1967-05-12

['Mr. Speaker, I think it is a fact that the Hanoi government has not, as I stated yesterday, accepted the four points that I have raised. When I raised them, I said that I held no hope at the time that such suggestions could be accepted by either side.\nNaturally, the Canadian government, just like other governments, is concerned with this question and we shall seriously consider whether another modus vivendi can be found concerning this situation. However, I must say quite frankly that, in the present situation, there are very few reasons for optimism.\nMay 12, 1967\tCOMMONS']
Mr. Speaker:: May I be permitted to bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the galleries to my left of a very distinguished group of representatives from the United States Congress.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: These Senators and members of the House of Representatives, accompanied by their wives, are attending the tenth annual meeting in Ottawa of the United States-Canada interparliamentary group. On behalf of all hon. members I extend to them very cordial wishes and express the hope that their stay with us will be pleasant, interesting and fruitful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
Secretary General U Thant made a frightening statement regarding the danger of the world slipping into world war III. He made the suggestion that a bombing pause or cessation at this time might be conducive to bringing about discussions at the conference table. Will the Prime Minister say whether within the next two or three days an opportunity will be given to this house by resolution for this parliament to place before the world the viewpoints of the Canadian parliament and people in this connection? The suggestion of U Thant was that unless something is done it will be too late to prevent a world conflagration.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government and I am sure parliament share the concern expressed by the Secretary General of the United Nations,
a concern which I indicated I felt myself when I spoke during the debate on the speech from the throne on Wednesday last. I do not think anyone can predict what may happen in Viet Nam if hostilities continue unabated, but the prospect of the indefinite prolongation of such hostilities is obviously fraught with dangerous possibilities. That is why the Canadian government has been doing everything it could to help bring these hostilities to an end.
I recalled the other day the efforts we had made in this direction. I should perhaps recall also the suggestion put forward on April 11 of this year by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when he proposed that the first phase in this process of ending hostilities might envisage a cessation of the bombing of North Viet Nam together with effective supervision of the demilitarized zone. I think I should also recall that the United States government has indicated its willingness to begin negotiations at once on the cessation of hostilities on both sides.
The right hon. gentleman has suggested that a resolution might be brought forward in the house in respect of this matter. We are now on the throne speech debate, and during the next four or five days there will be an opportunity for hon. members who wish to speak on this subject to make their views known. Perhaps we should reserve our consideration as to whether any formal action of the kind suggested is required until this debate has been completed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped the Prime Minister would consider the possibility of a resolution giving the opportunity to parliament rather than the government, to present the views of all Canadians.
Let me now ask the Prime Minister this question. What about Hanoi? Has there been any reaction by Hanoi to the representations from the Canadian representative? The other day there was the suggestion that Hanoi had been approached and that certain secret discussions had taken place. Hanoi, which has been very provocative throughout, and unrelenting in its attitude, has stated that there was no such discussion with the Canadian representative and that no consideration whatever was given to Canada's representations

May 12. 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry in this regard. Would the Prime Minister comment on that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to answer that question, as he has been in direct touch with our representative on this point.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I saw the statement in yesterday's press attributed to a spokesman for North Viet Nam. I will say again that our representative on the international commission went to Hanoi at the end of April; that this visit and the talk were at our request and in accordance with normal practice; that in the course of his discussions with North Vietnamese representatives he drew attention to the statement which I made before the external affairs committee on April 11. But as I said in this house, and as I say now, I have no evidence, nor have we at any time suggested that we had any evidence, that the general approach reflected in the Canadian statement has been favourably received by the government of North Viet Nam.
I want to take this opportunity also, and I regret having to do so in this way, of categorically rejecting the charge made by the government of North Viet Nam that, as they put it, "The four-stage plan of Canada is only an American plan, a part of the United State aggressors' peace negotiation hoax. It has been put forward according to a well co-ordinated program previously arranged with the Johnson clique." Indeed, as I informed the house on May 8, the proposal that there might be a cessation of all military activity against North Viet Nam, balanced by a resumption of full and effective control of the demilitarized zone by the international commission, has not met with specific acceptance by the government of the United States any more than it has been accepted by the government of North Viet Nam.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and at the same time express the hope that the government will give serious consideration to introducing a motion on Viet Nam so the house may express its opinion on this very important matter, possibly affecting the survival of mankind.
In view of the fact that it is essential that Canada's effectiveness on the international control commission be maintained, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he intends in the course of the next few days to introduce a

motion referring the statements of Mr. Gerald Clark of the Montreal Star and Mr. Tim Ralfe of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to the committee on external affairs just as soon as that committee is set up.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already twice in this house denied the statement that Canadian members of the international commission have been guilty of spying or any clandestine activity. So far as an appearance before the external affairs committee and discussion on this matter is concerned, the committee is master of its own procedure and when it is set up-and we will set it up without delay-it will be able to decide whether it wishes to discuss this particular matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has already indicated his willingness to have this matter discussed by the committee on external affairs, and in view of the fact the committee cannot deal with a matter unless it is referred to it by the house, would the Prime Minister consider submitting a motion to the house referring this question to the committee on external affairs for full investigation, with the power to call witnesses and examine them under oath and to call for all the relevant documents?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will look into this matter, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is it true that Hanoi has rejected the peace proposals he has put forward and is he in a position to say also whether he intends to make new peace proposals to North Viet Nam?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a fact that the Hanoi government has not, as I stated yesterday, accepted the four points that I have raised. When I raised them, I said that I held no hope at the time that such suggestions could be accepted by either side.
Naturally, the Canadian government, just like other governments, is concerned with this question and we shall seriously consider whether another modus vivendi can be found concerning this situation. However, I must say quite frankly that, in the present situation, there are very few reasons for optimism.
May 12, 1967	COMMONS



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-sioke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture or his parliamentary secretary. With the announcement that the brief by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture will be presented on May 24 here on parliament hill, can the minister tell the house whether plans are being made to meet this important delegation on that day and whether the topics in the brief will be discussed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take that question as notice and discuss it with the minister. Plans are being made to receive this delegation.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent (Oni.)):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I know that because of Expo '67 the Prime Minister has many additional appointments, but in view of the serious matters involved may I ask the right hon. gentleman if an opportunity will be provided for him as well as the Minister of Agriculture to meet the farm representatives on this occasion?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would hope I could do that. I point out that the delegation leaders did fix a date without consulting me, and it was a date on which I could not possibly receive them. However, I am hoping to make arrangements so I can do so.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare; in his absence perhaps it could be taken as notice. Does the minister's statement on page 15087 of Hansard for April 19, that a consensus must develop within the provinces before any further health services would qualify for federal assistance, mean that he is repudiating his commitment made with regard to these services-


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


George Robson Muir: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On December 6, 1966 the Minister of
DEBATES	131
Inquiries of the Ministry National Health and Welfare, in reply to a question put to him by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, said that the construction put on the proposed amendment was correct, namely that it would be possible for one or any number of provinces to admit any health services. On April 19 he said that this was impossible; therefore I think it is quite in order for me to ask him-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is only confirming what I said a moment ago, namely that the question is argumentative.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Milton L. Klein (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, but in his absence perhaps it could be answered by his parliamentary secretary. Will the government grant refuge to, and suspend all deportation proceedings against Greek nationals until a democratic government has been restored in Greece?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: will be pleased to draw this to the minister's attention.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON GENEVA TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, now that the zero hour approaches in connection with the Kennedy round of tariff negotiations in Geneva, is the Prime Minister in a position to give a report as to whether there is any hope or optimism that the deliberations will bring about the possibility of a substantial reduction in tariffs? Can he also inform us what if anything has been decided in connection with agricultural products, and wheat in particular since there are markets for it in Europe, as well as aluminum?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Ministers of Trade and Commerce and Agriculture are both in Geneva, and I hope they will be returning early next week with good news about an agreement, which we all hope can be achieved. The news has not been very encouraging in recent days, although there has

May 12, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry been an improvement in the situation in the last day or so with the return of the representatives of the European common market. Perhaps in this case it will be the dark hour before the dawn. I hope the minister will be able to report on the dawn when he gets back next week.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the answer of the Prime Minister indicate a roseate hope that there will be a dawn?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I certainly hope there will be a dawn and a very rosy dawn. I had better not commit myself until I see what is happening to the clouds.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister disclose now whether there have been any discussions with Prime Minister Wilson of Great Britain concerning the export of western grain and the price of that grain, in relationship to Britain joining the European common market?


Lester Bowles Pearson: All these matters were discussed at the recent United Kingdom-Canadian ministerial conference in London.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister prepared to tell us what discussions took place in that regard, and what was the position of the Canadian government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce made a report on the matter. I have nothing to add to what he said at that time, and certainly not until the negotiations are complete.



COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY-FURTHER COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION IN VIEW OF EXCESSIVE COSTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in very appropriate circumstances. In view of the definite reports that expenditures under the Columbia river treaty will exceed the amount received by the government of British Columbia by over $200 million, will the minister consider referring this treaty to the appropriate committee so it can be examined again and the committee can hear officials as well as persons who would like to make representations?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: This matter has now become the exclusive responsibility of the government of British Columbia. Only last week I was assured that that government could take care of the situation without help from anybody. I would add that because of the fact that some of these dams will be completed earlier than the date foreseen in the agreement, there will be added benefits which will help compensate for some of the increased costs.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister realize that this treaty was strongly recommended to the committee by the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Joseph James Martin: By the whole house.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance which arises out of a report that the television industry in Canada is suffering from a near depression because of the luxury tax on colour television sets. This tax is also having an effect on the market for black and white sets. It has been recommended by the Carter commission that this tax should be removed, and there would be an opportunity for the minister to remove it at an early date.


An hon. Member:: You would look good on colour T.V.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: I have heard these representations not only from the hon. gentleman but from others, and the matter will be considered in connection with the budget.


Eric Alfred Winkler: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the remark made by a backbencher. I hope he will be ready to play ball on the 24th.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: I should like to direct a question to the minister responsible
May 12, 1967

for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Earlier the minister told us he would make a statement within a few days on the problems connected with housing. He made a statement yesterday, but after half an hour he had not really told us anything new, so I am wondering whether he is going to participate in the debate again and perhaps complete his speech.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: I ask the hon. member to read the speech made yesterday. There was some very interesting information in it, if he would only read it.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question I should like to direct to the right hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very large number of guests who will be coming to Ottawa this summer, and in view of the Prime Minister's reported and very appropriate concern about the condition of Ottawa streets, will the Prime Minister consider requesting his colleagues to have Colonel Churchill of Expo fame, who did such a good job there, seconded to take charge of this problem in Ottawa?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): My question is for the Minister of Fisheries, but in his absence I will address it to the acting minister who I presume would be the fisherman from Bonavista-Twillingate.
Following the questions which have been posed in the house in the past few days with regard to the lobster districts, would the minister consider delaying the opening of the season in district 6B in view of existing ice conditions? This question is brought about as a result of wires that I have received today.
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Acting Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to bring the hon. gentleman's representations to the attention of the department. I am sure my hon. friend the Minister of Fisheries will be able to give a report at the beginning of the week.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piclou):: A supplementary question to the Acting Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Minister of Fisheries is announcing today the postponement of the opening of the lobster season in district 7B, I wonder whether the acting minister would ask the minister to reconsider this decision and to check with the many fishermen in all parts of the district, as he stated he would do in answer to a question I asked, on May 10.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, as soon as it is possible for me to leave the house-and perhaps someone is listening who can do it even sooner-I will see that the hon. gentleman's representations are brought to the attention of the fisheries department.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO CORRESPONDENCE WITH ONTARIO PREMIER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister had any formal correspondence with the premier of Ontario in regard to the constitutional conference proposed by the premier of Ontario? If he has, would he make it available to the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already tabled certain correspondence on this matter. I told the Leader of the Opposition yesterday that I was asking the approval of the provincial governments to table the letter I sent to them dealing with the proposed talks on, I think, July 5. As soon as I get that approval I will be glad to table that letter.



VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to put a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration about an answer I have received concerning the adult training program, but in view of his absence I shall put it to his parliamentary secretary. Can he tell us if there is now an agreement between the federal and the Quebec governments concerning the handicapped? If so, is he in a position to so advise

May 12, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry the employees of the employment bureau who even yesterday knew nothing about it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is making a suggestion of which the minister will take note.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Finance has somewhat relieved the concern of the mining industry by his statement of yesterday, I wonder whether the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development could relieve the urgent concern of the industry with respect to when it might be expected that amendments to the Yukon Quartz Mining Act will be introduced.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we would hope at an early date. Some conversations are taking place now between my officers and the two sections of the industry concerned, and we hope they will be satisfied at a very early date.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister on behalf of the government anticipate that those amendments might be before the house this session?


Arthur Laing: It would be my hope, yes.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquefte (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct to the Prime Minister an urgent question about a recent incident which could endanger the sovereignty of the federal government in the field of international relations.
Has the federal government or one of its officials received a telegram from the chief of protocol of the Quebec government to the effect that the Canadian ambassador to Belgium would be considered person a non grata by the Quebec government during the visit of Prince Albert de Liege and his wife?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the question is urgent at this time.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, the urgency of my question is based on the fact that, in Quebec city, a former Conservative member by the name of Jean-Noel Tremblay is in the process of undermining confederation by all sorts of unacceptable statements and attitudes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order.


Auguste Choquette: All separatists are former Conservative members-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Auguste Choquette: Jean-Noel Tremblay.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Surely the hon. member for Lotbiniere knows that he should resume his seat when the Chair asks him to do so.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, since Jean-Noel Tremblay, former Conservative member of parliament and separatist, and Yvon Groulx, former Conservative candidate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member resume his seat? The hon. member is supposed to put a question to the house and I am sure he knows that he cannot preface it with a series of considerations.


Auguste Choquette: I will rephrase my question. I should like to know, Mr. Speaker, and I put the question to the Secretary of State or her parliamentary secretary, whether the Lau-rendeau-Dunton commission will make a thorough study of the actions of the Conservative party in order to find out why all the members from Quebec are becoming separatists?



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct this question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Secretary of State. Parliament voted a specific amount to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for centennial purposes. One of the plans was that parliament and the history of parliament would be televised. That plan has now been cancelled by the C.B.C.
I would ask the Prime Minister whether he would communicate with the C.B.C. with a view to having this program reinstated, for
May 12, 1967



certainly this is the year when to the greatest extent possible parliament and its operations should be made available to the Canadian people.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to bring this matter to the attention of the C.B.C. I myself did not know that a program of this kind had been cancelled. I did receive a letter from the president of the C.B.C., I think yesterday or the day before, referring to statements that had been made in the house on Wednesday and offering the co-operation of the C.B.C. in every way possible so as to televise the proceedings of parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this plan was not for televising parliament in general but for an historical story of parliament with the television cameras in parliament so the Canadian people, and particularly the school children, would have a better knowledge of this institution.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be very glad to follow up that matter at once.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. I wonder whether the government would consider expediting the consideration by this house of my bill to abolish the Senate, so we can get the bill to the other house and find out how many senators agree with Senator McCutcheon's views about that institution.
Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend should not be so pessimistic about his chances of becoming a senator.


Mr. Knowles:: I want to get the Senate abolished so that all our chances will disappear.



MAINTENANCE OF ATLANTIC PORTS SHARE OF EXPORT BUSINESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the minister's intimation in the house the other day that the National Harbours Board may dispose of its 27053-10i
Inquiries of the Ministry grain elevators in the maritimes as well as in Quebec, will the minister alleviate fears in the maritimes by stating that maritime ports, regardless of the ownership of the grain elevators, will get their fair share of the grain export business, particularly in the winter season?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's question, as is sometimes the case with his questions, is a bit complicated, but I think if I dealt with the first part it might allay any fears. As far as I know-and I think I would know but I will ascertain whether I am right-there are no negotiations for any change in the ownership of any government facilities either at Saint John, New Brunswick, or at Halifax.


Thomas Miller Bell: Even at that, Mr. Speaker, would the minister assure the maritime ports, now that they may be in competition with privately owned grain elevators in Quebec, that they will get their share of the business?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the government does not actually control the movement of the wheat, but anything I can reasonably do to see that Saint John and Halifax get even a little more than their share of the business I would have a certain sympathy with.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might answer a question asked by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre based on a rumour which I am happy to say turns out to have been ill founded. Canadian National Railways has no intention whatever of reducing its transcontinental passenger service during centennial year; indeed, they are making every effort to carry as many passengers as possible because of the immense amount of traffic being offered.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue.

May 12, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry
Since most receipts tor charitable donations given by parish priests to Canadian workers have been reduced by the department in the last two years, could the minister tell us whether this period of time has been long enough to lead the people to think that parish priests are liars?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. For many reasons, the question is out of order.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare may I direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. Has the national convention of the remembrance association which we honoured two days ago in the gallery, the Silver Cross Women of Canada who gave their husbands and sons, communicated with the minister respectfully requesting the government seriously and immediately to review the status of the blind with respect to their allowances and the rules relating thereto, and requesting that the means test be abolished? If so, what is the government prepared to do?


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the government had a representative at the meeting, and I am sure the subject matter of the hon. member's question has been drawn to the minister's attention.



INSULIN-REQUEST FOR PROTECTION OF USERS FOLLOWING PRICE INCREASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: My
question is addressed to the Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare and has to do with something of national interest, the announcement today that pharmacists across the country will increase the price of insulin by up to 100 per cent. Does the government contemplate doing anything about this? Has the situation been looked into, to protect those large numbers of Canadians using insulin?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is making a representation which will be noted, I assume.


Eric Alfred Winkler: May I ask a supplementary question. May I ask the Prime Minister if it would be possible to submit this matter, because of its national implications, to the standing committee on drug costs and prices?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to look into this matter. I assume my hon. friend is referring to the increased price of insulin?


