1968-09-18

Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
In a statement published in today's issue of the newspaper Le Devoir, mention is made of a reply to a question by the honourable member for Belleehasse, Bernard Dumont, whereas the representative for Belleehasse is Adrien Lambert. I would therefore ask for a correction of this article which reads as follows:
Crop insurance:
The Honourable Horace Olson, Minister of Agriculture, stated that the federal government would participate in approved crop insurance programs to the extent of 50 per cent of administration costs and 25 per cent of premiums. This was in reply to a question from Mr. Bernard Dumont.
Of course, this should be Mr. Adrien Lambert.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, this question of privilege is not in order.



CONGRATULATIONS TO MEMBER FOR PRINCE ALBERT ON BIRTHDAY ANNIVERSARY

['Mr. Speaker, I would have thought, having in mind the events surrounding the invasion of Czechoslovakia and the efforts that have been made to interfere in Canadian affairs, that most members of this house would support very strongly the principle of non-intervention in the sovereignty of other countries.']
Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Leader of the Opposition will forgive me if I exercise my position as Prime Minister to report on the activities of one of the most select organizations in Canada, the prime ministers' alumni association. This group, Mr. Speaker, has but three living members and they are all very distinguished Canadians; but the House of Commons chapter has but a single member, and I must say that that chapter has never been in better shape.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Trudeau:: Its distinguished and very active representative here is known by different names to different peoples-Chief Great Eagle, Chief Walking Buffalo, Chief Many Spotted Horses-and some of us from other 29180-111
tribes call him by other names at other times. But in the House of Commons and to the people of Canada in general he is the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).
His unbroken tenure of office in this house, 28 years, is unmatched in length by any other member except the distinguished hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Mcllraith). The contribution of the right hon. gentleman is one of the greatest in Canadian life. Indeed, it has become a legend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The opportunity I have seized to make this report to the House of Commons is on the occasion of the right hon. gentleman's seventy third birthday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On behalf of the government,, indeed on behalf of all the people of Canada, I want to wish him very many happy returns of the day. I hope I will have occasion for many years, and possibly even my successors will have occasion, to make this annual report.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could offer him a blue flower as an expression of good will from the flower people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Op-posilion):: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all say to the Prime Minister that I wish I found all his statements as agreeable as this report he has made to the house this afternoon. On behalf of the official opposition, the Progressive Conservative party and personally I am delighted to join with the Prime Minister in extending congratulations to our very distinguished colleague the right hon. member for Prince Albert. As members of parliament we are conscious of his great contribution to this chamber, the great part he has played here and the fight he has always made on behalf of the rights and traditions of parliament. His dedication has few parallels in the long history of this parliament of Canada.
September 18, 1968

Birthday Wishes to Mr. Diefenbaker
I am sure members of the house will understand that my reference today extends beyond the outstanding role of the right hon. gentleman as a House of Commons man. His great imprint here has made an even more enduring mark upon the country he has served in so many capacities, and in particular as prime minister. If I may speak very personally, sir, I know the esteem with which he is held by the people of my part of Canada. As the premier of a province I worked with the right hon. gentleman, and I know how deeply that esteem is deserved.
The right hon. gentleman has won a lasting place in the history of this parliament and the affection of the people of Canada. We have been personal colleagues for many years. It is a great privilege and a great personal pleasure to join other members of this house in extending to him congratulations on his birthday and to wish him many happy returns and many full and active years.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I could not possibly attempt to match the charm and grace with which the Prime Minister introduced this subject. I wish to join him and the Leader of the Opposition in extending our very best wishes to the gentleman on his birthday.
I have not been a member of this house for a very long time, but I had the honour of sitting here when he was prime minister and again when he was leader of the opposition. One could never fail to notice the way in which his very rising from his seat electrified the house, whatever the electricity produced. One could also not fail to note his very great love for this institution and his devotion to parliament as a place of democratic battle. "Battle" I think is the appropriate word.
It is with very great pleasure, sir, that all of us in the New Democratic party wish him many happy returns, and wish him health so he may continue to make his unequalled and incomparable contribution to this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear. [Translation]


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: 
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, nothing can come in one's life to equal the unity of feeling in the House of Commons that from time to time indicates the oneness of this institution. The longer hon. members are in parliament the more they will love this institution. To the young members who have just come in I would say that for the first six months after you are here you will wonder how you got here. Then after that you will wonder how the rest of the members ever got here.
Words fail me to express my appreciation to the right hon. Prime Minister for his very gracious and eloquent words. I was particularly impressed by one statement, that he hoped that for years to come he would have the opportunity of joining with me in celebrating my birthday. I am glad to have that assurance from him because last fall, among all the honours I received, a Jewish congregation in Vancouver gave me the Torah, the Tree 6f Life. When I made inquiries as to what it meant I was informed that it meant I would live as long as Moses, one hundred and twenty years. I am told that when that information was relayed to Ottawa there was consternation. That consternation has been ended now by the Prime Minister with the realization that such an eventuality would not do harm to this institution. I thank him again, and if the result of the placing of this flower on me will allow me to approach the results he achieved by that means I will be happy.
To my own leader I express my deep appreciation for the words he has spoken. To the leader of the N.D.P., that great exponent of parliament in its finest form, I give my thanks and appreciation, as I do to the acting leader of the Ralliement Creditiste. I say thank you to all honourable members from the bottom of my heart.
September 18, 1968

The House of Commons is a place where from time to time we reveal an understanding of each other, and an appreciation of members sitting opposite which dispels the acerbities of party warfare and which causes each of us to form deep and abiding admiration for those members who sit in every part of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask whether, in view of the fact that the meetings of the Organization of African Unity are now over and the countries of that organization have decided not to bring the Biafran crisis to the United Nations, the minister will now undertake to bring this matter before that world body.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the resolutions and decisions made by the Organization of African Unity we have been exploring with the secretary general of that organization and with the Secretary General of the United Nations how best this matter might be brought before the United Nations.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs give us some assurance, in view of the fact that thousands of people are dying there daily, that this serious crisis will in fact be brought promptly before the United Nations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, such matters can be brought before the United Nations only by a group of countries. We have explored the possibilities of bringing this before the security council, and the soundings we have made show that is not a very fruitful way to proceed; but we believe we will find a group of countries that will be prepared to join with us in bringing this matter before the United Nations general assembly.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister, when did these explorations commence?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: These explorations have been going on for some time, having in mind the very serious nature of this crisis.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy Royal: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs can tell us what representations Canada has made to Britain for that country to cease supplying arms to Nigeria.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has not made representations to the British government on this subject.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of news that reached us this morning by press and radio, what is the minister's assessment of how much longer Biafra can exist as a de facto state, in view of the military progress of the Nigerian government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that kind of information is not available to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The house will have observed from the newspapers this morning that the Organization of African Unity is supposed to have asked-I cannot confirm this-the Biafran authorities to surrender, so as to save lives, and the Biafran authorities have said they intend to fight on.
[Later:!


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Following the minister's reference yesterday to the terrible war in Nigeria, I should like to ask the minister whether he has been in consultation with his colleagues the Minister of Transport and the Minister of National Defence concerning the possible employment of Canada's mobile command in its peace restoring role?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not know that I quite understand the purport of that question. It gives me the opportunity, however, to say that we have been moving food from Vancouver to Halifax to put on board the ship that is leaving soon for Nigeria. We are flying the supplies, using Hercules airplanes of the Canadian Armed Forces.


John (Jack) McIntosh: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do not know what the mobile command has to do with the transportation of food, but in view of the imminent removal of the Canadian contingent from Cyprus can the

September 18, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of National Defence or the minister of external affairs indicate the extent of readiness of the mobile command in the event of Canada being called on for action if this government offers to commit its forces in a peace restoring role?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is much too general in nature and also slightly hypothetical.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, it is a very specific question. It is directed to-


Mr. Speaker:: It is specifically hypothetical.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Can he tell the house whether it is still his intention to send a Canadian ministerial mission to latin America in the fall and if so, can he tell us the names of the ministers and officials who will participate in that visit?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I answer this question. The mission to Latin America is now being planned. We have been discussing with the governments of the Latin American countries the most suitable dates for our visit. When the itinerary has been decided upon in agreement with these governments, an announcement will be made, and the names of the ministers who will be participating will be announced at that time.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the light of the repeated incidents between Israeli and Arab forces since the truce in the six day war of June, 1967, and in particular the more belligerent attitude of the parties in recent weeks, what active efforts has Canada been making both in the security council and the general assembly of the United Nations toward an eradication of the root causes of the tension which everyone in the house
[Mr. McIntosh.)
recognized existed at that time in the Middle East?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, our general policy has been to support the Jarring mission. We believe this is the only body now available which seems to have the necessary authority to discuss a possible solution with both the Arab and the Israeli sides in this conflict.
Within the next few days Mr. Riad of the United Arab Republic and the foreign minister of Israel will be in Canada and we will have an opportunity at that time for an even more detailed consideration of the possibilities of resolving some of these fundamental questions. I can only say that so far Mr. Jarring and his mission have not met with great success, which I regret very much.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which is obviously also directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the interesting surrounding-states doctrine in international affairs which was propounded here yesterday to resolve Biafra's problem, is the Secretary of State for External Affairs waiting for a resolution from the surrounding Arab states before some initiative is taken in resolving Israel's problem?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought, having in mind the events surrounding the invasion of Czechoslovakia and the efforts that have been made to interfere in Canadian affairs, that most members of this house would support very strongly the principle of non-intervention in the sovereignty of other countries.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the continuing rise in the cost of living and the reference in the speech from the throne to a continuous review of prices and costs, will the minister consider the establishment of a standing committee on consumer affairs?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
September 18, 1968	COMMONS


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister. Has the combines branch completed its study of the Batten report on food prices and food retailing on the prairies? If so, will it be on the agenda for the federal-provincial conference on consumer affairs, and has the date for such a conference yet been set?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the question, the director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act has submitted his annual report to me, which will be tabled in the house within 30 days. With regard to the second half of the question, the agenda for the federal-provincial conference has not yet been settled. The date is the last part of October. I am not sure that all the provinces have yet agreed on the date, and I do not want to announce it until they have.



WHEAT-STEPS TO DISPOSE OF CARRYOVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and ask him whether, when he enters the present debate, as I hope he will soon, to outline what steps the government will take to sell our record wheat carryover, he will also take that opportunity to outline what steps the government intends to take to overcome the sharp drop which has taken place in Canada's industrial production.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The hon. member is always full of generous offers, and I thank him, as I did yesterday.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question. Would the minister be so good as to consider these two very important matters seriously and assure the house that he will enter the debate and give a sensible answer to these two important questions?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it is well known that even when I smile I am serious.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Forf William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio who is associated
DEBATES	163
Inquiries of the Ministry with the Minister of Transport. Has the government reached a decision with regard to the granting of landing rights to Alitalia at the Toronto international airport?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unless this question has an urgency which is unknown to me, it should be placed on the order paper.



EXPO '67 INQUIRY AS TO RECEIPT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I did not say we had been negotiating with anyone. I said we were working on the matter. We have been consulting with our ambassadors around the world. This is the type of consultation that is necessary. I think the house will understand that this negotiation is going to be particularly difficult, and it is one in connection with which there must be adequate preparation. I make no apologies whatever for taking adequate time because there is no objective of this government I consider more important than this one set forth by the Prime Minister and by myself during the election campaign.']
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister received an audited financial statement from the Expo '67 corporation, and if so will he table it?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, may I take this question as notice? I really do not know whether I have received it, but I do not think I have.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question raised earlier this day by the hon. member for Wellington, may I say that the audited financial statements of Expo have not been received by my department. At the present time the financial statements are in the hands of the Auditor General, and he is probably closer to the Auditor General than I am.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement by the United States state department to the effect that Soviet military intervention in West Germany would lead to an immediate allied response in accordance with the NATO treaty, was the Canadian government consulted about this statement and asked to associate itself with it? If so, what was the response?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Well, Mr. Speaker, when the United States government speaks through one of its ministers it speaks in its own name, and it does not engage any other country. Its opinion of what is needed would be the opinion of a sovereign

September 18, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry state, but NATO decides according to its own treaty arrangements.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the Prime Minister leaving the house with the impression the United States would take immediate action under its position as the leader of NATO and leave Canada completely, shall we say, on its own, at loose ends?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is not the impression I believe my answer gave, Mr. Speaker. I said the United States was a sovereign state and could act in the way it decided. However, the members of NATO will only act in the way that NATO decides under the charter.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. Harding (Kootenay West):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the Prime Minister's statement on the need for diplomatic recognition of the government of mainland China, made both during and after the federal election campaign, I should like to ask whether it is the government's intention to extend recognition to the mainland government of China. Will action be taken at this session, and has any move toward recognition been initiated to date?


