1967-05-19

MEETING IN MONTREAL OF TJ.S.-CANADA MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the joint Canada-United States ministerial committee on trade and economic affairs which was established in November, 1953 normally meets every year, alternately in Canada and the United States. It has now been agreed that the committee, which held its last meeting in Washington on March 4, 1966, will meet again from June 20 to June 22 in Montreal. The United States representatives will be the guests of the Canadian government at Expo '67 on June 20.
The Canadian delegation is chaired by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and normally includes the Ministers of Trade and Commerce, Finance, Industry, Energy, Mines and Resources, and Agriculture. The United States delegation is normally led by the Secretary of State and generally includes the Secretaries of the Treasury, Agriculture, Commerce and the Interior.
As in the past this meeting will provide a valuable opportunity for ministers of both countries to review economic and trade questions of common interest and concern. Canadian ministers look forward to welcoming their United States colleagues to Montreal at Expo '67 and to having useful discussiens with them.



STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Bernard Pilon (Chambly-Rouville)
presented the report of the special committee appointed May 8, 1967 to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house, as follows:
AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT Messrs.
Asselin (Richmond-	Clermont
Wolfe)	Comtois
Beer	Cote (Nicolet-Yamaska)
Berger	Crossman
Choquette	Danforth
Ethier	Neveu
Faulkner	Noble
Forbes	Nowlan
Gauthier	Olson
Gendron	Peters
Godin	Pugh
Grills	Rapp
Herridge	Ricard
Honey	Roxburgh
Hopkins	Schreyer
Horner (Acadia)	Stafford
Johnston	Stefanson
Jorgenson	Tucker
Laverdiere	Watson (Assiniboia)
Lefebvre	Watson (Chateauguay-
MacDonald (Prince)	Huntingdon-Laprairie)
McKinley	Whelan
Moore Muir (Lisgar)	Yanakis-45.
BROADCASTING,	FILMS AND ASSISTANCE
TO	THE ARTS Messrs.
Bechard	McCleave
Berger	Nugent
Brand	Pelletier
Cowan	Prittie
Davis	Prud'homme
Fairweather	Regimbal
Hymmen	Richard
Jamieson	Sherman
Johnston	Simard
MacDonald (Prince)	Stafford
Macquarrie	Stanbury
Mather	Yanakis-24.
CROWN	CORPORATIONS Messrs.
Addison	Loiselle
Allard	Maclnnis (Cape Breton
Allmand	South)
Beaulieu	McCutcheon
Coates	Monteith
Comtois	Otto
Dionne	Ryan
Gilbert	Scott (Danforth)
Hees	Stafford
Kindt	Thomas (Maisonneuve-
Korchinski	Rosemont)
Langlois (Chicoutimi) Wahn	
Lind	Yanakis-24.
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Messrs.	
Allmand	Laprise
Andras	Lind
Asselin (Charlevoix)	Macdonald (Rosedale)
Brewin	Macquarrie
Churchill	McIntosh
Dube	Nesbitt
Faulkner	Pelletier
Forest	Pilon
Forrestall	Prud'homme
Harkness	Stanbury
Klein	Thompson
Lambert	Walker-24.
[Stage Direction]
May 19, 1967
Standing Committees	
FINANCE, TRADE	AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS Messrs.
Addison	Latulippe
Ballard	Leboe
Cameron (Nanaimo-	Lind
Cowichan-The Islands) Macdonald (Rosedale)	
Chretien	Mackasey
Clermont	McLean (Charlotte)
Flemming	Monteith
Fulton	More
Gilbert	Munro
Gray	Tremblay
Irvine	Valade
Laflamme Lambert	Wahn-24.
FISHERIES Messrs.	
Barnett	Jamieson
B6chard	Keays
Blouin	LeBlanc (Rimouski)
Bower	MacLean (Queens)
Cashin	McLean (Charlotte)
Chatterton	McQuaid
Chatwood	McWilliam
Crossman	Nowlan
Crouse	O'Keefe
Deachman	Patterson
Groos	Stefanson
Howard	Tucker-24.
HEALTH	AND WELFARE Messrs.
Ballard	Laverciiere
Brand	MacDonald (Prince)
Brown	Maclnnis (Mrs.) (Van-
Cameron (High Park)	couver-Kingsway)
Chatterton	Matte
Cowan	O'Keefe
Enns	Orange
Forrestall	Rideout (Mrs.)
Harley	Rochon
Howe (Wellington-	Rock
Huron)	Rynard
Isabelle	Simard
Knowles	Stanbury-24.
HOUSING, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND	
PUBLIC WORKS Messrs.	
Allmand	Macaluso
Badanai	MacEwan
Bell (Saint John-	Martin (Timmins)
Albert)	Mongrain
Cashin	Neveu
Duquet	Nielsen
Gauthier	Pelletier
Gendron	Ricard
Gilbert	Ryan
Gray	Scott (Victoria (Ont.))
Keays	Stewart
Loiselle Loney	Watson (Assiniboia)-24.
INDIAN AFFAIRS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND	
CITIZENSHIP	AND IMMIGRATION Messrs.
Aiken	Barnett
Alkenbrack	Bell (Carleton)
Badanai	Cote (Dorchester)
Baldwin	Crossman

Dinsdale
Duquet
Gundlock
Haidasz
Klein
Langlois (Chicoutimi) Leblanc (Laurier) Moore More
Orange
Orlikow
Prud'homme
Reid
Roxburgh
Skoreyko
Watson (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie) -24.

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Addison
Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe)
Beaulieu
Bower
Cashin
Davis
Faulkner
Forest
Fulton
Goyer
Grafftey
Hales
Hymmen
Jamieson
Latulippe
Legault
Lind
McCutcheon
Peters
Reid
Saltsman
Scott (Victoria (Ont.))
Sherman
Wahn-24.

[Stage Direction]
Addison
Aiken
Cameron (High Park)
Cantin
Choquette
Forest
Gilbert
Goyer
Grafftey
Guay
Honey
Latulippe
Messrs.
MacEwan
Mandziuk
McQuaid
Nielsen
Otto
Pugh
Ryan
Scott (Danforth) Tolmie Wahn Whelan Woolliams-24.

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Barnett
Clermont
Duquet
Emard
Faulkner
Fulton
Gray
Guay
Hymmen
Johnston
Knowles
Lachance
Maclnnis (Cape Breton South)
Mackasey
McCleave
McKinley
McNulty
Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria)
Racine
Regimbal
Reid
Ricard
Skoreyko
Tardif-24.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker and Messrs.
Allard
Dube
Enns
Fairweather
Godin
Gordon
Honey
Klein
Macquarrie
Nesbitt
Pelletier
Prittie
Richard
Saltsman
Smith
Stewart
Wadds (Mrs.)
Wahn
Woolliams
Yanakis-21.
May 19, 1967

[Stage Direction]
Alkenbrack Asselin (Richmond-Beaulieu
Cote (Dorchester)
Emard
Ethier
Forbes
Forest
Foy
Godin
Johnston
Kennedy
Leblanc (Laurier)
Messrs.
Lind
Wolfe) Maclnnis (Mrs.) (Van-couver-Kingsway) Matte McLelland Ormiston Pugh Richard Roxburgh Tardif
Watson (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie) Webb-24.

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.	
Cadieu (Meadow Lake)	Lessard
Clermont	Loiselle
Fairweather	Neveu
Forrestall	O'Keefe
Gundlock	Ormiston
Horner (The Battlefords)	Peters
J ohnston	Richard
Lachance	Smith
Langlois (Chicoutimi)	Stanbury
Langlois (Megantic)	Tardif
Laverdiere	Webb
Legault	Whelan-24.
NATIONAL DEFENCE	
Messrs.	
Andras	Laniel
Brewin	Latulippe
Churchill	Legault
Deachman	Lessard
Fane	Loiselle
Forrestall	Macaluso
Foy	McIntosh
Groos	McNulty
Harkness	Nugent
Hopkins	Rochon
Lambert	Smith
Langlois (Chicoutimi)	Winch-24.

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Badanai	Laprise
Basford
Beer
Bigg
Cote (Nicolet-Yamaska) Dinsdale Gundlock Habel Haidasz Hymmen Kindt
Boulanger
Choquette
Clancy
Code
Cowan
Ethier
Grills
Harley
LeBlanc (Rimouski) Lind Mather McWilliam Neveu Orange Simpson Southam Tucker
Watson (Assiniboia) Woolliams-24.

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Irvine
Johnston
Jorgenson
Klein
Laverdiere Leblanc (Laurier) Loiselle
MacDonald (Prince)
Standing Committees
McKinley	Rochon
Rapp	Saltsman
Richard	Simard-22.

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Aiken		Macquarrie
Bechard		McWilliam
Brewin		Mongrain
Cashin		Munro
Crossman		Nielsen
Howard		Nugent
Hymmen		Prud'homme
Korchinski		Tardif
Lachance		Thomas (Middlesex
Langlois (Megantic)		West)
Lessard		Valade
Lind		Woolliams-24.
Loiselle		
PUBLIC		ACCOUNTS
	Messrs.	
Ballard		Muir (Lisgar)
Bigg		Noble
Cameron (High Park)		Neveu
Dionne		Schreyer
Flemming		Southam
Forbes		Stafford
Gendron		Tardif
Hales		Thomas (Maisonneuve-
Harkness		Rosemont)
Leblanc (Laurier)		Tremblay
Lefebvre		Tucker
McLean (Charlotte)		Winch-24.
Morison		
RESTAURANT		OF PARLIAMENT
Mr.	Speaker and	
	Messrs.	
Bigg		Johnston
Boulanger		Langlois (Chicoutimi)
Brand		Leblanc (Laurier)
Cantelon		Matheson
Cowan		McNulty
Crossman		Nesbitt
Crouse		Noble
Emard		Peters
Gregoire		Rock
Hales		Tucker
Herridge		Whelan
Horner (The		Winkler
Battlefords)		Yanakis-26.
STANDING ORDERS		
	Messrs.	
Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe) Johnston		
Baldwin		Langlois (Chicoutimi)
Bigg		Laniel
Boulanger		LeBlanc (Rimouski)
Brown		Loiselle
Churchill		MacDonald (Prince)
Coates		McNulty
Duquet		Mongrain
Ethier		Peters
Groos		Regimbal
Guay		Thomas (Middlesex
Gundlock		West)-24.
Habel		
[Stage Direction]
May 19, 1967
Standing Committees

[Stage Direction]
Messrs.
Andras	Macaluso
Bell (Saint John-Albert) MacEwan	
Byrne	McWilliam
Cantelon	Olson
Clermont	Orlikow
Deachman	Pascoe
Emard	Reid
Groos	Rideout (Mrs.)
Horner (Acadia)	Rock
Howe (Wellington-Huron)Schreyer	
Jamieson	Sherman
Lessard	Southam-24.
VETERANS AFFAIRS Messrs.	
Boulanger	Legault
Chatterton	MacRae
Clancy	Madill
Cowan	Martin (Timmins)
Emard	Matheson
Fane	Morison
Groos	Ormiston
Habel	Rock
Harley	Thomas (Maisonneuve-
Herridge	Rosemont)
Kennedy	Tolmie
Laniel Latulippe [DOT] (11:10 a.m.)	Webb-24.
['But not to the present, extent.']
Mr. Pilon moved: that the report be concurred in.


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Speaker, I believe that a 48 hour notice or the unanimous consent of the house is required to move for concurrence in this committee report.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member allow me to read the motion? Mr. Pilon, seconded by Mr. Choquette, moves:
That the first report received today from the special committee appointed May 8, 1967 to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house be concurred in now.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I think that in the circumstances, a 48 hour notice is required for concurrence in the motion. Now, we have not even seen the report. We are being presented the committee report with the list of committee members. I do not know who are the members of the committee, we have not been consulted and we know nothing about that report.
You will remember probably that, last year, two hon. members were discriminated against by the government, since they sat on no committee, while other hon. members were on five or six committees at the same time. Under the circumstances, I think that there should be a notice of 48 hours so that we may

check those lists and know if, this year again, the government has decided to put the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) and myself, as it did last year, on a black list. I think that unanimous consent is necessary but I am not prepared to give it. I shall request a 48-hour notice.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to be unable to agree with the hon. member for Lapointe. The motion of the hon. member for Cham-bly-Rouville (Mr. Pilon) was moved under standing order No. 65 and it does not require a 48-hour notice, as referred to by the hon. member.

Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, would it be possible at least to know the content of the motion? The list of committee members has not even been read, and I suggest it would be well to read at least-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has the right to vote against the motion.

Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask at least that the motion be read in full, with the list of all committee members?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The motion put forward by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville has been read in full. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Gilles Grégoire: No.


Mr. Speaker:: On division.

Motion agreed to on division.


J.-E. Bernard Pilon: That messages be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both houses with respect to the library of parliament, the parliamentary restaurant and the printing of parliament, and that the members to serve on each of the said committees on the part of this house will be as contained in the first report of the special committee presented this day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
May 19, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	415
Inquiries of the Ministry
PRODUCTS WEIGHTS AND PRICES	side, and we would certainly regret any escaprovision for indication ON affixed	lation either by the United States or by the
label	other side in that direction.
['That messages be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both houses with respect to the library of parliament, the parliamentary restaurant and the printing of parliament, and that the members to serve on each of the said committees on the part of this house will be as contained in the first report of the special committee presented this day.']
Mr.   Palrick-T. Asselin@Richmond-Wolfe: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-116, concerning the weight and price of products.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Prime Minister whether he would give consideration to providing an opportunity at once for the introduction in this house of a resolution regarding the Viet Nam situation, and in particular whether such a resolution would call upon the United States to discontinue bombing or, if not, to restrict it to communication roads.
Since yesterday the report is that for the first time in the demilitarized zone there has been warfare, or warfare is expected, because of the presence of both North Vietnamese and the Americans in that area. This adds a very sobering thought as to the possibilities which may arise through escalation of this type.
In view of the further serious developments in that area in the last 24 hours and the necessity of something being done by Canada to make clear the viewpoint held by the elected representatives in parliament, would the Prime Minister not now give an assurance that provision will be made for debate on such a resolution to bring clearly to the notice of the United States and the world our view on such matters before it may become too late?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Consideration of the suggestion made by the right hon. gentleman yesterday is not yet completed. When it is, I shall be glad to make an announcement to the house at as early a date as possible.
As far as the reference to the demilitarized zone is concerned, it is well known, of course, that the neutrality of that zone has been violated more than once over the years. It has also been stated by this government and by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, specifically I think on April 11, that we would consider it regrettable if that zone were used as a base for operations by troops of either 27053-271


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In asking my supplementary question may I support as strongly as I can the request which has been made by the Leader of the Opposition. We hope the government will agree to it. In the meantime, while the government is considering this matter, may I ask whether any information has been received from the Canadian representatives on the international control commission with regard to the reported bombing in the demilitarized zone, and whether the Canadian government is re-stating its opposition to this course of action?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs made a report yesterday on this matter. We have more than once expressed as a government our opposition to the violation of the demilitarized zone which has been going on now for a great many months, indeed I think for more than a year.


John George Diefenbaker: But not to the present, extent.



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
A few days ago I put a question to him about the slave camps that apparently exist in Pakistan; I should like to know whether the minister is in a position today to tell us what role Canada is playing at this time in this matter?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to reply to the question asked two days ago by my friend the hon. member for Villeneuve, and I may say that the President of Pakistan and the Governor of Western Pakistan have both given the assurance that they are taking measures to settle this situation; Canada has given Pakistan assurances of our interest. We are convinced that the government, particularly the President, is taking all the necessary measures.

May 19, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Kees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the recommendation by the Carter commission that the depletion allowances in the oil and mining industries be terminated, and the uncertainty caused to these industries by this overhanging recommendation, does the minister intend to advise the house and the country in the near future of the government's intention in this regard?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of making any statement about depletion allowances until the government brings forward its proposals, which I hope will be before the end of this year.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the concern which I believe is felt by all members of the house, and I hope by all people throughout the world, regarding developments in the Middle East between the U.A.R. and Israel, I would ask the minister to bring the house up to date on this most important major matter, with respect to Canada and the United States wanting to retain the peace keeping forces and their withdrawing by U Thant, and the position respecting a council meeting. This is of such major importance that I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs can bring the house up to date as much as possible on this question and on his responsibilities.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. gentleman that developments as the result of a decision by the government of the United Arab Republic and the consequential action of the Secretary General do create a situation that should engage our serious attention.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the understatement of the year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The member nations of the peace keeping force yesterday met with the Secretary General of the United Nations for the second time. He informed them that as the result of a demand made on the commander of the force by the foreign minister of the U.A.R. he had no alternative but to accept the demand that the United Nations emergency force withdraw and that it vacate U.A.R. territory.
At this meeting the ambassador of Canada pointed out that it was the view of the Canadian government that such a decision could only be taken by the security council or the general assembly, and in this case by the general assembly since the force had been established by that body. However, all members contributing to the force did not and do not share this juridical interpretation of the assembly's authority.
It may be recalled that not only did the present Prime Minister, as secretary of state for external affairs in 1957, establish the government's position that the authority of the assembly was required before the force could be disbanded, but this position likewise was taken by the government of my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition in June of 1967, when the Canadian ambassador informed the then secretary general that there could be no withdrawal of the force except on the authority of the general assembly.