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is correct.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple
Creek): I wish to address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has he received the report of the Wood commission? If not, would he advise the house when he expects the commission to submit its report?
Hon. Roger Teillet (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received a report; the chairman at present is in Europe and I expect his return this coming week. I shall attempt to obtain an answer to the second part of the question after he returns.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, May 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Don Jamieson for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker.
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, last night when I unexpectedly entered this debate I made a few remarks about parliament. Because of words that have been spoken in the debate and the interest which is being shown across the country in this institution, I spoke about it, expressing regret that the Prime Minister and the cabinet have been using a certain amount of their time in addressing the public outside this chamber and finding fault with the institution of parliament.
In centennial year of all years I thought we should all draw our people's attention to the values of our parliamentary system. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition has done so repeatedly, as have other hon. members on
May 12, 1967	COMMONS
this side. I had hopefully expected that Liberal party members, led by the Prime Minister, might pay respect to the development of our parliamentary system and encourage young people of this country to show the veneration that this institution deserves.
Unfortunately that has not been done. We have reached the stage where for the first time, I believe, in the speech from the throne a reference has been made to the internal management of this place. I wondered, when listening to the speech, why the internal management of the business of the house should be mentioned. Surely that is for the members of this house to deal with.
Then on the first day of the session the Prime Minister asked for and received unanimous consent to re-establish the committee on rules and procedures. That again was most unusual. He dwelt at some length, when speaking two or three days ago, on the necessity for modifying rules and procedures of this chamber. The Minister of National Health and Welfare, who has been appointed government house leader, in his turn has been discussing outside the house what he thinks ought to be done, as he put it, to streamline the procedures of this chamber.
Changing the rules and streamlining procedure apparently is one of the matters uppermost in the mind of the government, and across this country the impression has been created that something is seriously wrong with parliament. Editorial writers take a hint from the Prime Minister and the cabinet and write articles about how matters ought to be conducted differently and how the house business ought to be speeded up.
When editorial writers write of unnecessary delays and length of debates they miss entirely something of fundamental importance; that is, the preservation of freedom which rests with this institution. We have here an alarming situation. Gradually, in a typically Liberal way, this institution is being hamstrung by restrictions. Over the years we have changed the rules substantially, and in most of the changes I have concurred. Nevertheless, restrictions limiting the time for discussion have been imposed; the length of time members may speak has been reduced. A number of restrictions have been introduced within the last ten years most of them, unfortunately, restricting the time in which private members may speak.
Matters have now reached the stage where the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) suggested further limitations
DEBATES	137
The Address-Mr. Churchill yesterday. He said that the speech from the throne ought to be reduced to a three day debate. That would mean that only 30 members of this house would be able to speak. Of those 30 members how many would be backbenchers? About half only, I suggest.
He suggested that the budget debate be reduced to three days, once again placing a limitation on the private members of the house; because the cabinet ministers, the front benchers on this side of the house, and the leaders of the various parties, small or large, would be the ones who would participate in the debate. Once again he was suggesting that the private member be restricted.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
Government ministers view the private members of this house with indifference. They are like the Gadarene swine, dashing down the slope to destruction. Private members, if the government's intentions are carried out, will become mere puppets in this chamber, just rubberstamping things put in front of them. That is the situation that is facing us, and I think there should be a revolt on the part of the private members in this chamber.


Mr. Allmand:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


William Warren Allmand: Has the hon. member studied the rules in Great Britain, where the budget debate is limited to three days and they have over 600 members?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, I have made a very careful study of parliamentary institutions and of the rules in the United Kingdom. They offset some of these restrictions by other methods. They have special debates more frequently on urgent matters of importance, debates which we cannot have here. If the opposition in the British House of Commons asks for an immediate debate on the subject of Viet Nam, Rhodesia or West Africa, it is granted. How do you get an immediate debate in this house? You don't. It is a rare thing to have a request like that granted here. We have to wait for a supply motion or something else. Consequently, unless the system is changed we have to rely on these general debates such as the speech from the throne or the budget debate. That is why interim supply has been misused by both major parties when in opposition because the opportunity is not provided for immediate discussion of some matter of great public importance.
138	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Churchill
I do not think we have to follow the British system entirely. I believe we can work out our own methods. Theirs is a unitary system of government. We operate under a federal system, and we have problems ranging from coast to coast which have to be disclosed and discussed in this chamber. That makes this chamber somewhat different in its methods from the chamber in the United Kingdom.
It is important to look at the rules and procedures of this chamber but I think that should be done as it used to be done, under the direction of the Speaker with agreement among the parties, rather than by the acceptance of government proposals which can be forced through the house by the majority which the government can obtain through the support of various smaller parties in the house. That is the weakness of what has happened during the last two or three years. It is a compulsory alteration of the rules of this chamber, and the more the restrictions are applied the more is freedom of speech denied.
Mismanagement of government business has been the cause of a great deal of this. We have just had the longest session in Canada's history, and that was unnecessary. The session should have closed last December and a new one should have been opened in January. On the one hand the Prime Minister complains about the length of the session. On the other hand he boasts about the number of bills that were passed last session. He mentioned 83 as the figure. I will wager right now that not many members of this House of Commons could name more than six of those 83 bills that were passed. There were only about six that were of major importance. It is not quantity but quality that is desirable.
I recognize that we are living in an age where everything has to be instant. We have to have instant news. Now we want instant legislation. This will lead us astray. We should take our time in debating matters which are going to affect the people of this country for many years to come, in order to make sure that mistakes are not made.
Over the years I have been in this chamber I have been unable to discover a bill that has been unduly delayed. If a longer time is spent on one bill than on another it means that bill is controversial, badly drafted, or will have ill effects unless modified. I have reviewed this situation time and time again. I have discovered that 40 to 60 pieces of legislation are passed through the house in a normal session of parliament. The restrictions that are going to be imposed by the government will have a bad effect on this institution.

DEBATES	May 12, 1967
I am sorry I do not have time to dwell on this matter, but I want to mention two other things that are closely related to it. We talk about this institution failing to meet the desires of the younger generation. The younger generation is very vocal. It is well educated, which is a good thing, and the earlier it accepts the responsibilities which some of us have carried for many years the better I will like it. I want to become an armchair critic, to be able to say "You are not doing things right down there in the House of Commons." However, I may say I will not start criticizing my own party; I will start criticizing the other parties.
Our young people have a great future ahead of them, and I hope we will turn over this institution to them unimpaired and in good working order. In this connection I would point out that even as attentive an observer as George Bain in an article in this morning's Globe and Mail says that half the voters are under 25 years of age. This is something that was written by Peter Newman 18 months ago and has been slavishly copied by every newspaper in the country ever since. All you have to do, Mr. Speaker, is look to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to find that 50 per cent of the people of Canada are under 25 years of age, but not all of them vote, at least not yet. We have not gone into the cradle, and if you look at the voting population of the country you find that those who are age 35 and over comprise 67 per cent of that population. One does not need a research staff to discover this; it is given in the D.B.S. figures.
The other matter I wish to mention is the suggestion which has been put forward that the proceedings of this chamber should be brought more closely to the attention of the people of the country through the medium of television. I think this is something that is coming, not that it is important how we appear on television. If entrance to this chamber were based on our appearance on television I think 90 per cent of us would be excluded immediately. What is important is our attention to debates in the chamber, the arguments we advance and our attendance, not to mention the manner in which we look after the problems of our constituents. However, it has been suggested that our proceedings be televised. Instead of television I would be inclined to start with radio, because television in its technical aspects is still in a very primitive state. It requires miles of cable, scores of lights and much cumbersome equipment.
May 12. 1967

Then I point out the danger of it. Dennis Braithwaite writes on these matters with considerable knowledge, and in his article in the Globe and Mail this morning he has already settled the issue. He has determined for himself that the Liberal front bench is photogenic and will carry everything before it. The backbenchers again are left out. But he says the Liberal front bench is fine and that the Liberal team will shape up very well under the leadership of the Prime Minister. However, he closes with this paragraph, and here is where the danger lies:
Who should edit the videotapes, the Speaker of the House or some other so-called neutral functionary? Not at all. Editing must remain the sole responsibility of whatever producer is in charge, or someone he selects for the job.
[DOT] (12 noon)
So there you have it; it has all been prepared. Television will be brought into this chamber. The photogenic cabinet will appear on the screens. There will be a careful editing. We will have a Grit film strip for distribution across this country. This is the reason I suggest we should start with radio. This is a sophisticated medium, to use the modern term. No equipment is needed. All you need is a little gadget in front of you on the desk.
Then I say let it be a live program, unedited, unexpurgated and, to use Arthur Meighen's phrase, unrevised and unrepented. Let the actual words go out to the people of the country, not somebody's expurgated edition. I have often taken part in some of these little radio and television interviews. I have spoken freely to the interviewer for 15 or 20 minutes. Then two things have happened. Either I do not appear at all on television, which is understandable, or only a sentence or two is extracted from what I have said.
I do not mind my words going out over the air in the same way they are uttered in this chamber. Many people sit in these galleries and listen to what is said and form their own opinions. I do not mind if a million radio listeners have the same opportunity. So I would start with radio. Let us see what the result would be; let us have an unedited, unexpurgated edition go out to the people. I should like the people of this country to hear the evasive answers of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer). I should like to listen to the million gasps of utter astonishment when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) gives one of his tortuous, involved, meandering answers to questions in this house. Then the

The Address-Mr. Churchill people of this country really would understand what is going on here. When it is heard it is much different to what it is when it is read.
This is where I would make my start. I would take the proceedings of this chamber to the people of the country. If the people of this country realized the fundamental purpose of this institution I believe there would be less criticism of it. I deplore members of this chamber who contribute to this type of criticism which is expressed across this country-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -led by the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet. Last night when I was speaking on this subject I said this is the year when we should thank God that we have a democratic institution like this, free from coups d'etat and revolutions. For 100 years this institution has remained relatively unimpaired with its foundations not under attack as they have been in recent years. This is what I hope we will guard against here.
Two or three days ago when the Prime Minister was talking about the necessity to organize our program for this session he did exactly what he has done every year he has been in office. He has locked himself in; he has locked the House of Commons in. He holds a club over the House of Commons right now. He did it in 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, and now he is at it again.
Let us take a look at what has happened. He outlined to us the things which he considers should be done during this session before there is what had been previously referred to as a summer recess or summer break. He listed certain items. All one need do is take a pencil stub and a piece of paper to discover the things he would like to do before there is a summer break. It would take 70 sitting days to complete the list. In other words it would take us until the middle of August. Therefore I announce now to members of this House of Commons that not until the middle of August will they have any opportunity to be with their constituents during this centennial year, or to participate in any of the centennial celebrations which will be going on in their home towns or cities, because the Prime Minister already has set the pattern. He has said what he wants done.
140	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Churchill
I should like to quote the words of the Prime Minister as they appear at page 49 of Hansard:
I hope that the house is able to take action before any summer adjournment on certain matters which I shall mention. The debate on the address has to be disposed of.
That will take ten days when we count the two opening days.
We must have approval of the main estimates-
Under the allocation of time rule that will take 30 days.
-the budget has to be introduced and debated.
That will be another six days.
Certain bills I think ought to be dealt with before any summer recess.
He listed those. In addition there are the supply motions, normally four. That will take eight days. How much time do we allow for each bill? Do we allow a half a day, one day or two days? On the average over the years two days are spent on a bill. On that basis 14 days would be spent on the seven bills. These figures total close to 70 sitting days.
So there you are; no summer adjournment, no centennial celebrations for the members of parliament. We will stay here and the Prime Minister will be off with the visitors who will be here from foreign countries. He will be at Expo and all across the country. The cabinet members will be travelling all across this country, and while they are doing so they will be complaining that parliament is not getting on with its business. This is the position in which we find ourselves during this centennial session.
Last winter we were told that this session would start early in the spring, that no legislation would be introduced and that we would have a reasonable summer adjournment because of the special nature of this year. We were told that then in the fall we would get down to business and complete the necessary work. But the Prime Minister has set the pattern. We are here to stay. If we want to get away for the summer, we must get rid of the speech from the throne. We must finish the debate.
Someone over there claps. He is a backbencher; he has nothing to contribute to the house. He does not want to speak, and we can do without him. So we must finish the speech from the throne speech debate today. We do not need a debate on the budget; just listen to the presentation given by the Minister of Finance, let the press commentators and the editors study it overnight and then let the

DEBATES	May 12. 1967
newspaper, radio and press commentators tell us what is good and bad in it.
What about the supply motions? Why have four? The suggestion is that we really do not want to bring up the dairy problem, the problems of the farmers, and have votes on these matters. Oh, no; just ignore that; bring in the estimates of 22 departments in one fell swoop. Don't take 28 or 30 days to discuss them department by department; just chop it all off in seven days. After all, you can trust this government. You know, they just take the money from you and spend it. We are given to understand by this government that the people are not interested in how this money is spent or whether it is carelessly spent. So it is not necessary to spend any time discussing either the estimates or the bills. The Prime Minister in effect is suggesting that if we want a summer recess these bills which have been carefully prepared will be placed in front of us and all we need to do is rubber-stamp them and let them go through.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) says. He says the backbencher in the Liberal party is nothing but a puppet.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, rubberstamp the bills. Every major bill introduced by the Liberal party during the last four years has been subject to amendment in this house because of careless drafting and careless preparation. We are now told in effect by the Prime Minister, let us speed things up by not taking time to discuss the legislation and just rubberstamp it. That is the situation.
If this house is to adjourn at the end of June, for example, some telescoping of the business of the house must happen. If members take a different point of view from that of the government then the government will say it is sorry but we will have to continue through July and August because we must press on with the business of the country. That is the situation that faces us and we might just as well realize it right now.
I suggest that by just rubberstamping government proposals we will turn this institution into a legislative sausage machine. I think that is fatally wrong and shows bad organization on the part of this government which thinks nothing out in advance. Where is the government house leader today? He is not here. Did he advise the Prime Minister that this course should be followed? Is he the man who is to head up the committee on
May 12. 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	141
The Address-Mr. Gauthier
rules and procedure, get people together and say that we must allocate the time for debate because we want to get out in the summer?
Let me tell hon. members what is going to happen if we have an allocation of time in advance of the consideration of legislation. Let me give fair warning to the three independent members, the five members of the Social Credit party and the eight members of the Creditiste party. Their opportunity to be heard in this house will virtually disappear because, unless the Conservative party backs away from its responsibility, the 96 members of that party are going to insist on their proportion of the time during these debates. If two days are allowed for a specific issue we are going to take up 96/264ths of that time because we intend to be heard. How much time will that leave the Social Credit party, the independents or the Creditistes? How many N.D.P. members will be heard?
The allocation of time will result in the restriction of speech. In spite of the small numbers in some of these parties I know of no occasion throughout the years when they have suffered from any restriction of this kind that has not been greater with respect to our party. On many occasions we have not insisted on our full time, permitting those members to be heard as they should be heard in this institution where free speech should prevail. They have views to present which are just as good as any views that may be presented by members of the Liberal or Conservative parties. They are entitled to be heard because they have been sent here in the same way we were sent here, by the votes of the people in their constituencies. They have been selected, rightly or wrongly, to represent their constituents here and their views should be heard as expressed by their members in this chamber. If an allocation of time is imposed, as has been forecast in speeches by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), the new house leader, and by hints from the Prime Minister, this restriction will be painful to the members of those small parties because they will not be heard in this chamber.
I regret I have no further time to devote to this very interesting subject but I do suggest that we are launching ourselves on a very dangerous course. If we follow it we are going to weaken this institution to the point where it will become almost useless and we will be paving the way for any subversive force to take it over. We must keep alive the flame of freedom here. Let us forget time
allocation. Let us sit longer hours on occasion. What is wrong with an all-night session? It does not do anyone any harm. The people of Canada can sleep soundly in their beds while we are here debating and deciding issues which are important to our nation.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, before making a few remarks, may I first of all congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Messrs. Jamieson and Cote). Both of them, although taking an active part in the debate for the first time, did a very good job in congratulating the government and singing its praises. It reminds me of a son who, after discovering his father's faults, is very careful not to publicize them. It is a good thing for the party but is it a good thing for the people who want to know and who are entitled to know the facts?
I would not want to miss this opportunity to congratulate our ever impartial Speaker who agreed to serve devotedly during another session. I hope he will continue to show as much patience as he has shown in the past and, especially, perseverance, so that he will not follow in the footsteps of some others who succeed one another in various positions, probably becauce they find the work too compromising. We can assure you, Mr. Speaker, of our fullest co-operation in all fair and just matters.
I wish also to congratulate the deputy speakers who have always shown that they know how to hold the fort in the absence of the Speaker.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of this session, we listened patiently to several speakers, one after the other, and first of all the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) to whom I listened religiously, because it is always interesting to hear him. He looks so convinced, especially when he speaks of the reforms to be brought about in this house and particularly when he sees certain old dusty practices being discarded to rejuvenate Canada. This always prompts me to laugh, because when the great Leader of the Opposition sees rules with a capital "R" discarded, he nearly has a heart attack, and I am afraid that some day one of these attacks will carry him off. But he is certainly sincere and we, the younger, who would like to have a renewed and great country, consider that the name of "Canada" does not begin with a
May 12, 1967

