1962-02-21

Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the house and my position in the house. I rise to inform the house that I have severed all my connections with the New Democratic party and, as a consequence, yesterday requested Your Honour to change the location of my seat.
My decision made at Regina to the Assiniboia N.D.P. executive was taken only after much careful and heart searching thought. The most difficult part of this decision was the realization that it meant leaving a group of men who had become very close to me, and who had worked and co-operated with one another for a period of almost four years. I leave eight hard working, sincere members of parliament who have served their country and their constituencies with distinction, and whose devotion to duty is an example to the whole house.
The second great difficulty in the decision I was making was that it was bound to hurt many good people of independent thought who had been my close friends within the C.C.F. These were the people who day after day, often at great sacrifice, went about trying to build a new party based on social justice and economic equality, and with the basis of control in the constituency organization. The consequence to them of my action I profoundly regret. In its justification I can only respond that the integrity of the Canadian nation, in my judgment, required me to make this decision.
I have already stated that in my opinion the N.D.P. was in the control of a small labour clique, and that their hold on the party was sure to continue and strengthen with the affiliation of more union locals. With delegates representing trade union locals and other labour bodies predominating over constituency delegates at conventions, discussion and persuasion on the convention floor becomes superfluous and votes become exercises merely to rubber stamp previously agreed to platform directives. It would be most dangerous to the democratic process to have a party gain power,
the effective control of which resided in a handful of labour leaders situated outside the House of Commons. This was the impelling reason why I have left the N.D.P.
As to the future, I shall merely say that I desire to seek re-election to parliament in my own riding of Assiniboia, and that I expect to make a further announcement bearing on my political future at an early date.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the house for its kind indulgence.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in relation to the hon. member's statement.


Mr. Speaker:: If it is a question of privilege affecting the hon. member individually, perhaps it would be in order for him to indicate what it is, but unless it is a matter of individual privilege or the privilege of the house I think the subject matter of the statement just made is probably one for debate. I point out to the hon. member that in the past similar statements of privilege have been made and precedent has been not to comment. However, if the hon. member has a point which he feels it raises-


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of rising and getting into the refrain of "Will ye no come back again" or anything like that, but I did feel that as a consequence of what the hon. member has said he has opened the way for a statement on this matter because there has been a reflection upon the other members of this party. As a consequence I just want to say that I do not intend to make the statement here, but it will be made tomorrow in the debate on the speech from the throne.



CRIMINAL CODE


Miss Judy V. LaMarsh (Niagara Falls) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-69, to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment, form of sentence).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, the bill is a very short one consisting of one section. It is simply to provide a change of sentence upon someone found guilty of a capital crime

Proposed Legislation
in order that the sentence shall be carried out by a gas chamber and not by hanging until death.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



COPYRIGHTS


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-70, to provide for copyright in Canada and to implement the universal copyright convention.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Explain.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: This is the reintroduction of a bill which is simply intended to modernize legislation which has not been modernized since 1921.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I have no firm views on the matter, but I thought I should bring this to your attention and to the attention of the house. It is my recollection that there is already on the order paper government order No. 6, a resolution that it is expedient that the houses of parliament approve the universal copyright convention signed by Canada at Geneva in 1952, etc.
I confess I have not given attention to the details of the question, but it did occur to me that it might be appropriate to bring the matter to Your Honour's attention, perhaps for consideration later, as to whether it is proper that the hon. lady should be given leave to introduce her bill at the present time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word on the point which has been raised. It would appear to me that a resolution of the house would have no legislative effect. What the hon. lady is seeking to do is legislate to change the laws of Canada. There does not seem to me to be any incompatibility between the houses of parliament approving a convention which has been entered into and subsequent legislation to implement that convention.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Minister of Justice for drawing attention to the possible point of order. I think no conflict arises at this stage, though it might as the bills progress if they turn out to be identical or very similar; because the house cannot, of course, carry on the same debate under two headings. But at this stage I think there is no obstacle to the hon. lady proceeding with her bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister say if he has been consulted with respect to the proposed reorganization of the Ontario courts, introduced in the legislature yesterday by the attorney general; and if so is he prepared to introduce the necessary complementary legislation in this house in the near future?


Edmund Davie Fulton: am not aware of the particulars of any measure introduced by the attorney general in the Ontario legislature yesterday, so I cannot say whether I have been consulted on the precise proposal. I can say, however, that the attorney general of Ontario and I have had discussions on the desirability of increasing the number of judges of the high court of Ontario, and I have indicated that subject to the approval of my colleagues, I am prepared to recommend the appropriate legislation to this house.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koolenay West):: I wish to address a question to the Acting Minister of Transport. Will the minister inform the house whether there have been any discussions between members of the government or officers of the Canadian National Railways and members of the government of British Columbia or officers of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, with respect to the purchase of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway by the Canadian National Railways, or have any such discussions been proposed?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Acting Minister of Transport):: I shall take the question as notice and refer it to the Minister of Transport, but it is obviously a question for the order paper; it is far too long for oral question and answer.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieite-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware that the government of Quebec has made bankrupt the hospitalization plan in that province?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What steps does the minister intend to take to assist the people of Quebec who are the creditors in this situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is perhaps making a noteworthy attempt to enlarge the jurisdiction of the federal government, but I do not see that his question comes under the responsibility of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.



MANITOBA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put to the Minister of Public Works a question which was passed to him by his colleague the Minister of Transport on Friday last, and ask the minister whether he has any report to make to the house on any plans or proposals there may be for moving the townsite of Churchill, Manitoba.


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, that matter has been under consideration. Inasmuch as it is a matter which primarily involves the province of Manitoba, and inasmuch as consultations are under way at the present time and no decision has been reached, I am unable to make any further statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister able to state whether these consultations will be concluded at an early date?


David James Walker: When they are concluded, Mr. Speaker, a report will be made to the house.



PEACE RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice in view of his knowledge of and responsibility for this matter. Could the minister say whether an official application has been received from the British Columbia government or an agency of that government for a federal permit authorizing the construction of a dam or dams on the Peace river? If so, what is the present status of the application?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sending me notice of his intention to ask this question, but as I entered the building
Inquiries of the Ministry only a few moments ago I did not have time to check in detail. Therefore the only answer I can give is that to my knowledge no application has been received. I shall ask my colleague the Minister of Public Works whether he has knowledge of such an application, which would probably be directed to him officially.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Public Works as a supplementary question?


David James Walker: Up to the moment no application has been received.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he would care to comment on the message sent by Chairman Khrushchev to President Kennedy suggesting that the United States and Russia might pool their effort in the development of outer space for peaceful uses.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, according to the press today Mr. Khrushchev sent a message in that sense to the President of the United States and suggested there should be co-operation of a scientific, technical and material nature between these two nations in outer space.
As the house will recall, this is a matter which I had the honour of bringing before the United Nations in September, 1960. On an earlier occasion I spoke of this to the Canadian Bar Association and put forward the proposition that in view of the tremendous potentialities in outer space for good and evil, action should be taken among the nations before it is too late to achieve the means to ensure to all nations, great or small, sovereign equality in outer space and, as well, to ensure that outer space will be used for scientific and peaceful purposes. It was also suggested on behalf of Canada that international agreement should be reached as soon as possible on the use of outer space entirely for peaceful purposes, regulating against its use for military purposes.
Anything that may be done to advance such an agreement will certainly receive Canada's support. It is one of the most outstanding problems facing mankind. After what happened yesterday and the two previous flights that were made by U.S.S.R. astronauts, it must be generally considered by mankind that now is the time to prevent developments
1098	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry in outer space that would add to the fear of mankind. In other words, now is the time for the establishment of the rule of law internationally for the control of outer space for peaceful purposes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Is the government considering taking any diplomatic initiative in this regard with either of the two powers concerned?


John George Diefenbaker: As the hon. gentleman knows, Mr. Speaker, since this proposition was advanced at the United Nations, discussions have been taking place. As he knows, it has been the hope of mankind for a thousand years that nations might agree on the rule of international law applicable to all nations. We have not been able to achieve it in the terrestrial sphere; we hope it can be achieved in the extraterrestrial sphere before it is too late.


Mr. E. W. Brunsden (Medicine Hat):: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a somewhat related question, Mr. Speaker. Having in mind yesterday's epic feat by the United States astronaut, would the Prime Minister give consideration to the sending of an invitation to John Glenn, Jr. and the members of his family to visit Ottawa in order that he may learn at first hand of the warmth of our affection?


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure that Canadians as a whole would welcome such a visit, Mr. Speaker. I do not think any words that could be added to those that have already been used could reassure him more that he would receive a tremendous welcome here in this country.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask of the Postmaster General a question of which I sent him notice. It relates to a protest I received about the use of diplomatic mail by the United States government in order to deliver propaganda to Canadians. My question is general. Can the minister indicate whether there is any abuse of the free diplomatic mail privileges of foreign countries in respect of distributing propaganda in Canada?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Under the terms of an agreement among the countries of North America, South America and Spain, each of us enjoys franking privileges in the other countries and no control whatsoever is exercised over the contents of mail which is handled in that way. I might


nor do I think anyone else does so, to papers printed for the use of the committee on foreign affairs of the United States congress passing through our mails.


PENITENTIARIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Meganiic):: I wish to direct to the Minister of Justice a question of which I sent notice. I will put my question in French.
(Translation):
Is the Minister of Justice in a position to make a progress report to the house on the negotiations held with the provinces with a view to extending the jurisdiction of the federal government in penitentiary matters concerning inmates under a sentence of one year and over?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for sending me notice of his question.
As I have stated before in the house, the federal government will not be in a position to assume these new responsibilities until a few years from now. Besides, I dealt with that problem in the house last year. The hon. member will find further details if he refers to Hansard of June 12, 1961.
(Text):


ALLEGED INCREASE IN COST RESULTING FROM PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare based on an article in this morning's Globe and Mail to the effect that the British Columbia medical association is of the opinion that sales promotional activities engaged in by pharmaceutical firms add considerably to the resale cost of certain drugs. If so, would the minister care to comment?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I have not seen the article, and would not care to comment on it without perusing it.


ADVISORY COUNCIL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: I have a question I should like to put to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but I will ask it in French.

(Translation):
Could the Minister of National Health and Welfare tell the house whether he has received one or more requests with regard to the $5 million available to the national advisory council on physical fitness and amateur sport?
(Text):


Jay Waldo Monteith: On Monday last I met with the provincial ministers to discuss arrangements for agreements with the provinces. At this conference we simply discussed how an agreement would be drawn up, and the officials of the provinces and of my own department were discussing this matter again yesterday. At this stage the officials of my department have proposed to draw up a draft agreement and send it out to the provinces for their consideration, and thus far there has been no request for actual funds.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to address a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. My question is based on the astounding fact that the government members and members of the official opposition voted against the principle of marketing legislation last night.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether the government intends to amend the marketing legislation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before the question is answered, Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order. Knowing as we do that hon. members are in the habit of sending out copies of Hansard containing the questions they have asked and answers they have received, I suggest to Your Honour that this question in this form should not be asked because my hon. friend has made an assertion-and that therefore makes the question out of order-and an inaccurate assertion which puts the question beyond the pale. I think this is important, because otherwise Hansard will go out containing inaccurate and out of order assertions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I might say a word on that point of order, I should like to point out that there is a third ground that the Minister of Justice could have given, and that the house took a decision on this matter last night, and a
Inquiries of the Ministry decision of the house is not subsequently debatable by any hon. member, even in the guise of a question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: If the question offends the rules, then as a very green member in this position I apologize.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member demonstrates his experience. It is quite true that the hon. member began his question most improperly by reflecting upon a decision of the house. Objection having been taken, he will certainly have to delete that part of his question. As to the part of his question that remains, I forget whether it could stand alone. If he has a bona fide question of the parliamentary secretary, he may ask it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In view of recent events, would the parliamentary secretary inform the house whether the government intends any amendment to the marketing legislation?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member's question comes within the category of those related to general policy. If he limits it to any present intention to introduce a bill he might get by with it. However, I am afraid he cannot ask it in this form.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the Acting Minister of Agriculture if he is in a position to inform this house as to whether there is any intention, at this session, of introducing legislation to deal with the marketing of agricultural products.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: This is a question to be decided by the government, and when a decision on this matter is taken it will be announced to the house in the ordinary course.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of National Revenue whether the board of broadcast governors has found that the program entitled "Youth Wants to Know", which appeared on television station CJCH in Halifax, involved an infraction of the rules of the board of broadcast governors. If the hon. gentleman has not the information to hand, would he take the question as notice and report to the house?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I will be glad to take the question as notice. I had not heard of the matter in any way until the hon. member raised it.

The Address-Mr. Broome COMBINES



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, and ask if he is able to indicate when he might be in a position to table the report of the restrictive trade practices commission relating to the pricing and selling policies of certain pharmaceutical houses.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No,
I have no specific information on that matter. I know the commission is endeavouring to bring in its report as soon as possible, but I will make inquiries to find out.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Rodrigue Bourdages for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last night i was dealing with the question of the export of hydro power generated in Canadian plants. I should like to make it quite clear that I am dealing with this subject in a very general way and that my remarks have no relationship to the specific and unique case relating to downstream benefits on the Columbia river. These benefits, Mr. Speaker, are a payment to Canada by power at site in compensation for the flooding of a beautiful valley in British Columbia. This flooding would be of no benefit to British Columbia unless the people of British Columbia received-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but X think our sound amplification system is not working well and I hope hon. members will dispose themselves to listen, because it is almost impossible to hear.


