April 26, 1967

PC

Robert Carman Coates

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Coates:

It is my intention to move from discussing the dairy industry to discussing questions of legitimate concern to all Canadians. This week and in the days ahead Canadians will feel a true sense of achievement as they visit Expo '67, taking note of what has been accomplished in the creation of a world exposition, the equal of which must come in the future, as our expectations and the expectations of countries hosting similar expositions have been exceeded. I hope that Expo '67 will be tremendously successful financially and in developing a better understanding between Canadians of various races as they join together at St. Helen's island to see their tremendous agricultural and engineering achievement.

Much credit is owing to the many people who laboured long and hard to make certain

April 26, 1967

that the schedule was met. I earnestly hope that the citizens of Montreal and of Quebec will do their part to make sure that when visitors leave Expo '67 they will not have a bad taste in their mouths, with a feeling that they have been "taken" by the people of the area. The exhibition can help to develop national unity of purpose in the minds of Canadians but it can also do much damage, should English speaking Canadians visiting Expo and Montreal discover that every opportunity is taken to "take them", and should they be discriminated against because they speak English only. I hope such things will not happen, and I think the citizens living in the exhibition area must be careful to see that the right image of Canada is portrayed during the fair's existence.

Many visitors to Expo will visit the national capital. We are preparing ourselves for the visits of many heads of state. They will be impressed with what they see in Montreal, but I feel certain that they will be unimpressed and shocked and bewildered when they visit Ottawa.

For many years there has been talk about setting up a federal district encompassing Ottawa and Hull. Never has it been more evident than today that such action must be taken. After 100 years of nationhood our capital has little of which its citizens can be proud and in which they can express their identity.

I want to make crystal clear that I do not complain about the municipal government of Ottawa. The elected officials of this city have done their very best within the limits of their budget.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Subtopic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Sub-subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
NDP

William Arnold Peters

New Democratic Party

Mr. Peters:

Of their mental capacity you mean.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Subtopic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Sub-subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
PC

Robert Carman Coates

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Coates:

No, within the limits of their budget. The members of this house have not had the mental capacity to make certain that we do not see those things in this city we ought not to see. The streets of the capital are continuously being torn apart, as can be seen from the situation at this very time. Our parliamentary buildings are located in the most aesthetic and strategic position in the capital, but it is made almost impossible for visitors to see them. The Minister of Public Works has decreed that cars may not be parked on the hill-a laudable objective if there were alternative parking available nearby. But such is not the case. So we can thank the minister for making it impossible, cr next to impossible, for visitors to see what is really the only beautiful area in the city.

Interim Supply

There are other areas under development at a very slow rate by the National Capital Commission. If the present pace is continued, maybe if we are still a nation by 2067 we shall be able to say something kind about our national capital. But at the present pace it will not be before that date, and no doubt the potholes, the rough streets and the temporary buildings put up by the Department of National Defence on the corner of Elgin and Laurier will still be in existence.

It is evident that the government of Ontario has reached the point at which it realizes something must be done if we are to develop a national capital which will attract visitors. But the federal government continues to procrastinate. A great deal is said about a national identity and about national unity. Yet as a people we have little or nothing to point to by way of monuments in our capital to those in all walks of life who have made contributions to the building of our country. We have a government which is set upon destroying one tradition after another, showing quite obviously that it takes no great pride in our past achievements and is willing to substitute the symbols of our past for what it hopes will become the symbols of our future.

Surely, if we expect Canada to prosper and grow in its second hundred years we must begin by providing examples for Canadians which will develop within them a sense of pride which is not evident today. It is my hope that Expo '67 will assist in doing so. It is my further hope that the centennial commission will assist Canadians to relive pleasant memories of the past and develop in the minds of our young people a sense of pride, a sense of history and a sense of belonging which we did not take time to stress in our first hundred years.

I believe the small celebrations which will be held during 1967 in almost every community in Canada will do more than anything else to make Canadians aware of past accomplishments and anxious to maintain momentum in the years that lie ahead.

When one visits the city of Washington he is immediately impressed by the planning which has made such a large area so beautiful, despite its heavy population. It is not hard to understand why Americans feel a great pride in being citizens of the United States. The many areas set aside for parks, intermingled with residential and business areas, are a measure of the kind of foresight which American leaders displayed. In the

April 26. 1967

Interim Supply

Ottawa-Hull area we have the potential for a capital which would give the same sense of pride to Canadians.