Mitchell William Sharp: We have been working actively toward this objective, which remains an objective of the government. We have not yet, however, had direct negotiations with the government at Peking.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Where does the activity come from?


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Will Canada support the bid of continental China to be a member of the United Nations this year?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not expect there will be any change in the attitude of the Canadian government on this question at the present session of the general assembly. We intend to proceed in parallel in relation to recognition of Peking.


George Harris Hees: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs advise the house with whom Canada

has been negotiating, if we have not negotiated directly with mainland China?


Mitchell William Sharp: I did not say we had been negotiating with anyone. I said we were working on the matter. We have been consulting with our ambassadors around the world. This is the type of consultation that is necessary. I think the house will understand that this negotiation is going to be particularly difficult, and it is one in connection with which there must be adequate preparation. I make no apologies whatever for taking adequate time because there is no objective of this government I consider more important than this one set forth by the Prime Minister and by myself during the election campaign.



BANKRUPTCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Is it the minister's intention to introduce in this house soon a new bill concerning bankruptcies, which he promised on June 29, 1966 and which has not yet been introduced?


Stanley Ronald Basford: There has been a committee working on a revision of the Companies Act subsequent to the amendments which were made in 1966. I expect a report by the end of the year. We will work on the report, and I will be introducing a revised and totally new bankruptcy act as soon thereafter as possible.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning the Territorial Seas and Fishing Zones Act passed in this house in 1964. In view of the importance of this legislation as a conservation measure for the Canadian fishing industry, which is facing serious economic problems now, would the minister undertake to provide members of this house as soon as possible with a report on the efforts to date to reach an agreement
September 18, 1968

with other countries on this matter, and also give us any alternative proposals planned by the government in order to reach a conclusion to this thorny problem?


Mitchell William Sharp: I would certainly be glad to take the opportunity to make a report. Perhaps the hon. gentleman might raise the question on my estimates or ask me to make a statement on motions. I would be happy to do so.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Lind (Middlesex):: I should like to address my question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the very loose way rural mail carriers were advised with respect to their services during the postal strike and the lack of written instructions in connection therewith, I feel there is a moral obligation on the part of the government-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may ask a question but he cannot make a speech.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: -I feel that there is a moral obligation on the part of the government to make ex gratia payments in the light of these apparent administrative errors.



QUEBEC-POSSIBLE REPLACEMENT OF MUNICIPAL NAMES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Rock (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Postmaster General. Has a decision been taken by the postal authorities in Montreal to replace by numbers such historic municipal names as Lachine, Pointe Claire, Dorval, etc., which are over 300 years old?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I invite the hon. member to place this question on the order paper.


Raymond Rock: Mr. Speaker, the question is urgent because this decision may take effect on October 1.


Hon. Eric Kierans (Posimasler General):: Mr. Speaker, a decision has been taken to apply zoning numbers to existing post office addresses, but no decision has been taken, and indeed there is no intention, to take away any historic names. All that happens now in a
Inquiries of the Ministry
large region such as metropolitan Montreal is that the municipality of Pointe Claire, for example, may be divided into seven zones and the address will be Pointe Claire 700, and that is all.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister received protests from the representatives of either the federation of agriculture or the farm union in respect of the importation of meat from Argentina? Does he propose to take any action to protect their interests?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have received a number of letters from many organizations and many individuals in respect of the importation of cooked beef from the Argentine. In reply to the hon. member I would say there has been no change in our health regulations with regard to cooked beef coming from the Argentine. The only amendment was to include "cooked plyofilm wrapped" beef in addition to "cooked canned" beef. The new product is beef that has been boned, cooked and then frozen and packaged in polyethylene wrappers rather than packaged in tins. Its main use will be for industrial purposes, and the importation of this product-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member wants more information he can put a question on the order paper.



CANADA COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: should like to preface my question by saying that it is not a criticism of an agency which I hold in high regard. I should like to ask, in view of the constant requests for funds emanating from individuals and organizations of merit throughout Canada, what steps can be taken to prevent the expenditure of money by the Canada Council on such ventures as the subsidization of Ralph Ortiz, the axe wielding artist from New York, whose air fare of $284 was paid by them to attend his show in Vancouver-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should place this question on the order paper.

September 18, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP
INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES On the orders of the day:


Mr. Lincoln Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Secretary of State. In view of the backlog of citizenship applications in centres because of citizenship court judge vacancies, could the minister advise whether all appointments of citizenship court judges have been made, thereby filling the vacancies?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that several citizenship courts are now without any incumbent, but appointments are under consideration and should be made very shortly.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister.
Within the framework of a just society, and considering unfairness displayed by some newspapermen in the discharge of their duties, would the Prime Minister consider sending a copy of the official report of the House of Commons Debates to every Canadian family head?


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to put my question to the hon. Minister of Transport but in his absence, I shall direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister, since he is concerned in the matter.
Yesterday, we were delayed over five hours at the Quebec and Montreal airports. Might it not be possible for the government to study the possibility of building an international airport in an area free from fog and far from the St. Lawrence river?


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
Can the minister tell us whether the federal government made any offer whatsoever prior to September 1, 1967 to Mr. Edmond Joly, of Lotbiniere, with regard to the purchase of the Seigneurie de Lotbiniere, which-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question of the hon. member should be put on the order paper.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Further to the appointment of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Richardson), could the Prime Minister tell us how many relatives of the aforesaid honourable minister have some interest in the Canadian Pacific?



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Lambton-Kent asked me a question which I took as notice. In reply to the question about transitional adjustment grants to Ontario sugar beet growers, I may say that we are now waiting for the records of growers' 1967 plantings, which are to be forwarded by the Ontario sugar beet growers marketing board and the company, on which these grants will be calculated. When this information is received we will then request approval of parliament for the provision of the necessary funds to make the payments.
I should also like to say there is no delay, because even if the sugar factory had been operating or was still operating there would be no initial returns from this year's crop as of this date in any normal growing season.



PROTECTION AGAINST COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS-CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Darimouih-Halifax):: Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct a question to the minister of health relating to a series of questions asked in this chamber last March regarding the presence of counterfeit drugs on the Canadian market. I should like to ask the minister whether these drugs have now been removed from access by the public, and further whether any criminal proceedings were instituted by the food and drug directorate as a result of the investigation.


Hon. J. C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, we have investigated the matter and are now satisfied
September 18, 1968



that these drugs have been largely removed from the market. As far as prosecutions are concerned, this question is presently under investigation and no conclusion has been arrived at yet.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce further to a question which was asked in the house the other day. Has the minister been in touch with the Canadian automobile companies regarding their 1969 prices and, if so, could he tell the house what were the results of his discussions?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I did indeed learn today that the Chrysler corporation has announced its price increases for the current model. The increase in Canada is $78 for the 1969 model, as compared to $91 in the United States. Again, the difference between the price in Canada and the price in the United States has been reduced.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that he advised the house today that a select committee will be established, would he refer the question of the price of cars to that committee?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is in error. I said I would consider the establishment of a committee.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government received the report of the royal commission on security matters and, if so, when will the report be published and presented to this house?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the report is not in my hands as of yet but I understand it is about ready. There is the translation to be finished, and as soon as it is finished the report will be given to me. I understand this will be in the very near future.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know when the house might expect to receive the report.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Shall I repeat, Mr. Speaker? I understand that the report is about finished but the translation is not. The translation is presumably from French into English and I do not want to publish the report in French before it comes out in English. Therefore I am waiting for the report to be supplied to me in both languages, which I understand will be very soon.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister undertake to submit the report to the house when it has been completed and he has received it, read it and considered it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is conceivable that there will be matters in it which I will not want to table in the house. The report may concern security matters which should not be made public. I do not know; I want to see it first. The hon. member cannot ask me this kind of hypothetical question and expect an answer on the subject.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I want to refer to a question asked of me yesterday by the right hon. member for Prince Albert concerning the withdrawal of forces from Cyprus. I have been informed by the minister of defence that the Secretary General of the United Nations has requested a reduction in the size of our forces there. Accordingly, next month Canada will reduce its forces from 872 to 587.
I should like to pay tribute to the Canadian servicemen who, under very difficult and trying circumstances, have served their country well in an area where the United Nations decided it was appropriate to have them.
29180-12)

September 18, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: supplementary question on the statement that has just been made by the Prime Minister. Has Canada put in a bill to the United Nations for the cost of maintaining our forces in Cyprus over the past several years?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think this question is addressed to me. As the hon. member knows, we have improved the situation inasmuch as we still pay for the keeping of our troops -that is, their pay, allowances and feeding -but we have been able to recoup transportation costs. That is the best we have been able to do.


Douglas Scott Harkness: My question was whether any bill has been put in to the United Nations for the cost of this force, as was done previously in the case of some of the other forces we allocated to U.N. peace keeping operations, although the bills were not paid.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No bills were put through my department, Mr. Speaker.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development arising out of a statement purported to have been made by the premier of Saskatchewan in an interview on Tuesday, September 10, that Saskatchewan does not want to turn over one more inch of land to the federal government for the creation of Indian reserves. Does this mean that any outstanding land commitments to the Indians of Saskatchewan under treaty will not be met?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have received no communication from the premier of Saskatchewan to the effect that he is reluctant to transfer land as required by the terms of the agreements concluded with the Indians.
My Department has undertaken negotiations with the Saskatchewan government on this question, and they are continuing at the present time.
(Mr. Trudeau.1



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Craig C. Stewart (Marquette):: I wish to direct this question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the government's emphasis on regional development and the growing need for tri-service training for Canada's armed forces, will the minister announce soon the expanded role of Rivers air base in order to allay present uncertainty?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: As everyone knows, we have been studying for the past three years what we call a project for consolidation-that is the objective of these studies-and we expect to arrive at an over-all assessment of the necessity of the bases we have in Canada. When conclusions are reached we shall have to announce whatever decisions have been arrived at respecting all bases in Canada.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: In
his consideration of these matters would the minister pay particular attention to the excellent facilities at Rivers base so that it might be expanded, thereby reducing dangerous congestion of the airways-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is now making a representation rather than asking a question.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Malher (Surrey):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Perhaps in his absence I might be allowed to ask the parliamentary secretary to take it as notice. Having in mind the fact that traffic accidents across Canada are now claiming one Canadian life every 90 minutes of every day, can we expect an early report on the work of the public automotive safety board established by this house last session?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister without Portfolio):: I will take notice of that question.
September 18, 1968



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of Canada's extensive agricultural trade with Britain, has the minister examined the new British regulations concerning humane methods in the handling of livestock and fowl for the production of meat and eggs to see whether Canadian standards meet British requirements and do not jeopardize our exports?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made his submission and I assume it has been noted.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: My question is intended for the Minister of Fisheries. What action does the minister intend to take concerning a statement made by the Maisonnette, New Brunswick, board of trade and published in a New Brunswick newspaper this morning to the effect that the people of Maisonnette were being discriminated against in connection with the granting of a fishing season in the oyster beds of Caraquet bay?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not in a position to determine whether this is a matter of urgency, but I am inclined to think the question might be placed on the order paper.



COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF SALMON LICENCE LIMITATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries; the matter is of some urgency because many salmon fishermen begin at this time of the year to prepare for next season. Would the minister be prepared to refer the declaration about licence limitations on the salmon industry to a parliamentary committee at an appropriate time so it can be considered publicly?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: The answer is yes. I may also say that a special appeal board has been set up on the west coast to look into these matters.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Does the minister anticipate any increase in Canadian family allowances in the near future?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: I have a question for the minister responsible for Indian affairs who is, I know, sincerely interested in the welfare of the Indians in our province. Would he investigate the situation at the Eskasoni Indian reserve, where moneys allocated by his department for housing improvements are now being used for the construction of 50 outhouses, an action which has brought about the resignation of five councillors?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Again, the hon. member has made a representation and I assume it has been noted.


Robert Muir: On a
question of privilege, this may seem somewhat amusing but it does represent a serious situation, inasmuch as five or more band councillors have resigned their positions and there is a bit of an uprising in the area.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue; it is a very serious question. Did the Minister of National Revenue take part in any negotiations with the provincial government of Newfoundland with
September 18, 1968

The Address-Mr. Mazankowski respect to an agreement between that government and the Shaheen Natural Resources Company?