Ernest James Broome: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I say, unless these benefits flow to the people of British Columbia, unless they are of value to the people of British Columbia then there is no excuse for the flooding of this valley. This question, of course, because of its peculiarity and its uniqueness, is the subject of negotiation between the federal government and the government of British Columbia.
My point, Mr. Speaker, is that the export of power should, I think, be considered in the


same way as the export of any other commodity such as gas or oil, except that provision must always be made for the orderly recapture of this power as required by Canada. We do not export gas and oil except when there is a surplus to foreseeable Canadian requirements. The same policy should apply to hydro power.
At this session, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has introduced the subject of a national power grid. Eventually this grid will be built and will bring advantages to all parts of Canada. However, this grid must be based upon hydro power because it will bring power from remote localities, where hydro power is usually developed, to large load consuming centres. Thermal power on the other hand, whether it be coal, oil, gas or nuclear power, is generated in plants adjacent to load consuming centres, and thermal power plants can be scaled in proportion to a particular need. As the load grows extra turbines can be added. By comparison, hydro installations usually result in very large blocks of power becoming immediately available. One cannot dam half a river. When a dam is completed and the reservoir is filled, then the power is available but local demand cannot use all this power. It can only use a small proportion of it.
It seems to me that initially much of such power will be available for export and, as I say, if it is controlled under a treaty or regulations established by the national energy board then the surplus power can be sold for a definite period of time and provision can be made for its orderly recapture. Thermal power usually involves high operating costs; hydro power has large capital costs and low operating costs. Now, however, the gap between power costs, comparing hydro with thermal, is closing. The increased cost of money and increase in transmission costs will ultimately increase the cost of hydro power, but if we wait until local demand can use all the hydro power at any particular site then I think we shall be losing a chance to develop a very real national resource.
We in British Columbia have some 33 million horsepower capacity of hydro energy which is undeveloped, and there is no reason why this hydro energy cannot be developed as markets are available and as prices can be secured which will cover the cost of carrying the new installations until such time as either local demand or the provision of a national grid will allow the marketing of this power in Canada.
I have been asked many times what the Conservative government has done for the people of Canada, and when from memory I have given only a partial list, invariably

The Address-Mr. Broome
I am then asked why we do not let the people know what we are doing. Evidently our press relations need improving, because the story of the real achievements of this government has not been fully understood.
When this government took over in June, 1957 we had already entered a recession. The famous hidden report of government economists, presented to the Liberal government in the spring of 1957, warned the government that all was not well with the economy of the country. Unemployment was rising, business was slowing down, exports were falling off, and it was time for strong government action to control these forces of recession. The Liberal government chose to ignore this report. They maintained their tight money policy, claiming that inflation was the real menace, not recession.
Looking back it is easy to understand how this happened. They had been in power during war years, first the second world war and then the Korean war. They then had no problem of unemployment. After the war there was the gigantic job of rebuilding Europe and satisfying the pent up demand for consumer goods. There was no problem in selling either at home or abroad. We could sell all we could produce and within reason at whatever price we wished to ask. It was a market where salesmen did not have to sell, they simply took orders.
By 1957 this easy selling era had disappeared and we were once again meeting aggressive competition in the markets of the world, and increasing foreign competition in our domestic market. Japan and western Europe had rebuilt their war-destroyed industrial power, and with active government assistance were increasing their sales at the expense of ours.
It is a fact of nature, Mr. Speaker, that when any species refuses to evolve to meet changing environmental conditions that threaten its existence, then that species disappears; and this, I suggest, can be applied to governments also. I do not mean to imply that the Liberal party is as dead as the dodo, the mastodon or the dinosaur, but their policy in 1957 was strictly for the dinosaurs.
In 1957 they offered a six bucks raise in the old age pension to stimulate consumer spending when they had a $300 million surplus. They offered nothing for housing, although housing starts had dropped to the lowest point in years and they had $150 million voted by parliament for N.H.A. loans which they would not release. They offered no aid to exporters, nothing to small business, no reduction in taxes, nothing except wartime thinking for a peacetime economy. Today the Liberal party says "Liberals have
the answers", but the same leaders who say this today had none of the answers in 1957. Five years ago they had none of the answers; today they say they have them all. What a change in five years.
When this government took office the $150 million in the N.H.A. fund was immediately released. A few months later the total was increased to $400 million; in May, 1958 to $750 million; in March, 1959 to $1 billion; in March, 1960 to $1.5 billion, and in September, 1961 to $2 billion. Total amount of loans that may be made by approved commercial lenders was increased 50 per cent from $4 billion to $6 billion. Down payments on new homes were lowered to 5 per cent, which is $500 on a $10,000 home.
These bold moves led to unprecedented expansion in the housing industry, an easier road to home ownership for the average Canadian, and the provision of jobs for 1.5 million Canadians in construction and in manufacturing, supplying timber, cement, household appliances and furnishings, and the thousand and one items which go into a home. We have extended the scope of this program to include loans to build university residences, loans to municipalities to build sewage disposal plants and extensions to trunk sewers. The new Vancouver sewage disposal plant could not have been built without this assistance, and there are new residences going up on the campus of U.B.C. which could not have been built without this assistance.
In the field of social justice, payments to old age pensioners were increased to $55, and this month to $65. The same increases were applied to pensions for the blind and disabled, and for those on old age assistance. Residence requirements were lowered from 20 years to 10 years and old age pensions were made portable so they could be paid to those Canadians who live outside Canada for health or other reasons.
It may not be generally known that this government increased from 2 per cent to 3 per cent the proportion of revenue received from federal sales tax and personal and corporation income taxes earmarked to pay for old age pensions. The result was that in 1961 pension payments were $592 million and tax receipts to cover those payments were $603 million, leaving a surplus of $17 million. Under the Liberals the old age pension fund had a cumulative deficit of around $500 million. We are attempting to make this fund self-supporting and therefore payable as of right. Undoubtedly the recent increase will throw the fund into a temporary deficit position, but

The Address-Mr. Broome the growth in our economy will provide increased revenue which will eventually bring the fund back into a balanced position.
In 1962-63 old age pensions amounting to some $737 million will be paid to 930,000 Canadians. This money will be spent for goods and services, and will provide a stimulus to the entire Canadian economy. In total all social justice payments have been increased from $1.3 billion in 1956-57 to $2.3 billion in 1960-61, an increase of 77 per cent.
The speech from the throne indicated the desire of the government to introduce a system of contributory and portable pensions. As reported at page 531 of Hansard the Minister of National Health and Welfare had this to say about this proposal:
The second aspect of making adequate income provision for our senior citizens relates to the question of contributory old age survivors and disability insurance which, as indicated in the speech from the throne, is to be placed before parliament if the provinces view with favour a suitable amendment to section 94(a) of the British North America Act.
The government's objective in this regard is clear cut. Our aim is to have an integrated program of old age income security which, in addition to the universal flat rate benefit, will provide a graduated benefit for all those who can reasonably afford further provision for their old age and who have not already undertaken it under private pension plans or other contractual agreements.
As the house knows, this government, through federal-provincial conferences called by the Minister of Justice, has been endeavouring to reach agreement on the question of having our constitution amended in Canada. This has been our hope. We now feel it is necessary to ask the provinces to agree to an amendment to the B.N.A. Act so we may proceed to carry out our decisions in this regard.
In another area very vital to Canada, what is our record in regard to export trade, because Canada is more dependant upon export trade than any other industrialized nation? At least one job in five depends upon export trade, and in British Columbia the ratio is even higher. Dealing with commodity exports only, the total for 1956 was $4.8 billion. In 1961, taking the latest figures available, October 1960 to October 1961, they were $5.7 billion, an increase of $900 million. In 1956 we had a trade deficit of almost $600 million, while in 1961 we will have a balanced trade with exports slightly greater than imports. Also, Mr. Speaker, as you know our trade will be at an all time record high.
This has not happened by chance, but because this government went out to aid our exporters in every way possible. We eliminated the exchange premium on the Canadian dollar and immediately made our

goods more competitive in world markets. We provided export credit facilities to provide long term financing for capital goods exports, and we made $200 million available for this purpose. To date almost $186 million has been committed, and this session we have increased this fund to $300 million. These facilities allow Canadian manufacturers to sell fully manufactured goods on credit and meet the competition of foreign firms in this regard, particularly United States firms operating through the export-import bank. We are participating in more international trade fairs than ever before; we are sending overseas more trade missions than ever before, and our trade commissioner service has been told to get out and sell Canadian goods.
Any discussion of trade would be incomplete without a reference to the European common market and the strong possibility that Britain will join this association. As far as I am concerned, I believe that what is best for Britain's long range interests will also be best for Canada. I would prefer a strong Britain in the common market to a weak Britain outside. Many people have suggested that Canada should join the common market. The truth of the matter is that we cannot join the common market. As the Minister of Finance said in a speech to the Kiwanis club in Montreal on February 1, when referring to the European economic community:
Six European countries seeking closer integration, partly for economic and partly for political reasons, signed in March, 1957 what has come to be known as the treaty of Home, which provides for the establishment of their common market.
He went on to point out that this treaty applies only to European countries, although there is provision for associate countries to join the common market. These associate countries were originally the French community in Africa and underdeveloped countries whose products would be complementary to and would not conflict with European products. They are countries which are not industrialized. There is no provision for industrialized countries such as Canada to join the European common market and, as the minister went on to say when speaking to high ranking officials in Europe, "We cannot join, and we would not be welcome even if we tried."
Finally, Mr. Speaker, before I leave the subject of trade let me point out that not only is our export trade at a record high but we now have a more diversified trade pattern. We have markedly increased our exports to the United Kingdom, western Europe, South America and commonwealth markets other than the United Kingdom. Although the

United States is still our largest customer, all our eggs are no longer in one basket.
In regard to contributions to the provinces, it is a little known fact that up to March 31, 1961 the cumulative increases in federal contributions to the provinces and provincial institutions exceeded the cumulative budget deficit for the same period of time by almost $300 million. In other words, if these additional payments had not been made there would have been no deficit. For instance, payments to all provinces for hospital insurance this year will be $284 million.
Let us look at the picture as far as payments to British Columbia are concerned. In 1956-57 the Liberals contributed $7 million to the trans-Canada highway construction. This year we will contribute $17 million. By the time this highway is completed the federal government will have contributed over $100 million to the province of British Columbia, or about 25 per cent of all the money paid to all the provinces. An additional $40 million will have been spent on the highways and national parks in British Columbia since 1957. Yet the highway is plastered with signs leading the motorist to believe this is the work of the Social Credit government alone.
In the fiscal year 1956-57 the Liberal government gave just over $17 million in conditional grants to the province of British Columbia. In the present fiscal year this government will contribute over $70 million. Payments for old age security, family allowance, blind and disabled persons allowance, veterans payments, hospital construction grants, unemployment insurance, old age assistance, and so on amounted in 1956-57 to $137 million and in 1960-61 to $245 million, which includes $22J million paid to British Columbia for hospital insurance for 1960-61. Just over $33 million was paid to British Columbia for hospital insurance prior to 1961, and in the 1962 estimates $26.4 million is provided for this same purpose.
Therefore by the end of the 1962 fiscal year British Columbia will have received1 over $82 million for hospital services. In the province of British Columbia we were already paying a 5 per cent sales tax, of which 2 per cent was earmarked for hospital services. When the federal government agreed to cover half of the costs of hospital services the premier of British Columbia indicated that the province was in a deficit position in regard to payments for hospital insurance, and that these payments from the federal government would be used to offset this deficit.
Well, the deficit has been far offset by now; yet there has been no reduction in our sales tax, and the money which is coming from the federal government to help pay the cost of hospital insurance in British Columbia is going into consolidated revenue to be used for
The Address-Mr. Hellyer whatever purposes the provincial government may wish to use it. I wonder how many Vancouver taxpayers know that each year this government has paid back to the provincial government, as a special grant, 50 per cent of the taxes collected from the B.C. Electric Co.
We have doubled the per capita allowance for university students. We have increased grants for hospital construction. We have brought in a ship building subsidy to help our ship building industry-a measure which is of major importance to the west coast. We have increased the capital of the industrial development bank to $400 million and made this money available as loans to small business. We held down freight rates by government subsidy to help, in particular, British Columbia and the maritimes.
All these measures, together with many others which I have not named, were aimed at stimulating the Canadian economy, increasing purchasing power, increasing exports and accelerating the development of our national resources. We were fighting unemployment and a sluggish economy caught in a typical North American recession.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The speech from the throne is more notable for its omissions that for what it contains. It includes only passing reference to the great and important issues of the day. Not much is proposed in order to get Canada going again.
Dynamics of growth such as trade, industry and immigration, for example, are scarcely considered at all. The urgency of deciding on a defence policy for Canada is not realized. This view is shared by many thoughtful observers. For instance, the Globe and Mail of January 20, 1962, in an editorial entitled "The Uncertain Trumpet" had this to say:
There was a general expectation in Canada this week that the speech from the throne opening what presumably is the last session of the present parliament would be a resounding election manifesto. It has proved to be nothing of the kind. It would be difficult to imagine anything further from a blast of trumpets. It is in fact, a curiously thin and inadequate statement from a government which must soon face the voters.
The financial editor of the Montreal Gazette takes a similar attitude in his column. On January 19 he is quoted as saying:
A reluctance to come to grips with really basic issues is also apparent in the references to the British entry into the common market.
He was referring to the speech from the throne. The government's defence policy, or lack of policy, remains unchanged. There is no indication as to whether or not Canadian troops will be armed with atomic warheads.
1104	HOUSE OF
The Address