John George Diefenbaker: When was that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In June of 1960, when Ambassador Ritchie went to the then secretary general, Dag Hammarskjold, and informed him that the Canadian government could not agree that there should be any withdrawal of the force without the authority of the general assembly.
The Canadian ambassador to the United Nations will be seeing the Secretary General today at noon. I would hope there would be a meeting of the security council as quickly as possible, when this body might take into account the serious situation which has developed. Yesterday I had a talk with the United Arab Republic ambassador, who informed me of the decision of his government. I in turn indicated what was our view as to the authority of the general assembly. Likewise I saw the ambassador of Israel. Before there was a formal indication by the Secretary General that the force had been disbanded I made the suggestion that Israel might give consideration to inviting the force to occupy its territory so the force might continue in being.
May 19, 1967	COMMONS
In any event, consultations are continuing among the governments concerned at the United Nations and in Ottawa as well as in other capitals. The situation I believe is one which must be scrutinized with the greatest care. The situation now is that the forces of the U.A.R. are occupying the posts along the armistice line formerly occupied by the United Nations patrol which carried on surveillance along the armistice line of 175 miles. So the U.A.R. and Israeli forces now are confronting one another.
In this situation 1 would hope that all countries concerned would exercise the greatest moderation, particularly in view of the fact that the Secretary General, supported by some countries members of the United Nations force, has taken the position that the force now is no longer in being. The Secretary General will report to the United Nations general assembly today on the action he has taken. There will be an opportunity, of course, for the Canadian government and others to state their position about the withdrawal of the force which, however now regrettably must be regarded as officially disbanded.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. I appreciate the remarks of the minister in trying to give us information, but in view of the fact that everything now is somewhat indecisive and that we face certain eventualities, may I ask the minister whether plans have been laid down by the Department of National Defence, because it is governed by external affairs policy, for a means to withdraw our 800-man Canadian force from the Gaza strip.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As the Minister of National Defence said yesterday, there are contingency plans and the Department of National Defence now is examining those plans. It must be noted, however, that the force still is physically intact, mainly in or near the Gaza strip. The force commander continues to exercise authority over the force.
I can only say that we are taking note of this fact. In particular we will emphasize to the Secretary General today the fact that the force is physically intact and could be used if the parties were willing to give the kind of assurance which existed prior to the action taken yesterday, when it was announced that the force no longer was officially in being.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs might clarify one point.
DEBATES	417
Inquiries of the Ministry When he made his reply to the initial question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East he said, as I understood it, that the other members or most other members of the group of nations supplying troops to the emergency force agreed that the Secretary General and not the general assembly should make the decision concerning whether the force was still in being.
I am not sure whether the minister has said this, but did this group which felt the decision should be left to the Secretary General feel that the security council itself could override the decision of the Secretary General? In other words, is not this decision up to the security council? Second, would the Secretary General-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, particularly after the rather lengthy statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but I suggest to hon. members that we return to the question period.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Well, with great respect, Your Honour, this is a pretty important matter.


Mr. Speaker:: My only suggestion to the hon. member was that he ask his question.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Very well, Your Honour. Did those of the group of nations which supplies troops to UNEF who did not agree with the Canadian point of view, agree that the security council and not the Secretary General should be able to make the decision as to whether UNEF should remain in existence? Second, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs recommend that an emergency meeting of the general assembly be held, in view of the position taken by the Secretary General?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The general assembly is now in session, Mr. Speaker. Two countries took the position that they would support the U.A.R. demand for withdrawal of the forces and indicated that in their judgment the Secretary General had the necessary authority. They based this position on an agreement between President Nasser and Mr. Dag Hammarskjold.


John George Diefenbaker: Which are the two countries?


Paul Joseph James Martin: They are India and Yugoslavia. The Canadian position was stated in the terms I indicated. I might say these are terms which are supported by a

May 19, 19G7
Inquiries of the Ministry number of other countries contributing forces, as well as some that do not.
Let me say simply this. As the member for Vancouver East pointed out, this is a matter of the greatest concern, and it will be a matter of great regret, I am sure to everyone in this house and to Canada, to see the United Nations emergency force disbanded. This is a force that for over 12 years has maintained the peace in this particular area of the Middle East. This will be a matter of the greatest regret, because we recall with pride that this force was set up as a result of the initiative, action and imagination of the present Prime Minister of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: After that political speech surely some observations can be made about it. This suggestion was made by Right Hon. Anthony Eden in his speech. The day following the Prime Minister, who was then Secretary of State for External Affairs for Canada, brought the matter before the assembly. That is the historical record, not the rewritten record of the Liberal party. The minister called forth that observation because of his gratuitous statement.
I should like to ask the minister, in view of his wide international experience and the strong feelings he has expressed about the necessity of maintaining the United Nations peace keeping force, does he not consider that his presence in New York would be of importance? Canada is a member of the security council, and the minister could be there with his wide knowledge and dedication to the principles of peace keeping to argue this case with all the emphasis he has shown today.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the right hon. gentleman that in making the observation which he said was gratuitous I was not seeking in any way to engage in any partisan observation. I hope my right hon. friend will believe me when I say this, because this matter is too serious for my intentions to be otherwise, I thought it was a matter of record that the initiative for this course had been taken by Canada. This does not mean other countries did not make a contribution. I mentioned the contribution made by the Prime Minister to indicate how very strongly Canadians feel about the consequences of yesterday's action and its implication regarding the whole concept of peace keeping by an organization to which this country dedicates so much of its foreign policy. I would have hoped, and I am not saying this by way of censure of my right hon.

friend, that in a matter of this sort he would fully agree with what I said.
As to my going to the United Nations, that possibility has been examined and it is still possible that I will do so today. We have an ambassador there with great experience in the person of Mr. Ignatieff. He served as deputy to General McNaughton when the latter was a member of the security council. We have the fullest confidence in the way Mr. Ignatieff is handling this matter. However, we will wait to see how events evolve during the course of the day. Let me assure my right hon. friend that a great deal can be done in respect of this matter here in Ottawa with representatives of other countries, and that is what we were engaged in doing yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: But not very successfully.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My right hon. friend says not very successfully, and I regret that we were not successful. I am sure the right hon. gentleman would be the last to attribute any action on the part of Canada as causing the regrettable situation which has developed in the Middle East.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the minister that no one could be a better representative in New York than he and that is why I suggested he go. Apparently he does not feel he is in that position. All I can say is that if I did offer him a eulogy he does not appreciate, I withdraw it.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Norlh):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the withdrawal of the Canadian troops now in the Gaza strip will be part of the general United Nations withdrawal there, or will it be a Canadian operation carried out with Canadian aircraft and equipment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, the Canadian Department of National Defence has its own contingency plans, which I am sure will be synchronized with those of the whole force. Of course this does not apply to the United Nations truce supervisory organization, which will continue to carry out its obligations and may even play a part in this situation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Do I understand from what the minister has said that the withdrawal of the Canadian troops will be essentially a Canadian operation carried out with Canadian planes and so forth, and that he hopes this will be co-ordinated with the withdrawal of other UN forces there?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.
May 19, 1967


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Despite the technical disbandment of UNEF, will the Canadian government consider keeping the Canadian troops who are part of this force in the Middle East in case the United Nations makes a decision which might require their presence there?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I said a moment ago, the whole force is now in or near the Gaza strip except for a small group which is so far as I know still located at the point in the gulf of Aqaba used by Israel to enter the Red sea. The plans for the removal of this force at any particular moment are not known now. We shall have to wait to see what happens today before we can draw any final conclusions as to the ultimate disposal of the force.


Mr. Heaih Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister in respect of his suggestion that the locale of the UNEF be moved to Israel, whether he is yet in a position to indicate any response by the government of that state to that very interesting suggestion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not as yet, sir.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a supplementary question. In the event that the present negotiations regarding the Secretary General's decision do not work out satisfactorily, will the Canadian government make an attempt to refer the whole matter to the general assembly for decision?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, when the general assembly deals with this question the Canadian ambassador has been instructed to state the Canadian position, as he did yesterday at the meeting of the contributors. It may also be necessary to do that today if there is a meeting of the security council.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, because of the serious implications for Canada and peace keeping forces elsewhere in the world under United Nations auspices, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the Secretary General of the United Nations has taken a similar position with respect to the Cyprus force. I ask whether the position he has taken is such that he would say he could order the disbanding of
Inquiries of the Ministry the Cyprus force. Have there been any discussions in this regard, and what is the position there?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There will be discussions on that very point. As I said, the Canadian ambassador has been instructed to see the Secretary General and an appointment has been arranged for noon today, when that and other questions will certainly be discussed. In fairness to the Secretary General, whose difficulties in this matter I appreciate, he has acted on the basis of the agreement with President Nasser and the then secretary general, Dag Hammarskjold, an agreement which in substance provided that the agreement by Egypt to the establishment of the force in no way violated its sovereignty. That agreement, which was circulated in the United Nations, must be read, however, with the resolution of the United Nations which set up the force.


Mr. Fulfon:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the situation with regard to Cyprus parallel to this situation? Was there a similar agreement by Turkey and Greece, or either of them, and could this be used in the same way as it has been attempted to use the Arab agreement?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, certainly the consent of the government of Cyprus had to be obtained, and was obtained, before the force was established. I know of no agreement, however, along the lines of that which exists between the President of the United Arab Republic and the then secretary general.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. If the assumption that is put forward by nations other than Canada is correct, namely that the UN peace keeping role can be abandoned by any affected member, what will happen to this government's defence policy, which seems to be based strictly on a peace keeping role?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It would appear that this particular question is argumentative.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, it may be an argumentative question in that the minister may have difficulty answering it, but it is asked in a serious manner.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Queens.
420	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, my question has already been asked, but perhaps I might be allowed to remark that I think it is a pity the answers of the Secretary of State for External Affairs could not have been run through a condenser instead of through an amplifier.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question that I wanted to ask the Minister of Labour. Perhaps in his absence you would allow it to be taken as notice by the minister's parliamentary secretary. Having in mind the increase in the number of unemployed in Canada, which I believe is 67,000 more than it was last year at this time, would the minister consider making an early statement to the house on the situation?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I will be glad to take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister, and ask whether he would kindly make inquiries as to why the Queen's picture has been removed from the centennial caravan.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would first have to find out whether it has in fact been removed.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Would he tell us whether he could set up a special inquiry to find out whether it is true that rainmaking machines are operating again in the Saguenay-Lake St. John area and that new machines have been installed in the Ottawa region? Could he tell us also whether

DEBATES	May 19, 1967
he will use his influence to have those machines stopped, at least during Expo?


Mr. Speaker:: The question could be put on the order paper.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, May 18, 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.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
Mr. Rene Emard (Vaudreuil-Soulanges):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to continue my comments on the new capitalist doctrine set forth by Kelso and Adler in Le manifeste capitaliste and The New Capitalists.
In his work Kelso dwells particularly on measures to give the individual a greater share of the capital. According to him, to the widely applied profit-sharing system should be added the various pension plans most commonly in use today. He adds that the practice of deducting contributions to various plans, such as profit-sharing plans-and particularly bonuses in the form of shares-from the taxable income could be used to bring about a transition from our mixed economy to pure capitalism. This transition, continues the author, could take place without any change in income tax rates. According to Mr. Kelso's theory, if profit-sharing plans are well conceived, after a few years of work, the worker becomes the owner of a substantial portion of capital. Therefore, these plans will help change our economy into a capitalistic one. If joint stock companies established on a sound basis were obliged to pay to their shareholders all the income created by their capital, profit-sharing plans would become much more effective. In fact, the amounts of money paid to the workers could be used to buy shares in those joint stock companies. According to Mr. Kelso, the concept of profit sharing should not be tied to the idea of retirement as it is now in an economy which is concerned with the idea of full employment. A greater participation in capital ownership, therefore in the production of wealth, will provide the worker with an income which will not only provide him with a livelihood when he stops working, but also which
May 19, 1967

The Address-Mr. Emard
According to Mr. Kelso, since capital equipment has obviously become the main factor in the production of wealth, the economic system must be revised to spread the ownership of capital equipment to the entire population. Too many of our political leaders, industrialists, economists say we lack the capital to build our country. Many of them add that even if we had the capital, we would not have the guts to use it. But Mr. Kelso feels that we not only have the capacity to produce the required capital, but that we also have the political obligation to do so if we are to remain a strong and independent country.
World capitalism rejects the socialist and classical (non-socialist) theory according to which prosperity can be achieved only by full employment. Such a theory erroneously assumes that the only way man can contribute to production is through his labour. It overlooks the non-human factor of production which is capital and it fails to recognize that capital produces wealth just as labour does, and that capital currently produces the greater part of the total goods and services and that, as technology develops, capital will produce an ever-increasing part in the future. The purpose of pure or universal capitalism is a maximum yield of goods and services with a minimum of labour but with universal participation in production. Participation may come through personal labour or through personal ownership of producing capital, or through both, according to the degree of development of technology or the standard of living being aimed at.
For the author, the word "universal" in the expression "universal capitalism" has the same meaning as in the expression "universal suffrage" and both are closely connected. The political system of universal suffrage has never had an economic equivalent in history. Defective economic institutions have weakened and eliminated the ideals of political democracy and constitutional government, according to Mr. Kelso's conclusions. Our western political heritage has no chance to survive in a nation or in a world where capital is the main source of wealth desired by all but where the majority owns no productive property. Private property, as applied to the factors of production, means that the owner of each factor is entitled to all the wealth or the net yield produced by the property owned.
The practical world in which we are living demands in addition to a theory, practical and efficient means to put theory in action. The

second income plan is a practical plan to achieve a universal capitalist economy. An economy capable of producing whealth at the required rate would have to be at least ten times more productive than that now in existence in Canada, according to Mr. Kelso. The purpose of the plan for a second income is therefore to create that new economy.
Under that economy, newly created capital would be owned first of all by the 90 per cent of families which do not have a large income in the present economy. This new economy would be based on means to increase the integrity of the present right to private property in the existing economy. Mr. Kelso states further that such economy will have logic and symmetry, because it builds up the economic power of all families to consume goods, that is the buying power, thanks to two sources of income, at the same time as it builds up industrial capacity to produce goods.
[DOT] (12 noon)
The instruments of economic transformation suggested by the author fall under four categories: those relating to legacies and to donations inter vivos, in so far as they are affected by federal and provincial fiscal legislation; those respecting corporative policy; the instruments dealing with the financing of capital ownership for company workers and, finally, those relating to the financing of capital ownership for employees other than those of companies.
The purpose of changes in the fiscal policy affecting real estate and tax legislation on donations should be to encourage donations likely to extend private capital ownership by having it benefit a greater number of people. Those legislative measures should discourage blocking of accumulating the most efficient production factor, capital, in foundations the purpose of which is rather vague or obscure but which are tax exempt.
In such foundations, capital is socialized as efficiently as through state confiscation. With regard to corporations, Kelso makes the three following suggestions:
1.	Gradual elimination of corporate income tax. The methods of financing individual capital ownership, through the income produced by capital, are some of the prime instruments for implementing the plan on the second income.
2.	Compel gradually well established companies to pay their shareholders the full amount of their gains, after allowing for the cost of depreciation and operating reserves. To withhold income from capital is no more justifiable than to withhold income from work. If capital produces the greater part of our wealth, and if we want to streamline our economic system by allowing the mass to get
May 19, 1967	COMMONS
a secondary income in the form of dividends, the private property of both present and new shareholders must be effective.
3.	To provide companies with new sources of financial growth in order to replace internal funds now in use.
If existing capital is used as a warranty in the financing process, then, according to Kelso, there is a better way to achieve the same goal, a method which does not depend on the limits imposed by the savings available for financing the formation of new capital.
This idea is of major importance for the Canadian economy, for it breaks the necessary tie, in conventional finance, between the ownership of existing capital and the right to acquire the ownership of newly constituted capital.
Conventional finance is a method whose results are exactly the contrary of universal capitalism. It is a method of implacable concentration of ownership and of exclusion, from the ownership of capital, of those who do not already possess a substantial amount of money.
On the other hand, the secondary income plan is a method created to allow people, who were born without it, to buy capital, to pay for it with the wealth produced by this capital and, afterwards, to own it and to use it as a source of secondary income.
Finally, Mr. Kelso points out some political advantages of an economic program based upon a second income plan. He says that the tools of that plan are particularly useful at the federal level because their operation is first subject to the control of the monetary system and the credit system which come under the federal government.
That plan is in keeping with the national economic planning, the antitrust policy, the speeding up of economic growth through the simultaneous development of the economic power of the people to consume and their industrial capacity to produce and also with the promotion of industrial peace. At the same time, the purpose of this plan is to maintain among individual citizens a growing economic power resulting from an accelerated industrialization and to extend it throughout the nation. Eventually and ideally, that extension would be universal.
The plan is also intended to reduce drastically and perhaps to remove economic cycles. The Second Revenue Plan will unavoidably show to all Canadians the advantages of a strong Confederation of all provinces. The control of the financial policy by the central 27053-281
DEBATES	423
The Address-Mr. Sherman government will be strengthened by the opportunity given to all Canadians to hold various stocks from corporations of each province. In addition, by increasing industrial power, economic independence and prestige of the political and economic leadership of Canada, the plan can narrow down the difference between the power of the United States and Canada.
The plan also portends to show that Canada does not need any foreign financial capital, but that all Canadians must have an opportunity to quickly own as many capital goods as possible. It is through an income increase due to the ownership of capital, rather than an artificial wage increase, that Canada could compete favourably with any other nation, including European and Japanese manufacturers for the American market. Mr. Kelso goes on to say that, in fact, Canada could compete with most of United States industries, at least until this country feels compelled to follow the trend and reform its economy.
The second income plan provides Canadians with the tools which could place their economy among the most important in the world, within a few years. Such an economy, built upon simple principles workable and understandable, could be emulated by that of developing countries. Today, concludes Mr. Kelso, there is no similar model for emerging nations.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people lose a lot of time in academic discussions about reforms which never bring any results. The second income plan presents a practical program, and the least we can do would be to study its potentialities.


Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate I should like first of all to offer my respects and pay a tribute to a distinguished former member of this assembly, who from 1963 to 1965 represented the seat I now represent of Winnipeg South, serving with great conscience, integrity and distinction. I refer to the late Mrs. Margaret Konantz.
I had the privilege of running against Margaret Konantz in the autumn of 1965, which resulted in the myth that I and those who contributed to my campaign defeated Mrs. Konantz. This is a myth, Mr. Speaker. We may have succeeded in polling a few more votes than Margaret Konantz did, but no member who served with her in this house or in any capacity in the community and in
May 19, 1967

The Address-Mr. Sherman the nation during her lifetime would say that I or anybody else ever defeated Margaret Konantz. Nothing defeated her, sir. She was a public servant with a great sense of responsibility. She was a great Canadian lady and served her constituents in Winnipeg South, of whom I was one, with great distinction. On this occasion I extend my sympathy not only to her family but to the members of the Liberal party, whose colleague she was.
Second, I should like to extend my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) and the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Cote). Their eloquent words have lifted this debate and launched it on a high plane. I for one was distinctly impressed by the debut each of them made. I know what they had to say has had a profound effect on the direction and course this debate has taken, and I think throughout the life of this session and this parliament their remarks will contribute to the over-all calibre and standard of debate and our participation in the affairs of the nation.
I should now like to address myself to two or three areas of Canadian life that I think are worthy of attention as I avail myself of this opportunity to take part in what is in fact a truly historic debate, because this particular throne speech debate is taking place in our one hundredth birthday year which celebrates confederation.
One of the matters I want to talk about is our presence abroad in the world, particularly our presence across the Pacific ocean in Asia, where one and a half billion people or half the population of the world resides. I had the good fortune and opportunity to spend a brief time in Southeast Asia during February and March, 22 days in all, during which my travelling party visited seven countries. For many of us it was our first glimpse of a huge area of life, endeavour and enterprise, a huge area of human struggle, bordering the Pacific ocean which washes the shores of our own country. It is an area in which our country must take a deep and abiding interest from both a spiritual and economic point of view.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
In our travels in that part of the world we found that though we are held in fairly high regard as a nation we have no presence to speak of in Asia. We are held in fairly high regard as a direct result, first, of the presence in Southeast Asia now and in past of certain individuals who have enhanced our country's
! Mr. Sherman.)

name; and second, because of our wheat sales to China, the latter leaving the impression, fortunately for us, that as a country we are more concerned with keeping people from starving than with political divisions. The individuals who have enhanced our name worked chiefly in medical and missionary teams. Also some of our official and quasiofficial diplomats in Asia are held in high regard.
Despite these small evidences that we are not completely unknown-it is true that we may be recognized as existing-we cannot claim that anyone understands us or that we have any political presence in the area. We may not be dismissed as puppets of the United States, but we are hardly considered to have an independent foreign policy. It appears difficult for Asians to understand why we do not recognize or have diplomatic relations with a country to which we sell hundreds of million of dollars worth of wheat every year. A general vacuum exists in feelings toward our country; we have not made ourselves interested or interesting, and as a result little notice is taken of us.
These facts may be directly related to our almost complete lack of representation in the area. In the 15 countries of Southeast Asia with which we have diplomatic relations we maintain five embassies and six trade commissions, some of the latter being accredited to other countries as well as those in which they are located. Nevertheless it is doubtful whether the personnel of those establishments are numerous enough to be of much use to more than one country at a time. In eight of the 15 countries I alluded to we are unrepresented.
The following is the table of our offices and officers, sir:
India: high commission, trade commission.
Pakistan: high commission, trade commission.
Japan:	embassy, trade commission (also accredited to Korea).
Malaysia:	high commission, trade commission
(also accredited to Singapore).
Hong Kong: trade commission.
Philippines: trade commission.
Indonesia: consulate.
Viet Nam: ICC commissioner; Laos: ICC commissioner; Cambodia: ICC commissioner; no diplomatic representation.
Thailand: no representation.
Burma: no representation.
Singapore: no representation.
Korea: no representation.
Formosa: no representation.
Mainland China is not included, and by Korea I mean South Korea. Forgetting for a
May 19, 1967	COMMONS
moment the whys and wherefores of recognizing or not recognizing communist China, the figures show that Canada has a total representation of some 25 foreign service officers in an area where lj billion people live. In our five embassies-one is a consulate-and six trade commissions which are accredited to eight countries we have two dozen persons of officer rank who, in effect, bring Canada to half the world's people. Considering that Canada's major market for wheat is in this area, and considering also the vastly increased political importance of Southeast Asia, we need much greater representation that we presently have.
The nature of our representation only makes the situation worse. This is not to say that our personnel are not doing an excellent job, for from all reports and under all the circumstances they are. But the fact remains that Canada has not one expert on Southeast Asia, not one. The external affairs department prefers not to have experts; it likes to move its people around to widen their knowledge and experience.
Surely such a modus operandi is sadly out of date in 1967, and will be even more out of date in the 1970's when all these nations to which we pay so little attention will be the scene of many struggles that will increasingly involve every nation of the world, our own included. How can we deal effectively with these cultures so different from our own without the modern equivalent of the old China hand? The Department of External Affairs does not offer its applicants any kind of choice in their overseas postings. Probably a person skilled in the ways of Southeast Asia will be sent to Southeast Asia, but not necessarily.
The recruitment of foreign service officers is undertaken at the postgraduate level simply by a series of examinations and interviews. No attempt is made to interest young Canadians in the foreign service of their country. There are no incentives for Canadian university students to undertake studies which will lead them to careers in any particular branch of the foreign service, or to careers in any government branch at all for that matter. There are no resident experts in Ottawa or abroad. Everyone is eligible for everything once he is accepted into the foreign service. Obviously a man who speaks Japanese will not be sent to the Netherlands. Generally, though, we conduct our foreign policy on the career level as we would a liberal arts college. No specialized knowledge is required and very little is gained.
DEBATES	425
The Address-Mr. Sherman
Complete overhaul of our recruitment system is demanded to ensure a steady flow of interested young people into branches of the service that require expertise. Our ambassador to a country should be not only an excellent person, a good diplomat and a good ambassador; he should also be an expert on that country. In a modern, specialized world we must give direction to our foreign policy by placing in foreign capitals men who know and understand those to whom they are accredited. With a proper and informed flow back of material we may better be able to direct our country's activities abroad.
It is necessary to let young Canadians know about the foreign service as a career, before they choose a career. At the moment, foreign service personnel become so because their fathers did, or because they discover they are qualified after acquiring one or two college degrees. The opportunity is great. Excellent people have been attracted. But the needs have changed. If we think we can get by in Southeast Asia with 25 officers, we are sadly mistaken. If we send anybody but an expert out to increase the complement, we may as well spend the money and the talent elsewhere.
The figures on career officers show that applicants know very little about the jobs they are applying for. Of 800 applicants for career officer posts in 1966, only 170 qualified to write the entrance exams. Four hundred were not even sufficiently qualified or interested to be interviewed. Sixty were accepted. Undoubtedly the standards are high, but today the potential ambassador needs more specialized knowledge than he ever needed before. His specialization must begin at the graduate level, if not below. In short he must be recruited and trained. The potluck application system cannot much longer endure. This is especially true in Southeast Asia, where expertise must be learned or acquired through long experience. No Canadian grows up in an atmosphere which allows him even elementary understanding of the Asian national character.
[DOT] (12:20 a.m.)
My conclusions in this sphere are these:
1.	Canada has six embassies and five trade commissions in Southeast Asia, in seven of the 15 nations in that region. In other words we are vastly under represented.
2.	There is a great need for specialization in our foreign service, either through training or experience or both.
May 19. 1967

The Address-^Mr. Sherman
3.	To permit and encourage specialization among foreign service officers the Department of External Affairs should provide incentives to persons who wish to devote themselves to Canada's service in foreign countries of a particular type, or to areas of diplomacy at home.
4.	To provide for recruitment of specialized and expert personnel, the department should undertake an extensive program of public relations and recruitment in universities across Canada.
5.	Canada must divorce itself from the notion that the diplomatic corps is a club. It must prepare itself fully for the kind of knowledge that is needed, and will be needed, in all areas of the world, particularly in Southeast Asia, where more than one half the world's people live.
Having said this, in the time which remains to me I should like to say something about the affairs of Canada at home, the feelings of Canadians and what it is to be a Canadian in this particular year. A House of Commons session of record length has ended and a new one, the second session of the twenty seventh Parliament, is well begun. With the great events of centennial summer now upon us, I feel honoured and privileged to take part in the work of this legislative chamber and to participate in this debate.
I am sure all members of this house, like myself, and all Canadians, will be feeling much satisfaction this spring and summer in their nationality and in their country. This is a great year in which to be a Canadian. With Expo '67, the armed forces tattoo, the panAmerican games, the confederation train, the confederation caravans, the centennial canoe race and all the other pageants great and small which are being presented so successfully in honour of our 100th birthday, we are winning international recognition this summer as one of the most dynamic and exciting countries in the world.
I remember that when I was a schoolboy, far-away fields looked enticingly green. Today for young men and women of high school and university age there is no field so green and so full of promise as Canada. There is a feeling in our country today which was not present a quarter of a century ago. It is a feeling of new ground being broken, new horizons glimpsed, new opportunity at home and a new, assured Canadian personality emerging. It is my opinion that this new Canadian promise reflects itself clearly in our national politics, and if those politics appear

tumultuous at times, it is because we are living a tumultuous chapter in Canadian history.
We have much to celebrate as Canadians in our centennial year. In the shadow of the most powerful and possibly the most persuasive nation the world has ever known we have clung to our Canadian identity, tended it, nurtured it and we are bringing it to bloom.
In the explosive climate generated by two founding races which have not always been charitable toward each other we have so far followed the voice and the path of the moderate man and avoided the temptation to anger. In an almost impossible geographical setting which would have dismayed many a less tenacious people we have scattered a comparative handful of men and women over a rugged, northern land mass of nearly four million square miles, covering half a continent, and we have held it together. We have built two transcontinental railroads, two transcontinental and international air lines, two transcontinental television and broadcasting networks, a transcontinental super highway, one of the world's greatest inland waterway systems and a coast to coast network of international airports that rank with any on the face of the earth.
We have built two of the world's greatest cities, and 20 others that are smaller but all of which are bursting with growth. We have built or are building 50 universities. We have plumbed the depths of our soil for petroleum and precious minerals; we have sown our vast prairies with wheat and fed half the world with the harvests. We have led the world in making many advances in the fields of medicine and science.
We have begun at last to address ourselves seriously to the arts, and there are hopeful signs that we are about to address ourselves seriously to scientific and industrial research. We have introduced social and humanitarian legislation which has brought security and freedom from worry to millions of our countrymen who without such measures would carry crushing burdens of financial care. Through depression we have persevered; out of trouble we have triumphed.
There is nothing we cannot make of Canada, you and I. As a country she is limited only by our human limitations. The glories and the triumphs of her first century in confederation may be as nothing in comparison with the triumphs of her second century yet to come. But there are areas of human labour and endeavour to which we must yet
May 19, 1967	COMMONS
turn our attention, especially in the field of human relations. I have mentioned some of the tremendous physical tasks which have been achieved. Among those still remaining to be done are these:
It will be our task to solve the problem of urban sprawl with all its related crises. It will be our task to open up our north country, to harness our huge reserves of fresh water, to tap new reserves of mineral wealth and to eliminate as far as possible the differences and discrepancies in regional growth and development across the country. It will be our task to build new roads and new towns, new sattelite cities and industrial cities. We may have to subsidize people to encourage them to settle in the north and push back the Arctic frontier. It will be our task to solve the problem of air pollution, and to solve the problems of old age. We shall have to find a cure for cancer. There are a thousand challenges of this nature, many of them yet unimagined.
But these are physical assignments or challenges. And important as they are, I believe them less important than some of the challenges which face our country in the field of human relations. The field of human relations, in my opinion, is the indispensable ground in which the foundations of Canada's second century must be dug. We must search that field for solid ground. If we sink our shafts in dry, sterile soil, if we dig in the barren sands of the status quo, if we try to rest our supports on the swamp of special interest groups, our structure will fail and the second Canadian century will crumble. But if we search that field earnestly and conscientiously for the good earth of human dignity, and if we build there, then the dreams we have for Canada will last not just into a second century but for a thousand years.
For I believe, and I think most Canadians would agree with me, that it is just as important to find a cure for war as to find a cure for cancer. It is just as important to rid our hearts of prejudice as to rid our air of pollution. It is just as important to redevelop our Indians as to redevelop our downtown areas. It is just as important to strengthen the fabric of Canadian life as to strengthen our reserves. And it is infinitely more important to the future of this country that we build highways of understanding between English and French and all ethnic and racial groups than that we build highways of concrete into the Arctic. This really is the challenge which faces us in this house, as well as all Canadians outside, as we enter our second century.
DEBATES	427
The Address-Mr. Gregoire
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
Some three decades ago Franklin Roosevelt coined a phrase that became a challenge and a battle cry for a whole generation of his countrymen. He told them "This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny." They responded to the call. Now, it seems tc me, sir, those words ring with far more significance for Canada than they ever did for the United States in Franklin Roosevelt's time.
One of the pre-eminent emotions in Canada today is social tension, tension between the whole of the country and its parts, tension among many of the parts themselves, tension so critical on some levels that possibly the very concept of Canada has been threatened. I believe this generation of Canadians has a rendezvous with destiny. As no other generation of Canadians before us, we and our children have the responsibility for deciding and determining whether there is going to be a Canada at all in the future, and what kind and type of Canada it is going to be. This is the substance of the Canadian experiment, and it is we who may determine whether that experiment finally succeeds or fails. In this context and in that connection, sir, I take this opportunity to wish all of us in this house, all of us in Canada, good luck in our careers as citizens and builders of this great country.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I should not like to be too long, and I will only make a few observations.
The motion for voting an address presented by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) and seconded by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Cote) reads as follows:
We, Her Majesty's most loyal and dutiful subjects, the House of Commons of Canada-
Most loyal and dutiful subjects. Mr. Speaker, I will simply say that I am opposed to the motion, because I do not consider myself as a subject but rather as a free citizen. In my opinion, the motion should not be written in those terms.
How can we, in 1967, in the middle of the twentieth century and in Canada, a country which calls itself free, begin by the formula "We, Her Majesty's most loyal and dutiful subjects" when, on the contrary, we are elected by Canadian citizens in our respective ridings; how could we renounce our allegiance
May 19, 1967

The Address-Mr. Gregoire to our electorate and recognize another authority than which delegated us here?
Mr. Speaker, one may smile at that, but nevertheless the idea is embodied in all aspects of Canadian life over the past 100 years. Those who were present at the opening of Expo remember several details of the ceremony of which we cannot be proud. For example, the official band played three times "God Save the Queen", the national anthem of England. Three times. And that, before playing "O Canada" even once. Three times, the national anthem of a foreign country. And those who were there, among Canadian citizens, and who were official delegates, diplomats from Africa, South America, Asia, Japan, Belgium, England, France, Germany, Italy, the United States-from 70 different countries-were surprised to find that the national anthem played here in Canada was "God Save the Queen", and that happened three times.
I also recall that, in 1965, the International Parliamentary Union held its meeting here in Ottawa. At that time, the representatives from 70 countries, members of parliament and senators, were meeting here to discuss problems relating to parliamentary government throughout the world. And there was a concert in the Capitol theatre, here in Ottawa, played by the symphonic orchestra of Toronto. It was a very beautiful concert and it was very successful. The symphony, directed by a Japanese, was excellent. There were two great Canadian stars, Richard Verreault and another one, a soprano, whose name I cannot recall.


An hon. Member:: Maureen Forrester.


Gilles Grégoire: No, not Maureen Forrester who is also very well known. That was two years ago, and I have forgotten the name. At the beginning of the concert, what did one hear? Everybody got up for the national anthem, but "God Save the Queen", was what they heard. All the representatives, members of Parliament, senators from about 75 countries throughout the world were looking at each other and wondering if they were not in an English colony, in the seventeenth, eighteenth or nineteenth century.
As a Canadian citizen, I felt embarrassed at this point, in front of all those guests from all countries who were invited here in Ottawa, in Canada. And what was played for them: "God Save the Queen," the national anthem of England.

Mr. Speaker, about two days ago, last weekend, I was visiting a foreign pavilion at the Expo, when a foreign representative, I do not remember from what country, came and asked me:	Tell me, are your Canadian dollars
guaranteed by England? Is it England that guarantees your dollars? I said: No. And then I asked him: What made you say that? He showed me a dollar bill and said: The picture of the Queen of England is on your bills. Are they guaranteed by England and is that why you have to put the picture of a foreign queen on your currency? I said: No, it is a leftover from the colonialism of the last century or two.
And here we claim to be Canadian citizens. We would like to make the citizens of Quebec, Ontario, etc. believe that they are Canadian citizens, whereas everything in our life is permeated by colonialism, without end or logic, right in 1967 and when, throughout the world, the countries with the least pride and dignity have broken off those colonial ties. Here in Canada we keep them. Our national anthem is still "God Save the Queen", as evidenced by the fact that it is played first. If, at least, it were played second; no, it is played first and three times in a row, before "O Canada". And those who were there will recall how it was played in a macabre, funerary and funereal rhythm, in a way I have never heard it played before. Those in attendance remember very well, and can testify to that. And it was played last, as if with fear. England's national anthem first. On our money, the picture of the Queen of England. And it is always the same. We are hosts to foreign countries but we have nothing to show except symbols, choirs, national hymns and great themes of another country as if we were a colony. If it were only a symbol, Mr. Speaker, but we are too penetrated by that colonial style, not only in the political field but also in the economic field, by that feeling of dependence, as if we could not have, at home, sufficient dignity and pride to give ourselves a free country where we would no longer be considered as subjects but as free citizens.
Mr. Speaker, we have not achieved this Canadian pride. It is not surprising then that in Quebec, I, at least, and many others, are trying to give ourselves a homeland because one has not been secured for us elsewhere. We will do all that needs to be done to have a homeland instead of living as colonials.
Some people may like it. I see the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) who still is a
May 19, 1967

Quebec citizen, a Canadian. Does he approve?
I would like to have his views. Does he approve of the playing of the national hymn of another country first, at international ceremonies in Canada? Is the Postmaster General proud of that?