The Address-Mr. Gauthier "R" but with a "C". That is why we want to see the "C" taking precedence over the "R" in the future.
We heard yesterday other speakers making wonderful speeches which really sounded at times like flights of oratory after the manner of Papineau. This makes for colourful debate, but I have just heard an experienced speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), refer to the allocation of time in the house and he seemed to fear that if we maintain our present procedure, the members of the smaller parties will no longer have time available to express their views.
I must say that, while listening to him, I shared his fears, but when he said that if the Conservative party failed in its duty, eventually it would no longer have time to speak. Mr. Speaker, those very words reassured me, because the Conservative party is always failing in its duty. That is why I am practically convinced that, in the future, we shall have more and more time to make ourselves heard.
I certainly shall not comment, Mr. Speaker, every item of the speech from the throne which, in spite of its length, amounts to very little, namely: studies, study groups, study conferences, planning studies. In fact, for more than five years, we have been hiring students whom we call technicians to make plans, external aid programs for foreign countries to which interest-free credits are offered, while efforts are multiplied to find new loans to increase the debts of the Canadian citizen, all this to the tune of national unity, and we finally realize that the more the federal government emphasizes national unity, the more it acts in a manner causing national disunity.
Retraining is also mentioned. This reminds me of the various names given unemployment in the past. In my area for instance, we have training for carpenters, labourers, bricklayers, etc., without any concern as to whether they can find jobs once they are qualified.
I think we are afflicted with a new type of unemployment, namely the retrained unemployed. I know a minister who is very good at this type of discovery and, Mr. Speaker, in order to avoid extending my remarks over the whole speech from the throne, I wish to limit my remarks to the dairy policy.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment moved by the Conservative party can be paraphrased as follows: This house regrets that Her Majesty's advisers have failed to submit any program to give effective direction with regard to Canada's constitutional development in this

centennial year and has failed to provide for the calling of a national constitutional confederation conference.
Mr. Speaker, I was very surprised to hear such an amendment being read, for it seems that when the last session was adjourned in April, I called on opposition parties, and especially on the Conservative party, to move an amendment on the farming problem.
A while ago, I heard the previous speaker say that the government feared an amendment or a nonconfidence vote on the farming problem. I wonder, however, which of the two was most afraid at that point, the Conservative or the Liberal party, because I feel that it behove the Conservative party to introduce an amendment in keeping with the promises made when the previous session was adjourned. Moreover, I believe the leader of the Liberal party was sincere when he promised to start the new session with the agricultural question.
As a result of the amendment of the Conservative party, we completely and intentionally by-pass the agricultural question. But in a while, I shall introduce a subamendment in an attempt, during this debate on the address, to tie in agriculture. But the amendment has been so well thought out, by a great politician, that it is almost impossible to slip in a word on agriculture and to introduce the subamendment all the farmers hoped for.
Mr. Speaker, I am simply saying that the Conservative party was not right, since the agricultural question is a problem, the urgency of which can be compared to no other. In fact, the Conservative party did not want to face the government-or it did not dare- through an amendment that would have permitted to force once again, the government to give the farmers what they expect.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
In the speech from the throne, what do we find concerning agriculture? Just like in all fields, and more so than in all fields, more studies, committees, conferences, circumferences, which means that we are going around in circles. That is what we find in the speech from the throne. On page 4, we find the following:
One of the great challenges of the century will be our capacity to plan our urban development so that Canadians in the future will continue to enjoy the benefits of living in health and harmony with their surroundings. To this end, the government intends to propose to the provinces that a special study of urban development be undertaken-
May 12, 1967	COMMONS
The study has been going on for a long time.
-undertaken in close consultation with all the authorities concerned-
After the study there is always the report. During the last five years, I have seen a great deal of studies and reports.
-which would be available to the federal, provincial and municipal governments and to the public generally;-
When there are studies and reports, the provinces and municipalities are not forgotten.
-so that all Canadians will be aware of the problems which lie ahead and so that governments at all levels, will have the best possible advice to assist them in their own planning and in their respective contributions to this great problem.
And further down it reads:
The impact of science, industrialization and urbanization and the changing conditions in Canada and abroad also demand that our agricultural goals and policies should be kept under continuous examination. The government, confident that Canada can look forward in its second century to continuing as one of the great agricultural countries of the world-
Not the way things are proceeding.
-proposes to establish a special task force under the Minister of Agriculture. It will be charged with projecting agricultural goals for the future and recommending policies to meet these goals.
Still nothing tangible: studies, programs, reports. And further down:
At the same time, plans that will permit the retraining-
-again the retraining in the field of agriculture.
-will be developed for those who want to leave the agricultural field.
And that is the way farmers are to be helped. I have seen some of the results of this policy in my riding. When a young farmer expresses the wishes of returning to the farm the farm credit inspectors send him to the city instead. That is the way our agriculture is to be developed.
The changing needs of rural communities deserve special attention. During the present session, you will be asked to approve legislation to provide long term loans to agricultural and fishery associations-
I think that so long as we have studies and teams to prepare plans and more plans, supplying us with reports which in the end will recommend lending more money to our farmers and putting them deeper into debt, we shall be barking up the wrong tree.
DEBATES	143
The Address-Mr. Gauthier
Today our farmers want to be guaranteed a reasonable price for their products and assured of a market for them.
These are the two main goals which we should try to achieve. Farmers must get a fair price for their products if they want to extend their farms, their property, and increase their production. They do not want to borrow for those things; they would like to do it with their surplus income. It is possible for a farmer to have a surplus income, but his yearly income must exceed $2,500 or $3,000, especially if he has eight or nine children at home.
It is imperative that the government discuss such agricultural matters with a more practical approach, in order to be, at last, in a position to assure farmers that they will get a decent price for their products. In the matter of prices, farmers claimed $5.10 per hundredweight. They were not joking, for $5.10 is a minimum.
In my last speech, I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) to use the price of fluid milk, which at present ranges from $5.70 and $5.80, as a basis. That is quite different from the $4.75 maximum price. I say maximum because it is said that the government guarantees $4.75. Now, that is not true. The federal government only guarantees $1.11. So let us stop lying to the people. The government has nothing to do with the price paid to producers by processors. As a matter of fact, processors, and we have ample evidence of this today, pay producers the price they choose, or rather, that which they can afford. And I have precisely the proof here. I maintain that it is untrue to say that the price of $4.75 is guaranteed to farmers. Let us stop lying to farmers and frankly admit what we are giving to them. It is just like saying that farmers are helped with loans. But do you believe that the government is lending to farmers? Capitalists are lending to farmers and the government is merely allowing capitalists to get farmers into debt; the government does not give anything.
In this case, an amount of $1.11 per hundredweight has finally been granted to farmers, but it is alleged to be $4.75. This is not true. It amounts to $1.11 provided that the processor pays to the producer $3.70 or $3.80. If he pays $3.80, $1.11 is quite satisfactory. I think that may be the price paid in some districts. But in my particular area, Mr. Speaker, and this is what I want to call to your attention-we have the Mistassini dairy.
144	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Gauthier Now, the Trappist monks, owners of the Mistassini dairy, write:
A new dairy year has started on April 1 and 2 since that date, you have been waiting for our prices.
I will not read the entire letter sent to all producers but I will give you the prices and I quote:
We shall then pay $3.10 for second class milk and $3.20 for first class milk.
Now, if you deduct 11 cents from this you will see what remains: $1.11. It is easy to count. This is the report of the Mistassini dairy.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
According to the latest statements of March 31, and April 15, milk, testing 3.6 per cent butterfat was paid $3.07 plus $1.11 as a total of $4.18. Which is far removed from $4.75. These are the statements.


Auguste Choquette: That is a national average when they talk of $4.00.


Mr. Gauthier:: That is right but I am talking about my region. I think there is a problem. I do not mean that this extends to the whole country, but I want to consider the problem in my area. And I want to be sincere.
An even more serious problem which I have already mentioned, Mr. Speaker, is that resulting from the outbreaks of contagious diseases in my region during the past three years. Some breeders lost half their herds. It is absolutely essential that the farmers rebuild their herds. And, in fact, some of them have done so and their herds are back to normal today. They made sacrifices, they bought other livestock, and now they are faced with the threat of quotas. Imagine how disastrous that is for our region. The farmer who used to produce 200,000 pounds, and who only produced 100,000 pounds last year because of the outbreaks of disease, must produce 200,000 pounds today in order to make a living. But, because of the 100,000 pounds quota, instead of $1.11, he will only get 55 cents per hundredweight. That is a very serious problem and one which I want to draw to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene), for this situation prevails not only in my parish, but in the four counties of the Saguenay-Lake St. John region.
That is why we can read in La Terre de chez nous:
Federation of the Catholic Farmers Union of Sherbrooke.
1,000 farmers are studying the new dairy policy. 
DEBATES	May 12. 1967
And they precisely raise the matter of quotas which are a disaster in our area. I do not know whether areas, having a normal production are affected, but in our area, it is really a disaster.
Moreover, we have to consider the 25 cents subsidy given formerly by the provincial government and which will no longer be given because it will be deducted from the federal subsidy; that is greatly prejudicial to the farmer and reduces the assistance he used to get.
That is why I say, Mr. Speaker, that we can prove that our farmers get this year, under the present conditions, less than last year, because of the conditions imposed, because of quotas, and because of the loss of the 25-cent subsidy and the 11-cent premimum for transportation, on the whole previous amount. If only the 11-cent premium for transportation was limited to the quotas, but no, it is applicable to the total amount to the whole production.
This is extremely dangerous, Mr. Speaker, and is prejudicial to our farmers at present. We shall have the opportunity to meet the farmers shortly and they will readily tell us that the purpose of their march on Ottawa is not to congratulate the government, as some Liberal members suggested, yesterday, but rather to protest against that dairy policy. The following item appeared on May 3, 1967, in La Terre de chez nous:
Mass protest of Quebec and Ontario farmers-
March on Ottawa on May 24.
Their protest is fully justified. They are right because that policy does not suit them at all. There is an absolute need for a round table discussion so that the facts may be fully looked into, and I know that some members are responsible and anxious to look into them.
I admit that, in certain areas, things are not too bad. But in our area, conditions are unbearable. The farmer is unable to improve his lot and that is why we have so many farmers giving up their land.
Mr. Speaker, I see that the time allotted to me is running out, and I should like to connect with the amendment of the Conservative party a subamendment which will be accepted, I hope, by the Chair, so that we may at last take a serious vote on this agricultural question.
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Simard):
That all the words after the words "Centennial year" be struck out and the following be added thereto:
May 12, 1967	COMMONS
"and have neglected taking the proper measures for the invitation of the Canadian provinces to fully respect the aims of the British North America Acts which clearly define the proper prerogatives belonging to all the legislatures of Canada and its provinces. And further, that they neglected, in this centennial year, to give the essential directives regarding Canada's constitutional development to ensure that the agricultural class receives all the attention necessary to maintain the constant economic growth in our country in such a manner as generous and patriotic as desired by the fathers of confederation.
Mr. Speaker, I have copies of the amendment in French and English. I do not want to teach someone a lesson, but I hope this subamendment will meet with your approval. I am sure every member will agree that this subamendment is called for and that it is imperative to draw the attention of the house to this situation and even to bring about an emergency debate on the farm problem across Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there are some members of the house who would like to comment on whether or not this subamendment is in order I would be pleased to hear them now.


Mr. Cole (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I think we will leave it in your hands to decide whether or not the amendment is proper. I believe the rules have been strained quite a bit in order to bring about this amendment but we will leave the matter in your hands.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that its ingenuity overwhelms me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question before the house, of course, is the amendment moved by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. This amendment to the main motion deals with constitutional matters. The subamendment moved by the hon. member for Roberval deals essentially with constitutional matters. I recognize the ingenuity with which he has introduced another subject but in my view the other subject he has introduced is not the main part of the subamendment. In the opinion of the Chair, therefore, the subamendment is in order.


Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, in the short time available to me before we adjourn for lunch I should like to offer my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I was very taken with the maiden speech of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson). It was a credit
DEBATES	145
The Address-Mr. Macaluso not only to himself but to the constituency he represents.
I intend to confine my remarks in this debate to the belated recognition by the federal government of the role it can play in urban matters. I was very happy to read the statements made by the government in the speech from the throne as well as the remarks made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on May 10 with respect to providing a better urban environment for the citizens of this country. There was reference to the provision of open spaces and the calling of a federal-provincial inquiry. I intend to limit my remarks to what I believe are the urgent problems of the cities and some steps toward a solution of them.
In recent years Canadians have become aware of something fundamentally wrong with our urban areas. H. G. Wells saw the signs at the turn of the century when he said:
You will find that many people who once slept and worked and reared their children and worshipped and bought all in one area are now, as it were, delocalized; they have overflowed their containing locality and they live in one area, they work in another, and they go to shop in a third. And the only way in which you can localize them again is to expand your areas to their new scale.
Since world war II our prosperity, the increased birth rate, increased immigration and advancing technology have greatly accelerated the process of urban growth in this country. Urban expansion has resulted in a sprawling metropolitan region made possible by the private car, the extension of power and telephone connections, all-weather roads and the lowly septic tank. The symptoms of discomfort of this urban growth are known to all of us: the traffic congestion in the central parts of our cities caused by increased dependence on the private automobile for movement, the rapid decline in systems of mass transit, the shortage of downtown parking space, the strain on the water supply, the great expense of providing means of sewage disposal, the spectacle of an affluent society permitting suburban development without adequate parks or recreational space, the enormous increase in school costs; the deterioration of large industrial, commercial and residential areas in the central areas of cities and the decline of central business districts.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
These are but a few of the irritations and problems of our metropolitan areas. The forces which have created the metropolitan explosion will not abate in the near future. We face a crisis of political and social reorganization. Fdr Canada today is now an urban nation. In 1961, 70 per cent of the population
May 12, 1967

The Address-Mr. Macaluso resided in urban areas. It is estimated that by 1975 some 80 to 85 per cent will reside in or around urban metropolitan areas. The movement from rural to urban areas continues at a rapid pace.
Canada has become one of the most highly urbanized countries in the world today. Thus the lives of the vast majority of Canadians are greatly affected by the condition of our cities, the quality of the homes in which they live, the ease of transportation, the opportunity for education, access to recreation, and so forth.
A United Nations report in 1965 stated that next to war the problem of all urban areas was the most consequential question facing the governments of the world. Yet, Mr. Speaker, for all their importance, and considering the many problems that they face and will face in the future, our cities have been somewhat neglected by the federal and provincial governments.
The federal government cannot afford any longer to ignore our urban and metropolitan areas, and this is recognized in the speech from the throne. More than 40 per cent of our population now lives and works in our 18 largest city areas in this country with populations over 100,000. The metropolitan environment today has assumed a large and growing significance in Canadian social and economic life. Thus, Mr. Speaker, remedies on a national level are necessary if the problems of our cities and our metropolitan areas are to be solved within a reasonable time. I suggest that the federal government must come to play an increasingly significant role in urban affairs to fill a governmental and financial vacuum.
It is the city and our metropolitan areas with which we will have to deal in the last 30 years of this century. Lewis Mumford, that great student and interpreter of city affairs, has said:
We must restore to the city the maternal, life-nurturing functions, the autonomous activities, the symbiotic associations that have long been neglected or suppressed. For the city should be an organ of love; and the economy of cities is the cure and culture of men.
The problems of metropolitan regions today are national in scope; yet no one is responsible for making sure that all the federal programs which impinge on our metropolitan and urban regions make part of a coherent whole. Nor is anyone responsible for making sure that all the provincial programs fit into a general scheme. Within the metropolitan region itself no authority exists which has the 
power to harmonize local plans by the local governments in that metropolitan region.
It is time we raised the basic question of how we in this country can get an institutional framework which will make it possible to treat the metropolitan region as a coherent whole, as we must. This means that we must have new groupings of governmental authority. No longer can we tolerate independent power sources, each with the capacity to thwart the rational development of the whole. Conflicting opinions about the future of the metropolitan area are desirable but conflict without a referee, I suggest, is like a street brawl in which everyone loses. We must invent machinery of government with sufficient power to resolve these inevitable conflicts.
What are some of the problems of the city and our metropolitan areas, Mr. Speaker? I would list them as follows: First of all, there is the movement of people from rural to urban areas and, second, from the centre of cities to the suburbs. Urban population growth has severely strained the existing physical forms and structures of our cities. Provision of basic housekeeping services, light, water, sewage, police and fire protection, are major burdens on the financial capacity of municipal governments which have had to rely for their revenue on the archaic real property tax to deal with today's complex and expensive problems. Also the existence of poverty is a very real consideration in every Canadian city. It retards growth of our cities and drains scarce resources from use in improving facilities and services.
Large scale movement of people into the central cores from rural areas and through immigration has thus introduced serious problems for our local governments in just maintaining satisfactory standards of simple, everyday services and has expanded the problem of dealing with the many disadvantaged Canadians who still just exist in the midst of today's affluence. However, Mr. Speaker, the increase in population in urban Canada has not been followed by a similar increase of urban political control, especially in provincial legislatures across the country. There is across Canada gross underrepresentation of the urban areas. This is the reason, I suggest, that provincial legislatures have been largely insensitive to urban problems and incapable of providing leadership and direction. Even within cities themselves the ability of local government machinery to provide real leadership is sadly lacking. Our system of local government is the classic case of horse and buggy methods in a space age.
May 12. 1967	COMMONS
One of the distinctive characteristics of Canadian cities and our metropolitan areas-and it is a sad one-is their extensive, spatial dimensions. They spread all over the countryside. It has been said that the automobile has been the magic carpet to whisk us out to the universal dream world of green grass and open spaces. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been the magic genie that supplies the wherewithal for every man's castle. The result has been a vast explosion of building and people in the suburbs of our cities, closely followed by a similar movement of retail, commercial and industrial outlets who must go where the people are. May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Speaker, at one o'clock I was discussing the vast explosion of buildings and people in our suburbs and the resulting serious problems in our cities and metropolitan areas. The exodus to the urban fringes has seriously affected the central core of our cities and has resulted in lost business, a decline in the economic base and in difficulties in maintaining adequate standards for those who are left behind, the poor, the aged, the disabled and those not able to afford housing in the urban fringes. We must face the difficulties and complexities created by downtown deterioration and blight which depress whole communities and endanger their economic prospects.
Second, I wish to deal with housing. The supply of adequate housing for everyone ought to be our objective and we ought to achieve it in this year of planning. The construction boom of the fifties and sixties has left untouched the need for low cost modern housing. We will not solve anything by building so-called low cost houses on high cost land. Through planning our urban growth in advance we ought to be able to build low cost houses on low cost land, thus easing the lot of the middle income earner and the poor. Nevertheless there is a difference between supplying the housing needs of an area and creating decent areas in which our citizens can live. To our housing projects we must add commercial, industrial, business and service establishments, and we must add them on a scale which will fill the needs of those living in the area. There must be adequate access to
DEBATES	147
The Address-Mr. Macaluso a full range of housing. Also, there must be adequate access to a full range of work.
Our attempts at urban renewal, rehabilitation and conservation are not enough. It is not good enough to build office buildings and luxury apartments and leave the family needing a decent, low-cost house in the lurch. Too often, in erecting low-cost housing projects, we attach the stigma: "These are houses for the poor." That cannot be tolerated, Mr. Speaker. We have not yet begun to face the crisis of the city's centre and the housing shortage that exists therein. No level of government has launched a full scale attack on this problem.
The third subject I wish to deal with, also involving the centre of our cities, is urban transportation. In a world that is becoming increasingly urbanized the most critical of all problems involves urban transportation. Henry Ford once said, "we shall solve the city problem by leaving the city," and he provided the means for that. The automobile, however, is capable of coming back to the city. There is growing evidence that traffic congestion strangles the growth of many of this continent's great cities because total transportation needs have been neglected.
The automobile which moves in metropolitan areas is no respecter of boundaries. It passes indiscriminately through county, township, suburb and the central part of the city, and each of these areas has its own type of government. The attempt to reconcile the frequently opposed interests of all these levels of local government, while attempting to pay due regard to private interests, complicates the solution of urban transportation problems. Communication is the life blood of the city. Transportation is the key to whether the city will continue to serve as a unifying core for its surrounding metropolitan regions or whether it will be utterly fragmented. The basic dilemma is that the building of more and more transportation facilities to keep the central core accessible may carve so much space out of the heart of the city that little worth while will remain.
* (2:40 p.m.)
The birth rate of the automobile is far in excess of that of mankind itself and threatens to push the human population on this continent into a tight corner. Victor Gruen, the noted architect and planner, had this to say about the automobile:
The space required from birth (manufacturing plant) to the death (automobile cemetery) and the intervening needs for moving, storing, housing,
148	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Macaluso repairing, beauty care, mechanical health of the automobile are such that the total expenditures made for these purposes are higher than the analogous ones for human beings.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, in spite of having been invented and constructed as a means of mobility the automobile has robbed us of that very mobility in our city centres and surrounding metropolitan areas by congesting streets and highways. Of course, many of the costs of congestion cannot be calculated. How does one estimate the cost of strained nerves, frayed tempers and depression in experiencing or even contemplating the traffic ordeal?
We have approached this problem in our cities in two ways, first by fleeing to the suburbs and thus bringing about the scat-terization of our cities and, second, by surrendering to the automobile by expanding and broadening our streets, by demolishing human habitation, destroying our parks, bisecting established communities, and by giving over more and more human living space in the form of car storage areas, parking lots and garages, service stations and repair shops, to the automobile. However, Mr. Speaker, both of these actions have not pacified the insatiable appetite of the automobile. That appetite has nearly succeeded in destroying the desirable qualities of cities and has converted many of our city cores into economic graveyards and our suburban areas into monotonous cultural deserts. Cars, Mr. Speaker, do not pay property taxes but buildings do, and where automobiles have taken over our city streets revenues have been lost to our local governments.
The automobile as a means of urban transport is probably going to stay with us and even grow in importance, at least for the foreseeable future. Thus we will have to devise ways and means of living in the automobile age but still remain masters of our environment. The solution, I suggest, is not complete dependence on the private automobile but upon a co-ordinated system of transport where both the private automobile and public mass transportation can assume their proper roles. We will have to reorganize our urban pattern and our entire approach to land usage in our cities and metropolitan areas.
Transportation facilities have always had a dominant effect on urban land use and therefore on the shape and character of cities. There is a close relationship between transportation, land use and urban development.
Urban development in Canada is still largely determined by the undirected forces of 
DEBATES	May 12, 1967
necessity and expediency. What is needed to come to grips with the problem of urban transportation, just as it is with the problem of urban housing and development, is the use of urban planning. At present we do not really plan our cities. Urban planning has been given lip service in most Canadian cities. I speak as a former alderman in the city of Hamilton, and I know that every city hall across the country has filing cabinets and shelves full of expensive plans gathering dust. When I speak of planning I speak of the need to establish basic objectives for the growth and development of the city, objectives based on expected needs in housing, business, industry, education, transportation and culture, and these arrived at by discussion and participation at all levels of government and with the citizens themselves.
Many have come to learn the lesson that if you pick up one urban problem and start to unravel it you discover pretty soon that the urban environment is all of one piece and you have the whole business left in your hands. They have come to learn that a comprehensive approach is necessary. Comprehensive planning at all levels of government-I notice this was one of the matters discussed by the Prime Minister in his speech in the house on May 10-means that neither growth in the metropolitan fringes nor decay in the older areas of the central city can be sorted out conveniently and considered alone. They are interdependent and it is now generally agreed that urban area planning must be comprehensive and must include planning of transportation facilities. Transportation planning must embrace the complete transportation system of an area; otherwise it makes no sense.
I turn now to the other problem of the urban areas, that of municipal taxation. The cores of our metropolitan areas are the victims of the financial squeeze that develops as population moves out to the suburbs. Decentralization of population takes with it a large chunk of the city's support by way of real property taxes, and at the root of the urban financial difficulty is the narrowness and rigidity of the base upon which the tax burden rests. Thus we must find ways to eliminate the financial problem which threatens municipalities and leads them to place obstacles in the path of urban development undertakings.
What is needed is an overhaul of the system of taxation for urban areas, and it is needed urgently. Far greater assistance is
May 12. 1967