Mr. Hellyer However, the question is becoming increasingly urgent with the passing of the months since the last session of parliament ended. Since that time, Canada has acquired its first F-101 interceptors. The Royal Canadian Air Force has recently taken over operational control of the Bomarc station at North Bay; we are advised by the minister that it will be in charge of maintenance, heating and so on. Furthermore, an Honest John battalion has been sent to join our brigade group in Europe. In each case a decision has yet to be made as to whether or not these weapons will be armed with nuclear warheads. Two of them, at least, we have been told by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) only reached maximum effectiveness when so armed. We were told earlier, too, that there was, as an alternative, the possibility that they could be armed with conventional warheads. We have since learned, and it was really no surprise to us, that no conventional warheads have been designed, let alone are readily available for our armed forces. This is a ludicrous position. We are spending a lot of money for weapons systems which are now operational except for the fact that they are unarmed, and we are continuing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for further weapons systems which are in the same category.
This lack of decision on the part of the government is extremely frustrating to our allies. I know that the United States government and the armed forces are thoroughly frustrated because they cannot get any decision one way or another from the Canadian government. I know, too, that our allies in Europe feel the same way. If a decision were made not to arm our armed forces with atomic warheads, at least that would be understood and the necessary adjustments would follow. On the other hand, if we should decide to arm them, that decision would be understood and appreciated. But the failure to reach any decision is altogether incomprehensible to our allies in NATO and Canada has become the laughing stock of the world as a result.
Discussing this question of atomic warheads yesterday afternoon, the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) put forward his own policy in this respect or, at least, he stated that his policy was different from that held by frontbench members of his party. Closer examination leads one to wonder, however, where it is actually a third policy or whether it is just part of the same old confused policy. He said:
After we have explored every possible avenue for working out a successful agreement we must then accept the advice of our professional military people. If they consider it is necessary to the defence of Canada that we have nuclear weapons. I believe we have no other course to follow. However, I emphasize that this should not be done until every avenue has been fully explored toward


reaching a successful agreement on disarmament. The taking on of nuclear weapons prior to that would hopelessly prejudice any discussions or negotiations that might lead to a successful agreement.
That is quite a mouthful. How long does the hon. member think we should wait before a decision is made? How long does he think disarmament discussions will continue to take place? They have already been going on for years, but no concrete results have been achieved. Does he think we should wait another three years? Does he think we should wait another five? Unless the hon. member is prepared to state categorically the length of time he has in mind, his proposal makes no sense at all; it is in fact no different from the one put forward from time to time by other members of the government party.
Mr. Pallet!: Does the hon. member have an alternative proposal?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes. I think a decision should be made one way or another.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is a most urgent matter and it deserves discussion in more detail; I shall perhaps have an opportunity to go into it more deeply in another debate. But at the present time I urge the government who, after all have the responsibility under our system for making a decision, to announce its intentions in this regard.
What about the dynamics of growth. Has the government's immigration policy helped or hindered our national development? On April 5, 1957, at Toronto the Prime Minister promised a vigorous immigration policy to bring immigrants to Canada to increase the population. Later in the same month, on April 25, he indicated to the ethnic press association in Toronto that annual immigration up to 4 per cent of the population was feasible. This worked out to approximately 640,000 persons per annum. That was quite a vision, but the fulfilment has been something of a revelation. Immigration has been declining steadily. Last year saw the lowest number of people entering Canada in a decade.
On the other hand, emigration is increasing. More people are leaving Canada for their native lands and the United States. Most alarming of all is the fact that the people who are leaving Canada are those who have the most skill. We talk about the necessity of greater skill among our working force, yet the people who are leaving us by tens of thousands are those who have the greatest skills. These are the people we most urgently need if our country is to grow and develop.
Why are they leaving in such large numbers? Why does this trend accelerate? How

can it be reversed? I think one of the reasons for its acceleration must be the lack of challenge in this country. It must be the lack of faith these people have in Canada. If it were otherwise they would not leave but would stay and assist as best they can in the development of this nation.
I think the problem was aptly summed up by the late Judith Robinson in one of her columns in referring to the summary fashion in which the cancellation of the Avro Arrow was undertaken by this government when she said the tragedy to her was not the cancellation of a particular project but the loss of faith of a whole generation of young Canadians in the future of their country. This, Mr. Speaker, is in fact the real tragedy, one which has not yet been overcome.
There is little indication that the government has given much thought to the relationship between interest rates and economic growth. This is a subject which merits study. What is the relationship between government deficits and interest rates? At the time of the election in 1957 one of the things we were not promised was deficits. Speaking at a press conference in Saskatoon on May 27, 1957 the Prime Minister included among his promises the following:
John Diefenbaker said today a Progressive Conservative government could carry out its declared policy, reduce unnecessary taxes "and still do it on a balanced budget".


Mr. Martel:: We reduced taxation by 42 per cent.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The hon. gentleman claims that taxation was reduced. Total taxation has certainly increased and the deficits we were not promised have been growing in total. The inference of this and other statements made by the Prime Minister at that time was that we would have Diefenbaker, not deficits. Well, Mr. Speaker, we hit the jackpot, we got both.
There are important questions to be answered. Why does the level of unemployment remain so high? Why is the rate of growth of the labour force declining so rapidly? The statistics are interesting. For example, between 1956 and 1957, January to January, the growth in the labour force was 202,000, between 1957 and 1958 it was 195,000; between 1958 and 1959 it was 99,000; between
1959	and 1960 it was 127,000; and between
1960	and 1961 it was 193,000. In January of 1962 the growth stood at only 13,000. There has been a dramatic decline from a growth of between 100,000 and 200,000 per year to an annual growth of only 13,000 people. Where have they gone? What has happened to them? Are they all going back to their native lands or the United States? Are they too discouraged to remain in the labour force? Perhaps some
The Address-Mr. Hellyer of them are remaining at school for a longer period of time. It is to be hoped that is so, but it would be interesting to know.


Mr. Chambers:: Perhaps the birth rate has something to do with it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The hon. member would be in a better position than I to judge that.
One of the most important failures of the speech from the throne was its failure to indicate any positive initiative toward the far reaching re-organization of world trading patterns. There was no evidence of a change of heart on the part of the government. There was no evidence of the emergence of a realistic attitude. There was much evidence of a negative, obstructionist and unyielding attitude at Accra and since.
One does not have to look far for the reports and I wish to mention just two or three. The Ottawa Citizen of September 14 last carried the following news item datelined Accra, Ghana:
Canada has warned Britain that she cannot be the leader of the commonwealth and a member of the European common market, too.
In an emotional intervention at Wednesday's session of the commonwealth economic consultative council, finance minister Donald Fleming said an eloquent requiem for the system of trading preferences that has bound the British nations together for a generation.
On the same day a Canadian Press dispatch was carried in the Ottawa Journal datelined Accra:
Finance minister Donald Fleming of Canada said Wednesday the United Kingdom is irretrievably "launched on a slippery slope" to membership in the European common market. As a result the commonwealth will never be the same again.
Mr. Clark Davey, the Globe and Mail correspondent wrote in that paper on the same date:
Commonwealth members, with Canada's trade minister George Hees making the keynote speech, emphatically told Britain today that she must choose between the European common market and the commonwealth.
In an uncompromising statement to the commonwealth economic conference here, Mr. Hees presented what amounted to a flat Canadian demand that Britain not join the common market.
Canada had expected more, Mr. Speaker. We had hoped for something positive. We hoped our ministers would go there to preserve as best they could the real interests of Canada and the free world. Many were dismayed at the attitude displayed by the representatives of the government at that time. This was well summed up by the Globe and Mail on October 3, 1961 when it stated editorially that Canada had expected more from its representatives at Accra.
The attitude of this government seems to be typical of Tory attitudes throughout the generations. It is not unlike the attitude of

The Address-Mr. Hettyer the late R. B. Bennett in the thirties. It might interest hon. members to know that in the book "Neville Chamberlain" by Iain Macleod, at page 161, there appears an extract from a letter written by Chamberlain to his sister on August 21, 1932, from Ottawa, at the time of the imperial conference. The extract is as follows:
In spite of the anxieties they caused us I have no complaint to make of the Australians or New Zealanders. They had to think of the difficulties of their own people . . . They were quite straightforward about it.
Bennett was a different proposition. He alternately blustered, bullied, sobbed, prevaricated, delayed and obstructed to the very last moment.
I am sure that the same attitude Mr. Chamberlain observed at that time on the part of the Tory government of that day was displayed by our representatives at the Accra conference. Canadians generally favour Canadian participation and British participation in enlarging the trading area. On numerous occasions this has been voiced by many leaders in the industrial and commercial world. I should like to cite just two or three examples. Mr. John Meyer, the Gazette financial editor, is reported as follows:
Uncertainty about Canadian policy towards the European common market was described last night as one of the strongest inhibitions on economic growth.
John Meyer, financial editor of the Gazette, told the Montreal chapter of the national office management association, that a decision in favour of applying for an associate membership in the common market would do more to prolong the present recovery than any other factor.
Another distinguished gentleman is reported as follows:
Moncton, N.B.-Eric W. Kiernans, president of the Montreal and Canadian stock exchanges, said Thursday night it is time for Canada to shake off its unnatural conservatism and to apply for associate membership in the European common market.
Later on he says this:
Emotional exhortations about the traditional ties that bind the commonwealth countries will have little effect on the hard decisions that must be made by Great Britain and by ourselves.
In another article from the Gazette, entitled "Bankers for Most Canadian Businessmen" the following report appears:
G. Arnold Hart, A. T. Lambert and F. William Nicks-the presidents respectively of the Bank of Montreal, Toronto-Dominion Bank and Bank of Nova Scotia-not surprisingly, make much the same point in their addresses to annual meetings. They emphasize the urgency of being realistic about Britain's application for membership in the common market-Mr. Hart: "A positive approach... instead of merely opposing changes from existing arrangements;" Mr. Lambert: "... exploiting the opportunities ..." rather than "negative reaction of dismay"; Mr. Nicks: "...face realistically the changes that have taken place in Europe and seek ways of adapting ourselves to them."

These are typical of the reactions of business leaders from coast to coast. They are outward looking. They are forward looking. They know that Canada must take a positive initiative and not continue, as it has been doing, on a negative course. When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) returned to Canada and found that people here were making statements along this line and that Canadian public opinion was not what he had expected while he was away, he accused the opposition of using the big lie tactics in referring to what he and the Minister of Trade and Commerce had said. I have in my hand a newspaper report headed: "Fleming Hits 'Big Lie' Use by Liberals". It reads in parts as follows:
Toronto-Finance Minister Fleming accused the Liberal party last night of using "big lie" tactics in attacking the government's position regarding Britain's possible entry to the European common market.
Mr. Fleming said there has been "distortion" of the position taken by Canada at the recent commonwealth economic conference at Accra, Ghana.
This is a serious charge, Mr. Speaker. Just to set the record straight I should like to read to you what the Minister of Finance had said just a few days previously in London. I have in my hand a press report headed, "Accra Statement 'Underplayed'-Fleming Raps Market Plans-With Greater Emphasis". It is by Duart Farquharson, of the Journal London bureau and it reads in part as follows:
The head-on clash between Britain and the overseas commonwealth countries at the Accra finance ministers meeting was not exaggerated but underplayed by the British press, according to Canadian Finance Minister Fleming.
To set the record straight, Mr. Fleming last week called in leading British correspondents covering the international monetary fund meeting in Vienna. With great emotion, he argued that commonwealth countries were unanimous in their condemnation of Britain's attempt to join the common market. They were not merely striking up bargaining postures, but sincerely believed that such a British move was bound to result in the disintegration of the commonwealth.
That is very strong language, Mr. Speaker, and it is in direct conflict with what the Minister of Finance said in Canada a few weeks later. It is necessary to check because the minister, when he accuses the opposition of using "big lie" tactics is just refuting the facts which he himself so carefully put on the record. It reminds us of his performances in this house on other occasions in the not too distant past. We are really shocked at his short memory.
Is a change coming in the government's position? Many people have thought so and there were some indications that this was so. But now it is obvious that the government has not really changed its attitude. This is reflected in reports based on the speech from the throne and subsequent interrogation in this

house. I wish to refer briefly to two press reports. One is from the Gazette of January 15:
The Canadian government, though reiterating support for freer world trade, hasn't committed itself to joining the proposed United States attempt to get major reductions in world tariff barriers.
That was made evident Saturday at the close of two days of informal trade talks between cabinet members of the two countries.
Then in an editorial which appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of February 2, 1962, under the heading, "Negative Still?" we find the following:
Despite its protestations to the contrary, It seems apparent that the government still has no positive policy towards Britain's proposed entry into the European common market, and that it is not yet giving the vigorous leadership the situation demands.
This is most unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, and it is a matter of concern that the government is still negative in its position. It must change. It must adopt a more liberal attitude or Canada may be left as a tiny island isolated from the main stream of world events. The problem-encompassing some of the things about which I have spoken, such as interest rates, immigration, deficits and world trade

