I continue the quotation:
But in doing so, they emphasized that it considered a service of this nature to be primarily a provincial responsibility. The board was prepared
May 18, 1967

to make an exception in this particular case however, because it was in hand and other active consideration before the board recommended to cabinet a report on federal assistance to a ferry and coastal services under the principles of which intra-provincial ferry services that are essentially highway links-chiefly services involving roll-on/ roll-off ferries, are considered to be a matter of provincial responsibility.
Why did the Conservative government of the time arrange for the total capital subsidy to finally reach $2,363,650 so as to pay the full cost of a ferry without taking serious precautions for the future? Why did they agree with the company on a contract for only five years, terminating on December 31, 1966. Why did they not order a careful inquiry by their economists to make sure that the ship would be economic?
These are the questions my electors are asking now that they know the ferry was sold some days ago to British Columbia Ferries-according to the newspaper Le Soleil of May 6-for $1,850,000.
I think the present Liberal government would be sympathetic as concerns this ferry; but since then, the problem has become the exclusive responsibility of the provincial government. That is why the population will have to start from scratch and ask the Quebec government for help in reorganizing this service.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Another fact is connected with the maintenance of the port of Rimouski, that is the wharves of Rimouski-Est and Pointe-au-Pere.
For many years the port of Rimouski was the most important port of the Lower St. Lawrence, east of Quebec even from the Bay of Chaleurs up to Dalhousie inclusive. Since, some ports of the north shore such as Baie Comeau and Sept-Iles have certainly surpassed it during those last years.
One has only to consider the net amount of wharfage dues collected during the past five financial years to realize it; Sept-Iles, $480,000; Rimouski, $337,000; Dalhousie, $122,000; Baie-Comeau, $113,000; Forestville, $109,000; Chandler, $101,000; Sandy Beach, $79,000; Riviere-du-Loup, $38,000; Mont-Louis, $30000; Matane, $26,000; Havre-St-Pierre, $20,000; Ste-Anne-des-Monts, $17,000.
This can be explained if one considers that Mont-Joli, Rimouski, Price and the surrounding municipalities, with a total population of some 60,000 inhabitants, also constitute the largest group of the lower St. Lawrence and
The Address-Mr. Guy LeBlanc the gulf, and includes the greates number of public services.
Now, before the advent of the Conservative regime in 1957, there was, according to my information, a permanent staff in the field for the maintenance of these wharves.
Under the Conservative government, the system was changed and wharf maintenance people were dismissed and never replaced. Ever since, everything that should be checked yearly and regularly on these wharves is in a pitiful state.
Therefore the population is relying upon the co-operation of the civil service and of the present government to make the necessary improvements.
Facts of this nature spread some doubts in the people's minds. That is why they bank so much on the implementation of the recommendations of the development plan without which they may be doomed irrevocably.
Naturally, there are several other problems to be solved. For instance, what I said about the maintenance of the wharf at Rimouski could also apply to Trois-Pistoles.
There is also the organisation of the Canadian National Railways in our area. We hope to make, in the near future, to the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) representations based on concrete facts and figures.
We also have a magnificent airport at Mont-Joli that was built during the last war for military purposes. It cost $3,059,491, which includes $1,735,019 spent on the construction of three runways. Improvements have since been made amounting to $695,030, which gives a total cost of $3,754,521.
Considering the difficulties of air transportation in the pilot territory, we are building great hopes on that airport in our efforts to develop the district.
In my area, as well as in the whole surrounding territory, agriculture has taken on the form of a familiar and current problem.
I think that our farmers, as well as those interested in agriculture, would like to make marginal lands fully economic, to gear production to ecological, climatic and economic conditions and to relate activities from one area to another, with regard to relations with the north shore of the St. Lawrence river and an industrialized agriculture. Our agriculture must remain a comparatively important activity.
In our area, positive action must be taken primarily at the very root of agriculture and
394	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Alkenbrack we must not rely solely on price control. Such a rationalization will enable farmers to obtain better prices for their products.
Manufacturing milk would seem best suited for intensive production on our farms; that is why I am always among those members who try to understand requests from our manufacturing milk producers and to bring the necessary pressure to bear in order to improve price conditions in this field.
Yesterday's vote-as all hon. members know-was not on the merit of the amendment; it was a vote of confidence in the government which, for many years, carried out a progressive program, on the whole, and accomplished more, particularly in the field of agriculture, namely with regard to the dairy policy, considering that a farmer who received $2.90 per hundredweight for manufacturing milk in 1963 now gets $4.75. That is why I voted with the government. At the same time I was convinced that I was voting in the farmers' interests.
A better balance in the area economic development in Canada is a most urgent goal to achieve. To that end, as we enter the second century of our confederation, the consideration of the necessary amendments to our constitution is certainly important.
Quebec wants, and rightly so, to keep its distinctive character as do other provinces.
Confronted with our American neighbour, Quebec considers it in its interest to remain within confederation, not only from the material and economic point of view, but also for philosophical, political and cultural reasons.
Remembering Lafontaine and Cartier, we still have reasons to continue to build harmoniously, a happy and flourishing Canada.
Therefore, at the beginning of this session of our centennial, with the achievement of an ideal balance between the regional sectors and a spirit of understanding among the provinces, we want to build a greater Canada, but just as serious-minded, just as daring but still always true to itself, always peaceful, so that we may be proud to say: We are Canadians.


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, I had not originally intended to take part in this particular debate, but lately matters pertaining to the record of the government and its effect upon the people have accumulated in my files. Therefore I rise to bring these matters to the attention of the house, hoping the government will take heed.
[Mr. LeBlanc (Rimouski) .1
DEBATES	May 18, 1987
Before I do so, I also wish to commend the mover and seconder of the address in reply, the hon. members for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) and Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Cote). Both of these hon. members have brought a distinct honour to their constituencies. This brings to mind memories of the time in September 1962, almost five years ago, when I first came to this chamber, and the newly elected member for Nicolet-Yamaska, Hon. Clement Vincent, now minister of agriculture in the province of Quebec, had the honour of seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne. At that time the hon. member and I were roommates. We shared an office on the third floor of the west block. In the ensuing parliaments we were seatmates. I visited the counties of Nicolet and Yamaska many times as his guest, and he visited me in Prince Edward-Lennox.
He taught me French and I helped him with his English. This was to our mutual benefit. We were a working example, proving that Canadians of different races can get along together in harmony. We believed, and still believe, that all Canadians who respect each other's origin, social needs and geographical circumstances can live together harmoniously. The days are past when a narrow, provincial outlook regarding Canadian citizenship sufficed.
The speech from the throne asks for Canadian unity. This is why I must bring up a matter which does not make for Canadian unity, and which will demonstrate to hon. members the ignorant and narrow outlook of the chamber of commerce of the district of Montreal and the discourteous and unCanadian treatment which they gave a 17 year old student from my constituency. The student's name is Mr. Jim Munro of Amherst-view, Ontario. As a result of this, his father, Mr. R. J. Munro, has written to me and asked me to bring this matter to the attention of the house. I will read the application for employment which the son made to the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, as well as the reply he received. I will also read his father's letter to me. The following is the letter written by young Munro to the Montreal Chamber of Commerce:
Dear Sir:
I am writing to you regarding summer employment (June 10-September 1,	1967).
The reasons I am interested in obtaining work in Quebec are:
(1)	to broaden my speaking knowledge of French
(2)	to earn money to pay for my stay in Quebec and to save some money.
May 18, 1967