[DOT] (1:10 a.m.)

We will have proven when Expo '67 opens that we are not pikers. Indeed, many may say we are penny wise and pound foolish when they discover the bill that must be met to put on this kind of world exhibition. We have never been willing to spend that kind of money on building a capital for Canada, and until we do we will never really develop that sense of Canadianism but will continue from a base that produces the misunderstandings and dissension so much in evidence at the present time.

Our end objective must be to have our citizens accept the simple word "Canadian" with no additions of any kind attached to it. This should be the final objective of every person who is born in this country and the ultimate objective of every person who comes to live in this country. It cannot be that I am a French Canadian, or English Canadian, or Italian Canadian-just Canadian-and we will only do that when we assume the obligations of a nation to produce a capital city that will give pride to its people.

It is my hope that the government will realize this fact as this year goes forward and will not spend time on petty politics, but take the initiative to set up a federal district, established in a non-partisan way, to honour the men who helped us get where we are now, and give the citizens of the future the kind of objectives that will make them want to build and not tear down-want to be Canadians.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Subtopic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Sub-subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
RA

Roland Godin

Ralliement Créditiste

Mr. Godin:

Mr. Chairman, just a few words for the minister. I should like to insist on the 70 per cent increase. In giving this figure, the minister was taking a chance because it is a figure that may prove false one day.

The minister should know that the farmers who have stayed on the job are honest workers. They know what to give their stock and how to build up their herd. Supposing the weather is helpful, an increase of 25 per cent can easily be achieved within one year. At that time, the quota which is suggested, that is 70 per cent, would be reduced to 55 per cent.

If this happens at the rate of 35 to 40 per cent, as it may automatically occur, the prices would be reduced to 40 per cent. The minister

should not lead us to believe that the Liberal party or the government have given $400 million to the farmers in ten years. The minister should not try to have us believe in such an enormous gift because $400 million is only one quarter of what national defence is costing us this year.

Four hundred million dollars for a period of ten years? That is a mere trifle compared to the amounts of $1 billion 600 million, spent on national defence in the 1967 budget.

With regard to taxes, the hon. minister would have us believe, once again, that there is danger in digging too far into the workers' pocket-books where he finds the money to pay subsidies to the farmers. I should say that there has been some improvement since last year. I must congratulate the hon. minister.

Last year, we had a budget of $146 million, of which contributions, allowances and subsidies represented as little or $30,370,201.

The remaining $115 million has been spent for administration. This year with $250 million we will have $133,582,000 for the farmers.

On the other hand, for the information of all taxpayers-because that is often overlooked-the figure which is given most often in the newspapers, on the radio and on television is the total budget for agriculture, that is $250 million.

I should like to say here that $72,052,500 were spent on salaries and wages paid to civil servants.

Professional and special services: $3,050,700. It means that we already have another amount of $75 million, which represents again 25 per cent of the budget for agriculture.

A little further one finds: office stationery, supplies and equipment: $1,941,900. Practically $2 million. I am not against well organized offices but I want to tell all the taxpayers that the offices of the Department of Agriculture are very well organized and that they do not lack anything because during the year about $2 million was spent on stationery, supplies and equipment alone.

With regard to the amount of $133,592,100, I should like the minister to tell us where exactly are those allowances, grants and contributions going? Will part of this money be given to sugar beet producers? Will another part be given to some wheat growers? And what about the dairy industry?

For the information of all Canadian taxpayers, I should like the minister to give us the above details.

April 26, 1967

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Subtopic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Sub-subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
SC

Bert Raymond Leboe

Social Credit

Mr. Leboe:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to apologize to the committee for rising at this early hour in the morning. However, I do have a very definite grievance.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Subtopic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Sub-subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader; Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles:

Don't we all.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Subtopic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Sub-subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
SC

Bert Raymond Leboe

Social Credit

Mr. Leboe:

Someone said, "Don't we all". Perhaps the biggest grievance is the fact that we are still here at this late hour. I should like to refer to the Alaska highway and give a little of the background. I will not take very long.