is to get Canada growing again. This is the problem which was not faced in the speech from the throne.
There is a growing awareness in Canada that our economy is falling short of its potential. The evidence is all around us, with high levels of unemployment despite the absence of a recession, and an actual decline of the order of 4 per cent since 1956 in the per capita production of goods and services. This evidence corroborates the increasing gap between what we produce and what we can produce. This chronic slack is at the root of our present economic difficulties. To draw attention to this gap is not to wallow in doom and gloom but to emphasize the extent to which we are currently failing to achieve our great potential.
No one can put a price tag on human dignity, humiliation, and frustration at not being able to earn a living. This is one of the incalculable costs. There are, however, two other costs involved which can be measured. First is the cost of carrying the unemployed. Some insight into the magnitude of this cost can be derived from the $900 million depletion of the unemployment insurance fund since December of 1956, and the $250 million spent as the federal share of unemployment assistance schemes financed jointly with the provinces. Much greater is the cost in terms of goods and services that could have been produced had we been able to reduce unemployment as a percentage
The Address-Mr. Keays of our labour force since 1957 to the postwar average, between January 1946 and June 1957, of 3.3 per cent. Since June, 1957, unemployment has averaged 6.2 per cent.
Nor do these levels of unemployment in themselves adequately measure the lack of growth in our economy. Much of the lack of growth is hidden in the short hours worked and in the failure to achieve the levels of productive efficiency that accompany operating at full capacity.
During the entire post-war period, 1946 to 1956, Canadians produced on the average 4.5 per cent more goods and services each year than in the previous year. If this trend had continued through 1961, we would have produced $5.2 billion more than last year. If this had occurred, Mr. Speaker, we would have a surplus now instead of a deficit. This would amount to $100 million a week more goods and services produced than we did in fact produce. No nation can take any satisfaction out of falling that far short of its proven capacity.
Even though the production has been lost, the potential remains. Canadian workers still possess the skills and the drive they exhibited during the post-war era. There has been no excessive depletion of our natural resources. The only resource we are wasting is time. The Canadian economy, since this government has come to power, has been marking time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. J. R. Keays (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, as an introduction to my participation in this debate, may I be allowed to associate myself with those who have expressed warm words of congratulation to the mover (Mr. Bourdages) and seconder (Mr. Browne, Vancouver-Kingsway) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Their contribution constituted a truly comprehensive review of the beneficial effects to our economy resulting from the actions taken by this government.
May I at the outset refer to a speech made in this debate by the hon. member for Kent, New Brunswick (Mr. Michaud), truly a great friend of mine. I should like however to endeavour to set the record straight as it relates to a few things he mentioned. He did refer to the fact that there were rumours the fishermen were being taken out of the unemployment insurance fund. There is definitely no reason for alarm, Mr. Speaker, but it is unfortunate that rumours such as this one do instil fear in the minds of these brave fishermen who, as every hon. member of this house knows, earn their living in a rather difficult way.

The Address-Mr. Keays
The unemployment insurance fund was established some 20 years ago at a time when conditions were vastly different from those existing today. The coverage of the fund has been extended, and as a result the complexities have been increased. However, this government is aware of the situation and, as in all other cases, has taken action by creating a commission of inquiry to study the effects of seasonal employees on the fund, and to decide upon some other method of taking care of the needs of these seasonal employees. All the members of this government who were in oppsition when the fund was established were aware of the complexities which would develop with the administration of the fund. They were also sure it would not be possible to continue operating the fund on a sound actuarial basis because, as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) mentioned, humanitarian reasons compel certain actions. The results have been contrary to the arguments of the mathematicians.
It is also well to bear in mind that since 1957 fishermen have contributed about $5,554,000 to the fund in payments and have received benefits in the amount of $44,706,000. There are also other categories of seasonal workers, such as the inland water transport workers and the loggers. The contributions from logging and lumbering amounted to $4,046,592, and benefits paid amounted to $30,289,530. Although a study is now being made, I certainly would not wish the fishermen to believe there is any danger they are going to be excluded from the benefits of this fund. The study will probably result in the creation of a special fund for seasonal employees. Alternatively, a new fund might be created that would give an incentive to work and an interest on the part of these employees in setting up a savings fund to be matched by the government and the employer.
The hon. member for Kent also referred to the grants made to the province of Newfoundland, to the fishermen of Newfoundland. I do not believe the premier of New Brunswick took the same action as the premier of Newfoundland. Perhaps he is not concerned with the plight of the fishermen and did not ask for the co-operation and help of the federal government. I believe this answers the inquiry: the province of Newfoundland was concerned with the fishermen while New Brunswick and Quebec were not.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, we should now look at the economic situation in our country. After all, the barometer of success or failure of an administration in this respect is our gross national product, which is the yardstick for measuring the total amount of goods and

services produced in a country. In order to look at this we must make a comparison, and I shall do so by comparing 1956 and 1961. Our gross national product in 1956 amounted to $30.6 billion and in 1961 to $37.4 billion. In other words, there was an increase of 22 per cent over 1956. With the last quarter of 1961 going at the rate of $39 billion, we can expect an increase in 1962 of 7 per cent or 8 per cent, bringing the gross national product of 1962 to $40.2 billion. As I have said previously, this is the barometer of success or failure and I believe that every hon. member of this house will admit such an increase would indicate the success of this administration. By any gauge surely we can all agree that this result has been phenomenal and that the economy is in high gear. Again, for the sake of comparison, let us return to 1956, although I hate to turn back for such proof.
In 1957 the government of the day had a surplus budget of $257.5 million. This large surplus was the result of post-war activities and was due to increases in exports to those nations devastated by the second world war and the Korean war. In Europe the industrial plants had disappeared. Facilities of production were completely wiped out and a whole rebuilding job had to be done. Much of that surplus was also brought about by filling orders for export, thus causing more employment at home and creating higher domestic purchasing power and consumer spending. However, although this was a nice budgetary surplus I often wonder why it was allowed to be wasted. By the norms of any good administration, part of the surplus could have been put to better use.
When we repair the roof of a house we repair it when the sun is shining, and it was in those days that action should have been taken by the government to prepare for the following years. Instead, the government was satisfied to sit back, become lazy and complacent. Was there no incentive to look ahead? Had the government done so at that time it would have seen the darkening clouds approaching, bringing in their path the evils of unemployment and suffering. Had the manifesto or economic program which we hear so much about today been brought out in 1956-but no one ever heard of such a thing in those days-possibly we would not have had to face the economic ills of 1957 and 1958.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You mean the government would not have changed.


James Russell Keays: What was that?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will the hon. member permit a question?


James Russell Keays: After I am through. Let us look at Germany, France and Italy, those burgeoning, fast growing and full employment countries. They have not taken everything for granted. They are not reclining, sitting back on their laurels satisfied with their present full employment and productivity. They are working harder than ever helping business to expand, assisting to increase exports, and increasing per capita production. During their prosperous years they did not impose overtaxation, draining revenues from their corporations and impeding progress. They are using their revenues to advantage, climbing toward higher levels and thereby playing a useful part in assisting industry with technical help, monetary facilities and encouragement.
It is interesting to note that the gross product of the six countries in the common market rose last year by 6.5 per cent. Trade within the community expanded by 45 per cent since the treaty of Rome went into operation, and their exports, taking all six together, increased over 50 per cent in the same year. This was the result of the planning undertaken in those countries while business was good and where surpluses were used to advantage.
What did the Conservative government do in 1957 when faced with this unpalatable situation? They went to work through the able Minister of Finance, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Labour, the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Agriculture. Public works programs were immediately set in operation to alleviate the serious conditions of that time. The government increased the housing program until today we have reached the point where we are the largest builders per capita in the world in this field. It represents 18 per cent of our gross national product as against 11 per cent in the United States and 8 per cent in the United Kingdom.
The Department of Labour by extension .of the benefit periods, by aid to the provinces for vocational training, by a contribution to trade schools whereby competent people were trained to meet the changes caused by automation and advanced technology helped to bring about a situation in which production of commodities never before manufactured in Canada has been achieved.
The Department of Finance, by lowering the exchange rate on the Canadian dollar provided the main stimulus for an upturn in our economy and a consequent, eventual balanced budget. That department also helped
The Address-Mr. Clermont by providing greater loans to small businesses, and by extending the lending facilities of the industrial development bank and by guarantee loans to fishermen and farmers.
With the assistance of the Department of Trade and Commerce bold and imaginative measures were undertaken, such as the promotion of regional trade conferences which have now awakened Canadians to the possibilities of export. The department has also provided export facilities and has assisted in the creation of a productivity council, a body of proven administrators, the aim of which has been defined by its chairman, George DeYoung, as making industry more remunerative, more rewarding for the four groups affected by it-owners, employees, customers and the government. This council has also brought about a change in the thinking of some of the leaders of government, as indicated in the baby budget. It has also brought about a new thinking on the part of some of the industrial leaders in both primary and secondary industry, and there has been a change in the thinking of some of the senior leaders of labour who have been most helpful and co-operative in the establishment of this council.
What a tremendous amount of work has had to be done. Mr. Speaker, could you visualize the past administration willing to undertake that task? They would have given up the ghost long ago. It took a party with a true Canadian spirit and a national history of confidence and vigour, a party with fingertip feeling, faith and confidence, clearness of mind and decision of purpose. The task is not completed, and the results of past undertakings are the incentives to take Canadians to greater heights, to full employment and prosperity.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the hon. member accept a question now?


James Russell Keays: Certainly.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is he aware that the $268 million surplus in 1957 to which he referred was already committed for increases in pay for the armed forces and the civil service of Canada, and to pay for the health insurance program which had been put on the statute books by the previous administration?


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, it was $257.5 million. I think that if a part of this surplus had been used for preparing for the future we would have had more balanced budgets afterwards.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It was all committed. (Translation):


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I think I should follow the good and es-
1110	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Clermont tablished custom of congratulating the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Bourdages) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne).
I would also congratulate you, sir, on your appointment as Deputy Speaker of this house, and also the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn), for receiving a call to the cabinet, as Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.
Mr. Speaker, in the speech from the throne, the government seems to take credit for the slight improvement in our political economy. Hence, it should also assume responsibility for the slumps we have known at other times.
We might recall, Mr. Speaker, that, during the elections of 1957 and 1958, supporters of this government alleged that the spending of the Liberal administration was too high and that, if they were chosen to look after the business of this country, they would cut expenditures by at least $500 million.
Let us now look at the results of that promise, Mr. Speaker. The last estimates of the Liberal government in 1957 provided for $4.8 billion, whereas estimates of this government for the year ending on March 31, 1962, show an amount of $6,123 million.
They had promised to reduce taxes and interest rates.
The Prime Minister had said that he would lower taxes by $120 per family, and then he increased them by $36.
The Conservatives had promised to balance the budget while reducing taxes. Now, this is what really happened, Mr. Speaker, since the Conservatives have been in power: taxes have risen by over $150 million a year, and they submitted four deficit budgets, while another one is forecast for March 1962.
From 1946 to 1957, the national debt went down by $2.4 billion, under a Liberal administration, while during the four and a half years of Conservative administration, it rose by almost $2 billion.
In 1958, Mr. Speaker, we had a deficit of $38.6 million; in 1959, another deficit of $632 million; in 1960 there was again a deficit of $413 million; in 1961 of $340 million and, in 1962, the deficit will be about $700 million.
Our gross debt, which, in 1956 was $19,124 million had risen to $20,986 million in March 1960. The interest paid on the debt in 1956


amounted to $492,624,000 and, in 1960, to $735,630,000. The interest per capita was $31.38 in 1956, as compared to $42.17 in 1961. The national debt per capita stood at $664 in 1957, while it reached $688 in March 1961.
Mr. Speaker, they had given the assurance that no Canadian would have to suffer from unemployment. We know what happened to that promise.
In June 1957, when the present government took over the nation's business, there were
197.000	unemployed. On March 22, 1958,
597.000	Canadians suffered from unemployment. On March 19, 1960, the number had reached 609,000. On February 18, 1961, the unemployed numbered 719,000, the largest figure since the thirties when the country was "administered" by a Conservative government under the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett. On March 18, 1961, 705,000 were looking for work. For the week ending January 13, 1962, we had
545.000	unemployed.
During January 1962, there was a slight improvement as compared to the corresponding month in 1961, but the decrease can be partly explained by the unusual number of workers who left the labour market.
In January, the labour force had only increased by 13,000 people as compared to a year earlier.
Mr. Speaker, we note that the unemployment insurance fund was depleted of the $900 million we had in June 1957.
What steps did1 the government take to cope with unemployment, especially since it did not admit before September 1960 that there was unemployment in Canada. None, save the winter works program which has often been described as inadequate by the opposition. Recently, in another debate, I showed that the contribution of the federal government to the winter works undertaken during 1960-61 only amounted to 12 per cent, while municipalities contributed much more, that is 78 per cent of the costs.
The speech from the throne provided nothing, no efficient assistance to cope with chronic unemployment, especially as it affects certain areas.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from an editorial published in the Toronto Star on February 13 last, to show what the Australian government intends to do in order to solve the two major domestic problems facing that country.

