1967-05-15

Hon. Roberl Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-106, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



STEVEN TRUSCOTT


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-107, for the parole of Steven Murray Truscott.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill as its title indicates is to give parliament an opportunity to express its will that a parole be granted forthwith to Steven Truscott. The bill does not dispute the opinions or decisions of the courts in respect of either the question of guilt or innocence, or the right of Steven Truscott to a new trial. However, it would grant him an immediate parole without prejudice to his right to continue to seek a new trial or to pursue any other legal course available to him.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)



NATIONAL MUSEUMS


Hon. Arthur Laing (for the Secretary of State) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-2 (from the Senate), to establish a corporation for the administration of the national museums of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (for the Secretary of
State) moved the first reading of Bill No. S-4 (from the Senate), to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-7 (from the Senate), respecting interprovincial and international teleferries.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I wish to move a motion. Unfortunately I was unable to secure the translation into French, and I offer my regrets to the house. It is the first time this has happened to me, but the translation was not returned to me in time. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill):
That the house do now adjourn under standing order No. 26, on a matter of urgent public importance, namely the crisis in international confidence brought about by the speech of the President of the Privy Council on Saturday last in Toronto, which constitutes a public declaration of policy of the gravest national and international significance in that it gives the greatest of encouragement to the communist world and reveals deep enmity toward the policy of the United States administration with regard to the war in Viet Nam, and will result in further and accelerated deterioration in Canada's relations with the U.S.A.; and furthermore, is a travesty on this house which has been denied the enunciation of policy of the government which was made in the said speech outside of this house while parliament is sitting.
May 15, 1967

Speech by President of the Privy Council


Mr. Speaker:: Will the right hon. Leader of the Opposition address the Chair and the house on the question of urgency of debate? I have at this point to remind hon. members again, as I do from time to time when such motions are made, that what has to be debated before the motion is accepted by the Chair is whether there is urgency of debate in the sense that it is proper for the Chair to grant the adjournment of other business of the house for the purpose of debating a specific question.
This is the only matter which concerns us at the moment, that is the urgency of debate on this particular matter and the advisability of adjourning the ordinary business of the house for the purpose of permitting such a debate.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this motion is made in order to give the house the opportunity to discuss a matter which is of transcendent importance nationally and internationally, and to secure the views of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, whichever one is directing the foreign affairs of our country.
It might be said immediately that this matter can be discussed in the debate that is now before the house. This is true enough; it can be discussed, but this house has the right to know from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs what is the government's policy on this question, not the expurgated brush-offs that we have been receiving lately.
Now that the matter has been brought firmly to parliament in the address delivered by the President of the Privy Council I take it that what he enunciated was government policy. To accept any other conclusion in that regard would be to disregard the fixed constitutional principle that cabinet solidarity denies individual ministers the right to enunciate policies. If Your Honour were to say this matter could be dealt with in the debate now before the house, that would in no way clarify the situation. Parliament and the country have the right to know whether the minister was putting forth government policies. The wording of his speech indicates that it was written elsewhere or by those close to the Department of External Affairs. It has all the appearances of having been inspired by the government in order to create a smokescreen in respect of policies of this government. It has all the outward indicia of being a reflection of government policy which this house has not been able to secure.

We have the right to know whether this was a declaration of policy, because no minister can sit in the cabinet and make ad hoc statements on policy contrary to the views of the cabinet, and I must refer to one or two of the statements made in order to found my argument. I wish to read two quotations from that speech, which was delivered to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. At page 2 it reads:
I suppose the answer to these queries-
That is about the world situation in so far as Viet Nam is concerned.
-depends upon our individual consciences-
That statement, sir, is a denial of parliament. Then there is the policy enunciated on page 3:
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
To me it seems that U.S. policy in the Far East has been a succession of unhappy errors beginning with a gross misconception of the weakness and corruption of the Chiang Kai-shek regime in China and then failure to appreciate the relative strength of Mao Tse-tungs* communist government which took power in 1949.
That statement is a slap in the face to one of our allies as well as to a member of the security council of the United Nations. Then there is this statement, which is contrary to the enunciation of government policy by the Secretary of State for External Affairs last June:
The U.S., for its part, has become enmeshed in a bloody civil war in Viet Nam which cannot be justified on either moral or strategic grounds.
Sir, if ever there was a circumvention of constitutional policy that is it, because it is the antithesis of what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said on June 10, 1965. I refer merely to the date; those who wish to look it up will find that the minister took the stand that this was not a civil war. Now we have a minister occupying the No. 1 position in the cabinet, the President of the Privy Council, saying this is a bloody civil war.
Then he went on to give his views with regard to bombing, burning and extermination by a foreign power which is taking place in Viet Nam. He said:
In this war, the strongest nation in the world has taken sides in a savage civil struggle and is using its tremendous power to force the other side to quit.
Such statements bring hope to communists in every part of the world, and this is an enunciation of policy by a man occupying a high and honoured position. Then he refers to
May 15, 1967	COMMONS
the fact that United States troops are obeying orders, as is their duty, and says:
Unfortunately, in a war like this, there are bound to be acts of barbarism on both sides ... If the escalation of the war continues, as seems probable, and the North Vietnamese do not give up soon, one may wonder if the United States will be driven to use nuclear bombs or to spread germs or exterminating chemicals.
If ever there was a case of urgency, this is one. If we have this discussion in the debate on the speech from the throne we can talk but we cannot get an answer from the government. Finally the minister said this:
From Canada's standpoint the grave dangers in the present situation are fourfold:
1.	The present conflict may reinforce a natural distrust of all westerners and of all white people on the part of millions of non-whites throughout the world-
2.	The second danger is that Russia and China may become reconciled as a result of their opposition to U.S. action in Viet Nam-
3.	The third danger that could result from a further escalation of the war is the direct involvement of red China-
4.	Finally, there is the gravest danger that if the United States uses nuclear weapons, the Russians would retaliate immediately.
Then he concludes:
I have read the suggestions put forward by U Thant, by our own Prime Minister, by the Honourable Paul Martin, by General Gavan, and by other thoughtful and informed Americans. They do not differ in essentials.
If ever there was a case for an instant debate, Mr. Speaker, so this government can tell us where it stands, so we may bring out from the hidden recesses the true facts of this government's policy, this is it. I say there should be an immediate debate for that reason, and because of the gross travesty on the rights of parliament when policies are enunciated outside this house which are a direct contradiction of what the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said in the last few weeks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The purpose of the right hon. gentleman's intervention at this point was to assist the Chair in determining whether there was a matter of urgency of debate, according to the standing orders and the practice of this house. I may tell hon. members that I am ready to make a decision now. I do not, of course, want to stifle debate in this regard, but I can assure hon. members that what they will be saying now will not change my mind, and thus cannot help the house in any way.
DEBATES	177
Speech by President of the Privy Council
A motion has been made. It is for the Chair to determine whether it is acceptable, and I am prepared to reach a decision. However, if some hon. members feel they should contribute either in opposing or supporting the motion that is now before the house I will hear them for a moment.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, though the members of this party are diametrically opposed to the terms in which the motion is couched, I think there is a case for urgency of debate with regard to the speech by the President of the Privy Council, as well as for a statement by the government with reference to Canada's position in connection with the war in Viet Nam.
The President of the Privy Council has made a statement. It is a statement we welcome, one which we think sets forth with very great clarity and realism the situation which now obtains in Southeast Asia. We feel the government should give an opportunity at the earliest possible date for a full discussion of this matter in order that the house may have an opportunity either of endorsing or repudiating the statements which have been made by the President of the Privy Council.
In his statement in Toronto he set forth the position very clearly when he said "that Canadians in all walks of life and in all political parties, including especially the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, should do all they can to press the United States to halt the bombing.'' "If we fail to do this," he said, "we must be prepared to share the responsibility of those whose policies involve the greatest risks for all mankind."
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of that clear, clarion call to all Canadians and to members of all political parties, that some opportunity ought to be given to this house to echo that call. We are not going to have an opportunity to do this, Mr. Speaker, unless the government is willing to initiate debate on the whole question. For some time we have been pressing the Prime Minister to introduce a motion in the house in order that parliament as a whole, rather than the government, may state its position on the situation in Southeast Asia. Since the government has failed to do this it seems to me that the speech made by the President of the Privy Council offers this house an excellent opportunity to have a debate and state its position. We would hope, of course, that the statement of our position would not be in the terms of
178	COMMONS
Speech by President of the Privy Council the motion which has been presented but would be a statement endorsing the position which the President of the Privy Council has taken. In our opinion this would express the view of the great majority of the Canadian people.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I want to repeat to hon. members that in my view they are not assisting the house too much at the moment by expressing views either for or against the admissibility of the motion. There is before the house a question of procedure which involves whether there is an opportunity to debate this question within a reasonable time. That is what the Chair has to decide. To my mind the solution to the problem is easy enough, but as I say I will certainly hear further representations or submissions on the point if hon. members desire to make them.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, who is in Montreal, and of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who has been detained with the president of Czechoslovakia who is at present visiting Canada and whom I had the honour of seeing earlier this morning, may I say this. I discussed this important matter with the Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as well as the President of the Privy Council. The President of the Privy Council asserted again that what he had said were his own views.


John George Diefenbaker: But a minister cannot do that.


Robert Henry Winters: The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs told me that I was free to tell parliament-and I am sure parliament understands this-that the government's position has been clearly set out by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and remains unaltered.
This question ought not to be debated at this time, I submit, under those rules for debate referred to by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. Most hon. members, I think, would also regard it as inopportune to debate the matter when the Secretary of State for External Affairs and spokesmen for the government on this question of policy cannot be here. On those grounds I submit that this would not be an opportune time to debate this subject.
[Mr Douglas.]
DEBATES	May 15, 1967


Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the time has come for parliament to take a stand on the war in Viet Nam and I suggest the motion moved by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) is one which has great value, because it would permit members of parliament to made their views known clearly on what is now going on in Viet Nam.
And when the Leader of the Opposition, says for instance-

-namely the crisis in international confidence brought about by the speech of the President of the Privy Council on Saturday last in Toronto, which constitutes a public declaration of policy of the gravest national and international significance in that it gives the greatest of encouragement to the communist world-[DOT]

Mr. Speaker, that is the most important point we have to debate, for we often hear virulent attacks against the Americans. The President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada (Mr. Gordon) precisely repeated those charges last Saturday, but we do not hear anything, for instance, about the communist involvement in that war.

-and reveals deep enmity toward the policy of the United States administration with regard to the war in Viet Nam, and will result in further and accelerated deterioration in Canada's relations with the U.S.A.; and furthermore, is a travesty on this house which has been denied the enunciation of policy of the government which was made in the said speech outside of this house while parliament is sitting.

Mr. Speaker, our group also endorses this motion of the opposition to the effect that we should, at the earliest possible time this very day if possible, discuss this most important question, because Canada should take a stand, and the whole world should know where Canada now stands in the continuing war in Viet Nam.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I believe this discussion is truly urgent and that such a debate would surely bring some enlightenment.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is unusual to set aside the order of business in this house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. Occasionally that does happen, and obviously
May 15, 1967

there must be a serious reason for that to happen or we should continually be changing the business unexpectedly. In this instance we are justified in asking for the normal business to be set to one side to discuss a matter which has been accentuated by the speech the President of the Privy Council made on Saturday.
The speeches on the address in reply to the speech from the throne normally are diverse, covering as many subjects as are covered in the throne speech. Though international affairs and the war in Viet Nam might be dealt with during the next few days, it is significant that the government earlier refused to bring forward a resolution which would permit debate on this matter. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition on Friday urged the government to provide this opportunity for debate.
The President of the Privy Council, doing something that is most unusual for a cabinet minister, has made an enunciation of government policy without giving prior information about his intention to the House of Commons. The seriousness of this action requires that the attention of this house be focused on it. When the Secretary General of the United Nations a few days ago warned the world that there was grave probability of a third world war, many people in this country became disturbed. The President of the Privy Council has taken a stand on behalf of the government which is diametrically opposed to the policy of our closest friend and strongest ally, and jeopardizes Canada's position in international affairs and her alliance with the United States.
Those are some reasons-and there are others-for this matter which is of interest to parliament and the nation to be discussed today, that the government may clearly and decisively answer our questions on this disturbing situation.


Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief on the point of urgency. In my view, and this is going to the pith and substance of the question, the Secretary General of the United Nations, as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre stated, last week issued a clear warning to the world about the possible effects of the war in Viet Nam.
When this house convened to debate the speech from the throne the Prime Minister enunciated government policy, and it was clear that he led the house. Nevertheless we
DEBATES	179
Speech by President of the Privy Council find the President of the Privy Council making statements in Toronto that are diametrically opposed to enunciated government policy, and that is not an isolated incident. Though the Registrar General had not the forthrightness of the President of the Privy Council, he spoke over the week end in Montreal and his speech was of a tenor that was diametrically opposed to enunciated government policy.
What happens is this. The Prime Minister enunciates policy in this house; then-and this is par for the course-he sends out his go-go ministers to attract the votes of the new life, the younger generation, on the hustings. That is cynical politics, as cynical as one may ever see it, and the younger generation will not be taken in.
My position is this. We do not have the luxury in Canada of the Prime Minister saying one thing and ministers another. The Prime Minister made a policy statement-


An hon. Member:: On Viet Nam?


William Heward Grafftey: On Viet Nam and on the international situation, and the Canadian people at this hour of tension want leadership. If there is a gap between leadership and what the people are thinking today it is because of this sort of cynical performance.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)
Mr. Speaker, we appeal now as we have never appealed before. This subject is too important to be allowed merely to take its chance in the pot luck of the debate on the address. Why is the Prime Minister not here today after one of his senior ministers has contradicted statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding one of this government's most important policies? Where is the Secretary of State for External Affairs? Where is the Registrar General? The Prime Minister is saying one thing in this house and the Registrar General is saying another. We must debate this today; we cannot take pot luck in the debate on the speech from the throne. The entire population of this country is waiting for leadership in a tense situation.
I ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker. I ask that you allow this debate to go on so as to provide an opportunity for a clear cut statement to be made. I for one feel, as a backbench member, that we should adopt many of the features of United States government, but I do not believe a minister should enjoy the luxury of speaking as a private citizen on a question of government policy.

May 15, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry We cannot allow that to happen if this system is to work at all. The Registrar General having made the speech he made in Montreal; the President of the Privy Council having made the speech he delivered in Toronto, and in the light of the statements made on this subject last week by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister, I say the time to debate this issue is now, and I am sure I am speaking for the whole of the Canadian people even if the government is not.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their views and for the assistance they have extended to me. However, as I said at the outset after listening to the argument put forth by the Leader of the Opposition, I felt that in view of the precedents and the long established procedure accepted by all hon. members, for perhaps a hundred years, and in view of what is contained in Beauchesne it was rather obvious what decision should be reached by the Chair in the circumstances. I even hesitate to read again the well worn citation from Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 100 (3):
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate"-
This indicates that an adjournment of the ordinary business of the house is to be granted when there are no other opportunities for debate. I have no statistics to support this, and I have not looked at the precedents, but I doubt very much whether at any time in the history of the Canadian parliament the Chair has granted a motion for the adjournment of the debate on the speech from the throne for the purpose of initiating another debate. My understanding is that the debate on the speech from the throne is intended precisely to enable all hon. members to debate exactly what they wish to debate. Hon. members have all agreed that this is a matter of extreme importance and extreme urgency. In an hour or so they will all have an opportunity to debate for the rest of the morning, this afternoon and this evening the subject which has been brought to the attention of the house by the Leader of the Opposition. Representatives of all parties can do this, one after the other.
The right hon. gentleman said parliament has the right to know whether the minister was enunciating government policy, and the right to know what government policy is. He may be quite correct in this suggestion; I certainly have no right to argue with that

proposition at all. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition has the right to ask of the Prime Minister or of someone speaking in the name of the government whether a minister speaking outside the house is enunciating the policy of the government. It is the right of any hon. member to ask such a question during the question period. But I doubt whether the granting of this motion would make it easier or more possible for the government to enunciate its policy, or whether the government would wish to do so during a debate brought about by a motion for adjournment under standing order 26 as distinct from a debate provided under the rules for consideration of the speech from the throne.
For these reasons I see no other possible determination of the matter on the part of the Chair than to refuse the motion advanced by the Leader of the Opposition.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that a question might be asked at this time prompts me to do so. I would ask the President of the Privy Council whether the Prime Minister has given members of his cabinet the right to say what they want to say regardless of whether it represents government policy. He made the statement in the course of a speech copies of which were delivered to the press, to the Prime Minister and to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that "the United States for its part has become enmeshed in a bloody civil war in Viet Nam which cannot be justified on either moral or strategic grounds". Does this represent any change in the opinion of the government as expressed in the words uttered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on June 10, 1965, when he said:
Suffice it to say that il North Viet Nam succeeds in taking over the whole of Viet Nam by force, if the rest of the world is prepared to sit back and see this happen, saying feebly that it is after all only a domestic rebellion so why not accept the inevitable, we would I think be guilty of an error of the same nature as the mistakes made at Munich, and before that, in the League of Nations.
Would the minister say whether a new code of cabinet ethics has been issued giving him this freedom? We should like to know.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the Leader of the Opposition misunderstood the suggestion I
May 15, 1967



made with deference, and supported I believe by precedents. It was that questions might be asked of the Prime Minister or of the Acting Prime Minister whether a statement made outside the house by a cabinet minister represented government policy. Unless the President of the Privy Council is the Acting Prime Minister this morning I doubt whether the right hon. gentleman's question can be directed to him.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege, everybody knew this matter would be raised, and regardless of the importance of other events the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs should have been here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: In their absence I will not ask the minister whether he was uttering public policy. I will simply ask him whether there has been a new code of cabinet ethics-


An hon. Member:: Cheap.


John George Diefenbaker: -and whether it was under this new code that the minister made those outrageous statements.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret that the second question is very much like the first, and is subject to the same procedural limitation.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether a copy of the speech made by the President of the Privy Council was given to the Prime Minister before it was made, and whether any attempt was made by the Prime Minister's office to get in touch with the President of the Privy Council before he delivered it.


Robert Henry Winters: I can only repeat that the Prime Minister's Office and the Secretary of State for External Affairs told me the same thing, that a copy of the speech had not been seen by them before it was delivered.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: In view of the fact that the Acting Prime Minister has informed the house that he discussed the matter with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, can he tell us whether the statement made by the President of the Privy Council represented government policy?


Robert Henry Winters: The Secretary of State for External Affairs has stated government policy on this issue as clearly as I can recall any policy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Winters: I think the position of the government has been made abundantly clear.


David Lewis: That was not my question.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Acting Prime Minister, in his argument and in what he has just now answered, mentioned that he had a conversation with the Prime Minister, would he now tell us whether in the conversation with the Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council there was mention that the President of the Privy Council is going to resign again.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the contents of the Registrar General's "once upon a time" speech to the convention of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists in Montreal last Saturday, would the Acting Prime Minister inform the house whether it now is the government's intention to announce foreign policy in parables?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what we have been getting for the last couple of years.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think it is a supplementary question.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce referring to his previous remark that later this day he might ask for permission to revert to motions so he might make a more complete statement. As acting minister, at the same time will he arrange to have the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs here to clarify the other matter in respect of Viet Nam?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I think the Viet Nam matter is disposed of so far as this sitting of the house is concerned, but I will convey the hon. member's question to the Prime Minister.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, can the Acting Prime Minister indicate to the house whether muzzles have been distributed among the cabinet ministers until the Prime Minister does return.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

May 15, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
When the President of the Privy Council declared in Toronto that the Americans should stop bombing North Viet Nam, did he not at that time also intend to ask the communist Chinese to stop bombing South Viet Nam?


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


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the United States officially or unofficially, verbally or in writing brought to the attention of the government as yet the speech of the President of the Privy Council? Has there been any communication at all in this regard? Mr. Butterworth usually butts in on everything. Has he not been in on this?


Robert Henry Winters: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker; but to assure the hon. gentleman beyond doubt I will have to take the question as notice.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of recent statements by some members of the cabinet is an announcement regarding recognition of red China imminent?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I can add nothing to what has already been said so clearly in this house by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Does the government consider the confusion caused by the various statements of ministers of the crown regarding foreign policy an enhancement of Canada's image abroad?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows this question is not in order.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce with regard to the stories which have been circulating in the press and over the radio to the effect that there is to be an increase in the price range under the international wheat agreement of some 22 cents a bushel. Is the minister in a position to give us any information concerning how the negotiations are proceeding and what the price range is likely to be under the new international wheat agreement?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped I would be able to make a statement on orders of the day, but negotiations still are going on in Geneva. I am hopeful that later this day I will be able to ask hon. members for permission to revert to motions so I may make a full statement. However, with your tolerance, Mr. Speaker, and that of members of the house, I should like to answer this question so far as I am able to do so now.
A great measure of agreement has been reached on the main issues under discussion relative to the GATT agreements. But, as all hon. members know, it is not always the main issues which determine whether a contract can be agreed to. There still are a number of details to be worked out with respect to cereals and, until they are, one cannot be certain there will be an over-all agreement. On this point, however, I remain confident.
In the light of the fact that figures have been used so widely in the press this morning 1 think it would be well to clarify them in Canadian terms. It has been suggested that what is being agreed to in Geneva is $1.73 per bushel for No. 2 hard winter wheat at a gulf port, and that there would be a differential between No. 2 hard winter wheat and No. 1 Manitoba northern of some 22J cents a bushel. This would be a significant and welcome increase in the international minimum and maximum prices of specified qualities of wheat and would substantially strengthen arrangements for co-operation to maintain market stability for No. 1 Manitoba northern in store at the lakehead.
New maximum and minimum prices on this basis would be $1.95J and $2.38J Canadian respectively. This would represent a 21 cent increase over maximum and minimum prices
May 15, 1967	COMMONS
under the current international wheat agreement. The minimum price f.o.b. Vancouver would be $2.03s and the maximum would be $2.46J.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the 21 cent increase, which the minister mentioned, over the price established some six years ago represents less than the increased cost to produce a bushel of wheat during those six years, has the government given consideration to supplementing the return to the farmer or is the farmer to take the loss?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the hon. member knows, these are simply minima and maxima within which the world price can and does fluctuate. The world price still is determined largely by supply and demand, having regard of course to the maximum and minimum referred to here.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Trade and Commerce say whether the government is giving consideration now to restoring the 17 cents a bushel which was taken away in the price two years ago, and which has caused a loss to the western farmers of $90 million a year since?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, that amount was substantially restored by the payments made last year to the western wheat growers.


John George Diefenbaker: Surely the minister is not saying that the payments made to the western farmers last year had anything to do with the 17 cents per bushel which was taken away from them. Surely the minister is not that serious.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he does not think he should await the return of the Minister of Agriculture before he attempts to gauge the benefits which might accrue to the producers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce another supplementary question. Will Canada be making a financial contribution to the 4| million tons of wheat which will be set aside for the needy countries and financed by the western industrial nations, and if so on what basis?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the items which has not yet finally been determined. I hope later today, however, that I will be able to include that in a statement to the house.
DEBATES	183
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in view of Britain's application to enter the European common market and having in mind the position in respect of Canadian wheat entering the British market, whether there has been any additional progress made in so far as cereals entering the European economic community are concerned.


Robert Henry Winters: No, Mr. Speaker. The negotiations were separate from anything which might be contingent upon the British entry into the common market.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether it is the intention of the government to withdraw Canada's forces from NATO and from NORAD, as has been advocated by the President of the Privy Council in a policy speech he made last Friday.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not. The policy remains that which was stated on behalf of the government by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he addressed the house earlier this year.