Mr. Cole (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Has the hon. member finished his speech and does he yield the floor to the Postmaster General?


Gilles Grégoire: I am wondering whether if he can put a question to me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may not ask questions. He can make his speech and, if he so wishes, let other members to take part in the debate later.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


Desmond Morton Code: May I put a question to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker? Does he know the difference between the salute to the Governor General and the "God Save the Queen", because the hymn played at the opening of Expo was not the "God Save the Queen" but the salute to the Governor General which is only part of the "God Save the Queen".


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, that it is not a very strong argument, in my opinion. Whether the salute to the Governor General or the national hymn of Great Britain is played, I think, there is not the least difference between the two. It is exactly the same music and the same notes. Nothing is different between the two.
If the Postmaster General means that it is the salute to the Governor General, I ask him whether or not the Governor General is a Canadian? If so, let him have a general salute distinct from the national anthem of England. That is what the Postmaster General cannot understand. He is trying to justify an acceptance which must bother him, I am sure, but he is also trying to justify himself before his conscience, and that is what must be difficult. It must be difficult, I am quite sure, because the national anthem of England and what is now called the salute to the Governor General are exactly the same thing.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: No.


Gilles Grégoire: Is it not the same thing?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: No.

The Address-Mr. Gregoire


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, it is not the same thing, according to the Postmaster General. I would like very much to have him play both tunes, because he would realize that the music is exactly the same in both cases. There is no difference at all; and it is specious. In fact, the minister advances a specious argument since it is exactly the same music. People try to justify their attitude by saying: I listen to it; it is not England's national anthem, but the salute to the Governor General. We have a Canadian Governor General. Then, let us try at least to have for the governor general a Canadian salute and not a mere reproduction, indeed, a copy of England's national anthem! But there are still traces of colonialism, and I am disappointed to find some still in the Postmaster General.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am very proud that, this year, the Canadian parliament has adopted a national anthem and that, two years ago, it gave our country a Canadian flag. In fact, I am proud of the progress we are making in giving Canada a true national identity.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, anyone who has seen-as I have-how the national anthem was passed this year has no reason to be proud. It stayed on the order paper as a committee report for two months and, one fine day, the whole thing was passed in a hurry, without a word being uttered by anyone, in short as if everyone was ill at ease. Not a single member got up to say: I am happy to have an anthem. There was no mover and not even a speech by the Prime Minister, a minister or an hon. member. Nobody said a word. It was passed and nobody was any the wiser. There was no proclamation as if there was something humiliating, embarrassing in having a national anthem.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Perhaps you would have liked a debate on the national anthem.


Gilles Grégoire: Nobody said a word while the national anthem was passed on the sly, because at the same time, again on the sly, was also passed what was called the royal anthem. They were both concealed. The third and fourth reports of the committee on that subject were presented. There was another report which could never be passed. It deals with the reduction of the quorum. That report was skipped and another, one which had been lying around for two months, was passed again on the sly. The minister is extremely embarrassed, but he still says: I am
May 19, 1967

The Address-Mr. Gregoire proud of it. If the Postmaster General is so proud of his national anthem, why does he not protest when "God Save the Queen" is played three times before "O Canada?" Why do the three other members not protest too, indeed, the member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Berger) whom I saw applauding a while ago? Why do they not protest when the national anthem of another country is played three times before the one of which the Postmaster General is so proud? Is that pride? It is not, and I protest against it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to hon. members that they allow the hon. member for Lapointe to continue and complete his remarks?


Gilles Grégoire: I shall pursue. I quite understand their intervention and their shame. If I were in their shoes, I too would be ill at ease.


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


Gilles Grégoire: I too would be embarrassed. I see the Postmaster General leaving his seat. His hasty retreat is probably the most noble gesture he has ever made, because it enables me to make such remarks. I am proud of my national anthem. It took a long time before someone ventured to say that we no longer want to keep those colonial and colonialist vestiges. If only all the citizens of Quebec and the members from Quebec would take the lead in that field. I must congratulate the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette). I do not always have the opportunity to do so but he at least is one who acts like a free citizen, who has understood that we are free citizens, that we must not remain colonials. The hon. member for Lotbiniere has understood that.
Let us abolish monarchy, let us set up a republic. Why are the other members from Quebec not following, why are they not doing the same thing? It seems to me it would be quite normal for them to do so. Let us look at what has happened throughout the world during the past twenty years, Mr. Speaker. Countries, people less developed than we are, had at least more pride, more dignity than we have, much pride, much more dignity, and they realized what independence means, what it means to free ourselves from those who seek to exploit us and make colonials out of us.
Well, it has been too long since that idea was put forward here, in this house. It has not been sufficiently expressed, unfortunately.

I think it should be voiced even more, so that never again motions will be introduced, beginning with such words as: We, loyal and faithful subjects. Subjects! What a word! It is one I cannot accept. She is the Queen of England, very well-


Mr. Habel:: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since, contrary to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), I understand very well the oath of office I took in order to sit in this house, on behalf of those I represent, I am withdrawing from this house as a protest against the speech delivered at present by the hon. member.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I tell you that I am not much impressed by this withdrawal. I am disappointed to see that another Canadian citizen prefers to flee rather than face the music. What can you do, there are people who will always run away instead of fighting when confronted with this type of situation. The oath of allegiance to the Queen, Mr. Chairman-which still remains-is always a trace of colonialism which we should do away with. We should amend the constitution and suppress this, because we must always pledge our allegiance to those we represent, our constituents. That is democracy. We claim that we live in a democratic country. Democracy means government of the people, by the people and for the people. We are appointed by our constituents. That is implied in the word democracy. Therefore, to whom should we pledge our allegiance? To the people, to our constituents. Things have reached the point where the Queen is brought into anything. For parking offences, it is the Queen versus so and so. The Queen does not even know you own an automobile; she does not know what kind of automobile you have, she does not even know that you were on such and such a road, she does not even know that you exist. Yet, you are sued; the Queen versus so and so. Why not the people? In truly democratic countries, that is the way it is done. Those are further traces of colonialism; always in the name of the Queen. And when we are elected here, it is to represent the interests of the electors, the interests of the people. We should swear allegiance to the people; to the interests of the people, to the interests of our electors. But no; "We, loyal and faithful subjects", that is what we repeat-year in and year out, humbly, and very humbly at that. Yes, it is said that it is a symbol to give pride
May 19, 19S7	COMMONS
and dignity to our country, to our homeland. Aristotle, a great Greek philosopher, said that one's homeland is where one feels at home. Here, people come out with all kinds of foreign symbols! Can this really become a homeland?
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
Aristotle said: "The place where one feels at home." He does not say: The place where one lives. He says: "The place where one feels at home". Such is Aristotle's definition of the homeland, and there is yet to be found a better one. I repeat: "The place where one feels at home."
' And some people bring in as many foreign symbols as possible, whether by means of our currency, our flag, our national anthem, or indeed our oath of office.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that there is room for considerable change in the constitution in that field, at least to the extent of shelving all those remnants of British colonialism of years past. Other countries gained independence. Let us take the United States, for instance. It had 3 million inhabitants when it decided that it had had enough; it has become a great country. We, its neighbours, remained a small country. Why? Because we have always been a colonized country, a country with a colonial mentality, a country with traces of colonialism, always the victim and the dependent of colonizers and exploiters. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope that things will change in that field-


Mr. Berger:: Oh no.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if instead of mumbling all the time the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Berger) would rise and say what he thinks, it would be much better. He is another one who still has the style of a colonial, Mr. Speaker. He is another one who likes to be taken for a loyal subject, a colonial. That is what the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet is. But he mumbles, for instance-


Mr. Herridge:: That is not true.


Gilles Grégoire: -but he is unable to express himself.


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the hon. member for Lapointe
DEBATES	431
The Address-Mr. Gregoire (Mr. Gregoire), who is attacking me personally by speaking of the member for Mont-magny-L'Islet and saying that I would rather be a loyal subject, that I feel wronged, that my rights have been encroached upon, and that I hope to have the opportunity to defend myself if I may not do so now. I will not remain silent after the remarks of the member for Lapointe, and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member not feel that it would be preferable for him to make his remarks after the hon. member for Lapointe has finished his speech?


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: Gladly, Mr. Speaker.


Harold Edward Winch: It is our approach that is right and your approach that is wrong.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I really believe I have expressed my views strongly enough to provoke a reaction from the members of this house. I know that my views are not shared by everyone. I am not asking everybody to agree with me, because we are living in a democracy; only, I respect the views of others, I admit-


Mr. Laniel:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. member for Lapointe who gave us earlier such an adequate definition of the word "fatherland" and has chosen to be a separatist. Can he explain why he is still here if his fatherland is not Canada, if he feels better in Quebec? Is there anything besides his annual indemnity of $18,000 to keep him here?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I could ask the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry whether he stays here because of his $18,000 indemnity, for I think he is sensitive on this subject. I answered his question on the first day I officially declared in this house, that I was a separatist when I said that I accepted and would observe all Canadian laws as long as Quebec remained a part of Canada, but that I would do all I could to help it become independent, since Canada has not succeeded in breaking its colonial ties. That is partly the fault of members like the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry, who recognize these ties implicitly and tacitly. As long as Quebec remains a part of the Canadian confederation, I shall observe Canadian laws but do all I can to help Quebec separate from the rest of the
May 19, 1967

The Address-Mr. Gregoire country, so that we may at last have a homeland where we can feel truly at home.


Harold Edward Winch: If what you are running down was not a democracy, that would be treason.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, this is a democracy. Obviously, a hundred years ago, some provinces agreed to a constitution and to a Canadian confederation. Now, if each province was free to join confederation, each province must be free to get out of it. That is not treason, it is terminating the first contract of 1867 which was freely and willingly entered into by each the participants and if one of the provinces who shared in it at that time now wants to get out, it should be able to do so freely and voluntarily. All it has to do is to put an end to that agreement and that is the end of it. That is not treason, that is democracy. I always felt that we would have independence in Quebec only when the majority of Quebec voters voted for independence. When the majority of the people of Quebec vote for Quebec independence, everyone will have to recognize its democratic choice, freely, voluntarily and peacefully made, by ballot on voting day.
That is democracy. And everyone in a democratic country is free to work to achieve this. I am not in favour of violent means or civil war, not at all, but of democratic means.
I hope this will happen as soon as possible but, in the meantime, I accept Canadian laws which control Canadian citizenship. I refuse, on the other hand to be considered as a subject of someone by whom I was not elected for it is the Quebec voters who elected me.
I have been elected by the people and not by a foreign sovereign. I submit that all members of this house would find it advantageous to change their positions and to break those colonial ties, to become free citizens, in order to speak not as the subjects of the Queen but as free servants of the Canadian people and then it would be much better for all of us.
I also submit, as I am now a Canadian citizen, that Canada would derive benefit from symbols and exterior signs representative of Canada and of no other country. And I believe that this is not a betrayal; on the contrary, I am advocating constitutional changes in order to attain full freedom and to express our national identity which does not exist at the present time. Why do we now IMr. Gregoire.]
have to play the national anthem of another country on every occasion.


Gérald Laniel: Could you suggest what system we should adopt.


Gilles Grégoire: We should become a republic. The hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Laniel) is asking me if I have some suggestions to make. Evidently, Mr. Chairman, we should now set up a Canadian republic free from all ties with any foreign country, so that when we receive visitors from abroad, when we entertain 70 to 75 countries of the world, we could tell them: You are now in Canada and not in Great Britain. When we are receiving you, we play our national anthem "O Canada" and not the national anthem of Great Britain. Our flag is the Canadian flag and not the British one.


Harold Edward Winch: Why do you think Premier Johnson of Quebec doesn't want any federal link with a foreign country such as France?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: He is a miniature de Gaulle.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, it is simple. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr.Winch) can talk all he wants, but in my opinion it applies to him also and he would have more reasons to be proud when Canada will really be a country in its own right and not another country. It seems to me that he would also have more reason to be proud to say that he is a Canadian citizen if he were not always confronted with foreign symbols.


Harold Edward Winch: I am darned proud of being a Canadian.


Gilles Grégoire: It all depends on one's point of view. As for me, I consider myself as a free citizen; others consider themselves as citizens dependent upon a foreign country.
I shall end with those words. I know that my remarks may not have pleased everyone -but I think that the citizens-


Mr. Cowan:: They have not pleased anyone. [Translation]


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: It is a little silly.
May 19. 19S7


Gilles Grégoire: My friend, the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) says that my remarks did not please him. But he must have realized that, at least in Quebec, and at least in Jonquiere county, the young people of that county are proud and dignified enough to long for that complete and total freedom, that separation and breaking away from the ties with another country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair.

At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I was under the impression that the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) would be back and that he had time left in which to conclude his speech. In view of the fact that the hon. member is not here may I, on a question of privilege, take a moment to clarify something.
[T ranslationl
Since I was personally mentioned in the separatist ravings of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) before the lunch hour, may I briefly though no less strongly protest against this sad and unfortunate example of extreme demagogy and personal attacks against members who are loyal to their mandate and respectful of the law of the land, of established order.
Only a few hours ago, the hon. member for Lapointe called me a subject, a colonial and so forth, Mr. Speaker. I want to assure you that, respectful of democracy and faithful to my oath of office, because I know what an oath is, I will continue to represent those who elected me according to the will of the majority, that is in compliance with the policies advocated by the present government and to which I participate as regularly and as loyally as possible, to the best of my ability.
In reply to the member for Lapointe, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I shall never hide behind pseudo-inquiries with my electors, to repudiate today what I advocated yesterday, for I have never been elected in my riding under false pretenses. I have no intention of

The Address-Mr. Berger becoming a sad separatist Don Quixote similar to the one who is now crusading in the Quebec desert.
I am sorry the member for Lapointe is not here: I would tell him that I feel perfectly at home everywhere in Canada. I am not a colonial or any type of a subject, far from it. On the other hand, I shall continue to respect the Queen of Canada according to the statutes, regardless of what the hon. member may say-if the term "honourable" is not pejorative when applied to the member for Lapointe whose egocentrism makes him exceed all bounds-I shall continue to respect her.
Reference was made to the national anthem, with which I had something to do, because I took part in the work of the committee. I am proud of "O Canada", our national anthem. I also respect the royal anthem, and when it is played I shall still respect it, by paying it all the attention it deserves.
I am proud of my national anthem, and I would be delighted if it did not give rise to any debate, Mr. Speaker, because it is with false discussions wrongly oriented, and useless wanderings, such as you have probably witnessed on the part of the hon. member for Lapointe this morning, that the orderly conduct of this parliament's business is too often delayed.
I am proud to be Canadian, Mr. Speaker, just Canadian. Of course, I am proud of the French fact which characterizes my origins, just as I admire and respect that which characterizes my wife, who is of English origin, and that of my children who, taking from both of us, will become even better Canadians.
To conclude my question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the special committee of the house which is working to amend the laws and regulations governing us at the present time will, as soon as possible, reach the happy solution which will enable us to discuss our problems more seriously instead of going in for demagogy, enable especially those who are interested in Canadian problems to discuss them, and enable those who want to concern themselves exclusively with the problems of Quebec to get elected, the next time, to the provincial legislature to submit to the authorities concerned the problems they have to submit to them and thus stop trying to deceive us, to agitate us, to divide us and to spread dangerous ideas throughout the nation.
May 19. 1967

The Address-Mr. Cowan
I apologize for my blunt and off-hand manner, Mr. Speaker, but since I am a true Canadian, respectful of the existing order, I feel compelled to rise and call your attention to this matter. I believe all my constituents will be happy to know that at least in the riding of Montmagny-L'Islet nobody needs a lesson from a member who has disowned his electors by switching parties, by preaching a lost cause and becoming an agitator. I think the people of Montmagny-L'Islet will keep on judging me as they have up to now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Charles Richard (Jean) Berger: I thank hon. members for their applause which proves that I am not the only one to profess true Canadianism in this house.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, I am taking the opportunity of participating in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne in order to deal with two subjects in particular which could occupy the whole of the time allotted to a private member. I do so because in my mind and in the opinion of other hon. members of the house these two important matters have been brushed aside by the cabinet, in outlining the work of parliament and accomplishing the desires of the people, for other purposes which are not as vital.
I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the order paper of the house. On page 19 of today's order paper for Friday, May 19 you will find a resolution standing in my name which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the expediency of introducing legislation for the creation of a criminal injuries compensation board to hear the pleas of persons who have suffered permanent injury or disability as the victims of crime and award compensation to such persons or their dependants as would seem fair in the circumstances, and wherever possible to do so, to impose payment of compensation by criminals to those they have injured.
* (2:40 p.m.)
I first placed that resolution on the order paper in January, 1966. As everyone knows, under the rules of the house it was nothing but a private member's resolution. Being a private member's resolution and having been on the order paper since January, 1966, the first and only opportunity ever provided by the house leader to discuss the matter was on Wednesday, June 8, 1966. One hour was allotted to the discussion of the resolution. It was talked out by one of the exalted members of the party, a parliamentary secretary, and it 
died a natural death never to reappear again on the order paper. I was forced, therefore, to reintroduce it in this month of May in the new session of parliament.
The other day the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Choquette) rose in the house and asked this question:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Since a number of honest citizens think that our society makes many efforts to improve the lot of criminals, I should like to ask the minister the following question.
Is he giving consideration to setting up or interesting the provinces in setting up a program of compensation for crime victims or the families of crime victims?
The Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Mr. Trudeau) replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, this question has also been raised by certain correspondents. I am studying the problem at the present time. As the hon. member is aware, there is also here a question of constitutional law, for such compensation could come from the provinces instead of the central government. However, in that case, negotiations could be undertaken with the provinces.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that when you do not intend to do anything in the parliament of Canada you simply stand up and say there is a constitutional question involved relating to the provinces. This is supposed to be the end of it for the rest of time. Here we have an answer on May 11 by the Minister of Justice, a man in whom I have the greatest confidence, which suggests there is a question of constitutional law involved. Let us take the Truscott case. I do not want to discuss it at this time because feelings are easily aroused. However, I will take the Truscott case as an illustration because it is before us at the present time.
Here is a man who has been convicted of murder and is undergoing a life sentence in Kingston penitentiary at Collins Bay or Portsmouth, wherever he may be. In any event, he is down in the Kingston area undergoing a life sentence because that was the sentence of the court. Who is paying the cost of giving him three meals a day, maintaining him in warm surroundings, giving him a bed at night, providing the necessary chaplaincy services, looking after his recreation and seeing that he does not become too obese or does not lose weight through lack of eating? The parliament of Canada is providing the wherewithal to keep criminals in luxury while the bodies of their victims lie in their graves.
May 19, 1967