Edgar John Benson: Perhaps I can answer that question by saying no.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Privy Council. Can we be assured that the government will give early study to the recommendations made by Mr. Castonguay concerning absentee voting and a permanent or continuous voters' list?
May I also ask whether there is a possibility of these recommendations being referred to a committee of this house?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: As I said to the house earlier this week, or perhaps late last week, the government is currently considering some means [DOT]of enabling hon. members generally to give attention to this question. I hope to be able to announce a date on an early occasion.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, September 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Eymard Corbin for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment (p. 62) thereto of Mr. Stanfield.
[DOT] (3:30 pm.)
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, may I first offer you my very sincere congratulations upon your re-election as presiding officer of the House of Commons. The accolades that have been extended to you over the past few days well express the feelings of the members of this distinguished house. May I also extend felicitations to your assistant, the Deputy Speaker, and to the Deputy Chairman of Committees. They too, I know, will preside properly and wisely over the deliberations of this chamber.
I wish to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to bring you greetings from my constituents in the electoral district of Vegreville, and particularly from the centennial capital of
IMr. Lundrigan.]
Canada, St. Paul, Alberta. This patriotic town engaged in over 100 centennial projects to commemorate Canada's 100th birthday, ranging from the opening of a recreational centre to the building of a launching pad for objects from outer space. I am deeply honoured and grateful to have been chosen to represent this great riding, a riding which contains people of vision, enthusiasm and dedication.
As we are debating the address in reply to the speech from the throne I shall confine my remarks generally to a discussion of manner in which the throne speech affects the constituency I represent. The Vegreville constituency is an area in east central Alberta comprising 9,000 square miles and containing in excess of 65,000 industrious people who are of all origins, including the two founding peoples, French and English, and the first Canadians, our native Indians. Regrettably, in a throne speech which is dedicated to a just society no mention is made of the ethnic groups which constitute such an industrious, cultural and dedicated group of Canadians throughout the nation. I hope that this does not mean that these people are to be treated as second class citizens.
My presence in this house during the deliberations which are forthcoming will be to ensure that these people will enjoy equal rights and privileges, equal opportunity, never again to be caught in the web of limitations as was the case before the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) removed the barrier by proclaiming the Bill of Rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: These people believe in and want one Canada, united, with no special status, no special favours. All they want is equality. The throne speech in no way gives these people that assurance.
Representing an agricultural area, Mr. Speaker, I would like to devote some time to outlining some of the difficulties that are being faced by the farmers in my constituency, as well as by those in other parts of western Canada. I would first like to offer my sincere congratulations to my hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) on his appointment as Minister of Agriculture. It is very pleasing to know that some consideration has been given our fair province by his appointment to this very important portfolio.
In a rural constituency such as Vegreville the economic pulse of all our communities is
September 18, 1968	COMMONS
directly dependent on agriculture. In no way can we ever have any doubts about that. But what is happening? Farmers are being forced to sell. As a matter of fact just before departing for Ottawa I was told by one of our local auctioneers that business was never better. He has had more farm auction sales this spring and has already booked more for this fall than he has ever had in any previous two years combined.
I am told that many of these farm folk are selling their liquid assets and are abandoning their units in search of jobs through which they can survive. Many are attempting to sell their land and, failing that, they will let it go for taxes. There is just no way that a farmer can survive with the rising cost of machinery, repairs, taxes and interest rates, yet the throne speech offers nothing by way of relief for the farmers of western Canada. As a matter of fact the amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act and to the Farm Credit Act will add further to the cost-price squeeze by allowing interest rates to rise still further.
The emphasis in agricultural programs has been on productivity, both in real terms and in terms of substituting capital for labour. In farming, unlike other industries, output is widely dispersed and difficult to control. It is geared toward maximizing productivity in order to justify higher investment and rising costs. But production which exceeds demand results in declining prices, thereby retarding the economic advantages of greater technology.
In a recent booklet entitled "Agricultural Output-Canada 1968" published by the Canadian Department of Agriculture it is shown that the farmer's prospects are indeed grim. May I quote a few excerpts:
Wheat. Prices which are now lower than a year ago are expected to be maintained in the lower part of the international grains agreement range for the remainder of the current season. Under average conditions, a smaller acreage than in 1967 could produce all supplies needed to meet anticipated demands in 1968-69.
But what has happened? We have an increased acreage, and we see pressure being placed on the international grains agreement through a system of adjusting the grades and through a lower price than what the agreement calls for.
Oats. Oat supplies for 1967-68 are about 20 per cent below the recent five year average. The effect of the large 1967 United States corn crop and the trend towards greater consumption of high energy feeds may prevent prices for oats from showing much increase. Stocks at July 31,

The Address-Mr. Mazankowski 1968, are likely to decline. To maintain our buildup of stocks, additional acreage of oats will be required.
Barley. Prices were lower in 1967 than the year earlier and will probably continue below the 1966 level. Because of competition from alternative feed grains, with barley yields rising faster than those of oats, a larger increase in the acreage to barley than to oats in 1968 would seem justified.
Rapeseed. The price of rapeseed was down during the early part of 1967-68 and will probably stay relatively low for the remainder of the current crop year. With an expanding domestic market and steady export market, rapeseed acreage should be maintained or increased slightly.
Hogs. Prospective hog slaughter in both Canada and the United States in 1968 will average below the high levels of 1967. Prices in Canada are not likely to show any sizeable rise before the fall of 1968.
With the reduction of the government bonus on premium bacon the price has deteriorated still further.
Cattle. Fed cattle marketings in Canada in 1968 may be about the same or slightly above those in 1967 and prices are expected to remain above the export equivalent price in the United States.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The destruction of the traditional family farm gravely concerns all of us. The major problem that is facing the agricultural community is the continuing and rapid rise in all farm costs on the one hand, while returns for farm commodities have either remained stable or moved downward.
The current investment required does not provide returns that compare favourably with other industry. As a result there is no incentive for young people to become engaged in agriculture because of the high capital requirements and the very low return. At the present time the average age of the farm operator is 57, which places not only the family farm, but the complete industry in very grave doubt.
What does this government plan to do with these people who are being forced to leave their way of life? Are they going to provide them with employment? Are they going to train them and adapt them to other ways and means of securing a living, or are they to go on welfare? And believe me, Mr. Speaker, many have suggested that this might be their solution. The speech from the throne in no way offers a prescription to remedy this very important situation, which is rapidly becoming the most urgent concern not only in my constituency, but in all the western prairie provinces.
May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that this country would be in sad shape if it were not
September 18, 1968

The Address-Mr. Mazankowski for agriculture. Even with declining exports it still commands one fifth of the total export markets. Farmers last year spent some $500 million on farm machinery and repairs, and in addition fertilizer sales last year exceeded one million tons.
Total farm expenses were about $3 billion, and if you add to that the other durables purchased such as cars, trucks, refrigerators and so on it increases significantly. So you see, Mr. Speaker, farmers are big spenders, and at the same time it has been said that for every dollar's worth of agricultural product produced, there is created $7 worth of income to others who are associated in some way with the product.
My final plea is on behalf of the native people across the nation, and in particular those of my own constituency, the Indians of the Saddle lake band. For too long our native peoples have been abused. In our society of today, where we enjoy more and more a multitude of benefits, the Indians are gradually finding their similar privileges diminishing. Basic needs such as housing, health services, employment, education and an adequate water supply, prime requisites so necessary to every Canadian today, are not enjoyed by our Indians and Eskimos. Until our native peoples are given equal opportunity to participate in a full and rewarding life, they will not be able to live with dignity with their fellow Canadians.
The Indian Act is now in the process of revision. Let it not become a document to be interpreted only by bureaucrats, but by men who have an understanding for their fellow man. Our laws should surely put people before policy, and to this end I intend to devote my efforts and energy in the years ahead.
In closing my remarks may I say that it is indeed an honour and a privilege to have had the opportunity of delivering my first speech in the House of Commons today on the occasion of the seventy-third birthday of my distinguished and honoured friend, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, may I congratulate you on your appointment as Speaker of the house. From what I have seen and heard, you may be one of the best Speakers, and possibly the best, in the history of Canada.

May I also congratulate the two honourable members (Messrs. Corbin and Marchand) who moved and seconded the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, according to custom.

Mr. Speaker, although I spent a few years observing the proceedings of this house from the gallery, and part of that time as a ministerial aid, it is hardly the same as actually sitting as a member. I am most grateful to my constituents of Cochrane for giving me this opportunity to serve Canada. I feel a great sense of pride and privilege at being here. I am proud also of being a part of a great team which throughout the election campaign we called the "Trudeau team" and which was recognized by the Canadian people as the team that should run this country for the next five years.
The face of parliament has changed. We have over a hundred new faces sitting in the house. Canadians expect a change from the House of Commons. They expect parliament to be more effective, with less harangue and with a great deal more logic. I recall about a year ago a member of the opposition from Brome-Missisquoi, who I believe now has a seat in the official gallery, chided members on all sides of the house for their childish attitude and for their overly exaggerated partisanship. He stated at that time that the people of Canada were sick of it; that the people of Canada did not want any more of it and that the people of Canada, particularly the young people, were expecting something better from this house. And in all of the time that I have sat in the gallery watching the proceedings of this house, that was the only time that I saw the public in the galleries applaud, and applaud freely. He had put his finger on the very thing that has been bothering the people of Canada for a number of years, and that is the performance of the members in this house.
Are things going to be different in this new parliament, or are they going to remain the same? We have new members; we have a new government; we have a new group which is dedicated to change. There is talk about a reform of the rules. Perhaps I am a novice at considering the intricacies and the nuances created by some of these rules; but to me, and I am sure to a lot of logically thinking Canadians, it seems completely ridiculous that we should have a system in this house which permits a minority representation, who
September 18, 1968	COMMONS
lost the election, to move a want of confidence motion in a government which began to sit only two days before and which by a large majority had been given a vote of confidence by the Canadian people by means of a general election. A year from now I could understand why it would be the duty of the opposition to look over the record of the government and decide whether or not they wish to vote non-confidence. But two days after the house sits, and before we even get started in our legislative program-? to me it is completely ludicrous.
I wonder whether the members of the opposition really understand the new philosophy which has been brought into Canadian politics by our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and other people who are forward-thinking, as he is-a philosophy which caught the imagination of the Canadian people; a philosophy which we would like everyone to understand. But I wonder if the members of the opposition really understand it. Do the members of the opposition have a philosophy? I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment and subamendment which were placed before the house show that the opposition still does not understand. They criticize for the sake of criticizing. They said they wanted a more detailed throne speech. Could it be that they wanted more to criticize? Is this the true role of an opposition? I do not think the people of Canada want that kind of opposition. They expect the opposition to oppose and to keep the government on its toes, yes; but I am sure that they do not expect the opposition to criticize just for the sake of being in opposition. They spoke about poverty; they spoke about poverty as if it just suddenly came about and we had never experienced it in the past in this country. What do they expect the Prime Minister to do? Is he supposed to wave his wand and all of a sudden, 'poof', no more poverty?
This government has taken the most forward-looking step of any government in recent years by attacking the problem of poverty sensibly and logically, with the establishment of a new department of regional development. This is the way responsible government should be. But when we listen to an irresponsible tirade on the part of the opposition concerning a program which has not even been given a chance to start, then it seems to me that the opposition obviously is not interested in good government, that they are interested only in opposing and in criticizing.
DEBATES	173
The Address-Mr. Ralph Stewart [DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has obviously changed his tactics. He did not used to be like that. This is perhaps one time that he should have used his old tactics. This is one of the times that he should have said what he has so often said before, "Well, we'll see; we'll see." I think I understand why he has adopted this method. He is so afraid of being upstaged by his predecessor, the right hon. gentleman, that he feels he should beat him to the draw.
Speaking of the right hon. gentleman, those of us who have a great filial affection for the former prime minister are very happy with the tribute paid him today, and we are happy that his position in the official protocol list of precedents is so lofty. As a former prime minister he takes precedence not only over the previous prime minister but also over his own leader. This must make him very happy; and we are very happy with him.
Something that made me very sad indeed was to hear the Leader of the Opposition make reference to the fact that Her Majesty was not referred to in the speech from the throne. This to me was an obvious attempt to make a political issue out of the Queen. These are the old tactics that were used by the opposition in the past, concerning the flag. It seems they would like to have the Queen now made into a political football. Do they honestly think that the Queen is their personal property for them to protect? This is an issue that should not even have been mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, if he was sincere about his desire to help bring about good government in this country.
And then there is that group further to the left of Your Honour, whom I suppose we could call the leftists. I think the people of Canada spoke far more eloquently then I can as to their fate. Except for an accident of provincial considerations in Saskatchewan they have been religated to where they belong. Again in this parliament we see them cloaking themselves in the shroud of selfrighteousness and making sanctimonious pronouncements. Canadians are no longer fooled by this. Throughout the whole of the election campaign they were up to their old tricks, talking about the Carter report which most of them have not read, condemning a rise in the price of stamps as something against the poor workingman, when they knew so well it would have been the big firms that would have paid for it.
The Address-Mr. Ralph Stewart
They say they are the friends of the workingman, and that is another myth that was dispelled in the last election. It is not the man on the street that goes along with their philosophy, but perhaps some of their organizers and leaders of the labour groups do.
In any case we threw them out of northern Ontario in no uncertain terms, and that is where they were so sure of support. They even boasted that they would win Cochrane. Out of the 12 Northern Ontario ridings we won 11, and they almost lost the twelfth, and might have, if it had not been for the personal popularity of my good friend Arnold. It certainly was not his party that got him in.
The leader of that group, to Your Honour's far left, moved a subamendment deploring the fact that the throne speech did not go on in detail about the housing crisis. Isn't that a logical approach. All Canada knows that my good friend the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) has tackled this problem in a very forward looking way, and I can tell you that if he does not succeed in solving the housing crisis, there is not anyone inside this house or outside of it who can. But the leader of the N.D.P. would rather hear a lot of words on the subject. I think we should leave the words to him, sir. This government will take the action.