needed from senior levels of government, especially in the areas of housing, transportation, parks, recreation and open spaces. There is no doubt that the problems of the city and of the people within it cannot be met without a much larger commitment of funds by the senior levels of government. With the major bite from municipal revenues taken for education costs and with the demand for services in new and old areas of the city, local governments usually have little, if anything, left over to build and create decent communities for their citizens. One way of doing this, and I support this proposition, is the deducting from income tax of residential real property taxes which our citizens pay to their municipalities.
Another problem is that the outward expansion of the urban areas has created its own particular form of political headache. As the urban metropolitan area grows it absorbs many smaller towns and municipalities, all governed by their own leaders who are more often than not parochial in attitude. Thus the means of governing this complete fabric is divided into many jurisdictions which, more often than not, compete rather than co-operate on mutual problems.
This competition retards the over-all development and implementation of any over-all plan or design for the metropolitan area because of the jealousies and the conflicting standards of land use, zoning, etc. Thus, Mr. Speaker, the progress, growth and development of our cities often depend on the task of getting from five to 20 different municipalities, with different political jurisdictions, harnessed and pulling together. We must devise ways and means of improving our political structure and putting metropolitan areas under one political jurisdiction.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, to meet the multitude of urban problems requires the full scale attack of all levels of government. Our approach to urban problems can be a shining example of creative federalism in action, with each area of government working and acting in a way which best complements the activity of the other, a nation-wide approach in which all three levels of government would jointly share in the establishment of policy and planning programs. Thus there must be an integrated, co-operative attack involving all levels and resources of government.
What is the basic problem of urbanization in Canada in this our centennial year? As I see it, it is nothing less than the building of a new Canada. It involves a complete recasting of the urban environment in which most

The Address-Mr. Macaluso Canadians will live. By the year 2000 something like five million people will live in a metropolitan area connecting Oshawa, Toronto, Kitchener, Hamilton, and the Niagara peninsula to Fort Erie. By the year 2000 Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Montreal, St. John's and Halifax will account for most of our population and they will all, I emphasize, be on the metropolitan scale.
Thus it will be readily seen that if we want decent living conditions we must plan the form which these areas are to take in terms of their physical growth. Cities are the outward expression of the values and the attitudes of a civilization. Strong metropolitan planning at all levels of government is essential for the new Canada. Mr. Speaker, what better challenge is there to Canadians in our centennial year than the challenge to plan and build new towns in and around our largest cities? New towns planned in advance of need will provide us with the opportunity to solve the urban problems as stated earlier of supplying adequate housing for everyone. With new towns of adequate size we could plan ahead for school sites and parkland and preserve each new town against decay by surrounding it with useful and functional green belts.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Some of the remarks which I have made previously in this house I should like to put forward again now. These are a few suggested solutions: First of all, I believe the first priority should be the creation on a major cabinet level of a department to handle housing and urban affairs. I believe this should be the spearhead in attacking the problems of cities. It would combine all aspects of urban involvement undertaken by the federal government, for example, by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, by urban transportation authorities, by municipal governments and so on.
This department would co-ordinate the various urban programs throughout the country and establish comprehensive objectives and priorities. It would sponsor research and experimental and demonstration projects in order to find solutions to urban problems. It would take the lead in arranging and formulating an effective working relationship at all levels of government in dealing with urban matters. Further, it would develop and recommend policies for fostering the orderly growth and development of our urban areas.
May 12, 1967

The Address-Mr. Macaluso It would provide technical assistance and information which would include a clearing house service to aid provincial and municipal governments in developing solutions to community and metropolitan development problems. It would conduct continuing comprehensive studies and make available findings with respect to problems of housing and urban development.
Certainly in the field of research and trained personnel increased research is essential to identify and better understand the forces causing the problems of central city deterioration and suburban sprawl and to provide a basis for program improvements which will bring about workable solutions. The federal government should establish a fund for urban studies so that grants could be made to the various universities for the creation of institutes and special programs devoted to research and teaching of urban affairs.
The problems of urban areas are of increasing scope and complexity. Our universities must be major participants in this respect and must establish centres where there will be accumulated the best data and analyses available. They must also be actively engaged in the training of men and women in urban culture and its problems.
Third, as I said in a speech on April 20 this year dealing with urban transportation, there should be a federal-provincial conference on urban affairs to set up task forces to study the various aspects of urban problems. Those taking part in these task forces should include federal, provincial and municipal government experts, various non-governmental experts and members of the general public. They should be commissioned to search out immediate and long-range needs and to suggest solutions. I was pleased to see in the speech made by the Prime Minister that this is being considered by the government.
With regard to urban transportation there is an immediate need for the establishment of a transportation policy for both intercity and intracity communication. I certainly hope, with the new commission set up under the national transportation legislation, that the research branch might be able to undertake this. Provision of mass transit in cities goes completely unaided by government despite the fact that it often is penalized through taxation while other modes have all kinds of subsidies. Thus, a program of mass transit assistance by the federal government is important. The federal government should undertake establishment of a research centre in

urban mass transit and undertake a demonstration project to test out alternatives.
There is a national interest involved in the sound economic development and redevelopment of Canada's urban areas. Our Canadian cities are afflicted by a wide variety of serious problems growing out of a tidal wave of urbanization, industrialization and metropolitan population redistribution. Unfortunately they have been unable by themselves to find adequate solutions to these problems because of financial and jurisdictional limitations.
The responsibilities of the federal government lie in promoting balanced economic growth in Canada. The cities have become the sources of the fastest growth in the Canadian economy. Thus, federal spending on urban matters can be used as an instrument of national policy and federal expression of commitment to material growth, for it is in the urban areas of Canada that the main potentialities of economic growth lie.
The people of Canada have a right to expect the parliament of Canada to do what it was ordered to do, that is, to promote the general welfare of Canadians as a whole. But we are not going to accomplish any of this or do what we want to do unless we work together. Benjamin Franklin said, "You either have to hang together or you are going to hang separately". We either do things together or we do not do them at all. There is not a single problem confronting this nation today of any size which does not require the combined resources of public and private endeavours of the Canadian community-not one. The problems of water pollution cannot be solved by government. The problems of slum clearance cannot be solved by government. The problems of jobs and job opportunities cannot be solved by government. We cannot name one single problem that we can solve in Ottawa, in the provincial capitals, or in the city halls. We cannot solve the problems alone.


The Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Speaker, I have just one more sentence if I may be permitted to continue.


The Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member the permission of the house to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Speaker, we will be judged as a people by how well we handle the next phase of urban development. I believe
May 12. 1967	COMMONS
that we as Canadians will respond to that challenge.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to take part in the throne speech debate because it is a good way to break the ice at the start of each parliamentary session.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question. He spoke about breaking the ice. Is this to be an historic declaration in favour of ice breaking?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I shall have some answers for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) later. I thought the metaphor I used was perhaps appropriate considering the late spring but I had not considered how quickly the hon. gentleman can spring from his seat to interrupt the start of another member's speech.
It is a pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to see you in your place. I might borrow the words of a poet, it is so nice to have you back where you belong.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I would hope that someone would pass along our regret that the deputy chairman of committees of the whole, as reported in the Montreal Gazette, had to reenter hospital in Montreal this morning for an operation. We will miss him and we hope for his speedy return this time with complete recovery.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Jardine McCleave: While I have used poetic words in respect of our officers I do not use them in respect of the throne speech. It could have been a stirring call to Canadianism. Instead I compare it to a menu with many items which have appeared so constantly in the past, such as the Canada Development Corporation, that they now have become a sort of Liberal helping of hash.
I should like to compliment the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) and the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Cote) for their very interesting and well delivered speeches in initiating this debate. I believe they were most effective when they brought before us their own particular fields of knowledge. If I differ in any way with the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo it would be in respect of his remarks on youth and its disillusionment with things political today. I suggest that perhaps one reason for the disillu-
DEBATES	151
The Address-Mr. McCleave sionment is the gentlemen with whom the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo now finds himself associated. Solemn promises were made in regard to some $10 million for university scholarships but these promises have not been kept. Surely that would disillusion anyone. I have also heard the cry that there are not sufficient facilities available at universities or colleges to look after those students who would be the recipients of the $10 million in scholarships. That is a feeble excuse for not educating our young men and women. Many of them v/ill not receive the necessary education simply because there are not sufficient facilities, e (3:00 p.m.)
Many members on all sides of the house, including the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson), have areas of poverty in their constituencies. I have such areas in my constituency and I know that the only way the vicious cycle of poverty which has encompassed some families for several generations can be overcome is by providing higher education to the young boys and girls. Of all the sins of omission that this government has committed this is the most conspicuous. No wonder the youth of this country are disillusioned with this government.
The throne speech made no reference to the problems confronting maritime transportation. We dealt with that aspect of national transportation at some length last year. Yesterday I directed the following question to the Minister of Transport:
-would the Minister of Transport assure that legislation relating to maritime transportation will be dealt with in this centennial session?
His answer was:
I could not possibly give such an assurance, Mr. Speaker. It would be very presumptuous on my part to say what this house would deal with.
We all realize that the government initiates and proposes legislation which this house eventually disposes of, and I was surprised to hear the hon. gentleman make that kind of remark. I hope he will now pop up in his seat as he did at the beginning of my speech to indicate that such legislation will indeed be brought before the house during this session. Surely that was an assurance we were given last year.
We do know that the special study on maritime transportation had some reference to the Minister of Transport's empire because Mr. Victor Gruen of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald referred to some very interesting points uncovered by that study. I hope the
May 12, 1967

The Address-Mr. McCleave minister will not engage in some of his puzzling magic but rather come to grips with these problems and place a solution before us. I will have more to say about this subject later.
Also conspicuous by its absence from the throne speech was the so-called war on poverty. Apparently the knights in their shining armour have crawled back into their Cadillacs and left this field.
I should like to compliment the last speaker on a truly excellent speech. Let me second the ideas presented by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Maoaluso) on urban development. There is some reference to this subject in the throne speech. I feel that if some imagination and common sense can be found by members on the government side, of which there is some doubt, something could be done in this field. The hon. member referred to Victor Gruen's work, with which I am familiar. He is a man who seems to have the idea that we can save our large cities from stagnation and decay, and I hope that everyone will read what the last speaker said in this regard.
I do not intend to repeat what the last speaker said about Mr. Gruen's work but I should like to refer to one statement Mr. Gruen has said that for every car that moves into the heart of our large cities in North America one individual is driven out. That is paradoxical because one would think that every car moving in would bring in the number of people that can be carried by that vehicle. Nevertheless Mr. Gruen has proven his statement to be accurate, particularly in the older downtown areas. I hope that government will show some imagination in tackling problems relating to urban development.
In recent days I have travelled from coast to coast and have discovered an interesting fact. In this jet age one can have three breakfasts while travelling across Canada before having lunch. I left Halifax at five o'clock on Monday morning and arrived in Victoria, B.C. by one o'clock. I had breakfast before I left home, breakfast on the jet to Toronto and breakfast on the jet between Toronto and Edmonton. The unnerving part of the whole trip was the cloud cover over the whole area which prevented me from looking down to see precisely where I was at any moment. I really did not feel I was getting any closer to Victoria. Fortunately the stewardess eventually came with a lunch tray so I knew I was making some progress against the hours of the day. During my trip I discovered that the