(Text):
Canberra Acts, Ottawa slumbers.
Australia has two serious domestic problems- unemployment and economic stagnation. These are the two domestic problems that afflict Canada. (Translation):
And the editorial goes on to say, Mr. Speaker:
(Text):
Income tax will be cut 5 per cent.
Unemployment benefits will be raised 10 per cent for single men, 20 per cent for men with families. The federal government will make large scale loans to the state (i.e. provincial) governments for public works.
(Translation):
A little farther on in the same article, Mr. Speaker, one can read:
(Text):
Why doesn't Ottawa follow the example of Canberra? Why doesn't the Canadian government devise and proclaim a broad program to make jobs, to ginger up trade, production and investment, to restore confidence in the economy?
(Translation):
Concerning agriculture, the Prime Minister made the following promise at Massey hall, in Toronto, on April 27, 1957:
We shall see to it that the farmer gets his fair share of the national income, by maintaining a flexible program of price support, in order to guarantee him a share of the satisfactory prices for agricultural products based on an equitable relationship between sale prices and the cost of production.
I now wish to read the preamble of the Agricultural Stabilization Act passed by this parliament in January 1958:
Whereas it is expedient to enact a measure for the purpose of stabilizing the prices of agricultural commodities in order to assist the industry of agriculture to realize fair returns for its labour and investment, and to maintain a fair relationship between prices received by farmers and the costs of the goods and services that they buy, this to provide farmers with a fair share of the national income.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the farmers did not forget the Prime Minister's words, nor the preamble of the Agricultural Stabilization Act. There is no doubt that farmers have not yet received their fair share of the national income. There is no equitable relationship between the prices that Canadian farmers get for their products and the cost of goods and services they buy.
Mr. Speaker, I should like once again to draw the attention of the government to the major problem facing dairy farmers in Canada, that is the stocks of butter, including clarified butter, and the per capita consumption of that product.
In 1956, butter consumption was 19.50 pounds per capita, while it is estimated that it will be less than 16 pounds in 1961. In December 1960, the stocks of butter, including butter oil, were 150 million pounds. At the same period of 1961, we had 200 million pounds.
The Address-Mr. Clermont
Mr. Speaker, at this point of my remarks, I should like to draw to your attention the fact that the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion) stated yesterday, at page 1065 of Hansard, that the act passed in July 1961 by the Quebec provincial legislature allowing the sale of margarine was partly responsible for the increase in stocks.
I can hardly accept that statement if I compare it with the one made by Mr. Jean Baptiste Lemoyne, president of the U.C.C., on October 16, 1961, as reported in a newspaper item in La Presse of October 17, 1961. I read:
Paradoxically, the sale of margarine has decreased in Quebec since the act making such sale legal was put into effect in early summer.
This was disclosed during a press conference last night by the president of the U.C.C. Mr. Jean Baptiste Lemoyne.
He was then answering a question about his organization's reaction to that legislation.
That legislation has improved the climate which had prevailed until then in that sector, he explained. Also, in spite of the enormous publicity that has been made since July I, around that product, the quantity sold to the people of Quebec, far from increasing, has gone down.
Mr. Speaker, we know that when that legislation was proposed in the Quebec legislative assembly, it was supported by the U.C.C.
Those accumulated butter surpluses are causing concern within the dairy industry. That is why, at their convention held in Montreal, during the week of January 20 last, the Canadian federation of dairy producers sounded the alarm and appealed to all those who can and must contribute to find a proper solution. Here is what Mr. Paul Henri Lavoie wrote, in an editorial of the weekly Terre de Chez Nous, of January 24, 1962. That article is entitled "The dairy problem: Ottawa cannot brush it off".
And what must we expect from the Ottawa government? A contribution at least equivalent to its share of responsibility for the situation.
A little further, we read the following:
The federal government must have a very heavy conscience on account of its sins of omission in that regard.
And still a little further on, Mr. Lavoie wrote:
Around 1957, when consumers were paying a slightly more reasonable price than they are today for their butter, consumption remained at about the same level, and the need was even contemplated of resorting to some imports, as a result of a decrease in production.
Mr. Lavoie also added:
The example of other countries, where a decrease in the consumer price of butter has increased its sale, should have spurred to action.
Here are, Mr. Speaker, some of the recommendations contained in the brief submitted by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, of which the Quebec U.C.C. is a member, to the
1112	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Clermont Prime Minister of Canada and to the members of his cabinet, on February 7 last, which might help to solve immediately the problem of surpluses. I quote:
(Text):
(1)	To halt and reverse the decline in butter consumption by reducing the price to consumers by 14 cents a pound. This is designed to increase consumption so that current production of butter, and over a period of time the butter surplus, will move into consumption in Canada.
(2)	To maintain the butter support to the producer at its present level of 64 cents a pound by means of deficiency payments that fully compensate for the proposed reduction in the market price.
(3)	It is proposed that a price support of 12 cents a pound be placed on skim milk powder. The virtual disappearance of a return to producers for skim milk powder is an absurd situation. This policy proposal may well result in some accumulation in government hands. We would very strongly emphasize however, that there is no product more needed by, and more suited to the needs of undernourished people of the world than high protein milk powder.
(Translation) :
In our trade relations with other countries, at the time the Liberal party was managing our affairs, we were the foremost country in the world, per capita. In 1957, we occupied the second place, in 1959, the third place and, in 1960, the eighth place.
In the field of export trade, we are not the fourth trading country of the world any more, but the fifth. World exports have increased by 21 per cent since 1956, while Canadian exports have increased by only 11 per cent.
Our national production has increased by only 1.7 per cent during the last five years, whereas it had gone up 4.6 per cent during the last five years of the Liberal administration. In 1961, our per capita production was actually lower than the one five years before.
Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne reveals no coherent program which would indicate that the government is conscious of the new and important trade policies in Europe.
It is most important for Canada that the government reorganize our economy in relation to the common market. If Great Britain were to join the European economic community, not only our agricultural products but our forest products as well would be in trouble as far as their sale is concerned. The importance of our forest industry for Canada's economy is well known.
Last year, the Canadian pulp and paper manufacturers' association sent a trade delegation to Europe to examine the potential market for their products.
Our farmers and the owners of our lumber mills do not have the same facilities and resources to send such delegations. In 1958, there were 5,769 saw mills of all kinds in

Canada. That is why the government must show leadership, imagination and daring to protect the markets of those two industries on the European continent.
At this stage of my remarks, I should like to quote two articles. The first, which was written by the chairman of the Canadian pulp and paper manufacturers' association, Mr. Fuller, is entitled, "Trade and Decisions" and reads as follows:
(Text):
Trade and Decisions.
(Translation):
I quote:
(Text):
My concern at the moment is whether we really know where we want to go and have any sufficient roadmaps to get us there. It is a choice between exciting opportunities for growth; and stagnation. And the world will not wait for us to make up our minds.
(Translation):
The second article I should like to read into the record comes from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I quote from the Ottawa Citizen:
(Text):
When the Canadian Federation of Agriculture presented its brief to the annual federal-provincial agricultural conference in November, the national organization welcomed rather than decried Britain's move to join the European economic community. It believed the long run advantages to Canada and to Canadian farmers would outweigh the short run disadvantages. The C.F.A. said, of course, that every effort should be made in the negotiations to safeguard Canada's export markets for farm products.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, it will have cost the Canadian people $3,126 million in additional expenses on current revenues to have followed the Prime Minister toward new records; and we know, Mr. Speaker, what records we have reached.


Mr. J. Edgar Fournier (Resligouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the honour and the privilege of taking part in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I have no intention of repeating all the wishes and congratulations offered to the mover Mr. Bourdages (Laval) and seconder Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. 1 will say, however, that I approved of the appointments made by the Prime Minister.
The speech delivered by His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the 24th parliament is all to the credit of our dedicated and generous leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker).
It is easy to see that our opponents, harassed by political fever and the fear of facing the people at a forthcoming election, are

The Address-Mr. Fournier striving by every means, without any con- he belonged to the N.K.V.D., the Russian sideration for truth or for the good of the espionage organization.
Canadian economy, to condemn the progressive proposals found in the speech from the Mr. Bour9et: Mr. Speaker, on a point of throne.	order-
I think that in order to be a real member of parliament, an hon. member must be broadminded so that he can recognize and even accept any measure which serves the public weal.
Of course, it is the function of the opposition to criticize the government's policy, but criticism must be constructive and not done only to destroy or to satisfy ambitions based on political expediency. If we want to preserve the integrity, the dignity and the value of our democratic system, we must act accordingly.
One thing I find strange and perfectly ridiculous is to see our hon. friends opposite accuse the government of not doing what they themselves neglected to do during the 22 years they were in power, 22 years of suffering for the Canadian people.
Speaking of years of suffering, would some members of a political party dare consider the period between 1939 and 1944, that is the deplorable years of the second world war and the years of reconstruction and rehabilitation which followed, as years of prosperity due to a Liberal administration? Have they already forgotten the suffering and the horror of the Korean war?
It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that a certain political party is unable to distinguish between the efforts of a whole nation to protect its freedom and the periods of readjustment which always follow the upheavals caused by modern wars.
It is distressing to have to remind a certain political party of events which caused only sorrow and have left painful memories in practically all Canadian families. This political party claims and even boasts that such periods of prosperity are due to its own efforts. I should like, Mr. Speaker, to show him the skeleton of what his administration was like.
Have they forgotten already the biggest political scandal, the greatest drama ever seen in this house where we are now. This scandal happened under a Liberal regime, and I am convinced that many hon. members who are here, at this moment, and who are aware of all the facts as well as I am, will want to boast about this event and see in it an honourable achievement of the Liberal party. 1 wish to go back to the year 1946 and to refer to the Gouzenko case and to a certain Mr. Rose, member for Cartier, who sat with the Liberal government while
26207-1-714


Edgar E. Fournier: Mr. Speaker, if that scandal had taken place under a Conservative administration, we would have heard about it again and again but you know, everything is perfect.


Mr. Bourgel:: Mr. Speaker, I rose on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Levis rises on a point of order.


Maurice Bourget: I regret to interrupt the hon. member in view of the fact that he is a newcomer to this house. He was not here, of course, at the time of the Gouzenko incident. I must remind him that, at the time, Mr. Rose was not a member of the Liberal party. Therefore, I want to point that out to him so that he will be in a position to put forward the facts as they happened. I should not like him to assert that the scandal was due to the Liberal party when he knows very well, or if he does not know, it gives me pleasure to inform him, that Mr. Rose-


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the hon. member for Levis has shown that his point of order was justified. I now recognize the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska.


Edgar E. Fournier: Mr. Speaker, on the opening day of the session, last January 18, I was surprised at the attitude of the members of the new party, called the New Democratic party- N.D.P. The same letters could be used to call it the new demolished or dismembered party. As I was saying, I was surprised at the attitude of the members of the new party with regard to the appointment of my colleague, the member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau), as chairman of the committee of the whole. I wonder if that attitude does not reflect the statement made by the C.C.F. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) at Laval University in Quebec city.
I should like to take this opportunity to thank my hon. friend who so brilliantly explained the stand of his party before the people of Quebec and French Canadians generally. That statement will long be remembered by the French-speaking people of Quebec and other provinces.
Mr. Speaker, with the increase in welfare services mentioned in the speech from the throne, I am justified in stating that the government is generous.

The Address-Mr. Fournier
I remember so well our opponents' roars during the federal and provincial elections, particularly in 1948, 1950, 1952 and 1953, when they persisted in yelling that a Conservative vote was a vote against old age pension increases, and would lead to the suppression of all social welfare services.
What a contrast, Mr. Speaker. The roars only brought a six dollar increase whereas the government, which they had so unfairly accused, came up with a $19 raise within less than four years.
So I want to thank again the Conservative government for its generosity towards the aged, the disabled and the blind.
However, we should not stop at that. There is another social measure that should be amended. I want to speak of family allowances. With the increase in the cost of living, family allowances are inadequate now to raise a family decently, but it is through our families that we shall be able to make Canada a strong country.
I, therefore, beg the government to grant my request and I am confident that a few million dollars will be, in the near future, apportioned among our families in need.
In a country like Canada, poverty and suffering should not be the lot of large families nowadays. I would ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) to investigate the urgent needs of those large families which, in this wealthy country of ours, lack basic necessities, to investigate the condition of those thousands of children of all ages who have to go to sleep on empty stomachs at night and who have nothing but old rags to protect them from the cold.
A physical fitness program for which we unhesitatingly voted subsidies totalling $5 million has won high praise. It may be a good thing to remember that the best physical fitness program in Canada is still to see that all Canadian children have something to eat every day.
I am sure that only a Conservative government like the one we have at present will solve this serious problem and correct this unfortunate situation which is due to too many years of Liberal neglect. Indeed, the Liberal party used to boast about economic conditions which were the result of sad events, but it forgot and neglected our large Canadian families in poor circumstances, especially in the province of Quebec and other nearby areas.
(Text):
I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the people of my constituency for the vote of confidence they gave me on May