The Address-Mr. Alkenbrack
I have taken four years of French in high school and have only a very basic knowledge of French. While I am unskilled and cannot speak fluent French, I realize extra hard work is an asset.
I am interested in finding out what your thoughts and recommendations would be in regard to:
(1)	type of employment available and corresponding wages
(2)	cost of living in the Montreal area.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Any information and/or assistance you may be able to supply me will be greatly appreciated.
Then, the Munro boy goes on to give his full name, address, his date of birth, his height, his weight, his education and his future plans. He says his future plans are to obtain high school graduation and enter university in a political science course. He closes his application with, "Yours truly, Jim Munro". The Montreal Chamber of Commerce did not even have the courtesy to write this young man a letter. They turned the letter over, put it in the typewriter and in capital letters with the red portion of the typewriter ribbon they typed across the back of Mr. Munro's application:
Sorry, no summer job available for non-Canadian.
La Chambre de Commerce du District de Montreal.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote the father's letter. You cannot blame Mr. Munro for being angry at such frustrating circumstances and the treatment of this ambitious young student. Mr. Munro writes to me from Box 167, Amherstview, Ontario, which is roughly ten miles west of Kingston. His letter reads:
Dear Mr. Alkenbrack:
We recently had something happen that upset and perturbed us very much.
Our oldest son, who will soon be eighteen, has been writing to the Chamber of Commerce of various cities requesting all pertinent information in regards to summer employment. In most cases, he has received a satisfactory answer.
In this group of cities was Montreal. The only acknowledgement received was his original letter back with these words typed in red on the back-
Sorry, no summer job available for non-Canadian. La Chambre de Commerce du District de Montreal.
The return address on their envelope is, Chamber de Commerce,
Du District De Montreal,
31 Ouest Rue St. Jacques Montreal,
How they have the audacity to classify him as a non-Canadian, we fail to understand.
To begin with, he was born in Ottawa while I was a member of the R.C.A.F. I served a total of over eight years during and after the war. I also had three brothers and one brother-in-law
in the armed forces during the war. My father in law was a veteran of the first world war but couldn't go in the last one because of medical reasons.
To top this off, my mother-
I am still quoting Mr. Munro, the father of this wronged student.
To top this oft, my mother is of French descent; also my father in law was born in the province of Quebec and moved to western Canada as a boy.
Since you are our federal representative, we feel that you should be the one to do something about this. Therefore, we would appreciate it if you would bring this ignorance to the attention of person or persons who will take action to straighten out such people.
Sincerely yours,
R. J. Munro
There is a notation that a copy was sent to Mayor Drapeau, Montreal. Now, Mr. Speaker, who is it in the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, "La Chambre de Commerce du District de Montreal" who is doing this? I am sure Mayor Drapeau does not condone it; I am positive of this. Whoever it is, they have been encouraged in their rudeness by this Pearson government because the Pearson policy of bilingualism and biculturalism has divided this country needlessly and nefariously, and to an alarming degree. This policy has encouraged just such cases of narrowness and ignorance as I have now brought to your attention. The Montreal Chamber of Commerce demonstrates, in this instance, that they discriminate against English speaking Canadians. They do not even recognize them to be Canadians because they answered Mr. Munro by saying he was not a Canadian. Of course, this case only illustrates the fact that when you discriminate against people because of their racial lines, such action quite often comes back to haunt you.
I say this because I have investigated this family. I find that Mr. Munro's grandmother, that is his father's mother, was Henrietta Bedard, a French Canadian girl from the province of Quebec. She bore a son who served his country in wartime in the R.C.A.F. for a total of over eight years. This noble French Canadian grandmother also bore three other sons who served in the armed forces during the war.
I have investigated the other side of the family tree and I find that the grandfather on the mother's side was a man named McGillvray of Thurso, Quebec. This family has been here since General Wolfe took Quebec in 1759; the family dates back to that time. I say to the government and to the Montreal Chamber of Commerce only this;
May 18, 1967

The Address-Mr. Alkenbrack What a treacherous and despicable way to treat Jim Munroe, the grandson of this woman, just because he happens to live in Er-nestown Township in the County of Lennox in Ontario.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, just think what an adverse and unco-operative attitude this action will tend to create in the minds of our youth when they have been treated in this manner. I say to the Prime Minister stop encouraging this two nations policy. This case which I have brought to your attention is the result of this policy. Someone in the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, and I aim to find out who, has taken the Prime Minister literally and deduced as follows: The Liberal government in Ottawa says Quebec and its people have a special status under this Liberal, two nations concept, and therefore this person answered Mr. Munro by saying that there were no jobs there for non-Canadians. As I said before I intend to get to the bottom of this and I demand an explanation and apology to the Munro family by the Montreal Chamber of Commerce. I want the assistance of the government in doing so.
Now I must turn to the speech from the throne. This long discourse seems to me to be merely a rehash of promises made in the last four years. The government, as usual, has been non-productive of any useful legislation. I thought, and everyone noticed this, that they imposed on His Excellency the Governor General because, in many instances, he was forced to use flowery adjectives to describe alleged government action in the past or in the future. In short, Mr. Speaker, the government was covering up its careless and profligate actions of the past with words, words and more words. At times, and in some sections, the speech sounded like a lecture, not to parliament alone but to the Canadian people.
Nowhere in the speech was there any mention of economy by the government or of the great need that is upon us right now to reduce taxation in order to give people a chance to build homes and raise their families without going bankrupt. The government admits that inflation is rampant. It is beyond their control or they would do something about it. The latest cost of living index, standing around 148 for the month of April, is the highest in history. Last May 27, almost a year ago now, Mr. Speaker, I brought this matter of national importance to the attention of the house. My speech is recorded on page 5607 of Hansard and in it I referred to consumer credit, the cost of living and expressed some opinions concerning the Bank Act.