question most often asked across Canada was: Have you been to Expo or are you going to Expo?
I think Expo will undoubtedly be a gem in the crown of our centennial year and something of which Canadians may be very proud. Perhaps I say too much about Expo, but if I do I do so because of a man who was a member of this house at one time but became a victim of the foolish perversity with which we treat each other very often. I refer to a former associate minister of national defence. As I recall, he was the one who brought the first legislative measure dealing with Expo before this house. He had a pretty miserable time here, and his wife, daughter and two sons must have gone through hell last year. They can now travel through Montreal looking at what this gentleman at least in part accomplished.
I think the mood of parliament has changed from that of last year. Some reporters have suggested that we have since then redeemed ourselves, and I believe they are probably correct. We are now living in an era which requires a streamlining of our procedures. Let me put forward my own thoughts in this regard. We should use time allocation as an experiment when we are not dealing with issues which drive us apart as parliamentarians. We should only use this method of streamlining our procedure after the five parties in this house have learned to work together in a more disciplined manner. Perhaps initially we should experiment with allocation of time after the committees of this house have had a good hard look at legislative proposals. I presume that even after the broadcasting committee has dealt thoroughly with the proposed amendments to the Broadcasting Act we in this house will still have a great deal to say about them. Divorce has been considered carefully and is a subject about which there are a great many opinions. Perhaps in this case, as in others, time allocation can be applied without any injury to the legislation itself or to the rights of members to express their opinions in this house.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
On the other hand, the training bill which we dealt with a few days ago did not go to a committee in the first place and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mar-chand) came forward with about a dozen amendments to a bill of some 24 clauses. Obviously this sort of bill could not be dealt with under an allocation of time formula. With allocation of time we might wind up
May 12, 1967	COMMONS
with three quarters of the bill passed but with some six or seven amendments that should be made still outstanding. I suggest that if we utilize time allocation we should do so in non-contentious areas first so we can see how it works and without everybody getting into a real dander and froth. This is a sort of discipline that we somehow have to impose upon ourselves, especially in an age of proliferation of parties.
I mentioned the divorce bill. I suggest to the house leader that he try to secure agreement from all parties in respect of this bill. I think this would be possible. In this connection I believe the joint committee with the other place should be reactivated as quickly as possible. We are working against a fairly tough schedule. We have a lot of tough ideas to deal with. I should not say tough ideas, but we have at least five major areas with which we have to deal in this connection, and I think the sooner we get at it the better it will be from the point of view of helping all those people who need help. In this country there are some 60,000 deserted people who have been crying out for relief and have not been able to find any under our present archaic system.
I make only one other comment in respect of this field which has been a specialty of mine for nine years. The legislation we bring in will be a monument to our oldest parliamentarian, Hon. A. W. Roebuck who, at 89 years of age, is in the other place one of the top performers on parliament hill. I do not propose to say what he will suggest to the committee and parliament except that if accepted it will bring us from the dark ages to the best divorce law in the civilized world.
I spoke about wasted human resources and the 60,000 deserted people in Canada. In a way they are wasted or at least crippled human resources. Most of them are unable to set up new liaisons and bring forth new families but are damaged cogs in the wheel of an archaic system.
Dealing with the unused human resources in Canada, I hope we can place a different emphasis on our thinking with regard to the war on poverty. I hope we can do what the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) has sugggested in the past and call a national conference on human resources, on what can be done to help the retarded, the crippled, the people who suffer disabilities, so they can play their part in the development of a greater Canada. But, Mr. Speaker, I would not approach that problem with a particular emphasis on welfare. I would treat it as a
DEBATES	153
The Address-Mr. McCleave somewhat larger problem, perhaps from the standpoint of an economic one, so that everybody no matter what his abilities can at least give the best of himself or herself to this Canada of ours.
I should now like to deal with local problems. Yesterday the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse) mentioned the idea of lobster trap depots at different places along the coast of Nova Scotia. The common sense of this idea lies in the fact that the lobster seasons are different and therefore the equipment can be transferred from one place to another without seriously dislocating the operation of any lobster fisherman. This idea was first conceived by my colleague from Halifax, the other hon. member from my city. It was because he could not be here that he suggested the idea to our friend from Queens-Lunenburg who is an expert in the fishing industry. The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg certainly presented the idea very well yesterday. I do not labour it except to say that we have talked with lobster fishermen and they seem to think it is a good idea. Therefore I commend it to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud).
Now I come to my beloved friend, the jumper-up from Bonavista-Twillingate, and transportation problems of Atlantic Canada. We have gone through a winter that from the standpoint of employment in two of the great ports of Canada had to be seen and still could only be disbelieved. The potential of those ports in the handling of general and special cargoes was not utilized to the extent to which it has been in recent years. I hope the Minister of Transport will be able to get the study being made out from behind closed doors and take some action before another winter season sets in, because the stevedores and longshoremen of Halifax and Saint John will simply not put up with what they have had to put up with this year.
The economics are now so out of joint that a ship with a cargo destined for Montreal waited in Halifax harbour for three or four days. We have a general idea of the expense involved in a ship waiting in harbour for several days for ice to clear so that it may go to Montreal and unload its cargo. Yet we have the Maritime Freight Rates Act and a good rail system between Halifax and Montreal. One would have thought that the railway in co-operation with the shipping authorities would have got that cargo to Montreal a few days earlier. But this was not to
May 12, 1967

The Address-Mr. McCleave be. This was one of the most shattering experiences in what was a most miserable year for one of our great ports and one of the great national assets of this country.
A few days ago the minister provided information on the experiments with hovercraft in this country. I think the department should be encouraged to proceed with more haste and perhaps even more zip in testing hovercraft. They are not only useful in southern Canada but they might be the one great way of solving transportation problems in the north. A hovercraft can best be described as a sort of automobile that can be used on water, snow, tundra or anything that has a reasonably level surface to be used as its highway. It is as manoeuvrable as an automobile. If big ships are setting a course toward each other and are even miles apart they can still collide because of their inertia and the difficulty of manoeuvring. But a hovercraft is as manoeuvrable as your automobile, sir, and mine. It can stop very quickly within its own length. It can carry out very fast manoeuvres and changes in direction on water. I suggest it is not only the answer to transportation problems such as exist between Saint John and Digby, Nova Scotia, in the Minas Basin, and even the shorter runs such as in Halifax harbour but might be used on the Northumberland strait or some of the wide rivers of Canada and in the northland. I hope the minister will eagerly seize the chance to test hovercraft without delay in Canada's north.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit me to respond by saying that I made arrangements yesterday to visit the hovercraft factory in the Isle of Wight and test hovercraft on June 2.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, the minister has done me a very great favour because I can throw that part of my speech away, which I accordingly do. I am grateful to the minister because I am running out of time. You cast your bread forth upon the waters and sometimes it comes back ill "bread" and at other times it comes back well "bread".


John Whitney Pickersgill: In a hovercraft.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Robert Jardine McCleave: I have such a wealth of material to deal with that I am in some difficulty in choosing what to use as I believe I have only five more minutes left.
First of all I would like to deal with the problem of the restoration of the Sambro

lightship to its position outside Halifax harbour. The minister and his department have made the point that the most efficient aids to navigation in the world are outside that harbour at the present time. This is quite true and I do not quarrel with that at all. There are lights on Sambro island, Chebucto Head, Devils island and Maugher beach. The new fog signal on Sambro island, together with the fog signal at Chebucto Head and Maugher beach and the whistle and bell buoys, provide adequate sound signals for navigation during periods of low visibility. A new powerful radio beacon is in operation on Sambro Island and a radio marker beacon is situated on Hartlen Point. In addition to all of this there is excellent coverage by the Loran and Decca navigation systems. So no ship need approach Halifax harbour with any reluctance.
However, I think the point that must be made-and I am thinking of the Cape Bonnie tragedy in which 18 or 19 men lost their lives-is that even with all the aids the small fishing vessel may get itself in difficulties. I am sorry to see that the minister did not accept the suggestion which was advanced by the fishermen in the area, by Rear Admiral Pullen, by my colleague, by myself and by the hon. member for Lunenburg-Queens as well as by others. However, since time is running out I will deal with that matter later.
Then there is the situation at the dockyard in Halifax but that also will have to be dealt with later. All I will say now is that it is regrettable that while the workers in the ship repair classification have been given increases, those in motor transport and the labourers have not. This will have to be dealt with at a later time because I wish to conclude with the following thoughts.
This is our centennial year which I hope will afford an opportunity for Canadians to travel and see their country. I should like to mention four or five places which I think it would be interesting for any person to visit. I have seen them all since the start of this year. First I should like to mention the gardens at Saanich and Victoria on Vancouver island. I was driving around there on Monday, Tuesday and part of Wednesday and I found only one place where the home owner had not mowed his lawn. This area was most attractive. There were rock gardens in one place and right next door regular gardens. It was a sight for sore eyes, particularly eyes which have been made sore by the long Canadian winter through which we have gone in the less fortunate parts of Canada.
May 12, 1967

Another place which I should like to recommend is Niagara Falls where man has conquered nature and used such vast amounts of water for the purpose of hydro development. People do not believe me when I say this, but I am assured it is true, that man has done so well that the water can be turned off at night if necessary. A certain amount of water is always allowed to trickle over the falls because honey-mooners want to see it, but at night it is not so essential and at times of drought it can be slowed down, if necessary, to a mere trickle. I do not believe it has ever been cut off entirely but I am told this is possible.
Then I must speak of a visit to my friend Freddy, the largest lobster in captivity. I met Freddy in the biological station of the Department of Fisheries at St. Andrews, New Brunswick. He is the largest lobster in captivity. I would imagine he is completely inedible; he looks pretty tough to me but he is a friendly fellow. He likes to see people. He flips his claws in the water and splashes water in people's faces when they go to see him. I believe he weighs about 50 pounds, which is a heck of a lot of lobster, though people are better off with 50 small lobsters than one large Freddy. When he sees people he puts on a performance. There is a bit of ham in Freddy, the largest lobster in captivity.
Probably there is some ham in me because I would also suggest a visit to the Halifax area which is particularly nice in summertime when heat waves hit the rest of the country. I would suggest a tour along the eastern shore to a small place called Ship Harbour where there is a lovely harbour. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing) and his department and the provincial government are working on the development of a national park there. I believe this will be one of the great recreational areas, particularly for eastern North America, and I certainly urge everybody to go and see it, both before and after it becomes a park.
Finally, all of us must see of course the great city of Montreal and mighty Expo '67, the jewel in our centennial crown which will show us the achievements of which we as Canadians are capable and will bring us all together in this centennial year. Perhaps I could interject at this point a more prosaic note. Let me say first of all that I am not advancing a new idea but one which has been mentioned previously and about which people have written to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp). I am referring to the idea that in some way the cost of Expo trips be allowed as
The Address-Mr. Dube an income tax deduction. Perhaps the minister may be able to apply such a scheme not only to trips to Expo but to any trips this year which take Canadians from one province to another. It has been a late spring but this may be a harbinger of a very fine summer. In any event it behooves us in this great country of ours to see that as parliamentarians we play our part. I am sure this will bring us all together with a greater sense of pride in being Canadian.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to exercise my right under the rules. I did not want to bob up a third time while the hon. gentleman was speaking but I wish to say- and I accuse him of nothing but good faith -that he exaggerated to a certain extent what I said and certainly anything I ever intended about legislation with respect to maritime transportation. I did say that I hoped there might be a possibility of dealing with this matter, in the initial stage at any rate, before the end of this year, but I would not expect it to be disposed of in this session. I believe the transportation study will be ready and generally available about the end of this month. I am trying very hard to get it completed. I feel the study will require a lot of examination and perhaps rather heated debate before any of us will feel very confident about what is the right thing to do, and it is perhaps more important to do what is right than to do it in a rush.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Jean-Eudes Dube (Resiigouche-Mada-waslca):: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I should like to extend my most sincere congratulations to the mover and to the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
The former spoke with the eloquent and earnest voice of a Newfoundlander who is proud of his new country; the latter told us with freshness and humility, but with clearness, about the aspirations of a genuine Quebec farmer.
Both of them carried out their duty outstandingly well. Both raised the prestige of this house and gave a very propitious impetus to this centennial session.
In my capacity as representative of one of the northern ridings of New Brunswick, I was very happy to note that some of the legislation as proposed in the speech from the throne directly affects our region. I refer more particularly to the statement that the

May 12, 1967
The Address-Mr. Dube federal and provincial governments will join in a major regional planning effort in northeastern New Brunswick through the Fund for Rural and Economic Development, better known as FRED. I hope this unequivocal and specific confirmation will re-assure our people that both governments intend to proceed immediately and actively with the development of the pilot region.
Mr. Speaker, it was on September 20 last, in Fredericton, that the first cannon shot went off, confirming the declaration of war against poverty.
That is the time and place where the federal and provincial ministers signed the agreement to implement the development program of the northeastern area of New Brunswick. It was the first plan of that kind in the country and, if I am not mistaken, the first try at rural planning in North America.
That agreement was signed under ARDA, passed by parliament here in 1961, and more immediately under the Fund for Rural Economic Development Act passed by the Canadian parliament last May.
The Fredericton agreement binds the two governments to co-operate in a joint program and to set up the administrative machinery needed to implement it.
I am particularly interested in the pilot area, Mr. Speaker, because it includes the ridings of Restigouche and Gloucester as well as the parish of Alnwick in the neighbouring riding of Northumberland. That area was chosen because it meets the requirements: low incomes and excellent development possibilities.
The two areas of Dalhousie-Campbellton and Bathurst-Belledune have welcomed in the last few years new industries including Radio Engineering at Atholville, Restigouche Abattoir at Campbellton, CIL and Allied Chemicals at Dalhosuie as well as a vast chemical and steel complex at Belledune.
Enlarged pulp and paper facilities will be provided at Atholville and Dalhousie, and the latter is also to have a new seaport.
New mineral deposits have recently been discovered in the area and large sums of money have been and are to be invested in their extraction, especially in the vicinity of Bathurst-Belledune and Upsalquitch.
However, the adjoining areas, including the town of Campbellton, which is a railway and commercial centre, do not yet fully participate in this new economic expansion.
And so this pilot area is most suitable for a concerted government effort in the field of

planning. As I said earlier, it presents the conditions required: a low income level, great development potential, recent industrial expansion and a population anxious to move ahead.
This desire of the population to participate actively in this pilot project is evident and very stimulating. Regional and local groups have been constituted rapidly and are very active at the moment.
The French-speaking group, CRAN, and the English-speaking group, NRDC, are meeting once a week on a regional basis. Furthermore, several of their local committees get together each month in various localities of the pilot area.
Those tasks forces have received the assistance of leaders, who have analysed the problems in their own regions and put forward concrete projects. Naturally, they expect action from the governments.
I was very pleased to learn last week that one of the pet projects of CRAN and NRDC, as well as of the local chambers of commerce, had been approved and that construction would start as early as July. I am referring to the announcement made by the minister of public works of New Brunswick with regard to the construction of a road section in the area between Saint-Quentin and Bathurst.
Provision had already been made besides, for that proposed section in clause 42 of the Fredericton agreement which reads as follows:
[DOT]-Federal financial assistance for the construction of a road for the development of resources In a westerly direction from Saint-Quentin.
That proposed road, 74 miles long, which will cross an area rich in forest and mine resources, will contribute to development within the pilot area.
Other plans have already been submitted or will be submitted by the planning groups I just mentioned, namely CRAN and NRDC, as well as the chambers of commerce and others, as well as by myself, on various occasions.
But I would like to take advantage of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne to point out once again these projects to the attention of those who have the power to carry them out, and especially those who will be responsible for the implementation of projects in the pilot area, according to the Fredericton agreement I mentioned a moment ago.
The southern region of Restigouche constituency, through its geography and its economic situation, is particularly handicapped. I
May 12, 1987

note that the speech from the throne states as follows:
The government will also take special measures in particular designated areas where human resources are not adequately utilized-
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Parliament, therefore, will be invited to broaden the scope of the area development incentive program and to provide increased funds for it.
We know that under the ADA (Area Development Agency), not to be confused With ARDA, new industries coming into designated areas may benefit from a federal grant equivalent to one third of the cost of establishment. The region I am speaking of, being a pilot area as well as a designated area, can benefit from both these programs.
It is encouraging, Mr. Speaker, to note in the speech from the throne that the government will not only maintain its industrial assistance but that such aid will be increased in designated areas.
We hope that all this assistance will help bring new undertakings in our area.
Returning to the south Restigouche area and the projects to be undertaken in that area under the Fredericton agreement, the authorities must, I believe, seriously consider the development of blueberry fields in the Kedg-wick area.
Similar projects have been drawn up in the lake St. John district. Blueberry growing, I think, could also be profitable in the Kedg-wick area. Such a program should provide for the preparation of soil, the construction of a cold storage, the organization of producers and the search for markets.
Some years ago, blueberry crops were quite profitable in that district. I do not see why the new operations made on a scientific basis and on a large scale could not be still more successful.
Mr. Speaker, the speech of the throne also stresses that, in the past, governments and individuals built cities, canals, roads and other works, sometimes without considering aesthetics and beauty.
One of the most picturesque corners of this country-and I believe that the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) who spokej before me should add it to the list he proposes to all Canadians to celebrate this centennial year-is the valley of the Restigouche and its tributaries. But we cannot say that this wonderful land has been defaced by too many extensive works. On the contrary, visitors can still enjoy a natural, peaceful landscape and there are tremendous tourist possibilities.
The Address-Mr. Dube
A tourist project called Miscou Trail or Acadian Trail was prepared for the pilot area, by Mr. Raoul Landriault, of Ottawa. It provides for the construction of a tourist and historic route along the south shore of the Restigouche river and the coast of Caraquet. That study provides for the development of parks and hotels scattered along the route. Along the way, as those who visited it, well know, the summer beaches are splendid. There are plenty of hills, mountains and snow for a long skiing season. For the enthusiasts, there is salmon fishing in the summer and deer hunting during the hunting season.
To the Acadian Trail project can be related the park developments in Eel River and Campbellton as proposed by the local committees of the CRAN and NRDC.
I, therefore, strongly suggest to the proper authorities to take advantage of those extraordinary opportunities which are offered to us through the federal-provincial agreement in order to carry out those projects and others.
However, I fully realize that to carry out successfully the planning and development of a pilot area, a great number of studies, preliminary surveys and several millions of dollars are necessary. Since such an amount could be spent only once therefore the first test must be a success because there would not likely be another chance. Furthermore, the future of other pilot areas established elsewhere in the country depends upon the satisfactory result of that initiative. We must not forget in particular that for the remedy to be effective, it must really go to the root of the problem, which is the great weakness of our educational services. People must be prepared to assume positions of responsibility. They must fully participate in the economic recovery of the area.
The Fredericton agreement clearly states that if firm measures are not taken to quickly improve the education and the professional training of the workers, the people of this pilot area will not profit by the new positions that will be offered and will hardly enjoy a better future.
Thus, the agreement provides for, and the province has already started, a widespread amalgamation of schools and school districts and the improvement of teachers' training. A huge program will be undertaken in the field of educational television through the most modern methods.
The federal Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) will provide
May 12, 1987

The Address-Mr. Knowles financial assistance to vocational training for a period of ten years. Furthermore, the prime minister of New Brunswick has already announced that a technical school will be built in the area.
The scheme provides also for a better use of lands, the purchase and reforestation of non-productive farms, the development of fertile farms and the opportunity for rural population to move closer to areas that offer better employment opportunities.
This is then, Mr. Speaker, a scheme both complete and complex, a scheme that will require the mobilization of a great number of experts and specialists and especially the enlistment of all the people's interest, support and dynamism.
It means all-out war against poverty, war where escalation is not only allowed but desirable. Such general mobilization cannot be accomplished overnight. However, if the people are to be patient, it is normal that the government be required to show diligence.
I am told that the three federal deputy ministers who are to be members of the special steering committee provided for in the agreement have already been appointed. The federal and the provincial directors will be appointed shortly. I must emphasize the importance of choosing competent and dynamic directors who know the area well. These two directors will become the real leaders of the program. Finally, the greater part of the burden, the initiative and the achievement will rest on their shoulders.
All the people concerned in that area will be pleased to learn that the services of the internationally known Canadian company Kates, Peat and Marwick, of Montreal, have been retained for programming the undertaking.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding I must repeat that this special development program brings hope to the people of that pilot area. It will give our people an outstanding opportunity to increase their income, get caught up in their education, improve their living conditions and share fully in the affluence of our country. Moreover, the awakening of that wealth which now lies dormant will enrich the whole nation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there are some things in the speech from the throne that I like. I realize that that is a form of heresy when it is uttered by a member on the opposition side of the house, but I should like to assure you that

