1962-02-20

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 20, 1962

['If the hon. member is asking a question about the conduct of the associate minister, that matter has been disposed of for this morning. If it has to do with other matters it is not attached to any specific facts and, as 1 say, it is hypothetical.']
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if the house will permit me I should like to draw attention to the presence in the gallery of Mr. J. Edward Day, Postmaster General of the United States, who is visiting Ottawa for discussions in connection with postal developments. He is accompanied by several distinguished citizens of the United States and members of the advisory committee. There is no better example of the benefits of international cooperation than can be found in the post office departments of the world.
It is particularly pleasing to welcome him at this time on behalf of his country when all of us in the free world, and in the uncommitted world as well, are watching the course of Colonel John Glenn as he speeds into history for the benefit of all mankind. I am sure I voice the prayers and hopes of all of us that the flight, so auspiciously begun, will be successful after so many disappointments and delays, in the process of which these facts became known to the world, as is always the case amongst democratic nations.
I know everyone is happy today, and I am sure the house will allow me to express the hope that the flight will continue to be, in its remaining circuits of the earth, as successful as it has already been. The latest word is that Colonel Glenn is approaching his first encirclement of the earth, and all of us pray for a successful conclusion. This House of Commons, I am sure, is united in extending congratulations to him, to his technical advisers, and in particular to the President and people of the United States.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we on the opposition side would like to join with the Prime Minister in the welcome he has expressed to a distinguished member of the cabinet of our great friend and neighbour. It is an auspicious day on which the Postmaster General has arrived in Ottawa, an auspicious day in the history of his country, and we Canadians share in the
pride that all Americans must be feeling this morning, just as a good many of us shared the excitement of the television screen with them from an early hour this morning.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: The
members of this group are in complete agreement with the welcome given the Postmaster General of the United States by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I might say that we wish all other departments of governments in all countries could emulate the example of the post office departments in constructive co-operation in the arts of peace.
We also join with the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition in their best wishes to the United States astronaut, John Glenn, whose space flight is now being watched with such interest and admiration.



Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr. Evan W. T. Gill as high commissioner for Canada to Australia. Mr. Gill, at present an assistant undersecretary of state for external affairs, will succeed Mr. Terence W. L. Mac-Dermot, who has retired from the public service after a long and distinguished career. Mr. Gill will take up his appointment in Canberra in the spring.
Mr. Gill's extensive and varied experience, both inside and outside the public service, makes him eminently qualified for his new post. He graduated from the Royal Military College in 1923 and received a B.Sc. degree from McGill University in 1925. Before the war he served with industrial and commercial organizations. He joined the Canadian army in 1940 and rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel in 1944. From 1944 to 1946 he served as secretary to the chiefs of staff committee and as a member of the cabinet secretariat. On demobilization he was appointed to the civilian staff of the privy council office and served as secretary to the cabinet defence committee and other cabinet committees.
In the Department of External Affairs, which he joined in 1950, Mr. Gill has held with distinction a number of important appointments. He served as counsellor at Canada House in London during 1950-51, and then became head of the personnel division in the

Inquiries of the Ministry department. He was appointed high commissioner for Canada to the Union of South Africa in July, 1954, and in March, 1957, he became Canada's first high commissioner to Ghana. He was appointed assistant under secretary in April, 1959.
Mr. Gill's special interest and wide experience in commonwealth affairs will, I am sure, be particularly valuable in maintaining our close family links with Australia. These connections are especially important at this time in view of the important economic developments taking place in the commonwealth.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, it has not always been the practice to comment on announcements with regard to those who have been appointed to positions in our diplomatic corps. However, I should like to note with satisfaction the appointment of Mr. Gill, to take effect next spring, as our high commissioner to Australia. Mr. Gill has had a very distinguished career in our foreign service. As the minister said, he has served Canada with distinction in many capacities, among these as a former high commissioner to South Africa. He will be replacing Mr. MacDermot, I take it, who has rendered distinguished service to Canada in more capacities than one, not only as a representative of Canada in several countries but as one who served Canada as a very distinguished educationalist before he joined the public service.
This appointment is received with satisfaction and also with an expression of gratitude to Mr. MacDermot for his distinguished service to the government of Canada, to the public service and to Canada itself.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, the members of this group are not closely acquainted with Mr. Gill, but when there is a question of an appointment such as this, knowing the capacity of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to assess the ability and integrity of individuals, we are quite willing to accept his recommendation and his views. We wish this gentleman every success in the important mission he has undertaken for this country.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister any comment to make on the statement of his colleague, the Associate Minister of National Defence, that
tMr. Green.]

his recent difficulties arising out of his condemnation of the governments of Ecuador and British Guiana as communist were due to bad reporting by the Canadian Press?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I naturally have no comment on that matter. I also saw a report of a speech delivered yesterday by the hon. gentleman in which he condemned the $40 million being paid to western farmers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question, but before asking it I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: I did make a speech in which I referred to the $40 million, but I did not condemn it; on the contrary, I said that we on this side of the house had approved of it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: Just a moment. But I did make the statement that I thought the Prime Minister and his government were doing very little for the eastern farmers.