Mr. Speaker, I represent a riding which is not a constituency but a country. It stretches from Hudson Bay to lake Superior and as far as the Quebec frontier to the east. It is a vast constituency which is approximately the size of France and which is less favoured than the other parts of the country.
During the election campaign, the Prime Minister spoke about regional development and singled out northern Ontario. We find this very encouraging because, in the past, it was customary to think of the Maritimes or eastern Quebec when less fortunate areas were discussed. It is time now to think of our region and to try and develop it. We have always been forgotten in the past, but I am convinced that after the Prime Minister's visit to our region, the riding of Cochrane and the north in general will no longer be forgotten.
In the first place, northern Ontario is an area rich in natural resources. It has tremendous mining possibilities, forest resources that are almost unexhaustible, unequalled tourist opportunities. To develop all these, five-year or ten-year comprehensive programs, taking into consideration all aspects of life in the north, should be carried out.
[Mr. Stewart (Cochrane) .1
September 18, 1968
But why has the north been neglected in the past? Why were some people maintaining that our area was not so deprived after all? It was mostly because studies were based on unemployment statistics. If one visits northern Ontario, Mr. Speaker, or if one knows the climate of this part of the country, one would be inclined to think that it is too severe for one who does not work to live there. This means that if a person does not work, he just leaves. That is one of the reason why unemployment statistics do not indicate this area as one in need of government programs.

It is becoming more and more apparent that we cannot use the sole criterion of unemployment to designate an area. In the light of newer criteria the claims that we make in northern Ontario for special treatment are valid in the over-all national development.
Let me quote what Professor Brewis said on this subject.
It is the absence of agreement on these basic political questions no less than the absence of an economic appraisal of alternative courses of action that weakens federal policy. Meanwhile substantial transfer payments are made to the poorer provinces and these sums are augmented by abnormally heavy unemployment insurance payments. Continuation of such payments is almost certain to be a less fruitful way of assisting poorer areas than a program of aid designed to encourage development and migration. Welfare payments in general do not strike at the cause of unemployment and poverty. Indeed to the extent that they reduce the urgency of the need to find solutions, they can be expected to perpetuate these evils. A more positive approach to the problems of the poorer parts of the country is needed.
The economic council is turning its attention to the issues involved, and there is some possibility that the geographical branches of government will devote more of their resources to the problems of industrial location and urban development. Hitherto the overwhelming emphasis in their work has been on physical geography.
Of course in all of these programs continuous and effective federal-provincial liaison is undoubtedly an overriding requirement. As far as my area is concerned, I believe that the provincial government has been very interested in going ahead with various programs, and it is evident that there will have to be co-operation between the two levels of government.
It is very interesting to note that although Ontario is the wealthiest province in terms of personal income, approximately 20 per cent of the Canadian low income farm families are within the boundaries of Ontario. In the north

September 18, 1968

there are strong regional concentrations of rural poverty. Northern Ontario possesses regions that are facing different problems. Any over-all policy for developing the area must take adequate account of this diversity, and selective programs must be adapted to the particular needs and prospects of the varied subregions.
One of the important things we must consider about northern Ontario is the fact that there are significant natural resources. Near Moosonee we have deposits of lignite unequalled, we have deposits of columbium which are being developed, and we have the possibility of oil wells throughout the whole of that area. Of course the rich forest industry is concentrated in northern Ontario and that is our principal industry.
The big problem we have to overcome in northern Ontario is first of all that of transportation and accessibility. Everything we mention seems to come back to the old problem of transportation. There are not enough roads and the service offered by the railroads is inadequate. The question of freight rates is uppermost. If we want to induce industry to come into the north, we have to make sure they can send their products out to market at a reasonable rate. If we want to encourage local farmers to raise beef cattle, we have to assure them that they ean send their animals to the slaughterhouse at a reasonable rate. If we want to encourage people to grow vegetables, we must be able to tell them that their products can be sent to market at a reasonable rate. But the present situation in respect of freight rates is such that none of these things can be done advantageously.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
We have, as I have said, a very important industry in northern Ontario, that of forestry. Various people in this area have opened factories to make plywood and other by-products of the forest industry. They are constantly running into difficulties and cannot compete with other Canadians on the market because they have to pay such high rates to ship their products on the railroad. Is this the way to develop the north? It is not. This is why I am so confident that our governement will take a close look at all these problems. It is going to consider regional development for northern Ontario from every aspect and come up with answers that will make it possible for our people to live in a reasonable fashion.
The Address-Mr. Ralph Stewart
When we come to plans such as ARDA, the Prime Minister knows, because he and I went over the figures together, that not one cent went to developing anything in my riding. Of course the people have to request these things, but they do need some guidance. I know that some money was spent in the region to research a new type of blueberry. That certainly did not help the local people very much. When we asked why more had not been done, the bureaucrats gave us the answer that "Ontario does not have easily definable regions of concentrated rural poverty." That is a typical, bureaucratic answer and it is the kind of answer that will not do. I hope that the minister who has taken over the new department of regional development will not listen to that kind of reasoning, but will go ahead and develop our northern area.
The recent approaches to the problem, as described by those who have made a study of regional disparity, have stressed the over-all dynamic aspects of regional development in relation to the national economy as a whole. In this way Canada will accept sacrifices not only for the future benefit of less developed regions but for the future gain of the entire country. Moreover, sources of potential development will be sought all across Canada and not just in such traditional areas as the mari-times. In that search there will be put forward no misleading averages for provinces in order to hide the real truth about depressed areas.
Also, there is a consensus among the scholars that it is very much in the interest of society at large for a high standard of social services to be maintained in all rural areas, even those where sparse population makes these services more expensive than elsewhere. This is particularly important with respect to education.
If you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention here the cultural situation in the riding of Cochrane. I would like to see, in the whole development of the northern area, some consideration given to culture. Why should our young people be deprived of that which others in the south are receiving? There is no such thing as a cultural centre in my riding. -I am trying right now to get the government to take over a building-which, by the way, they could get for practically nothing-in the town of Kapuskasing. Part of this building could be used as a cultural centre, and I suggest that the other part could be used as a forestry training school. This would benefit the area and would be good for the future of the young people.
September 18, 1968

The Address-Mr. Ralph Stewart
I hold in very high esteem in this country, Mr. Speaker, the national youth orchestra. In fact, I go to hear it every year, even if it means travelling several miles to do so. I do this because I think it is one of the finest projects in Canada. I would like to see some of our young people from northern Ontario selected for that orchestra. But how can they possibly be considered when there are no facilities for culture in the north? This year the national youth orchestra had a member from the Northwest Territories, which leads one to believe that Yellowknife has far more to offer culturally than northern Ontario, a mere 500 miles from Toronto. This situation must be corrected, and I hope it will be part of the over-all consideration when we are talking about regional development in northern Ontario.
According to modern thinking in general, public funds in the past which have been ineffectively spent in the less developed regions could have brought a high return if ways had been found to channel them into social infrastructure improvements within the depressed rural communities.
I would like to speak about agriculture, Mr. Speaker, but because of the shortage of time I will mention only one aspect of agriculture as it affects my area. I refer to the situation of the market for potatoes. I wonder how many hon. members have gone into a supermarket in Toronto, Montreal or Ottawa and seen a sign saying "Cochrane potatoes". Nobody has, of course. I venture to suggest that hardly anybody in the house is aware that there is a fine Cochrane potato. Every year potatoes grown in the Cochrane area take awards. The soil in our part of the country is conducive to a heavy crop of potatoes, yet most people have never heard of the Cochrane potato? Why? We have heard of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick potatoes, which travel a great deal farther to the market. This is an area which has to be developed.
Again we come back to the old problem of freight rates, which are too high to allow people to compete in the market with farmers from Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. There is no reason why a potato chip factory could not be established in northern Ontario, but of course we would have to assure such an industry that it would be able to send its products to markets in the south, on payment of a reasonable rate.
One of the main possibilities for our part of the country, when one is considering regional

development, is tourism. Attractive areas are numerous and tourists can enjoy many pleasant activities, such as fishing and hunting. Unfortunately the tourist industry is not fully organized in most of the region. This is a field in which the government can help. There are not sufficient roads, and there is a lack of motels and hotels. Of course the tourist industry is under the control of the provincial government and action should be taken by them to improve roads, publicity and accommodation; but there is no reason why the federal and provincial governments cannot work together in this matter. There is certainly room for more government programs in the riding of Cochrane.

Mr. Speaker, northern Ontario will remain an underdeveloped region as long as the problem of the high cost of transportation remains unsolved. The absence of secondary industry is harmful to the economy of any area, for primary industry has great drawbacks. Agriculture and the lumber industry are seasonal activities, while mining may be interrupted because of poor lodes or obsolescence. Secondary industry, on the other hand, is relatively stable and minimizes the risk of great economic fluctuations.
It has already been suggested that a road should be constructed between Cochrane and Moosonee, in order to serve also the country surrounding Kapuskasing. This initiative would be the first step in the economic development of the area. It will certainly not be undertaken by the province alone; the province, in fact, cannot do it. But it seems to me that we could establish a joint program in order to achieve this project.
Before closing my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention something that concerns me greatly. It is the lack of authority on the part of the government concerning crown corporations. When a member asks a question in the house about one of those corporations, the answer is invariably: I do not want to meddle with the administration of that corporation, because it is autonomous.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should adopt another attitude. The Canadian people are paying and we are here to represent them. It seems to me that we should have our say in cases of maladministration of these companies.
As an example, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, so they tell me, is full of separatists that are remunerated by us, the taxpayers, to enable them to work against us. It
September 18, 1968

seems to me this situation should not exist. On the English network of C.B.C., we hear nothing but voices with foreign accents. Does it mean that nobody in Canada is able to contribute to the corporation? Evidently, we should be able to express our opinion on that.
We could say the same thing about the Canada Council, the Canadian National, the National Arts Centre which is close by and which has cost $45 million to date. One forty-fifth of that sum could have helped build cultural centres everywhere in the riding of Cochrane.
But what is going on? These corporations have been left alone, in their independence, but they have been spending our money. Then, maybe the time has come to have a look into this and change our way of thinking as concerns the administration and authority of these crown agencies.
A while ago, I referred to the Canadian National. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that the railway service in the Cochrane riding was better 50 years ago than it is today? I cannot exactly call this progress. Rather, it would seem that we are going backwards. The situation needs to be corrected and I hope that this government will keep all these considerations in mind when setting up the northern Ontario regional development program.
Mr. Speaker, we have always been left out in northern Ontario; my constituents feel that we are neglected. I am sure that this government, with our new leader and the new team, will take steps to improve the situation, so that prosperity may be enjoyed not only in the Cochrane electoral district but also all over northern Ontario.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. Mark Smerchanski (Provencher):: I
should like to add my congratulations to Mr. Speaker upon his recent elevation at the first session of this parliament to the high position of permanent speaker. I hope that the legislative assembly of the province of Manitoba will adopt a similar rule to the one adopted by this house, and will also elect a permanent speaker. I also wish to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply, the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) and the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand), both of whom gave an excellent account of themselves.
I have the pleasure of representing the constituency of Provencher and of bringing from
The Address-Mr. Smerchanski western Canada Liberal representation for that constituency. I wish to express my appreciation to the constituents in my riding for having placed their confidence in me and having selected me as their Liberal member of parliament. Of course I do not possess the powers of elocution or the eloquence of some other hon. members of this house, but as an engineer I shall try to do my best.
My constituency is 225 miles long and slightly over 75 miles wide. It covers a total area of some 17,000 square miles and has a population numbering 60,000. I can say truly that my constituency is a land of great variations. In its southern portion it has the lumber industry, the dairy industry, cattle raising and grain farming. Some of the largest poultry and turkey farms in Canada are to be found in its central part. In its northern part there is fishing, fur farming, trapping, mining, the pulp and paper industry, and one of the most modern atomic research plants at Pinawa, which is known as the Whiteshell nuclear research centre and is one of the world's first organic cooled heavy moderated reactors to probe the mysteries of the atom and harness its energy for peaceful uses.
We also have five hydroelectric power plants on the Winnipeg river which supply electricity to the city of Winnipeg. The major portion of the northern section of the constituency is covered by rock outcrops known as the pre-Cambrian shield. Hundreds of lakes and rivers are to be found there. They are ideal for sport, sailing, fishing, swimming, camping and canoeing. Also solitude can be found in the more remote areas of this constituency, at a very short distance from the busy vacation resorts.
I should like to take hon. members through a small part of the historical background of my constituency. The Red river which originates in North Dakota flows north into lake Winnipeg and forms the western boundary of my constituency. The Winnipeg river flows across the middle portion of my constituency and empties into lake Winnipeg. These two rivers are very symbolic in the western Canadian history and played a great part in the development of the west.
In 1812 the province of Manitoba was settled by the Selkirk settlers who came to York Factory in the Hudson bay, and then travelled in York boats to lake Winnipeg and up the Red river to establish the Red river settlement. In recent years I travelled this route by canoe and marvelled at the hardships encountered by these men and women who
September 18. 1968