I will recant the heresy before I sit down. However, may I take a moment or two to underline my suggestion that there are things in this session's speech from the throne that are welcome.
I like its tendency to look to the future and to be concerned about some of the tremendous problems that will face this country and mankind in the decades and in the century that are ahead of us. I like the reference to our needing to be concerned with our Canadian quality of life. I like the concern about our cities, on which the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso) expanded in his speech today. I like the suggestion that the time will come when we must do something to remedy the pollution of our air and water. I am impressed with the suggestion that we harness the miracle of modern science to make a better life for the people of Canada and for those around the world. I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister expand on the idea of a guaranteed annual income for all our people. It was significant that he said the other day that the time might well come when every family-indeed, every person -would have a guaranteed annual income. In other words, we may come to the point where we divorce the right to live, the right to an income, the right to enjoy the things our society can produce, from work as we have known it over the centuries.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
These ideas are good, but the events they envisage will face us so quickly that we ought not to regard them as occurring in the year 2000 or 2067. We are living in times of explosive, catastrophic change, and unless we act decisively we may find, instead of enjoying a golden age, that we will be living in some kind of computerized brave new world which has no concern for the individuals in it.
I welcome the foreward-looking note that is in the speech from the throne but I wish to recant from the heresy of an opposition member finding good in the government's speech from the throne by stating two serious qualifications.
First, there was more truth than jest in the Prime Minister's reference the other day to his tendency to want to look into things. He referred to this tendency as though we ought to praise him for it. Yes, it is good to look into things, but it is not good enough for a government to do only that, and the trouble with this government is that that is all it does. Problems are crowding in on us and we must act now. It is good to look into the
May 12, 1967

future, but the time to do something about that future, if we are to secure it for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren, is now. On this score, this government cannot be trusted.
The other qualification I wish to make is that fine as it is to be concerned with the world of the year 2000 or later, surely we ought not to forget the needs of our people today, the needs that face us in this country and in the world at the present time. I want to refer to a few subjects concerning which there ought to be action now to benefit those poeple who are with us here and now.
May I first refer to a request made this morning by the Leader of the Opposition and supported by my leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlan (Mr. Douglas), that there be presented to parliament with the least possible delay a motion to enable this house to speak to the world about the tragic international situation facing us at this very moment. The words of U Thant cannot be lightly brushed aside or regarded as academic utterances only. The world's top civil servant is telling us that, as he sees it, we are in danger of drifting into world war III. The request made today that this parliament be given a chance to speak out on this issue ought to be granted.
The Prime Minister's reply was that as we are debating the address in reply to the speech from the throne members can speak about this issue to their heart's content. Yes, every member who rises can say something about this issue and may refer to his concern with the deteriorating international situation. But I think-and here I am endorsing what was said by the Leader of the Opposition and by my own leader-that it would be far more effective for parliament to speak by passing a motion, declaring our opposition to the continuing hostilities in Viet Nam, declaring our wishes about the whole situation in that part of the world. The motion need not be debated, or we could settle for a short debate on it. I call on the Prime Minister to give further thought to this matter over the week end. I suggest to him that he call into his office the Leader of the Opposition, my leader-the hon, member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste, the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), and the leader of the Social Credit party, the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson), to see if they cannot agree on the terms of a straightforward resolution that could be presented to this house so that this house may express itself in that more formal and more 27053-ill

The Address-Mr. Knowles direct way. That could be done without much debate, or at most one speaker from each party might speak. I urge on the Prime Minister the proposition that a motion agreed on by the five party leaders and passed by the House of Commons would show more clearly to the world than any desultory debating during the eight days, we spend on the address in reply to the speech from the throne our concern, over this matter.
The future of this country, the future of civilization as we know it, may well depend on the quick resolution of the conflict in Viet Nam. We cannot let this go on for five or ten years because no one can predict what the result might be. I urge the Prime Minister to do something about this matter over the next two or three days.
The next subject I wish to raise, under the heading of wanting parliament to do something for our people who are with us here and now, relates to our senior citizens. During the last session of parliament we discussed pensions for days and weeks on end. I know that the members on the government side think that something wonderful was done when the legislation providing for an old age pension supplement was passed. I know they think that we who attacked the attaching of an income test to that supplement, to the top $30 of what is now the $105 pension, were just indulging in carping criticism. But, Mr. Speaker, many thousands of Canadians now realize how right we were in protesting that income test, that means test as they are calling it. Indeed many thousands of Canadians are already finding out how bitter is the experience to have to report their income and, as a result, in thousands of cases to have the amount of the supplement they get cut down. The dignity our older people were given when we removed the means test 16 or 17 years ago is already being chiselled away by the way in which this income supplement is being administered by the government.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
In addition to the fact that there are thousands of people who in the ordinary way are feeling the indignity of this test, there are some particular cases. I refer first of all to those who are on both war veterans allowance and the old age security pension. The stories we get from these people are tragic and pitiful. In case after case a person is told by the old age security people that the fault lies with the war veterans allowance, but is told by the war veterans allowance people that the fault lies with the old age security administration. The Minister of National
May 12, 1967

The Address-Mr. Knowles Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) was so determined to tell us that things like war veterans allowance would not affect his income supplement that people got the wrong impression, but they are now learning in the fine print from the war veterans allowance people that although they can get the old age pension supplement despite war veterans allowance, they lose part of their war veterans allowance, or all of it, if they get the old age security supplement.
The same sort of conflict is taking place between the federal and provincial authorities. Each one is blaming the other and I suggest this is a far cry from the principle of dignity in old age which parliament established when it decreed that the old age pension in its entirety should be free of a means test of any kind. This could have been avoided in the last session if the government had agreed to make the $105 a month payable to all pensioners as a matter of right, without any means test, and I think this is something we still must do. As a matter of fact the matter can be solved quite readily if the government would agree to a resolution standing in my name which is now on the order paper. It is No. 19 and it reads as follows:
That, in the opinion ol this house, the government should give consideration to amending the Old Age Security Act to provide for the full amount of the income supplement provided thereunder to be incorporated into the basic pension, and for the eligible age to be lowered immediately to 65, so that all persons in Canada 65 years of age or over who meet the residence requirements will receive the full pension of $105 per month without any income test, the full amount of the old age security pension thus being recognized as a matter of right.
While I am dealing with pensions, Mr. Speaker, and again thinking in terms of the needs of people who are with us here and now, I urge the government to act immediately on the report that was made on the last day of the last session by the joint committee on the public service of Canada, calling for increases in the pensions of retired civil servants. It has taken a long while to get this recommendation placed before parliament and the government. I hope the government will act on it immediately.
There are other groups that should receive similar consideration. I think for example of retired pensioners of the C.N.R. whose position is very similar to that of retired civil servants, and I hope when we get action for the one group we will get action for the other as well.

I am glad to see at long last that there is a reference in the speech from the throne to unemployment insurance amendments. I hope we will not have to wait very long for them. In particular I insist that the rates of benefit provided under that legislation, which have not been changed for the last eight or nine years, should be increased without further delay, and so should the ceiling on the amounts under which people can pay into the unemployment insurance fund.
Medicare is again something members may feel we are through talking about, because it was finally passed during the last session, but it is still a fact that for all the talk about the great century that is ahead of us, the tendency of this government is to put things off. July 1, 1968 may not seem so far away now, some 13 or 14 months, but I insist that is too long to ask our people to wait for the implementation of medicare. I insist that the reasons that prompted the government to delay implementation from July 1, 1967, to July 1, 1968, do not stand, and that the government should use the provision that was written into the act to bring that legislation into effect at an earlier date. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, what are we to take from offers to write such provisions into measures that we are debating? What is the point of such amendments if no use is made of them?
In the same vein I would like to refer to something that the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Muir) asked about on orders of the day this morning, and which I had intended to raise. When we were debating the medical care legislation, we had before us at great length the question of including optometry and other paramedical services under the provisions of that legislation. After a while we got an amendment, and the amendment says clearly that certain other services can be added if an agreement is made between a province and the federal government. When asked about it in the course of the debate, the minister made it clear that this was in the same category as the legislation generally, that there was no need for all or for a majority of the provinces to agree, that just as the legislation itself as a whole could come into effect in one province if only one province agreed to it, so these additional services could be added by an agreement between any one province and the federal government.
That is in the act. It is in the statement that the minister made when we were debating it; but now when it becomes an issue, when some of the provinces have appealed to the
May 12, 1967

federal government to make agreements, the minister says we must wait until there is a consensus of the provinces. That is an interesting word. It was not defined by the minister as to whether it means two or three, the majority, or all of the provinces. But I submit it casts a very bad light back on the kind of thing done in the debate on medicare when in two cases we got amendments which the government is now apparently prepared to do nothing about.
In the one case there was an amendment to make it possible to bring the date forward. We have had no action on that. In the other case there was an amendment to make it possible to bring in paramedical services even if only one province requested them. Now the government says there must be a consensus. I understand that a number of the provinces, three or perhaps four, have already requested that certain branches of optometry and perhaps other services be included in the provisions of the Medical Care Act, and I urge that the government realize that these are things that ought to be done because our people need them. They also ought to be done to demonstrate the good faith in which we assumed the government was acting when it agreed to these amendments during debate on the legislation last year.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, these things, the problems of old age pensioners and war veterans allowance recipients, of superannuated civil servants, of retired C.N.R. pensioners, and of people needing medicare, are with us here and now. Many are the problems of old people who helped bring Canada through to the conclusion of its first century. While it is fine to be talking about the future, about the next few decades, about the glorious era of 2067, the responsibility of this parliament is not only to do some thinking and some planning now to cope with the problems of the future, but it is also its responsibility to meet the needs of the people who are with us here and now, and I call for action on the part of the government right now on the questions of a social nature about which I have spoken.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I return to the first plea I made, namely, that over this week end the Prime Minister consider favourably the suggestion that he call together the leaders of the various parties of this house with a view to reaching agreement so that by passing a motion early next week this parliament can speak to the world with a clear voice in expressing our concern that there be an end to the war in Viet Nam,

The Address-Mr. Lachance that there be sanity in international affairs, so that there might be a world for our children and those who come after them.


Mr. Georges C. Lachance (Lafonlaine):: Mr. Speaker, to start with, my first words will be directed to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. members for Burin-Burgeo and Nicolet-Yamaska (Messrs. Jamieson and Cote).
Those two hon. members did not only present works of art but their speeches were also quite interesting and carefully prepared. They are experts in their respective fields, the mover in the media of communication and the seconder in the field of agriculture. I think that the government should call more often on our experts in the House of Commons, so that our bills might be better prepared and better suited to the needs of the Canadian people. Therefore, they do deserve our sincere congratulations.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with several points, in the few minutes available to me during the debate on the address. I do not intend to deal with them according to their relative importance, because all these problems are in my mind of the utmost importance, whatever they may be.
Nevertheless, I think that today in Geneva the representatives of the various countries are gathered to deal with the customs tariff under GATT. This is what is called the Kennedy Hound. Well, I think this is a most important day for world trade and the discussions now taking place are crucial for the outcome of this meeting.
I hope that every member of this house wishes that this meeting should succeed. The time allowed for completion of the discussions will expire in the near future, unless those believe that this is one of the greatest means to raise the standard of living of mankind, concerned agree to go on.
I am a firm believer in free trade, in unfettered commerce throughout the world, and I
I know that our trade minister (Mr. Winters) is in Geneva, and that his experience will serve the cause and help enlighten those who are slow to understand that these talks must achieve some results.
Many questions were touched upon in the speech from the throne Mr. Speaker. It is claimed that it lacks the depth of the preceding one. To my mind, Mr. Speaker, it may be felt that the government after accomplishing
May 12, 1967

[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The Address-Mr. Lachance so much and after having parliament pass a very considerable number of measures that the government in this centennial year has decided to give priority to more human problems.
Constitutional reforms are required and I am surely not the only one to think so. Unemployment insurance should be amended and this project has been shelved for years. I am taking in several items, but I believe that the war in Viet Nam and the steps to be taken to bring it to an end, as well as world peace, are surely among the greatest concerns of the government. They are, by the way mentioned in the speech from the throne.
Customs tariff amendments will undoubtedly follow the Kennedy round. Then, space communications and control of water and air pollution will be dealt with; I consider this one of the most important points of the speech from the throne. I hope the government will act immediately on it. I see that the minister who is responsible for the consideration of this problem is in the house. And, finally, assistance to Canadian consumers will be dealt with.
I do not intend to list all those problems, Mr. Speaker. There is capital punishment also. I had an opportunity to refer to this at other times. I made my views known on this problem, and I do not hesitate to say that, in the last session, I voted for the retention of capital punishment. I regret to a certain extent that the government has decided to settle that matter by leaving us free to defeat or pass not a bill but a private member's bill. I, therefore, have doubts about the result of that free vote.
So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that problem is secondary to the rehabilitation of the inmates. The problem of capital punishment affects only-I say only and I think that I will be criticized by some people for saying it because no one is above criticism, Mr. Speaker-those who have been found guilty of first degree murder after having gone through all the stages before our courts of law up to the Supreme Court.
Mr. Speaker, I leave it to the government to decide whether or not capital punishment should be abolished. Personally, I do not intend to change my mind about it unless the government-and I think it must do it-introduces a detailed plan for the rehabilitation of the inmates in our penitentiaries.

It is much more important to look after the living than the dead. Even if we abolish capital punishment, even if we vote for life imprisonment, I still consider them as dead. Therefore, what is important is the rehabilitation of the inmates in our penitentiaries.
And among the important subjects which deal with rehabilitation, there is the suppression of the criminal record. I have had the opportunity to discuss that matter before a committee, during the last session. In my opinion, it could happen two years after the sentence has been served but no more than five years in order to give the prisoner a chance to take advantage of that measure, to make a new start in life and, in particular, to give him the hope that a new life is possible.
I know that the Canadian association of chiefs of police is not in favour of that measure, however their concerns is not rehabilitation but rather the custody of the prisoners.
I think that a planned educational program is necessary in our penitentiaries, so that the prisoners may improve their education and, if possible, obtain degrees or certificates, and become eligible to try the civil service examinations.
I do not see what organization is in a better position to help prisoners than the government. Private enterprise is surely not to be called upon to deal with that problem if the government fails to do so.
Positions in the civil service, in the public service, whether federal, provincial or municipal, should be made readily available to these people in order to encourage them to start afresh. I am not suggesting that this be done without appropriate measures being taken, for instance, through the establishment of a supervisory board, but I think that some hope should be given to prisoners. I feel it is the only way to rehabilitate that class of people or at least part of them, because, first of all, they represent an essential source of manpower for our country and, secondly, it is very costly for the government to keep those people in institutions and to maintain their families who suffer hardship. There is no doubt that I will have the opportunity to return to this.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it would be advisable to make intensive research in order to come to a realistic and efficient division of jurisdictions between the central and the provincial governments. I know the federal government and the members of the house are concerned with this matter.
May 12. 19S7

In my opinion, it would be advisable to explore seriously the possibility of establishing a Canadian common market for the purpose of trade planning. Since the provinces are competing for business at the present time, this does not help our trade and our exports. Therefore, we should promote the idea of a Canadian common market in order to plan our production and, consequently, help our export trade. This is a prerequisite if we want to maintain and improve our standard of living.
Mr. Speaker, there are essential parliamentary reforms and also administrative reforms which are imperative for the proper operation of our administrative system. It may be advisable to set up a board of directors for federal-provincial affairs. If we want the Canadian administration to improve and answer the present requirements of our modern world, we must plan our governmental administration and organization.
It may be advisable to set up a board of directors for federal-provincial affairs, with a permanent seat in Ottawa, where each province would be represented, to review regularly all the problems which are or could be debatable, with respect to joint jurisdiction. I think that it would then be advisable to create a department of federal-provincial affairs.
Mr. Speaker, as for the field of constitutional reforms, I think that it would be more than ever expedient to appoint a court to settle those constitutional problems which can crop up between the central government and the provinces or among the provinces themselves. This court could sit ad hoc, if necessary, to hear the constitutional issues and could be made up of, let us say, 13 judges, or rather 11 judges for the 11 provinces, plus four judges of the Supreme Court and that would make a total number of 15 judges. Then, it would not be necessary to appoint new judges, there would simply be a court made up of four judges of the Supreme Court. Why four? There could be five. Anyhow, we must come to a certain number, a certain balance, and the chief justice or his deputy in each province.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
This court, which would automatically include the chief justice of the Supreme Court, or his deputy as chairman, as well as three other judges, and the chief justice or his deputy in each province, could then be called upon to settle constitutional problems or disputes between the central government and
The Address-Mr. Lachance the provinces, or between the provinces themselves. Any matter referred to it would be heard forthwith, and this is as it should be, and a report would be submitted to the various parties within a maximum period of three months or rather six months.
I do not think we should wait till a magic solution has been found before we amend the constitution, or till an agreement has been reached before we draw up a new constitution. It matters little what doctrine certain people preach. I do not believe we should wait till then to set up a court to solve the problems or disputes between the central and the provincial governments, or between the provinces.
With regard to parliamentary reforms, Mr. Speaker, discussions could be very lengthy. The matter interests me highly. If we do not reform our parliamentary institution, I fail to see how we can find solutions in the administration of our country. To my mind, the matter at hand is one of self-determination, of self-discipline. I cannot see why the house should not be able to find the means, although perhaps not all of a sudden, to improve our parliamentary system, and more particularly the standing orders.
I should like to raise a very specific problem here, namely that of French debates reporting. I think, sir, that the existing system is not adequate.
French language reporters-I would like to be corrected if I am mistaken-take shorthand notes of the debates at the same time as proceedings are recorded on a sound-tape system. After that, typists copy directly from those tapes and, unlike what some people think, including members of this house, it is the tape recordings that are used for transcribing speeches, not the shorthand notes.
Then, those copies go to the press gallery before the editors have had an opportunity to correct them, while it seems that a different system exists for English language reporters. The English reporters take the speeches down in shorthand, transcribe their notes and, of course, the work which is done by those reporters is more complete than the transcription from the tape because the reporter takes all the words down at the same time. When the newspapermen get the speeches made in English, these have been edited, and corrected by the reporters, whereas the speeches made by the French-speaking members are sent to them before they have been read and corrected by the French-speaking reporters or editors.
May 12, 1967

The Address-Mr. Lachance
Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, that the typists are not miracle workers and that most of the time we get a lot of nonsense and gems which are not of the best quality. I congratulate the members of the press gallery for not using them more often.
In my opinion, nothing prevents the house from taking the required steps so that the blues of the speeches, either in French or in English, be revised by the official reporters before being sent out, wherever it may be.
Even if it is considered difficult to find the required staff so as to obtain the same results and treat everybody equally, as regards either the French or the English official report, I feel that a solution must be found.
Every member should get the copy of his speech, what is commonly called the blues, and take the responsibility of making his own corrections. French-speaking members no longer get the blues, or at least I think that only ministers, former ministers and parliamentary secretaries get a copy of their speeches.
Let every member receive his "blues", the copy of his speech, let him make the necessary corrections and take full responsibility for his speech. After all, it is not literature but spoken words. It is only a transcript of the proceedings, and if hon. members do not correct their speeches, the latter will appear in Hansard next day as they were taken down, with mistakes, naturally, and will be corrected only in the next seven or eight days, as our stenographers or rather the proofreaders or editors are doing now.
The same should apply to committee proceedings, Mr. Speaker. Hon. members never receive the copy or blues of their speeches or interventions. The whole thing is sent directly to the room where the debates are transcribed and from there to some editing committee, I do not know where. Finally, hon. members never see their speeches until they are printed and distributed.
I think the same system should be used, all the more so since committee proceedings are seldom printed before two or three weeks after the committee sittings. So, the day after such sittings, or the second day after, copies should be sent to hon. members who should take the responsibility of correcting their own copy and returning it in within one week. In this way, hon. members would have the satisfaction of correcting their own text, or they could have it edited by someone if they Wished to hire someone, or by their secretary.