I am glad to see that some action has been taken in connection with the Bank Act along the lines I recommended. I commend the government for these new banking measures which are now in force and are of benefit across the country. These provisions give the chartered banks an opportunity to participate more fully and to compete for consumer credit. I notice that my words of last May 27 regarding money on deposit were prophetic because the chartered banks are now paying far more interest than formerly on savings accounts. This is a good thing, because it enables the little people who cannot afford to take a chance on the stock market or to buy bonds, to save money at a rate of interest which is at least as good as the yield on some bonds. What is more, Mr. Speaker, they save this money in their local bank.
c (9:00 p.m.)
I am sorry to see that nothing has been done about the plight of the consumer and the spiralling cost of living. True, the government is going to form another department and a minister has been named to head it. But this will only increase taxes, Mr. Speaker, which is part of the cost of living. This matter could have been dealt with without the formation of another department. I believe we now have 26 ministers of the crown. We must remember that the consumer has to pay for all of this extra expenditure. This will mean the building of another departmental empire in Ottawa. I suggest this matter could well have been handled by the present President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon). He is an economist and he is once again a member of the cabinet. He is also an authority on external affairs, though the Prime Minister no longer takes his advice.
No effort has been made, according to the speech from the throne, to take any measures to lower taxes or reduce the needless spending of millions of dollars. On the contrary, just as we started this new centennial session the government bought a $300,000 painting, the purchase of which has infuriated the majority of the people of this country. I would ask the members of the cabinet as well as my colleagues in the house to go and look at this thing in the art gallery, and then to take a journey around the country. In fact, one does not have to go very far from Ottawa into either Quebec or Ontario to see some of the poverty that exists.
We are now finding the ministers of this government apeing some of the sayings of our good neighbour to the south, when they talk
May 18, 1967

of Canadianism in terms of "the affluent society". This is a myth; there is no truth in it.
It is an insult to the intelligence of at least half the people of Canada.
I suggest that to move toward any form of affluence we must stop taxing the working man at the rate we are today. The working man is raising a family and trying to pay off the mortgage, as well as buying groceries, clothing and insurance. As a member of this chamber I think I can truthfully say I have always been one who tried to pay close attention to the fair and well founded opinions of the people. With regard to just one facet of this question of taxation I should like to quote a letter which I received from one of my constituents, a man who works in a plant and has to provide various accoutrements and tools to perform his job. He says:
Dear Sir:
A new safety ruling at my place of employment, effective 1st May, 1967, states that employees are required to wear safety footwear, or toe caps fitted over ordinary footwear. The toe caps are supplied by the company, but are very awkward to wear, so the only alternative is to buy, at our own expense, less a 25 per cent discount, paid by the company, our own safety shoes. This I did, at a cost to me of $12.98 plus 5 per cent sales tax. This set me to thinking and I have come up with the following suggestions that you, living in a working man's area, will probably agree with and may be able to bring to the attention of the authorities.
1.	All safety equipment purchased by an employee, should have the sales tax eliminated or an allowance for different work categories be set, to be deductible from federal income tax return.
I appreciate that he is talking about the 5 per cent provincial tax, which has nothing to do with us; but he is making some very worthy suggestions regarding deductions from federal income tax for some of these personal expenses, which do pertain to Federal powers and I agree with him. He goes on:
2.	All work clothes purchased by an employee should have the sales tax eliminated, or a clothing allowance be set, to be deductible from federal income tax return.
I would draw the attention of hon. members to the next suggestion because I know many of them have had it put to them:
3.	An employee driving to and from his place of residence to his place of employment, whether the employee uses a chartered service or personal vehicle, to have a transportation allowance set, to be deductible from federal income tax return.
4.	In the case of tradesmen having to purchase their own tools and equipment, an allowance be set, to be deductible from federal income tax return.
The Address-Mr. Alkenbrack
Do you think a signed petition would have any effect on the powers that be? Please advise.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Donald A. Young
Mr. Young is from Amherstview, Ontario, and I totally agree with his suggestions. This account, put forward so ably, should be heeded by this government. The lack of exemption from tax on certain items is unfair to labourers of this category. Here is a place where the government could save some money for their taxpayers, at the same time creating better home conditions for their families by letting them use these tax exemptions to the benefit of their families. I would urge the government to give this matter their positive attention.
The speech from the throne also made reference to modern communication, and for this reason another matter that I wish to mention is mail service. Here I address my remarks to the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote). The mail service between Toronto and Picton and Toronto and Napanee is very poor and very slow. Many businessmen and professional people in both towns are being inconvenienced by the slowness of our so-called first class mail delivery. The other day in the Picton Gazette there was an article dealing with this poor service, and the headline which I thought quite amusing, suggested that the pony express might be faster. This is absolutely true, Mr. Speaker. We in Picton cannot receive a letter or mailed parcel from Toronto in less than two days. A letter or parcel also takes two days from Toronto to Napanee. Optometrists, dentists, doctors and businessmen who send small parcels back and forth to laboratories, government and business offices in Toronto cannot receive these mailed articles in less than two days, and sometimes it takes longer. Only the other day my secretary mailed my personal cheque to me at the end of the month to my home in Napanee, and it took four days for it to come from Ottawa.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I have had many complaints about this from both Napanee and Picton. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the pony express would be faster. I did some homework on this and discovered that in 1840 a man named William Weller, whose headquarters was in Prince Edward county and after whom Weller's Bay was named, an old-time stagecoach proprietor and driver, drove Governor General Lord Sydenham from Toronto to Montreal by stage and team of horses in 35 hours and 40 minutes.
May 18, 1967

repairs and changes in the Smiths Falls-Napanee line that it may become, as it originally was, the main route from Ottawa to Toronto, and points beyond. Great savings can be made.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


An hon. Member:: Continue.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I have only another paragraph, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: May the
hon. member continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: Only for one paragraph.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I thank hon. members for their agreement. I had been saying that the shortest route between Ottawa and Toronto by rail is by way of Napanee. In this way-in the way I had spoken of-the railway could increase its intercity business, shorten travelling time, between Ottawa and Toronto, and increase its business at Napanee, which serves a large area for the railway. With the completion this summer of the Quinte skyway, seven miles west of Napanee-this is the new bridge across the bay of Quinte joining Hastings with Prince Edward county-the railway at Napanee ought to obtain additional business from Prince Edward county. Of course that depends on what service is available. I urge the railway to use this line, as it would bring the railway more revenue and provide the people with the service they need-and heaven only knows, dangerous highway traffic would be decreased as would be the death toll through accidents.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the privilege of bringing these matters to the attention of the house. Several other items ought to be brought up, but I shall reserve them for the debate on the budget.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am
rising to take part in this debate as one who has had a lifetime interest in the conservation and development of our human and national resources. However, first of all I must compliment the member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) on his eloquent and moving speech when he moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne, which I notice received repeated applause from all sides of the house.
The Address-Mr. Herridge As I listened to him speak with such knowledge, assurance and conviction, and heard his choice of words and phrases, do you know, Mr. Speaker, I had a vision that inclined me to believe he could have had some part in the composition of the throne speech. Furthermore I congratulate him on his courage to admit that he voted twice against becoming a Canadian, but now, after 18 years within confederation, that he would choose Canadian citizenship over that of any other country on earth. He is what might be termed a convert, as the result of his experience here.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I wish also to compliment the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne on his well informed presentation of the problems of the rural community.
I was particularly interested in his plea to members of this house not to use the farmer as a political football. That is a very noble precept but I am afraid, after 22 years experience in this house, that the hon. member is underestimating the human frailty of members of parliament, who can be tempted on occasions to use any issue as a political issue.
I have known this to happen on two or three occasions in 22 years.
The contents of the speech from the throne provide some hope that the government intends to introduce legislation which will be of advantage to Canadian people as a whole and particularly to the advantage of our older people who require an adequate standard of living, of those who require housing, of our farmers who seek parity of income, and of young people who require education, and others who need retraining. Without doubt, in my opinion, the speech from the throne offers a great opportunity for the exercise of imagination on the part of members of the opposition.
I must say I was very disappointed that there was no reference in the speech to veterans affairs and no mention of proposals for amendments to legislation which would be of benefit to veterans and their dependants. In this connection I have solid support. I listened with great interest to the speech made by the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel) who is the chairman of the standing committee on veterans affairs, a highly respected member of this house. I will not repeat what he said. I will merely say I endorse wholeheartedly what he said in this house on May 17 with respect to the omission of any reference to veterans affairs from the speech
May 18, 1967