When people like the hon. member for Lotbiniere ask the cabinet if any consideration is being given to paying compensation to the victims of criminal acts, they are given the answer quite quickly that there is here a question of constitutional law. The government keeps right on feeding Truscott and making certain he does not miss a meal, all at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers. When they are asked, is there any compensation for the victims of these crimes, back comes the high-sounding answer that there is a question of constitutional law involved and the rights of the provinces must be maintained. If we can afford to pay the cost of keeping the criminal, surely we can afford to offer some compensation to the victims of crime when the victims are absolutely innocent of any complicity in the matter.
When this subject was discussed on June 8, 1966, almost a year ago, a large number of hon. members supported the principle of this resolution. One of the ablest members in the house, the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Forest), in supporting the principle stated he felt that since compensation for injury was concerned it might be a provincial matter. I respect the hon. member's legal knowledge and I respect his judgment. Possibly there is an element of provincial jurisdiction involved. However, as long as this house is willing to pay for the upkeep of criminals out of federal funds I believe we should pay for the compensation of the victim of criminal acts on exactly the same ground.
I should like to refer to a murder case to which I have made frequent reference in this house involving a seven year old girl in my own church congregation in Toronto. The man who was accused of the murder of this little child entered a defence of insanity. His lawyer won the argument in that case and the moment he did so this man was immediately incarcerated in the asylum for the criminally insane maintained by the Ontario government at Penetanguishene, about eight miles from a summer home I have maintained since 1937. This institution is well known to me and it renders a magnificent service.
It does seem odd to me as a Canadian taxpayer, and I have been a taxpayer for a long number of years, that when a chap like Truscott is convicted of murdering a little girl he serves his life sentence in Kingston penitentiary and Ottawa looks after providing three meals, a warm bed and warm accommodation, but when this other man is accused of murdering a little seven year old girl from the congregation of Victoria Presbyterian
The Address-Mr. Cowan Church and is judged insane he goes to an asylum and becomes the responsibility of the taxpayers of the province of Ontario. In my opinion, this is splitting hairs beyond reason.
If you are going to argue that compensation for the victims of crime is a matter of provincial jursidiction and if you are going to have the Canadian taxpayer shoulder the cost of looking after the criminals, then the Canadian taxpayer will certainly jump at the opportunity of offering compensation to the victims of crime. If the government will bring forward legislation I have no doubt parliament will pass it in a day. I might point out that my interest in this matter has extended over a number of years because as a newspaper reporter many years ago I covered more than one murder trial. As I pointed out in the debate on capital punishment, I was the foreman of a jury when I was 19. This is illegal because one should be 21 but the judge appointed me because, as I emphasized when speaking, I was the only man in the room where the murder trial was being held who could write English. I just refer to that because I was working on a murder case when I was only 19 years of age. This goes back quite a few years and I covered a number of murder cases for newspapers over the years.
I have come face to face with the victims of crimes and in police court work I have also come across the victims of crimes such as merciless beatings, hit and run drivers, and cases where gas was turned on in a room while a person slept and he was a physical wreck thereafter because of the effect on his lungs. There are many victims of crime other than the victims of murder. I suggest that parliament should provide compensation to the victims of criminal acts, no matter what the nature of the act may be.
As I mentioned, the resolution I introduced was discussed for one hour on June 8, 1966 when it was talked out. At that time a member of the house made this statement, and I quote from page 6168 of Hansard for June 8, 1966:
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
-I am doubtful about what the resolution means.
I do not think that we should hold up such legislation until the hon. member for Anti-gonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) is able to comprehend the significance of the motion, because the people of Canada want legislation for the compensation of victims and they want it fast.
It is interesting to note that three provinces in Canada have begun to take some action
The Address-Mr. Cowan with regard to introducing measures for the compensation of victims. I have a newspaper clipping of December 9 of last year from the Winnipeg Free Press indicating that the Manitoba government is making a bid to aid crime victims. I also have a clipping taken from the Toronto Globe and Mail for February 11 of this year which points out that the Saskatchewan government is bringing in a law to aid the victims of crime. I also read in the Vancouver Sun for February 28, 1967 that British Columbia crime casualties are to get aid. So there are three provinces in Canada that have taken steps to compensate victims of criminal acts, and I see signs that the province of Quebec is going to take similar action.
One might ask, since the provinces are moving why not let this matter go ahead? I maintain that we should have uniform legislation on this subject right across Canada, and since the federal government is paying for the upkeep of convicted criminals I think it should also pay compensation to victims of crime.
I would not criticize a single one of the bills that are now being brought forward by provinces because I am anxious to see them become law in the provinces concerned. I am also anxious to see one law for the whole of Canada but I will help these provinces in any way possible to get this legislation on their statute books. I have long believed that half a loaf is better than none.
It is quite interesting to compare terms of the three bills in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia to which I have referred. As I mentioned earlier, there are signs that Quebec will take some action, though I have no details as to what action Quebec is considering other than that I know there are men and women in the province of Quebec who believe that victims of crime should be compensated.
Let me outline some of the disparities in the legislation of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia. I point out that according to the Saskatchewan bill, which I think is the best of the three, the victim will not be required to pursue legal action before applying for compensation to the compensation board. That determination has been made by those in Saskatchewan who framed the legislation.
When one turns to the legislation that is suggested for Manitoba one sees it is necessary under that bill for a victim there to have exhausted legal action before he can apply 
May 19, 1967
for compensation. The Manitoba white paper on this subject states that it is proposed that the victim, before being eligible to receive compensation, must exhaust all legal remedies and all other forms of public assistance. That language is in almost direct opposition to that used in the Saskatchewan legislation. But I say to the members of this house through you, Mr. Speaker, that I sincerely hope both provinces put this legislation on their statute books because they will at least have started something which I hope the federal government will take up and bring to national fruition by passing a uniform act.
It is interesting to note that in British Columbia Attorney General Bonner told the British Columbia legislature that the responsibility for compensation will be placed squarely on the shoulders of the municipalities involved.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is typical.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: That is not my comment but that of a good friend from British Columbia. In the Vancouver Sun for February 28, 1967 we read:
The legislation would be enabling, allowing municipalities to use their own funds for compensation of these victims of violent crimes.
Let us just consider for a moment, Mr. Speaker, the unfairness of such legislation. Nevertheless, let me say that I hope British Columbia does put this legislation on the statute books, because I do want to see some sort of legislation passed and from that basis we can proceed to consider improvements. Let us take the case of a person who might be the victim of a crime in wealthy, rich, sleepy Victoria, compared with somebody in the valley of the Skeena who might have had their feet cut off by a robber. If the municipalities are going to compensate the victims of crimes, then I think I would sooner be attacked in Victoria, British Columbia, than be the victim of a crime in the valley of the Skeena or the Stikine. I have been in all three places and I must say that if I am to be attacked I would prefer to be attacked in Victoria. The police are closer at hand, the hospitals are fine and the taxpayers are wealthier than in the two valleys mentioned. But I mention this only in passing.
I do not think that putting the responsibility on the municipalities is good legislation, Mr. Speaker. The legislation of Manitoba and Saskatchewan is far ahead of that of British Columbia in that it makes compensation a provincial responsibility. However, I believe


Mr. Scott (Danforth):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Very well.


Reid Scott: I am curious, because the hon. member is developing an interesting theory. Can he elaborate what type of compensation, in the instance of a young child, would be appropriate?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Compensation is paid in Great Britain on that basis. I am not a lawyer as is the hon. member for Danforth, but the language of the British legislation is to the effect that the compensation is for the pleasure, company and future happiness that the parents might get from having a child who would become an adult, and there is language to the effect that the child might become the parents' support in old age.


Reid Scott: How could you possibly be compensated for the loss of your own child?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, to answer the question I would say that no one could compensate me for the loss of my child, but I simply say that in Great Britain that sort of thing is being done. I do not live in Great Britain. I just emphasize that over there they are compensating for the loss of a child.
Referring to the legislation proposed in Manitoba, British Columbia and Saskatchewan, for which I commend the three provinces, I point out that New Zealand was a pioneer in this field of endeavour three years ago and was followed by Great Britain in 1964 and by the state of California. Last July that lead was followed also by the state of New York.
There is a growing realization that society owes protection to its individuals, and where society fails to give that protection it should take a hand in giving compensation to the victims of crimes. To take an example, it
May 19, 19S7

The Address-Mr. Cowan should provide for the widow and children of the murdered breadwinner. Of course, there are many other instances where innocents suffer because of violent crimes of which some member of their family has been a victim.
The resolution to which I referred asks for the appointment of a criminal compensation board to adjudicate on all applications that may come forward. Precedents in New Zealand, Great Britain, California and New York state are building up all the time, and I understand that Saskatchewan-God bless her-will have her law in effect by July or August of this year. I maintain that the federal cabinet should be taking a hand in this matter and should be doing so fast, particularly since parliament voted 143 to 112 to maintain capital punishment and we are advised that a second effort is to be made to abolish it. But there is no mention of the victims of crime in the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker.
I hope I have made myself clear. I believe I am stating the opinions of many members of the House of Commons who have spoken to me over the years on this important matter.
I should like to move on to the question of citizenship. Over the past several years I have referred more than once to an Italian-Canadian family. I dislike using the words "Italian-Canadian" because I do not like hyphenated descriptions of Canadians. To me we are all Canadians. I call these people Italian-Canadians because they were born in Italy and are naturalized Canadian citizens who have returned to their homeland and are living in Italy again.
In four consecutive speeches from the throne, those of May 16, 1963; February 18, 1964; April 5, 1965; and January 18, 1966, we have had beautiful clauses reading for example, this way:
-a change in the Canadian Citizenship Act will be proposed to ensure full equality of rights for all Canadian citizens wherever they were born.
Or reading:
My government will propose legislation to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act, in order to ensure equality of rights for all citizens.
And here is another one:
A measure will be placed before you to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act, particularly in order to ensure full equality of rights for all Canadian citizens wherever they were born.
We have had four promises and no action. I have in my hands the speech from the throne delivered on Monday, May 8, not two weeks

ago. It runs to pages and pages of fine type. 1 have read it in full at least twice and partially two or three times, and not once in that speech from the throne, which is not yet two weeks old, is there a single, solitary reference to the Canadian Citizenship Act. We have been told in four speeches from the throne, that amendments to the act would be introduced. We are told that the amendments are ready, that they have been prepared and that the regulations also are drawn up.
The situation against which I protest is that a naturalized Canadian citizen who leaves the country for a period of years must have his passport validated at the nearest Canadian embassy every three years or it will expire. In the instance of this Italian family who lived in Weston in the riding of York-Humber, they had their passports validated at the end of the third year of their stay in Italy and at the end of their sixth year in Italy.
The Canadian and United States dollars go much farther in Italy than in Canada or the United States and many naturalized Canadians return to their homelands in their years of retirement because of the increased purchasing power their money has there. A brother of a cabinet minister spends several months of the year in Spain for that reason, and no one thinks any the worse of him. He is stretching his Canadian dollar as far as it will go.
Here I am talking of an Italian-Canadian family who have lived in Italy for over nine years. Because there was illness in the family at the end of the third three year period when their passports had to be validated they did not do so. When they decided to come back to York-Humber to visit daughters and sons they have in the riding the Canadian embassy told them that their passports had expired because they had not been validated within three years. This elderly couple was really upset about the matter. And why not? They have foresworn allegiance to Italy and have sworn allegiance to the Queen of Canada, the Queen of this country. But this country said: "We do not want you any more; you did not get your passport validated within three years at the nearest Canadian embassy."
I am a natural born Canadian. I do not have to get my passport validated at any time, should I be outside the country, because I can come back to Canada, my birthplace. I have not foresworn allegiance to it. But if a naturalized Canadian citizen living outside
May 19, 1967	COMMONS
the country does not have his passport validated every three years he loses his citizenship.
I took the matter up with hon. Mr. Favreau who at that time was minister of immigration. I say with great pleasure, and I would be pleased to say it louder, that he straightened the whole matter out in one hour. He agreed that the Canadian Citizenship Act should be amended and that naturalized Canadians ought not to be in the position where, if they are outside the country for more than three years, they must get their passports validated or lose their citizenship. If that happens they are without a country.
I stated in the house on June 3, 1966, as reported on page 5951 of Hansard for that year, in discussing this question when the citizenship department estimates were being considered:
I have been told that the amendments are ready; they have been prepared and the regulations are drawn up.
Why in the name of heaven cannot the cabinet bring the legislation forward amending the act, thus making all Canadians equal so that naturalized Canadians cannot be told at some embassy in Europe or elsewhere in the world: "Your validation has expired because you did not come round to see us every three years." That is not said to a native born Canadian citizen. Why should it be said to a naturalized Canadian citizen? I say that all Canadian citizens should be equal, and they should be treated equally. I wish the cabinet would bring such legislation in and bring it in now. We have had four years of promises; let us have one day of action.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, you are to be congratulated for the distinction of presiding over the centennial session, and no one is more deserving of that honour and pleasure than you are, sir.
Some hon. Members; Hear, hear.


Edward Nasserden: To the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne I offer my congratulations; to the seconder, my congratulations and sympathy. The congratulations are for his manner of delivery and the sympathy is for his position as a supporter of a government which has written off the agricultural industry and hardly mentioned it in the speech from the throne.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Mr. Roxburgh:: May I ask the hon. member a question?
DEBATES	439
The Address-Mr. Nasserden


Edward Nasserden: I will be glad to answer later any question about tobacco which the hon. member would like to ask. He, more than anyone else in this house, should know that this government has failed to provide anything for the dairy farmers. The proof of this is their intention to march on Ottawa next Wednesday. The hon. member is embarrassed because of that. That is one of the reasons he would like to throw in a red herring at this time. The government has forgotten about agriculture. They have forgotten about those who till the soil and try to maintain the food resources of this country. I know that the hon. member who seconded the motion, coming as he does from the constituency of Nicolet-Yamaska, cannot but have realized that his was an exercise in futility, an attempt to justify the unjustifiable. Because of its omissions in the field of agriculture the speech from the throne was an insult to the industry and to the farmers across this country. I do not intend on this occasion to deal with the subject of agriculture. There will be other opportunities to bring it up.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member told us that agriculture was not mentioned, or hardly mentioned, in the speech from the throne. I point out to him that there are about 20 lines on that subject or about 400 words on agriculture in the speech from the throne.


Mr. Rapp:: That is not a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: There is no point of order. I invite the hon. member to continue his speech.


Edward Nasserden: I can understand what is bothering the hon. member.
On this occasion I should like to express my gratitude to the people of Rosthern constituency for giving me this opportunity to be their representative in the centennial session of the Canadian parliament. I think back to the historic election of 1958 when they first sent me to parliament and I remember the words of Bishop Westcote: "To truly represent the people, a candidate must know their problems, have shared their anxieties, gloried in their triumphs and been proudly humble to be numbered among them." I believe these are apt words and that they have meaning for every candidate for public office and every member of parliament, particularly those of us who sit in this centennial parliament at the present time.
May 19, 1967

The Address-Mr. Nasserden Canada's image abroad. The minister was blowing bubbles.
The government opposite stands revealed as naked and arrogant, an instrument of disregard, an instrument of indifference to consultation, lacking the grace to take the Canadian people into its confidence. The government opposite cannot claim to speak for Canada. It has failed to take Canadians into its confidence. The government opposite cannot claim to speak for parliament. It has prevented and cut off debate in regard to external affairs. The government opposite cannot claim to speak for the Liberal party. The Prime Minister has muzzled his colleagues in the cabinet and has brought duress on his backbenchers to ensure silence on these vital matters. The government opposite has been careless, arrogant, irresponsible of the premises of democracy, and Canada's image abroad has diminished. Parliament knows that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have been crying "wolf" for four years, sloughing off questions in the House of Commons no matter from which section of the house they came.
On the domestic scene there is the plight of Canadians challenged by inflation and high costs. Housing is the most significant failure of the government but the mess in housing is only a symptom of more serious bungling by the government opposite.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) has been trying to guess his way along. That is bad enough, but his guesses have been poor and as a result the cost of living continues to spiral. The minister was quick to attempt to shift the blame for the increases to the provinces because of some increases in provincial taxes and other charges. All he is doing is to confirm that the essential damage caused by the 11 per cent sales tax has penetrated into every segment of Canadian life. Today in Canada we have the highest cost of living in our history. We have the highest interest rates in Canadian history and we have the highest taxes in Canadian history. We also have the havoc that these conditions have brought to provincial and municipal budgets. Almost without exception municipal taxes during the past few months have been forced higher as a result of these deliberate policies of the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the government opposite.
All these things have been brought about by a government which I cannot describe as
l Mr. Nasserden.J
anything but careless. They were aided in their program by the support they received from the New Democratic party. When the sales tax was first brought in the New Democratic party sat silent and refused to vote on that measure. They refused to defeat the government at that time. So they share some of the moral responsibility for the conditions which have developed within this nation and which have robbed the ordinary people of the standard of living they should have. Then they wonder why parliament does not work. Those who wonder why parliament does not work should wonder why they did not help to make a decision in a matter such as this which has such a great effect on the country.
Before I conclude I should like to say that one of our centennial projects should be the correction of the injustices that have been suffered by our original native population, the Indians. I think the people of Canada should re-examine their whole attitude and program concerning the welfare of these people. Somehow our efforts have failed to lift up and encourage them. The results have been most disastrous. Indeed, this is a matter in which we can have very little pride. The centennial of our confederation should be a promise to these people and to all the people of Canada.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member answer a question?