29 last. I must say it was an easy task for the people of my riding to reach a decision. There were two main factors I should like to mention.
The people of Restigouche-Madawaska had not forgotten the error they made in 1960 when in that province they elected under false promises a Liberal government which is carrying on a program of destruction which every day brings our little province nearer and nearer to the edge of bankruptcy, especially by the runaway administration of hospital insurance patterned on the great fiasco by the premier of Quebec in connection with the same matter. The second factor was the unusual visit in my riding of the Liberal chief and a dozen of his colleagues who, for three weeks, carried out a campaign of destruction, nonsense, falsehood, misstatements, and twisting of the truth. It would take too long to mention more of their behaviour but I hope they have learned, if they ever do so, that the old Liberal method of fooling the electors is something of the past.
They all did the same thing, Mr. Speaker. They all used the same methods. Most of them had never set foot before in my territory but what a picture of poverty and misery they presented to the people. Without looking around, they were quick to condemn the Diefenbaker government for so long neglecting my riding. The audience just stood back and listened. Some laughed, others became angry and asked themselves, "Do they think that we are that stupid?" That was especially so when the former minister of transport- I refer to the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier)-told the Dalhousie people how they had been neglected in the matter of port facilities. When he made that statement I presume he did not know that our Diefenbaker government had already spent $1 million to build the wharf which the ex-minister had failed to build. Those same hon. members failed to see the Campbellton-Cross Point bridge, a $3,500,000 structure promised by the Liberals for over 60 years and built by this generous Diefenbaker government. They failed to see the new Campbellton federal building and the new C.N.R. station, again an old Liberal promise of some 30 years standing, but carried out under this good Tory government.
They arrived in my riding, Mr. Speaker, like the great Goliath, with chests out and with swords in their hands. They were going

to make a sweep. However, they met little David and made a sweep but in the opposite direction. I wish to thank the people of my riding again for giving me their confidence.
A subject in which I have taken a great interest, Mr. Speaker, is the proposed new electrical energy national grid system. I am very happy to see the government with which I have the privilege to be associated take the initiative in this important matter. Again it took a good active and constructive Tory government to initiate action with regard to the possibility of harnessing together this tremendous potential power in order to better the economy and the living standards of our Canadian people. What this improvement would do for a better Canada is a subject which would take too long to discuss at this moment. However, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to relate a bit of history in connection with the development of electrical energy first, in our local communities and second, in our province, in order to see what we have achieved, where we stand today and where we go from here. I shall now touch briefly on the first matter.
The early development of electrical energy in our communities goes back to the early 1900's when electrical energy was used only as a luxury by a few people for lighting purposes. The price was 20 cents per kilowatt. At that time electricity frightened people more than did any other discovery brought into use by the mechanical age. It had the power to set fire in its passage; it gave terrible warning if one touched it, and it would go as far as killing you without mercy if you became too brave in handling it. However, as time went on, people learned more every day about its uses and its handling. After the invention of the light bulb, electric motors came into use to drive the wheels of growing industries. Electricity came to be used in wire and wireless communication, for medical purposes, transportation, heating, refrigeration and so on until today we have reached the point where we cannot move around without its assistance.
During the early 1900's many problems were solved. Man became acquainted with electrical energy and found ways and means by which to handle it, and electricity became humanity's best friend. The problem of the transmission of electrical energy over long distances was encountered. The difficulties in connection with cycles were overcome. Differences between direct current and alternating current were established. Transformers with the capacity to increase or to decrease voltage came into use, permitting current at high voltage to be transmitted at low cost and
The Address-Mr. Fournier then to be decreased in voltage at various points to serve the domestic or small consumers. Long distance lines were built with control stations at various centres with switching gear, regulation fusing and so on. While this early transformation was taking place, people became more and more conscious of electrical energy and its uses around the clock. It was then accepted as part of our economy and a great necessity. This summary covers the period extending from the 1900's up to the early 1920's and brings me to the second item, namely what was achieved.
While this development took place at a very high rate of speed, one problem was the production of electrical energy to meet the growing demand. In the early years of the nineties electricity was produced by small generators in the various communities, municipalities, villages and cities and in private industries. Fortunes were spent to provide mechanical devices, such as the diesel power of those days and thermal coal burning plants, steps were taken toward the harnessing of our rivers. This was all to the good, but as the demand increased so rapidly, by the early 1920's many of those limited resources were either exhausted or were beyond the financial ability of the owner.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must remind the hon. member that the debate continues without interruption until six o'clock. The hon. member may therefore continue.


Edgar E. Fournier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is the time when, in practically every province across Canada, decisions were taken to pool all available resources in order to produce more and cheaper electrical energy to meet the demand, with the result that we saw in many provinces the birth of electric power commissions and the establishment of a provincial grid system. That was the result of a continuing growth in the demand for electric energy. Larger and more effective plants were built. The building of thermal coal burning plants at the mine site, the development of hydraulic power generators all connected together as one unit, saved millions of dollars to the citizens of the provinces and made large volumes of energy available. This is what has been done up to the present time and brings me to the third part of my remarks.
Today, in the early '60's, every province finds itself in about the same situation as that in which were all the communities in the early '20's, but on a larger scale. Today many provinces across the country have just about exhausted their resources for producing

The Address-Mr. Fournier electrical energy. We have reached a rate of growth which requires that the capacity must be doubled every seven and a half years, something which is just about impossible financially or otherwise in some provinces. If we review for the moment the position of the provinces and their resources for the production of electricity, we find Nova Scotia and New Brunswick with a limited coal field and limited hydraulic resources now in production of power. We find Quebec with the world's largest hydraulic potential and with less than 30 per cent of its potential developed. We find Ontario with natural resources just about exhausted, the prairie provinces with limited hydraulic resources but very rich in coal deposits and British Columbia with some hydraulic developments to meet today's situation.
Let us see what could be done for the future. The transmission of electric energy has become possible more economically by using direct current and converters. To energize a national grid, the maritime provinces have the world's largest tidal power potential. Better than 5 million kilowatts can be produced. Newfoundland, at one site alone on the Grand Falls river can produce another 5 million kilowatts. The capacity of this tremendous Grand Falls hydro plant would work well to balance the load during the dull period of tidal power. Today, Mr. Speaker, it is possible to use the tides to generate power 20 hours out of every 24. New types of generators have made it possible to produce power with the uptide as well as the downtide. At times, even hydro power plants have dull periods at low water and one cannot operate efficiently without assistance from another source. The building of the Chignecto canal would be the first step towards the development of maritime tidal power.
Then, we move to Quebec, with its vast hydraulic reserves. Ontario is turning to nuclear power, thanks to our generous government. This power, developed by nuclear energy, could be directed east or west through a national grid system. Then, we come to the immense coal and gas reserves of the prairies and at the extreme west we have the Columbia and Fraser rivers, those great potential sources of hydro energy which can be converted to electrical energy and carried across Canada to the points where it can be used to the advantage of the Canadian people.
This, Mr. Speaker, is just a brief review of the proposed grid system. Before we see this system in operation, hundreds of problems will have to be solved. The physical possibilities, the feasibility, administrative organization and countless other problems will need extensive study. This will require the labour, sweat and
IMr. Fournier.]
full co-operation of everyone involved. Let us not be alarmed by this irresponsible young Quebec minister of resources who has made a name for himself in other fields, but not in electricity. He is making himself a name, but the dignity of this house does not permit it to be mentioned.
Three years ago the then premier of New Brunswick, in co-operation with the good and generous federal government of today and the Hon. Robert Stanfield, premier of Nova Scotia, decided to build the first interprovincial grid system between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. I was fortunate, as chairman of the New Brunswick electric power commission and in co-operation with the Nova Scotia power commission, in having a hand in the construction of this grid system. Today, power may be generated at Halifax or the extreme end of Nova Scotia, or at Edmundston in New Brunswick, and may be transported across these two provinces like lightning. A central distribution centre, with operating dispatchers having full control of generation and distribution, is located in the centre of the system. The savings in spare capacity alone to each province already represents several millions of dollars.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the good name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) will remain in history as the founder of this national grid system. Since it will be the greatest achievement of the sixties I am proud, along with my colleague and former boss the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Flemming), to be associated with this great project. I hope that at the next election the people of Canada will realize the importance of this grid system to the future of our country and the future of our children. I hope, too, that the Canadian people are now convinced that the only responsible government able to accomplish the construction of this national grid system is the present Diefenbaker Conservative government. This government has proven beyond any doubt to the Canadian people it has ability in all spheres of administration. This government will not embark on such a large project without a full study of the feasibility of its operation. It always places the welfare of the citizens and the economy of the country first.
I was amused to hear some members of the opposition already questioning the merits of such a grid system. They asked, who is going to participate? How will it operate? They have already found fault with it. These electrical experts have already condemned the job before its birth. They want to know if it will be a boy or a girl. Will he be born with hair or will he be bald? What will be the colour of his or her eyes? These are but some

of the many ridiculous questions they ask. No one can answer questions as to how this grid system will be put together, who will take part in it or how it will work. These answers cannot be given until a lengthy and complete study is made in all the provinces, and that is exactly what this government intends to do. The government has proven this by inviting every province in the dominion to a meeting to set in operation the machinery for such a study. This organizational work is not completed overnight. In my opinion, what seems to disturb my friends most is the fact that the grid system, when completed, will not display a commemorative plaque reading, designed by Mike; engineered by Paul; supervised by Lionel and twisted by Jack. It is my hope that the opposition will show more horse sense in the future and stop finding fault with a project that does not even exist.


Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me, and for the people of my riding of Trinity-Conception whom I have the privilege of representing, to join previous speakers in this traditional debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. At this time, I should like to join my colleagues on both sides of the house in congratulating the mover, the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Bourdages) and seconder, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) on their contribution to the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am personally glad to see you, Mr. Speaker, again assuming the very important position which you have so capably and justly filled ever since you have occupied it.
I should like also to congratulate the Deputy Speaker upon his appointment to that very important post. I believe he will carry out efficiently the new duties entrusted to him. I am not forgetting the reappointment of the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Chown) as deputy chairman of committees of the whole house, who performed his duties in this important position during the last session of parliament to the complete satisfaction of all hon. members and with great credit to himself and to his riding. My congratulations also go to our former deputy speaker, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn), the new Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and to the parliamentary secretaries on their reappointment.
I should like now, Mr. Speaker, to talk about matters pertaining to the welfare of Canada's newest province. Since becoming the tenth province of Canada at the date of confederation, Newfoundland has progressed in many ways, especially in the
The Address-Mr. Tucker field of education, culminating in the expansion of Memorial university. During the year 1961, all was not sunny for the province and people of Newfoundland, but with the ups and downs the province did progress economically as well as educationally.
Newfoundland has suffered practically every summer from the curse of forest fires. Last year she saw her forests devastated by fires which were considered to be the worst in the history of the pulp and paper industry. Millions of dollars worth of woodlands were destroyed. The damage to the forests was so great that the prospects for a third paper mill in Newfoundland seemed in danger because of the loss of wood to supply the three paper mills. The latest news, which is good news, is that a third paper mill will very likely be established in Newfoundland. Although all the details have not been worked out, negotiations have been continuing for some time, and the prospects are bright.
This paper mill will be established, it is expected, near Come-By-Chance in the federal riding of Trinity-Conception. At the moment, the Bowater Pulp and Paper Company of Corner Brook has agreed with the premier of Newfoundland, Mr. Smallwood, to start logging operations this year in Labrador. Newfoundland now has two large paper mills, perhaps the largest in the world, one at Grand Falls and the other at Corner Brook. These mills employ hundreds of Newfoundlanders in steady employment. Indeed both the paper mills actually support modern towns which have sprung up and been laid out adjacent to each mill. With a third mill at Come-By-Chance, and with another large town to come into existence, Newfoundland's economy will receive a badly needed substantial boost.
During the forest fire period the provincial government of Newfoundland threw everything into fighting the fires, in an effort to save our valuable wood stands. It even went so far as to solicit and receive help from the federal government which lent troops, water planes and other fire fighting equipment. Newfoundland is singularly blessed with valuable wood stands and forests and the natural resources of these forests are of particular importance to Newfoundland. They play a large part in her economy. The forests provide the raw materials which keep her two large paper mills operating at full capacity the whole year round.
Her forests have been a great boon to the people of Newfoundland in setting up her economy and leading to the building of two large and beautiful cities. It now appears that Newfoundland is about to get a third paper mill and her forests will also provide the raw