The Address-Mr. Herridge from the throne. He went on to deal with the need for amendments to legislation which would provide higher incomes for pensioners and improved allowances for recipients of war veterans allowances. I also wish to endorse what he had to say about the Wood committee. I know some members are impatient about the time taken by that committee in making its report, but it has been very thorough in its study.
I must say that the chairman of the Wood committee is highly respected by veterans in this country. He and his colleagues have heard a great deal of evidence, some of it in recent weeks, and I am glad to know that they are giving such careful consideration to the representations made to them. I do not mind this committee taking a little extra time, because the veterans and their organizations are confident that it will present an excellent report when the time comes to bring it forward.
I notice one curious omission from the throne speech-the total absence of any item announcing the government's intention to establish in Canada the office of ombudsman. This was mentioned in the speech from the throne of 1965 and I trust it will be brought forward later after we have disposed of some of the more urgent legislation. I know that members of this group as well as of other parties in the house are of the opinion that a measure to set up this office should be introduced as soon as possible, because of the changing nature of our society, to protect the individual and his civil rights.
I was delighted with the paragraph referring to natural resources and pleased to note that measures will be introduced to preserve and conserve them. We look forward to the introduction of that legislation. I was also pleased to note that we shall be asked to approve a new Canada water act which will provide a framework for the improvement and implementation of a Canada water policy. Having said this, I think that in fairness to the people of Canada and to the members of this house the government should announce its order of business in the immediate future so as to give priority to the more pressing needs which concern the people of this country today.
I intend to deal with the conservation and development of our natural resources, in the firm conviction that we can only maintain and improve our standard of living if governments direct their attention to this question

now. There is no time for delay. I am not only expressing my personal views; I am speaking on behalf of large groups in this country which are deeply concerned about this subject-one which I have followed closely in this country, particularly during the last four or five years.
I also wish to deal with the present state of affairs as far as our natural resources are concerned and to indicate our failure to protect them in Canada to date. It may surprise you, Mr. Speaker, but 1 wish to direct your attention to the Columbia river treaty and to what has happened so far. In this connection political selfishness and public apathy at the time made this treaty the biggest give-away yet of Canada's natural resources, and the propaganda by which two governments tried to justify this action has turned a fiasco into an international blunder. The present treaty is a monumental blow to Canada's independence as far as the protection of our water resources is concerned. I trust we shall not forget this expensive lesson and that we shall take action in the immediate future to correct our former sins.
Before going further I wish to take the first opportunity I have had in a debate of this kind to pay a tribute to the late General McNaughton. In this connection I will simply quote one paragraph from a C.B.C. broadcast on September 11, 1966 in the course of which Mr. J. Frank Willis said:
The editorial tribute of Mr. Michael Barkway to the memory of General McNaughton was one of many such tributes to appear in Canada's press in the days which followed his death. To the hundreds of Canadians who were privileged to know him, that death was a personal loss and they were aware of that loss in all its human dimensions. But they were also aware that every Canadian living-whether they only knew of him or had never heard of him at all-had suffered a kind of loss of which they were not aware. For in General McNaughton's passing Canada suffered the loss of one of her greatest sons and one of her greatest defenders.
I only wish that General McNaughton was with us now and able to realize that the arguments he so courageously put forward in opposition to the Columbia river treaty have been proven correct. They will prove even more justified as time goes by.
I am sure there are many in this house who knew General McNaughton personally. I enjoyed a close personal acquaintance with him over a long period of years. I wish he was with us at this time.
May 18, 1967	COMMONS
I wish to deal with a number of matters in this connection, first of all the greatly increased cost of Columbia river projects to date, and the anticipated further increase in the months ahead. I have not time to place on record the correspondence I have had from engineers-in some cases I would not be allowed to use their names-but it is obvious now that Columbia river treaty projects and flowage costs will exceed by some $200 million the amount the government of British Columbia received from the United States in payment for these projects, that is to say $343 millions for 30 years, including $64 million for flood control protection.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I have a quotation here from the Engineering and Contract Record of December, 1966, which reads:
Two years ago, when B.C. Premier Bennett sold the Canadian half of the Columbia river to the U.S. for $343 million, the chairman of B.C. Hydro called it the greatest deal in Canadian history. He said that, even after building the storage dams required by the Americans under the treaty, there would be a profit to B.C. of $54 million.
In two short years, the great deal has turned into a financial nightmare. After the September election, Bennett dropped the bombshell. Not only had the profit evaporated, but B.C. will need $200 million extra to finish the job. It's beginning to look as if Canada not only gave away the river, but will pay a quarter of a billion dollars for the privilege of doing so.
Then I come to the second matter which concerns us, the tremendous increase in power which is going to be produced at Grand Coulee dam in the United States as a result of new generators being put in the dam since the treaty was signed. Since learning of the increasing costs of these projects in Canada, we now have this additional shock.
We made a treaty which provided for Canada receiving advance payment for a million kilowatts of power for 30 years. Now we are advised that they are going to increase the output at Grand Coulee to 9.2 million kilowatts per annum, and in that connection I want to quote from a few newspaper articles which I have here. The first is a Washington dispatch of the Canadian Press headed, "Grand Coulee Dam Project Will Bring Back World Title." It reads:
A massive expansion of the Grand Coulee dam in Washington state was announced Friday to take full advantage of the Columbia river agreement with Canada.
Interior Secretary Stewart Udall said the estimated $390 million cost will return to Grand Coulee the title now held in the Soviet Union of the world's largest dam.
DEBATES	401
The Address-Mr. Herridge
I have another one here from the Business and Finance Weekly of Saturday, January 14, 1967, an article by Mr. Bruce Macdonald, who writes:
Largely as a result of water storage facilities provided by Canada under the Columbia river treaty, the power-generating capacity of Grand Coulee dam in Washington state will be increased from the present level of almost two million kilowatts to a proposed output in the nineteen ninties of 9.2 million kilowatts, making the Grand Coulee the largest power dam in the world.
Then he goes on to say how Secretary Udall is taking advantage of the Columbia river treaty signed with Canada.
1 have another quotation here from the Nelson Daily News of January 28, 1966, which reads:
A Columbia River water congress for the northwest United States will be held April 1 and 2 in Wenatchee, Washington, it has been announced.
It goes on:
We can no longer sit idly by on the banks of the great Columbia river and allow the politicking and conniving in the southwest to continue without raising our voice... A year ago a reclamation spokesman, who preferred to remain anonymous, said it is entirely possible that as much as 15 million acre-feet of water could be diverted annually from the Columbia to the Colorado, more than doubling the Colorado's flow.
That 15 million acre feet is just the amount of storage in Canada provided by the treaty at this time.
Later we go on to find out that we have not received a cent from the United States for the water used for irrigation. Just before General McNaughton died he wrote about this. I do not have the figures here but I have his letter in my office, and these figures show that as the result of the sale of Columbia river water for industrial and irrigation purposes, for instance as the result of transfer from one river to another at a minimum of $10 per acre foot, Canada at this time should have received $40 million a year from the United States under the treaty, but we have not received a cent.
To point out the situation further I have to review briefly the losses that have occurred. We have lost many thousands of acres of good land and timber in the Columbia river basin because of this flooding. I hope that the remaining land and foreshore which can be preserved after the flood has arrived, will be sold to Canadians and not to United States purchasers, but I have got copies of letters written by the B.C. Hydro Commission to intending purchasers in the United States stating that as soon as the land has first been bought from Canadians they will let them
402	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Herridge know what they have for sale to these people in the United States who want to purchase foreshore property.
I do not blame these people in the United States for writing, because this will be a tremendous recreational area; but I do make a plea that every effort be made on the part of this government, in so far as it has any influence on this question at the present time, to make certain Canadians have the first opportunity to purchase their own natural resources before they are sold to citizens of the United States.
We have lost 50 miles of beaches on the Arrow Lakes between Castlegar and Revel-stoke, of a tremendous recreational value which we hope will be restored to some extent as the result of the expenditure of large amounts of money. In the immediate years ahead we will have lost opportunities for development of the tourist industry because in the past tourists were delighted to come to our area to use these magnificent beaches which are now being destroyed.
There is also tremendous damage to sport fishing in the area between Castlegar and Revelstoke. This is admitted in a report made by the wildlife branch of the government of the province of British Columbia.
Before going on I want to mention the attitude of some people in connection with this project. I am going to quote briefly from a broadcast on a C.B.C. television program made by William S. Foster, editor of "The American City", speaking on the implications of water export, on April 11, 1966. Mr. Foster had this to say:
There's a great deal of risk.
He had been asked what would happen when we sold the water to the United States and decided at a later date that we did not want to continue the sale of the water over a period of time.
Offhand at first glance, you would say that the risk is great for the southwest because the water belongs to Canada, and presumably if at Canada's wish, it could simply turn off the valve and the water would not be there any more. But there is a more subtle threat than that. I wonder just what would happen to the sovereignty of Canada if a nation like the United States and a nation like Mexico would suddenly say that "you no longer have the right to deny us the water even though you need it in your own industrial and agricultural development." I've often thought about that and wondered what the really long range risks are to Canada, and I think they're considerable.
I think Canadians should ponder that sort of language when it is used by a prominent