Back in 1957 the then minister of national defence saw fit to let contracts for the paving of some 83 miles of the Alaska highway. Since that contract has been completed not one shovelful of pavement has been placed on that highway. That was ten years ago. I do not think that we can deal with this matter in terms of dollars and cents. When we speak of this highway and the paving of it, it is a matter of priority. Surely, with a budget of $11 million, we should be able to squeeze enough money by way of priority without raising taxes or budgeting for it so that we would be able to do something about this very important link with the northern part of Canada, namely the Yukon Territory.

On April 1, 1954, the transfer was made from the Department of National Defence to the Department of Public Works. I brought this matter forward on September 11 and 12, 1963 at a conference in Whitehorse. The then minister of labour was present at that time and spoke to this conference. At the end of the conference I had a long talk with Congressman Rivers. We knew the attitude of the government at that time. Basing our calculations on the plan of the government at that particular time, we concluded that it would be seven years before anything would be done on the Alaska highway.

Four of those seven years now have gone by and there is no sign of anything happening on the highway. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has said that it is very, very low in priority on the list of government business. I do not understand this, because the same minister was provided with a letter which was written by the minister of highways of British Columbia on November 13, 1963, in which the minister agreed that on the British Columbia section the province of British Columbia would take up one third of the cost if it was a three way split or half the cost if only Canada and the province of British

Interim Supply

Columbia were involved in the paving of the highway.

[DOT] (1:20 a.m.)

I notice, in a letter from the former minister of northern affairs, Hon. Walter Dins-dale, that he quoted the estimate as being $112 million. Now, in 1967, I would imagine that the price has increased to about $150 million or perhaps even more. Even at a cost of $150 million over a ten year period, with a three way split among the United States, Canada and British Columbia, the total amount required would be about $3,350,000 to $4 million per year. When comparing that amount of money to a budget of $11 billion, considering the amount of good this expenditure would do for the people in this part of the country-and we hear a great deal these days about the importance of development in the northern part of Canada-surely it is not too much to ask the government to reconsider its whole policy in connection with the priority to be attached to this project.

The economic survey which was made certainly does not indicate a very good picture from the point of revenue in dollars and cents which will be derived immediately following the reconstruction of this highway. When is it ever possible to develop a country on the basis of considering the exact dollars and cents revenue to be received immediately from a project?

The Roads to Resources program was developed under the Conservative administration. Surely that name indicates a vision in connection with the north country. What we should be doing is reconstructing a portion of this highway each year. I have before me a wonderful little brochure put out by the travel bureau. It tells us about the fine things to be seen along the Alaska highway. It states that on a dry day it might be a little dusty. Let me tell you that on dry days you cannot find yourself on that highway. Many individuals have passed vehicles on the highway only to find when the dust has settled that both vehicles are stopped within 50 yards of each other waiting for the dust to clear. It is very easy to find this highway when flying over it. You can see it for hundreds of miles because of the continuous cloud of dust. People are being killed on the highway because of dust conditions, and traffic is slowed down to almost a walk on many occasions.

Surely we could improve and pave those parts of the highway which meet alignment and grade requirements. If this were done

April 26, 1967

Interim Supply

travellers could pass long lines of trucks which use the highway very extensively. This is the only highway which can be used to move heavy equipment and material to Alaska. We should have a careful look at government policy in connection with the development of this project.

In closing let me say that Canada should construct this highway in co-operation with the province of British Columbia. We could then make an arrangement with the United States for the payment of its share of the cost. We need not put all our aces on the table. Some day the United States will want a right of way or rail outlet from Alaska. There is only one area through which such traffic could go and that is British Columbia. If the government of the United States would not play ball in connection with the development of the Alaska highway then we could say we will not play ball regarding a rail outlet. Under those circumstances I am sure the United States would go along with us. The correspondence I have received indicates that we have no problem with the United States. The problem is with Canada.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Subtopic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Sub-subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
IND

Gilles Grégoire

Independent

Mr. Gregoire:

Mr. Chairman, before starting my remarks, I wish to thank the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) who mentioned earlier the tremendous and sensational things that people from every country will be able to see and admire at Expo '67 which is opening today in Montreal.

The hon. member for Cumberland expressed the wish that Canadian citizens from whatever province they come will not suffer any discrimination or inconvenience even though they do not speak English when in Montreal.

Mr. Chairman, 1 can assure him that Expo '67 is an international event, that some visitors will speak Spanish, Italian, English, German, that all will be most welcome and that nobody, whether from Cumberland, Toronto, Vancouver or Winnipeg will suffer for not being able to speak French.