John George Diefenbaker: How are we to know what the policy is when one minister says one thing, the Secretary of State for External Affairs says another, and the President of the Privy Council says another?


Mr. Speaker:: That is a very interesting question, but it appears, at least, to be argumentative.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The answer would be interesting, too.


John George Diefenbaker: It may appear to be argumentative, but I am seeking information because it is difficult to know what the policy is when so many speakers say different things.

May 15, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: It is rhetorical.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Was the President of the Privy Council outlining national defence policy in a recent speech calling for the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Europe under our present NATO and NORAD commitments?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I indicated to the house that generally speaking the procedure to be followed by hon. members asking questions as to whether statements made outside the house represent the policy of the government is to direct them to the Prime Minister or the Acting Prime Minister.


Harold Edward Winch: Then may I amend my question, Mr. Speaker, by addressing it to the Acting Prime Minister. Was the President of the Privy Council outlining government policy in a recent speech calling for the withdrawal of Canadian forces from Europe under our present NATO and NORAD commitments?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I understand that question was answered a moment ago by the Minister of National Defence.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council. Is it the intention of the government to withdraw Canadian forces from Europe under NATO and NORAD commitments?



ALBERTA-NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING FREIGHT RATES ON SHIPMENTS TO JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport who has been promising a statement concerning the negotiations which are of interest to the coal operators of western Canada. Can he tell the house how the negotiations are progressing in respect of coal exports to Japan, and whether those contracts will be filled?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport is still very promising and so are the negotiations, but they have not been concluded.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries in connection with the opening of the salmon fishing season today. Has the minister received any complaint or criticism from the salmon fishermen, particularly in the Bay of Fundy area, concerning the new fishing regulations and, if so, what was the reply?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, we have received a few complaints from individual fishermen who would like to enter this particular fishery but have not qualified for licensing. As the hon. member well knows, the commercial salmon fishery has to be restricted or at least controlled if we are to maintain this important resource for future generations and make it profitable for the fishermen who are actually engaged in this type of fishing.
I may add that this is not an entirely new regulation but the implementation of salmon licensing controls which have existed for a number of years and which have been amended in order to make them more applicable and more effective.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have a supplementary question. Will the minister cause these applications to be checked over again to make certain no severe hardship is being imposed on bona fide fishermen?


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Speaker, although the fishermen who are applying are bona fide fishermen, I still insist there must be control or restriction in the number of licenses that are awarded. Every application is being looked at carefully, and if there are extenuating circumstances consideration is being given to the applicant.



NOVA SCOTIA-FEDERAL ASSISTANCE AFTER STORM DAMAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and I know that he is aware of the tremendous loss of lobster traps off the coast of Nova Scotia and that he has indicated a study will be made of the situation. When may we anticipate a statement of government policy which will be helpful to these fishermen in recouping some of their losses?
May IS, 1967


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member is well aware of the policy which exists in respect of such incidents. That policy has not changed for a number of years, and is exactly as I suggested in reply to a similar question asked last week by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Forrestall).



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has his department reached an agreement as yet with the government of British Columbia concerning access to the Vancouver international airport and, if not, can the minister report any progress?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, no agreement has been reached, but some discussions have been taking place and I believe I can say progress is being made.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister aware that the president of Chrysler Corporation of Canada in an address to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce said that the spread between automobile prices in Canada and in the United States is here to stay? Will the minister look into this situation to determine whether this kind of attitude is in keeping with announcements made in this house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration, whose star still shines bright in the political firmament.
Over the week end the minister engaged in some discussions with the premier of Quebec
Inquiries of the Ministry with regard to French-speaking immigrants. Is the minister in a position to inform the house of the results of those discussions and to announce a new policy in that respect?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have had no discussions with the premier of the province of Quebec.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Is the minister going to have some discussions in the near future with the Quebec premier?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I read in the newspapers that the Quebec premier intended to meet me. I shall be happy to do so if ever he expresses that wish.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to another minister whose star appears to be rising, and I refer obviously to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: After that I hope I will receive a favourable reply to my question. How soon may we expect government legislation implementing the recommendation of the joint committee on the public service of Canada that the pensions of retired civil servants be increased?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the report of the committee is presently under study by Treasury Board officials. In due course I will make recommendations in this regard to the cabinet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask as a supplementary question whether, in the event there is further delay the government will consider making any such increases retroactive?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, all aspects of the situation will be considered.

May 15, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE



INSULIN-REQUEST FOR PROTECTION OF USERS FOLLOWING PRICE INCREASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare arising out of a question I asked last week in his absence, concerning the increase in the price of insulin and the maintenance of provincial support programs. Can the minister inform the house and the country whether the government is prepared to do anything to assist those users of this drug in meeting this additional burden?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have read the hon. gentleman's question. There is now a question on the order paper in respect of insulin. It should be kept in mind that the price increase by Connaught Laboratories is the first increase by that agency in the price of insulin since its discovery in 1921. The price today is lower than it was in 1938. The director of the laboratories has stated that the price has been kept as low as possible, and that this increase is the result only of additional costs.
At the present time there is no direct federal government support for insulin users, except through sharing in the Canada Assistance Plan. I understand that two provinces do assist insulin users where necessary.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I was aware of the information just given by the minister, and I have no quarrel with that statement by the director. I simply wish to ask the minister whether the federal government is prepared to offer some support where this increase in price has placed a heavy burden upon users.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the federal government is assisting the provinces of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia in respect of insulin users through national health grants. Presumably the same method of support would be available to other provinces. I would be glad to explore this point further.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the

Solicitor General. Is the minister able to inform the house what progress has been made with respect to the suggestion that special consideration should be given to amnesty or parole of those persons who warrant a gesture of mercy during our centennial year?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the hon. member with respect that I gave a written reply to a similar question approximately six weeks ago. The gist of the reply, as I recall it, was that the setting up of the National Parole Board provided for an automatic review of the sentences of all inmates of federal institutions, and consideration was not being given to granting a general amnesty this year.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Solicitor General. It is one that surely needs an answer now in view of the imminence of calling for tenders. Could I ask the Solicitor General whether consideration has been given to the report of the joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate on the design of maximum security prisons, and will the recommendations of the joint committee be included in revised plans for the construction of the new maximum security prison at Millhaven as part of the Kingston complex?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, the report of the committee is being studied by the officials of my department at the present time.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. Will no call be made for tenders for the maximum security prison at Millhaven before the report of the joint committee has been fully considered?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am prepared to give that undertaking, Mr. Speaker. We will look at this report very seriously and will consult the architects to see what revisions are necessary in light of the report of the committee.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a ques-
May 15, 1967

tion of privilege affecting the rights of parliament. My question of privilege is based on the publication of Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day. I find at the bottom of page 21 a private member's notice of motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion oi this house, the government should consider the possibility of symbolizing the supreme authority of this country in an authentically Canadian manner other than by the British crown and of amending the constitution accordingly.
I submit, sir, that a motion like this should never have been permitted to appear on the order paper. It is calculated to subvert the constitution, and it is in contravention of a member's oath of allegiance. I accordingly move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith), that this motion be struck from the order paper.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Vaughan Pugh: You should have had Ralph Cowan second that.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to allow a debate on this matter. I will receive the motion written by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and give a ruling on it. I will at least read the motion.
After reading the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no.


Mr. Speaker:: -by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, I must come to the conclusion that the motion cannot be moved at this time. There is no possible way I can think of, according to the rules of the house, by which a member can rise and propose such a substantive motion, because this is substantially a substantive motion, without due notice. The hon. member may wish to find some other way to propose this motion which would be acceptable under the rules.
There is a point of order which is entirely different from the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. He states that the motion in the name of the hon. member for Lotbiniere should not have been accepted. There may be arguments in favour of the proposition advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, and if he will allow me to do so I will take that point under consideration and in due course, because I do
Inquiries of the Ministry not think it is a matter of extreme urgency, render a decision as to whether it is in order to allow this type of motion to be on the order paper.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the Acting Prime Minister to consider the motion presented by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) suggesting that we should abolish the royal power of dissolution? I ask this question so hon. members can see there are on the other side of the house some people who are anti-crown.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Privy Council. I wonder whether the President of the Privy Council would discuss with the government house leader the possibility of having the estimates of his department referred to one of the standing committees, so that committee might have an opportunity to consider the matters that are under his responsibility.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to discuss that matter with the house leader.



INQUIRY AS TO BROADCASTING OF COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the house leader as chairman of the committee on procedure. How soon can we expect action by the procedure committee on the suggestion put forward by the broadcasting and agriculture committees, and endorsed by the Prime Minister last week, that electronic news media be given full access to parliamentary committees?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I hope the committee on procedure will meet at an early date. We will be happy to consider this proposal within the committee, and following that consideration will be able to give a more definite opinion.

May 15, 1967
The Address-Mr. Honey SPEECH FROM THE THRONE



CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, May 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Don Jamieson for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Gauthier.
Mr. Russell C. Honey (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, it is traditional in this debate to compliment the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am pleased to do so, not only because it is a traditional gesture but because the mover, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) and the seconder, the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Cote), delivered speeches which indicated a great deal of background research and study, and delivered them in a manner fitting the record of responsibility and sincerity they have already established in this house.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
In this debate I would like to spend the time available to me in a discussion of the dairy policy of this government, and later to make some suggestions with respect to a school milk assistance program. By and large I think the philosophy of our present dairy policy is good. Some of the details are disturbing, and I will mention them shortly in the hope that the Minister of Agriculture will have an opportunity to reflect on my suggestions.
Before making my suggestions I want to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture for the generally good job he has been doing for the agricultural industry in Canada. The minister has obtained the confidence of Canadian farmers as one who is genuinely concerned with their welfare. He is concerned with the income of Canadian farmers as a whole, and he is anxious to bring it up to the standard of all Canadians. He is striving to see that all Canadians, including those in agriculture, should be able to live well, to educate their families and generally share in the good Canadian life which is being made available by this government.
Having said this I want to caution the minister on one point, and I am sure he will accept it in the spirit in which I make it. My words of caution to the minister are that he be careful about putting too much faith in the opinions of his senior officers and advisers. I
[Mr. MacEachen.l
do not say this as a criticism of the abilities or sincerity of the minister's advisers and those who hold office on various boards and commissions. However, I do suggest that these officials on some occasions may not have the practical background in agriculture which leaders of farm organizations possess. If, before announcing the new dairy policy in April, the minister and members of the Canadian Dairy Commission had given greater attention to some of the ramifications of the policy he would not now be faced with the genuine concern being experienced in the dairy industry.
Indeed, the situation we now have is that the dairy policy appears to be in conflict with the policies of other government agencies such as the Farm Credit Corporation and the ARDA administration. For example, to announce suddenly that quotas for manufacturing milk produced in 1967 and 1968 will be based on 1966-1967 production is a serious blow to those producers who have advanced plans to increase their production and move into more economically efficient units. I do not quarrel with the principle of quotas, but I do criticize strongly the practice of dealing with quotas without proper and reasonable notice being given to the producers. We are also told that quotas will be refused to producers who were not in production in 19661967. Such a drastic step without reasonable notice to the industry is surely not justifiable.
Another point of criticism I have is the lack of notice to fluid milk producers that the federal subsidy would be cut off almost overnight. I agree that the provincial governments have the essential responsibility in this field. I think, however, it would have been prudent for the federal department to have given the provinces a year in which to assume their responsibility and give notice to all, including the fluid milk producers, that the federal government would continue to pay subsidies to fluid producers in this current dairy year. The producers would then be put on notice that they had a year in which to convince the provincial governments that they should pick up the subsidies, and if the provinces indicate they would not do so the producers would then have a year in which to adjust their production as they might see fit.
In the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal at some length with a matter which is directly related to the dairy industry but with respect to which I wish to direct a generally overriding argument, that of the health of Canadian children. I wish to
May 15. 1967

address myself not only to the Minister of Agriculture but to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The topic is that of supplying milk to Canadian school children.
I am deeply concerned over the results of official surveys made in recent years which clearly show that a large proportion of our school age children are undernourished. The strange fact is that this condition is not the result of poverty but rather seems to stem from the affluence of our society. This is borne out by D.B.S. figures which show that shipments of soft drinks between 1956 and 1966 increased by 79 per cent while fluid milk production for consumption rather than manufacturing increased by only 1.74 per cent. On a per capita basis our consumption of fluid milk has decreased in those years from 322 pounds to 264 pounds. I made a quick comparative calculation and discovered that if our per capita consumption in 1966 had remained at the 1956 level, we would have drunk 1,160 million pounds more. That is about equal to the soft drink industry's increase over that period. For every additional pound of soft drinks we consume we stop consuming an equivalent amount of nature's most perfect food, milk.
So, while the high aims toward a better life as laid out in our recent throne speech are very laudable, we need direction in how to best use our blessings. Our children need education regarding the principles of nutrition. They are eating what tastes good to them, but very often they need most what they do not like. An important step that should be taken to correct this matter is to establish now a national school milk program. This should be financed and promoted by the federal government without delay. I would like to remind the government and hon. members that this was part of the Liberal platform in 1962 and 1963, and the funds then allotted should have been augmented by now.
The need for such a program is supported by unquestionable authority. I refer you to the pamphlet "Nutrition for Health", volume III, No. 1, November 1963, published by the Ontario department of health. This describes a research program to assess the habits of adolescents carried out by the department's northwestern, Wellington and Welland units. Its results are based upon records kept of 2,436 students.
According to the minimum requirements of the ten basic food groups, as laid down by the Canada food guide-milk and cheese, eggs, meat and alternates, potatoes, vegetables,
The Address-Mr. Honey fruit, sources of vitamin C, bread, whole grain cereal and vitamin D supplements-a shocking 55 per cent, or more than 1400 students, rated "poor" to "very poor". In this group the average calculated intake of vitally needed calcium was not up to the recommended level. The report states that the neglect of milk was most serious since it is a prime source of calcium. Only 34 per cent of the boys and 25 per cent of the girls drank the amount recommended by the Canada food guide to supply adequately this food element along with the others that are supplied by milk in a near perfect combination.
The report sounded an ominous warning for girls. It stated that while growth and development may proceed normally, the bones may not be properly calcified. This brings a danger of nutritional debt which can be dangerous when pregnancy follows shortly after adolescence. The report states further that students who reported their soft drink intake averaged 3.9 bottles a week for boys and 3.4 bottles for girls. Further, the boys drank an average of 7.7 cups of coffee and tea a week while girls drank 6.9 cups.
The 1962 report of the committee for the study of the distribution of milk in the schools of the province of Quebec states that milk is an essential food for children because it is the principal source of calcium and riboflavin. It concludes that without milk a child is not adequately fed because insufficient calcium leads to many difficulties arising from poor bone formation, and can cause teeth cavities. Riboflavin is a vitamin whose need is so well documented it need not be dealt with at length here.
The findings give support to the statements made in the House of Commons on November 20, 1962. At that time I recommended, among other things, that the federal government should definitely proceed with a school milk program. I stated the government should not only support such a program financially but should sponsor education to stimulate and enthuse parents of school age children on the necessity of supplying their children with milk each day.
Today I repeat this recommendation and introduce positive suggestions as to its implementation. I am absolutely convinced it is a matter of vital importance to our nation's health and the teaching of health principles in our schools. In addition, my proposals cannot help but bring far reaching benefits to the dairy industry if they are put into effect.

May 15, 1967
The Address-Mr. Honey [DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
If we compare our distribution of school milk to that of the rest of the world we should, in this centennial year, hang our heads in shame. Here are some facts I have gathered from the publication "School Milk in Canada", published in December 1961 by the Canada Department of Agriculture. Our consumption of milk in schools accounts for less than 1 per cent of our total milk consumption, compared to 4 per cent in the United States. The Quebec report to which I referred earlier states that England, Japan, Norway, New Zealand and Sweden are equally well advanced as the United States in the areas of school milk distribution and lunches. In some of these countries the milk is provided free.
The publication "School Milk in Canada" states that the oldest successful school milk program in elementary schools in the country has been carried out by the Montreal Catholic school commission. Its efforts won national recognition in an article published by School Progress magazine entitled "Here's a Blueprint For Solving Your School's Milk Problems". That program, suggested as a model for Canada, had to be discontinued during the 1966-67 school year because the cost of milk increased and subsidy money wasn't available to make up the difference. Between one quarter and one third of the children were given milk free through benevolent efforts of service organizations and contributions by the school commission itself.
The most effective program in terms of amount of milk distributed is in Windsor, Ontario. The Department of Agriculture report states that the average consumption per pupil day in all outlets excluding vending machines, which are noted for lower turnover, is only 2 ounces per pupil day. The average of our four best cities, Montreal, Windsor, Ottawa and Hull, was less than one third of the United States figure in 1961. With the Montreal Catholic schools discontinuing their program, at least temporarily, the situation has become worse.
United States consumption averages 5.8 ounces per pupil day, the Canada Department of Agriculture report states. It also affirms that if United States methods were used here we could probably raise Canada's over-all consumption to a desirable 5 ounces per pupil day.
There is little doubt that our low consumption results to a large extent from the high prices our children must pay. Spectacular results occur when prices are lowered. The

Department of Agriculture report tells about studies made in St. Louis, and in the state of Wisconsin. In St. Louis when federal subsidy permitted the price for an 8 ounce container to be lowered from 7J cents to 3 cents, consumption increased 180 per cent. In Wisconsin when elementary school prices were dropped from 6 cents to 3 cents per 8 ounces, sales increased by 208 per cent.
The number of children participating in Wisconsin was 100 per cent when the price ranged from 0 to 0.9 cents per carton. At 3 cents to 3.9 cents it was 79.3 per cent. Canada's school milk participation by students, averaging about 20 per cent, looks very sick by comparison. Despite all pressures of its international commitments the United States is not disturbing this activity. Last year, according to an article in the Economist magazine, President Johnson asked for $20 million for school milk and Congress raised the amount to $100 million.
Mr. Ronald H. Clark, proprietor of Clark Dairy Limited of Ottawa, stated in a speech to the National Dairy Council meeting on March 21 of this year that he doubts that a single dairy in Canada, trading solely in fresh milk and cream, is earning a profit. Profits, such as they are, come from other products. The average earnings on sales by the dairy industry is 1.9 per cent compared to 4.9 per cent in all manufacturing industries, Mr. Clark said. The low profit position of this industry makes it impossible for it to assist school milk programs by lowering prices. Such action was suggested by the Quebec provincial committee studying school milk distribution in its 1962 report, and no doubt others have made similar proposals that arise from the assumption that there are significant profits to be reduced.
Another suggestion made by this committee was that low cost school milk would stimulate the lagging desire by the children for it, and that dairies should look upon the cost of their assistance through lower prices as part of sales promotion and advertising costs. The sad state of the industry rules out this suggestion also. Mr. T. B. Cooper, president of the National Dairy Council, stated this year that sales charts for the past 10 years show a lack of promotion spending on products using the most milk. He explained that the profit situation did not allow such activity, while the promotion budgets for alternates and substitutes show an ever increasing trend.
Promoting the drinking of milk by children is an activity that will bring the ultimate in
May 15, 1967

The Address-Mr. Mandziuk war. During the period from 1956 to 1961, for instance, the number of dairy farmers dropped from 398,604 to 308,980.
We are proud of Canada, Mr. Speaker, as a great and modem country where our people generally are well paid and our families enjoy a high standard of living. Many of us have assumed that because of this our children are well fed and do not need milk in school. The facts prove that they not only need milk but require education as to why they should drink it.
Our dairy industry is suffering because of a declining per capita consumption of milk. A school milk assistance bill will provide the most effective means to reverse this trend. It will bring back a desire for milk in today's children. It will give these children knowledge about the vital role played by milk in their own good health. Then they in turn will see to it that their children, the next generation, will not return to the bad habits of today.
This is a matter of great national importance, Mr. Speaker. I suggest it should be the prime concern of the Department of National Health and Welfare as well as departments of health in the various provinces.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I make the plea that we catch up with the other advanced nations of the world in the area of school milk distribution. Our reason should be the same as Australia's when it established its states grants act in 1950 to provide milk to school children. It gave its reasons as "to help maintain their health and establish milk as part of their daily diet".


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, to begin with may I express our admiration and appreciation of the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and those who piloted us through the marathon session that has just ended. We regret that this house has not been able to give them a well deserved holiday. I also wish to congratulate the mover of the address, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson), and to state that the contents of his remarks and the manner of their delivery could well be the envy of many of the front benchers in this house.
I also wish to congratulate the seconder of the address on his speech. His eloquence was very appealing, but he launched into a criticism of Conservative agricultural policy and sang the praises of the policy of the present Liberal government. I suggest he read the address just delivered so ably by the hon. member who preceded me, the hon. member

for Durham (Mr. Honey). His eyes might be opened to the failure of the present government to carry out its election promises. I also suggest to the seconder that he must have failed to read the record of the Conservative administration from 1957 to 1962, because he would have learnt that the idea of Expo, about which Canada is so enthusiastic today, as well as its present location, originated with the administration headed by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).
I would further point out that the Saskatchewan river dam would never have been conceived, let alone built, had the Liberals continued in the drivers' seat, as they are today; and they are now very happy to see this project being completed. They are also very happy to name it after a Liberal. They did not have the courtesy to name it after the man who really initiated the dam, a project which the Liberals were afraid to touch. It must also not be forgotten that crop insurance, cash advances to farmers, ARDA and other measures originated with the Conservative government, measures which this government have tried but failed to improve. I think credit should be given where credit is due.
With regard to Canada's one hundredth anniversary, it is marvellous to see how enthusiastically those who were born in Canada as well as those who have entered the country more recently have joined together in the celebration of our centennial. And well they might, because few who were born in 1867 are still living to celebrate our hundredth birthday. I also suggest that few who were born either this year or last year will live to celebrate our second hundredth anniversary. They must therefore make the most of this occasion, and I am glad all have taken our celebrations to heart.
I realize that on occasions such as this we must pause to take stock, to make a short resume of the past in order to understand the present. We think we have difficulties and face problems, but I feel we should understand how these problems arose in order to get some inkling of how perhaps we can best find solutions. The history of Canada did not begin just one hundred years ago, Mr. Speaker. If my memory serves me correctly the history of Canada began 475 years ago. It started with the landing of Jacques Cartier and the hardy French explorers and pioneers who broke the first sod and lived through indescribable hardships in the early days of this country. They were the ones who laid the foundations for this nation. We cannot forget
May 15, 1967

or ignore these people because, as I say, Canada was not born just 100 years ago.
To these people, Mr. Speaker, I take off my hat. I cannot help but point out that it was these same French pioneers who firmly implanted in this land their language, their culture and their religion, which still exist to this day. They should be very proud of the fact that their cultural heritage which they brought from their motherland of France is still adhered to to this day.
The British conquest in 1763 made very few changes to New France; the only change was in the name. After the British conquest British servicemen stayed in the country, and after the American revolution many United Empire Loyalists settled in what was then Upper Canada, now Ontario. The Germans, Dutch and Swiss came after the British, and in 1799 German speaking Mennonites came to Ontario. They show that they are still among the best farmers in Canada. One year earlier, in 1798, the Irish came.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
Anybody who maintains that at confederation, in 1867, only English and French were here is twisting history and not telling the truth, because there were at least seven ethnic groups in Canada at that time. Apart from the English there were Irish, Scottish, German, Dutch, Swiss and others. Whether they were consulted about confederation is something else.
Shortly before confederation we saw a Selkirk settlement in Manitoba, and in 1877, ten years after confederation, the German Mennonites came to Manitoba. They have proved themselves the best of farmers. All these people made a considerable imprint on Canadian life, entering the civil service, politics, the judiciary and the teaching profession. They have been a credit to this country. The same can be said of the first Icelandic immigrants who came to Manitoba in 1875, five years before it was organized into a province. It is not difficult to find descendants of these people occupying high posts in the civil service and provincial and federal governments.
Seventy five years ago last year the Ukrainians came, and last year they celebrated that seventy fifth anniversary. Politicians and outstanding persons of Ukrainian origin took part in the celebrations lauding the achievements of the group which is now half a million strong. Seventy six years ago, with no physical resources, the Ukrainians came as poor immigrants from the Austro-Hungarian and Russian part of the Ukraine

The Address-Mr. Mandziuk because they were oppressed economically and politically. They were men in sheepskin coats who were ridiculed and laughed at; their women wore babushkas. Today what lady in Canada is shy about wearing such head covering?