The Address-Mr. Smerchanski travelled in the York boats through the mosquito and blackfly infested swamps.
For many years the Winnipeg river served as a historic water highway for the fur traders who came from Montreal to the head of the lakes, and then continued west and over the height of land into the headwaters of the Winnipeg river. This is a fast, treacherous river, and some of the hardships which the voyageurs encountered while travelling down the Winnipeg river are unknown to today's travellers. The present area through which the Winnipeg river flows is generally the same as it was 200 years ago.
In 1738, Jean Baptiste La Verendrye was the first explorer to discover the beautiful Winnipeg river. This explorer-voyageur in search of the western ocean, discovered the fur rich northwest and lake Winnipeg. Little did he realize that the Winnipeg river is only half way between Montreal and the Pacific ocean. However, it became the most important and the most travelled water highway for the thousands of brigades of freight laden canoes which came and went from lake Winnipeg. Mackenzie and Simpson, the founders of the Hudson's Bay fur trade, were frequent canoe travellers on the Winnipeg river.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The explorers and voyageurs were followed by many men from new France and the British Isles, a large percentage of whom remained in the area and took Indian wives. Today their children are known as the Metis. Today, in the constituency of Provencher, the past is remembered with pain, pride and hardship. Time has helped to heal these wounds. Time has taught tolerance and understanding to those who came into this area from distant lands seeking a new life. These people knew what poverty was and won their own war on poverty through hard work. They became good citizens of Canada. Today there are over 20 different ethnic groups working and living together in my constituency. These people, their fathers and forefathers, live together harmoniously, contributing their talents and energies to this fine land of ours, not only the province of Manitoba but the country as a whole.
These people have not and do not believe that any government, whether it be federal or provincial, should take care of them from the cradle to the grave. My academic training has been in the field of geological engineering. I am fully aware of the potential, and of the development of our natural resources in most

of the mining areas of Canada, whether in New Brunswick, in the Gaspe, north of Noranda, in the Elliot Lake uranium fields, in the nickel-copper sections of northern Manitoba at Thompson and Flin Flon, in the copper occurrences along the Coppermine on the shores of the Arctic ocean, in the silver development in the Osoyoos area of southern British Columbia, or the magnetite, sand and iron deposits in the Queen Charlotte Islands. I am pleased to be a Canadian when I see the potential wealth of this great country of ours.
However, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but become involved and enthused in so far as the speech from the throne is concerned. It describes the policies of the Liberal government. These policies resulted in the election of the Liberal party by the people of Canada. During the last few days we have heard such critical phrases as, "tidying up", "new ventures", "secret society", "use wisely the human resources in the country". I find myself in complete disagreement with these phrases. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and our just society came through the election campaign with 154 seats, as against 110 scattered among the other parties. This is proof of the appeal these measures had for the people of Canada. I believe, and I believe very strongly, that all of us in this house should apply ourselves to criticizing constructively and contributing to good government. What we do or say will make tomorrow a possibility.
In particular, Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the government upon the placing of ARDA, FRED and ADA under one department. This combined and unified effort will produce results. We truly have an excellent opportunity to develop manpower programs, make regional improvements, and thus give to the people of Canada as is stated in the speech from the throne, "as equal access as possible to the opportunities of Canada's economic development". Limits should be instituted on the assistance given to costly industrial plants, because most of them are highly mechanized. They use a limited amount of labour. Instead, small industrial development should be encouraged in the rural sections of our country. These would provide jobs in rural areas and displace poverty. Small business development funds should be encouraged by the government in participation with free enterprise. Let industry have a vested monetary interest and in addition provide the management and know-how for industrial development. The government
September 18, 1968

should not be directly involved in this type of program. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that we now require the same type of free enterprise as that which built Canada economically and industrially to the point at which we find ourselves today.
In this way we would give the residents of the poverty areas of our country an opportunity to earn a reasonable wage, recover their pride and restore their dignity. We would give them an opportunity to contribute to the success of a just society. The effort has to come from the people within the areas now described as poverty areas. The establishment of small industries throughout the rural areas of our country will make Canada grow. There are too many people leaving the rural areas and crowding into the urban areas, which have become greatly congested. I am firmly convinced that this government, under the leadership of our Prime Minister, will not only talk about these problems but will do something about them.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
This is not the task of the Prime Minister alone, Mr. Speaker; this is the responsibility of all elected members of the House of Commons. I too am concerned and worried about the impact of continued unrest and violence upon the mood of the Canadian people, and about the resulting social problems. A great deal of this unrest is, because people are idle, on welfare or not gainfully employed. There is a great deal of frustration about this kind of violence which, if allowed to continue, will lead to social paralysis.
The forefathers of the citizens of Canada, Mr. Speaker, were sturdy pioneers who developed the country and laid the foundations for our agriculture, our transportation network, industry and our economy. I believe that in this house, and particularly on the government side where there are so many new members, there are capable and competent representatives who, in their own way, will blaze new trails and will continue to pioneer and lead us forward to further economic development, responsible living and good fellowship, and thus bring about a more united and better Canada in which to live. I have no hesitation whatsoever in recommending to the care of these new and competent members of parliament the future of Canada. Indeed, the future will take care of itself. We may at times, Mr. Speaker, suffer disappointment but we will certainly not become discouraged. If we do become disappointed we should make
The Address-Mr. Smerchanski immediate plans to try again. This type of approach when taken by government, by business or by the professions will spell progress.
Mention was made the other day of the fact that our defence and military expenditure is too high and unjustified on the one hand; on the other hand we were told that we were not taking a positive enough stand to restrain the Nigerians from annihilating the Biafrans. I cannot reconcile these two types of thinking, Mr. Speaker, coming from the same source, on the same afternoon and almost within the space of a few minutes. If we are to be responsible members of this house I think we owe a duty, not only to ourselves but to each other, at least when we rise to our feet to channel our thinking in such a way that we do try to remember what we have said before.
The throne speech outlined a number of matters about which there is urgency. For example, the government is proposing a Freshwater Fish Marketing Act, the establishment of a National Grains Council, amendments to the Farm Machinery Syndicates Act, the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Farm Credit Act, the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. These are but a few of the far reaching and progressive programs that are to be dealt with at this session of parliament. When one realizes the supporting information that is required and the large amount of research and hard work that is necessary before passage of these bills, Mr. Speaker, then perhaps the opposition may understand why there are 47 bills now before the house.
The prospect in store for me as the new Liberal member of parliament for Proven-cher, Mr. Speaker, is truly a challenging one. I shall apply myself to the best service of my constituency by pledging myself to work diligently and conscientiously with government members during the current session. Let us have all the various specifications and analyses of every kind-call them what you will -but we must get on with the job of providing the necessary background to, and the favourable atmosphere for, the economic and industrial development of this country, and the creation of a just society.
This country, Mr. Speaker, does not owe any one of us a living, but it does owe all of us the opportunity to make good if we so desire. In this regard our model-a model that has been quoted by others-should be,
September 18. 1968

The Address-Mr. La Salle not what one can get from one's country, but what one can give one's country.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, would my hon. friend from Provencher (Mr. Smerchanski) be willing to answer a question?


Mark G. Smerchanski: Yes, 1 shall try to answer it.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I heard my hon. friend mention the name of La Verendrye as a discoverer of the west. Does he know that La Verendrye was a native of my riding and that he lived there all his life?


Mark G. Smerchanski: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of that, but if he was, then that makes us related brothers from Provencher.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: He was from Trois-Rivieres.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolieile):: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be to congratulate you warmly on your election as Speaker of the house, but the fact that you have obtained the full confidence of all members easily explains the respect which is shown to you everywhere, and I am quite pleased to point this out.
Allow me also, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as well as the ministers, the party leaders and all the members for having obtained the confidence of the people whom they represent. To all, I extend my best wishes of success.
Needless to add that I would have been pleased to congratulate the new Quebec Conservative members, but I realize that I will have to wait until the next elections.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly would have many things to say, but due to the time allotted for my speech, I will, in the next few minutes, take advantage of this occasion to be practical in my judgment, even though this may seem difficult for some to accept. At any rate, I am convinced that my opinions are permeated with a sincerity which everyone is looking for and I am equally convinced that truth will serve my constituency, my province and my country.
Mr. Speaker, needless to tell the right honourable Prime Minister that everyone living in my constituency and in la belle province de Quebec is anxious to see as soon as possible the realization of the just society which he promises. I need not tell you, my dear colleagues, that I wholeheartedly
[Mr. Smerchanski.l

endorse this noble ideal called the just society.
Before going any further, I think it is essential that I say why I spent so much energy and worked so hard to get a seat in this house. It is precisely because I hoped- and I still hope-to give the province of Quebec and the French-Canadian people the representation that is essential to its emancipation and its expansion, all this for the greater benefit of Canada as a whole.
As a newcomer to this house, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that I represent, first of all, the aspirations of my fellow-citizens on the provincial level. What I say may be disputed, but I am firmly convinced that my first duty in this house is to work for my province as a whole. Similarly, I recognize that the same duty falls to my colleagues of the various other provinces. If we do so, together we will build marvelous provinces, co-ordinated, of course, by the central government. I say "coordinated" and not "centralized", because I see a huge difference between the two. That very fact will bring us to build a country and the provinces will be proud to be a part thereof.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I shall limit myself to a very few remarks on the Speech from the Throne, because those who preceded me have said so much that we will end up thinking that the Prime Minister should never have presented such a program at the opening of the session.
I will say right away, Mr. Speaker, that I am well aware of public opinion regarding the loss of valuable time in the course of each session. I do not have to tell you that I am very interested in changing our parliamentary procedure which will, above all, preserve the practices of a true democracy. Being a new member, it comes to my mind that instead of wasting about ten days in reply to the Speech from the Throne, which is really a repetition of criticism or an oratorial contest, I wonder whether it would not be more logical to allow the party leaders the liberty to edit this speech, if necessary, to approve it or to submit suggestions that would improve the agenda of the current session. This would, in my opinion, eliminate this loss of time in order to deal with priority legislation in the best interests of the Canadian people.
Among other things, it is regrettable that in the Speech from the Throne the right honourable Prime Minister thinks about constitutional reforms over a long period of time. You will agree, Mr. Speaker, that as a Quebecker, I
September 18, 1968