Quebec and Montreal hospitality is well known. I am convinced that visitors from wherever they come in Canada, whether or not they speak French, whether they speak English only or both languages, will have a friendly reception. I think we showed in the past that we were able to receive our visitors, whatever the language they use.

The hon. member for Cumberland also expressed the wish that visitors will not be

[Mr. Leboe.l

exploited. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think precautionary measures have been taken to prevent that. There will probably be abuses in some cases; then, if the hon. member for Cumberland has knowledge of some, it will behove him to report them. But I think that the necessary steps have been taken to prevent abuses and, at all events, I can assure him that the Quebec and Montreal hospitality will be shown to all Expo visitors.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to come back to the requests of the milk producers. I believe that at least some of us, the member for Labelle (Mr. Clermont) or the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) took the wrong approach to the way of dealing with the problem of milk producers.

We have too often used the argument that the present government has achieved a better job than the preceding one. We too often quoted the figures of 1960, 1961, and referred to what was done then.

Mr. Chairman, it is not by trying to compare two parties or two governments that we will solve the problem. The fact that the previous government did not succeed in solving the problem is no excuse for the present government.

The fact that the previous government did not assist farmers sufficiently is no reason why the present one should sit back in selfsatisfaction and self-contemplation.

Problems are never solved this way. I heard the Minister of Agriculture tell us over again, going back to 1958, 1959, 1960, what was done at that time, and I could not help thinking that farmers will not care to hear what the minister has to say about what happened in 1960.

Farmers and milk producers want to know what the minister can do in 1967 and 1968 for those we produce milk.

I could also hear the member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) and the member for Labelle saying: we will work to get what the farmers are asking. In the same breath they vied with each other in showering the minister with flattery.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell those hon. members that flattering the minister will get them nowhere. Congratulating him for what has been done will not get the farmers what they ask. Let the two members who were showering the minister with praise go and see him tomorrow, let them go and ask him what the farmers want.

April 26, 1967

The minister will have but one thing to do, namely get out today's Hansard and tell them: Are you serious, look at what you said in the house last night about the dairy policy. See how much you congratulated me. And now you are telling me it is not enough.

And the minister, will merely have to quote Hansard and what you have said today, and then you try and ask something of him. The minister will burst out laughing and tell you: Gentlemen, make up your minds. Are those mere compliments you are making or what?

Mr. Chairman, the minister admits that everything is not perfect. Well, that is what counts. When the minister is ready to admit that the farmers were not satisfied and that their income is much below that of any other class in Canada, then it is important not to rest on one's laurels and to help the farmers to get a certain amount of justice in this Canadian society.

The minister admitted that the farmers do not get a fair share. Well then, it is not a question of sitting but of finding a solution. And we are asked for this solution, we are told: you criticize a lot, have you got a solutions?

We are told: you criticize, you ask for more, you ask for 30 million more. Where is the money to be found? Will more taxes have to be levied?

Well, I have a solution. I would have a solution to offer to the Liberal members who agreed that the Minister of Agriculture was not offering enough.

If you take the estimates for the year ending March 31, 1968, about half way down page 318 you will see that the government will buy bombs. I repeat, bombs. $26,086,000 worth of bombs to drop on whose head? I wonder. Whom do we want to kill? That is discussed in 1967-68, $26,080,000 worth of bombs.

[DOT] (1:30 a.m.)

I will ask the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) to tell on what heads we will drop that. To the hon. for Labelle, I ask: On what country are we going to drop our bombs? Where? Then, we will not need those bombs, we will not need those bombs we will buy; we have been storing them since 1945 and we never drop them on anyone. The solution is there.

Next year we should try that. We should stop buying bombs and help the farmers, the most maligned class of society in our country; we should help them to catch up with the

Interim Supply

other classes of society and we will have some money left.

Moreover, do we know how many ships we will buy? For $61 million? Do we know how many tanks and armoured vehicles we will buy? For $14 million. That is a lot of tanks.

It is proposed to purchase $95 million worth of aircraft. Very well. Let them buy planes if they want to, but we do not need any bombs. Is that clear enough?