The Address-Mr. Tucker materials for it. In that section of the province her people can look forward to another new town coming into existence in the near future, with employment being available to the people in the area. All in all the forests of Newfoundland play an important part in the economy of our province and will continue to do so, perhaps on a larger scale in the future than in the past. Consequently the menace of forest fires must be controlled and, if at all possible, entirely eliminated.
Perhaps the greatest advance made by Newfoundland since the date of confederation has been in the field of education. The provincial government has gone all out with its financial and other assistance to education and the building of new schools, new regional high schools, and as a crowning success we have the Memorial University of Newfoundland, so that our present government has often been termed "the government of schools". Since confederation more new schools have been built, opened and staffed than in the time between the discovery of Newfoundland and the date of confederation, which shows that Newfoundland is really on the march in the field of education. Newfoundland's university recently opened its new buildings with pageantry and pomp and it will soon be one of the greatest universities in Canada. At the present time some of the halls of learning to make up the entire university are only in the planning stages. When the university is completed it will be second to none in Canada and will be a worthy memorial to Newfoundland's gallant dead in both world wars.
The fisheries industry will always be an important industry to Newfoundland, contrary to the present day thinking of some politicians. Newfoundland was a fishing country even before its official discovery and down through the years she has charted the measure of her success or failure by her yearly catch. A poor fishery meant a poor year for Newfoundland and her people. A good fishery meant a prosperous year for Newfoundland. However, since Newfoundland became a province of Canada she has not advanced her fisheries in the new techniques and methods of catching and curing fish, such as are used by Russia, Iceland, and other foreign nations fishing on our doorsteps.
The past year has been one of the poorest fishery years in the history of Newfoundland, coupled with several storms which caused damage and destruction to both public and private property, to the tune of approximately $250,000 in one single storm, leaving many of our fishermen almost destitute. Time and time again the federal government of Canada has been urged to see that a thorough investigation be made into our fisheries, that measures

should be taken and support given to bringing our fisheries up to date in both catching and curing methods. It was also urged that Canada should have already taken some action toward establishing the 12 mile limit to protect our Canadian fishermen and fisheries.
On many occasions Newfoundland fishermen claimed that foreign vessels were fishing inside the three mile zone, and several times they have stated that their fishing gear was damaged by foreign ships. Last spring a Newfoundland sealing captain gave me a flag of a foreign ship which he stated was definitely picked up inside the three mile limit when the ship was operating inside that limit.
The banks of Newfoundland are becoming more and more crowded every year with foreign fishing ships and the time has long passed when we should have begun protecting our fishing grounds. The present Canadian government fears that we would offend some of our friendly foreign countries if we were to establish a 12 mile limit for territorial waters and put real teeth into the provisions to enforce it.
Two years ago the government of Iceland became concerned over its fishermen's livelihood and unilaterally extended her traditional three mile limit to 12 miles. This was vigorously opposed by Great Britain, an old friend of Iceland, but on occasion Icelandic patrol vessels interfered with British draggers. On one occasion a British man-of-war went along as escort to British fishing vessels, and incidentally I have heard that man-of-war was captained by a Newfoundlander. Iceland's 12 mile limit is now recognized by Britain, with a three year phase out, during which British vessels may be allowed to fish in certain areas up to six miles from amended base lines.
Today Newfoundland finds that in and around her shores, where her waters at one time were teeming with fish, there are more Russians and other foreign nationals fishing than there are Newfoundlanders. The seal fishery, once a prosperous venture for Newfoundlanders, has been practically taken over by Norway and the wealth taken from our very shores. However, there does not seem to be anything done about it, or any assistance forthcoming from the federal government of Canada to investigate new methods and procedures for the seal fishery, in order that the wealth which is now benefiting the economy of other countries could be kept in Canada, and particularly in Newfoundland. In my opinion the time has arrived when we must give consideration to seal conservation by placing a closed season on the killing of seals off the east coast of Newfoundland.
Newfoundland badly needs federal and provincial government assistance for her fisheries, if they are to survive and be one

of the chief industries of our province; because it is plain to see that Newfoundland fisheries are very important to that province and are still one of the major components that make up her economy. For the success of her fisheries Newfoundland urgently needs more public cold storage for both bait and fish. Without such storage facilities her fisheries cannot expand or enlarge. More community stages are also required. The fisheries are a big cog in the wheel of her economy and they must be protected and developed, as the economy of Canada as a whole requires and needs them.
Mr. Speaker, not so many years ago most of the people of Newfoundland were isolated because of very poor roads, and often because there were no roads at all. The picture has changed vastly, and because of the trans-Canada highway and the many local roads which have been built in the past 13 years isolation is practically unknown on the island. Again, when one considers that the cost of building and maintaining roads in Newfoundland is higher than in any other province of Canada, one realizes what a tremendous job of shedding isolation has been accomplished by those concerned with this program.
Since Newfoundland still has to contend with her narrow gauge railway, after being a province of Canada for 13 years, we consider that as a matter of equity the federal government should complete the unfinished portion or portions of Newfoundland's trans-Canada highway to compensate for her railway not being the standard gauge of the other provinces of Canada. We have not forgotten the promise of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in 1957 to give us a standard gauge railway.
Newfoundland still needs more and better roads, more connecting roads, and above all she really needs the completion of her section of the trans-Canada highway. This completion of the trans-Canada highway will be delayed for years, and with it the economy of Newfoundland checkmated, unless the federal government soon realizes Newfoundland's position in the matter, recognizes her rightful claim to a standard gauge railway and makes a compromise or gives further financial assistance. Because the trans-Canada highway is not completed Newfoundland and her economy will suffer in regard to the tourist business. The tourist business in Newfoundland, goes a long way toward supporting our economy, and it could do much more. This industry is really considered too important a revenue item to be lost.
Since the days of confederation Newfoundland has rightly come into her own in the 26207-1-72
The Address-Mr. Tucker mining field. Already iron ore, copper, zinc, talc and gold in small quantities have been discovered and mined; but the latest development at Carol lake, being developed by the Labrador Mining Company-this is a new discovery-has placed Newfoundland in the forefront of the iron ore market and she is now Canada's largest producer of this commodity. Last year our mineral production was worth $96 million. Bell island, the iron ore island of Newfoundland, has been our main industry on the island for many years. The ore from Bell island has been steadily and continuously going into the markets of the world and has always been in fair demand. During the past five or six years the picture for Bell island has been continuously changing due to world conditions. The past two years have seen Bell island feel the pinch because of short orders for her ore, with the consequent loss of employment for many Bell island and Conception bay miners. Surveys for 1962 are not too bright and it is anticipated that unless world conditions change and further orders are received for ore, Bell island mines will close down for at least an indefinite period. At the present time the picture is far from encouraging.
In recent years mining has become very important in the financial and economical structure of Newfoundland because it appears that Newfoundland is now only on the thresh-hold of great developments in mining. At present only the surface has been scratched. Some of the biggest financial companies and combines of companies have acquired mining rights in Newfoundland and it is confidently anticipated that in the foreseeable future mining activities in Newfoundland will reach proportions that will make this industry the highlight of the century.
Mr. Speaker, compared with a quarter of a century ago, the budgeted expenditures for one year to cover the services of all departments in Newfoundland are now equalled by the expenditures of two departments, health and welfare. The medical and social services inaugurated in Newfoundland since confederation could not be contemplated 20 or 25 years ago, and the only drawback to further rapid expansion is the lack of doctors and nurses.
The advances made in hospital accommodation and medical and social services since the advent of confederation have been phenomenal, but the need is still not satisfied because Newfoundlanders need more hospital accommodation, doctors and trained nurses. However, Newfoundland can be justly proud
1120	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Tucker of her program of hospital and medical services because she has the highest birth rate and the lowest death rate of all the provinces of Canada.
I should now like to discuss one of our greatest problems, that of unemployment. Because Newfoundland is an island, one of her principal sources of revenue to sustain her economy is her fishery. This is the principal occupation of her residents. If the fishery is good in one year, then the employment problem in that year is not so great; but in a year of poor fishery or failure in the fishery the employment problem becomes acute. Seasonal employment in Newfoundland cannot be avoided, because the principal industries or labour offering enterprises, the fishery, logging, seal fishery, road building and construction work, are all seasonal employment. Consequently during the offseasons in these industries Newfoundland will have a great deal of unemployment because there is nothing to offer to the people to temporarily take up the slack.
Another factor which one must consider when studying this problem of seasonal unemployment in Newfoundland is the large percentage of her labour force which comes under the category of unskilled workmen. This is the class of workers who cannot afford to be unemployed. Thus we are faced with this difficulty each year.
Let us first look for at least a partial remedy for this problem. I consider that getting more people back into the fishing industry is very important, even if the federal and provincial governments have to provide extra assistance, especially during the coming fishery season, because due to storms, losses, and the like, many fishermen will not have the equipment with which to engage in the fishery this year without financial help. As to a long term cure, it will be necessary for our fisheries in Newfoundland to be placed on a sound footing and brought up to date in methods and procedures. Our fishermen should have all the mechanical devices that are used by the Russians, in order to make fishing a success. The government of Canada owes this to her fishermen.
Much remains to be done on the marketing side. Canadians do not eat enough fish. More marketing research must be conducted under federal auspices. A national fish marketing board could go a long way toward inducing Canadians to eat more fish.
The erection of a third paper mill and the creation of a new town of Labrador and perhaps one at Come-By-Chance, where it is hoped a mill will be erected, will tend to reduce unemployment. But what is really


needed more than anything else is the creating and setting up of factories or industries in larger towns such as Lewisporte, Harbour Grace, Carbonear, Clarenville, Catalina, Port Union, St. John's, Corner Brook and Grand Falls, where many workers, particularly young workers could be gainfully employed in their home towns. It may well be that young people cannot always afford to accept opportunities offered to them elsewhere because they have to care for aged or sickly parents, or undertake similar responsibilities. If the suggestion I have made were followed it would lead to a reduction in unemployment, and I urge the government to give the idea their immediate attention and consideration.
I have outlined the serious problems that still face Newfoundland. Again I say that we need the help of the Canadian government as a team if we are to reach our goal of complete employment by creating jobs at home, thus making Newfoundland a more stable element in this country's economic structure.
Newfoundland's first oil refinery, operated by the Golden Eagle Company of Canada at Conception Bay, went on stream early in December 1961. It is a $7,500,000 plant and it will produce approximately 8,500 barrels daily, employing about 100 permanent employees. About 25 per cent of the plant's production will be shipped out of the province, and the provincial government will provide the refinery's initial market. Fuels, lubricating oils and asphalt will be produced for distribution in eastern Canada. Marine terminals have been built in Corner Brook, Botwood, Clarenville, Montreal and Rimouski. The company expects that the value of its assets will increase in value in 10 years from $15 million, as at present, to $75 million.
In closing I should like to say that I was glad to learn from the speech from the throne that Her Majesty the Queen Mother together with Their Highnesses, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Princess Royal will visit Canada some time during the coming summer. I sincerely hope their visit will be a happy one.


Mr. L. R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: It is
with pleasure that I rise to take part in this throne speech debate. In accordance with the time honoured custom my first words will be those of congratulation to the mover and seconder of the address, the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Bourdages) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne). I also wish to congratulate the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) upon his elevation to the position of Deputy Speaker. At this time I also wish to extend congratulations to the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn) on his appointment to the position of Minister of Mines and

Technical Surveys. We look forward to seeing this minister more often in Nova Scotia as his department extends its new hydrographic and oceanographic base at Halifax.
The speech from the throne represents a monumental work on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his cabinet. Opposition speakers to date have made it their business to steer away from this blueprint of further national development. However, I believe this government has charted a course, has laid down a program, which will provide a higher standard of living and greater opportunity within a free economy for all Canadians.
It is not possible, in the short time available, for me to deal with all the progressive plans enunciated in the speech from the throne, so I shall limit myself to dealing with a few matters of significance and importance to our area. There are representatives here from all parts of Canada who are quite capable of outlining conditions as they exist in their localities, and I therefore propose to confine my remarks for the most part to Nova Scotia and to the developments taking place in that province.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) when he spoke in the debate, I am sorry he is not in his place today.
It appeared to me he must still believe he is on the sunny beaches of Acapulco, far removed from the pulse of the Canadian economy and the Canadian people. He kept calling for an election, saying the Liberals have the answer. When the election comes, he added, it would be on the record of this government. We on this side of the house will certainly welcome and accept that challenge. I remember well the election of 1957. It was fought on the record of the then Liberal government in office-and the Leader of the Opposition knows the result. The election of 1958 was fought on the record of the Conservative government in office, and the results of that election are painfully evident to the hon. gentleman as he looks over at the benches occupied by government supporters and then to the tattered remnants of his once great party. It was in these campaigns that the people of Nova Scotia looked to the present Prime Minister and, with a sailor's salute, said: Long may your big jib draw. Then they proceeded to elect 12 members from 12 constituencies in support of the Conservative party. These are times when the Leader of the Opposition must ask himself: What did we do wrong? At the time of their defeat it was the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), I believe, who said they had neglected their clothes on the left bank while 26207-1-72i
The Address-Mr. Crouse in swimming and the Conservatives had slipped in from the right. The Leader of the Opposition had another viewpoint. In his opinion "the brass lost touch with the grass". However, today the hon. gentleman is critical of our Prime Minister and of members of this government for keeping in close touch with the people. I think it is time we enlightened the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) and pointed out that it was arrogance and indifference to the needs of the people that cost the Liberal party majority support in the Atlantic provinces. And this arrogance and indifference is still evident today, due no doubt to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has the same old economic advisor he had in 1956. We heard the other day that Mr. Walter Gordon had been nominated to contest the Toronto Davenport riding in the next federal election. He is the man with bold imaginative policies-the man who has all the answers for the Liberals. Weil, let us look at some of the bold imaginative policies of maritime Gordon, this aspiring Liberal finance minister, as enunciated in the 1956 preliminary report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects. I quote from page 98:
About one and three quarter million Canadians, or over 10 per cent of the total population, live in the Atlantic region. It is well known that the rate of economic progress in the three maritime provinces-Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island-was relatively slow for a long period of years.
The report continues:
It is a fact that average incomes in this region continue to lag behind the averages for the rest of Canada. In 1926, for example, the average income per capita in the three maritime provinces was 38 per cent below the average for the other six provinces: in 1939 the corresponding percentage was 32 per cent; in 1946 it was 24 per cent; and in 1955, 33 per cent. In 1955, the average income for the Atlantic provinces, including Newfoundland, was 37 per cent below the average for the other six provinces.
Then he continues:
The fact remains that living standards are lower in the Atlantic provinces than they are in the rest of Canada, and that it is in everyone's interest to reduce this differential if it is at all possible-
I repeat: "if it is at all possible"-
-to do so. It is not suggested that this should be accomplished by ad hoc projects and handouts. Such measures are as unpalatable to the recipients as they are to those who must foot the bills. What is required is a positive and comprehensive approach to the problems of the Atlantic region. With this as the objective, it is suggested that the people of Canada as a whole might be willing to assist the people of the Atlantic provinces in discovering, developing and making the best use of resources in that area.
If it should turn out that there is not the necessary combination of resources in sufficient quantities to permit a substantial rise in living standards in the Atlantic region, generous assistance