DEBATES	May 18, 19G7
official in the United States speaking in a C.B.C. broadcast on this issue.
Now I have a few comments to make with respect to some very interesting statements made in recent days by Premier Bennett. I want to quote what he is reported to have said in the Vancouver Sun of Thursday, May 11, 1967; but first I want to point out that on December 12, 1961, on a C.B.C. television program Premier Bennett stated that the Columbia river power would be "absolutely free." I want to be fair to Premier Bennett and point out that this article in the Sun is a report of an interview with him. It reads:
Asked Wednesday for his opinion of the treaty, he said: "The treaty missed out. The thing that's at fault in the treaty is that it was signed too quickly."
He blamed federal authorities.
Bennett said the arrangement made with Kaiser Aluminum for a dam on the Arrow Lakes "was three times better than the treaty."
The deal concerned the proposed construction in 1954 by Kaiser Aluminum of a $25 million dam on the Arrow Lakes. It was championed by former lands minister Robert Sommers.
This is what the premier now says after eulogizing the present treaty at the time it was before the committee and at the time of his signing of the protocol out west. It indicates shall I say, how inaccurate Premier Bennett is.
I now want to quote from the minutes of the standing committee on external affairs dealing with the Columbia river protocol, volume 6, page 316:
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Mr. Davis:: In other words, at the time Canada signed the treaty, financial feasibility had not been determined. Are you confident now that the projects under the treaty are financially feasible?
Mr. Williston, who is minister of lands and forests of British Columbia, replied:
Absolutely. As a matter of fact we think at the present time it is the most attractive series of projects available anywhere on the North American continent.
Then at page 319 of volume 6 I asked this question:
I have another supplementary question on that. In view of the experience with the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority which over a considerable period of years has exceeded its estimates by an average of 50 per cent, can you guarantee that these estimates are reasonably close?


Mr.   Williston@: I can guarantee nothing except I guarantee that in latter years the statement you made concerning the hydro estimates is incorrect.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We can give the figures.


Mr.   Williston@: I said that over the latter
years the statement is wrong. I am a director of
May 18, 1967

hydro now, and during the period in which I have been associated and responsible that has not happened yet on one occasion. I am dealing with the present, not the past.
We are now in the present day and are dealing with the past of the last two years. Then at page 328 of volume 6 I said:
First of all, I do want to credit the minister with what I would term a very smooth presentation yesterday. I remember during the hearings on the Kaiser dam in 1955 the minister's colleague, who is sitting beside him, made a very excellent presentation at that time and was complimented from all sides; it was a presentation in support of the Kaiser dam. I remember at the time Mr. Paget-
He is the water controller in British Columbia.
-gave evidence as being opposed to flooding High Arrow dam, and things of that sort. That was very convincing to some people.
Would the minister say in view of the experience the government has gained since that time, that the government's representatives were wrong on that occasion in promoting the Kaiser dam?
Mr. Williston replied:
No, I would not say they were wrong. I would say that in any given set of circumstances in which you make a decision, you take the circumstances which are before you at the time and make a decision accordingly; and that the circumstances which were before the committee, the group, and the government of the day, were such that I support the decision and I think they made the right decision at the time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: They said it was the best way to develop the Columbia river at that time.


Mr.   Williston@: And that is right, at that time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: What has caused you to change your opinion?