Mr. Dinsdale:: They set the fashion.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I bow my head to the pioneer Ukrainian women who helped their husbands to build homesteads in parts of the country without roads, who lived in small shacks and brought up children while their husbands went away to earn money with which to buy farm implements. Those women helped to clear the land. Those people have survived. Have they contributed nothing to this nation? I can easily prove my point. We see descendants of Ukrainian origin in every facet of Canadian life, and they enjoy the privileges and rights of citizenship which their forefathers undertook to uphold when they became settlers.
Old loyalties had not worn off when the first world war came. It was too soon after the immigration; yet records show that 10,000 of Ukrainian origin joined the Canadian forces in answer to the call. One man who had worked in the House of Commons before his death several years ago was of Ukrainian origin and won the Victoria Cross. His name was Konowal. In the second world war 40,000 sons and grandsons of the first pioneers from the Ukraine answered the call and served in Canada's forces. Some reached high rank; some were decorated; all have been a credit.
In saying these words I pay the same compliment to the peoples of all ethnic groups in Canada. After one generation the sons and daughters of every ethnic group become Canadians. They know no other land, and having made this land their home they hope to make it better for the future.
I am about to quote from the Prime Minister. May I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I wish to quote from a speech which the Prime Minister delivered in
May 15, 1967

The Address-Mr. Mandziuk
Edmonton on July 17, 1966 on the occasion of the 75 th anniversary of Ukrainian immigration to Canada. In the presence of some 25,000 people he said:
You have continued the faith of your forefathers. Through the years you have maintained your own identity, your culture and your institutions, inside the Canadian nation. You have enriched Canada greatly by your contributions to its political, cultural, agricultural, industrial, professional, educational development. Your love of the land; your passion for freedom, personal and national; your belief in democracy-these have been captured and expressed in your poetry, your songs and dances. These are now part of Canada's heritage.
By preserving your own identity, therefore, your own language and traditions, you have added something of value, of strength and colour, to the Canadian character.
These words could be addressed to any of the ethnic groups which have found their home in Canada. They would apply to Canadians of Italian origin. They would apply to the Poles and all the others; I do not restrict myself to any particular group. The wonderful part of it is that all these various ethnic groups have adopted a common language so they can understand each other. In most cases, they have adopted the English language. They have established trust and confidence in each other; they have exchanged cultural habits; they have intermarried. All are playing their part in the development of this nation.
On behalf of all those of ethnic origin, people who compose around 26 per cent of the Canadian population, I take issue with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who concluded a statement he made on March 4 by saying that Canada will never be one people with one dream. We who are of ethnic origin believe Canada is becoming a country of one people with one dream, if it has not yet become so.
I agree with the attitude taken by a great Canadian, Hon. J. T. Thorson, Chancellor of the Exchequer Court and at one time a minister in the federal government. In an article which appeared in the Edmonton Journal, we read the following:
The Honourable J. T. Thorson, former chief justice of the Exchequer Court, said in Edmonton this week that Canada is being "brainwashed" into believing it is a bilingual country. It is not, it never has been and, as Mr. Justice Thorson said, bilingualism as a national policy is not in the national interest.
Hon. members may wish to know what is my own attitude toward bilingualism. I believe in it, my understanding of the phrase being that it means knowing two languages. Ethnic groups in Canada have adopted this

point of view. Bearing in mind the words spoken by the Prime Minister to that Ukrainian gathering in Edmonton, every ethnic group has the right or possibly the obligation to maintain its language and propagate its culture as well as to learn one of the official languages, either English or French. Maybe it will not suit some people but most of the ethnic groups in Canada have adopted the English language. Some of them, a good 25 per cent, use the English language to the extent that it has even become the mother tongue in the home.
What will Canada be like 100 years from now? I am sure the fathers of confederation, when they were trying to mould this country into a united dominion, could not have foreseen what conditions would be like 100 years in the future. They could not have foreseen that Canada would develop from a colony of Britain into a completely sovereign and independent state. We cannot be sure what Canada will be like a hundred years from now when the second anniversary of confederation comes around. Who can foretell?
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Of course there are forecasts. There are those who doubt whether there will be a Canada at all. Some feel that Canada will be absorbed by the United States. Some feel that we are now dependent upon the United States economically and therefore will become a part of that great nation. Some believe we should have a two nation structure. They envisage something like the situation which existed m respect of Austria and Hungary up to the end of the first world war. I and most Canadians believe-and it is safe for us to prognosticate because we will not live to celebrate another hundredth anniversary and will not be called to account-that Canada geographically will remain what it is today. I believe it will be completely independent, despite rumblings to the contrary. It will be a powerful nation of one hundred million people at least, fearing no one. Those who live to celebrate the two hundredth anniversary will feel proud of this nation. Canada will have one way of life. We now are laying the foundations for a distinctive Canadian culture containing the best of all cultures. We have contributions from those from other nations who have been here and have developed their own cultures.
Today we damn, condemn and fight among ourselves; we do almost anything to try to put Canada in a strait-jacket. Some people say Canada never will be anything but what it is
May 15, 19G7

now. Other people say that Canada is a nation already or, if it is not, that it is in the process of becoming one. As I have said, a two nation concept would be logical were it not for two historical facts. History cannot be denied. When this nation entered confederation there were seven ethnic groups. In addition, because of the open door policy of this nation, millions and millions of other people have come to this country. We must treat this nation as a whole containing many varieties of races, many varieties of cultures, and people with many varieties of ideas. The newcomers to this nation who brought with them their cultural heritage assumed their full obligations as Canadian citizens. In return for assuming those obligations as Canadian citizens they have a right to expect, and were given that right, the same rights and privileges enjoyed by those who came before and those who had been here for generations.
In peace and war these people have not at all been lagging behind the others who claim a special status because their forefathers had been in this nation for generations. These newcomers have integrated into the new life. They have shown that they can perform their essential duties. All they ask in return is that their opinions be heard, that they have a hand in shaping Canada and in determining what it will be during the next one hundred years. Otherwise they will be second class citizens who, in spite of the obligations they have assumed, will have no rights.
The trend followed by this government is to ignore these other people. I will not mention a name, but one politician when speaking to a Jewish ethnic group a year and a half ago said-and I will paraphrase-that all the other peoples in Canada must accept the language and culture of either the English or French groups or else. He did not finish the "or else". Where does that put us? I do not like referring to the third force; it is not that. These other groups of Canadians have the same rights as those who had been here for hundreds of years. They are here because they were invited and welcomed.
Mind you, all these groups who came here did not have their passage subsidized. They suffered the hardships of pioneer life; they have done much more, and have assumed all their duties in this nation. They must have all their rights. Whatever Canada is to become in the future, they feel they should have a voice. As I have said already, this government does not consider them full fledged citizens. Rather they are considered to be second class citizens.
The Address-Mr. Mandziuk
History repeats itself. Other nations have gone through the same process. They have developed from a mixture of various cultures. We might take the example of Great Britain, which went through these throes and finally became one nation. This is what we are in the process of doing in Canada. It is difficult to tell what Canada will be like in one hundred years from now, but as I said I have every hope. During centennial year I think we should instil in our minds the fact that we are going to work for a strong, united Canada.
There are two other matters I should like to mention. They are unrelated but may affect Canadians as a whole. This year on October 5 the Soviet union will be celebrating the anniversary of its revolution. Here in Canada we have many people who came from behind the iron curtain. These people will be celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of liberation. They had gained freedom but lost it because of the iron curtain. I know many persons, and this includes ministers of the crown, who will be asked or who have been asked to speak at these various functions. We should keep in mind that these persons should not be accused of having a double allegiance or anything like that. They cannot help but have strong feelings about the fate of the land of their fathers or forefathers. Canadians express concern about what happens in the Congo and what happens in Viet Nam today. Why should these people, whether they be Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Czechoslovakian, or whatever their origin, not be understood in the same way? Why should this sympathetic feeling not be expressed in respect of these people and what is happening behind the iron curtain?
Another thing which disturbs me as a Canadian is that in this country we have certain groups which lead protest marches against the United States for what goes on in Viet Nam. Show me one group in Canada which leads these protest marches against the United States in Viet Nam which at the same time leads protest marches against the U.S.S.R. which is supplying armaments to North Viet Nam, and against China which is also supplying armaments to North Viet Nam. Why should there be no protest against them? I cannot understand why Canadians are so gullible. Perhaps these protest marches are communist inspired; I do not know.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I cannot understand why the United States is damned and condemned just because it is
May 15, 1967

The Address-Mr. Badanai the bulwark of the free world against communist aggression. Had it not been for what the United States has done in NATO we would not today have a free western Europe. Today the United States is preventing the further spread of communism in Southeast Asia. Some people get carried away in their protests against the United States, but I suggest in all fairness they should protest against the U.S.S.E. Where are the Migs made which are fighting against United States boys if they are not made in the U.S.S.R.? I suggest that we should leave the North and South Vietnamese to settle their own problems, providing Russian and Chinese support is withdrawn. I do not believe the United States has any imperialistic designs so far as Southeast Asia is concerned. They have a more palatable morsel here in Canada, and they have given no indication that they want any part of it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate the people of the constituencies of Bu-rin-Burgeo and Nicolet-Yamaska for electing two outstanding representatives to the House of Commons. They can feel proud of their members' performances in moving and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I have never heard better presentations delivered in this house during the nine years I have been a member. I heartily congratulate them.
The tradition of moving the address in reply was greatly enhanced by the remarkable message of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, which could not have been more appropriate for the beginning of this centennial session. It has provided a splendid opportunity to dwell on some of the aspects of the history of this glorious land. The right hon. leader of the official opposition and the Prime Minister dealt with the subject with an eloquence which I do not presume to approach. They dealt with the years of Sir John A. Macdonald, and the hon. member who just spoke dealt with the history of some of the ethnic groups which have immigrated to Canada. With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I intend to go further back to the days when the white man met the red man on the coast of Newfoundland and the shores of Quebec.
Being one of the few members of this house who came to Canada as an immigrant I find this an occasion which inspires me to say that Canadians of other than Anglo-Saxon and

French origin have a special feeling for Canada. I need not remind anyone in this house that five years after the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus another Italian mariner, Giovanni Cabot, in the service of King Henry VII of England and in honour of his native city of Venice, planted the Venetian banner of St. Mark side by side with the British flag on Canadian soil. It is interesting to know that the exploit brought him fame but no fortune. King Henry, grateful but stingy, paid John Cabot ten pounds sterling, the equivalent at the present rate of exchange of approximately $30, for the discovery of Canada.
Although Britain and France are recognized as the two founding nations, neither country can claim credit for the first person to set foot on our shores. Some people claim that the Norsmen were the first Europeans to set foot on our soil 500 years before the flag of Britain was planted in Canada. If this is true they left no records and told nobody about it. The fact remains that the British flag was planted in Canada not by an Englishman but by an Italian. And without taking away any glory from Jacques Cartier, who is generally recognized as the first man to explore New France, it was another Italian, Giovanni de Ver-razano, who led an expedition to Cape Breton in 1524.
But if Britain and France were not the first to arrive here, they were the two nations which did most to build our country and give us our laws and customs, and for this reason they alone are considered Canada's founding races.
The next Italians to come to Canada were mainly soldiers, priests and artists. There was Enrico Tonti known as Henry DeTonti, whose father Lorenzo, a Neopolitan living in France, invented the tontine, a complex pension scheme or annuity. Henry DeTonti, who had lost one hand in battle and wore an iron substitute, earning him the nickname "Main Defer", was LaSalle's faithful lieutenant and played a large part in the great French explorer's success.
When Montreal's existence was threatened by the Iroquois Indians in 1665, France sent out the famous Carignan-Salieres regiment. Part of that thousand man unit was raised in Savoia, and most of the soldiers and officers were Italians. The regiment was ordered back to Europe three years later, but 400 members remained in New France as settlers. Taking courage from the departure of the soldiers, the Iroquois Indians renewed their attempts
May 15. 1967

The Address-Mr. Badanai
to destroy Montreal. They wiped out the settlements of Lachine and La Chesnaye and stood posed for massacre in Montreal in 1691, when they were roundly defeated by a militia force one of whose leaders was the Italian Captain Tommasco Crisafe.
The most illustrious Italian in New France, which as everyone knows is now Quebec, was Francesco Burlamacchi, knows as Francois de Bourlamaque, third in command after Montcalm, the famous French general who died on the Quebec heights in the battle fought on the Plains of Abraham and Levis. He was in charge at Montreal after the defeat of Montcalm and surrendered to the English only on the orders of General Vaudreuil. He returned to France, where he agitated long but with no success for a reconquest of Canada, and ended his days as governor of the island of Guadeloupe. The mining town of Bourlamaque, Quebec is named in his honour.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
As everyone knows, one of the stipulations of confederation which brought Upper Canada and British Columbia together was the building of a railway system from coast to coast. This condition of federation brought large numbers of immigrants to Canada from Italy, Germany, the Ukraine, Poland and many other countries of Europe to build the C.P.R., the Great Northern and the Grand Trunk, the latter two forming the present Canadian National Railways. To accomplish this tremendous undertaking, when machines were unknown and everything had to be done by hand, pick and shovel, much cheap labour was needed. Italian labour agencies were set up and workers hired by the shipload. By 1900 there were in Canada 11,000 families of Italian origin.
Immigrants from many lands, the forerunners of hundreds of thousands who were to follow during the course of this century, sailed up the St. Lawrence to the promised land of Canada. They came with great expectations which for only a few were ever fulfilled, but by their toil and sweat they laid the rails to form the link that was to unite Canada. They were mostly single men, or men who had left their families behind hoping to become rich, but few returned and many never saw their families again.
At the time of confederation, 100 years ago, Canada had a population of little more than three million, and of these only 8 per cent were of origins other than English and French. In our last national census of 1961 the British ratio had shrunk to 43.8 per cent, 27053-14
the French was 34.4 per cent, while people of other nationalities represented 25 per cent. These facts should remind us that Canada, in the words of our Prime Minister "is not a country of two races only, of two cultures and traditions, but a country of many races and many cultures and many traditions. We are fortunate in our multiple heritage, in the challenge that comes from building a united country, one with the strength and richness that comes from diversity."
The 25 per cent of non-British and nonFrench origin may well become the cement binding the founding races into a composite whole, and achieve that unity of purpose which the Fathers of Confederation hoped to achieve. Senator Paul Yuzyk in his book "Ukrainian Canadians", which I think was published only recently, in a chapter entitled "Partnership of the Canadian Elements" has this to say:
Canada was conceived as a country of plural culture. Her self government and independence were gradually achieved by the co-operation of the French and British peoples through our parliamentary institutions and common allegiance to the crown, which has been the binding force throughout the history of Canada.
Our common experience of the land, the history, the democratic institutions and the economic prosperity has developed a spirit of pride and unity in Canada, which is equally shared by Canadians of all origins, who have also made contributions to Canada's progress. As the concept of equality evolved, the British and French in free association emerged as partners. The idea of partnership is gradually being extended to the other ethnic groups, which can only serve to enhance Canadian unity, rather than weaken it as is believed by some sceptics and pessimists.
The beginning of the second century is a good time to consider a resurgence in the development of cur country. The development of a ribbon of civilization above the 49th parallel received the attention of our Canadian pioneers in the first century of our history, and as this widened further north, unlocking vast treasures of timber and minerals, and settlements prospered on the prairies, it was a period of great achievement which the generous immigration policy at the beginning of the century made possible. I venture to say that if successive governments had kept an open door immigration policy after the first great war we would today have a population not of 20 million but of 40 million. Only recently, since this government took office, has there been a more realistic immigration policy which has made it possible to almost triple the number of immigrants admitted to Canada in 1966 from a low of 72,000 in 1962.
May 15, 1967

The Address-Mr. Badanai
I have been rather critical of the immigration policy of the former Conservative government for lack of vision concerning immigration. I have consistently advocated a more generous policy to encourage people to make their home in Canada. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration is to be congratulated for accepting several recommendations of the joint Senate and House of Commons committee on immigration designed to allow prospective immigrants to enter Canada without the skills and educational standards contained in the white paper, with a modification of sponsorship regulations which were considered too drastic if applied according to the original draft of the white paper. Canada needs men and women with skills, but equally the need for unskilled persons, if not as great today as at the beginning of the century is nevertheless substantial and important to the development of our country.
Indeed, Canada's history is laced with the story of people from many lands coming to Canada in search of peace, freedom and prosperity, building a new life; people from every country of the globe and from every walk of life enriching Canada with character and tradition. I anticipate that with the approval of legislation based on the committee's recommendations the annual number of immigrants will be no less than 1 per cent of the total population, which will ensure the admittance of at least 200,000 per year. I maintain that is a modest figure but is relatively substantial and, all things considered is a great improvement over the early years of the 1960's.
The opposition characterized the throne speech as a rehash, which can be interpreted as the ranting of frustrated politicians. Unbiased people will look at it objectively and see in it many good measures designed to give Canadians good, sound government.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The promised revision of the Juvenile Delinquents Act, as an example, is a heart warming decision. The act dates back to 1908 and has remained virtually unchanged since 1929. It is badly out of date and unduly harsh on young people. The changes will include authority to juvenile courts to make fuller use of probation and parole services and suspended sentences.
The John Howard and Elizabeth Fry societies are doing a tremendous job with most limited and inadequate financial resources, and here I wish to appeal to the government to be less stingy in granting financial assistance to these societies, which are composed of

Holland, which parole 80 per cent of their inmates, 52 per cent of whom complete their parole satisfactorily while in Canada less than 15 per cent are paroled, and of this small number half are paroled to the John Howard agency with 10 per cent of that number completing parole successfully. Our penal institutions are crowded, our jails are overflowing, and we must spend millions of dollars to build better and bigger jail houses.
The John Howard society, with its fine record of rehabilitation, could do much to eliminate this overpopulation in jails if it were given reasonable grants from this government. The Thunder Bay society with its extremely limited budget handles six parolees a year and less than 100 annually of those who complete their sentences. Their success rate is high, but without guidance from the Ontario society and a professional case worker they cannot begin to perform the required job. Should the government move toward mandatory parole, which is being studied now by the attorney general, how could an agency such as this one even begin to do an adequate job? The board of directors of this society is very concerned and hopes the government will consider most seriously a generous grant to the John Howard and Elizabeth Fry societies which serve the whole district of Thunder Bay, including the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur, the record of which in providing parolees with direction, shelter, clothing and jobs is second to none in Canada.
Such hon. members have been complaining about the length of the speech from the throne. May I suggest to you, sir, that in the nine years I have had the privilege of sitting in this chamber I have never heard a throne speech with so many references to consequential legislation designed to assist the economy of the nation in every sphere of national activity as the one delivered by the new Governor General.
In the development of incentive programs I urge the government to extend the designated area to include northwestern Ontario, a 200,000 square mile area of great natural resources, many of which are still untapped. Northwestern Ontario has been more or less neglected in favour of the more affluent eastern parts of the province. I suggest to the Minister of Defence Production that he give consideration to the resolution of the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association, the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce and the Northwestern Ontario Development Council urging the 27053-141
The Address-Mr. Ormiston establishment of incentives to industry because, in the light of the obvious fact that industry is going where the free gifts are, these three groups have had more to do with the development of northwestern Ontario than any others. They state that none of the measures taken so far have proved effective and that this resource-filled area is being bypassed and ignored even though it qualifies as a development area in every apparent way.
Not only is the designated area program denied to northwestern Ontario but every suggestion toward an area-based handling of such aids to industry is turned down. The northwestern Ontario area desires an incentive program to attract secondary industry, business and individuals.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The proposal to amend the Indian Act to benefit the Indian and Eskimo people should be welcomed by every member of this house. Being a member of the standing committee on Indian affairs I have a particular interest in the welfare of our original Canadians. Of course I am not alone in appreciating the government's concern in accelerating assistance in an effort to secure for them greater participation in the affairs of the nation.
The legislation to provide long term loans to agricultural and fisheries associations to permit them to develop facilities is indeed a welcome move. This government has done a great deal for agriculture since it took power, and the announcement of the establishment of a special task force under the Minister of Agriculture and the broadening of the Farm Credit Act are also measures that the farmers of my constituency, and no doubt many other constituencies, will appreciate and welcome.
The promotion of consumer interests will include the designation of a department of corporate and consumer affairs. This feature will have the effect of stabilizing consumer prices and prevent the spiralling cost of commodities affecting every household in the country. These are only a few of the 30-odd items contained in the speech from the throne for the specific purpose of making life for the Canadian people easier and happier. In the words of the Prime Minister I say:
-the speech from the throne reflects in general terms the need for government to improve the opportunities for every Canadian to live a better life.


Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in congratulating the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, may I be permitted to particularly
May 15, 1967

The Address-Mr. Ormiston
commend the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) upon his masterful maiden speech. His effort was outstanding and appeared even more remarkable when compared with the document he was interpreting. I suppose it is only normal for government members to find much more cause for enthusiasm in the speech from the throne than members of the opposition. We on this side, without too much trouble, can recall other speeches from the throne and other legislative programs which produced more disillusionment than ecstacy.
The pith of the throne speech, if it can be called such, in this centennial year was a preamble on our hundred years' history which sounded more like a conducted tour of a factory than the description of the emergence of a nation. The lavish description of our contemporary social, cultural and economic environment is exceeded only by the dynamic and challenging future which will come about as a result of the implementation of the added superlatives, pious platitudes and worn out cliches which together are the framework of this current document. This speech, like the authors, is trying to provide all things to all people, and in its desperate attempt to cover every field of endeavour the government is becoming more socialist than the socialists. In so doing the government is crowding the private enterprise sector of our economy into ever narrowing and restrictive limits.
This country of ours was built largely by the efforts of free and private enterprise, and it is sad and humiliating for a Conservative to be present and watch a government which finds hanging so obnoxious but permits the slow strangulation of our traditional economic system and the erosion of our hereditary symbols. There is nothing in the speech from the throne which provides any positive proof that closer ties with the commonwealth are advantageous, that the monarchy provides the best type of parliamentary government or that our constitution which has stood the test of time could not be improved by judicious amendment.
A nation needs a strong spirit as well as a healthy body, but if the body politic is partisan and amoral, the body social dependent and sterile, no amount of legislative action can heal and no amount of penance absolve. A young country in order to expand and develop needs strong initiative from its people, but this will not be developed by the introduction of a guaranteed annual income

or any scheme to give cradle to the grave protection supplied by a paternal government.
My leader, in the course of his timely and enlightened contribution, pointed out some of the omissions in the speech from the throne, but his chivalrous treatment of this document indicated that without continuing support from its sponsors it might well collapse from the weight of its own preponderance. It has been noted that while there have been no rave notices in the newspapers on the content of the speech, neither have there been any wholesale condemnations. There has, however, from all quarters been indifferent and desultory sniping indicative of an elusive and indefinite target.
The most tangible contents seem to have originated in committees by way of recommendations during the past year, or in private members' bills which emanated from the backbenches, so long overlooked. One would have thought, too, that in centennial year those who made a contribution to the peace and safety of our country might well have been given some consideration. The veterans, however, seem to have been forgotten. On more than one occasion members of this party have put forward some sound ideas for the improvement of the Pension Act. While it may be conducive to orderly planning to wait for the report of the Wood commission before making any changes, it should be borne in mind that contrary to the words of the old wartime song, old soldiers do not live forever.
The treatment of the veteran is not unique; while the government transports us in flights of fancy, in esthetic dreams of cultural ecstasy, the material things of life which sustain the average individual are daily becoming more costly to obtain. The ever increasing rise in the cost of living, coupled with a similar rise in the cost of production, is nowhere more visible than in the agricultural industry. The proposed march on Ottawa by eastern farmers must be looked upon with sympathy by Canadian farmers in general because the agricultural sector is one area of our economy where the cost of production has far outstripped returns to the producer.
The fact that the government has proposed a special task force for agriculture indicates that some concern is held for the future of this industry. However, some guide lines are needed if those who may form this combat group of Joe Greene's giants can be expected to produce anything constructive. While the special task force can do little to influence the
May 15, 1967

Kenndy round of trade negotiations where the cereals committee of GATT is concerned, or to initiate any action under the I.W.A., there are definite fields in which improvement can take place. For instance, the beef industry will soon be in jeopardy unless thousands of acres of pasture land are found in the immediate future. This country will be importing beef in three years unless suitable grazing land is found to support the cattle which will be needed to meet our increasing demands.
The transportation and storage facilities for agricultural products might also be examined. There has been little change in our livestock and grain cars in the last 60 years. Our country elevators are certainly not models of efficiency, and it does not seem unreasonable to expect that one or two modern elevators at each shipping point would be much more effective than the number that are in operation to meet present day requirements. It also seems absurd that thousands of bushels of dockage is shipped to the terminal elevators every year, thus wasting time, space and money when this by-product could be utilized in local feed lots and by local industry in the form of prepared stock feeds. If at any time this anticipated force is in any doubt as to the path of progress, it might well investigate those responsible for the construction of dams in Saskatchewan and why they were not named accordingly.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
However, a serious situation has developed in Saskatchewan and it is this. At present P.F.R.A. officials are unable to proceed with needed projects because of the inability of the government to decide which department is responsible for the very essential programs which in the past have been the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture but are now disseminated among the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Department of Forestry and the Department of Agriculture. The Prime Minister has said this is an important question, and since adequate supplies of fresh water are one of our greatest assets it behooves the government to make the necessary decisions as soon as possible in order that these water and land conservation projects may be proceeded with at the earliest convenience. With the conclusions of work on the South Saskatchewan river dam the P.F.R.A. authorities will be available for other extensive works, and they should not be kept in ignorance because of indecision on the part of government departments.
The Address-Mr. Brewin
Our agricultural industry and its potential is in the hands of Canadian citizens, and the same could be said of our other industries if Canadians had confidence in their own future. Canadians are the world's greatest savers. By investing in our own future, by expanding our industries, by extending our trade to all parts of the world, by processing our materials at home and by the proper inducements to save for ownership, we will not only own the corporations that develop our wealth but will be supplying capital to others as well. The benefits of corporate capitalism have been well demonstrated. They have raised not only the level of our own living standards but forced socialistic countries to re-examine their economic systems as well.
The occasion of our Canadian centennial invites us to examine the progress of the last hundred years. But it also invites us to remember that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated a little over a hundred years ago. Legend has it that he once spoke these wise and eloquent words:
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. 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.
This is a philosophy which can be accepted by all men of good faith no matter of what political affiliation, and if applied in this centennial year as a basis of progress for the future the higher standards of quality and service, honour and integrity, will be well served by this and succeeding parliaments.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join the other members who have preceded me in this debate in congratulating the mover and seconder of the address on their excellent speeches. Before turning to the main subject matter of my remarks I should like to congratulate the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon) on what he recently said about the war in Viet Nam. I should like to re-echo his words when he said "I believe all of us have a duty to record our growing horror over what is going on in Viet Nam. If the present policy leads to disaster, the extermination of millions of unfortunate Vietnamese, or possibly global nuclear war, our failure to speak out will always remain on our conscience."
I find it hard to phrase a more scathing indictment of the government of which the President of the Privy Council remains a member. Their policy in this issue has been
May 15, 1967

The Address-Mr. Brewin one of mute, inglorious neutrality, of silence in the face of some of the greatest moral issues which have faced this or any other generation.
The recurring theme in this debate has been future constitutional arrangements for Canada, and this is the matter I should like to discuss. The celebration of 100 years of our history as a nation provides the occasion for a look at our fundamental institutions, a look backward that can be one of gratitude and thankfulness for our growth as a nation, and a look forward that enables us to assess whether we need changes for the future.
The constitution, as all hon. members know, is the fundamental law or framework within which our governments operate. The powers conferred on governments by the constitution and the limitations imposed on governments by the constitution are of the utmost practical importance to all Canadians. In my view there is a need for change in our constitution, not necessarily radical change but nevertheless change that is real.
In our view, Mr. Speaker, our confederation will be seriously endangered if we are not prepared to make the necessary changes but accept the static and laissez faire attitude which seems to dominate the thinking at the present government. Constitutions, of course, by reason of the fact that they represent the fundamental law of the country, cannot be subjected to constant change; they do require a degree of permanency. But they are human institutions, and as such should not be considered immutable or unamendable. As we all know, our present constitution is the British North America Act, a statute passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom as long ago as 1867, a time when Canada consisted of a group of isolated colonies with agricultural economies totally different from the modern industrialized society that is Canada today.
As all members of the house realize, the British North America Act has been amended in small details from time to time and then, of course, has followed the due process of interpretation by the courts. But there are two reasons, in our view, for changing our constitution. The first is that it is an obsolete document. This is not surprising. Indeed, it would be strange if a document which was drafted to fit the circumstances of a group of isolated agricultural colonies a century ago remained appropriate in the totally different context of a modern industrial nation. It is trite to point out that we are living in a world of constant and rapid world-wide change. The functions

of government today are totally different from the functions of government 100 years ago.
The second basic reason, in our view, that we need a new look at our constitution arises out of the crisis-an overworked word, perhaps-caused by the emergence of what has been called the quiet revolution in Quebec. It does not seem to me a particularly appropriate phrase because it has not been particularly quiet, and I do not think "revolution" is a very apt word. But the fact is clear-and I think this should be welcomed by all Canadians-that a new spirit, a new and vigorous sense of identity, is abroad in the province of Quebec and among French speaking Canadians generally.
Some people seem to think that the sense of discontent in Quebec will just go away if we do not bother about it. Indeed, that seems to be the attitude of the present government.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I prefer the view expressed by men such as Claude Ryan of Le Devoir, by the 15 members of the B and B commission, by the premier of Quebec and by many others when they tell us that the aspirations of Quebec have created a genuine crisis and for a solution require revisions to our constitution. Mr. Ryan, editor of Le Devoir, a few weeks ago said that Quebec was not eager to secede from Canada but desired expression in the constitution of a clearer and more satisfactory status. In his view the articles of the constitution need to be gone over one by one and a definition drawn of the new status. I am convinced that we ignore the pleas of such well informed and devoted Canadians as Mr. Ryan at out peril.
What are some of the fundamentals of our constitutional structure that we should take account of in the process of revision? We need not be revolutionary in the sense of discarding that which has worked well in the past, but I suggest there are some guide posts to necessary change. First and simplest, we should discard the obsolete and meaningless sections in the constitution. They were transitional in 1867 and are meaningless today. At least 50 sections of the British North America Act could be eliminated.
Second, I believe we need a new preamble to the constitution, and it ought to refer to the historic partnership of English and French speaking people and the contributions of Canadians of other ethnic origins. It ought to make clear that the foundation of our system of government is respect for individual and minority rights, the protection of historic
May 15, 1967	COMMONS
rights of religion, education and language, and a legislative system based on the British parliamentary model. In my view such a preamble would not be mere rhetoric but would be of very definite educational value not only for school children but for the many thousands of immigrants that we expect to welcome to Canada from all over the world.
We ought to entrench in our constitution a constitutional bill of rights. We have at present a bill of rights which was passed by parliament, but its inadequacy is obvious. It does not apply to provincial legislatures, and may be repealed by parliament at any time parliament chooses to legislate in a manner inconsistent with it. According to our courts it has no effect on existing federal legislation. A constitutional bill of rights would be valuable for the defence of our traditional liberties and a useful educational tool to set out explicitly some of our fundamental institutions.
I was glad to hear the Prime Minister say that he will discuss a constitutional bill of rights next month with the premiers of the various provinces. I hope the proposed constitutional amendments incorporating the bill of rights will be made available for discussion in this house before, not after, they are submitted to the provincial authorities.
The core of the constitutional problem is the distribution of legislation power between federal and provincial authorities which is embodied in sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act. I think these two sections ought to be reviewed with two aims in mind. First we ought to consider what are the necessary and characteristic functions of modern government in the second half of the twentieth century; also, how are those functions to be allocated between federal and provincial authorities and how are resources to be allocated to enable alloted functions to be efficiently fulfilled. The other point to be borne in mind is whether it is wise, in our revised constitution, or necessary to allow Quebec a special status. The expression "special status" is very general, and it is necessary to be precise when dealing with it. I propose later in my remarks to define more precisely what we in this party mean when we say we are in favour of a special status for Quebec.
Nearly all governments in modern industrial communities, irrespective of ideological background, have been forced into assuming functions quite different from the traditional functions of government. The scourge of unemployment in the '30's has lead to the
DEBATES	203
The Address-Mr. Brewin adoption of Keynesian theories that the government must maintain full employment. This is as true of the United States, which emphasizes its devotion to private enterprise, as it is of various Scandinavian countries that have accepted the philosophy of democratic socialism. Both have moved toward a mixed economy, a sort of partnership between government and private enterprise. Full employment policies, in their turn, create a risk of inflation and rising prices. This leads to demands for government action in price control, and on the other side of the coin governments are asked to assume responsibility for economic growth through public investment and selective intervention in the economy.
Exponents of all political faiths, with the exception of a few dinosaurs, have accepted the theory of government intervention in economic planning. These theories were denounced as socialistic a few years ago, but they are now the stock in trade of all parties in modern societies. The problem is to make economic planning work.
Governments have also accepted responsibility in fields of social security. Lastly, governments today are called on to provide services which I like to call the infrastructure of modern living. Here I refer to housing, health, vastly expanded educational services, urban development and redevelopment. Without government intervention in these fields we could not live as we now live in this modern age.
It is necessary to review government functions to see where different levels of government fit. In our view a federal system of government offers distinct political and economic advantages which would disappear if federal authority were undermined in key areas, those advantages including political stability which is necessary to attract foreign capital and to mobilize domestic capital, a stronger political voice and bargaining power in international affairs and international trade, the maintenance of a free trade area from coast to coast, and a bulwark against foreign domination.
To this end we believe that federal authority must be preserved in such fields as credit, banking, investment, monetary and fiscal policy, tariffs and transportation, to name a few only. There is no room here for special status for Quebec or any province. We have been concerned about the gradual erosion of federal powers in the fields I mentioned which has become apparent in federal-provincial conferences over the past few years.
May 15, 1967

The Address-Mr. Brewin
The responsibilities of various government levels in fields of social security must be clear, that those responsibilities may be ade-quatey discharged. It is desirabe to have federal control in fields such as family allowances, non-contributory old age pensions and the like. There are some fields such as hospitalization and health services where the present system of provincial administration and partial federal financing works well, and where it should be retained with great advantage in transferability of benefits throughout Canada. Here also the federal contribution helps equalize the burden as between provinces.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
In other fields of social security provincial governments, being closer to the people, should have sole responsibility. But if we are to make progress toward the goal of regional equality, equalization payments from the federal treasury will continue to be required. In the field of social security, while a clear allocation of authority is required, I can see no urgent need for a special status for Quebec.
It is in the third field of the collective services or infrastructure, as I have called it, that a special status for Quebec is called for. Quebec does have an historic tradition, culture and language of her own, of which she is justly proud and which she proposed to develop on her own lines. Undoubtedly connected with this fact of cultural difference is the whole field of education at all levels and the development of urban services. If Quebec desires to do these things alone, why not? But if the other nine provinces believe that university education, adult retraining and urban development can be more efficiently planned and financed through the intervention of the federal authority, why should they be held back by the desire of Quebec to be on her own in these matters?
The special status for Quebec which we in this party advocate is not some sort of political concession made to win the political approval of voters in the province of Quebec; it is merely a recognition of the facts of life, namely that people with a special culture of their own are entitled to retain complete control, if they so desire, over matters intimately connected with that culture such as education. On the other hand it must be recognized that it is the people in the other nine provinces who ought to be most insistent that Quebec should have a special status and that federal intervention should not be restricted to the level desired by Quebec.

If I understand the doctrine propounded by the Minister of Justice it is that the present constitutional arrangement, interpreted in such a way that the federal government should stay strictly out of the fields of provincial jurisdiction, is quite sufficient to satisfy the aspirations of the province of Quebec. I do not know whether this is so. However it may be, there is no reason why this doctrine should be accepted by the rest of Canada. There may well be fields of action in which federal intervention is desired by the other provinces although unacceptable to Quebec. If so, the device of a special status for Quebec can be used to meet the aspirations of Quebec on the one hand and the rest of Canada on the other. I am afraid I have no time to give illustrations showing how this would apply.
It appears to me that in this whole field of constitutional reform the government has lamentably failed to give leadership. This is clearly demonstrated by the words put into the mouth of the Governor General in the speech from the throne. This Liberal government was elected four years ago. We have been in a constitutional crisis throughout this whole period. The necessity of taking a look at the constitution has been urged on the government by many different people including many members of this house.
The government, we are told in the speech from the throne, "is aware of its unique responsibility to assure that our fundamental law is readily adaptable to our changing social needs". It is so fully aware of this that after four years in office the best that can be said on the subject is contained in the following phrase: "Studies to obtain the best advice on this important matter are now under way with a view to specific consideration of the whole problem by parliament".
Who will compose this anonymous committee? When will they report? We are told nothing.
What an extraordinary neglect is admitted in these words. The government is so aware of its unique responsibility that now, after four years of constitutional crisis, it is apparently starting to study the subject of constitutional change.
The initiative has passed to provincial governments which are setting up committees, calling conferences and so on. But there is a reason for this federal neglect by the government. The reason is that the government is frightened of parliamentary democracy and is
May 15, 19B7	COMMONS
unwilling to submit to the elected representatives of the various parties the urgent problem of the future constitution of Canada.
The view of the government is described inelegantly as the can of worms theory or the theory of Pandora's box. It is feared that if there is open discussion of our constitutional future excessive demands may be made, and the desire to make political capital will prevail over a sense of responsibility. It is thought that discussion by the members of parliament will add to the difficulties and create disunity rather than consensus. I have no doubt this is the reason the government has failed to set up a parliamentary committee to discuss the future constitution of Canada.
In my view this is a tragic underestimate of the sense of responsibility of members of parliament. It is my opinion that Canadians are capable generally, and elected Canadians are especially capable if they are given the opportunity, of getting down to the difficult but by no means hopeless task of solving their constitutional problems.
As I understand it, it was the practical politicians who laid the basis for confederation at a time when the divisions and distances in Canada were much greater than they are today. This house is representative, as no other group of people can be, of the people of Canada as a whole. We represent every region of Canada; we represent nearly all the politically significant viewpoints of Canadians. We represent practical political views vital to the solution of these problems.
It will be a grave disservice to the future of this country if the present lack of leadership continues. It is, of course, possible to exaggerate the importance of written documents. The unity of Canada does not depend on merely constitutional solutions. It depends upon a modest pride among Canadians; it depends upon good sense and patience. It also depends upon a willingness to tackle problems rather than shove them under the table.
The need for revision of the constitution is one of the most urgent tasks which face this country. We do not need constitutional revolution but we do need constitutional revision and we ought to be getting on with the job. We in this party entirely agree with the opening statement in the motion by the Leader of the Opposition, namely that this house regrets that Her Majesty's advisers have failed to submit any program to give effective direction with regard to Canada's constitutional development in this centennial year. But we
DEBATES	205
The Address-Mr. Brewin do not believe that the calling of a constitutional conference at this stage would be useful. Such a conference, in order to prove fruitful, must be preceded by a great deal of study in this parliament and by a statement of the federal position. A conference called without a background of firm federal preparation could turn into a fiasco and be of little help. I was interested to see that in the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition there was no indication of the direction in which change should take place, no guidance as to the stand the federal authority might take.
I should like to refer now to the subamendment introduced by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier). We are frankly at a loss to understand what this amendment means. It was perhaps the product of a great deal of procedural ingenuity so as to fit it within the framework of the rules. We are, of course, very much concerned about the present day difficulties of dairy farmers. We have clear views as to the policies required in order to deal with those difficulties. But the subamendment refers to some sort of constitutional change or amendment-it is very vague-and it does not seem to us to have any bearing whatever on the present problems of dairy farmers or any other farmers, for that matter. We believe in the general statement of concern that is expressed in the amendment, but again we do not think it produces any sort of remedy which to us seems to make any particular sense and therefore we will not be able to support it.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
In conclusion may I say that to many people a discussion of constitutional issues is a tedious and boring matter which they like to leave to constitutional lawyers. I believe, however, that it is one of the most practical and important matters which face us. I believe our workers and our farmers, all our people, can be aided in their search for a better life if we in this house, in parliament and in public life, tackle the problem of a careful thoughtful revision of our constitution. I think it would be wrong for any of us to attempt to lay down hard and fast prescriptions as to precisely what changes we think are necessary. I have outlined some of the changes which we in this party think are necessary. I call on the government to do what it heretofore has failed to do and start to give the needed leadership to the people of Canada.


Mr. Pepin:: Mr. Speaker, if I may I should like to direct a question to the hon. member.
May 15, 1967

The Address-Mr. Roxburgh Am I right in thinking that special status as he defines it implies no change in the present constitutional situation toward a further decentralization in favour of Quebec particularly?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I do not think it implies any change. I think that whether or not we give a special status there is plenty of room for a process of decentralization, particularly decentralization of federal intervention. I believe this is desirable, but I do not think that meets the problem of whether there is a special status required in such matters as education and perhaps urban renewal, to take two examples.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Special status, the way the hon. member for Greenwood understands it, would seem to me to mean a special status in relation to changes which the hon. member would like to see brought about in the constitutional system. It seems to imply that the special status itself is only the constitutional status quo, as it exists now.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I do not think so. As I said, one of the big difficulties is that we use expressions like "associated state", "special status" and so on which may mean many different things. Many people say that there already is in the B.N.A. Act a special status for Quebec which recognizes the historic fact of a different culture. All we are saying is that in the expanding function of government we believe there are some things which the province of Quebec might want to do alone and therefore should be exempt from federal jurisdiction but that the other provinces which may want to do these things together under federal jurisdiction should not be held back because legitimately and properly the province of Quebec says that this is something which affects its culture and therefore it wishes to retain control over it.


Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: First, Mr. Speaker, I should like to extend my sincere congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I think we all agree that their speeches were of a very high standard. At this time I should also like to pass on my sincere sympathy to the family of Mrs. Ko-nantz, one who was truly loved and respected by all members of this house.
The day following the speech from the throne one of our leading daily papers summarized it in this way: "Something for everyone". I am very sorry to say that one type of

business was not mentioned in the speech from the throne, one which plays a very important part in the economy of this nation. This type of business has also not been mentioned in many throne speeches in the past. I have in mind small business. Often we are led to wonder whether small business, like the small farm, is on its way out. There is certainly little doubt that small business is having one of the toughest times it has ever had to survive, and the cause is not solely competition from large corporations as many people seem to think. There are many other factors and I will deal with them separately.
There still is and must be a place for small business. Except via the small business route where else can an individual with the desire, the initiative, and of course always with a limited amount of financing, start. Be it industrial, retail, farming or fishing, it is all small business. Many of the large corporate business of today had their start in this very medium. As a member of the government party I almost hate to say this in the House of Commons, but while checking not with one but with many small businessmen not only in my own constituency but elsewhere in the province of Ontario and in other provinces throughout Canada I found that the one main factor that is working against small business is the autocratic bureaucracy of all governments in legislating their new way of life. It is a good life and it is all right to have such legislation, but by the time the small businessman meets the demands in respect of all the social and other benefits of government there is little left for his efforts. These efforts are not completed in an eight hour day or a five day week. They extend anywhere from 12 to 14 or 15 hours a day and in many many cases for seven days a week. The corporate business is better able to cope with the current trend since it is better equipped, better staffed and of course has greater financial stability than the struggling merchant or small industry.
A recent report of the Department of Finance pointed out that the steady decline of net income of non-farm, non-incorporated businesses from 8.5 per cent in 1949 to 5.5 per cent in 1965 continued downward to 5.1 per cent in the first half of 1966. I should like to point out that this drop in profit would appear to be exceeded only by farm operators, who represent another form of small business.
While talking to different businessmen throughout my constituency and in other parts of the country, a local small businessman pointed out to me recently that many
May IS, 1967	COMMONS
small businesses are acting as a training ground, which they can ill afford to do, tor employees who are being taken by larger businesses. Many of these small businesses have spent a year or more training employees in the managerial aspect of their businesses only to have them grabbed up by big business. The experience gained by employees in small businesses enables them to obtain better positions at the expense of the small businessman. Small businessmen realize that this is part of the game they must play and they accept the fact, but this is an illustration of one of the additional problems the small businessman must face.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I am sure that the government wants to do something for these people operating small private enterprises, but the truth of the matter is, I am sorry to say, that the government does not realize their true plight. The local merchant to whom I referred suggested that wages and other benefits for labour are increasing. He suggests there is nothing wrong in this regard but feels that the government should direct some attention to the rather rocky road being travelled by those who wish to succeed in small private enterprises. Have we thought about these small businessmen who make up the heart of our economy? These are people who are ambitious to the extent they will work longer than a five day week or an eight hour day. If the efforts of these enterprising Canadians are to be curtailed by an overbearing bureaucracy then this nation will be brought to stagnation by two classes of people, those who want shorter working hours and those who are resting comfortably at the top of the business ladder. Surely this country does not want to see that happen.
In the majority of cases small businesses are family businesses, and I include in this category small farms and fishing operations. People in this category are becoming very disturbed about the fact that these are the only types of corporate enterprises not able to employ wives, pay them a salary and deduct their wages at the end of the year as a business expense as other corporate businesses are allowed to do. This creates an extreme hardship on the small businessman. Large industrial concerns are not particularly concerned about employing wives but many enterprises take advantage of the fact that the salary of wives can be deducted as a business expense. This leaves only the small businessman and the professional man as exceptions
DEBATES	207
The Address-Mr. Roxburgh to the general rule applying to incorporated businesses.
In many cases the professional man is not interested in whether his wife works, but the small businessman often has to employ his wife in an effort to succeed. In this case the wife takes a greater interest in the business than an ordinary employee and puts in longer hours when the husband is away on business such as buying trips. However, at income tax time her efforts in helping to maintain the community enterprise are not rewarded as are the efforts of her counterpart in many other cases.
We as members of parliament must realize that there are valid reasons that no changes have been made in the act in this regard. However, we must realize that with the continuing trend toward amalgamation some thought should be given to easing the income tax restrictions regarding the part wives play in the successful operation of small businesses. I hope the government will give sincere and serious consideration to easing the restrictions in this regard.
When talking to these small businessmen one hears a great many different stories, but I should like to give one factual illustration of the discrimination which takes place. One young retail merchant I know lost his top employee not many months ago to a franchise grocery chain. As a result his wife had to increase her number of working hours until a replacement was found. That happened two months ago and a replacement has not yet been found. This is a young family with small children and a part-time housekeeper had to be hired to look after the needs of the children. Had this family been in a position to hire a full-time housekeeper they could deduct this expense as a business item. The family was not in a position to do so and as a result cannot classify the housekeeper's wages as a business expense. Something is wrong with our system when some sort of adjustment cannot be made to help small businessmen under these circumstances.
Originally under the Small Businesses Loans Act the government guaranteed chartered bank loans to small enterprises engaged in manufacturing, wholesaling or retailing or service industries to a maximum of $25,000. These loans must be secured and may be repaid over a period of up to ten years with an interest rate of 5J per cent. One might think these people could go to the bank and easily obtain a loan but nothing could be further from the truth in the past few years. I
May 15. 1967

The Address-Mr. Roxburgh know of dozens of small businessmen who have not been able to get a loan from a chartered bank under any circumstances. Many of them were advised by bankers to try to obtain a loan somewhere else because of all the red tape involved. I am not suggesting something that is not factual. The banker who gave me this information told me that from the time a small businessman made his application to the time he received the loan from the bank he would forget what he wanted it for. Let us face the facts. In plain language, during the past few years at least -I am not going into the future but am talking about the past-the banks were just not interested in making loans to small businesses. Let nobody, including the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), suggest that they were, because they were not.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Under a recent revision of the Small Businesses Loans Act by the Department of Finance, companies in construction, transportation and communications will qualify for small business loans for the first time. The maximum gross revenue of companies eligible for loans has been doubled from $250,000 to $500,000. This should benefit particularly small trading firms whose profits are at a low percentage. The interest rate is, of course, 5J per cent as before.
It may be asked, what is the difference now? The difference is found in the atmosphere created by the changes in the Bank Act. With interest rates dropping and the prevailing rate holding at about 6 per cent it is now felt that, having regard to the 5i per cent guaranteed by the government of Canada and the 6 per cent charged by the banks, a difference of only half of 1 per cent, the banks will now be more generous in lending money to small businesses. We hope this will be so.
Everything nowadays points to expansion in business, in farming and every other line of industry, the thought being, of course, that the larger the unit the more economic it is to handle. That is all very fine, but let me say now that bigness in business is possibly getting a little too big, and its coming is doing away with incentives to the average individual who does not want to become just another link in a chain that is putting incentives in the hands of a very few. Let us not forget that when an individual loses desire because of little or no incentive it is not only bad for the individual but for the community and the country in which he lives.