Edward Nasserden: I would be delighted.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for his most excellent delivery. I do not think I have ever heard him speak before with such oratorical fervour. I should like to ask him what was the price of milk to the dairy farmers when the present official opposition was the government. I know he can answer this question in just a minute. Then I should like to ask him what the increase in the price has been in the last three years since his government went out of office.


Edward Nasserden: I will be very glad to answer that question because the prices which prevailed when this party was the government were so much more satisfactory that we had a surplus of dairy products in Canada.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: You certainly did.


Edward Nasserden: But since this government has been in office a situation has developed in which we have had to import dairy products.
May 19, 1967	COMMONS


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to take this occasion to compliment the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They were excellent speeches. I believe very few of us have heard better oratory than we did on that occasion.
In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to discuss an area about which I do not believe there has been a great deal of discussion during this debate. I refer to the current state of labour legislation, the desires of the labour movement, the effect that the aims and aspirations of the labour movement have had upon the government and, to a degree, the effect that government action has had on the labour movement itself. Also I should like to discuss what this development has been in political terms and how it relates to the Liberal party. I believe, that because of government action in the areas of major concern to labour and because of changing times the Liberal party and this government now have an entree into the labour movement itself which has not been available to this party for many years. The elements which have contributed to this development are the rapidly changing circumstances of our society and the record of the government.
I do not believe that any political party, least of all my own which is a national party in scope and which for so many years has formed the government of this country, can view with any confidence the situation when one observes that the officials of the trade union movement-and I speak in terms of the trade union elite, the top leaders at the national level and the middle echelon of the local unions-are becoming so identified with one particular political party, the New Democratic party. I believe this places a responsibility on the Liberal party to examine this situation and take whatever action is necessary to rectify it, because I believe we can serve ourselves better as a party and serve the Canadian people better if we have contact with the leaders of the labour movement, welcome them into our ranks and see that they have an active and influential voice in the government and in our party structure.
I should like to elaborate on why I feel the record of this government has laid the basis for this type of entry on the part of the Liberal party into the official ranks of labour and why I think we have laid the basis for an appeal to these men of whom I speak. After a very cursory examination of this record I
DEBATES	443
The Address-Mr. Munro believe it will be seen that those leaders of the labour movement must take a new look at the Liberal party as a vehicle and as an adequate political party for them to be associated with in order to realize their aims and aspirations.
In looking at this situation further I believe there are three general large domestic areas of prime concern to labour. The first would have to be social welfare proposals and programs. The second would be labour legislation and the need for reform in this area, and in the narrow sense I would specify labour legislation. The third would have to be manpower policies designed to cope with technological change and over-all economic policies, e (3:40 p.m.)
What then has been our record in these three prime areas of domestic concern to labour? Certainly under the first general heading, social welfare policy, since 1963 there have been massive legislative programs implemented which have re-oriented the whole basis of our social welfare structure in this country. In this regard let me mention the Old Age Security Act amendments which increased old age pensions to a universal $75 as a base and tied them into the cost of living. There was further legislation lowering the age level a year at a time so that by 1970 citizens 65 years of age will receive the basic old age pension. Let me also mention the Canada Pension Plan which I think ranks as one of the finest contributory pension plans in the free world. It has provided the means for universal coverage for all Canadians in our work force. The benefits payable under this plan when coupled with old age security give as generous an over-all benefit to Canadians upon retirement as those enjoyed anywhere in the free world.
The Canada Assistance Plan embodied a government endeavour to rationalize our multitudinous provincial and federal welfare schemes so they all could tie into a universal test, namely, the needs test, thus doing away with the arbitrary limits under the categorical programs where the $75 is the limit irrespective of the need of a recipient. The Canada Assistance Plan does away with that obstacle, and I think it will lay the basis for a dovetailing of all our welfare programs. It gives special benefit to all those needy people who are too young to receive old age security but who, because of some disability, are not and cannot fall within the coverage of the Canada Pension Plan, and it does not limit them to the $75 which is woefully inadequate.
May 19, 1967

The Address-Mr. Munro
Next let me point out the introduction of medicare which was a prime political rallying cry in this country not so many years ago. This has now been implemented by legislation and will be in force next year, the federal government being obligated to undertake 50 per cent of the cost.
I point out lastly the guaranteed income supplement which provides a further sum of money to those of our older citizens who are receiving the old age pension. This is based on an income test which obviates the necessity for the humiliating investigations that always accompanied the means test. It provides $30 per month for those who qualify under the income test, bringing their income up to $105 per month.
Certainly it would have to be conceded that in this first area of over-all concern in the domestic policy field, the record is quite impressive. It would be conceded immediately that it is not perfect and that there are other areas left to be dealt with including the cost of drugs and their inclusion in the future under the medicare plan. It would also include a widening of the coverage under medicare to cover dental care and so on. However, the basis for this has been laid which will guarantee that no Canadian will lack the fundamental means with which to survive, with shelter, food and the other necessities of life.
I say the basis has been laid and further programs will be of a minor nature not involving any fundamental ideals or ideology. They will just round out the basic policies that have been adopted. I have referred to drugs being included under medicare. Perhaps another over-all new policy which we must talk about now as a political party, and I am sure this is being discussed more by members of this party than those of any other, is the guaranteed annual income for all. This will be under intensive discussion by all politicians and certainly all economists in this country during the next few years. It is a policy which I am sure will inevitably be implemented in this country, and perhaps the sooner the better. If it should come, and I hope it does, it will involve the dismantling of perhaps all our welfare policies and the guaranteeing of an over-all minimum income for everyone. This seems to be endorsed by outstanding economists in the United States, some of whose sympathies are with the left and some with the right in the political spectrum. There seems to be a consensus developing that this is a wise policy.

I have referred to some of the policies in this prime area which we have implemented as a party along with one over-all new policy, the guaranteed income which is under intensive study. I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) for the suggestion in a recent speech that a task force be set up to study the implications of a guaranteed income for all Canadians.
The second area of prime concern to labour would be the labour legislation itself. We can look at our record in this regard with considerable pride. We can look at the Canada Labour (Standards) Code which sets minimum hours of work, minimum hours of overtime and minimum wage laws. We can look at our Canada Labour Safety Code which brought in a comprehensive safety formula to be adhered to for the protection of employees while they are on the job.
Another item which we implemented as one of our commitments is collective bargaining rights for civil servants. Our major commitments have been kept and our record here is a source of pride to many Liberals. Certainly it is a motivation to labour to look hard at Liberal party programs when they are advocated. This record is certainly justification for the sincere belief on the part of labour that these new programs will be implemented.
In terms of new policies in this over-all area we are also moving forward. I refer hon. members to the discussion going on in respect of compulsory arbitration and the discussion going on throughout the country regarding the use of injunctions. The position of this party in this area was laid out very well at the policy conference of the Liberal party held last October. The position taken at that time was spelled out in the following terms:
Therefore this convention urges that the task force consider immediately:
(a)	That the labour relations services of the Canada Department of Labour be strengthened by expanding regional offices wherever necessary and by placing at its disposal more effective mediation services to facilitate continuous free collective bargaining;
(b)	Abolish the ex parte injunction and remove these disputes to specialized labour relations boards with power to put into effect appropriate remedies in appropriate circumstances;
(c)	To extend the use of industry, labour, management and government councils which would provide a forum for discussion, education and research, and co-ordinate with national economic policies, having due regard to the consultative service of the Department of Labour;
(d)	Establish an effective legal procedural framework for the conduct of continuous collective bargaining...
May 19, 1967

(f) Study special legislation for the settlement of disputes where the public interest is involved in essential public services.
It can be accepted that many members of this party wholeheartedly endorse those proposals which embody, in general terms, our attitude in respect of contentious areas such as compulsory arbitration and injunctions. I believe there is considerable sympathy within our party that compulsory arbitration should not be resorted to under any circumstances nor regarded as an instrument in solving labour disputes. I also believe that injunctions have proved inadequate as a means of resolving the differences between labour and management and have had the reverse effect of exacerbating the situation, creating further hard feeling between labour and management and making a meeting of minds all the more difficult. I believe a great deal of reform could be implemented in this respect and that we should undertake an extensive reform of our legislation in this area.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
In this context I would quote the position taken at a recent C.L.C. convention in a paper presented by Mr. Osier which I believe was backed forcibly by many political spokesmen and many people in the ranks of labour and management. The position there taken-and I think it is a reasonable one-was not that all injunctions should be banned, because Mr. Osier did not think there was a possibility that any parliament would take such action, but that the following recommendations should be adopted:
No injunction may be granted by any court in
connection with a labour dispute except after a hearing of testimony of witnesses in open court, on notice to those it is proposed to enjoin, with an opportunity to adduce their own evidence.
Another proposal in this area is as follows:
No injunction may be granted by any court in connection with a labour dispute, except after specific findings of every fact that is legally required to support such injunction and any such injunction may only prohibit
(a)	specific acts requested in the notice of motion for such injunction and
(b)	the commission of such acts by particular persons or organizations named in the injunction.
This was another proposal:
All injunctions issued in connection with a labour dispute shall be appealable as of right and such appeals shall be expedited by the court to which the appeal is made.
That is very similar to the law in the United States, the Norris-LaGuardia act which I think has proven its effectiveness. I 27053-29
The Address-Mr. Munro believe we should copy that act in this country except that we should go further and say that jurisdiction in respect of injunctions in the labour-management context should be handled by labour relations boards as distinct from the courts. The personnel of the labour relations boards are composed of experienced people from management and labour who are better equipped to deal more realistically with this type of remedy.
In the area of injunctions I think the research that is now going on will afford some basis for alternative solutions. I believe that the recommendations to which I have referred are worthy of implementation by the government. In the area of compulsory arbitration I have indicated that I do not believe this system has been effective. I think we must reject it as a means of settling labour disputes. In those situations where there is absolutely no alternative, where there is a national emergency, where consultation and negotiation have not been effective in resolving the differences, and where massive unemployment may affect the whole nation despite all the efforts of both sides and the intervention of government mediation services, in short where no solution can be found, then compulsory arbitration should be imposed only by parliament. These are two prime areas of contention with regard to which I think this party is prepared to take a position. I do not think that all political parties would take a firm, unalterable position in these areas until the Dean Woods inquiry has been completed, which inquiry is looking into all these questions. I believe the results of this inquiry will afford a basis from which we can realistically assess what are the best methods to be used to resolve labour-management disputes in this country.
There is one other area of very grave concern to the labour movement and all citizens of Canada. It is a matter of grave concern to the Canadian government and, I believe, all political parties. I refer to the principle enunciated by Mr. Justice Freedman. I do not think there has been as much discussion as there might have been on this principle. I believe it is a good principle and should be endorsed. I would quote in essence Mr. Justice Freedman's recommendations. I think the house will agree that they are quite reasonable. In essence, Mr. Justice Freedman's principal recommendations are as follows:
Notice of intent, accompanied by adequate details of the company's proposals;

The Address-Mr. Munro
That is what the company must give to the union. The notice must indicate to the union just what the company intends to do in terms of technological change. The second proposal in:
Arbitration to assess the effect of the company's plan upon the working conditions of the employes with a view to determining whether such effect would be material or otherwise;
Of course, that is what takes place during the currency of a collective agreement. The third recommendation is that there should be negotiations at the terminal date of the collective agreement. It is difficult for me to comprehend any other more reasonable solution to these problems. There has been a great deal of discussion in this respect; seminars have been held by management and labour. I do not think that anyone has yet come up with a more adequate solution. I believe that these findings of Mr. Justice Freedman warrant adoption as a matter of government policy.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a short review of what we have done in the more or less narrow field of labour relations. I have dealt with some of the major items of concern to labour about which this government is concerned.
The third area of major domestic concern in the field of labour is connected with manpower policies. Here I think the record of the government and this party deserves considerable commendation. I believe it is a record that the labour movement of this country must acknowledge as deserving of their accolades. I refer to the implementation of the labour mobility program and the occupational training program. These two programs should have far reaching effects. Under the labour mobility program we give grants to workers to move from an area of low employment to one with more adequate employment opportunities. We make allowances to the worker to set up a home in another area. We make it, in other words, easy for him to move. He is not penalized because of the move but is subsidized to do so in order to obtain gainful employment.
The occupational training program is a far reaching one designed to deal with dislocations as a result of technological change. We realize that people dislocated from employment must receive training and in our new society we must constantly be ready to receive new training. We recognize that the current skills of our workers may be obsolete five or ten years from now. This program is

DEBATES	May 19, 1967
designed to assist workers who suffer dislocation as a result of automation which is introduced into the plants in which they work with the effect that they are no longer required. It gives them an opportunity to take training and obtain the new skills that are required. It also provides them with an income while they are learning new skills.
We still have the technical and vocational training program which is designed to assist our young people, although we are turning this program over to the provinces, as hon. members know, and are gradually phasing out of it. But the basis has been established which provides educational facilities to accomplish our aim. There have been massive federal government contributions in this area for many years. I believe this program is now sufficiently well established for it to be turned over to the provinces.
Another area in which the federal government has taken action in the over-all manpower field is in the setting up of pilot projects in co-operation with the provinces to research new methods of training that will best take into account a person's capabilities and basic education and will provide methods by which his education and skills can be upgraded. In other words, it is a research project to devise the best means of retraining our people. We have moved into the manpower field to set up the manpower consultative services. This is going to be of great assistance to both management and labour in tackling technological change.
* (4:00 p.m.)
I should like to refer to one aspect of the program, namely the tremendous emphasis that has been placed on research as to what are the best proposals to cope with this problem, as well as the grants to be supplied by this service to both management and labour who wish to work together to adopt a research project on how best to implement their plans. If management decides it is going to have to adopt technological innovations or automation which is going to cause severe dislocation, this service is prepared to give grants to management and labour to assist them in researching this program so the dislocation can be minimized, and at the same time advise on measures for retraining workers presently employed by the plant so they can be effective when the changes are implemented.
Another area of manpower policy in which we combine with the provinces to be of assistance is the rehabilitation program so that
May 19, 1987

the handicapped people, more or less the drop-outs from our economic system who, because of their disability, have not been able to do rewarding work and who have not felt they could make a contribution to the country, can be retrained to come back into the work force. Another policy in this over-all area is our employment stabilization program. I talked about our winter works program and the incentives to municipalities to undertake construction work during the winter months when seasonal unemployment is high.
The department has also set up a program of development services designed to research and come up with new programs primarily to deal with seasonal unemployment. This is quite a record. I think it is a record for which the government deserves credit from the labour movement. I think the Freedman principle can be again thought of in terms of manpower policy, just as it could be in terms of labour policy.
I believe the recommendation of Freedman that notice be given before management decides to implement technological change is a good one. It will soften the harsh effects of dislocation. I think it could be embraced equally well in manpower policy. Here we have the record of this party in three prime areas of concern to labour. I have just indicated in a very cursory fashion the record on social welfare policies. The second area, in the domestic field-I refer to labour legislation-have mentioned and outlined the record. In the third area, manpower policy, I have mentioned the record. It is an impressive record indeed. I feel the record in these areas should lay the basis for the Liberal party's entry into the official labour movement in terms of being a political party that can reflect their aims and aspirations and can be an effective instrument to implement them.
I have talked of some of our new policies in these three areas. Certainly, in the social welfare field, the program for a guaranteed annual income for all Canadians must rank very high indeed. Certainly, in the labour legislation field, I would think we should take another look at our minimum wage legislation to test its adequacy in view of the inflated cost of living. I believe that $1.25 is not as realistic a minimum wage as it was three years ago when it was implemented. I believe the position on compulsory arbitration must be a firm one, and must be taken by the government. I have referred to the last area of manpower policies, many of which are designed to deal with technological change and 27053-29J
The Address-Mr. Winch the dislocation resulting therefrom. This, in conjunction with the Freedman proposal, I think will go a long way toward coping with some of these major problems.
By way of conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the technological change which has brought about changes in the labour movement. I feel it is time for continuous negotiations to be held between management and labour and not just near the terminal date of a collective agreement. These talks should be held during the currency of a collective agreement. I believe our rapidly changing society, our society of affluence brought about by tremendous technological changes, in conjunction with the Freedman proposal, imposes an obligation on labour and management to meet continuously during the currency of a collective agreement. Inevitably, this will bring labour and management closer together.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I think we will all agree that the speaker who has just taken his seat has given us a remarkable and extraordinary speech. He has wrapped himself in the mantle of the champion of organized labour and says that "labour should take a good look at the Liberal party." We could not agree more. Labour should take a good look, a first look, a second look and a third look and make them all good looks at the Liberal party. The more they look, the more convinced they will become that the Liberal party is a party of broken promises, evasiveness and double-crossing. The record will show that the Liberal party, in government, is a party that does not bring down policies and legislation because they are necessary or right. As a government, it brings down policies and legislation because it is driven to do so by force of circumstances, by public opinion or by fear of the opposition.
Yes, take a good look at the Liberal party which has been in power now for a number of years. Last month there were approximately 400,000 unemployed in the Dominion of Canada. This government has been unable to solve the problem of unemployment. At the same time, after years in office and with 400,000 unemployed, they have not been able to produce a successful program for training our unemployed. In addition, today the government is spending thousands and thousands of dollars in the United Kingdom and other countries throughout the world advertising for immigrants and saying they will pay half the fare. They are advertising for butchers, bakers and candlestick makers, electricians,
448	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Winch carpenters, draftsmen and clerical workers. I was just reading the advertisement a couple of days ago. Yes, take a good look at the Liberal party, which has been in office and still has not come up with the answer to the housing crisis. Yes, look at the Liberal party, and look at them on July 1 of this year.
In the city of Vancouver for about 50 years the pony express has been picking up and delivering the mail. However, in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, starting on July 1, the Post Office Department is going to take it over. They are taking over in Vancouver on July 1, and there will be no guarantee of employment for those who have given a lifetime of service in handling the mail. Many will not be able to get these jobs. Those who do get work, according to the Civil Service, will be paid ten cents an hour less than they are getting today. Yes, labour, take a darned good look at the Liberal party, and then you will realize why it has to go down the drain and is not worthy of support.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we also had another interesting address from the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). I am not going to take his approach or follow his directions. I want to say without being trite or using any cliches that we should all be proud to be living in Canada and to be called Canadians. We may not be too happy with certain situations, but we should all be happy at the developments and advances that have taken place in the first 100 years of Canada as a nation.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I look forward not in the next century but in the next few years to even greater advances and developments in Canada from coast to coast-from the Pacific to the Atlantic and from the Arctic circle to the international boundary. I look forward to advances, not of the kind suggested by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and others like him but advances based on a united Canada, based on co-operation between provinces and between the provinces and the federal government. I look forward to advances which are based upon equality of all Canadians, irrespective of ethnic origin, language or colour. I look forward to a really united nation of Canada in the second century, and I hope that this development will not be very long delayed.
There are so many important matters that are facing our country, Mr. Speaker, that it is almost impossible to cover them all in 30 minutes. However, I desire very briefly to give