Mr.   Williston@: Ten years and a profoundly different attitude on the part of the United States as a whole in their willingness to commence negotiations on the jointly beneficial projects for the river.
The following appears at page 336 of volume 6:


Mr.   Williston@: I state most positively that the treaty we have succeeded in negotiating is the best possible treaty that could have been negotiated under the present circumstances. I will go further than that and say that it is a better treaty than I thought we were going to be able to negotiate as time passed.
Is not that a contradiction of Mr. Bennett's recent statement blaming the federal government in his matter because they signed the treaty too hurriedly? Of course, Mr. Bennett is referring to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) who we admit is not a well known engineer in Canada, although he is quite well known as a military man. He is honorary colonel of a regiment,
The Address-Mr. Herridge but I do not think he would pretend to be an engineer and he had to take the advice of the engineers in Ottawa.
Later we were told we would have no opportunity to change the treaty in any way; we were simply there to hear witnesses, make a report to the house and could not change the treaty in any form whatsoever. Then further consideration was given to this matter in view of the excessive costs. After hearing Premier Bennett's statement with respect to the haste of the federal government, I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) the following question as reported in Hansard of May 12, 1967, at page 132:


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in very appropriate circumstances.
The appropriate circumstances were that United States senators were seated in the gallery and were, of course, very interested in this question. I know that Senator Aitken was interested in it. I asked:
In view of the definite reports that expenditures under the Columbia river treaty will exceed the amount received by the government of British Columbia by over $200 million, will the minister consider referring this treaty to the appropriate committee so it can be examined again and the committee can hear officials as well as persons who would like to make representations?
This is the reply of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources:
This matter has now become the exclusive responsibility of the government of British Columbia. Only last week I was assured that that government could take care of the situation without help from anybody. I would add that because of the fact that some of these dams will be completed earlier than the date foreseen in the agreement, there will be added benefits which will help compensate for some of the increased costs.
That was the minister's hope. I went on to ask a supplementary question as follows:
May I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister realize that this treaty was strongly recommended to the committee by the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
I ask, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister say that the federal government has no further responsibility? First, what about the responsibility of the federal government, with the United States, to make certain that the treaty is implemented? The government has this solemn obligation as a result of its signature. What about the millions of dollars spent by the federal government because of the financial arrangements, the loss of exchange and things of that sort? What about the annual
404	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Herridge cost of the Canadian members on the Columbia joint engineering board?
I think it is completely absurd for the minister to suggest that the federal government has no further responsibility in respect to this treaty. After all the statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs before the external affairs committee on this issue, and regardless of Canada's commitment in the treaty to make certain that its provisions are carried out by the government of British Columbia, the minister states that this matter has now become the exclusive responsibility of the government of British Columbia. I think the government has a definite responsibility in this regard and I am sure this can be proven to the satisfaction of anyone.
Mr. Speaker, I see that you are perhaps becoming impatient. Before concluding I want to deal with the question of air and water pollution, which is of great concern to many organizations in this country, which I will not name at this time. This matter was raised at the resources for tomorrow conference held in Montreal in 1961, largely out of recognition of the fact that more needed to be done in the public development of national resources and that any bold steps would require a new approach to federal-provincial and interprovincial relations in this area.
As a result of the national conference on pollution and the environment held at the end of last year, certain guide lines were laid down. I have not time to deal with them now. But this is a matter of urgent concern when we consider the condition of the waters in eastern Canada, some of the waters in western Canada, and in a few cases in British Columbia.
The tone of the entire conference was that solutions must be sought within existing governmental frameworks. In my opinion the federal government should take a strong lead on this question of water and air pollution and the public must be sufficiently aroused about the chronic hazards that prevail to get participation and co-operation from all levels of government, farmers organizations, labour organizations, wildlife groups, women's organizations and all those interested.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few proposals: First of all, that the Columbia river treaty be brought before an appropriate committee for study and the hearing of witnesses who are competent to deal with all aspects of the treaty, and have expressed their willingness to attend. There are a good number of them. I think the Secretary

DEBATES	May 18, 19G7
of State for External Affairs should work to obtain more compensation for British Columbia on account of the unexpected increase in power being produced at Grand Coulee, and any other increased costs.
We trust the government will soon introduce legislation with respect to natural resources and particularly the proposed new Canada water act. There is a widespread demand for this government to establish a national water policy. If we place any value on the needs of future generations, we must be prepared to provide the funds to undertake a well planned program, in co-operation with the provinces, to deal with water and air pollution in Canada.
How are we going to meet the increased expenditure on the conservation and development of our human and natural resources?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member as his time as expired.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I only require a minute or two to conclude my most cryptic remarks, and I realize that this is a vast topic to deal with in such a short time.
These costs are divided into two categories, those required to carry on the housekeeping expenses of protecting our human and natural resources in Canada-administrative costs from day to day-and those requiring investment of social capital in both instances.
We must be prepared, if we support these programs, to support any increase in taxation required to carry on the day to day administration of legislation related to the conservation and development of both our human and natural resources. In respect of current expenditures I suggest we could save possibly $500 million by withdrawing our troops from NATO and discontinuing our NORAD agreement.
So far as social capital investment is concerned, I suggest we use the Bank of Canada to a greater extent. This will give us a great opportunity also to use the Canada development fund. We could provide grants to municipalities for social investment to meet pollution problems, and tax incentives to industries which will co-operate with all levels of government in order to deal with water and air pollution. Let us learn from our mistakes by taking action now to protect Canada's natural resources from this time on.
May 18, 19G7	COMMONS


Mr. Rene Emard (Vaudreuil-Soulanges):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is confronted with many economic problems; the methods of production are developing rapidly; our government must appropriate a greater share of its budget to the implementation of welfare measures. We live in a capitalistic system whose philosophy is outdated, and nobody seems to want to reconsider it. However, that study has already been made and I am a little surprised to see that it has not been a subject for study in this parliament.
It has appeared in two books entitled: Le Manifeste capitaliste and The New Capitalists of Louis-O. Kelso and Mortimer J. Adler. The New Capitalist has not yet been translated in French.
Several influential businessmen have popularized those theories and I think that their suggestions could be useful, to us also from the province of Quebec.
The Manifeste capitalist sets out the doctrinal and economic meaning of the basic principles of a just theory on capitalism, as conceived by the authors, Messrs. Kelso and Adler, and which leads to nothing less than a capitalist revolution.
Democracy in its political form cannot exist unless certain economic conditions are ideal for freedom and equality for all. Men cannot enjoy freedom in the political sphere if they are deprived of it in the economic sphere.
According to the authors, if the defenders of capitalism have shown that communism was the enemy of political freedom and equality, they have offered no practical program for a classless society based upon economic equality. They have not met the challenge of the communist revolution in suggesting a capitalist revolution which, by applying the true principles of capitalism, would establish the economic democracy we need as a basis for the political democracy.
According to Mr. Kelso's theory, capitalism, developing according to its very principles and without admixture of socialism, could create a free and classless society on which political democracy could be based and through which the institutions of a free society could be preserved.
This concept of capitalism is the only alternative to communism, for our partly socialist capitalism is an unstable mixture of principles. Provided one has some sense of justice or attachment to the democratic idea, one
DEBATES	405
The Address-Mr. Emard could not wish to revert to primitive socialism, according to Mr. Adler.
No mind with any sense of the scientific and industrial revolution which is hardly beginning and which will have transformed our society within one hundred years, could consider our partly capitalist and partly socialist economic system as a system capable of staying in balance between these two opposing forces.
One of these two forces is socialization and the reduction of rights of capital ownership. The other is the effort to preserve the traces of rights of capital ownership. If one gives in to the first of these forces, one is led to the socialist and the communist revolution. If the other force is accepted through the development of the full potential of the rights of private ownership of capital and through the establishment of a harmonious relationship between these rights and the principles of economic justice, one is led to the ideal situation which will be the result of the capitalist revolution.
The author believes that the capitalist revolution will bring to all men liberty as well as equality. It will make economic activity dependant upon political activity, and it will give the control of material riches to the government of man.
The capitalist manifesto does not proceed from a revolutionary party whose self-imposed duty is to overthrow the existing order. Quite to the contrary, its aim is to emphasize, in the present economic system, the reasons required to give it a new life and to find the basis of a better society wished by all.
Mr. Kelso wishes for a revolution within capitalism, because according to him, even though no baleful darkness is sweeping down upon America, all forms of socialism are coming in through the back door.
The author is wishing for a capitalist revolution and explains that unadulterated capitalism, that is, capitalism untinged with socialism, is the only economic system consistent with a democracy. Finally, he attempts to prove that we are very far from having such an economic system and that we do not have yet a clear concept of what that system should be. What is praised under the name of "capitalism of the people" is a mixture of capitalism and socialism. If the phenomenon of socialization continues to gain ground with the considerable technological improvements which have now become possible, we will move ever closer to socialism, that is state
May 18, 1967