I do not think the good old opposition on the other side of the chamber will disagree that the economy of the country has never been better than at the present time. But-here is that great word "but"; if it were not in our language I do not know what we would do-what will happen if the economy of the country should slacken off rather drastically? No one will ever want to see a return of the conditions of the 1930's, no matter what party forms the government. But who is to say this is not possible? The thinking now, as we hear it from the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and other people, is to the effect that the future will see a guaranteed average income for the people of Canada. That is fine. I only hope it will prove to be true. We all hope it will prove to be true. But as the Prime Minister very forcibly pointed out, this can only be accomplished if the economy of the country is kept at a very high level.
May I, as a very ordinary backbencher who has had the privilege of being in this house for at least three sessions, give this little warning. A friend of mine said that backbenchers do not have much say in this house. That is wrong, because we do. There is no argument about this; the proof of the pudding is in the eating. But let me issue this little warning. No matter what we do in Canada to promote our economy, a country such as ours which depends so much on its exports-the Kennedy round of negotiation is just finishing-in order to keep its economy sound can only be as financially sound as the nations with which it deals. If we had to export only 10 per cent of what we produce in this country, that would be different. In other words, the future economy of Canada depends upon the future economy of the countries of the world.
I would like somebody to answer this question before I conclude. What happened to large business and industry in the 1930's? What would happen to large business now if there were a sudden drop in the country's economy? I believe that any person in business knows that many businesses are existing on a very marginal profit at the present time. I would like to deal with the situation in the 1930's because there are many young people in parliament and the young people will be running our country in the future. They have the education to enable them to do this but they have not had the experience of the 1930's. Very often it is a good thing to have had experience. Nobody can deny that big business crashed in the 1930's, taking thousands of large and small investors with it
May 15, 1967	COMMONS
as well as the workers in those industries. What happened to small business in the 1930's? Small business carried the load and managed to survive and those that did not survive hurt but a few.
Before the 1930's it was my privilege to work on a large ranch in the Okanagan. I am very sorry that some of my good western friends and those from the prairies are not in the house at the moment. It may be difficult for people to believe, and even more difficult for me to believe now, that I actually hitched up and drove eight horses at a time. I worked on a very large ranch of thousands of acres. While there I made a friend who had a 25-acre fruit farm. Before the 1930's he was doing well. Mrs. Roxburgh and I had the privilege of going back there a number of times during the 1930's and later. During the 1930's my friend with his small, 25-acre fruit farm, his Chinese cook and very limited help during harvest, was able to make a small profit. That small profit was enough to allow him to go south for a couple of months during the winter.
There were two large ranches in the area. What happened to them? I will not mention any names in this connection. The two large fruit, grain and cattle ranches of a few thousand acres in size, which had been doing nicely before the 1930's, lost money and had to sell packets of land of 25 to 50 acres to people coming in from the midwest so the owners could pay their water rates and taxes. My friend with his small business did not have to do that. I understand that eventually one of the larger ranchers went completely bankrupt.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
In conclusion I simply say: Let us not be carried away by all this bigness because it can become too big for our good. This government or any other government must somehow make it possible for small business to carry on so that it can not only play its part in the economy of the country but, what is most important as far as I am concerned and I know as far as all hon. members are concerned, provide the opportunities for advancement which it offers to the people of Canada. To keep small business alive is a must.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by congratulating the hon. members for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) and Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Cote), the mover and seconder of the address in reply. I think their speeches were of very high calibre and I
DEBATES	209
The Address-Hon. J. A. MacLean would like to congratulate the mover especially.
I think the throne speech debate should be a free expression of views and ideas by all members of parliament. This should be an occasion when ideas come up from the grass roots to the government rather than the reverse, which is what happens most of the time in a session of parliament when the members of parliament are required to pass judgment on programs which are put before the house by the government. Over the years I have heard many good ideas put forth by private members in various parts of the house in this and other debates of the session. When they were not considered newsworthy, regardless of their merit they seemed to go completely unnoticed and now they exist only in an embalmed state in the tomes of Hansard. Sometimes I think there should be some sort of group, either composed of members of the press or perhaps of members of the research branch of the parliamentary library, which might prepare a digest of the debates so that the public could receive in capsule form information about what the members of parliament are thinking and speaking about because, generally speaking, the public seems to think that members of parliament are mainly engaged in squabbling with each other and that they never come up with anything that is really constructive.
This is our centennial year and I believe we should attempt to look not just one year ahead, as we usually do at the opening of a normal session of parliament, but to look ahead at a whole century. We will not be very successful in doing this but the mental gymnastics involved will at least be helpful, I think. That being the case, of course, we will only be able to look at the high spots of these very greatly widened horizons and the details will have to be examined at some other time.
Members of parliament usually speak as representatives of their constituents and their constituents are considered to be the only people they represent. I think this was probably true to a large extent 100 years ago but owing to the fact that the world is shrinking members of parliament, elected representatives and leaders in all fields are becoming more and more the representatives of a greatly widened constituency. They are becoming the representatives of the whole of mankind. What we do or fail to do may well in the future determine the success or failure of the whole of humanity.
May 15, 1967

The Address-Hon. J. A. MacLean
If I were to choose a theme for the rambling remarks I intend to make perhaps I would suggest that it be terre des hommes, man and his world, which is the theme of Expo '67. I realize that I am running a great danger here because the title of the book which gave its theme to Expo was translated into English as "Wind, Sand and Stars". It might be said of my remarks that I intended to make a windy speech throwing sand in the eyes of my opponents so that they would see stars. However, I should like to point out that this is not my intention because in this book the wind is the wind of the spirit, the sand is the earth from which we sprang and which gives us sustenance, and the stars are our place in the cosmos.
My interpretation of the theme "man and his world" bears absolutely no relationship to the one given by Expo, but I should like to say that man's relationship to the world has changed rapidly over a relatively short period of time. In the days of the Greeks and the Romans, the civilizations from which most of what we cherish has sprung, the known world was a very limited area around the Mediterranean sea and everything beyond that was terra incognita. It was the unknown world. But as time progressed and Marco Polo and others made contact with other civilizations in other parts of the world, man's horizons began to widen. Later came the marvelous era of discovery across the oceans. Nevertheless during this period the thoughts of men were governed by the fact that, as Aristotle said, the earth was the centre of creation and everything revolved around it.
About 300 years ago a new, revolutionary and earth-shaking philosophy was put forward by the astronomers of the day who were made to suffer for their views. Galileo, Brunnow and Copernicus put forward the shocking suggestion that perhaps the world was not the centre of everything and that we, the little egocentric beings, were not the most important or the whole of God's creation. Then, as men's vision began to widen they saw that their place in the universe was not as great as they had previously supposed. With the aid of telescopes men perceived the grandeur of the constellations. They began to realize that space was a vast extent. They believed, however, that the sun was the centre of creation and the planets revolved about it. The other stars were of no significance.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
With the building of bigger and bigger telescopes developed by amateurs like Herschel

they began to realize the magnitude of creation. In a paper which he read to the Royal Society in 1785 on the construction of the heavens Herschel, who professionally was an organist in Bath, England, explained why he found it necessary to build larger telescopes. He stated that to the unaided eye the milky way appears as a diffuse band of light across the sky. Through a small telescope it seems to be a collection of stars but many nebulous patches remain unresolved. Herschel said that as the power of the telescope is increased an observer perceives that those objects which had been called nebulae are evidently nothing but clusters of stars. He finds their numbers increase upon him, and when he resolves one nebula into stars he discovers ten new ones which he cannot resolve.
The British astronomer, Professor Lovell, points out the difficulty encountered by the mind of man in resolving his insignificant place in creation. He said that the egocentric idea was so firmly embedded in men's minds that even after the acceptance of the motion of the earth and the planets around the sun it was still believed that the solar system was in the centre of the universe of fixed stars. He says he was brought up on the idea that the sun was in the centre of a stellar system of many millions of stars distributed throughout such a volume of space that light would take
20.000	years to traverse the universe. Then he goes on to say that in later years he realized that we are not only cosmically small but we are in a rather undignified position amongst the stars of the milky way.
I should interject here, Mr. Speaker, that occasionally since I have been a member of parliament I have tried to make the odd speech which would expand our view and look at things in perhaps a philosophical light. Like most speeches of that type, they went completely unnoticed. As I have said, they are embalmed in the tomes of Hansard. Once in a while I am moved to make another just to keep them company. This introduction to my remarks merely serves to point out that in the last 100 years there has been a tremendous expansion of imagination, of thought and of understanding of our world. We have to rise to the occasion to assess and understand the significance of our world better than we did in the past. We know now that our galaxy is only one of millions of galaxies in the universe. Our galaxy, which is the milky way, is so large that it takes light about
100.000	years to cross it from side to side. However, it is minute compared with the whole of the universe.
May 15, 1967	COMMONS
As a matter of fact, galaxies like ours are so numerous in the heavens that they are counted in the thousands of millions. With the modern equipment which has recently been developed it is possible to locate and measure these galaxies out in space. The Harvard observatory has become so efficient in this operation that they are able to locate and chart new galaxies as large as ours at a cost of about $52 a hundred. However, each of these galaxies contains up to thousands of millions of stars, each one as significant as our sun.
As a result of world war II there have been tremendous advances in man's understanding of the environment in which he lives. This has been brought about chiefly by three things. The first was the putting into operation of the 200-inch optical telescope at Palomar in California, then the development of radio-astronomy, and finally the artificial earth satellites. We have now reached the place where we can probe into space a distance of about 6,000 million light years. A light year, of course, is the distance that light will travel at a rate of 186,000 miles a second in a year. However, the expanse of the universe is so vast we can no longer assume we are alone. Even if we assumed that the chances of a star like our sun having in its orbit another earth like ours that would be suitable for life were only one in a million, there would still be hundreds of millions of places where life probably exists.
How do we shore up our ego when we realize we are no longer the centre of creation and that we are only a recent phenomenon? We have not proven our ability to survive. We can create no impression of significance as a result of size or anything of that sort. This probably makes us feel rather humble and insignificant. When men believed they were the centre of everything, the centre of creation, a certain type of piety was very common. It still exists, even amongst members of this house. I can think of one case in the group to my left and one amongst the government of a very strong sense of piety, but it is a piety that stems from a reverence for the supreme being based upon his supposed resemblance to themselves. This idea is no longer enough for us. We must find some other reason to give meaning to the fact that we exist.
To what can humanity turn now to justify its existence? I think, Mr. Speaker, the thing that is unique about us is the human mind, the ability to wonder, the ability to record our own history and the opportunity, very rarely
DEBATES	211
The Address-Hon. J. A. MacLean taken, to learn from the experience of our species. There is the ability also, which apparently no other form of life has to any great extent, to anticipate the future and try to plan for it. Unlike many forms of life, such as insects which come into the world inheriting all the knowledge they need, man has to learn. This puts a very great load on him as our fund of knowledge increases. It means that the learning process must be efficient and probably must be ever increasingly longer. There is, of course, the opportunity continuously to rise to higher and higher levels of understanding, something that is denied other forms of life. This is what has enabled man to achieve such glorious developments.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
There is a great place for youth in our society but there is a great onus on youth to learn from experience and not to believe that youth knows it all already. I think that one of the great problems of our society which will be facing us in the years ahead is succinctly stated in the old German proverb which says that our difficulty is that we get wise so slowly and get old so quickly. One of the great questions which has to be solved in the years ahead is to develop medical science so as to eliminate premature senility. In this event, having educated a person we can then draw upon his knowledge, experience and judgment for as long as possible.
As a nation we are in terms of average age becoming older and older. A great deal of nonsense is uttered on this subject in newspaper editorials. I am shocked and surprised that editorial writers do not bother to consult easily procurable facts but try to create the impression that there are more young people in the country than was ever the case before and therefore we should immediately hand everything over to people under 25 or under 35, depending on the view of the editorial writer concerned. The fact of the matter is that we are becoming older and older as a nation. It is true that in 1966 it was estimated that 49.4 per cent of our population was under the age of 25. But in 1871, Mr. Speaker, 62.2 per cent of our population was under the age of 25, so we are becoming an older and older nation as time goes by.
The next most important question facing us as a nation and as a civilization is the struggle that is going on for the conquest of men's minds. We in the west seem to be oblivious almost to the titanic struggle for men's minds that is occupying those who would destroy
May 15, 1967

The Address-Hon. J. A. Mac Lean
our way of life. I fear that we are frequently being brainwashed without even knowing it. It is the avowed purpose of the communist world to attack our institutions by talking about peaceful co-existence, planting in our minds the idea of peace at any price, world disarmament, one world government, east and west trade, all of which are good.
They also preach atheism and tend to promote an attempt to destroy the family, the basic unit of our civilization. They promote class warfare in one form or another. They instigate all kinds of vice and degeneration, especially among our youth. They disparage everything and everybody that made the nation prosperous, strong and respected. They deride the armed forces, especially the police. They stress and magnify all the ancient problems of humanity as if they were something particularly limited to the capitalist system. This is not the case.
We are also faced with the great problem caused by the tremendous development in mass media communication. All of us listen to radio and television. These are media which could be a tremendous force in giving our civilization and our people information. However, usually they peddle propaganda, either consciously or unconsciously.
If this debate served no other purpose than to put on the record some of the words of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, I think the time spent by parliament would be richly rewarded. The hon. member said, as reported on page 25 of Hansard:
But I want to say to this house with all the conviction at my command, and with the plea that hon. members accept my sincerity, that what we know about television is dangerously little. I am appalled by the comments made so frequently by so many people, and with such conviction, on the basis of so little hard evidence.
I am held in awe sometimes by the power of this medium, by its ability to reach millions of Canadians at the turn of a switch. I shudder at the casual, offhand manner in which television sometimes deals with issues which can affect the survival of mankind. We hear a great deal about television's "hidden persuaders" and their ability to induce people to buy brand A in preference to brand B, a quality which is frequently condemned. What is too often overlooked is that those same hidden persuaders can also be used to sell ideas and doctrines which are not necessarily in the public interest. I do not suggest that television is being used subversively. The tragedy is that even if it were we do not possess enough knowledge to know.
I wish that extract from the hon. member's speech could be framed and included in the price of every television set so that all could read it before turning the set on.

If we are to survive, Mr. Speaker, I believe our objectives should be truth, excellence and character. In this connection I should like to quote from a very worthy newsletter recently published by the Koyal Bank of Canada:
Everyone's life is spent in the pursuit of selffulfilment, but not everyone reaches his objective. The man or woman who succeeds is a person who has realized in time that satisfaction does not arise merely from being good at something, but also from being a certain kind of person.
Such a person is not content to dedicate his life to small purposes. He has quality in his ambition. He does not strive to amass stuff to feed his vanity, but does his best to become somebody who is esteemed. He wishes to be, not merely to appear, the best, for this is the mark of quality.
The person of quality realizes that there is something beyond success: it is excellence. One may be successful in the eyes of the world without touching the Golden Fleece of excellence, for excellence is in the person and is not conferred by the greatness of the office he holds. It is typified in what the goddess Athene said of Ulysses, that in him "deed and word notably marched together to their deliberate end".
I believe I have another five minutes, Mr. Speaker, so I should like to devote about one minute to each of the subthemes of "Man and his World", first of all, "Man the Explorer". In the next 100 years man the explorer must devote his attention to exploring the cosmos, the sea around us, and the planet on which he lives. Most important, he must explore his own mind to realize its weaknesses and its potential.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I speak of "Man the Creator". If we are to have a creative society in the next 100 years we must develop an environment where man will have time to contemplate, as Newton had in his orchard, where man will have the incentive to create, where our spare time is not devoted to useless and terrible escapism from the world, but rather where man will face the problems of the world and try to solve them. Man the creator must appreciate excellence. We must discover what the good life is, set it as a goal and progress to it.
I speak of "Man the Provider". In the next 30 years as many more people will be added to the population of the earth as live on the earth now. Demand for food and clothing is going up by geometric progression, and our ability to meet this demand is not going up at such a rate. Man must learn to provide for his increased numbers or he must learn to limit his numbers. This will be one of the great problems in the first quarter of the next century.
May 15, 1967	COMMONS
I speak of "Man the Producer". We are on the threshold of an age of marvelous productivity brought about by the harnessing of energy that 25 years ago most did not dream existed-atomic energy.
My time is almost up. I could go on for another half hour but I shall conclude in one more minute by saying that the most important science for man to learn is the science of producing and distributing wealth. The science of economy is no more advanced today than was the science of medicine 300 years ago. We are surrounded by economic quackery and economic witch doctors on all sides. They try to apply their nostrums to the curing of man's material wants. It cannot be done that way.
We must have research and we must develop thought on how man's needs may be met. Most important, the meeting of man's physical needs should not be an end in itself but a means to an end to allow man to live the better life which will justify his existence, though he knows that he is a recent phenomenon only, existing on a speck of dust in a far off corner of the sea of space.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, after the others, I should like to express my deepest sympathy to the family of Mrs. Konantz whose charitable spirit we have learned to appreciate as well as the exceptional qualities of her character. All who sat with her were deeply grieved when they learned of her passing.
I should also, Mr. Speaker, like to express the usual congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech of the throne (Messrs. Jamieson and Cote). The usual congratulations also to the new Governor General, the Right Hon. Roland Michener who is the worthy successor of a worthy predecessor. He is the symbol in Canada of the supreme authority; he is also the representative of Her Majesty the Queen. In such circumstances, all zealotry should be set aside and the merits of such a distinguished function as that of Governor General should be recognized.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, this does not prevent the hon. members of parliament, even if they can conform to the requirements of the constitution and of respect to the authorities, to consider the reforms that must be made and which become necessary with the passing years.
DEBATES	213
The Address-Mr. Choquette [DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I can understand that the member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) should be galled to find reformist elements in the Liberal party. All the more so because he belongs to a party reputed for always looking to the past. On this side of the house, we see no sacrilege, we see no desecration of authority, when members prove capable of envisaging reforms which sooner or later will become realities.
Mr. Speaker, I feel the time is most appropriate for making the observations I should like to make, especially in view of the intervention of the member for Winnipeg South Centre this morning. I take the liberty to point out to him that there has been quite a change since 1945, let us say in the symbolism of Canadian sovereignty.
Before 1945, Canada's official flag, or at least the flag recognized, was the union jack. It is a flag which still deserves honour. After the war, it was realized that Canada has sufficiently matured to assert its sovereignty by means of a distinctive symbol. Thus, on a temporary basis, the red ensign, another flag which deserves honour, was flown as the Canadian flag.
A little later on, in 1952, when all previous governors general were British, the decision was made in a spirit of better Canadianism, to appoint a Canadian-born governor general.
In 1953, Queen Elizabeth succeeded George VI who was not only king of England but king of Canada, as sovereign of Great Britain. As a matter of Canadian pride, it was decided through some point of law to make of the sovereign of Great Britain the sovereign of Canada and to see in the person of the sovereign of Great Britain two separate persons: the British head of state and the Canadian head of state.
A little later, namely in 1964, Mr. Speaker, always in order to eliminate the symbols of colonialism, always in order to stress even more our Canadian pride, it was decided to adopt a distinctive Canadian flag, a flag which is honoured today by all Canadians whatever their political allegiance. And later again, that is in 1967, "O Canada" was officially designated as the country's national anthem.
What does it mean, if not a steady evolution towards the symbolic assertion of Canada's sovereignty? And since we are caught up in that evolution, why try to create a scandal, suspect a revolutionary spirit or
May 15. 1967

The Address-Mr. Choquette accuse of sacrilege whoever foresees the possibility of the supreme authority of the country eventually being held by a Canadian-born citizen? There is nothing scandalous in that. In addition, this does not mean that the supporters of such a reform have no respect for the constitution, or for the British sovereign.
Mr. Speaker, all those things are not said by a so-called French Canadian, but by a Canadian period. We are all Canadians and we are even prouder in 1967 to be Canadians. That is why, belonging to the younger generation, I think it is normal to foresee the possibility of all symbols of colonialism disappearing.
Mr. Speaker, that may not be the official policy of the Liberal party-I think it is far from being their official policy, since the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) himself said that it was not and that Canada remains a monarchy-but the members of the young generation have a right to look forward to reforms which will one day become a reality.
Mr. Speaker, I say that because I am happy to be in the Liberal party, for no Conservative would be able to speak like that without being considered a pariah or a renegade by the members of his party. What a scandalous way of talking! This proves that there is democracy and freedom of expression within our party, and we owe that above all to the Prime Minister, who is perhaps the greatest democrat Canada has ever known.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Auguste Choquette: It is the more true that there is a lack of democratic principle within the Conservative party that since 1964, the same pople who accused us of using a gag -how many times have they not recalled the famous pipe-line debate and even, sometimes, the debate on a distinctive flag when closure had to be applied-are those who, on three occasions, have prevented members from introducing bills or resolutions. Do you want proof of that?
In 1964, I presented here a bill so that Canada would no longer be a dominion. What scandal! Who objected? The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre who rose to prevent me from introducing my bill. That is democracy as understood in the Conservative party.
In 1966, I wanted to introduce a bill so that the cabinet could withdraw from the field of commutation of death sentences. Who rose to stop me from presenting my bill? The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) himself.