But what currently happens is that some texts of speeches given in French in the house which find their way to members of the press gallery-whom as I said, I thank for not using them more often-are not quite the same as what was uttered in the house. Of necessity, the tapes and the voices overlap often and completely change certain words. I will not give any examples here, but there are nevertheless words which can stangely change the meaning of a sentence if a P is used instead of S, M instead of R.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, to conclude, I would like to talk about Expo. As a member for a riding in the island of Montreal, I am proud of that joint achievement of the federal government, the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal. I want to thank sincerely all members of the House of Commons and all Canadians who contributed to the completion of this project which will certainly become a wonderful instrument of culture and better understanding between all citizens in Canada and the whole world. This is a unique opportunity for Montrealers and, in a lesser degree, for their neighbours to broaden their cultural and general knowledge. That is why I should like to offer my sincere thanks to the members of this house and to all Canadians for having helped with this wonderful achievement.
I particularly wish to thank those who are responsible for this monumental undertaking. The house will perhaps allow me to mention a few: Commissioner Dupuy, His Excellency the Ambassador and his team, and Mayor Jean Drapeau and his team. They did wonders, one could almost say miracles, and the result is here for all to see.
Now it is time to think beyond Expo. I think that with the co-operation of the central government and the provinces, it will be possible to create an international cultural centre in Montreal, a free port. This is essential to the development of the country. Moreover, I think we will have helped in making that fantastic undertaking, Expo, a real monument to the genius of man.


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my first words are to join with the two hon. members on the other side of the house who spoke yesterday about a former colleague of ours, a member of this house from my own province of Manitoba. I refer of course to Mrs. Konantz. I should like to say
May 12, 1967

how deeply we regret her untimely passing. She was a person who gave freely of her many talents and abundant energy to a variety of organizations helping mankind. I should like to extend to her immediate family my deepest sympathy at her passing.
May I also, in the time honoured tradition, offer my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply. I do not say this in a perfunctory manner because both of them have acquitted themselves in a fashion which does credit to them, to their constituencies and to their party. I feel confident that in the future we will hear them express their opinions on subjects on which they both appear to be experts.
On occasion we find that a speech from the throne will reveal everything. On other occasions the reverse is true, depending upon the type of manoeuvring the particular government in power has in mind. In my opinion this one revealed only one thing, namely that this government is still afflicted with fumbling indecision. It is trying to be everything to everybody and does not really know in what direction it should go. In a speech from the throne the government can either promise to do everything or not promise to do anything, and this one seemed to be constructed in such a fashion that the government could take either of these two alternatives and still say that it fulfilled its promises contained in the throne speech. As a matter of fact, it was so vague in that respect that one would be tempted to believe that it was the joint effort of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson). I cannot help but think that there must have been some contribution made by both of these gentlemen in this particular throne speech.
If we can interpret correctly anything that has been said in the throne speech, we can take it that the government will bring in a measure of parliamentary reform. I do not want to tresspass on the ground that was covered so ably this morning by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), but I share with him the concern that this government, either deliberately or inadvertently, is placing this institution in a strait-jacket from which it will not be able to manoeuvre, where freedom of expression by members of this house will be lost and where the government will be able to do at will whatever it pleases, without being called to account for it.
The Address-Mr. Jorgenson
One of the things which I believe have made this country unique in the eyes of the world has been the happy balance we have been able to maintain between freedom and respect for law and order. I think that to a large extent our institution of parliament has been the instrument through which this measure has been achieved. I am afraid that to disturb the role of parliament such as we know it here in Canada could either cause the loss of freedom of the people of this country or a loss of their respect for law and order.
I hope that this centennial year will give each of us an opportunity to assess our present and our past. I hope it does not degenerate into a splurge of emotional flag waving or vain boasting, because I do not think that this is what will make our country great. What has contributed so much to our prosperity has been the effort of every individual Canadian to make his own part of the country a better place in which to live. Collectively, then, we have built a better Canada. I should not like to see that kind of initiative, which has been developed through the years, taken away from our people so they will feel that the government, and the government alone, is the answer to all their problems. I share with my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, the fear that this is the state into which we are being driven.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
There are a number of measures mentioned in the throne speech upon which I should like to comment, particularly since they affect my own area of this country. Reference was made to the area development program. Although it is difficult to determine just what changes are intended, it is stated that parliament will be invited to broaden the scope of the area development incentive program and to provide increased funds for it. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that not only will they broaden the scope of this program but that they will change some of the criteria used to enable areas of this country to qualify under the program.
I happen to represent an area that is largely within the Winnipeg National Employment Service district. The city of Winnipeg has not suffered from the unemployment problem which has afflicted other areas of this country and, on an average, has had a relatively high level of employment. This situation, however, does not hold true in the rural areas surrounding that city. When the people in the area I have referred to find themselves lumped in with the city of Winnipeg for the purpose
166	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Jorgenson of qualifying under the area development program, I think they are justified in complaining and feeling discriminated against.
In the areas of Altona, Steinbach and Morris, considerable effort has been made by community development corporations to induce industry to settle in those areas. They have met with some success. A great deal of attention was given to the problems of the urban areas and they were very eloquently and ably presented by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso) earlier today. I share his concern with the problems of the urban areas. However, it seems to me that with all the difficulties that they face such as transportation, providing housing, providing the services that are necessary in order to accommodate the ever increasing urban population, it would be far better to attempt to remove some of the industries into the smaller rural areas where there is a labour force and where there are facilities that will accommodate the development of industry. In the Pembina valley they find that, as a result of the application of this area development program, they are competing unequally, first of all with the city of Winnipeg and, second, with the other areas of the province of Manitoba that have been included in the area development program. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is grossly unfair to the people of these areas and adds impetus to the exodus of the young men and women in these areas.
It seems to me that the criteria used for the establishment of an area should be based not so much on the unemployment insurance figures as on the income figures. Some attention should be paid to the suitability of the area for industry and the availability of water, communications, power and so on. Last, but perhaps not least, it seems there is an ever growing tendency in this country to locate our urban areas on the best soil in Canada. This is being done at a time when everybody is talking about the need for expanding the production of food. It seems to be the height of foolishness to place concrete on the best land we have in this country. Here is the situation in which we find ourselves. The government is providing incentives to increase urban development on the one hand, and on the other hand is talking about the need for expanding food production. They talk about rural development and about diversifying industry, yet the incentives are provided in the wrong direction. I hope when this matter 
DEBATES	May 12, 1967
comes up for review by the government, and when it is brought before this house, steps will be taken to ensure there is no discrimination against some of the rural areas of Canada that are endeavouring to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. I hope, too, no further barriers will be placed in the way of the development of the rural areas.
I should like now to deal briefly with the question of agriculture. I noticed also in the throne speech that there was a reference to providing credit to agriculture and co-operative societies. I welcome this measure since on numerous occasions, I have drawn the attention of the minister to the need for such a program. I am happy to see it included in the speech from the throne this session. I hope they will proceed with the program without delay. The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Cote) seemed to be quite happy with the measures suggested in the speech from the throne so far as they applied to agriculture. He made some reference to some measures that have already been adopted by the government in order to deal with farm problems. I should like to believe, myself, that farm problems do not exist, but reality forces me to the obvious conclusion that such is not the case. Certainly, the buyers' strike we find out west is not an indication of happiness on the part of the farmers there. Certainly, the march that is going to take place on Ottawa by the dairy farmers would not lead one to believe there is complete happiness amongst that group. The housewives of this country have formed protest groups against the rising cost of living. These and other signs certainly seem to indicate to me that the government has plenty to worry about so far as agriculture is concerned.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
On several occasions the minister has made trips out to western Canada, and on each of these occasions he has bravely tilted at windmills. First it was the railways that caught it, then the banks, and on the third occasion he was out there he railed away at the big business interests. But when he comes back to Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, he is all meek and mild. I want to tell the minister that he is fooling nobody, certainly not the farmers in this country. He had better not consider them rustics who like to hear pious platitudes. The farmers want action, they demand action, and action they will get.
May 12. 1967

What does the speech from the throne contain in the way of remedies for the agricultural situation? One reference: The government is going to appoint a task force-as if it was necessary, Mr. Speaker, to appoint a group of people to study the problem further. We know what the problem is; what is required is the application of policies which will remedy the situation.
It is not simply a question of appointing bodies to administer subsidies; that is a deadly palliative that will have no effect at all in relieving the situation. There is a whole range of policies that need to be applied if this government is to come to grips with the problems of agriculture. It involves such things as marketing boards, where these are desired by the producers. It requires more leadership under the ARDA program. It requires an expanded farm credit program. Almost every session we seem to be amending the Farm Credit Corporation Act, and still never quite catch up to the technology that is advancing upon us. It requires some basic changes in transportation policy. With the ever increasing volume of farm products moving to markets, and particularly into export markets, we cannot hope to move these products in the time required unless some very fundamental changes are made in our transportation policy.
A more extensive application of crop insurance across the country is also a requirement. Up till now most of the provinces have toyed around with this, with the exception of my own province of Manitoba where it is available on the basic crops to farmers in the province. More marketing research is also required, processing products so that they can be more readily moved into export markets. We also require some enlightened trade policies. As I said, Mr. Speaker, the appointment of boards to administer subsidies just is not enough. Because what is being done is simply to place the farmers in the pockets of the administrators.
Some time ago the then minister of trade and commerce, now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), during the time sugar prices rose sky high, bravely announced in the house that he was going to seek commodity agreements with some of the world sugar producers, so that the producers of sugar in those countries would receive a half decent price for their efforts. What has happened to that brave promise, Mr. Speaker? We have not heard one single word from the minister since that 27053-12J
The Address-Mr. Davis time and today our sugar beet industry, particularly in southwestern Ontario, is on the verge of elimination.
Increasing the subsidies which are provided under the Agricultural Stabilization Act is not going to resolve the problem. What are required are more fundamental and basic solutions. It seems to me that this government is either unwilling to come to grips or is incapable of coming to grips with these problems.
Apart from the appointment of such bodies as a feed grain marketing agency in eastern Canada, a dairy commission in Ottawa and a few other boards that administer subsidies, this government has not introduced any policy at all to deal with the deep-rooted and basic problems in agriculture. My suggestion to them is that, rather than appointing task forces, the implementation of policies would be a far better way of dealing with our agriculture problems.


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy. Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to compliment the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Theirs were inspiring addresses and I am sure we have all benefited from them.
I want to concentrate this afternoon on only one aspect of the speech from the throne, which is the government's program for the coming session, and that is the broad area of transportation. More particularly, I should like to talk about urban development. I should like to talk about urban development in much the same light as other speakers in previous years have talked about rural development.
I think that the national government, the federal government, the government here in Ottawa, must take an interest not only in the lives and manner of living of the people in our rural communities across Canada, the population of many of which is declining, but also must take an increasing interest in the problems facing those who in greater and greater numbers are coming to live in our larger cities and towns.
The speech from the throne was a rather lengthy document. It contained flights of oratory, as well it might in our 100th year. It also contained a number of passages which were crammed with the lists and brief descriptions of pieces of legislation which will be dealt with by this house in the coming months. I am particularly concerned about the studies which the federal government proposes to undertake, in co-operation with

May 12, 1967
The Address-Mr. Davis the provinces, in respect to urban development. I believe that within this lengthy list of items of legislation we must establish certain priorities. Close to the top of the list I would put the problems faced by the developers of our large metropolitan areas, particularly the manner in which the development of future areas is planned and how it is to be paid for, so that we may have the best possible communities for the future.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
In a vast country such as Canada, a country of great distances, with a limited population, we must put the accent on mobility and flexibility. Increasingly the emphasis is being placed on greater opportunities for individuals, and this is as it should be. We should observe the underlying, statistical trends which have been traced by the Economic Council and other learned bodies, societies and government agencies in this country. We must learn as much as we can about these trends, and endeavour to correct them as best we may.
The trend I first wish to describe is that which has gone on for half a century, away from the primary industries of this country-away from agriculture, fishing, forestry, the outlying areas, individual farms and wood-lots, into cities and even into vast megalopolises, those clusters of big cities joining up one with the other.
There is a trend toward ever widening markets, toward more highly skilled jobs and greater specialization. This is coupled with the need to upgrade one's skills, to move from one occupation to another, perhaps several times during an individual's lifetime, or to move from one community to another, so as to improve the lot of individual Canadians.
In identifying the extent of the trend from the country to the city, or from the primary industries into other industries which exist in our big cities and towns, we see that at the turn of the century 50 per cent of the Canadian population was employed on farms, in fisheries, or in forestry, in the elementary sense of that word. By 1950 that figure had dropped from 50 per cent to 15 per cent. I am told that at present about 7 per cent of our labour force could efficiently produce all the food and primary forest products that Canada generates. The forecasts are that by the mid 1980's only about 5 per cent of Canada's population will work in the primary industries. In other words, during this century, terminating in the year 2000, we shall have
 moved from a situation where half our population lived in rural areas of the country to less than 5 per cent there.
Many who move into our big cities find work in factories. Others to an even greater extent move into our service industries, which become essential as our standard of life rises. Most are moving into a few large cities. Recently 1 read a report showing the extent of this trend. I learned, surprisingly enough, that during the last five years only the Montreal area in Quebec had increased in population. The rest of the province had remained static in population terms. I also read that in southern Ontario young people are moving in great numbers from rural communities, from small and medium sized towns, to large cities. Only in large cities is the population in the 20 to 30 year old bracket increasing rapidly, and this is an indication of things to come, which further underlines the trend to the big cities of the future.
I contend that if we devote a great deal of energy, time and money to rehabilitating our outlying areas where a declining number of Canadians earn their living, we ought also to devote more effort to improving the lot of those living in our major metropolitan areas. In the minds of some people the federal government has taken over too many matters of provincial jurisdiction. True, ARDA, which has been on the statute books since 1961, has been improved and modified. But it has brought to our rural problems the expertise of various departments of government-departments such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries, transportation, industry, public works, manpower and immigration, and finance- and that expertise has been brought to bear on areas of declining employment and chronically low income. Those departments, with their task forces working in concert, with provincial departments, are doing excellent work in telling people locally in rural areas what the opportunities are, where employment exists, and where they may obtain higher incomes for themselves and their children.
In the main this has meant to many people in rural areas a continuing improvement in their standard of living. We need a similar, comprehensive approach to our urban areas. Latterly we have created a department of rural affairs which is responsible for ARDA. We need a similar federal department to concentrate its attention on the majority of the Canadian population, those living in our fast growing, vital metropolitan areas. We need a department of urban development.
May 12. 1987