The Address-Mr. Emard
socialism. Nothing can stop that movement forward unless it is a capitalist revolution.
That revolution is justified by the author in these terms, and I quote:
Industrial economy, that is capitalism, will always exist in one form or another. The industrial production o 1 wealth is an established fact in our economy. The same goes for the disappearance of classes in our society. What we may chose is the form these events will take. For we have a choice.
The totalitarian state, with its population of puppets, writes Mr. Kelso, is not the unavoidable form which a classless society can take, not any more than state capitalism is the unavoidable form that the industrial economy must adopt.
Having stated that capitalism must exist, the author adds that we must choose between three, and only three, solutions. But the choice boils down, in fact, to two possibilities, since it is quite unlikely that the people of the free world would want to exchange their way of life for that of Soviet Russia.
We can decide to perpetuate the mixed capitalism we created in the last twenty-five years, hoping that it will last in spite of the dangers inherent in it, or else we can get rid of the contradictory elements of that socialized economic system which slowly push it towards state capitalism. The principles of justice which would contribute to the development of pure capitalism would take their place. In other words, we must choose between the status quo and the capitalist revolution.
The need for a capitalist revolution should be obvious to all those who understand the principle of a just economy and who see that the constitution of such capitalist economy is essential to economic freedom and political democracy.
According to Mr. Kelso, it is right and unquestionable to say that capitalism is our only alternative. Such affirmation would be purely academic if a practical scheme could not be applied to arrive at the expected results. The idea that capitalism is the only appropriate structure for an industrial economy and the economic counterpart of democracy, deserves the sustained attention of the public only to the extent that academic truth can be matched with a practical scheme.
In his book, Mr. Kelso emphasizes in particular the measures intended to encourage a greater participation of the individual in capital investments. To the profit-sharing method which is widespread, according to him, the

various and most universal pension plans in effect today must be added.


Mr, Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, April 21, and again on Wednesday, May 10, I put the following question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill):
In view of the request of the International Transport Workers Federation that jet air lines be prohibited from using JP4 because of the high inflammability of this fuel, is the minister considering taking steps to ban the use of this fuel by Canadian air lines?
In reply to my question, when I asked it on May 10, the Minister of Transport said that consideration was not being given to my request because, as he said, the opinion contained in my question was not supported by such scientific evidence as was available. I put the question down for one of these late shows because of the considerable public interest that I find there is in it, and because I felt a more extensive statement would be desirable.
Everyone knows that the efficiency of our air lines is at a very high level, and yet there are times when accidents do take place. When they do occur, there are occasions when the most serious result is from the fire that follows a crash. As I understand it, those who are interested in this matter feel that the possibility of such fires could be reduced if the fuel used by jet airliners were of lower inflammability than is the case with JP4, which I understand is used in Canada and is certainly used by our own air line, Air Canada.
The International Transport Workers Federation, to which I have referred in my question, set up a special committee to study this matter. That committee reported that JP4, which is 8 per cent cheaper than the paraffin used by most air lines, is far more dangerous, due to its high inflammability. I understand that only four of the world's airlines use it at present, namely Air Canada,
May 18. 1967

KLM, Sabena and Japan Airlines. I also understand that the use of JP4 has been banned in at least some countries.
The Minister of Transport referred the other day to scientific evidence. In other words I gather the matter has been given some study. But such evidence as I have indicates that the men who fly the planes, as represented by the study and the thinking of their organizations, are concerned.
I am sure that we all share with them the desire that the danger of fire following the crash of an airplane might be reduced to as low a point as possible. If the fuel that is being used by Air Canada today is less expensive than some other fuel, while one would hesitate to object to any attempt to economize, if by using a less expensive fuel we are running a greater risk, then it seems to me this is a poor policy. If there is any possibility at all of reducing this kind of risk, we should be all for it, and I hope that the parliamentary scretary who is going to answer for the minister tonight will indicate that this whole question will be given further study.
If there were any way to do so I should like to transfer the rest of my time to my colleague, the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Muir), who has a very important question. But I know that I cannot do that. I trust I may now anticipate a hopeful answer from my hon. friend, the parliamentary secretary.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express through you to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre the regrets of the Minister of Transport on his inability to be here tonight to answer this important question.
The answer to the question as to whether the government is considering banning the use of JP4 fuel can be put very simply. The brief answer is no. JP4 fuel, however, is frequently under study. There were extensive studies made right after the war into the inflammability of this jet engine fuel and its vulnerability in terms of explosiveness during crashes and incidents of that kind. It was decided then, and it has been decided on subsequent occasions, when the explosive nature of these alternative fuels has been under study, that JP4 fuel is as safe as any alternative fuel that can be used for jet engine purposes.
I have personally made a few inquiries this evening about the use of JP4 fuel. I was told
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion that a number of air lines, in fact the majority of world airlines, use JP4 fuel. Under certain conditions it is safer than parafin, basically kerosene, which is used by some of the other air lines. On other occasions it is less safe. However, it is the total range of conditions which must be considered, particularly conditions under which jet aircraft fly in this country. In other words this situation has been reviewed carefully. It is being reviewed from time to time and will be reviewed again as new fuels are developed and as circumstances change.