The hon. members for Champlain and Labelle congratulated the minister and hold him that was not quite enough. Let them go and see the minister to tell him: This year, instead of buying bombs, let us settle the farmers' problem. It would be very simple, with $26 million being available. They will tell me that this is $4 million short. Mr. Chairman, if I refer to the previous page, I find that $18,773,000 will be paid for telephones, telegrams and other communications during the year. If national defence officials kept their hands off telephones and stopped clasping hands across telephone lines, they would be spending $4 million less.

With the $26 million saved by not buying bombs, it will make up $30 million for farmers and then they will be given what they want. Is it not a solution?

If I suggest a free vote in this house, either to buy bombs this year, to-morrow or the day after, in short, bombs which will not be used, but will rust, or to pay $5 per hundredweight of milk to farmers, I would ask the hon. member for Champlain to tell me how he would vote. For bombs or for farmers? Would he be able to answer? For bombs or for farmers?

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Subtopic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Sub-subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
LIB

Jean-Paul Matte

Liberal

Mr. Matte:

Bombs are not bought just for fun.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Subtopic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Sub-subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
IND

Gilles Grégoire

Independent

Mr. Gregoire:

He does not answer; I am surprised. And as for the member for Labelle-

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Subtopic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Sub-subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
LIB

Jean-Paul Matte

Liberal

Mr. Matte:

Bombs are not bought for the fun of it.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Subtopic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Sub-subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
IND

Gilles Grégoire

Independent

Mr. Gregoire:

The member for Champlain tells me that bombs are not bought simply for the fun of it. Why are they bought then?

Mr. Chairman, I will ask the member for Champlain on whom he would drop those bombs? On whom? I am asking him a good question. How are those bombs going to be used? I will ask the member for Bonaventure

April 26, 1967

Interim Supply

(Mr. Bechard) what he would rather do: help farmers or buy bombs?

This is an embarrassing question!

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Subtopic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Sub-subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
LIB

Albert Béchard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Bechard:

Mr. Speaker, could I put a question to the hon. member?

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Subtopic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Sub-subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
IND

Gilles Grégoire

Independent

Mr. Gregoire:

If the hon. member answers my question, I will allow him to ask me one. If the member for Bonaventure says whether he would rather buy bombs or help farmers, I will answer his question. Is he ready to answer mine?

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Subtopic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Sub-subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
IND

Maurice Allard

Independent Progressive Conservative

Mr. Allard:

Answer.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Subtopic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Sub-subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
IND

Gilles Grégoire

Independent

Mr. Gregoire:

He remains seated.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Subtopic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Sub-subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
LIB

Paul Langlois

Liberal

Mr. Langlois (Chicoutimi):

This is silly.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Subtopic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Sub-subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
IND

Gilles Grégoire

Independent

Mr. Gregoire:

Of course it is silly. That is obvious. I myself have no hesitation. Leave the bombs where they are, and let us help the farmers. The answer is obvious, and I do not hesitate. But you, you buy bombs. Hurrah for bombs! And where will we drop these?

Could the Minister of Industry and Defence Production (Mr. Drury) tell me on what country we are going to drop the bombs? On what country? On whom, Mr. Chairman?

For twenty years-

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Subtopic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Sub-subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
LIB

Jean-Paul Matte

Liberal

Mr. Matte:

On your yacht.

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Subtopic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Sub-subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink
IND

Gilles Grégoire

Independent

Mr. Gregoire:

Mr. Chairman, there is no need for $26 million worth of bombs; for $26 million, I shall sink my boat. If that is all that can prevent the Liberals from helping the farmers, I shall sink my boat myself. But they need not worry, it will not cost them one cent for bombs.

But it is obvious, it is clear. And I could quote numerous such examples. We have the choice of either buying bombs or helping the farmers.

So, let the Liberal members tell the minister they have found the solution. They have the solution as far as they are concerned and that is the astonishing part.

As you stand, you know, hon. Liberal members, that the bombs we are buying for $26 million this year will not be used. That is the stupidity of the whole deal. They will not be used because there is not one among us willing to throw bombs on other countries. You know that. We have been building up a stockpile of bombs for 22 years and those we have bought ten years ago are rusty. Let us stop it this year-

[Mr. Gregoire.)

Topic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Subtopic:   SITTING SUSPENDED
Sub-subtopic:   SITTING RESUMED
Permalink

April 26, 1967