Mr. Ricard:: This is the second time you have done that.


Lionel Chevrier: The supplementary question I pose to the Prime Minister is this-


Mr. Sevigny:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. If the hon. member has questions to ask concerning my statements, he should ask them of me.


Lionel Chevrier: The supplementary question I should like to ask the Prime Minister-and I shall determine to whom the questions are to be directed, not the associate minister-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Will you ask them of me?


Lionel Chevrier: I will, in due course. The supplementary question to the Prime Minister is this. Is the Prime Minister aware that in a statement on the C.B.C. on Sunday, following the violence which took place in British Guiana, the associate minister in effect repeated the statement that the government of British Guiana was communist when, as reported in he Devoir of February 20, he is quoted as saying:
Don't you see? Who Is ignorant? Who was in error? Have we not here a communist government?
I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any comment to make on that matter.


Mr. Pigeon:: This is so ridiculous.


John George Diefenbaker: I have not seen that article, and naturally I have no comment to make on it. Comments in this connection have already been made.


Lionel Chevrier: Since the Associate Minister of National Defence-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am doubtful whether the inquiries the hon. member for Laurier is making are a proper subject for a question at this time. They may be an appropriate subject of debate, but I fail to see what information he is asking for in the questions he has asked. I think one supplementary question is ample to allot to the subject.


Lionel Chevrier: Then may I ask the associate minister, who is so anxious to reply to this question, and who in effect has repeated-


Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon):: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Lionel Chevrier: The question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member resume his seat. I raised a point of order myself. If the hon. member who apparently wishes to ask another question wants to discuss the point of order, he is permitted to do so. I will hear the hon. member for Stormont later if it is necessary.


Lionel Chevrier: The question I wish to put to the associate minister is this-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. My question is whether the inquiries the hon. member is making are appropriate for the orders of the day. They do not seem to be a search for information. If the hon. member wishes to initiate a new question, I will hear him in due course.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, I am speaking now on a point of order, and it is this. The minister, having risen in the house and having made an apology for the statement he made earlier concerning his accusation that the governments of both these countries were of communistic nature, has in effect, in a television program in Montreal on Sunday, repeated the same accusations.


An hon. Member:: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. members in due course, but the hon. member for Laurier is now addressing himself to a point of order; at least I hope he is.


Lionel Chevrier: I was about to say that the minister has in effect repeated his accusations, if he is properly quoted in the report which I have now. On that basis I was about to
Inquiries of the Ministry ask Your Honour's permission to address a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member's question in due course and deal with it then. If either of the hon. members who rose to speak on points of order have anything else to say, I will hear them now.


Grant Campbell: Yes. I do not think the hon. member for Laurier or anyone else is entitled to conduct an inquisition to serve his own party or personal ends.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member seems to be generating more heat than light with regard to the point of order.
(Translation):


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, I very clearly stated to the house, on February 12, that I had not expressed myself correctly in a statement I made in Montreal. Having made that inaccurate statement, Mr. Speaker, I corrected myself. I have nothing to add to, nor to retract from, the statement I made in this house.
But I will say this. In an interview on television last Saturday evening, I did not repeat what I had said in a speech I gave in Montreal.
(Text):
But, Mr. Speaker, I said this; that in view of the week-end events, and in particular the events which took place in British Guiana; and in view of the reports which we have read and which have been written by commentators in the Canadian Press and other periodicals it is amply evident that communism is spreading in Latin America and is presenting a danger to world peace. That is all I said.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member seems to have taken the view with respect to the point of order that the subject is a relevant one, and if the hon. member for Laurier has a supplementary question-if a supplementary question is necessary-I will give him the floor.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I have, sir.
(Translation) :
Further to the statement the minister just made, I should like to ask him the following question. Did he, yes or no, in his interview on television, use the following words:
Don't you see? Who is ignorant? Who was in error? Have we not here a communist government?
Did the minister use these words during his interview?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I used those words. I said this. In view of

Inquiries of the Ministry the events which have been reported in the press over the week end, in relation to what has been going on in British Guiana, in view of the articles written on the progress, being made by communism in Latin America, it is quite evident that we must be aware of the danger. If the hon. member for Laurier does not feel that communism constitutes a threat, then let him say so publicly.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, in reply to what the minister has just said, I rise on a point of order.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Laurier is not entitled to reply to the answer. He has been allowed three supplementaries, and I think the subject might well now be left for debate at a time when it is appropriate to enter into debate.
The hon. member for Kootenay West.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Well, Mr. Speaker, I was rising to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: The same ruling applies to the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement of the Associate Minister of National Defence, can the Prime Minister say whether it is the policy of the government to have members of the government make speeches on its behalf-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -based on alleged facts gleaned from newspaper reports?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the Prime Minister heard the question. There was considerable interruption, and I must say I had difficulty myself in hearing it.