cannot ignore such a declaration. Perhaps the right hon. Prime Minister has considered that, due to a rather important vote of confidence he has obtained in the province of Quebec, he is justified in postponing constitutional reforms. If such were the case, he would commit a tremendous error in repeating everywhere that Quebec is a province like the others. This is not right and he knows it.
How can a just society be achieved if, at first, the state of mind and the particular status of French Canadians living in Quebec are not recognized? Whether it is admitted or not, I say there exists a French-Canadian nation in this country and 85 per cent of its people live in Quebec. On behalf of this nation, Mr. Speaker, I want you to believe that there is an urgent need to elaborate this new constitution. Furthermore, in the interests of Canada and considering the future of our country, this is a serious warning I am giving. It is quite urgent that all the party leaders show courage in order to have the rest of the country admit the fact that Quebec is not a province like the others. Only then, realizing our differences and each having his own mentality and his own way of thinking, will we be able to sit around the same table and build the most beautiful country in the world. I would be shirking my duty if I did not say that.
I agree with the Prime Minister when he says that it is not what he says that is important, but what he is going to do. It seems to me that he will find it hard to escape what he said in Montreal on April 2, 1967. For the instruction of the English-speaking majority of the country, he made some rather strong demands concerning the recognition of the rights of French Canadians, among others, a maximum of material and cultural freedom and comfort. He wished for a strong Canada and asserted that the best guarantee of progress for Canada itself was a strong and dynamic country.
Quebec indubitably has a special place in the national scheme. It is impossible to believe in a just society if the new constitution refuses to recognize that Quebec has a certain influence in the field of social security, manpower and vocational training, immigration, radio and television.
Eventually, the house will have to determine to what extent decentralization is necessary so that Quebec, on the one hand, and the federal government, on the other, might fulfil their role efficiently. I trust that the Quebec members in this government will
The Address-Mr. La Salle take the measures and the stands required for that purpose.
May I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to deeply regret the attitude of this government with regard to a recent decision, namely the winter works program. I have heard the answer given by the Prime Minister to questions put to him recently in the house to the effect that the municipalities were expecting that decision. What is inacceptable, in my opinion, is the fact that such a decision has been taken without official consultations with the municipalities.
In my riding and everywhere in Canada, municipal budgets had been prepared on the basis of those subsidies. Furthermore, it was done at a time of the year, when we already have more than 400,000 unemployed, whereas those works represented for our economy $200 million in wages, materials and so on. I say it again, so that the right hon. Prime Minister can hear it, a just society, it is not quite that.
Mr. Speaker, let us hope that a just society will, in the shortest time possible, attend to the discrepancy between the pensions of the disabled and the blind and those of the old people.
I would not like to miss this opportunity to ask, in the name of justice, that the package bill be introduced in part at first. In view of the various mentalities and beliefs prevailing in this house, a free vote on this question, in due time, is absolutely necessary if we truly believe in a just society.
Before closing my remarks, I too should like to tell the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) that the new international airport would provide for a great deal of opportunities if it were built in the area which I represent. Therefore, in view of the fact that a portion of the north bank of the St. Lawrence river is adjacent to my riding, I think that it would be appropriate to carry out a study on the establishment of the maintenance centre in Lanoraie, which in the first place, would relieve traffic in the Montreal harbour, while at the same time contributing greatly to the economic expansion of that area.
Along the same lines, in view of the fact that, in the northern part of the Montcalm riding, the tourist industry is the first source of income, I would be very happy to see a study carried out on the feasibility of a small airport for two-engine aircrafts in St. Donat. I am convinced that such a venture would
September 18, 1968

The Address-Mr. Bruce Howard provide for the economic stability necessary and longed for in that part of my riding.
I cannot finish my speech without urging the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) to act quickly in order that the producers and farmers whom I represent may have the advantage over imported commodities to sell their products.
I must yield to another member, but allow me, Mr. Speaker, to acquaint the Prime Minister with a thought which often occurs to me: What can a member do for his constituency when he is in the opposition? To that, I answer that the undertaking of Prime Minister to establish a just society leads me to believe that the constituencies represented by the members of the opposition in a just society should receive the same attention than those of government members. If I am wrong, I would appreciate it very much if the Prime Minister would let me know.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues may rest assured that I have duly considered my views before stating them. I have done so, merely to serve my constituency, my province and my country, Canada.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to say how honoured I am to represent the people of Okanagan Boundary in this house and to speak in support of the government in this speech from the throne debate. I am particularly pleased to represent Okanagan Boundary riding because this is the first time since it was formed 64 years ago that our area of the country has been represented by a member of the Liberal party. I am most grateful to my constituents who have given me this distinction but I am mindful to a greater degree that they have placed their faith in the great leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
Although Okanagan Boundary has not been served by a Liberal member before, it has been represented by men whom many of the members of this house will remember. My immediate predecessor, David Pugh, of the Progressive Conservatives, served in this house for ten years.
Hon. members will remember too the late O. L. Jones, a member of the C.C.F. party, who served with renowned dedication to the affairs of this house and his riding. In earlier years a distinguished politician and member

of the Conservative party, Hon. Grote Stirling, contributed wisely and well to his constituents and to the history of the nation. It is my hope that I will do no less than their worst efforts and, God willing, that I may equal their best.
It is a tradition of this house that a new member may describe the beauties of his riding for the enlightenment of hon. members and the nation. As Okanagan Boundary riding encompasses some of the most attractive scenery in Canada, and as this is so widely known and so generally acclaimed, I will only mention it in passing because it is important to what I have to say a little later on.
When the first white men travelled through the valleys of the Okanagan, Similkameen and Boundary country, when they established the fur brigade trail from Fort Astoria through the Okanagan to Kamloops in the first half of the nineteenth century, they found a region of beautiful but unusual geography. Much of the region was arid, dry. The Okanagan valley is like a finger of the Great American Desert pointing across the 49th parallel into the heart of British Columbia. Water was the problem then and water is the problem now. Water will be the problem in the future.
Early settlers discovered that these arid bench lands would bloom like the Garden of Eden with the application of water. Today every orchard, ranch and home depends on plentiful artificial irrigation for its existence. Without it land returns quickly to sage brush, grease wood and cactus.
Just 20 years ago the first good paved road connecting the riding with Vancouver was built, and the tourist industry began in earnest. Since that time the population has mushroomed. Demand for water throughout the whole watershed has increased seriously and pollution has become an alarming factor. In the last seven years alone the population has increased by 25 per cent. It is anticipated that this increase will continue and accelerate.
Water consumption now averages about 340,000 acre feet per year. The average supply is approximately equal to the demand, but in dry years it is as low as 80,000 acre feet per year. We have a serious problem. If there were two dry years in a row the people of Okanagan would have nothing to drink but apple juice. A proposal to divert water from the Shuswap river has been made and this may solve the problem, provided a satisfactory arrangement can be worked out with the
September 18, 1968	COMMONS
residents of the area from which the water would be diverted.
I said pollution was an alarming problem-alarming because the pollution time clock has suddenly started to speed up. Estimates of the time available to solve the problem made by knowledgeable authorities only three or four years ago have been reduced from 15 years to ten years, to five years, and now it is feared that in the case of at least one lake it may already be past the point of no return.
At this point I wish to digress very slightly to say that the pollution I am talking about is not raw sewage. Dr. David Clarke, a highly qualified, Harvard-trained medical health officer of the South Okanagan health unit, recently said, "We have about $5 million in sewage treatment facilities in the Okanagan and they are as good as any around." What I am talking about is the eutrophication of water, the growth of green and brown algae, vegetable matter, the kind of thing that occurs because of the input of fertilizers-fertilizers like phosphates in household detergents.
The people of Okanagan Boundary riding are prepared to help themselves in dealing with this problem. The city of Penticton, for example, has installed a system to pump treated effluent on to agricultural land for irrigation. The city of Kelowna will build a $1,370,000 tertiary treatment disposal plant this year. It will be the most modern plant in Canada, and I would point out that the cost will be borne by a city of 17,000 people. If outside assistance from the federal government were available, variations in the operation for experimental work could be included and all Canada would benefit. The problem is bigger than individual communities can meet. It is a problem that requires the active cooperation of all three levels of government, if it is to be solved.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that no member of this house is in favour of pollution. I am equally sure that no member of any provincial or municipal administration in Canada is in favour of pollution. But despite the avowed concern of all, the problem is not being solved fast enough. Rivers-yes, they can be brought back if badly polluted; but eutrophication of lakes may for all practical purposes be irreversible beyond a certain point.
Wherein lies the problem? The federal government has done much, that is true. The Burlington centre is an outstanding contribution to the study of pollution. In many other
DEBATES	183
The Address-Mr. Bruce Howard ways this government is to be commended for doing most of what is being done in Canada in this field today. But the most important link in the problem has yet to be forged. I refer to the need for effective co-operation between all levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal.
Inter-government co-operation so far has been almost a total failure. Pollution cuts across the jurisdiction of all levels of government. Each has its own rights and responsibilities, and all must work together. If ever there is to be a test of effective political manoeuvring it will be in creating an effective three level striking force to battle the causes of pollution.
I am well aware that the federal government has attempted to work with the provincial governments on this matter. Ottawa, ever sensitive to the need of provincial governments to appear competent in their own jurisdictions, has been extremely cautious of moving too fast, of stepping on provincial toes. Mr. Speaker, there is a time for caution and a time for action. In the case of the Okanagan water basin it is a time for emergency action.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Nearly two years ago, the then minister of energy, mines and resources proposed at a pollution conference in Montreal that his department would be prepared to enter into agreements with the provinces on investigation leading to the preparation of regional framework plans for water development. This offer was repeated again in a press release from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources dated May 5, 1967. To this date, the provincial governments of Canada have given little response to this offer. It is time then that this government took more direct action. Pollution will not wait. The people will not wait. The people of Canada must be told again that the federal government is ready, willing and able to act.
On behalf of the people of Okanagan Boundary riding I am asking that this government make it publicly and abundantly clear again that it is willing to enter into an agreement with the province of British Columbia to establish a water basin demonstration district in the Okanagan watershed.
I said earlier that water was the problem, the very life of Okanagan Boundary riding. A water basin demonstration district would provide the research for our pollution problem and it would tackle the problem of the total
184	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Bruce Howard supply of water for the region. It could determine how soon our limited reserves of water will run out, where to acquire more water without disturbing existing interests elsewhere and how to supply water to arid regions without water now.
There are other ways that this government can tackle pollution and I should like to suggest two of them now. A major cause of pollution in many areas is the phosphate found in household detergents. Scientists estimate that as much as 35 per cent of this phosphate in our lakes and streams comes from this source. If this is true, then we must take effective action to eliminate this factor. We could encourage industry to find a suitable substitute by grants for research and, after a suitable period, we could and should penalize or even prohibit the use of phosphate-laden detergent.
Another area where this government could act now is in grants to industry for approved pollution control measures. At the present time, capital cost allowances are made to industries for this purpose but this method is wrong, in that an industry has to make a profit before it can take advantage of a tax write-off. New industries and co-operatives may well cause pollution but not have any profits.
One of the better recommendations of the Carter commission was that tax payments and incentives should be separate things. If the government wants to aid an industry, it should do so directly by grants and then collect whatever taxes are due separately. Here is an example of a logical application of Carter's theory. The need for an industry to correct a pollution problem has nothing to do with what profit it makes or indeed if it makes a profit at all. Let us eliminate the tax concessions and supply equivalent grants for pollution control where they are required.
I have now spoken for several minutes on the waters of the earth. I think it is only fitting that I should raise my sights and talk about the stars in the heavens. This problem afEects the people of Okanagan Boundary at this time too.
I am sure that all the hon. members of this house will understand that peculiar feeling of dismay that I had when, upon barely arriving in Ottawa as the eager new member for Okanagan Boundary riding, I switched on the television and learned that the largest federal project under development in my riding, the Queen Elizabeth observatory, had been cancelled.

DEBATES	September 18, 1968
My mind went back to the warm summer day two years ago when the then minister of energy, mines and resources officially opened the road to the top of Mount Kobau. There were very high hopes that day. The minister said in his remarks:
Now, instead of the four freedoms, we have five freedoms-for we have added the right of every Canadian to look through the best telescope in the world and see the stars!
Yes, it was to be the best telescope in the world for, even though it was not the largest mirror, it was to be made better so that Canada would be ahead of the world in astronomy. In a report in April of this year by the dominion astrophysics observatory at Victoria, it is stated:
A comparison of this blank and the inspection reports from all recent blanks over 103 inches indicate that it is by far the best large mirror blank ever made.
Now this is all finished. Like the smashing of the Arrow we are going to throw the great project on the scrap heap. The scientists that would have been Canadians will now give the benefits of their talents to other countries. It reminds me of that song that was popular in the thirties that went, "Once I built a tower to the sky. Now it's done. Buddy, can you spare a dime".
We have been told that the failure of the project was because of financial considerations. I am sure that the people of Canada can understand the need for economies; but if that is the cause and the whole cause, then surely we can look forward to the day when we can get our shoes half-soled again. Surely, at some time in the future, a nation such as Canada can find the money to complete so noble a project. But wait: We are going to sell the mirror. The best piece of optical glass ever made is going to be sold on the second hand market. Like impoverished nobility, we are going to pawn the family jewels for some pittance in a second hand store. I say to the hon. minister, turn back. The little money the mirror will bring will never pay for our loss of national pride and self-esteem. Canadians have seen the stars.
There is another reason to take a second look at this cancellation. Ever since the days of Louis Riel western Canadians have felt to some degree an alienation from the rest of Canada. A group of eastern Canadian scientists have reversed a decision affecting western Canada, and western Canadians are angry. The government decided to go ahead with the Queen Elizabeth telescope on the best scientific advice it could obtain. On that
September 18, 1968