DEBATES	May 19, 1967
my views about, and to comment upon some, important issues as I see them.
First I want to make reference to constitutional revision. I personally am bitterly disappointed that it has not been found possible to patriate the British North America Act to Canada, as a centennial birthday gift. I cannot do otherwise than lay the blame for the absence of patriation of our constitution in this our centennial year upon the procrastination of both the present government and the previous government.
I am very sorry to note the policy indications that we have had in this regard. Certainly I cannot conceive of a responsible government, even an irresponsible Liberal government, suggesting a bits and pieces amendment to something as important as the constitution of Canada. I certainly hope a more practical and realistic policy than that is forthcoming.
Neither can I conceive that the government would throw this entire issue holus-bolus into a dominion-provincial constitutional conference at which apparently every organization that is interested would be represented. I believe there must be a more practical approach than this. This is only my opinion, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is accepted by the members of our party.
If, as the government says, it is going to make an extensive study of our constitution, I think the first move should be to bring in a white paper. We should then refer that white paper to a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons for study. The committee could hear representations from experts and from organizations that have something constructive to suggest. The committee should then bring in its report to parliament, which could be used as the foundation for a properly organized dominion-provincial conference to ascertain whether, on a practical, realistic and responsible basis, the conference can come up with the answers to two important questions, namely how to bring the constitution home and how to amend it. I think a move in that direction will put us in the position of asking the government of the United Kingdom, through a vote of this House of Commons and Senate, to send the constitution home to its native land.
Alongside the constitution question lies the matter of the Bill of Rights. Although the Bill of Rights is of utmost importance, I personally do not agree that we should be satisfied with its being on the statute books of Canada or of the provinces. What one parliament can
May 19, 1967


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to keep the house very long. Several times in the last five years I charged that the C.B.C. was a nest of socialist elements, on the French side as well as on the English side.
I meant that in the fields of news and in the choice of programs to be shown to the Canadian public, for instance, most of the people holding senior positions are socialists.
I think that the C.B.C. which is financed by the taxes of the Canadian people as a whole should have been taken to task a long time ago.
Mr. Speaker, I have a quite recent example to give, since it is a program called "Coup d'ceil" which was broadcast last night at 7.30. During that program a Mr. Gil Remillard, free lance journalist and commentator, a student at the University of Ottawa who works as such to pay for his studies-something for which he should be commended-talked about the elections of next May 29 in the riding of Hull.
I listened attentively. I do not recall the name of his collaborator last night or that of the man who questioned him, but the two seemed to have the same opinions. The first one to be interviewed by Gil Remillard-note that his name is not Gilles but only Gil; one wonders if it is Gil or Gil, but in any case let us say Gil-was Mr. Emond, the Conservative candidate. He put quite an easy question to him: Mr. Emond, what are your views on the
May 19, 1967


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, a C.B.C. commentator, and this is serious, a boy like Peladeau in Montreal, for instance, is more important than a minister of the crown in Ottawa. Can anyone understand that? And to think that in the C.B.C. when you are called or invited there, you trip over socialists who are there to give you either results or service.


An hon. Member:: Separatists too?


David Réal Caouette: As to separatists, some moderation is exercised, because there has been so much criticism, in fact Mr. Bourgault is not invited there as often now. That crown corporation is made up of separatist-socialists for the province of Quebec, and socialists for those who still believe that Quebec can remain within confederation.
The C.B.C., which costs us thousands of dollars a year, is the nest of Canadian socialists. Those bearded men do not pay the C.B.C.'s expenses; however they are the guests. As soon as a second grade socialist from France, Belgium, Sweden, Russia or Czechoslovakia, comes over to Canada, immediately he is sent a fine invitation to give him half an hour, if not an hour on the C.B.C.
But when something happens here in parliament or when there is some new idea from a Liberal, Conservative, N.D.P. member -all right, the same as the others-or a Social Credit or Ralliement Creditiste member, it is a different thing altogether. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it must be over a year and a half now since we were invited for comments by the C.B.C. However, to those programs are invited, for instance, young men like Gil Remillard to praise the New Democratic Party, whose candidate knows absolutely nothing about the riding of Hull.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that parliament should be more conscious of what is going on in the C.B.C. We had several examples of the position of the corporation. I refer to those two young men who appeared that evening. I do not know the name of one of them, but the other was Mr. Remillard responsible for the interview in the program "Coup d'oeil." There was another one who was once dismissed by the C.B.C., because he was exaggerating and I am referring to 27053-30
DEBATES	453
The Address-Mr. Caouette Laurier Lapierre, a candidate of the New Democratic Party in one of the Montreal ridings.


An hon. Member:: He will be defeated.


David Réal Caouette: He will certainly be defeated, Mr. Speaker, but he was the one who was doing socialist propaganda in the C.B.C.
There are others also. For instance, we had a Mr. Bouchard, who was in charge of the miners union in Noranda and who was transferred to Toronto. Once transferred to Toronto, he became an employee of the C.B.C., without any experience whatsoever. The C.B.C. in Montreal is full of socialists and such conditions have been tolerated for too many years, I think. One is afraid to take the bull by the horns; one takes it by the tail and is being pulled from one side to the other, driven by a few insignificant people who believe they are ruling Canada and who defy parliament, members of the government, even the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). We know it, for we often hear the hon. Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) saying, whenever we ask a question about the C.B.C.: The C.B.C. is a crown corporation, but it is self-administered, it makes its own decisions. I suggest we should have a parliamentary committee, wherein parties would be represented, so as to make decisions from time to time as regards the administration of the C.B.C., in short, to expel the rats that are there and free this state corporation, which should serve the people and not a political sect, no matter what it may be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: When we consider the operation of private television networks-at least those I know, such as channel 10 in Montreal-we find that the climate is quite different from that of the CBC. Channel 7 in Sherbrooke is altogether another matter. You get results with private enterprise, but now we find that state enterprise is in the process of establishing itself in an ivory tower where no one can criticize it any more; as a matter of fact no one can express his views, or everyone fears to speak up.
The stations at Trois-Rivieres, Rimouski, Riviere-du-Loup, Jonquiere, Rouyn-Noranda, are private stations where we get service. When I tape television programs in Rouyn, all I need is one cameraman and one control-man, or two employees. I tape two, four, six programs, I send some to Quebec by the C.N.R. and there are only two employees over there.
May 19, 1967

The Address-Mr. Caouette
When I am invited by the C.B.C. in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, I have to watch a deadful performance. You ask for a blackboard, a desk or a chair and what happens? One employee is not allowed to touch a chair, another cannot touch a desk and the third cannot touch the chalk used to write on the blackboard. You see some thirty employees running around the cameras and bothering you, and that is all. A lot of time is wasted and a lot of money belonging to the Canadian taxpayers is spent, but when we criticize this system, we are told: You want to destroy the C.B.C.
In that case, Mr. Speaker, it is about time we destroyed the C.B.C., if we can manage to do so, before it destroys us as a nation. In saying this, I do not speak in favour of a political party, but I speak in favour of each political party being represented and having its say on the C.B.C. We have stood these know-alls who wilfully lead us by the nose long enough. Every time you enter a studio they glare at you balefully, but if you are a socialist you are ever so welcome in that hot-bed of Canadian socialism.
Mr. Speaker, if private television stations were run like the C.B.C. is now, not one of them would still be operating next Tuesday morning; all would be bankrupt.
And yet we hear people such as Rend Levesque criticize the private television stations which, at least, make money, whereas the C.B.C. eats up the money, which is not the same thing. Blame is heaped upon those who make profits, who get better results and at less cost than the C.B.C. which does not make profits but requires supplementary estimates from year to year. In my opinion, it is a loss of time and of money to keep in office people who are not worthy to be there. Take them away and ask them to work elsewhere. But no, the C.B.C. is their business; they are the ones who decide, who run the business, who take the decisions.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I repeat it, we, members of parliament, are innocent and powerless to act; in short, we are merely passing here, whereas they are there to stay and, in fact, are staying.
Mr. Speaker, for five years I have been denouncing socialism in the C.B.C. I am ready to discuss socialism with anyone of them on radio or TV. Furthermore, I am on the verge of issuing a list of names of employees in Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto whom I will identify clearly to the Canadian people as

genuine socialists, if not out-and-out communists, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: You may be assured that I will have no fear of naming them. I just named one, Gil Remillard, well known socialist, and avowed at that. That was obvious. Those who listened to the program last night at seven thirty noticed it: it was infiltration from beginning to end. None of the other candidates are any good; the only one is Mr. Thibault, candidate for the New Democratic Party. And that is going on here, at the C.B.C.
And what about the C.B.C. employee? Admitting that Gil Remillard is but a free-lance journalist and commentator, the other one with him was not a free-lancer, but indeed a C.B.C. employee. Besides, he said it first: The best candidate, the one who knows best where he is going is Mr. Thibault. It goes without saying that he is the N.D.P. candidate, because he admitted he knew the W.Q.-R.E.C. report.
I have not yet said what the W.Q.R.E.C. was, Mr. Speaker. If, with some hon. members, this afternoon, I were to go to Main street in Hull in order to meet lawyers, notaries, influential merchants, big businessmen, industrialists, and ask them what W.Q.R.E.C. means, not 2 per cent of those people could tell us. They do not know.
But young Remillard wanted to show that he knew more than the others when he used the expression W.Q.R.E.C. But he never said what that meant. W.Q.R.E.C. means the Western Quebec Regional Economic Council. That is what W.Q.R.E.C. means. But nobody knows that. Everybody uses the first letter of each word. It is as if I had said on the C.B.C. last night: This program has been conducted or directed by G.R. Who is G.R.? Nobody would have known it. And yet, G.R. is Gil Remillard.
People think they are clever when they give only the first letters of a name or word. The Western Quebec Regional Economic Council is not at all for the creation of a federal district, and yet we are accused of not answering the questions asked.
Mr. Speaker, a federal district is more and more essential in our area. The first thing is to set up a plan, to establish the structure of such a federal district that would respect, not only the identity of Ottawa and Hull, but also that of Buckingham, Masson, Gatineau, Aylmer, Lucerne, Deschenes, in brief all the
May 19, 1967	COMMONS
municipalities that would be parts thereof. A federal district is essential, especially on account of the present conflict between two provinces, in our area. It is not a federal-provincial conflict, but a conflict between Ontario and Quebec, two separate provinces. The province of Ontario has its own laws, in the same way the province of Quebec. In fact, they are so distinctive, that the legislation is not the same here as it is on the other side of the river. The education system is different on one side of the river or on the other. Everything is different. There are scores of differences between the two.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the creation of a federal district is becoming more and more imperative. To the extent it would respect the identity of each of the existing groups in our area, a federal district would be enormously useful to Ottawa, Hull, and the neighbouring municipalities.
This is my opinion. I believe that this opinion is more than ever concurred in even if it is not shared by the Western Quebec Rural Development Board which may also undergo some changes. At the beginning, several years ago, ARDA was not as it is today. It has developed and changed, because only fools will not change their minds.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, a federal district will be established in this area but as I said earlier, the identity of each existing organization will be respected.
Mr. Speaker, those are the few comments which I was anxious to make in connection with the infiltration of socialists and even communists in the C.B.C. and I think that other hon. members should rise from time to time to fight against the prevailing conditions there.
And when I said a while ago that even ministers and the government are challenged by the C.B.C., it is true. You have big wheels in the C.B.C. who are more important than the government.
So then, I cannot say this is a democracy.
If you call those people to order you hear cries of dictatorship. And what are they offering us just now in the C.B.C. if not a true dictatorship?
No one has any right to his opinion, except those who are in the corporation. They invite people who share their views, Mr. Chairman; it is high time to clean up the C.B.C.
Let us cleanse the Augean stables!
For those who do not know, the Augean stables had not been cleansed for 30 years.
DEBATES	455
The Address-Mr. Stanbury They sheltered 3,000 oxen. The flow of a river had to be diverted to cleanse them since it was impossible to do so with small shovels.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I think that it might be worthwhile to divert the flow of the St. Lawrence river to cleanse the stables of the C.B.C., to decontaminate a little the corporation and to appoint responsible people with whom it would be possible to talk, to discuss, people who, because they are employees of the state-in fact it is a crown corporation -would have respect for those who sit in the house and not only for a system, or a trend of thought as is the case now.
Mr. Speaker, those are the comments I had to make. I hope that the C.B.C. people who will read what I have just said, will have a grudge against me strong enough to modify their attitude, to act as true Canadians and not as an isolated party which from its ivory tower tries to control everything in Canada. I hope that they will remember that they are the servants of the Canadian people, and that they will recognize the right of everyone to his opinions and to express them through the government's broadcasting system.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, as one who had the privilege and the somewhat unnerving experience of making his maiden speech on his first day in this Centennial Parliament, sharing the honour with the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer), I pay the highest tribute to those who followed us in opening the throne speech debate in this second session. No one could have carried out this duty with greater distinction than did the hon. members for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) and Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Cote).
Each of us is tempted at such an historic time in our country's life to look back on its accomplishments and those who wrought them. I am grateful to those who, through the century and even before, made their contributions to the building of this nation. We can learn from their labours and I hope we will, but we must not become preoccupied with the past. I suspect the fathers of confederation were more concerned about the future.
I feel the speech from the throne caught that spirit. It looked ahead, setting our sights appropriately high as we enter our second
456	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Stanbury century of confederation. I welcome particularly the emphasis on elevating the quality of life and enhancing the environment of our people; the determination to tackle problems which know no jurisdictional boundaries; the federal initiatives promised where provincial action needs to be stimulated and supplemented in the national interest. I should like to talk today about many of the matters forecast for this session. I have decided, however, to talk of none of them. Rather I should like to suggest adding something of value to that impressive program.
Canada's future must be our prime concern today. More than ever it demands that we look outward at the international environment in which our country lives and must live. At this moment in our history when we feel most Canadian, we must recognize more clearly than ever before that we are citizens of the world.
In facing this reality, one paramount challenge looms above all. On it turns to a frightening degree the prospects for eradication of war, of hunger, of illiteracy, or for global destruction in slow or sudden fashion. That challenge is China.
In the May 20, 1967 issue of the New Republic, Harrison E. Salisbury of the New York Times said:
The critical question of our day-indeed the question on which the fate of the United States and the world may soon hinge-is whether America and China are to engage in a land war in Asia.
Mr. Salisbury went on to note that this is a question which has hardly begun to engage the attention of this nation. I would carry his statement one step further and say that the fate of the world may hinge on the degree of understanding between that quarter of the world which is China and the rest, perhaps particularly North America.
I venture no pronouncements today on what Canadian policy toward China should be or what Canada should do now, next week or next year in its relations with China. I hold views which I have expressed and will express on other occasions, but I am not optimistic that any step now by Canada will produce magically a close and constructive relationship with China in a few months or even a few years.
The Toronto Globe and Mail's Charles Taylor warned against such optimism in the summer of 1966 issue of the International Journal. After outlining the background of

DEBATES	May 19, 1967
China's foreign policy he summed up his article in this way:
For these reasons, the West (and especially the United States) should not expect that tentative gestures of conciliation will evoke a positive response from Peking. Given the history of the last 150 years and China's basic grieyances, rude rejections seem more in order (it is far from certain, for instance, that the Chinese would show any interest at present in joining the United Nations, even on terms that satisfied their basic precondition-the expulsion of the Chinese Nationalists) . Gestures must be made, and they must be substantive in order to strengthen the position of any relatively moderate faction contending for power in the post-Mao period. But there should be no illusions about quick success, since to convince the Chinese that it is in their interests to play a more reasonable role in world affairs will take many years of patient and persistent diplomacy.
What we need to do, I suggest, is take a long range view of what we in Canada can do to bridge this chasm of ignorance and distrust. We must not deceive ourselves about the magnitude of the challenge, but I believe Canada is capable of tackling it. We have taken a very creative role in world affairs, perhaps a unique role among nations. We must continue to search for constructive contributions to global peace and progress. One such contribution could be a patient but determined effort to close the gap in understanding between China and the rest of the world.
A Canadian newspaper, the Globe and Mail, has brought us closer to China by maintaining a full time correspondent there-the only newspaper of the Western world to do so. In fact, there are just three other full time western correspondents in China, and they are representatives of European news agencies. The Globe and Mail's contribution to better understanding of China, not only in Canada but elsewhere, has been valuable.
There are, of course, other newspapermen, businessmen and tourists who have visited China and have provided some contact. There is no shortage of books on China. But there is substantial conflict not only in the analysis of events but even in the reporting of the events themselves.
Jules Roy in his book "Journey through China" is convinced that China is itching for conflict with the United States. At the same time K. S. Karol in "China: the other Communism" expresses the feeling that if we put our minds to it we in the west might develop our relationship with China to the point where she could "even one day . . . become our ally in the battle for a more just
May 19, 1967