That is democracy according to the Conservative party.
And this morning, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre rose to prevent me from moving a resolution. That is democracy, according to the Conservative party, a party which wants to curb democratic freedoms.
That is why in the province of Quebec, where democracy and individual freedoms are appreciated, our friends will not make much headway at any time in our history, since they do not know how to adjust to the Canadian fact.
The hon. members for Prince Edward-Lennox and Cumberland (Messrs. Alkenbrack and Coates) made statements similar to that of the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan). Once, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox objected violently to the policy of bilingualism put forward by this government. The hon. member for Cumberland has also written some scathing articles to denounce the stand taken by this government towards bilingualism. The same political-philosophy was expressed by the hon. member for York-Humber.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The difference lies in the fact that the other side of this house registered no official disapproval of the remarks made by the hon. members for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) and Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Alkenbrack), while on this side of the house, the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) was officially blamed for his remarks. Why? Because these remarks reflect precisely a philosophy which is inconsistent with the Canadian fact.
The best indication that the Conservative party will never adjust-at least has never managed to adjust to the Canadian reality-is the frustration felt by all those from the province of Quebec, who belonged to that party, for instance, the former hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay), who sat in this house from 1958 to 1962 and who was the colleague of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), as he will remember since they attended the Conservative caucus together.
What has become of the one who was the member for Roberval from 1958 until 1962? He is now a separatist, anti-confederation; such is the corollary of a party maladjusted to the Canadian fact.
In 1958, there was a Conservative candidate, by the name of Yvon Groulx. Today, he
May 15, 19S7	COMMONS
is the president of the so-called Societe Saint-Jean Baptiste. He is also against confederation, a professed separatist. He was a Conservative candidate in 1958.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), who sat at the Conservative caucus and was a colleague of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, or better his colleague and friend, what is he now? He does not miss any opportunity to state theories which border on separatism; he never misses an opportunity to expose the actual or imaginary faults of confederation.
That is what comes of a party which never learned to adjust itself to the Canadian fact. Therefore, all the Quebec members who once belonged to this party are now either disillusioned, down hearted or separatists. That is why an ill-adjusted policy is unfortunate. On the other hand, thanks to the generous leadership of the present leader of the government, the policy of the Liberal party makes allowances for the true situation in Canada, that is, a policy designed to integrate the French fact to the Canadian reality.
Mr. Speaker, many false notions should be eliminated with regard to the policy of bilingualism. First of all, it should be clearly stated that it will never be the government's intention to compel anyone to learn a language. It would be an anti-democratic move and we could never support a government trying to force anybody to learn a language. This is the first prejudice that must be dispelled with regard to the policy on bilingualism put forward by the present government.
The second prejudice that should be eliminated is that in the Canadian constitution-the British North America Act, to use if you like an expression more attractive to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre-section 133 states:
Either the English or the French language maybe used by any person in the Debates of the Houses of the Parliament of Canada and of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec; and both those languages shall be used in the respective Records and Journals of those Houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any court of Canada established under this act, and in or from all or any of the courts of Quebec.
The acts of the Parliament of Canada and of the Legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those languages.
Such a section, Mr. Speaker, does not give any priority right whatsoever to one or the other of the two languages: It simply consecrates the official character of one as regards the other.
DEBATES	215
The Address-Mr. Choquette


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What section are you reading from?


Auguste Choquette: Section 133 of the British North America Act.
He simply recognizes the existence of two languages, without giving priority to one or the other. Why are both languages firmly rooted? It is very simple: there are 12 million English-speaking people and between 5 and 6 million French-speaking people in Canada, and as long as the Canadian situation remains the same, it is obvious that both languages will be respected, accepted and considered as official languages in Canada. It is not legislation which gives superiority to one language over the other.
The third prejudice which must be eliminated, Mr. Speaker, as far as bilingualism is concerned, is that you cannot request every citizen to speak both languages perfectly. You simply have to provide an individual with the possibility of speaking in his own language and being understood by the person to whom he is speaking, and the latter, if we wants to speak in his own language, must be assured that he is understood in his turn. It is not a matter of demanding that someone speak both French and English with great fluency but rather a question of being assured that one will be understood when speaking in his own tongue and of having the technical facilities to allow this.
This means that when the policy of bilingualism is well understood, when it is free of all prejudice, it is obvious that the steps taken by the present government are merely of a nature to seal Canadian unity and prevent certain extremists, of whom some former Conservative members or candidates, from taking advantage of a sometimes confused situation to try to break down the structures of the country, which structures we want to strengthen.
Mr. Speaker, before closing my remarks, I should like to say a few words about the amendment proposed by the member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) and pay tribute to his exceptional ability in having managed to introduce, in the course of this debate, the amendment he has moved.
The farm policy of the government of necessity has some weak points; one must not fail to be objective to the point of saying that it is beyond criticism. But it can be said as a preamble and to motivate rejection of the motion introduced by our friends of the
May 15, 1967

The Address-Mr. Choquette Ralliement Creditiste that it is better to support a government which has unfailingly considered the needs of the farmers with a clear sightedness and understanding never shown on the opposite side of the house.
When the farmers asked for the establishment of the livestock feed agency, the present government introduced and implemented legislation. When the farmers asked for the establishment of the Canadian Dairy Commission, the present government introduced the bill and granted the request of the farmers. When Quebec farmers asked for crop insurance, the present government amended the federal Crop Insurance Act and thus enabled the provincial government, the Quebec legislature, to adopt a similar bill not so long ago.
When the farmers asked for the extension of unemployment insurance to farm labour, the present government understood their request and agreed thereto. For several years, farmers have benefited by substantial increases in the price of manufacturing milk. One remembers-and this was repeated several times-that before 1962, milk sold for approximately $2.70 per hundredweight.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Within a short period of time, the price of milk was raised to $4.75 per hundredweight, and when I say $4.75, that includes the export subsidy.
Mr. Speaker, considering all those measures, one would rather support the present government, which put them forward, instead of criticizing it and voting against its policy. This does not mean that no reservations could be made, and that is what I would like to do. I would like to ask all those who support indiscriminately all representations and demands, wherever they come from, if in those circumstances there is not a little demagoguery in their attitude.
If the farmers had asked for $7 per hundredweight, some hon. members in this house would have said: We must give the farmers $7 per hundredweight. If they had asked for $8 or $9 per hundredweight, some hon. members would have said: We must give the farmers $8 or $9 per hundredweight. And that, without asking themselves if it would be possible to grant such subsidies to the farm people.
Last year, subsidies paid to the dairy industry amounted to approximately $90 million. This year, they have gone up to $120 million, that is, an increase of $30 million. No one,

more particularly among our Creditiste friends, has told us exactly where the national budget should be cut so that the demands of the dairy farmers might be met.
Their demands have merely been shouted with strength and vigour without anyone specifying how they could be satisfied. This often points to the lack of responsibility of members of the opposition. While being sympathetic to the farmers' demands, the administrators must nevertheless be responsible enough to maintain a budgetary balance and avoid any extravagance.
The farmers should be asked whether or not they intend to request the provincial authorities to make up the balance they claim.
The government of the province of Quebec should also be asked to fix a guaranteed price which the manufacturer would have to pay the producer.
Such a policy exists in Ontario and British Columbia. The Quebec government has not seen fit to implement it. The farmers could perhaps request its implementation since, as the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) rightly pointed out the other day, a number of factories do not pay the fixed price of $3.54 which, added to the federal subsidy, gives the total price of $4.75 announced in the dairy policy this year.
Since this falls within provincial jurisdiction, I feel that it would behoove the Quebec authorities to set a minimum price, as it already exists, and then they could address themselves to the Quebec parliament and organize marches to obtain it.
Mr. Speaker, I could make another suggestion which concerns the federal authorities. Manufacturing milk is now subsidized on the basis of its fat content, but it is proved that the non-fat solids also have some value; it often happens in the milk industry that some non-fat solids are of superior quality in some milks than in others This goes to say that milk could be subsidized, not only on the basis of butterfat, but also on the basis of non-fat solids.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to suggest that it might be most advisable for the government to re-examine or rather to make representations with the Canadian Dairy Commission, for that is the body which took the final decision to base quotas on the 196667 production.
Perhaps that was a hasty decision that should be reconsidered, and perhaps it would be appropriate to urge the Canadian Dairy Commission not only to pay the subsidies and
May 15, 1967

to fix quotas based on last year's production, but also to provide for increased production and to subsidize a proportion thereof.
It means that if the farmer produced, in
1966-	67, 150,000 pounds of milk, the quota under which he will receive a subsidy for his
1967-	68 production will be set a 150,000 pounds of milk.
What will happen to the farmer who will produce 200,000 or 250,000 pounds this year? That is where I feel the Canadian Dairy Commission should provide for a readjustment of quotas and allow part of the increased production to be subsidized.
Finally, a last suggestion to the federal authorities, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be advisable to put into operation a program which, for one thing, was already forecast in the 1962 election platform, when a program dealing with milk consumption in schools was under study? It may be a way to avoid overproduction and enable farmers to dispose of their production. The establishment of an extensive program of milk distribution in schools would also satisfy a wish expressed throughout the years.
On the whole, Mr. Speaker, and in spite of those reservations, I must say that I am very pleased with the policy set forth by the government. Our concern for the farmers has been sincere and we therefore deserve their confidence. That is why I shall readily vote against the motion introduced by our friends of the Ralliement Creditiste.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in the throne speech debate it gives me great pleasure to join with other members of the House of Commons in congratulating the mover and seconder. I have always believed it to be a great honour for the members who are chosen by the Prime Minister. They have, I am sure, felt that honour and have discharged their tasks with great distinction, and I say that in all sincerity. I have been a member of this house for some years and I feel that their contribution to this debate was perhaps greater than any they may make later.
It always gives me great pleasure to follow my good friend the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Choquette) because he has far different ideas about things than many other members. Perhaps this is what makes this place so refreshing. I always think of him as the hon. member for Windsor Castle. He is the great republican in Canada. He is a man
The Address-Mr. Woolliams who can take his oath on the Bible swearing allegiance to the Queen and accept his pay 30 days later without bother to his conscience. Be that as it may, perhaps we need people who think differently in this house because when everybody thinks alike there is no thought.
Today I intend to speak about the law of expropriation, but before getting into the meat of that subject let me say that we as members of parliament can never be sure what will happen during orders of the day. I cannot help but think back to 1962-63 during the Cuban crisis when the older frontbenchers of this Liberal government were sitting on this side asking us at that time to rubber-stamp everything done by the United States. It is amazing to note the change in attitude and responsibility of those hon. gentlemen when they moved from one side of the house to the other.
At this time I should like to ask the Liberals in this house what happened to the marriage between certain powerful people in the United States and the Liberal party which allowed them always to take two sides on every question in order to safeguard the government's position in maintaining power. I have always found this very unusual. They are the people who jumped right in with both feet with the United States on any foreign affairs policy without asking any questions. That was the position taken by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) long before he thought he would be the minister of external affairs.
According to the headlines appearing in the newspapers today the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Winters) would not say that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) or the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) would repudiate the position taken by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon) so far as Viet Nam is concerned. They were able to repudiate that position outside the house because they fear what might happen to public opinion so far as they are concerned.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I am not going to get into a debate on the situation in Viet Nam. I think this house knows my personal position with regard to that situation. But one thing I often wonder about is, how many of us in this House of Commons, how many people who endeavour to speak with some degree of intelligence on Viet Nam, know the facts and what is behind those facts? As the hon. member for Queens
May 15, 1967

The Address-Mr. Woolliams (Mr. MacLean) and somebody else on this side of the house said this afternoon, the very least we can do if we do not know the facts is to remain silent.


Mr. McNulty:: Then why don't you do so?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have not passed an opinion on the war in Viet Nam in this speech up to now, but I say that the very least one can do if one does not know all the facts is to remain silent. I am not talking about members of parliament in particular but rather the protest groups referred to today by one hon. member.
I suppose everyone would like to take a few minutes in this debate to say a few words about our centennial year. I believe all members of parliament were asked by Malvern Collegiate Institute in Toronto to make a prediction about what would happen 100 years from now. I could not help thinking, after listening to the speech of the hon. member for Lotbiniere this afternoon, that perhaps many of us are too parochial. I am not completely clued in myself in this respect, but perhaps many of us are so parochial and so regional that we really cannot see what is happening beyond our own communities, not only in the rest of Canada but internationally. We worry about languages, we worry about cultures. But when you get outside Canada and pick up a newspaper you wonder whether Canada exists internationally because you are lucky to find two lines dealing with Canadian affairs in any international newspaper.
We are so parochial and regional-minded that I was prompted to answer the collegiate and make the following prediction about what the situation would be 100 years from now. I think these words apply to all of us. I sincerely believe that the most important thing for Canada today is that we work together, become unified and stay together. I believe we must have open minds. I have an open mind about the hon. member for Lotbiniere. He does not like the Governor General, the Queen, and similar institutions. In Britain he could make a wonderful speech in Hyde Park and deliver that kind of message. But let me read my predictions for the year 2067. This is what I said:
In a century, Canada as a people and territory will become part of a solitary nation, or a new world of few nations.
The portion of our national political and social culture to be contributed in survival, will depend upon how soon we discard our narrow parochialism, responsible for such unnecessary time-consuming national energy. Instead of preparing our people for the international oneness of mankind inevitably

coming with compelling haste, we are extravagantly spending time on flags, anthems and cultural tangled squabbles.
The failure of this nation to grasp the significance of its greatness and the dethroning and wastage of our mental resources could mean its dissolution in less than 25 years.
With that premise, may I predict that by 2067:
1.	We will be a nation of 200 million, sharing a world unity.
2.	We will be a part of a world knowledgeable about outer space, having found life there in an either less or more developed state than human beings.
3.	Leisure time will be in abundance, and its use will determine our moral and social values.
4.	Regulatory birth control will be a necessary part of our new social order.
5.	Parochialism here will be dead... narrow nationalism will be dead . .. but internationalism will flourish, and only in world oneness or nearness will any facsimile of Canada's culture survive.
In that prediction I say that unless we change our narrow, parochial, regional thinking this nation is doomed because it will be dissolved in 25 years. But I think many of us can rise above regionalism and parochialism, see both sides of the question, understand each other and draw closer together. It is most regrettable that we continually read in newspapers that this or that province will separate from our confederation. Canada is a great nation. We can work together, we have to work together as we have in the past, and in that way we can overcome this narrow parochialism and regionalism.
We in the House of Commons fight about language. Let us look at some of the statistics of language. If we consider the population of North America we find that 80 million people on this continent speak Spanish. The statistics show that approximately 250 million people today speak English, and 25 per cent of the world's population speak some form of Chinese. If we are really concerned about the problem perhaps we should be learning to speak Chinese so we may understand these people, because it is in free intercourse one with the other that we will bring about understanding, particularly at a time when we are talking about international crises. Of the world population 8.3 per cent speak Russian. Seventy per cent of all the letters written in the world are written in English.
I do not know why we spend so much time arguing about language. I appreciate anybody speaking in another tongue. I wish I had had the opportunity as a young man in my formal education to learn many languages. I wish that when I went to school I had had the
May 15, 1967

opportunity, like other members of my family, to learn two or three languages. I think it is wonderful to understand languages. But why spend so much time on and be supersensitive about whether something is written in French, Spanish or English? What does it matter? This narrow regionalism and parochialism is eroding and sapping the very spirit of the nation.
I now wish to turn to another subject with which I think any government should come to grips. I want to come to grips with the question of the expropriation of land in this nation. As counsel I have had some experience with expropriation law and expropriation cases. I have also been most active, as a member of parliament, in the northern affairs committee since coming to the House of Commons. The reason I have been so interested in this matter is, I suppose, that I have had the privilege, opportunity and indeed the honour of representing Banff National Park, one of the beauty spots of North America.
We talk about civil rights. I am not pointing an accusing finger at the present government when making this speech because the abuses in expropriation to which I will draw attention have occurred in every province under provincial law and federal law. The abuses that have occurred under federal law are the worst of all. I hope that the speech I make today will have some impact in solving this problem for those who are in the chamber and those who may read my speech later. The Bill of Rights is involved in this problem. Let us look at the Canadian Bill of Rights. I have always felt it to be most regrettable that the courts have refused to give effect to the Bill of Rights. They refuse to give it meaning and significance. Perhaps the courts believe the Bill of Rights is not a constitutional change, but it is pretty definite in some of its language and it was approved by parliament. The Canadian Bill of Rights provides:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely-
What are they?
-the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
When I talk about the expropriation of land I shall deal with civil rights in the enjoyment of property. The right to own property in this nation is a civil right. That right should not

The Address-Mr. Woolliams be taken away from the individual without due process of law as set out in the Bill of Rights. With all due respect to the Bill of Rights, I might go so far as to say that this was the law before the Bill of Rights was enacted.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
What is the federal authority in respect of expropriation? It has the authority and must have the authority to expropriate land for public works. It has to have the authority to expropriate land for a railway. People cannot be allowed to stop the development of the nation. It also has to have the authority to expropriate land for national parks under certain circumstances. I will have more to say about that later.
The next question I ask is, how does expropriation in Canada operate under our laws? Let us take the case of the national parks. The officials of the public works department get together and prepare an order in council with a description of the land. When it is drawn up it is then approved by the executive. The order in council is then filed in the land titles office. That is how it is started. No notice is given to the owners. I can show hon. members hundreds of cases where no notice has been given. In fact, in the case of national parks it has been a deliberate policy of the department not to give notice of expropriation.
In one of the cases before the Exchequer Court in which I acted as counsel no notice was given to three men who were pioneers of western Canada. Their land was taken away from them, and even under cross-examination we have been unable to find out the reason for this action. However, the cat came out of the bag in an examination for discovery, and the case has just been completed so I can discuss it here. It is the case of Lake Louise Ski Lodge Limited v. Her Majesty the Queen involving three people who owned 60 acres of land of which the pivotal point is Lake Louise. Today multimillion dollar enterprises, including a visitors' centre, are being built there by the government, which had some trouble in negotiating a financial agreement in expropriating land for the trans-Canada highway. All the government needed at that time was four to five acres of land for the roads, but when I cross-examined the officials they told me they could not complete the kind of deal they wanted and the price for the four
May 15. 1967

The Address-Mr. Woolliams or five acres was not right. I asked the director of the national parks what was his answer to that, and he replied:
Such action did not appear necessary at that time if the land for the right-of-way could have been acquired for a reasonable amount.
Then I asked him:
So that it was really, then, the result that as you were not able to negotiate for the highway that you did actually expropriate the other land?
To which he answered "yes". In other words, 55 or 56 acres were taken over for the sake of four or five acres. Surely this is not taking over land under due process of law.
Of course the right to expropriate could be challenged, but who can afford this legal procedure? Let us consider what happens after the land is expropriated, and this is the worst part. The onus is then on the owners to try to negotiate with the department of the government, and if they cannot reach an agreement they must start an action in the Exchequer Court of Canada. This means that an owner, who may be a man with very limited means, must hire a good lawyer because one cannot go to the Exchequer Court without a lawyer with a good deal of skill. It is also necessary to hire a top appraiser, which is costly. In the Lake Louise case the judgment given by the Exchequer Court was about $96,000.
The original letter offered these people $13,000 for the land, so they had to hire a lawyer. They had to get appraisers and engineers. This does not sound like much, but before you can place your case before the Exchequer Court you have to allow about $20,000 without even considering a dollar for your lawyer or for experts to assist you.
I say that the law in this regard is wrong. I realize that to run the country efficiently land is needed for parks, highways and railways. Individuals cannot be allowed to hold up the development and progress of the nation. However, I say that the expropriation law is being spelled out by certain officials of the department so as to make it work for them and not the owner. I believe the law should be changed so that if negotiations are unsuccessful the crown should start the action. A time limit should be set for the negotiations, after which the crown must start an action. The crown should carry the ball and the onus should be on it to prove what the land is worth. The owner should then take the defence. Today the onus is on the owner of the land. Under the Bill of Rights no one should lose the enjoyment of his property without due process of the law.