advice, it decided to locate the telescope on top of a mountain in British Columbia. It built a multi-million dollar road to the top of the mountain. It bought the world's greatest lens blank. It organized scientists to begin the construction of this great instrument and set up laboratories at the University of British Columbia. Then another group of scientists came to the minister and told him that the scientific secretariat was wrong.
The minister has apparently agreed with them and the project is to be abandoned totally, finally and irrevocably. What am I to tell my people? Am I to tell them that the Prime Minister's science secretariat is a group of blockheads; that they are incompetent; that they have led us into a monumental, multimillion dollar error?
It is important to Canadians and the world that this government reconsider its decision to cancel the Queen Elizabeth observatory. Canadians can and should lead the world in this field of peaceful research. If it must be delayed we can accept that, but we cannot accept the permanent cancellation of this great work. It is not too late to reconsider. Nothing of this great work need be lost and all Canada and indeed all mankind will gain.
On these matters I ask for the interest and support of members of this house.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it has not been my policy during the years I have been in this house to join in repetition of the compliments that usually adorn the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. But there is one word that I want to say. Like all members of this house I am delighted at the re-election of Your Honour as Mr. Speaker. It is indeed a tribute to the manner in which you conducted the proceedings of this House of Commons during the last parliament. It is also an indication of the belief of all members that you can lead us as we endeavour to make significant reforms in the procedures of this house. I believe, and I say this having had the privilege of taking part in certain consultations, that we are a lot closer together than the gentlemen of the fourth estate might realize. It is my hope that we will make some advantageous and significant changes in the rules and procedures of this House of Commons, and I hope we will make them soon.
It may seem strange, it may even be hard to believe, if as an opposition member I say There are some things in the speech from the
The Address-Mr. Stanley Knowles throne that I like and even some things in it with which I agree. I have already indicated that I agree with the proposal that there should be reforms in the procedures of parliament. I also want to state my complete agreement with the proposition that we should work toward a just society. Likewise I give my full support to every effort that can be made to eradicate poverty. I also believe that we are going to have to develop some new programs and some new approaches to our social problems. I accept the proposition that if we are going to achieve justice for our people we have to engage in economic development even beyond that which we have experienced up to the present time. I also support the proposition that we need to concentrate on regional development and on putting an end to regional disparities. We must make an effort to see that the just society extends from sea to sea and from our southern border to the northpole.
Even after it has been said and admitted by all of us that we agree with the just society and want to work toward the eradication of poverty there is still the burning question, what about the people who need help now? It is because that question is perhaps the kind of question that best represents the appeal of the people I represent, in the inner heart of a great city, that I rise to take part in this debate.
I urge that this parliament and this government, in its enthusiasm for new programs and for a just society in a decade or two from now, must not forget the poverty, the injustice and the suffering that many Canadians are experiencing right now. I emphasize the fact that many of these people in whose name I speak will not live to see the just society, will not live to see the eradication of poverty.
I am not prepared to settle for an academic exercise that refers to something better ten or fifteen years from now. I feel that this parliament has a responsibility to make life better for people who need help now. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, without the slightest hint of apology I return in this parliament to two or three subjects that the older members will realize I have raised time and time again for more than a quarter of a century.
I wish I had the attention of at least three ministers, but I see that at least one of those whose attention I want is here. I refer to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. September 18, 1968

The Address-Mr. Stanley Knowles Dube). I mention these three because the particular areas of need that I think this parliament should do something about come under their departments.
First, this parliament will not be worthy of praise for having worked toward a just society unless it does something to improve the lot of our old age pensioners now. I realize that there is a tendency in this age of so-called affluence, in this period when we have done a lot in the social welfare fields, to say: Look at what we have done; we have got old age security pensions up to $75 a month, $76.50 this year and $78 per month in January; we have added to it a guaranteed income supplement which pays $30 on top of that for some people, and we have done a lot in this field, so why can't people like the member for Winnipeg North Centre leave this alone for a time?
This cannot be left alone because too many of our pensioners and too many of our older people hear on the radio and see on television comments about a just society, but their experience is one of struggle just to keep body and soul together. I suggest that one of the clear pieces of evidence that we have of that need, that we have not yet done enough for our present old age pensioners, is to be found in the statistics available with respect to the guaranted income supplement. This is the extra amount of $30 that old age security pensioners can receive if they meet a certain income test. The figures from the Department of National Health and Welfare indicate that almost 60 per cent of the people who are drawing old age security pensions have qualified for the guranteed income supplement. That means that almost 60 per cent of all the people in Canada 67 years of age and over have little or nothing else than their old age security pensions. I know that many of the other 40 per cent are little better off. I might also point out that approximately 60 per cent of those who do qualify for the guaranteed income supplement qualify for the full $30, which means that they have nothing else.
All the talk in the world about a just society, about a new age and about all the things we are going to do for youth-and for God's sake let us do all we can for the youth of this country while they are young and before they become old age pensioners-will not do away with the necessity in the name of justice and humanity of doing something now for our present old age pensioners.

When the private members notices of motion appear on the order paper in a day or two, as they will, hon. members will find in my name a resolution which will be no surprise to them. I suggest in that resolution that parliament at this session should raise the old age security pension to $125 a month and that it should make that amount available to all our pensioners without any means or income test on any portion of it.
I also urge that the eligible age be brought down to 65 right away, and I urge that the arrangement for the pension to be increased as the cost of living goes up be altered so that the full increase in the cost of living will be reflected in the increase to the pension. It is not good enough to have an arrangement under which that increase can be only 2 per cent per year, particularly when you realize that for a number of years after the pension was set at $75 there was no increase at all. Therefore there is all of that backlog in the cost of living increase back to the day when $75 was the fixed amount. I say the adjustment of old age security pensions should take this into account.
There is also a problem that arises because of married couples of different ages. I refer to cases where the husband can be on a pension and the wife not, or vice-versa. Even with all of the social security and social welfare programs we have in this country, and there are many, there are still many people for whom there is nothing, just because they do not fit the letter of some law. In other words, here is an adjustment that will have to be made, namely seeing to it that if the breadwinner, at any rate, of a married couple is not working, the pension should be paid for the two of them, certainly if their ages are not more than five or ten years apart.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
So I urge as strongly as I can that this parliament get over the notion that I think is here far too much, namely that this is not a subject to talk about, that we have done enough about this in the last few years, that we are going on and to build a just society, that we are going to reach the millennium 10 or 12 years from now; therefore let the old age pension stay where it is.
I quite agree that there can be better ways than the programs we now have in this and other fields. I favour the concept of a guaranteed annual income-I go a lot further than a negative income tax-to provide a generous allowance to all our people. We must get away from this business of tying the right to
September 18, 1968	COMMONS
live to the question of whether you can get a job.
I favour the concept of greater economic development in order that we may support better welfare programs and provide a guaranteed annual income. I favour the tackling of regional disparities, and I believe this country will do these things. I hope and believe that ten years from now Canada will be a better country for all age groups. But there are people in their late 60's, 70's and 80's now who may not live to see this happen. These people are in difficult circumstances and need assistance now. I urge that action on this question be taken during the life of this parliament.
I said, Mr. Speaker, that there were three ministers whose ears I wanted to get, if I could. The second is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). I come again to a particular group on whose behalf the older members in this house have heard me speak times without number. I refer to retired civil servants and their widows, retired members of the permanent armed forces, retired R.C.M.P. personnel, and so on.
The battle for something to be done for these people is a long one. I have recounted it so often that I will not do so today. But I remind the house that on May 8, 1967, a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons tabled a report in which there was a unanimous recommendation for increases in the pensions of federal superannuates. We had the firm promise of the government that consideration would be given to that report. I personally had even more than that; I had the assurance that something would be done, and would be done within a limited period of time, indeed within a few weeks. That was in May, 1967. We are now in September, 1968, and still nothing has been done.
When I asked the Minister of Finance the other day in the question period whether something was going to be done to implement that report, I got the same old answer, "The matter is under consideration". The smiles on the faces of those on the front benches seemed to me to say, "There's Stanley again on this old question. Why doesn't he leave us alone?" Well, he is not going to leave them alone.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: These people are former employees of the federal government and we have a special
DEBATES	187
The Address-Mr. Stanley Knowles responsibility to them, not only as old people and citizens but as former employees. These people hear all this talk about the just society, all this talk about an attack on poverty, and they wonder whether any of that justice will come to them. They also wonder whether any of their poverty will be removed before their days on earth are done.
The report our committee put in was a well documented report. We went into all the aspects of this question. We ascertained the amounts of money in the various superannuation funds. We ascertained the fact that the amount of interest being paid on the funds produces more money each year than is paid out in pensions. The pensioners themselves are quite convinced that their pensions could be increased by sizeable amounts without any drain on the treasury.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, in pleading for this to be done for retired civil servants I am pleading for the acceptance of a principle that I think we will have to put into effect with regard to pensions across the board, namely the principle that people should not be expected to live the rest of their lives on the amount of income that was indicated for them the day they went on pension.
Pensions have to be escalated. People in other sectors of society get a chance to improve their income in one way or another. Our old people are part of society. This is a day, and I welcome it, when there is a tremendous emphasis on youth, on the opportunities which should be created for youth and on the things youth should do for this country. But old age is also a way of life. Older people also have rights, and I suggest that an elementary right, justice itself, is being denied to these people when they are told, once they have their pension, that costs may go up, standards may rise, ways of life may change, but they must get by on the same amount. This means that their standard of living is deteriorated.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in the name of the retired civil servants, and because there is at stake here a principle that I think we have to work into the whole fabric of our pension arrangements, I urge that the government stop the stalling and delaying that we have had on this important question. The government has admitted in part the principle that pensions have to escalate. We have that, of course, in the old age security pension, now that there is the automatic arrangement for an increase as the cost of living goes up. We
September 18, 1968

The Address-Mr. Stanley Knowles have the same principle in the Canada Pension Plan. But in both those cases we have put on the 2 per cent ceiling to which I referred a few moments ago, which means that the increases people get do not reflect the over-all increase in the cost of living.
But I am pleading for more than that. I am pleading for more than just a sufficient increase in pensions, whether they be for retired people generally or retired civil servants, to cover increased costs. I am pleading for more than just enough to keep their purchasing power up to what it was; that would only enable them to buy the same basket of goods and services that they did on retirement. I am pleading for the opportunity for them to participate in the rising standard of living, in improved social conditions, the affluent society, and the rest of it. These people may be retired now, but it was their effort and work which brought this country to where it was when they retired. They laid the foundation for what we now enjoy. Therefore, surely they have the right to participate in the improvements that take place during their years of retirement.
We hear a lot about the just society. We hear a lot about humanitarian instincts. Let us apply these instincts to the young, the middle-aged, the working people and all our citizens. For God's sake let us apply them to the people who are starving in Biafra, but let us not forget this tremendous body of people in our own land, namely our retired population. According to the figures of the Department of National Health and Welfare, there are about one and a quarter million people on old age security, and in view of the fact that this is a universal program this would be the number of Canadians 77 years of age or over. Amongst those one and a quarter million people are far too many who are below the poverty line, and at the point where even subsistence is difficult.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge as strongly as I can that the two ministers to whom I have been addressing my remarks thus far, namely the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Finance, bring in this session proposals regarding these two matters, that is, an increase in the old age security pension and increases in the pensions of our federal superannuates.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The third group on whose behalf I wish to speak in these few remarks this afternoon is that group of veterans whose income consists