Mr. Churchill:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understood Your Honour to rule out further supplementaries with regard to speeches made by the Associate Minister of National Defence.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member wants to ask his question, would he repeat it so that I may determine whether it is proper.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The question is this. Is it the policy of the government to have members of the government make speeches on its behalf based on facts allegedly gleaned from newspaper reports?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member's question is a purely hypothetical one.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is not hypothetical, because this 
is what the associate minister has informed the house and the country that he did.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is asking a question about the conduct of the associate minister, that matter has been disposed of for this morning. If it has to do with other matters it is not attached to any specific facts and, as 1 say, it is hypothetical.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. On January 31, as reported at page 401 of Hansard, I asked the minister a question relating to the disposition of the recommendation of the restrictive trade practices commission regarding the action of Canada Packers in acquiring two other companies. At that time the minister answered as follows:
My recollection is that this matter has been referred to counsel, but with precisely what instructions I do not recall. I shall have to look that up and give a more complete answer tomorrow.
Is the minister now able to enlarge upon that answer?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The answer is that the report was referred to counsel for an opinion as to prosecution.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister indicate whether that opinion has been received as yet?


Edmund Davie Fulton: My recollection is that it has not been, but if I am wrong I shall advise the hon. member.



THE CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Port Arthur asked me when the final census figures would be presented. I said I would speak to the dominion statistician, and having done so this is the report he has given me.
As usual there will be three reports, as follows:
1.	It is expected that the final population total for Canada, the provinces and the northern territories for the census of June 1, 1961 will be released in the daily bulletin of the dominion bureau of statistics about March 9.

2.	The population of the electoral districts, totals only, for 1961, 1956 and 1951 censuses, a four page bulletin, will be released about March 20.
3.	The population of the electoral districts and census subdivisions totals for 1961 and 1956 will be released about June 5.
It should be noted that releases on other aspects of the 1961 census will become available while work is proceeding on bulletin No. 3. These are not related to the problems of redistribution of the House of Commons.
These 1961 census results will be four weeks later than in 1952 due to the fact that we are dealing with a considerable increase in our population, nearly 30 per cent, and have carried out more extensive checking operations to ensure greater accuracy and as complete a count as possible. Hon. members should note that the last redistribution bill was first introduced on March 10, 1952 but had to be withdrawn and a new bill introduced on June 27, due to premature action in presentation of the final figures. It has been decided to avoid any chance of error this time by the more extensive checking operations to which I have referred.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the answer given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce may I put a question to the Prime Minister, and ask whether he is in a position to give the house an assurance that the constitutional requirement in regard to a readjustment of the seats in the House of Commons will be carried out before another general election is held.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that matter will receive attention in due course. However, it strikes me as strange that those who have been calling every day for an election are now speaking about constitutional difficulties.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might point out that I asked the question and I am not "those"; I am singular.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Also may I point out that I have personally taken no part in the election speculation. I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister and ask the hon. gentleman whether he recalls that a former government in the war years felt it necessary to get a constitutional amendment to postpone a redistribution.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is an argumentative one and would lead to a debate.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could indicate the order of priority as between the redistribution bill that will follow the publication of these figures and the intimation in the speech from the throne that redistribution commission will be established?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has come to the heart of the matter. He did not approach it in the singular manner of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate. As a matter of fact, it will require legislation on the part of parliament as soon as it can be brought in to provide for the setting up of a commission to make the study that was forecast in the speech from the throne.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver Souih):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Has the minister any further information to give to the house with regard to his recent meeting with Hon. Robert Bonner, attorney general of British Columbia, apart from what has already appeared in statements by Mr. Bonner?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No,
Mr. Speaker. Mr. Bonner and I agreed that the details of our discussions would be confidential for the time being. We both made general statements as to the nature of the discussions which concerned the Doukhobor problem in British Columbia and a particular problem arising out of the application of the succession duty act.



ORGANIZED CRIME


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenpori: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Did the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. state, as reported in a recent press article, that the Mafia is in control of organized crime in one or more Canadian cities?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Commissioner Harvison has assured me that at no time did he state that the Mafia or any other organization controlled big crime in any Canadian city.