HEALTH AND WELFARE-INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES UNDER PROVINCIAL PLANS
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: On April 19, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) gave an answer to an hon. member on orders of the day with regard to additional health services. I am very pleased that the minister has done me the honour this evening of staying here for the late show to give me a further answer. The question the hon. gentleman asked was, in effect, what procedure is going to be used in providing additional health services by the provinces to the national health plan. In his reply the minister said, in part:
The method of adding further health services to the health plan has been set out in the bill. The attitude the government of Canada took at the conference-
That is the conference between provincial and federal authorities.
-was that when a consensus developed amongst the provinces as to the importance of further services, the government would consider adding those services to the plan.
His answer is a little longer than that, but that is the relevant part of it. Now, I believe we should take a look at the relevant clause in the bill. The minister will find there is nothing in that clause relating to a consensus of the provinces before further services can be added to the health plan. As a matter of fact, the relevant clause in the bill reads in part as follows:
In the application of this act to a plan established by an act of the legislature of a province, any health service of a kind prescribed by the minister to be required health services rendered by a person lawfully entitled to render such services .. . under such terms and conditions as may be specified by the governor in council-
As you will see, there is no reference there to a consensus and the reference is to the province, in the singular. It is evident that a
408	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournmnt Motion single province may, under an act of its legislature and of course in agreement with the minister and the governor in council, add any additional service.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
During committee study of this bill many opposition members asked the minister as to whether any single province could set up additional health services. There are too many questions of this sort to name this evening those who posed them, but as an example of the kind of question that was asked I would refer the minister to page 10765 of Hansard for December 6, 1966. An hon. member said:
I take it this means that the governor in council, on the recommendation of the minister, can extend paramedical services in a plan in a particular province even though other provinces have not asked for a similar extension. In other words, the minister would be free, under this amendment, to accede to the request of a particular province that wanted to add to the services which are provided under this legislation, and it would not have to wait until a majority or a specified number of provinces, indicated their desire to have these paramedical services included.
He ends by saying:
I hope the minister's interpretation is the same as my own, namely that any province will be able to go ahead with providing additional services, provided of course that the minister and the governor in council agree.
We in the opposition who supported an amendment on the strength of the minister's statement that any one of a number of provinces could make available additional health services are deeply concerned at the apparent reversal of government policy and the stand taken by the minister. We would expect the minister to reaffirm the undertaking that he gave to the committee at that time, that a general consensus of the provinces is not necessary to initiate additional health services.
I hope that the minister in his reply this evening will not repudiate the commitment that he made during the discussion of the bill, a commitment that was accepted in good faith by all members of the house. When the vote on an amendment to clause 4 (3), which is the relevant amendment, was taken it was supported by all members of the house, I think mainly because of the commitment that was made.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, there are really two aspects to the question raised by the hon. member. The first has to do with the amendment, which is a matter of 'aw. It is a

DEBATES	May 18, 1967
fact that the governor in council would have the authority under the amendment to make available additional services, and to make such services shareable under the medical care act, even if a single province added such a service to its provincial plan. That is a correct interpretation, and in my reply to the question that had been put in committee, which asked whether the government would be free under this amendment to accept additional services if provided by a single province only, I said it would, and that is the case. That is the question of law.
The policy has been unchanged from the beginning. It was set forth first by the Prime Minister, that any province on its own was free to add further services-and can still do so-but without any sharing feature. The Prime Minister went on to say that when a consensus developed among the provinces for the inclusion under the medical care program of any additional services, the government was prepared to consider any extensions. I made that clear in the course of the debate. I recall that I stated that the only recommendation that I expected to make and that I would make under the amendment that had been passed was with respect to certain surgical procedures performed in hospitals by dental surgeons.
My hon. friend's interpretation of the law is quite correct. I confirmed in committee that that capacity is conferred on the governor in council. The question of policy has to do with consensus. When a consensus develops among the provinces for the addition of further services, they will be considered by the government.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-QUEBEC-COMPLAINTS OF PROPERTY DAMAGE CAUSED BY AIRCRAFT
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with the question I asked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), namely whether the minister was aware of the many complaints made against the military manoeuvres going on at the Bag-otville military base, during which airplanes break the sound barrier, thus causing real damage on farms and even in the cities. Everyone wonders why the Department of National Defence selected that part of the country to give free rein to the wild antics of certain pilots. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Lake St. John area, which is 80 per cent agricultural, was once very peaceful, and farmers lived there under a glorious sun.
May 18, 1967

Since the government established this notorious Bagotville base, the people, apart from living under a heap of clouds, are possessed with fear on account of the hedgehopping supersonic aircraft. Those planes startle dairy cows to the point of causing losses to their owners. The flyers' madness is such that they break the sound barrier, shattering windows all around.
Mr. Speaker, I suffered myself from that since the window panes in my store were shattered to pieces, which caused a great deal of damage.
You may say that we can lodge complaints, but just wait and see. As a matter of fact, once we are through answering their questions, they always find some way or another to tell us that the air force is not to blame and that the flyers never broke the sound barrier at such an hour, such a minute and such a second.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we have numerous proofs of that and so as to give you an example I brought here a letter from a good farmer, it may not be written in perfect French, but I want to read it just the same, to show that what I am saying is true.
I hereby take the liberty of writing to you about something which aggrieves us in the Lake St. John area. There are thousands of us in the same boat. This is due to the fact that the jet planes from Bagotville fly over the region of Roberval making an infernal noise by flying at times at altitudes of 800 feet. When they exceed the speed of sound, there is such an explosion that the earth shakes, windows break, and livestock are so frightened that they pile up in corners, in pigsties, in hen-houses. We lose animals every day. Everybody is nervous and we are sick and tired of those infernal machines; we ask the hon. minister concerned to kindly do something about it.
Mr. Speaker, I see that the minister concerned is not here but we do have the honour of having with us the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), and I believe that this is also important from the point of view of health.
I wonder whether we will be forced to put up much longer with the actions of these lunatics who play with million-dollar toys paid with farmers' taxes.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
There should be enough space in the uninhabited territories in northern Quebec to leave alone a farming area as the Lake St. John valley.
And what about the nuclear bombs and warheads which the government stored in Bagotville, despite the farmers' protests.
I, therefore, ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare, since the Minister of National Defence is not here and does not want to bother about it, to try to do something for the public health and free us from this nightmare which is the bane of our farmers. [English]
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I regret that the Minister of National Defence is unavoidably absent this evening, but I have listened with great interest to the remarks made by the hon. member for Roberval. I should like to reply to his question by saying that it is the practice of the Department of National Defence to conduct military manoeuvres away from the populated areas of Canada.
According to the information I have received, there has been no over-all increase in flying training exercises carried out from the Canadian Forces base at Bagotville. Both the authorities at Canadian Forces headquarters and the authorities at Canadian Forces base, Bagotville are unaware of any recent complaints from civilians in that area. Any complaints from the civilian population in the area receive the personal attention of the commanding officer of the base. Additionally, Canadian Forces headquarters is informed by a message and a letter outlining the complaint and the action that is proposed to be taken by base authorities.
I would suggest that the hon. member, who has given details with regard to incidents in the area, might, pursue the matter by direct contact with the commanding officer. Undoubtedly the Minister of National Defence will be examining the reports made and undoubtedly he will take some action.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Friday, May 19, 1967