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to many of the speeches made in this throne speech debate. I have heard some very interesting and controversial subjects raised, some of which have been supported and others

May 19, 1967
The Address-Mr. Peters ridiculed. I was particularly interested in a speech made recently by my close neighbour in this chamber, the hon. member for Vil-leneuve (Mr. Caouette), in which he referred to an election to be held in the province of Quebec in a city very close to our capital. The hon. member indicated that much of the news coverage in respect of that election favoured the candidate of the New Democratic party. I think it is time that many of the members who criticize the C.B.C. realized that most news agencies, and I think the C.B.C. is no different from others, as a rule cover news when it is made. If that news is controversial, it is more easily accepted as news. I think the interest being paid to this election probably stems from what is being said in parts of Quebec rather than from a change in the attitude of the C.B.C.
I was particularly surprised at the suggestion that communists were infiltrating the C.B.C. Not long ago I heard that separatists were infiltrating the C.B.C., and I often wonder whether they are the same people. It depends on the horse they are riding at the time and what are their interests. However, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is time some hon. members took a serious look at what is news and what is propaganda in the speeches they are making, and if they are making statements that are worth while, and controversial if necessary, their remarks will find a place in the news.
The hon. member for Villeneuve has had almost a lifetime in this field and should know perhaps better than anyone not to single the socialists out for special attention. When the word "socialist" is used we often wonder to whom the hon. member is referring. Some people say there are socialists in the Conservative party, others say there are many socialists in the Liberal party, and some say there are socialists in the New Democratic party. I think that the term as it is now used refers to progressive thought rather than what was meant originally in the philosophical jargon of socialists.
I should like to deal with a problem that was first raised in the throne speech and has since been raised several times. I refer to what parliament is going to do and whether we will be able to develop a new look. I have always been amused by those who say that we can change the rules and make parliament work more effectively.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I have been a member of, and actively participate in, a great many organizations. 
Certainly, there was no better school for the manipulation of the rules than the trade union movement. I can remember being in several unions fighting the communist element when they were supposed to be a threat. I am not sure how extensive the threat was, or even if it existed at the time. Certainly, the communists were a very potent force. I can remember that we changed the rules in many ways to take care of that threat.
I can remember when the left wing of the labour movement used to object to the adjournment motion of the meeting. Once everyone who was not too interested in what was going on had left, then they had a majority and would take a vote. They would always win.
The next Sunday there would be another meeting and everybody would be there at the beginning. They would rescind the motion that had been passed at the previous meeting. When supper time came those who were not particularly interested went home, so the motion would be put again and passed. This went on week after week. In order to solve the problem, the rules were changed, but when the rules were changed we found we had given the dissidents, not one opportunity to do this, but that we had created four other opportunities.
It seems to me that the rules of parliament have been developed over a great many years and for specific reasons. If you tamper with them and expect worth-while results, your expectations will not be realized. I think that the problem we have in parliament is not necessarily one of changing or modifying the rules. We need a fairly fundamental change. Let us go back to the throne speech. In any organization, the throne speech would be a sort of timetable for the legislation before the house for this session.
I believe this session should not be like the ones which have passed. Anyone who looked at the order paper at the end of the last session would find as much legislation still on the order paper as we had passed, so we really had not gained any ground at all. There were promises by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) that this piece of legislation or that was going to be introduced and passed before the end of the session. Some of my colleagues kept asking for legislation to be introduced. Someone on the other side would say: Yes, we will accept that; that is a very good piece of legislation and should be
May 19, 1967

passed. We really have not used the throne speech as an agenda, we have not set a pattern of legislation.
I am sure many of the members are not yet aware of the difference between legislation mentioned in the throne speech and legislation introduced during that particular session. Some of the newspapers unkindly referred to the fact the government had decided to dust off every piece of legislation they had and put it in the throne speech. Certainly, it was a very long document, and if they had thought of anything else they would have added it.
This reminds me of the time the Prime Minister was asked about social legislation. He said, "Yes, we are going to pass it this session. We are going to pass divorce reform, abortion reform, birth control legislation", and then he added something which sounded like, "and anything else the N.D.P. can think of". It seems to me that over the years legislation has been introduced in this manner. You will have to give credit to some of my colleagues because they have proposed a great deal of the legislation that has been put on the order paper in the last 20 years. I believe that this is worth while. However, I do not believe that we should kid the country that the things mentioned in the throne speech are going to be implemented by legislation.
I do not believe it is any secret that many of us would have liked this to be a very special session of parliament. This is centennial year. We are celebrating our one hundredth birthday. I feel there is an obligation on members of parliament to be in their constituencies for at least part of these celebrations. I am not thinking of the major cities, because this may not be true of Montreal or Toronto.
Montreal will probably say Expo is the biggest thing that has ever hit that city-this is probably true-and is their centennial project. Many of the small communities have been able to erect a new town hall, buy a fire truck or put in a waterworks plant as a result of the efforts of the citizens. I believe these efforts demand a higher attention from the elected representatives, and it would seem to me this would involve many of the members being at home at various times. There will likely never be during this session more than three quarters of the members present. It seems to me if this is a logical supposition, then we should make preparations to do something about it.
There has been some reference by some members to the fact that the throne speech

The Address

Mr. Peters debate should have been reduced in length. I agree that the hon. member who moved the address in reply made a good speech. In many respects, his speech indicated that he may have written it. I am sure it was the kind of speech that could have been televised and would have reflected great credit on all members of parliament. It was a flowery speech and indicated the aspirations of the people, and really was not political in the normal sense of the word. I see no reason, Mr. Speaker, why, after a session of 14 months, we could not have decided to shorten the throne speech debate. We have lost these eight days. We could then have gone right into the budget speech and the handling of estimates. We could have decided how many days we wanted so that we could get out of here before July 1.
When I think of the standing committees, that is a good point to digress. Last year some of the standing committees sat for 12 or 13 months. In my opinion, some of them presented excellent reports. These reports have not been considered because most of them were introduced in the last days of the last session. Certainly, the government has not considered the legislation flowing from these reports. It seems to me members of parliament must be rather stupid if they want to have these estimates referred back to standing committees so they can do the same amount of work over again.
e (5:30 p.m.)
Why should reports be presented to parliament when parliament can give no consideration to these reports? It seems to me this would be a good time to waive the sending of estimates to the standing committees, except for those which are required to be sent according to law. Perhaps even this could be waived. Perhaps we should pay some special attention to some of the joint and special committees which have not reported. I am not saying they have not reported because of delay in the other place. The delay was probably the result of the inability of our members to attend. These committees could be reconstituted by the government and could complete their work. In so far as estimates going to committees are concerned, I do not know whether members want to go through this sort of ritualistic dance, and want to spend their time in committees. The government has had to scratch to get members to gc to committees. Certainly a number of Liberal backbenchers were kept busy, but they could have been busy in other fields this year. It is

May 19, 1967
The Address-Mr. Peters an obligation on all members of parliament to accept some of the thousands of invitations to important functions in different areas of Canada.
We could have waived the throne speech, Mr. Speaker. Why didn't we? We did not because four or five members got together in the back room and tried to make a deal. This sort of deal never works, because such deals are made in the back room. If we are not prepared to state on the floor of this house that we will waive the debate on the throne speech or the debate on the budget speech, or curtail certain discussion of the estimates for this year for the specific purpose of allowing members to participate in centennial celebrations, then such arrangements will not be made. And I am prepared to see that they are not made.
The throne speech appeared to be the kind of speech that everyone could agree with. There were reminiscences about our history, homage was paid those who have gone before us, reference was made to past achievements, to the problems we face today and to the aspirations that our young people have for tomorrow and the years to come. We could have left it at that.
I am told, Mr. Speaker-I may be wrong, and if I am there will be much disappointment-that the budget will not contain anything sensational. And there is no reason why it should: There will be no election this year. Everybody will be so tired by the end of the year that they will not want to campaign for six or eight weeks, so there will be no election. Indeed, the kind of arrangements that have been made recently indicate that there is no chance of even an accident happening.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we should let the country know whether or not members of parliament intend to participate in centennial celebrations. If we do not, then let us say so. I want to be in a position where I can honestly tell the people in my riding that they cannot count on me for July or August because I will not be at home. I shall be able to tell them that I have a job to do in Ottawa, and that although I think their celebrations may be much more important, I was elected to represent them here so I shall be unable to attend their celebrations.
If some arrangements are made, Mr. Speaker, then, of course, we shall have to sacrifice something. I should like to be able to talk about 20 subjects on this throne speech, or on the budget speech, but I can pass them up. I have done so before. Nothing is new. We 
can use our legislation over and over again until we can make a change, so we should be able to give some things up.
In return for this the government should be willing to give something up. It seems to me that one of the things they will have to give up is the idea that they have been putting across the country, namely that they are going to pass a number of very controversial and complex pieces of legislation. If the government has no intention of passing them, then I do not see why we cannot make some arrangements along the line I have suggested.
If this is the case, Mr. Speaker, then for God's sake let us make these arrangements in public, so that everyone will know about them and be able to co-operate. Sometimes members are asked for their co-operation and they do not know why. If we had given up one day's debate on the throne speech, what difference would it have made?
If further legislation is added and we continue into July, then anyone who has been here any length of time knows that if we go beyond July 1, which is an obvious cut-off date, we go on and on.
I think the government also have an obligation to tell the Canadian people, particularly members of parliament and members of the Senate, what arrangements will be made about the royal visit. I am quite sure that the royal visit will not involve an address to parliament. If it does not, then there is really no reason for parliament to be in session. It is my understanding, though this is not the information given publicly to the press, that the Queen will address her loyal subjects on the lawn of Parliament Hill and that members of the House of Commons and members of the Senate will be special guests in attendance. If this is the case, then I do not think it is necessary for parliament to sit beyond June 30.
Whether or not this is the case, Mr. Speaker, I hope that collectively we will have enough intelligence to see to it that at least one week before Christmas we will prorogue this session so that we can start a new one, not the third week in January but directly after January 1. We should debate the throne speech, bring in the estimates and the budget and then adjourn for a summer recess so that members have an opportunity to visit their constituencies to do some work.
I used the unfortunate expression "holiday". I thought about that word the other day when I was so tired I decided to stay in bed, and I stayed in bed until two o'clock in the
May 19. 1967

afternoon. I wondered afterwards why I was so tired. I go home at week ends and the phone starts ringing at seven o'clock in the morning, and I am sure this is the case with other hon. members. I attend several meetings during the course of the day. I have a continual round of meetings, consultations and visits, and I deal with other matters that require attention. By the time I leave for Ottawa I have not even had a week end break, but have been working seven days a week. We do have an obligation to see our constituents, Mr. Speaker; otherwise we get so far out of touch with them that we are not really representative of them.
I suppose that what I have said will fall on deaf ears-it has before. However, I hope that if we are really going to make some changes they will be made out in the open and that all members will be asked for their co-operation, instead of four or five people getting together in the back room. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said he intended to do something about improving the operations of parliament, and it seems to me that now is a good time to do it. It also seems to me that members of parliament have a special obligation this year to their constituents. Although it will be no holiday for them this year, an obligation does fall on each and every member to join in in some of the centennial activities in their ridings for which their constituents have worked so very hard, and in which I am sure they would like to see their member participate.
If time allows I hope the Prime Minister will make some statement as to what improvements he wants and what our timetable will be. Then and only then can he honestly ask for the co-operation of members of parliament in the accomplishment of what is a reasonable and practical proposition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion (Mr. Jamieson) agreed to.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That the address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this house as are of the Honourable the Privy Council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Proposed Legislation
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)

Allan Joseph MacEachen: That this House will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider of the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That this House will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

["Six o'clock."]
Allan Joseph MacEachen: That the main estimates of sums required for the service of Canada for the year ending on the 31st March, 1968, together with the message of His Excellency relating thereto be referred to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
['That the main estimates of sums required for the service of Canada for the year ending on the 31st March, 1968, together with the message of His Excellency relating thereto be referred to the committee of supply.']
Allan Joseph MacEachen: I wish to move a number of motions, if I might have consent. I consulted members of the house about this. The first one I have to move has to do with public accounts.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We should like to know what the motions are. Could we take them one at a time?



Allan Joseph MacEachen: I move:
That the public accounts volumes I, II, and III for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1966, and the report of the Auditor General thereon, tabled on January 9, 1967 and February 20, 1967, respectively, together with the report and financial statement of the Canada Council for the fiscal year ended

May 19. 1967
Proposed Legislation
March 31, 1966, and the report of the Auditor General thereon tabled on August 30, 1966, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.
I might add that the purpose of these motions is to permit committees to complete work begun during the last session. In this and other instances the committees have met and begun work, but they have not been able to report. They are ready to do so, but cannot unless given this authority, by these motions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Allan Joseph MacEachen: This motion that I propose to move falls into the category of the last one, and is to permit the committee to get under way. The Senate already has established its membership. Accordingly I move:
That this house unite with the Senate in the formation of a special joint committee to inquire into and report upon divorce in Canada and the social and legal problems relating thereto, and such matters as may be referred to it by either house:
That 24 Members of the House of Commons, to be designated by the house at a later date, be members of the special joint committee: and that the quorum be fixed at ten members provided both houses are represented and that standing order 67 of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the committee have power to engage the services of such technical, clerical and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of the inquiry;
That the committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses, to report from time to time, and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee, and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto;
That the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the past session be referred to the said committee and be made a part of the records thereof; and
That a message be sent to the Senate to inform their honours that the house doth unite with the Senate for the above purpose.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, could not those comprising the committee at the end of the last session be considered members now, thus saving the necessity for further delay? That would allow this committee to get moving.


John Angus MacLean: Did I understand the minister to mention that 24 members of this house were part of the committee? I did not think that many were on it. I wonder if that was an error.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is precisely the same motion as was adopted last time.


John Angus MacLean: If that is so, fine.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Allan Joseph MacEachen: This will be a similar motion with respect to the joint committee on immigration. The committee has met, examined witnesses and is now ready to prepare a report. This motion will allow the committee to get under way. Accordingly I move:
That a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to examine and report upon the white paper on immigration tabled in the House of Commons on October 14, 1966, and the reports on immigration matters made to the Government of Canada by Mr. Joseph Sedgwick, Q.C., in 1964 and 1966;
That 24 members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, be members of the said committee; and that the quorum be fixed at 12 members provided both houses are represented and that standing order 67 be suspended in relation thereto;
That the said committee have power to call for persons, papers and records; to examine witnesses; to report from time to time; and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee, and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto;
That the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the past session be referred to the said committee and be made a part of the records thereof; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purposes and to select if the Senate deem advisable some of their members to act on the proposed joint committee.


Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleion):: We would concur completely in this motion, but regret that the Senate is not ready, and that there will be a delay in proceeding until June 7, when the Senate returns.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Allan Joseph MacEachen: The final motion has to do with the special joint committee on the national and royal anthems of Canada. I move:
That a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to consider and from time to time to report upon the question of
May 19, 1967

lyrics of the National and Royal Anthems of Canada; and
That 12 members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, be members of the joint committee; and that the quorum be fixed at seven members provided both houses are represented and that standing order 67 of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto; and
That the committee have power to engage the services of such technical, clerical and other personnel as may be necessary; and
That the committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses, to report from time to time, and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee, and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto; and
That the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the past session be referred to the said committee and be made a part of the records thereof; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Harold Edward Winch: Could I ask the minister why there was not a motion for the reappointment of the special committee on penitentiaries? We, too, have a report we want to complete.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have been attempting to consult with the various committees and get the references ready. We shall move very fast to get the joint committee on penitentiaries established.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, is the government not ready to move the reference of the question of educational television to the committee on broadcasting?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I had in mind moving such a motion but, after consultation, I find that further consideration is necessary before I can secure consent to move it.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Perhaps I shall not be as lucky as I have been in the last few minutes, but there is a resolution on the order paper concerning immigration-the immigration fund. There is some urgency about replenishing the fund and if we could pass this resolution before six o'clock the house would be able to deal with the bill next week. The effect of the resolution is merely to increase the amount of the fund. I would call it if I had consent.


Mr. Monleilh:: We would be pleased to do that, provided the parliamentary secretary makes his remarks very brief.
Business of the House


Stanley Howard Knowles: We will consent, if he makes no remarks at all.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I will not consent to passing it tonight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If the resolution were passed it would permit us to make the bill public. We would hope to deal with it as the first item and call it for second reading after the adoption of the supply motion which we expect to call on Tuesday and Wednesday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do not look at us.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I ask again if there is any objection to proceeding with this resolution now?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I object.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Allan Joseph MacEachen: I might indicate to hon. members that, as has been ordered by the house, on Tuesday and Wednesday we will deal with supply. Following the supply order the house will deal with the resolution on immigration, and then the second reading of the Canadian Wheat Board Act and of the Canadian Citizenship Act. On Friday of next week we shall likely be calling the estimates of the Department of Transport, keeping in mind the necessity of trying to see the immigration bill through all its stages.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the government bear in mind, when planning the days we are to spend on estimates, the urgency of holding a discussion on external affairs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


William Arnold Peters: Is the leader of the house prepared to give consideration to the long term proposition I put forward, one which I think would do much to secure the co-operation which he desires?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes. I listened with great interest to the remarks made by the hon. member and I should like at an early date to

May 19, 1967
Business of the House
be able to give a complete forecast of the items the government would like to see dealt with before the summer adjournment. I believe it is essential that members know what the menu is before they decide how much they can digest.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to section 4 of standing order 2 this house stands adjourned until two thirty o'clock on the afternoon of Tuesday next.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 23, 1967