Today if an owner is financially crippled and his property is expropriated he cannot get justice because he cannot afford to buy it.
Let us take a look at another situation where leases are being taken over in the national parks. No one on the government side has raised a voice in protest. It is a most shocking situation. The reason may be that there is no national park in Ontario or Quebec. There are land ownerships in fee simple. Leases in perpetuity were granted years ago and this is almost the same as a title in fee simple. Then there are 99-year leases and 4 2-year leases with the right to renew for 21 years. The department has denied this. The officials say that this cannot happen. But it does happen. A parliamentary committee met in Banff, and at that time the national parks branch filed a big yellow bible on their policies. I did a little homework that night and I found something which I should like to put on the record. I am referring to the advice of the Department of Justice given to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing). It reads as follows:
On normal renewals of perpetual renewal leases, the department can probably be forced (legally) to issue renewal leases also containing the perpetual renewal clauses... on a normal renewal of a perpetual renewal lease we cannot legally force the lessee to take only a 42- or a 42 plus 21-year lease in its stead.
In spite of this advice what did the minister do? I have hundreds of letters on file, but here is one from someone in Jasper. I will not give his name because that might cause his ruination. He was told that the department would approve the registration of his mortgage for the building provided he gave up his lease in perpetuity to the crown and in return took a 42-year lease. I say that this is blackmail. This would be considered duress under any law. The crown in the name of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is guilty of this sort of thing. It is going on continually.
I have already spoken about the difficulties involved in placing an expropriation case before the Exchequer Court. I put the following simple question on the order paper:
Will the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development take the appropriate action to have referred, pursuant to the provisions of section 55 of the Supreme Court Act, to the Supreme Court of Canada, the questions (a) whether the so-called perpetual leases in the national parks were legally granted by the Crown-
The officers of the crown swore before the committee that these leases were legally
May 15. 1967	COMMONS
granted. They said they would have to renew them under the present terms and conditions. The minister and his department say they will not allow a person to build or will not approve the mortgage unless he gives up what he has and accepts less in return.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
I asked that question and what kind of answer did I get? It was an amazing answer. The officials stayed up all night so I would not get the facts. I asked the government to take the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada and this is the answer I received:
I am advised with respect to so-called perpetually renewable leases granted by the minister of the interior prior to the enactment of the National Parks Act in 1930, that the minister of the interior did not have the power to grant a right of renewal in those terms and therefore that portion of the leases was ultra vires his power and authority-
I asked the government it they would refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada to ascertain whether or not the leases were legal. They said they were not legal. Why do I want the government to take up the matter with the Supreme Court of Canada? I desire this because it costs a citizen so much money to go before the Exchequer Court. Where does the Exchequer Court sit, Mr. Speaker? It sits in Ottawa but will go to other places. Every time there is a procedural question it has to be argued in Ottawa. No citizen can afford, unless he is a wealthy man, to become involved in a lawsuit in the Exchequer Court of Canada. May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p,m.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand that the Minister of Trade and Commerce wishes to revert to motions for the purpose of making a statement. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



REPORT ON RESULTS OF GENEVA TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS

Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, almost 50 countries accounting for 80 per cent of the world's trade have for some four years now been negotiating the Kennedy round of trade expansion at Geneva under the provisions of 27053-15
DEBATES	221
Report on Geneva Tariff Negotiations GATT. Basic agreement among major trading countries was reached about an hour ago in Geneva. There is about $40 billion worth of trade in products in which concessions have been made.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) joined me in Geneva last Thursday and we participated with our delegation in the last critical stages when crucial decisions were necessary. During that time we had policy discussions with representatives of our important trading partners, the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, the Common Market, the group of Nordic countries and Australia. With some heads of delegations we had more than one meeting. I also met on several occasions with Mr. Eric Wyndam White, director general of GATT, the organization under whose auspices these important trade negotiations have been held. He has been a tower of strength and we all owe him a debt of gratitude for his contributions to world trade.
I believe these talks made a constructive contribution to negotiations, both from a general viewpoint and particularly in terms of Canadian trading interests. Many of the final points revolved around agriculture, and it was both opportune and helpful to have the Minister of Agriculture with me.
From the Canadian point of view, concessions which have been negotiated in foreign markets represent the most important trade pact in this century and affect some billions of dollars of trade. From a world point of view, negotiations have achieved a most important advance in lowering tariff and other barriers to trade.
For example, in the United States tariffs have been reduced or completely eliminated on $1 billion to $1.5 billion of Canadian goods moving into that market. Also the lowering of tariffs should make it possible to sell goods we have not previously been able to merchandise there. In this market we have gained markedly improved access over a very extensive range of products which will be of great benefit to our industry, our agriculture, our fisheries and to our industrial development generally.
In addition to making substantial tariff reductions over many thousands of items, the United States has agreed to eliminate its tariffs on a large number of Canadian products. These tariff cuts will greatly enhance our export prospects, and I know that our exporters will take full advantage of all these possibilities which will become progressively
May 15, 1967

Report on Geneva Tariff Negotiations available over a period of five years, starting January 1, 1968.
Reductions to be made in Canadian tariff as part of these reciprocal arrangements will be of benefit to Canadian consumers and to users of a wide variety of imported products. This will help reduce costs of production for our farms, fisheries, mines and industry. But to make our way in a more competitive world, we will have to be alert to opportunities that are presented. To take full advantage of these changes, our businessmen, our workers, our farmers and, indeed, all Canadians will have to accept the reality of a more competitive world and make necessary adjustments to reap rewards from this new situation.
While it is not yet possible to make public detailed results because not all GATT countries have, as yet, had the opportunity of agreeing to them, I can say with respect to wheat that the basic elements of a new international wheat arrangement have been agreed between major exporting and importing countries. We have achieved a significant and welcome increase in international minimum and maximum prices for specified qualities of wheat, and substantially strengthened arrangements for co-operation to maintain market stability. For No. 1 Manitoba northern, in store at the lakehead, new minimum and maximum prices will be $1,954 and $2,384 Canadian respectively. This represents about a 21 cent increase over minimum and maximum prices in the current international wheat agreement. Minimum price f.o.b. Vancouver will be $2,034 and maximum $2,464. A growing volume of Canadian wheat is being marketed through this port.
The minimum price agreed upon is $1.73 per bushel for No. 2 hard winter wheat, United States funds, with a quality differential of 224 cents for No. 1 Manitoba northern. Allowing for differentials in freight between gulf ports and lakehead ports, and between United States and Canada currency, this works out to the Canadian figures I have mentioned above.
Agreement has also been reached on a new food aid program totalling some 134 million tons over three years, under which responsibility for providing food assistance to developing countries will be more equitably shared by the member countries of GATT. Canada's share in this program is half a million tons a year. The fact that for the first time industrialized importing countries have agreed to co-operate with wheat producing countries in this joint program represents a

major achievement and an important forward step in international co-operation designed to help meet food needs of the developing world. Canada played a prominent role in the realization of this aim.
During the critical phases of the negotiations on wheat, the Canadian delegation included senior representatives of major producer organizations in western Canada who are members of the public advisers committee of the Canadian Wheat Board. I refer particularly to Messrs. Charles Gibbings, chairman of the advisory committee and president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Roy Atkinson, president of the National Farmers Union, Dr. Bill Parker, president of Manitoba Pool Elevators Limited, Mac Runciman, president of the United Grain Growers Limited, and John Stevens of Morinville, Alberta. Their advice made a most valued contribution to the satisfactory result attained. I am advised that the new price range and other arrangements which have been agreed carry the full support of the public advisers as, of course, they do of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Tariff cuts which have been secured from the United States, the Common Market, Japan and other countries will confer benefits on all sectors and regions of our country. The degree to which this applies depends upon our diligence and skill in pursuing the opportunities they present.
Tariff reductions which Canada and other industrial countries are making will also be of benefit to developing countries of the world. A number of such countries have participated in these negotiations and have offered improved trading opportunities for Canada.
In agriculture, reductions which we have secured in foreign markets over a broad range of products will benefit farmers from coast to coast. Important tariff cuts have been made by other countries in respect of our exports of basic materials, metals and forest products. Major gains have been made through elimination and reduction of tariffs of fish and fisheries products.
Reductions which will be made in industrial tariffs of the United States, E.E.C., and other countries, many on a uniform basis of 50 per cent, will help Canadians to increase both variety and volume of our exports to these markets. Improved access to foreign markets which has been secured should, through expanded exports, significantly help our manufacturers to achieve economies of scale and specialization which are so necessary to improving our efficiency, productivity and competitive position.
May 15, 1967

A new anti-dumping code has been agreed by Canada and our major trading partners, designed to improve existing practices in world trade while safeguarding legitimate interests of our domestic producers.
Benefits for Canada have been secured not only through bilateral negotiations with our most important trading partners but also as a result of indirect benefits which will accrue to Canada from agreements which have been reached between other pairs and groups of countries participating in the Kennedy round. This was an important factor in these successful multilateral negotiations.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Detailed elaboration of agreements which have been reached is now going forward; formal legal documents should be ready for signature before the end of June. Shortly thereafter it is planned that detailed results will be announced simultaneously by all participating countries.
Canada can take great satisfaction that success has crowned efforts which we and others have made over the last four years to conclude this largest ever world trade negotiation started through the initiative and statesmanship of the late President Kennedy.
People, Mr. Speaker, are the essential ingredient in any endeavour, and in this prolonged, sometimes frustrating and most difficult of all trade negotiations, this was the determining factor. Our negotiating team, led by the deputy ministers of the departments concerned, was highly competent, devoted and tireless, often negotiating right through the night.
In the early stages of the Kennedy round our team was led by Mr. Norman Robertson and supported, until recently, by Mr. Hector McKinnon, an experienced veteran of many multilateral trade negotiations. More recently our work at Geneva was guided and coordinated by Mr. Sidney D. Pierce, a distinguished diplomat whose resolute optimism was finally rewarded. It was a matter of comfort to all of us that our ambassador and permanent representative to the European office of the United Nations, Mr. Sol Rae, was always so readily available with help, guidance and encouragement.
On behalf of the government and, I presume, parliament as well I wish to pay tribute and to express our gratitude to all these devoted public servants in whom Canada can be justifiably proud.
Report on Geneva Tariff Negotiations


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) I am concerned about the second point he raised which was not about goods in general but about wheat. The minister said that he could not tell the house what the situation presently is. I hope we shall not have another automotive pact situation. We shall look forward with interest to what will take place between Canada, the United States and other trading nations. Agreements sometimes look good on paper, as did the automotive agreement, but their reality is not as attractive as the words with which they are painted.
I am glad that the minister mentioned Charles Gibbings, the president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, who assisted the government to come to terms on wheat in reference to the world wheat agreement.
Canada is the only nation in the world that exports wheat and does not subsidize its farmers for growing wheat. People in other parts of the country often think that when the farmers receive wheat board payments they receive money from the Canadian treasury. That is false. The wheat board operates as a pool. It receives an initial payment and a second payment which, added together, constitute the pool price and is a price paid the farmer from the sale of his wheat.
It should be understood that the 21 cent increase will apply only to those countries that are signatories to the agreement. Countries such as China and Russia which are outside the agreement will not be affected, except indirectly. We must conclude, that the farmer tonight or tomorrow will not receive an extra 21 cents per bushel for the wheat he delivers to the elevator. That should be understood, and I am glad that the minister did not misrepresent this fact.
As was said some years ago when Britain applied to join the European Common Market, Great Britain over the years has been Canada's best wheat customer. It will be interesting to see if this agreement will affect the price of wheat sold to Great Britain. The farmers well remember when another liberal minister of a Liberal government some years ago promised Great Britain that it could have wheat for $1 per bushel on a five year deal. That promise cost the western farmers $600 million.
The western farmers also remember that in Calgary in 1963 and 1964 the Prime Minister promised the farmers $2 per bushel for No. 1 northern wheat. He did not specify whether
May 15, 1967

Report on Geneva Tariff Negotiations that was the price at the local elevator, the lakehead, Fort William, or Vancouver. Considering that 5 per cent only of western wheat is No. 1 northern, the Prime Minister's promise, even if it had been kept, did not amount to anything.
For years there has been talk of a two-price system. When the Conservative government was in office it considered that Canada consumes approximately 100 million bushels of wheat annually for human and other consumption and the western farmers received a bonus to help them combat the cost-price squeeze. The farmers in 1967 will look at the present situation carefully in the light of recent increases in farm machinery and other agricultural costs. A pusher combine which five or six years ago cost $10,000 now costs the farmers at Rosetown and Kindersley $17,000 to $18,000. The inquiry set up by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) is strangely silent in view of the increasing cost of farm machinery. In fact, farm unions of Saskatchewan and Alberta are boycotting farm machinery companies at this time because of high prices.
The agreement may help farmers somewhat but it will not guarantee all farmers another 21 cents per bushel. Unless farmers can earn more they will not be able to pay the high costs for farm machinery they are presently forced to pay. The farmers today are caught in the worst cost-price squeeze in the history of agriculture.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 
John George Diefenbaker: We shall have to get Gordon after that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the government intends to make up to the farmers the difference between the 21 cents increase under the international wheat agreement and what they need to meet the increased cost of producing a bushel of wheat in 1967 and subsequent years, it will have to consider seriously carrying out the promise it made to establish a two-price system for wheat.
There are some other matters on which we should like further information. The minister will probably be in a position to give it to us tomorrow. I am sure we are all pleased with the idea of setting up a pool to supply food to the needy nations of the world and to hear that some 4J million tons are to be put into that pool. The minister indicated that half a million tons would be contributed by Canada. I hope the minister will explain soon whether Canada will contribute this as a gift or whether we will be paid for it and make our contribution financially on a pro rata basis. I hope it is the latter. If it is, I trust the minister will tell us what our financial contribution is to be and how it compares on a pro rata basis with that of the other nations.
I hope he will tell us too about the antidumping provisions, because these can sometimes be used to obstruct trade by introducing a value for duty basis for tariffs and assessing an artificial value for duty purposes which has the effect of nullifying the reduction in tariffs.
On the whole I think the minister's statement is very gratifying. I hope he will give us further details later. I also hope he will speak
DEBATES	225
Report on Geneva Tariff Negotiations to his colleagues about the desirability of supplementing the 21 cent increase to the wheat producers of western Canada by introducing a two-price system which would make up the difference between the 21 cents they will get and the 40 cents they expected.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the announcement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) concerning major changes in tariffs following the meetings now concluded in Geneva will certainly be welcomed by many people in Canada as well as in countries abroad.
At least the Kennedy round of negotiations did not end in complete failure. All the months and years of negotiation did not come to an end without some final conclusion being reached even if it was not wholly satisfactory.
I will say no more about this aspect because, understandably, the minister was unable to give us very much detail as to the way in which the new arrangements will affect specific products important to the export and import markets of Canada.
I turn to the announcement respecting the price of wheat for the next three years. I am sure the minister realizes this will be greeted with a somewhat mixed reaction on the part of farmers in western Canada who produce most of this wheat. It is at least a little encouraging to see that there is to be some increase in price for the next three years. At the same time I believe that the farmers justifiably expected something more than the 21 cents the minister has announced because, as has been pointed out by the two members who spoke immediately prior to me, this certainly does not make up for the increased cost of producing wheat over the years.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) mentioned that the increase is 21 cents over a price that was agreed upon six years ago. I am sure the minister knows very well that a price of slightly over $2 as a maximum is the price at which Canadian wheat farmers have been selling their wheat for about the last 15 years. If this agreement runs at this price to its conclusion on July 31, 1970, this means there will have been an increase of about 10 to 12 per cent over a 15 year period. I am sure there is no other commodity in Canada which has had such a small increase during that period of time. Certainly there is no comparable increase in the cost of anything the farmers buy. The
May IS, 1967

Report on Geneva Tariff Negotiations increase in the cost of the goods the farmers buy has been many times 10 to 12 per cent from 1952 or 1953 up to the present time.
If this trend continues the cost of the things the farmer must buy will continue to rise until the end of this agreement. Increases in wages and increases in incomes in almost all other sectors of the Canadian economy have been substantially-in most cases many times-more than 10 to 12 per cent over this 15 year period. However, as I have said it is at least encouraging to see that there is some increase in the price of wheat because when the negotiations closed in London a few weeks ago the signatory countries to the international wheat agreement could not agree on any price and it appeared there would be some uncertainty in the wheat market for the next three year period. Although, as I say, the increase is not satisfactory in relation to costs, at least there is a small increase.
In so far as Canada's contribution to food aid is concerned, we welcome the announcement that many of the other countries in the western world will now share in a food aid pool that will be of benefit to the countries which from time to time need this kind of support, I suggest that 13-J million tons over a three-year period is a rather significant amount when it is coupled with some of the other aid programs which I am sure many countries will continue quite outside of this agreement. Canada's share seems to be a reasonable amount in this situation.
I would hope the minister would give some consideration to including some wheat flour in our aid because we have in the past supplied the wheat and it has been shipped to other countries for milling and then on to the recipient countries. This has happened even when our own flour milling industry was down to less than 50 per cent of its capacity. I think we have an obligation, particularly when Canada is making the contribution, to see that the processing is done by Canadians in Canadian mills when Canada is paying for the wheat. I suggest, therefore, that there might be a substantial increase in the amount of flour in our food aid programs. At the present time there is a drop in orders to our Canadian flour mills for export purposes and therefore many men will be laid off very shortly unless additional export orders are secured in time.
In conclusion I should like to say that we think there are some good points in the announcement the minister has made but we

cannot agree, and I am sure the minister himself possibly is not satisfied, that the increase really is in keeping with the increased cost of production.


Mr. Speaker:: The house will now return to the business which was interrupted at eight o'clock.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Don Jamieson for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Gauthier.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, just before the adjournment I was at the point where I was recommending reform in the expropriation law of Canada. I used as an example my own experience in several cases and one in particular. Before I set out what I recommend should be done I should like to review at this point what does happen so that there will be some chronological order in my address which was interrupted by the statement on motions. At the present time in order to expropriate land for public works, parks or some other purpose, all that is necessary is an order in council passed by a minister. The order in council is filed in the land titles office and it is not necessary that notice be given to the owner of the land which is to be expropriated. The department then moves on to the land unknown to the owner.
In the case I mentioned which went to the Exchequer Court the mineral rights of the C P R. were expropriated for a five year period unknown to the C.P.R. until I brought it to their attention. I had occasion to search the title and found that the C.P.R. had lost all mineral rights. I understand that recently in Banff particularly, where much of this action has taken place under the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing), land was expropriated which recently belonged to the C.P.R. and to other people. The land was returned to the C.P.R. but the land of the other people was not returned to them. Of course there is one law for the C.P.R. and another for the other people in Banff.
What are my recommendations in this regard? In making my recommendations I
May 15, 1967	COMMONS
should like to point out that in this field the crown is all-powerful. The crown decides whether it should take the land. The crown has the money and the power. The crown has the right, the power and the money to hire highly paid appraisers. The crown has the right to do so and hires the most competent lawyers it can obtain. The owner only has his land and in many cases can afford neither an appraiser nor a lawyer.
I have no real criticism of the Exchequer Court as it operates except to say that it really is part of the federal government in the sense of federal jurisdiction. When land is expropriated in Alberta, in Saskatchewan or in other parts of western Canada, it is necessary for the lawyer to come to Ottawa in many cases to present his argument. For example, in the Lake Louise case in which 60 acres were expropriated I had to start proceedings when after a six year period we could not reach a settlement with the government. The crown refused to produce the director of parks for examination for discovery and I had to obtain an order. When the director of parks was produced he refused to answer some questions. I then obtained an order and had to return again to Ottawa.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Under the expropriation law in Canada it can be said truthfully that there is one law for the owner and one for the crown. I say that the jurisdiction in expropriation proceedings should be in the trial division of the Supreme Court of Alberta or in the Queens' Bench, or whatever it may be called, in other provinces. If an agreement cannot be reached between the parties after a specified period of time the onus should fall upon the crown to initiate an action. An individual should not have to commence an action against the crown, as in the famous Fraser case referred to by Mr. Justice Cartwright. Under our laws an individual must commence proceedings and hire appraisers and experts in order to obtain a fair and equitable price for the expropriated land.
I think of a particular case in 1936 where the crown offered to pay $13,000 for a specific piece of property. The owner of that property commenced action and got a judgment for approximately $96,000. I need not say more about that case but I hope what I have said may lead to further consideration on the part of hon. members. My point is that individuals who are the victims of our expropriation laws should not be saddled with the
DEBATES	227
The Address-Mr. Woolliams onus of initiating litigation in order to obtain equity.
Perhaps the attitude of crown agencies in this regard is of benefit to the taxpayers, but I suggest that the crown should pay the initial offer into court and that the owners of the property should be entitled to withdraw that money to pay for the cost of an action initiated to obtain a fair and reasonable price for the property subject to expropriation. I also suggest that in cases where property is expropriated and an action is commenced, which might last for a number of years the crown should be subject to a reasonable interest charge on the original offer during the settlement of such action. The law in this regard should be absolute rather that discretionary in order that the trial judge may assess a 5 or 6 per cent interest rate on the original settlement for expropriation while a determination is being made.
In this regard let me make a special plea to the government, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to look into the whole matter of expropriation in areas such as Banff. There seems to be some difference of opinion as to the legality of expropriation by the crown in respect of lands in national parks under the jurisdiction of the department of northern affairs. I suggest that this whole question should be taken to the Supreme Court of Canada. We have, of course, received opinions from the legal officers of the department of the Minister of Justice, but in any event these actions should be initiated by the crown rather than by private individuals in areas such as Banff and Jasper, Alberta. I might point out that there are other areas in Quebec and Ontario similar to those in western Canada which are subject to the same type of grievous action. There has never been a minister who has occupied the position of the minister of northern affairs who has acted in such a high-handed manner as the present minister in this regard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member to inform him that his time has expired.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks, like those who preceded me in this debate, I want to express my admiration for the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
COMMONS DEBATES	May 15, 1967
The Address-Mr. Bechard
Those two members, the member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson), through his outstanding eloquence and his truly deep understanding of the current national problems, and the member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Cote), through his full knowledge of agricultural problems, set the lead, I trust, for the debates to take place in this house in this, our centennial session.
This year, we celebrate the centenary of that historical event which set up, after long deliberations, the framework and the rules within which our country and its citizens have evolved for a century already, while bringing to it the changes necessitated by such circumstances as marked Canadian life since 1867.
So the Canadian people are celebrating this year, with great eclat, that century of coexistence of the two ethnic groups which founded and built together what we know today, with the subsequent contribution of other ethnic groups which came to join the British and the French, and who chose freely to participate in the greatness of the adopted land they cherish and want to see united from coast to coast.
A talk to our new-Canadian fellow-citizens is enough to make us realize very quickly the affection and love they nourish for Canada and their new fellow-countrymen and their great desire to become familiar as soon as possible with one or the other of our two official languages, and sometimes with both.
Surely, all that we admire today, after 100 years, was not always conceived and developed in perfect harmony. Obvious diversities between the two groups, English-speaking and French-speaking, on the cultural, language and traditional levels, are sufficient to explain the frequent clashes of a century of living together.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Let me, Mr. Speaker, be shown a family, whatever the language, the religion or the race, where there is not some difference of opinion! It is perfectly normal. But if certain people, some irresponsible, others with some authority, unceasingly claim that we are celebrating a century of injustice while others, without stating it clearly, hesitate, argue, hem and haw, stand on the fence for demagogic or electioneering purposes, to these people I say they are unfair and dishonest in striking such an attitude. Let it be known that they are not representative of the French Canadian majority opinion, in Quebec and in Canada.