We have our Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act; we need an urban development act-not an urban redevelopment or an urban renewal act. We do not want to repeat our mistakes of the past: We wish to improve the lot of our people in the future.
We face here an opportunity to co-ordinate the work of some federal government departments. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is involved with urban renewal in the old fashioned sense, and the Department of Transport must be interested in national policies governing railways, pipe lines, air lines and the trans-Canada highway. We ought to make certain that long distance modes of transport are knit effectively with local modes so that our transportation system may be efficient and serve those who wish to travel from one province to another, or internationally. We need an over-all approach to problems of metropolitan development.
Metropolitan planners, though often frustrated by difficulties of communicating with the provincial and federal governments, have endeavoured to adopt this approach.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
We also need a cost sharing formula, or series of formulae, which will enable the different levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal, to share the cost of coordinated development. I suggest that we should take a similar approach, or at least a leaf out of the book of those who have been responsible for developing our rural development legislation.
I think the federal government might well bear 100 per cent of the cost of the initial over-all economic, and perhaps even engineering studies of broad metropolitan development, and that as we proceed from initial planning to the final construction phase, the federal contribution might decline. It might decline, say, to the order of 50 per cent. So I can imagine legislation which would see the federal government contributing to the cost of a freeway through the city of Toronto, for example, to the extent of 50 per cent, with the province and the municipality putting up the other 50 per cent perhaps on the basis of 25 per cent each. However, these ratios, this cost sharing formula, or series of formulae would evolve. They would be worked out and perhaps might vary, depending upon the city, the problems facing that particular metropolitan area, the local municipal-provincial relationship, and so on. We have many examples in this country of the need for over-all
The Address-Mr. Davis planning, for an over-all approach to the transportation difficulties faced by people living in our large metropolitan areas. The city of Ottawa is a good example. Ottawa of course is our national capital. Many prominent visitors arrive in it by air. They arrive at an excellent, up to date international airport, but their passage between that airport and the centre of the city is beset by all manner of difficulties. Clearly no one authority has been responsible for ensuring that an adequate, appropriate twentieth century avenue of approach be designed for servicing Ottawa.
In a few years people will be able to travel across entire continents in a few hours. But it will take them the best part of an hour to reach the centre of the city, bumping along, being jolted over roads which do not compare favourably even with some of the back roads in outlying parts of the country. Obviously this is not desirable. The problem lies essentially in poor communications, and in a lack of co-operation between our several different levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal in this country.
I contend that in the last analysis the responsibility must lie with the federal government because I would imagine that more than 50 per cent of those who are travelling from the Ottawa airport to the downtown part of the city are people who originate their trips entirely outside the province of Ontario. Certainly they have come great distances. They are interprovincial travellers, perhaps even international travellers, and I think we can do better.
We have a similar problem in the city of Vancouver today. The new international airport there located on an island is being developed on an appropriate scale. The construction of the new airport is being carried out by the federal Department of Transport. A beautiful new two-lane highway leads from that nearly completed building to the north arm of the Fraser river and there it stops, and there it will be stopped for a period of several years because it has not been decided what formula will be used, or indeed if there will be any co-operation whatsoever among the federal government, the provincial government of British Columbia and the city of Vancouver.
We need a tunnel under the north arm of the Fraser river to bring the traffic from the airport to downtown Vancouver in a matter of 15 to 20 minutes. As it is, traffic goes over a narrow swing bridge which sometimes is

May 12. 1967
The Address-Mr. Davis opened for river traffic and may remain open for half an hour or more at a time. This is hardly good enough. Obviously this constitutes a vacuum. We have a lack not only of cooperation but of vision, a lack of over-all planning. We have a need for co-operation, and I believe we need to have greater initiative shown at the federal level in order to obviate problems of this kind.
These are only two specific examples. There are undoubtedly many other places served by excellent national modes of transportation, such as Air Canada, C.P.A., the C.N.R., pipe lines and so on which face similar problems. When the air line has delivered its passengers near the city, when the rail line has unloaded its passengers near the major metropolitan centre, the passengers are immediately confronted with difficult problems of transportation. The rest of their journey is difficult. But it need not be difficult. These inconveniences are time consuming, and time means money. This means inefficiency, it means we are less productive than we might be.
Having so few people and such great distances it is a shame that, with the benefits of modern technology which tend to reduce the penalty of distance, we are still living with a penalty of distance in Canada which is man made. It is a penalty of distance which is largely confined to our big metropolitan areas. It is within our ability to solve, but the initiative must rest in good part with the federal government to help tidy up the situation.
I suggest that basically the federal government take just as comprehensive an approach to the problems of urban development as it has taken to the problems of rural readjustment and development, that it take a comprehensive attitude, that it take a constructive attitude, that it be not too afraid of provincial and local jurisdictions, that it move into what is obviously a vacuum, and where the local jurisdictions are both willing and financially capable to assume their appropriate roles, they will certainly do so.
We do need at least at the federal level a body of expertise, a repository of information. We require not only research but a group of high level planners, if you like, who can be consulted by our local planners in order that, nationally we may do more efficiently what we would otherwise have to do separately and sporadically in various metropolitan areas across the country.
I now want to focus my observations more directly on the problem of transportation, particularly highway transportation in our

cities. We will undoubtedly be building more throughways. We may also in the fullness of time be concerned with the redevelopment, that is the establishment of new modes of rapid transit in Canada. We shall have to pay for these new developments and they will be very expensive developments.
Anyone who has visited the city of Los Angeles, that great and sprawling megalopolis with a population roughly half of that of all of Canada, cannot help but be appalled by the vast acreage of pavement, of roads, streets and highways, which extend throughout the city. I am told that as much as 25 per cent of the total land area of the city of Los Angeles is paved over. We can learn from the experience of Los Angeles.
Recently I read an article attributed to two engineers, one of whom used to live in my riding in Vancouver. I see they are now both resident in Toronto. In the article, which appeared in the Globe and Mail on September 9, 1966, they are quoted as saying to the Good Roads Association of Canada that:
Canadian urban areas are moving toward a density of 6,000 persons to the square mile.
They go on to say:
A circle of ten miles radius at this density contains 1,800,000 persons; within a radius of 100 miles there would be 180 million persons.
This is the sort of megalopolis toward which we are moving. They go on to say:
Irrespective of the size, it can be served well by a simple grid of high-standard transportation corridors at approximately three-mile spacing, containing immediately high-standard freeways, but with provision for future automatic ways and/or transit. In addition, there are urban arterials at one-mile spacing.
e (5:30 p.m.)
They go on to say that these transportation facilities require about 18 per cent of the land. In their view efficient transportation arrangements might reduce the figure of 25 per cent for Los Angeles to 18 per cent for Toronto. One can imagine the immense saving not only in land but also in money, time and materials if planning on this scale were commenced at a relatively early date in the history of our major cities.
They also say that the total capital investment for transportation facilities is about $500 per capita, assuming the land to have been purchased before development. They say that distributing this cost over 20 years gives $25 per capita per year, which is less than the current expenditure on urban roads and streets in Canada. In other words we can have a better system of transportation in our
May 12, 1967

urban centres for the same number of dollars which we are spending today on what is a manifestly inefficient system.
Piecemeal additions to our transportation complex will not do. This is expensive, inefficient, frustrating and time consuming. With some foresight, co-operation, by comparing notes, and by using the best information available from other cities and other parts of the world, we can do better. We can have the best in the future for the same number of dollars which we are spending on urban transportation today.
The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso) who spoke on the subject of urban development and transportation today has given a good deal of thought to this subject. He has spoken on other occasions. At some length he has told us about the impact of the motor vehicle on the lives of the people, not only of Canada but throughout North America, and in the other more advanced parts of the world. He has told us how this has tended to decentralize construction, how it has affected land values and how it has led to the downgrading of the core areas of our large cities. He has also told us how, with a properly planned transportation system, we can not only speed up communication but make a better use of our land, improve the mobility of the people living in these areas and extend to them more opportunities for a better life in the future.
I should like to refer briefly not only to the expenditure side, but also to how we might well pay for these developments. I think that, in the main, the amendments to the National Transportation Act which were passed during the last session were well advised. One aspect of them with which I heartily concur is that the principal modes of transportation should be self-liquidating; that is, they should pay for themselves by revenue garnered from that form of transportation. This in itself should be enough to pay for the means of transportation. In other words, wherever possible we should pay as we go, rather than subsidize the development by placing a tax burden on other forms of economic activity.
So, continuing on in this vein, I think that on our new throughways, arterial roads, highways within cities, tunnels under harbours and so on, we should either charge tolls or levy other taxes on the users of these new facilities. I read with some interest a recent speech given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp). He said he was told that property taxes in Canada in relation to income are
The Address-Mr. Davis higher than they are in any other advanced country of the world.
We cannot load too much more on to property, nor should we tax unduly improvements to property. We should not discourage people who wish to improve their homes, factories, office buildings, and so on. We should levy the tax on those who use these transportation arteries. The type of tax I have in mind is the tax on gasoline. A tax on gasoline and diesel oil was referred to and indeed recommended in a recent report in Quebec.
I think we might look to the United States for a good working example of how to finance these transportation arteries. I am now referring to a good textbook on the subject of urban transportation entitled "Urban Transportation; The Federal Role". The author is a man by the name of Smerk, and it was published in 1965 by the Indiana University Press. In the United States there have been numerous pieces of legislation dealing with highway construction, road construction, urban renewal and, latterly, federal assistance for the development of highways and throughways within municipalities.
On page 131 I read that in the mid 1950's the United States embarked upon the construction of the national system of interstate and defence highways, under the terms of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. An interesting feature of the act of 1956 was the establishment of the highway trust fund, marking the first time that a tax income from motor vehicles and highway expenditures had been linked. The aim is to make the highway program self-financing. A recent federal publication in the United States as quoted in this publication, states:
The federal aid highway program operates on a pay as you go basis and its cost is paid entirely by highway users. No revenues from general taxes, such as the income tax, are used to finance federal aid for highways. The federal tax on motor fuel and certain other highway-related taxes go into a highway trust fund which provides the money for the federal aid payments to the states.
The order of magnitude of these expenditures is very interesting. It is very considerable and runs into billions of dollars. These funds represented nearly 50 per cent of the $7 billion invested in the construction of roads and streets by all levels of government in the United States in 1961. These figures are even higher today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. I regret to advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.
May 12, 1967

The Address-Mr. Macquarrie


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, in my first words to this crowded, hushed and expectant chamber I should like to congratulate the mover of the address in reply, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) upon his most impressive and interesting address. As one representative from the province where confederation all began 103 years ago, I should like to say that we welcome his province, the latest province to join confederation. I hope it will not be the last. I hope that in the future there will be other provinces and that they too will be islands. I wish also to congratulate the seconder, the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Cote) and say to him that while he may not have been so extensive in his remarks as the mover he did show a great deal of daring because no timid man would go out of his way to exalt the agricultural policies of this government. I would be loath indeed to try to convince the potato growers of Prince Edward Island of the excellence of the said government's policies.
There is a general tendency to scorn and denigrate this particular type of debate, the throne speech debate. Members of the press constantly say that it is a case of droning on and that usually it gets worse as it goes along. As I am the last speaker today I know where that places me. Some say it is a waste of time. I do not make such a suggestion; nor do I welcome the idea that the throne speech debate should be curtailed, although I am not by any means one of the most loquacious men in this parliament.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
We are here as a representative assembly and representative government antedates responsible government. We are not here as a legislative mill for the executive arm, but here because a number of Canadians freely elected us to be here, and we cannot serve them unless we are able to speak freely once we get here. This is of course what indirect democracy means. I suppose if one wanted to look at it studiously he would find that much of the legislation which finally emerges as the outpourings of the government began with the suggestion of some humble private member whose voice went unheard year after year and was finally picked up by some government.
I agree with what the member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) said this morning, that we must be ever zealous of the rights and privileges of private members, and I have detected during my ten years here a
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard).]
continuing encroachment in this regard. Let me say right now that I for one have no intention of accepting during this session that development which occurred in the last session, the continuous obliteration of the private members hour. All sorts of interesting things were on the order paper last session but we never had a chance to discuss them.
Of course some improvements in our procedures are necessary. I am a Conservative, but I am also a progressive, but I should like to have some reasonable conviction that a change is also an improvement before I want to make that change. Some improvements have been discussed by members well versed in our rules. I think we must reach the stage when we have a fixed adjournment. There is nothing in my opinion more degrading than the constant dangling before us of an adjournment, to which we have been subjected for the last several years. I find this altogether degrading, that we must do such and so or we will not get out. No schoolmaster would treat underclass children in that particular way.
Since I have been here we have spent 25 or 27 sitting days on this foolish process of waiting for votes to be taken. Again let me say that I am in favour of the electronic voting device.
The lengthy speech from the throne this year dealt with things other than announcements of government policy. I think that is commendable and satisfactory. Surely this is a time to branch out and outline a sort of state of the nation address. But why did it have to be so loquacious; why did it have to be so long, and why did it have to be so verbose? I read somewhere that it was the cornucopia of government planning. I think of a different metaphor, that it is the warehouse of second hand goods.
One thing I did not hear in the speech from the throne was the pronoun "my". Down through the years when the head of state opened parliament under our system he referred to "my" government, and "my" ministers. One observes in this long speech the expression "the" government. What is the reason behind that change? The Governor General is in fact the head of state under the Queen; he is the apex and all the rest under our constitution comes under him. I am wondering about that change. Surely it was not accidental, and if it was not accidental, then what does it mean? Does it suggest that the role of the Governor General is less significant? Does the word "the" instead of "my"
May 12, 1967	COMMONS
suggest a separation of the vice-regal office from the government process? I hope not.
I am not what one would describe as an emotional monarchist. I do not get emotional about the concept of monarchy. But I am a rational monarchist, because I think this is the system that works best in our particular type of society. If there are those in this country who believe that some other system is better, and down through the years there have been those, let them say so. Let us look at the issue. I do not quite agree with my colleague, the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean), that if Canada became a republic I would go somewhere else. Probably I would rather be in a republican Canada than somewhere else. But I should like to know if we are moving in that direction, and I want to have a chance to say that I think a monarchy is better. I want this whole thing freely and openly discussed. I do not want to be subjected to subtleties, subtleties and still more subtleties which move us toward a lack of appreciation for the monarchial system, because I think it is one of the things that makes Canada unique among the North American nations, and one of the things that makes our system as good as it is in many, many ways.
There have been discussions about constitutional matters, and we heard a most excellent speech yesterday by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) on this very subject. Quite typically, not a word of that speech was reported in the press. It is appropriate that we discuss the constitution during this centennial year. We must, in any dynamic society, look at our governmental structure and constitutional framework to see wherein it needs change, and the compulsion to look is all the greater in a federal state.
We must study our constitutional apparatus, and the biggest part, but not the only part, is the B.N.A. Act. It has been said that this is not a very thrilling document, and many say it is inflexible and rigid and does not excite, like the United States constitution or like some of those great constitutions which some new republics have drawn up- and ignored. However, it has provided a valuable framework upon which, with great difficulty, has been constructed and retained, a splendid and varied political community whose hundredth birthday we are celebrating this year.
I confess to a little impatience sometimes with those who begin their constitutional discussions by suggesting that the B.N.A. Act be
DEBATES	173
The Address-Mr. Macquarrie thrown out. Some suggest that we should have a Canadian document: Let us have something that is made in Canada, they say. The B.N.A. Act is a Canadian document. By geography it may have been completed in the United Kingdom but its inspiration came from Canadians. Sir John A. Macdonald said that 90 per cent of it was decided in Charlottetown. It was made by Canadians for Canadians and it is a worthy document. Let it be changed. Perhaps after open discussion it may be totally amended. But let us not look upon it as a kind of strait-jacket in which we cannot flourish. Indeed it has been changed many times. My maritime forebears made many changes in the subsidy provisions, and we should make a lot more or we are going to be in a bit of trouble.
I think we are not facing up to the importance of our constitutional problems. It would be a most unfortunate thing if in this centennial year our euphoria led us to believe that everything was fine and that all our problems were in the past. I think we would celebrate our confederation more realistically if we recognized our problems, that they exist, and that there are difficulties and jurisdictional problems of great magnitude.
We must begin our second century with a firm determination to deal with some of these constitutional problems and, as many of my colleagues in this house have said time and time again, we must have greater federal leadership in this field. Months have passed since the Fulton-Favreau formula was torpedoed. While I was never so fearful of that as some people were, I was most distressed that nothing was suggested in its place. Month after month we have asked what is being done, and month after month Canadians have looked for federal initiative. We all know what happened. It was left, incredibly, for a provincial premier and for the opposition in this house to take the initiative in this matter. Premier Robarts called for a Confederation of Tomorrow Conference and his call was treated with pained petulance by the Prime Minister of this country.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Now, finally, we hear that some gesture is to be made on July 5 at a time when the premiers are being sworn in as members of the privy council. We learn there will then be a brief discussion of some of these matters. Surely there is no connection between the privy council oath and that day. Surely this is not an indication that the federal government
May 12, 1967

The Address-Mr. Macquarrie wants to wrap an even heavier cloak of secrecy around dominion-provincial discussions. I think that is one of the things that has been troubling this country in recent years and months; far too many things are discussed behind closed doors by dominion and provincial governments. We here and in the legislatures of the provinces, know nothing about them until a fait accompli is presented.
I like the suggestion that has been outlined by our amendment and set forth as a practical plan of action by Premier Robarts. He is able to do something about it. In this house our voice will not be heeded. Happily, however, Premier Robarts in his position of executive authority can take an initiative. He has called his confederation of tomorrow conference and has made preparation for it. I would suggest that the documents prepared at his request by some of the leading constitutional experts in Canada make the finest contribution I have seen in many, many years to this discussion of federal-provincial matters and constitutional problems generally.
I like Premier Robarts' suggestion, not only because it has followed careful preparation, the kind of preparation that we called for time and time again when we asked that a committee be set up to look into this matter-how often have we pleaded for that-but because he plans a conference in which the public, who after all have some interest in this matter, will be aware of the discussions and decisions. I should like to quote from the Globe and Mail of today;
Mr. Pearson, who prefers to approach constitutional change in private, so that the people do not know their future until it is upon them, may be dismayed at the thought of a frank and open discussion, however friendly. Perhaps it should be pointed out that while this may not be the was of diplomats, it is the way of democracies.
That is a very, very fine appraisal of a very, very important matter. I hope that the government-perhaps it is a faint hope-will
not be content with putting forward some gesture which may seem to take the edge off an extremely good suggestion that has been coming from the opposition, or an initiative that has been taken by the premier of a province. I hope the government will seriously, regardless of the source from which the idea came, take every means possible to bring men of good will and legislators from the provinces together, and with the spirit of 1867 but the problems of 1967 will use the techniques that are the tools of the politician -free, frank and full discussion. I have faith in politicians. It is so easy to denigrate them. We are used to being caricatures. But as a very distinguished Canadian said not long ago, it was the politicians who made this country. Surely it is the politicians who can make it greater.
But let us have an initiative. Let us say that we must take a full look at our constitution. Let us draw in all the best ideas from the provinces, and let us start it right away. This is my appeal to the government. There is nothing better we could do for our country than improve its constitutional apparatus. I know that from this part of the house there will be no lack of co-operation. I think the record of the many things that have been said in recent years indicates that there will be no lack of valuable and sound ideas. Let us all get together. Let us have a committee of this house study the problem. Let the hand of Premier Robarts receive the handshake that was mentioned the other day; but more than a handshake. Let us not fret about whose idea this was. Let us participate fully in Premier Robarts' conference and move on to newer ideas and fresher initiatives. Perhaps if that is the result we can forgive all the prolixity of the speech from the throne.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 15, 1967