The Address-Mr. Crouse should be given to those people who might wish to move to other parts of Canada where there may be greater opportunities.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: It continues:
But even if assistance is provided for those people who might be willing to move elsewhere, many people undoubtedly would prefer to remain where they are, despite the handicaps referred to. People who so choose should at the same time be prepared to accept a different kind of life, or certainly life at a different tempo, and lower levels of income.
Is this bold and imaginative? No Atlantic provinces grants here. This would be ad hoc assistance. I continue:
It would be unwise to spend large sums on the construction of highways merely for the purpose of forcing a reduction in railway rates by the introduction of highway truck competition and thus increasing the present losses of the railways. It would be equally unwise to insist upon the continuance of unprofitable rail services if, with the construction of road facilities, the present traffic could be handled effectively by trucks and buses.
Do away with the railways, build no roads or highways. That is what is recommended by Mr. Gordon and his party. If you read the whole report it can be summed up as only a negative, do-nothing, move-out policy.
But, the Liberals say, Mr. Gordon has changed. He is now the national chairman of the Liberal campaign, committee and his heart literally bleeds for the maritime provinces. I have in my hand a report of his speech delivered at Sutherlands River on December 14, 1961, as reported by the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. While we have heard of the new Pearson and the new Gordon they still have the same old policies for the Atlantic provinces and the evacuation of those provinces. Listen to these quotations from Mr. Gordon's speech:
Living standards In the Atlantic provinces were lower than in the rest of Canada, he said, and it was in everyone's interest to reduce the differential.
He stated that it was not suggested that this should be accomplished by "ad hoc" projects and handouts-such measures were as unpalatable to the recipients as to those who must foot the bill.
What was required, he said, was a positive and comprehensive approach to the problems of the Atlantic region.
And again:
There would be no point in anyone moving to Upper Canada, for example, in search of work these days.
And further:
Special measures will be needed for looking after these people and for re-establishing in other industries those who may be interested in such an alternative. It may be such measures could be included under the broad national scheme we have referred to for relocating people who may wish to abandon sub-marginal farms and be re-established in other industries.
In other words, the one suggestion Mr. Gordon did have for the citizens of the

Atlantic provinces has now been modified and he cannot even suggest a suitable province to which we should move. Mr. Speaker, we will stay in the Atlantic provinces. We do not need to move out. Under the progressive policies of the present federal government employment opportunities are gradually being provided for our people. We did not listen to Mr. Gordon in 1956 and apply to the then Liberal government for a one way ticket out of our province. Some of the figures I intend to place on the record will indicate what has happened to the good ship Nova Scotia since we discharged the entire mutinous crew of Liberals and the present Prime Minister became captain.
The average income per capita in the Atlantic provinces, as quoted by Mr. Gordon has always been lower than the average income in the other six provinces. However, we are making progress for, according to the dominion bureau of statistics, the average per capita personal income for the four Atlantic provinces increased from a low of $851 in 1956 to $1,010 in 1960. In the three maritime provinces, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, the average income in 1960 was 32.8 per cent below the national average. We are still not out of the woods economically and the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants are still justifiable, but we have been making a far better showing in the last four years under this Conservative government than we made in the last 22 years under the Liberal government.
The transition in Nova Scotia that brought about this increase in income is apparent in the fishing industry, the boat and shipbuilding industry, the mining industry, agriculture and in the construction industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: My hon. friends applaud misleading figures.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: My hon. friends opposite do not like to hear these facts. I hear a comment from my hon. friend, the economist from Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith). Nevertheless we are glad to state the facts even if my hon. friends do not like to hear them.
The Nova Scotia fishing industry is in the midst of an accelerated boat building and fish plant expansion program. This has been brought about by the far sighted, progressive legislation introduced by this government to assist the shipbuilding industry in Canada and the fishermen in particular. Already a number of new draggers in the 100 foot class have been launched, with more to follow before the end of 1962, and if you could but visit the wooden shipbuilding yards in Mahone Bay, Lunenburg, Dayspring and in

fact, most of the yards throughout Nova Scotia, you would see a scene reminiscent of former years when our province became famous as the home of wooden ships and iron men, and the schooner Bluenose sailed the north Atlantic undefeated. The Halifax Chronicle-Herald on February 8 headlined their front page with the statement that this shipbuilding boom could amount to $10 million this year. These new fishing draggers for the ground fish and scallop fishing industry will provide a safer working unit for the fishermen who will be stepping out of smaller boats, into modern efficient ships that will help ensure a year round supply of fish for the processing plants. And speaking of processing plants, Lunenburg Sea Products Ltd. is planning an $8 million expansion to their facilities at Lunenburg. The plant will be erected on an eight acre site, will provide additional jobs for 200 to 300 people, will add at least $4 million annually to the economy of Nova Scotia and is expected to be in production early in 1964. In addition to this, two new fish plants are under construction for Cape Breton island.
While all of us welcome this expansion and realize the value of the fishing industry, not only to Nova Scotia but to Canada as a whole, we are also aware of the growing need for well trained crews for the expanding fishing fleet. A modern fishing dragger is a highly complex unit containing many electronic devices to assist in locating good fishing grounds, as well as protect the crew in foggy weather. New fishing techniques should be introduced and I would suggest the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Transport give consideration to the establishment of special vocational training facilities for deep sea fishing vessel crews. Due to their environment and long hours of work, fishermen cannot always secure the technical training required. I hope the government will find it possible to initiate this type of training program in the near future.
In our mining industry there were major advances during the past year. Salt production increased 40 per cent, milling started at the Walton silver-lead-zinc ore body and initial steps were taken toward establishing a major new gypsum producer in Cape Breton. In fact, present resources of gypsum in Nova Scotia are sufficient to produce 2 million tons per year for the next hundred years, and this will contribute substantially to the economy of the province.
Interest in Nova Scotia as a leading source of industrial minerals continues to grow. The tempo of exploration last year was at an all time high and this bodes well for the future of our mining industry.
The Address-Mr. Crouse
In the field of agriculture in Nova Scotia, last year's records reached new heights. The gross income from farm products last year exceeded $53 million. Livestock and livestock products account for about 80 per cent of this amount which is an increase of more than $3 million over the previous year.
There was a time when if someone mentioned the Annapolis valley we thought only of apples. However, while apples remain one of the province's best known farm products, we see tobacco grown today commercially for the first time in our history. Last year's crop was estimated at $50,000 and present plans call for a crop of at least four times this size in 1962.
In the construction field and in the establishment of new industries the record is beyond compare. In my constituency the American boat building corporation has located at Mahone Bay. Yesterday's newspaper carried the report that they recently increased their working staff by 40 per cent. The Atlantic Bridge Company Limited at Lunenburg and the Lunenburg Foundry and Engineering Limited at Lunenburg recently built large new additions to their plants. Scotia Marine Products Limited at Lower Woods Harbour have established a $750,000 plant for the production of "algin", an end product of rock-weed which has almost unlimited possibilities as an emulsifying agent in ice cream and food supplements. This type of factory is quite rare, as there are only 10 other algin plants known to be in existence throughout the world. Other plants established have been the Bonda Meal and Oil Limited at Short Beach, Yarmouth county; Cossor Electronics Limited at Dartmouth; Fairey Aviation Company of Canada Limited at Halifax; Eastern Paper Box Manufacturing Limited at Halifax; Federal Products Limited at Truro; the $3 million Formex Company of Canada plant at Kentville; the Oxford Desk Limited at Oxford; Phillips Electrical Company at Dartmouth; Springhill Homes and Supplies, Springhill and the Sur-rette Battery Company in the same town; the $14 million Texaco oil refinery going up at Woodside in Dartmouth, the fourth big refinery in the Atlantic region with a 13,500 barrel capacity; Weymouth Industries Limited; and I could go on until I listed a total of 22 new industries in Nova Scotia in the past four years. While all this has been going on our existing industries have been growing and expanding and for the most part have been providing new jobs. All this has happened in a province where the only suggestions the Liberals had when they were in office, for the improvement of our lot was Mr. Gordon's classic, "move out".
Despite this record of progress and steady growth, under a Conservative government,

The Address-Mr. Crouse the hon. member tor Gloucester (Mr. Robi-chaud), asks what there is in the speech from the throne for the Atlantic provinces? He then proceeds to degrade the maritime area with a speech filled with doom and gloom that could only be exceeded by his leader. There are many items in the speech from the throne that will be of benefit to our area. For example, the extension of the winter works program, co-operative measures between the 10 provinces to encourage wise management of our natural resources; the provision of low cost electric power; the maintenance of fair prices for our farms and fisheries products; legislation extending farm and fisheries improvement loans acts; increases in welfare pensions to all classes; increases in civilian war pensions and allowances; increases to our university grants; institution of a second ferry service between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
These are but a few of the measures that will benefit our citizens in the Atlantic provinces. In my opinion the remarks made by the hon. member for Gloucester do great harm to our area by destroying the confidence of the investment world in locating industry in the Atlantic provinces. In support of this statement I quote from a recent editorial in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald in which Mr. Karl A. Klausen, president of Nova Scotia Pulp Limited, stated Nova Scotia's excess of bad publicity has hampered its economic growth. I quote from the editorial as follows:
Mr. Klausen said he had been advised by pulp executives and foresters across Canada against establishing a mill in Nova Scotia and that financiers in Toronto and Montreal warned against the move because of lack of confidence in our economic future.
So far as this attitude begins at home, habits of thought and continual crying of havoc and hard times will have to give way to more reasoned appraisals of our strengths and weaknesses. For it is apparent that despite such soft spots as the coal industry the over-all economy of Nova Scotia, particularly in the vital field of manufacturing, is making some rapid strides-
As the President of Nova Scotia Pulp Limited stated, this province has a vast industrial potential and a prosperous economic future if we can persuade ourselves and others to believe in it.
The record proves that under this federal Progressive Conservative government we are growing stronger economically. I would suggest that we be non-partisan enough to give credit where credit is due so that new industries will locate with confidence in the Atlantic provinces and help to expand our employment opportunities.
The hon. member for Gloucester condemns this government for its lack of consideration of the problems facing these people of the Atlantic provinces. I ask him whether he is not aware of the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants which provided $100 million

in the last four years to the Atlantic provinces and which will be increased to $175 million in the next five years with an additional grant of $8 million per annum to Newfoundland, in order to bolster our economy and to provide services to our people, which they could not otherwise afford owing to the disparity in our income. In his report Mr. Gordon went from 1926 to 1956, and with the exception of the five year period 1930 to 1935, this country was under the rule of a Liberal government. During those years the disparity in our income in the Atlantic provinces was as high as 38 per cent in relation to those in the rest of Canada. However, I cannot recall any member of the Liberal party advocating adjustment grants during those years and they are against them today; because Mr. Gordon has recently stated that he does not approve of ad hoc projects and handouts.
Another point worth mentioning is that these Atlantic provinces adjustment grants have no strings attached. They can be distributed at the discretion and pleasure of the four Atlantic premiers and there is no pressure brought to bear by this federal government as to how they will spend this money. As a result, we see today in the four Atlantic provinces, the greatest road building, school construction, and industrial assistance programs in our history, and our present population in Nova Scotia of 727,000 gradually increasing.
While I welcome the announcement in the speech from the throne that a new ferry will be built to serve between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland I would also urge upon the government that further consideration be given to establishing a second ferry between Nova Scotia and Gloucester, Massachusetts. At the present time discussions are under way between Premier Stanfield and Governor John Volpe of Massachusetts, and a meeting was held in Boston on February 19, to discuss various proposals on this matter. In the opinion of many Nova Scotians, a second ferry service is required to supplement the one now provided by the M. V. Bluenose between Yarmouth and Bar Harbour, in order to increase our tourist industry which last year brought over $50 million in additional revenue from over 600,000 visitors. Nova Scotia is truly Canada's ocean playground with 5,000 miles of rugged shoreline, scores of sandy beaches, thousands of lakes and streams and a temperate climate. The present proposal is to have a second ferry operate from Gloucester, Massachusetts, to a port along the south shore, a trip of 10 to 12 hours, depending on the port chosen. When we realize that 33,800,000 people live within

a day's travel of Gloucester which is only 32 miles from Boston and 250 miles from New York, we get some idea of the tremendous tourist potential from this area. As Nova Scotia's fishing industry is expanding, and we ship over 75 per cent of our catch to the United States market, this additional ferry would also provide an improved service to this vitally important Nova Scotia industry. I hope the minister of trade and industry and the Minister of Transport will give careful consideration to this proposal so that steps may be taken to provide this additional service and improve still further the economic development of Nova Scotia which has made great forward strides under the present Conservative government.
Business of the House


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I call it six o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: I should like to ask the house leader to indicate the business he proposes to submit for consideration of the house tomorrow and Friday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We will continue with this particular debate and conclude it tomorrow. On Friday, subject to change with due notice, the further supplementary estimates will be taken up.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 22, 1962