Our language and our religious freedom were guaranteed to us by the 1867 constitution, on the same footing as the English language. Injustices have been committed and will surely be committed again, but should we always blame and accuse our English speaking brothers? Is it their fault if we had such difficulties in finding our place in business, trade and other fields? In certain cases, this is undoubtedly true.
But, Mr. Speaker, let it be explained to me why, at the time of the conquest, our mother country abandoned us? Why did the French financial powers of the time not do to their brethren, whom France had brought to this new and remote land of America and left scattered there, what the British financiers did? Is it any fault of the latter?
In spite of such desertion, which I might even call treason, the French Canadian people, determined to survive, overcame every difficulty and every obstacle. They gave themselves institutions of high learning to train our clergy, our political men, our businessmen, our industrialists of whom many made and continue to make their mark in this country, thus contributing to the economic progress of Canada. Less than ten years ago, Quebec, tired of marking time, thanks to a people willing and determined to assume its proper place and to improve its economic, cultural and social condition, thanks to the alert mind of an elite and thanks also to the arrival on the local political scenes of dynamic leaders, Quebec became increasingly aware of its problems and of the role it should play within confederation. A new impetus was given to education, our economy and our federal-provincial relations. It was an almost complete transformation in every field, and thus an awakening, perhaps belated, but how thrilling, for a population accustomed to the drab routine of laissez jaire and traditional inertia.
That new awakening of Quebec upset a number of people, namely the Quebec people, and their determination to contribute more and more to the administration of the country, Canada, disturbed the peaceful life of more than one of our English-speaking brothers who felt panic in the face of that clear stand and fear of losing their place.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Quebec do not want to supplant anyone. They do not want to take anyone's place; far from it. What they want is to take their place, that which belongs
May 15. 1967	COMMONS
to them, as there is one for their Englishspeaking brothers, in their country's administration. They want to take a greater part in the economic, social, cultural and political development of their country and, to that effect, thay want not only to be heard but to be understood when they talk and write their own language, one of the country's two official languages. The people of Quebec do not want to separate and they do not want a separate status such as some politicians looking for publicity and votes are now advocating in Quebec and which would be equivalent to separation. What they want is to be respected and understood when they speak to the administrators of their country in their own language and above all, to live decently, have a job and earn a sufficient income to meet their obligations, as well as to be fairly well off to avoid falling prey to communism, a constant menace to the world, that poverty and destitution, so exploited by unscrupulous demagogues, can foster in our country. Communist propagandists always make the most of disagreements and crises of all types to spread their beliefs.
The present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has fully understood the legitimate demands of the Quebec people for equal opportunities.
That is why, since 1963, the policy of the present government has tended to create a situation more favourable to the development of the country and of bilingualism, particularly within the public service, and to provide equal participation and advancement opportunities for French Canadians and secure for them the status of first class citizens in Canada.
If that is not working for national unity, Mr. Speaker, we must ask ourselves what concept of unity have those who are always talking nonsense of the kind we again heard in this house recently from the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), who follows the example set by his leader and many others.
It is obvious that he does not understand the problem of unity in the slightest and that he has not yet asked himself the question: What does Quebec want?
Referring to the member for Yukon, he would have done better, after three or four short appearances in this house, since October 5, 1966, busy as he was, I suppose, collecting material for scandals so as to better play his role of character assassination with his accomplices who are just like him, he would have done better to refrain from destroying, by his ridicule, everything positive achieved 27053-16
DEBATES	229
The Address-Mr. Bechard by the Prime Minister and his government since 1963, and rouse feelings that were dying out.
You only have to travel through our vast country and speak with our fellow-citizens, whatever their origin, to notice the tremendous evolution which has occurred in the direction of the principle adopted by our present leader of the government confronted by the consciousness of Quebecers since 1960.
Mr. Speaker, in the time allotted to me, I cannot deal in detail with all the proposals contained in the speech from the throne. However, I should like to discuss briefly a very delicate and controversial matter: television and radio broadcasting. I will conclude my remarks by speaking of the dairy industry in Canada, particularly in the Gaspe peninsula, adding some comments on other matters of local nature, but considered very important for the riding of Bonaventure in particular.
The speech from the throne had this to say concerning television and radio broadcasting:
Recognizing that broadcasting is an important cultural instrument, the government supports a comprehensive and balanced national broadcasting service-
I have already made my position clear to the house concerning the quality of certain programs shown particularly on television.
I do not have to take back a word of the speech which I delivered in this house, as recorded in Hansard of February 25, 1964, except the reference to a greater state control. After the affair of "This Hour Has Seven Days", when the matter of internal control was publicly discussed, endangering the basic authority of that institution, I said that a direct control and intervention of the government in those matters of administration and programming in and out of season would turn that state corporation into a weak instrument in the hands of the government, whatever the party in power, which I could not accept.
However, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is highly important to establish a well-defined authority in the hands of management and to empower the latter to exercise such authority efficiently and advisedly.
The producers should be shown that bad taste and displays of immorality have no place in public, in a civilized country. Let us have an opportunity, from time to time, to make a clean sweep of these free-thinkers, who, under the cover of freedom of speech, use the state networks and others to distil drop by drop the ferment of revolution and subversive
May IS, 1967

The Address-Mr. Bechard ideologies which are unacceptable in a free democratic country-and here it must be understood that freedom does not mean licence.
Radio and television are too valuable information and culture media to be used too often, in my view, to infect our population. I hope that the new legislation will see that a body such as the board of governors, for instance, is granted the necessary power to prevent any excessive abuse of airwaves, as is unfortunately too often the case.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The farm policy which was the subject of a subamendment moved last Friday by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) was officially announced in the house by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) on March 22 last for the dairy year 1967-68. It will be recalled that farm and dairy producer organizations asked for $5.10 per hundredweight of milk. The policy announced by the government set that price at $4.75. When the terms of that policy were published by the Canadian Dairy Commission, quick response arose from professional farming quarters.
Attempts were first made, in certain circles to intimate that the farmers were overdoing it and that they had no cause to fear that they could not receive the national average price of $4.75 per hundredweight. For some areas, where the dairy industry is very well set up from production to processing and marketing, I would agree that such an argument might be true, but for an area such as Bonaventure and other less advanced areas where the number of dairy producers is less than a thousand with about 40 per cent having to look elsewhere for a supplementary income, those claims are fair and legitimate.
Some will say that the government policy is intended to develop an efficient and healthy dairy industry in Canada mainly through the expansion of dairy farms.
I am all for it, because in my opinion we cannot expect some day the dairy farmer for instance to go on his own, if his unit is not economical, which means sufficient cultivated land, a quality herd with a sufficient number of milk cows, adequate equipment and plant facilities, a market for his dairy products, if certain farms, which have never assured a decent income to their owners are kept in operation by maintaining the present system. For some dairy farms, a $20 subsidy per hundredweight would not even be adequate.
However, taking into consideration what was mentioned earlier with regard to my area


of Bonaventure, the manufacturer at the processing plant will not be able to pay this year, on the basis of last year's production on which the quota will be established, more than $2.94 per hundredweight. Add $1.21 to that, less the 11 per cent premium for exports, and you get a total of $4.04 per hundredweight. That is a far cry from $4.75 per hundredweight, although it is much better than the corresponding figure for last year. The quota policy, although well inspired, took many by surprise. In my area, particularly, it certainly does not encourage consolidation of farms or the expansion of our dairy farms.
Indeed, the farmer who last year gradually added a few cattle to his dairy herd, will not be able to benefit from the resulting additional production this year, if I understand correctly the data of the Canadian Dairy Commission.
I therefore ask the Minister of Agriculture to study seriously this whole question of quotas, with a view to modifying it in such a way that dairy producers in our area, as in many others, might hope to become more efficient and capable of earning a decent income. That is all the dairy producer wants, and only that.
On the other hand, I would like to remind the house that the assurance that the farmer will be paid the specified amount of $3.54 per hundredweight of milk by the plant can only come from the provincial government, which is the only body able to legislate in this matter.
Ontario did it, and the Quebec government, with its department of agriculture headed by a man who left his mark by his criticism of the federal Department of Agriculture, should act without delay. In this way, the Gaspe farmer too could derive greater profit from the generous policy of the federal government.
A vote in favour of the subamendment of the hon. member for Roberval tonight, Mr. Speaker, would not mean $5.10 per hundredweight, but could result, if the government were defeated, in an expense of some $18 to $20 million for Canadian taxpayers, an amount which I suggest could be put to better use.
I will now address my remarks to the minister responsible for the implementation of public works which are of great importance for us in the riding of Bonaventure. As matter of fact, harbour facilities are needed by the fishermen as well as by the present industries
May 15, 1967

and the ones to come, and that means building new facilities as well as repairing the existing ones.
Important works just begun at Paspebiac were made necessary by the recent development of the fishing industry.
On the other hand, in the fall of 1965, after many representations, I secured the lengthening of the wharf at Carleton from where about forty million feet of lumber are shipped each year. The traffic is heavy from April to January.
Now, that work has been left in abeyance in the spring of 1966 because the department considered it unacceptable. Since then, after every conceivable recrimination, nothing is being done to correct that situation and the wharf is in such an alarming state of disrepair that I am now wondering whether it would not be better to build a new one. Those who use the wharf, the municipal authorities and others, are constantly making representations to me and I am wondering why certain people are so slow in requiring immediate action on the part of the contractor. Such a situation has lasted too long and it is urgent to put an end to all this red tape.
My riding being located almost entirely along the Baie des Chaleurs, properties are therefore constantly threatened by the normal erosion of the sea, and sometimes storms like the one we had in late December 1966, the worst in thirty years, cause damage that owners are financially unable to repair. Up to 1956, the federal government allotted a certain amount to make good such damages, but since then, thanks to their ingeniousness, certain officials were able to convince the then minister to replace such a policy by the famous "federal responsibility when erosion is caused by navigation or the presence of a federal structure". Certain properties are gradually disappearing hopelessly. During a storm last December, several properties in St. Omer, Carleton, Maria, New Richmond, Cap-lan, St. Simeon and all along the coast, were seriously damaged; I call for the special attention of the government for the immediate construction of retaining walls.
Means of transportation are for our area, far as it is, Mr. Speaker, of the utmost importance. In this atomic age, our area is deprived of air service of any kind. A daily service would perhaps not be economic, but so long as there has been no experimentation in this field, that will be impossible to prove. A Gaspe company-Air Gaspe-is operating a
The Address-Mr. Bechard service between Gaspe, the Magdalen Islands, Ste-Anne-des-Monts and the north coast. Let the Minister of Transport help it to operate the service between Gaspe and Quebec, via Bonaventure, of course, where an airport belonging to the provincial government could, I think, be bought easily, and Gaspe will then welcome with enthusiasm and relief an innovation made necessary by the need to connect us to the great centres in the country.
During the last few years, the public organizations in Gaspe and the members from the south coast of the province, speaking on behalf of the population, have been asking the C.N.R. for a passenger train operating directly between Montreal and Gaspe.
Now, it so happened that last March, the authorities of the C.N.R. finally agreed to our request and on May 31, 1967, the new era of a direct train from Montreal to Gaspe will begin. At this point, I want to thank all the public bodies as well as the Canadian National Railways for their co-operation and the Minister of Transport for his efficient participation in the final success of our efforts to this end. However, as was to be expected, once again Gaspe could not count on complete enjoyment or achievement. In fact, we are informed that the "Chaleur", upon arrival at Matapedia, at the junction of the Maritimes and Gaspe lines, the trains will not immediately start on the Gaspe run, but will have to go to Campbellton, New Brunswick, at least 13 miles away to be cleaned, serviced, fueled, etc., and return to Matapedia before going on to Gaspe. This shuttling, plus service time, means about an hour and a naif, very conservatively.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the people of Bonaventure riding and Gaspe and the travelling public in general cannot accept these early-morning and night-time side trips into a neighbouring province. We do not accept it and we shall not accept it.
The argument is that this situation is temporary; we are afraid of these temporary situations which suddenly and ordinarily become permanent. We see the trap and we refuse to fall into it.
Further, if we look at the train schedule recently published by the C.N.R., to be in force from April 30 to October 28, 1967, we are surprised to note that the "Chaleur" will make only 14 stops on the Matapedia-Gaspe run as against 32 by the present self-propelled coach. A matter of saving time, I will be told. In such a case, why lose from an hour and a half to two hours, morning and night, to go to
232	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Bechard Campbellton? The trap becomes increasingly evident.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
But that is not all. The rate we will have to pay for the so-called favours of the C.N.R. is even higher. Trains Nos. 245 and 246 will be eliminated May 31, 1967, according to the previously mentioned schedule. On these freight and express trains, a coach was attached to serve passengers unable to use the self-propelled coach. All this will be eliminated on May 31, thus depriving many employees of their livelihood. And this, Mr. Speaker, has been decided upon without any consultation with the Gaspe population, by a decision of the C.N.R. authorities.
The people of Bonaventure riding and Gaspe will not be fooled this way. The population is now warned and constantly alerted.
Consequently, I urge the authorities of the Canadian National Railways to reconsider their decision and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) to use his influence and good offices once more to persuade the Canadian National authorities to correct those deplorable errors without delay, before May 31, 1967. The service of the "Chaleur" can very well be done at Matapedia or elsewhere along the line, which will make unnecessary that intriguing eventual pilgrim to our New Brunswick neighbours and will really give satisfaction to the travelling public.
I would have many other subjects to deal with tonight, Mr. Speaker, but in view of the passage of time, I will reserve for other occasions the pleasure of doing so.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member allow the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) to ask him a question?


Albert Béchard: Yes.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for Bonaventure whether he agrees with the policy and the requests with regard to agriculture that are being brought before the government by the U.C.C. of his province.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks a few moments ago I explained very clearly the position I take on that policy.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Do I understand then that the hon. member is opposed to the present government policy?

DEBATES	May 15. 1967


Albert Béchard: I am not at all opposed to the present policy of the government.


Eric Alfred Winkler: The hon. member surely is.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, in participating in this debate for the next few minutes I should like first of all to join those who have offered their congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
There are a number of serious problems in my own constituency, Mr. Speaker, to which I intend to draw the attention of the house. I had intended to make a rather lengthy and detailed speech respecting wheat prices and wheat marketing in western Canada. As you know, and as other hon. members know, within the last hour we have had an announcement from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) respecting this matter. We realize it is not easy in negotiations with other countries for the representatives of any country to get all they feel they need for the people they represent.
The 21-cent increase in the maximum price over the next three years certainly does not constitute a reasonable increase in keeping with the increased cost of producing wheat. For example, I have in front of me a brief prepared by a committee in my constituency. This brief was taken to a lot of meetings throughout the constituency and presented to the farmers to find out whether or not there was a measure of agreement with respect to what the current selling price of wheat ought to be. After much consideration the very reasonable people in the farm community decided that to keep pace with the increased cost of production during the last three years there was now justification for demanding not less than $2.75 a bushel to the farmer. This is substantially more than the amount suggested by the Minister of Trade and Commerce today. I know the minister agrees that if an increase in the selling price of wheat were made in direct proportion to the increased cost of production, then $2.75 in 1967 would not be an unreasonable figure.
This group of farmers in my constituency addressed a brief to me and in the resume of their brief they asked me to support their request for a two-price system for the sale of wheat of at least $2.75 per bushel for the first 4,000 bushels sold by each farmer and then whatever can be obtained on the international market for wheat sold in excess of 4,000 bushels. They give these reasons for their demands:
1.	The rising costs of farm operations.
May IS, 1967

This is well known to members of this house and everyone else who is at all familiar with the farm community today.
2.	Competing incomes of those in industry to the incomes of farmers.
3.	Departure of farmers from farms to positions m industry.
4.	Impending food shortages in Canada and in the world.
I am not sure I can agree that there is an impending shortage of wheat in Canada but there certainly appears to be an impending shortage of foodstuffs available for people throughout the world. Therefore the announcement this evening, with respect to the future price of wheat, while it represents a slight upward adjustment, certainly is not in keeping with the rising costs.
All the other negotiations between the signatory countries to the international wheat agreement were carried on in a situation where there was a huge surplus of wheat, particularly on the North American continent. In 1960 and again in 1963 and 1964 there were huge surpluses of wheat in the United States and Canada which had been carried over from year to year. I suggest that in this kind of situation it is reasonably easy for the purchasing countries to demand that there be no increase or in some cases that the maximum price be decreased. In that kind of situation, when we are trying to sell against continuing surpluses from one year to the next, it is rather difficult for the Canadian negotiators to convince the purchasers there should be an increase in price. However, in 1967 there are no huge surpluses left.
Over the years the farmers have accepted the argument advanced that it was difficult to get an increase in price as long as we were producing far in excess of current market demands. This situation has changed. There are no longer any huge surpluses of wheat in the United States. After Canada has fulfilled all the commitments under the agreements that we have made to date there will be no huge surpluses left in Canada either. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, had it not been for the substantially larger than ordinary crops in western Canada during these last three years we would be unable to meet the commitments we have made to date. Last year wheat production in Canada amounted to over 800 million bushels, a record far above the production level of any previous year. The year before we had a record-breaking crop of over 700 million bushels. But the demand for food, and particularly for wheat, has gone up to the
The Address-Mr. Olson point where these surpluses no longer exist. Surely, this fact should have been taken into account. I am not going to spend a great deal more time on that subject this evening because I am sure that as this session progresses there will be other opportunities to discuss the matter of a just and reasonable price for wheat.
I want to turn now for a moment to the matter of the very severe snowstorms we have had in southern Alberta during the last two or three weeks. I spent a number of days in that part of my constituency which was most severely affected by these storms. The situation is tragic. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) came out and after listening to some of the ranchers and farmers in the area termed it a national disaster. It is difficult to believe until you see it. In southern Alberta, where spring usually arrives about the middle of March, we have had as much as 70 to 100 inches of snow. The snow actually reached the point where it halted surface traffic regardless of the kind of equipment used. The snowplows were unable to cope with the heavy, wet snow.
In many parts of southern Alberta heavy bulldozers had to be brought in to break trails to bring food to livestock stranded on the summer pastures. Even this equipment found difficulty in opening trails. The emergency measures organization in Alberta was able to obtain the assistance of a number of helicopters. While they could not move in sufficient food to keep all the animals from starving in these isolated places, they certainly were a great help. We should recognize the tremendous advantage of having an emergency measures organization which can move quickly to give the kind of assistance which was required in southern Alberta during these very trying three weeks.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I also think we should pay tribute to the United States Air Force. They were asked if they had any helicopters in the area, I believe on a Sunday, at a time when it became apparent that emergency action would have to be taken. Through the United States consulate in Edmonton, and I presume also through Ottawa, in a very few hours two large helicopters were sent from one of the air force bases in Montana. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, they were first on the scene. This kind of co-operation and rendering of immediate assistance in response to a request for machines in the area is something for

May 15. 1967
The Address-Mr. Olson which we Canadians should be grateful. We should be grateful that we are living alongside a neighbour who responds so quickly to this sort of request.
We also owe a great debt of gratitude for the co-operation received from all of the municipalities to the north of where the storm struck. For example, the city of Calgary dispatched a train loaded with snow removal equipment to the city of Lethbridge to assist the city in digging itself out of what was an almost impossible situation and far beyond the capacity of the city of Lethbridge to cope with the machinery that was there.
Mention has been made of livestock losses. One press report that I saw indicated that some 15,000 head of cattle in southern Alberta may have been lost. I have in front of me the Lethbridge Herald for May 12, some days later, in which it is estimated that there may be a total of as many as 40,000 baby calf losses. In addition there will be losses of growing cattle from starvation and for other reasons.
I was in this area for several days, and even the estimate of 40,000 new calves which died is far too low. I visited a number of ranches where the loss of baby calves was anywhere from 20 per cent to as high as 90 per cent of the total number of calves expected. This will far exceed the estimate of 40,000 when we realize that there are something like 200,000 head of female stock in the area that was affected.
This is a disaster of the highest level for some of the individuals involved. First of all, it means that for some there will be no income for 1967. Some people have lost anywhere from 25 to 30 per cent of their calf crop, which represents whatever profit they would have had after deduction of expenses for the year. Perhaps they can survive, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps they can get along with What other crops they may grow. But there are others who will be virtually put out of business because of this storm. They lost not only almost their entire calf crop for 1967 but also a large percentage of the breeding stock on the farms and ranches.
The Minister of Agriculture visited the area and suggested that the federal government stood ready to give short-term assistance in paying for the cost of moving feed. This involved the use of some of this high priced equipment such as helicopters and snow equipment. The minister also said there would be some long-term assistance for those

who were hit hardest. By that I presume he means the ones who are virtually out of the livestock business because of their losses.
In this regard we should like to know fairly soon what the minister has in mind. Does he simply mean that some credit will be made available to enable these people to purchase new breeding stock? Is some compensation to be paid those who suffered the greatest loss? If so, what kind of program will be set up to make compensation available to those who qualify? We do not know. We know that the minister termed it a national disaster, and having witnessed the scene I know that this is true in the case of many individuals. But, Mr. Speaker, I am apprehensive about statements of this sort, and with good reason.
It is only two or three years ago that a very serious situation developed in the Peace River country of northern Alberta where a large group of farmers had been completely without income and without crops for a period of three years. That to them was also a disaster. Federal ministers and officials visited the scene, made a survey and then announced to the press that they stood ready to be of assistance. Following this the provincial government went ahead and instituted a program to offer some assistance to the farmers in this area who had had crop failures during this three-year period.
When it came to the federal government paying its share, which had been worked out on a 50-50 basis between the two levels of government, it did not come through with the money. I do not want to be difficult or unfair, but a letter was sent by the federal Minister of Agriculture at that time to the provincial minister of agriculture in connection with these fanners in the Peace River area to the effect that the federal government would share on a 50-50 basis in whatever kind of assistance program the province set up. After the program was set up and the farmers were given an indication of the type of assistance which would be given to them to purchase seed and make arrangements to meet the expense of sowing another crop, the federal government advised the province that it would not participate, that the farmers should have had crop insurance, that they should put the area under a crop insurance scheme so that they would not face this situation in future.
I see from the clock that you -will shortly be interrupting the debate so we may vote, Mr. Speaker, so in closing I want to say that we hope the federal Minister of Agriculture
May 15. 1967

was serious when	he said that the govemment stood ready	to offer all reasonable assistance, both short term and long term, to prevent the collapse of some of the farming and ranching units. We will be looking forward to his coming up with a program and	
we hope he will	keep these commitments
when it comes to the practical application of a reasonable assistance program.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being 9.30 o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 4 of standing order 38, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on any amendments now before the house. Is	
the house ready	for the question on the
amendment to the amendment?	
The house divided on the amendment to the	
amendment (Mr. Gauthier) which was negatived on the following division:	
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)	YEAS
	Messrs:
Aiken	Laprise
Alkenbrack	Latulippe
Allard	Maclnnis (Cape Breton
Asselin (Charlevoix)	South)
Ballard	MacLean (Queens)
Bell (Carleton)	MacRae
Bell (Saint John-	McCleave
Albert)	McIntosh
Bower	Madill
Brand	Mandziuk
Cantelon	Monteith
Caouette	Moore
Chatterton	Muir (Cape Breton
Churchill	North and Victoria)
Clancy	Muir (Lisgar)
Crouse	Nasserden
Diefenbaker	Noble
Dinsdale	Nugent
Dionne	Pascoe
Fane	Pugh
Flemming	Rapp
Forbes	Ricard
Gauthier	Rynard
Godin	Scott (Victoria (Ont.))
Grafftey	Simard
Grills	Simpson
Homer (Acadia)	Southam
Howe (Wellington-	Starr
Huron)	Thomas
Irvine	(Middlesex West)
Kennedy	Winkler
Korchinski	Woolliams-60.
Lambert	NAYS
	Messrs:
Addison	Basford
Allmand	Batten
Andras	Bechard
Asselin (Richmond-	Beer
Wolfe)	Benson
Badanai	Boulanger
Barnett	Brewin
Division
Brown	MacEachen
Byrne	Maclnnis (Mrs.)
Cadieux (Terrebonne)	(Vancouver-Kingsway)
Cameron (Nanaimo-	Mackasey
Cowichan-The Islands)	Mcllraith
Cantin	McNulty
Chatwood	McWilliam
Choquette	Marchand
Chretien	Martin (Timmins)
Clermont	Mather
Comtois	Matheson
Cote (Longueuil)	Matte
Cote (Nicolet-Yamaska)	Mongrain
Crossman	Morison
Davis	Neveu
Deachman	Nixon
Douglas	O'Keefe
Drury	Olson
Dube	Orange
Duquet	Orlikow
Emard	Pearson
Ethier	Pennell
Forest	Pepin
Gilbert	Pickersgill
Gordon	Pilon
Goyer	Prittie
Gray	Prud'homme
Guay	Racine
Habel	Reid
Haidasz	Richard
Harley	Robichaud
Hellyer	Rochon
Honey	Rock
Hopkins	Roxburgh
Hymmen	Ryan
Johnston	Schreyer
Klein	Scott (Danforth)
Knowles	Sharp
Lachance	Stafford
Laflamme	Stanbury
Laing	Tardif
Langlois (Chicoutimi)	Thomas (Maisonneuve-
Laniel	Rosemont)
Leblanc (Laurier)	Tolmie
LeBlanc (Rimouski)	Trudeau
Lefebvre	Turner
Legault	Wahn
Lessard	Walker
Lewis	Whelan
Lind	Winch
Loiselle	Winters
Macaluso Macdonald (Rosedale)	Yanakis-115.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Mr. Enns:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I	
voted I would have voted for the subamendment.


Mr. Hales:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with	
the hon. member	for Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie (Mr. Watson). Had I voted I	
would have voted for the subamendment.


Mrs. Wadds:: Mr.	Speaker, I was paired
with the hon. member for Niagara Falls.	
(Miss LaMarsh). Had I voted I would have	
voted for the subamendment.	

May 15, 1967
Division


Mr. Smith:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve).


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


Mr. Groos:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Skoreyko). Had I voted I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. McLean (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the subamendment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I was informed that the hon. member for Westmorland (Mrs. Rideout) was temporarily detained. With my humane instincts I agreed to pair.


James Norris Ormiston: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron). Had I voted I would have voted for the subamendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


James Roy Tucker: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Jean Casselman Wadds: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss
May 15, 1967

LaMarsh). Had I voted I would have voted tor the amendment.


Sydney John Smith: I was paired with the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), Mr. Speaker.


Allan Marcus Atkinson McLean: I was paired, Mr. Speaker. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Division
Skoreyko). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Chateauguay-Hunting-don-Laprairie (Mr. Watson). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
On motion of Mr. Starr the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 16, 1967