in the main of war veterans allowance. I am delighted to have the attention and the ear of the new Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube). I forgive him for his answer to me the other day when I asked whether the matter of the War Veterans Allowance Act would be referred to any committee dealing with veterans affairs, because, after all, he is a new minister. He said to me that whatever terms of reference that committee would have, would have to be decided by the house. He knows that any motion giving the committee its terms of reference, although it has to be passed by the house, would have to be drafted and brought in by the minister. I am pleading with him, if he is not prepared to bring in legislation of his own, to see to it that this subject is referred to any committee which deals with veterans affairs.
Much has been said lately about the report of the Woods committee. It is a very interesting document. Far be it from me to claim that I have read it all. I have a copy of it and it stands about a foot and a half high. The veterans organizations have welcomed it, but it deals exclusively with the administration of the pension legislation which relates to disability pensions. It does not deal at all with the War Veterans Allowance Act, which is the legislation to which veterans have to resort if they do not have actual disabilities on the basis of which to claim their pensions. As we all know, disability pensions are granted without any means test. On the other hand, allowances under the War Veterans Allowance Act are subject to a means test. I find that generally veterans across this country find it hard to accept the fact that other people receive their old age pension and their income supplements in addition to whatever income they may already have, but when a veteran living on the war veterans allowance receives his old age security pension or his guaranteed income supplement, he receives it as a matter of right but it comes off his war veterans allowance in accordance with the means test. I recognize that veterans living on the war veterans allowance as well as the old age security pension, the guaranteed income supplement and the small amount of the war veterans allowance which they get, are receiving a little more than some others. However, I do not think this is good enough in relation to the debt this country owes them, and to the principles that were established with regard to the War Veterans Allowance Act.
As I have said many a time, most of the correspondence which I receive as a member
September 18, 1968	COMMONS
of parliament comes from people who are in need, such as old age pensioners and retired civil servants. There are about 45,000 retired civil servants and widows in the country. I have not yet heard from them all but it is getting pretty close to it. I welcome their letters and their support and I hope that before long we will win their case. I also receive a great many letters from veterans, but in almost all cases they are from veterans who have to depend on the War Veterans Allowance Act. It has been a godsend for the past several decades, but it does seem to me that real improvements can be made to it, and I hope the Minister of Veterans Affairs will do his best to bring in legislation on his own initiative to increase the allowances or to minimize the effect of the various means tests, particularly where other government legislation is concerned, or, failing that, that he will at least refer the matter to the committee on veterans affairs.
I can imagine what some people will say about this kind of speech. Here again is the member for Winnipeg North Centre who wishes to increase the old age security pension to $125 a month without a means or income test, who wants retired civil servants to receive increased pensions, and who wants war veterans allowances increased, and yet he has not said where the money is to come from. I make one suggestion. The government should look into the Carter report, particularly those sections of it which refer to those groups of people who are escaping taxation. No new rates need be imposed, nor does the income tax have to be increased. All that has to be done is to impose taxation on those sources of income that are escaping it, and the Carter report makes it clear where they are. The government will then have a sufficient amount of money to pay the various pension increases for which I plead, and a lot more.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: am happy to express again my pleasure that you, sir, have been re-elected as the Speaker of this House of Commons. I look forward to the improvements in our procedures which I am confident we will make under your leadership. I wish to say again how delighted I am at the idea that we are going to work for a just society, for the eradication of poverty, for the millennium in Canada. But it will take a little while, it might even take five, 10 or 20 years. In the meantime, I want and I urge this 29180-13
DEBATES	isg
The Address-Mr. Dumont parliament to have enough human compassion and enough realization of what suffering means to do something at least for the three groups of people in whose name I speak this afternoon: our old age pensioners, our federal superannuates and our war veterans.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, allow me first of all to congratulate you on your appointment to the office of Speaker of the house. I am convinced of your impartiality and I remain convinced that your eyes will often turn to us to allow us to ask the questions which are in the interest of the Canadian people, because the members of the Ralliement Creditiste are the voice of the people.
At the beginning of this speech, Mr. Speaker, I would like also to extend my warmest congratulations to the Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Chairman of committees on their appointment.
I would like also to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne (Messrs. Corbin and Marchand). Their eloquence would have impressed Louis XIII, and yet they remained true to the pomp imposed on us by the British parliamentary system.
I also wish to congratulate, in this house, the member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), leader of the Ralliement Creditiste who, on September 16 last, celebrated the 22nd anniversary of his arrival to parliament. This worthy representative of the people was able to stir, in Canada, a feeling of pride in being a Canadian; in addition, he encouraged honest politics through the Ralliement Creditiste, refusing the help of election funds. It is costing our leader his health, his courage, his energy. Bourassa would be proud to hear a French Canadian fight for our rights with so much fairness. Indeed, after the great creditist speech he made last Monday night, I can say that we are at the dawn of a new era in Canada because the Social Credit will get rid of the obstacles created by man against national prosperity. The Canadian people, on their own initiative and by their own efforts, will bring about, through the Social Credit, an era of prosperity, liberty and security for all.
o (5:40 p.m.)
Since I represent here the riding of Frontenac, let me describe it for you. It lies south
September 18. 1968

The Address-Mr. Dumont of the south shore of the St. Lawrence. Lauri-erville, Plessisville, St. Ferdinand d'Halifax, Inverness, Black Lake, Thetford Mines and Courcelles form its boundary and it includes 42 parishes and 34,000 voters. It is surrounded by good creditist neighbours, the ridings of Beauce, Lotbiniere, Levis and Richmond.
As everyone knows, the historic name of Frontenac comes from France. Count Louis de Frontenac, born on May 22, 1622, in the castle of Saint-Germain, was the son of Henri Buade, a comrade in arms of Louis XIII. In June of the same year, Louis XIII became the godfather of a baby who was later to become the Count of Frontenac. Educated by the Jesuits, he later took part in several campaigns during the Thirty Years' War as field-marshal. In 1672, he was appointed Governor General of New France. He had married in 1648 Anne de la Grange, who stayed in France to help her husband at the French court. On June 28, 1672, Frontenac sailed for New France from La Rochelle. Since he had had worthy predecessors in the persons of the sieurs de Courcelles and Jean Talon, there were no great administrative problems. Frontenac was twice in New France. Rather like some Creditiste members of Parliament, he came back a second time.
It was in 1680 that the Sieur Provost, commanding officer of the city of Quebec, was informed by Abenakis indians from Acadia that a fleet was sailing towards the St. Lawrence from Boston. Realizing the attack was imminent, Frontenac ordered all available troops to be brought to Quebec. Three days later, the Boston fleet sailing towards Quebec under the command of Sir William Phipps was within sight shortly before 10 o'clock, on October 17. A pinnace with a white flag left the flagship and brought Major Savage to Chdteau Saint-Louis where he presented Frontenac with an ultimatum, calling upon him, for his security and satisfaction, to accept immediate and unconditional surrender; failing this, the town would be stormed. Frontenac replied that he would not wait an hour before giving his answer, which became historical: "No, I can only reply to your general from the muzzles of my guns."
That proud reply of a patriot made immortal the name of Frontenac. Indeed, in the city of Quebec, the famous Chateau Frontenac enshrines the names of the discoverers of Canada.
In this year 1968, the voters of the riding of Frontenac also said to those who contributed to the Liberal party campaign funds-in

short, they said to the world of finance: "Go tell your master that we will answer through a Creditiste vote", for everyone has known for 100 years now that both grits and tories made fine promises, but did nothing about them. Concerning the team led by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the absolute majority he asked for has done nothing but, as a result of the Speech from the Throne, disappointed the people. "Trudeaumania" was brought about by a well-organized, highly expensive progaganda, after the style of the Beatles or with the enthusiasm of Elvis Presley, and has given rise in Canada to what we could call "Trudeaufraud", because the people have been misled as to the true intentions of the government. First of all, we hoped that family allowances would be raised as the cost of living increased, and we expected interest-free loans to school boards and municipalities, as is done in foreign countries. Nothing of the kind has materialized. On the contrary, we see a government disconcertingly uncompromising because of its majority.
Here is proof of what I am saying. In Bia-fra so far, two million people have died because the federal troops of Nigeria want to protect the oil wells of the Shell Company. The Nigerians are pushed to commit genocide by England which sells arms and airplanes to drop bombs on the civilian population of Bia-fra. While that goes on, our Prime Minister refuses to give the names of the subscribers to the party's election fund. I am asking the Prime Minister and his government if Shell did not make one of those $100,000 donations, which would explain why he will not get involved in the affairs of England which, once again, makes possible the murder of civilians by selling airplanes to the federal troops of Nigeria. Mothers, children writhing in pain appeal to the Prime Minister for help to alleviate their misery. Since he has no children of his own, I can understand that he may not be too deeply affected by that drama, but I beg him to listen for one moment to the cries of those children. If he had children who were crying: Mummy, I am hungry, I am sure he would hurry to England and make an attempt to prevent the sale of offensive weapons.
Our celebrations for the opening of this 28th parliament gave no indication of the tragedy going on in African countries. Mr. Speaker, I cannot but tell the Prime Minister: You who profess yourself a champion of human rights, who, as an adventurous young man, wanted to go to Cuba to congratulate
September 18, 1968	COMMONS
Castro, hurry up and fly to-morrow to England to meet your masters and ask them to stop these great slaughters.
To his ministerial colleagues, I say: Understanding Liberals, who are compelled to accept such an adamant Prime Minister, arouse from your torpor, for if there was a time when remarks such as "Ti-Toine, shut up", could be heard in Quebec, now there is here a conspiracy of silence.
This is another example. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) says that the package bill will be divided into several parts; the Prime Minister says: No, no and no. Everybody objects to the discontinuance of the winter works; we ask that they should be carried out for another year. The Prime Minister says: No, no and no. It is not surprising that he should say to his ministers: You keep quiet, because in Cite Libre, issue of April 1962-which is fairly recent-he stated and I shall quote word for word because we are often accused of not doing so. For those who would like some information, all these details can be found here at the parliament. Therefore, I quote from page 4 of the diary written by the present Prime Minister, in the March 1961 issue of Cite Libre:
For instance, the contempt shown by the English for the French language never appeared to us equal in depth and in stupidity, to the contempt of those among us who spoke and taught it so abominably. The infringements upon the educational rights of the French Canadians in the other provinces-show the mediocrity-
Let my Liberal friends note this:
-the continuous mediocrity of our representatives in Ottawa.
Those were the words spoken by Mr. Trudeau in 1961.
I continue with a quotation from the same magazine Cite Libre. As may be seen on page 6 of the June 22 issue, the present Prime Minister stated:
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
... when St-Laurent gave his blessing to the Duplessis policy in the Ungava; when the party, as one man, declared against the provincial income tax; when Mr. Lesage was a centralizing federal minister; when Mr. Lapalme, imposed upon Ottawa to get rid of Godbout, still fought desperately to free himself from the reactionary clique; when the progressive views of a Jean-Louis Gagnon were considered annoying; when an Hector Lan-gevin was held in disfavour by the party for lending his name to the Le Devoir subscription campaign; when the Liberal federation was still wet behind its ears; when the newspaper Le Canada disappeared for lack of readers, for lack 29180-131
DEBATES	i9i
The Address-Mr. Dumont of subscriptions and lack of ideology; when, in short-and that was not so many years ago- the provincial-Liberal party was still a heavy body without soul and Isocrates spoke of its "Convention of the Last Chance" ...
Here is a last quotation from the present Prime Minister, for we could produce several of them, and time flies.
I refer this time to page 10 of the April 1962 issue:
Consequently, if we consider the few nationalistic victories won in Ottawa after years of hard fighting, we could not probably find a single one which could not have been won at a single meeting of the cabinet by one of our representatives, had he been of C. D. Howe's caliber. We have to admit it, all the French-Canadian ministers put together have almost never weighted as much as a bilingual cheque or a hotel name.
It is still Mr. Trudeau who refers to our French-Canadian ministers of that time and he continued in his article of August and September 1962, with these words:
The Quebec electorate felt, in March 1958, that, if it voted Conservative, it would be able to get rid at last of a delegation which security had made pretentious, tyrannical, backward and incompetent. French Canadians did what they knew they had to do: the party of Laurier, Lapointe, St-Laurent, the party which claimed it was the only and undefeatable champion of the French-Canadian cause, the glorious Liberal party which, and so on, was cast aside like an old shoe.
That is still Mr. Trudeau speaking, Mr. Speaker. I shall quote one last passage. I have only gone over 75 pages of the writings of the present Prime Minister, and I shall quote one last one, written in 1957, when his trend of thought was already socialist and he was turning towards the New Democratic Party. I quote:
Finally, the height of impotence, both on the part of the Liberals and of the Conservatives, was, during that whole campaign, the absolute silence maintained by both parties concerning the pipe line scandal.
When one is reminded to what extent this scandal contributed to the Liberal downfall and the return to power of the Tories in June 1957, when one sees that, within the Tory party, such international financial combines have continued to create fabulous profits for a chosen few, to the detriment of our general interest, the silence of the old parties shows clearly their capacity for action. This is all the more surprising since, on both sides, there was much talk about pan-Canadian nationalism during the campaign. The Liberals came out with the promise of a Canadian flag which they had carefully stored away during their 22 years in power.
I am still quoting our new Prime Minister. I shall now read excerpts from this last article, which shows a socialist way of thinking.

September 18, 1968
Business of the House
the turn of mind of a Socialist who became a Liberal. In the October 1958 issue of Cite Libre, on page 9, he wrote that:
Stanley Knowles, one of the leaders of the C.C.F., commented that resolution in the Social-Democrate (May 1958, p. 6):
-"Do all those changes herald the end of the C.C.F.? If our loyalty to the C.C.F. had only hinged on a name, it would be the end, indeed. The time has come to build an organization which will be the party of a greater number of citizens." Since the national C.C.F. strong in its distinguished parliamentary traditions and in the support of 10% of the voters, feels compelled however to admit the ineffectiveness of its present structure, we may hope that the Quebec C.C.F. will take stock, a bit more realistically, of its true efficiency and will modify its course accordingly.
But we have not reached that point. I am still trying to show the poorness of the political thinking in Quebec and even though that of the C.C.F. has been interesting, it is a fact that it has hardly been present in our province.
As he could not see a C.C.F. presence, he chose to turn toward the Liberals.
May I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is now six o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, before the house adjourns perhaps I could announce the business for tomorrow, which will be to continue with the address debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being six o'clock this house stands adjourned till tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to standing order, subsection (2) of section 2.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, Sepiember 19, 1968