Inquiries of the Ministry
He has, however, made speeches, as I have myself, calling attention to the problems arising from the fact that organized crime syndicates are showing an increased interest in setting up operations in Canada. His speeches of October 2, 1961 to the international association of chiefs of police in Montreal, and of November 6, 1961 to the Canadian club of Toronto; and my speech of October 4, 1961 to the international association of chiefs of police in Montreal, are an accurate reflection of official views on this matter, which are there outlined in some detail and in proper perspective.
I should like to emphasize that the heads of law enforcement agencies in Canada are very much alive to this problem and have held several exploratory meetings with a view to co-ordinating their efforts in this connection and discussing measures which can be taken to safeguard the public interest. These meetings have been attended by the directors and chiefs of several police forces in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, as well as the heads of the provincial police forces in those provinces. Commissioner Harvison has attended as head of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question. Can the minister say whether he plans to introduce any legislation at this session of parliament which would assist the police in controlling this matter before the syndicates become entrenched?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have nothing to add to the
reply I just gave.



REPORTED DISCUSSION IN NATO COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he can confirm that the NATO council today or shortly thereafter will discuss the matter of trade with Cuba, in the light of representations which it is reported in today's press are to be made by Mr. Walt Rostow on behalf of the government of the United States.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, meetings of the NATO council are private meetings, and it would be quite inappropriate for me to say what is to be discussed in the NATO council today or at any other time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in
view of the reply given yesterday by the Prime Minister to the hon. member for Vancouver South, can the Secretary of State for

External Affairs confirm the report in today's Globe and Mail with regard to the holding of such a meeting?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the NATO council has regular meetings and various subjects are discussed. I cannot make any statement about what happens to be coming up for discussion today or tomorrow.
(Translation):



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, last week the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) asked me whether I would take the necessary steps to remedy a situation allegedly pointed out to the Department of Agriculture with regard to French information supplied by that department. The hon. member's question followed up a report prepared by Mr. H. M. Halliwell for the Minister of Agriculture himself.
Though my jurisdiction may sometimes extend to the giving out of information (more particularly with regard to the department of public printing and stationery and the bureau for translations) it is not my responsibility to define the nature, the quantity or the percentage of documents in one or the other language distributed by the various departments. Except when an act or a ruling so provides, that task is entirely the responsibility of the department concerned.
Yet, I want to point out that it was because of a request made by the Minister of Agriculture himself that the report mentioned by the hon. member was prepared. We may therefore assume that the minister will certainly from now on consider any such recommendation made to him.
(Text):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Is the minister in a position now to reply to the question which I posed to the Minister of National Defence yesterday?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question of the hon. member for Trinity may I say that facilities for the maintenance and storage of the Bomarc missile have been

*constructed at North Bay and are being constructed at La Macaza. These facilities will be available if and when nuclear warheads are *obtained.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister say when that will be?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: No comment.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he has been advised that already many landlords across Canada are increasing rents charged to senior citizens by the amount of the increase in pension recently passed by the House of Commons. Has the Prime Minister any comment, and is there any action the government can take to stop this practice?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking a question about rents, which are a subject of provincial jurisdiction and not the responsibility of any minister of the crown in this government. If there is a desire to deal with the issue I certainly would not stand in the way, but it is not a proper subject for a question to this government.


Harold Edward Winch: I thought that a statement by the Prime Minister might have a salutary effect in the interests of the senior citizens of this country.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (Si. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Does the name of our distinguished visitor, Mr. Day, remind our Postmaster General of a promise he made when he was in the opposition in respect of twice a day mail delivery?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from the United States has left the gallery that question would not seem to have very much point at the moment. I might mention, however, that in his country as well twice a day mail delivery has been abolished for some time.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask a question of the Postmaster General. In view of the interest and concern
The Address-Mr. Racine in both the United States and Canada with regard to the proposed legislation on publications, is he having discussions with his United States counterpart on the situation as it affects Reader's Digest and Time magazine in Canada?


William McLean Hamilton: There is nothing whatever in that connection which immediately affects our discussions. This is a problem or a situation quite apart from the post office.



SPEECH FROM THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, February 19, 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. (Translation):
Mr. Jean-Paul Racine (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last night, I was talking about the lack of action on the part of the government in dealing with unemployment, as well as about the slump in which agriculture finds itself.
For the voters as well as for the member at home during the parliamentary recess, there were few administrative statements from parliament, the headlines being given rather to the former senator from Jean Talon hospital, to the letter, signed or not, from the Secretary of State, to the trip to Quebec, and to the appointment of Mr. Maurice Richard to the Senate.
Mr. Maurice Richard undoubtedly was one of our great French Canadian athletes, and it would be unfortunate to see his name linked with the administrative failure of the present government.
The speech from the throne did not tell us much that was news. It contains, however, a popular measure that we readily approve, that is the one about the increase in the old age pensions.
There again, it is fortunate that the Conservatives came after a Liberal government, because they did not initiate any social measure; and the increase in the old age pensions proves that they now approve that Liberal measure that was called for at the time the law was enacted.
The family allowances date back to 1944 and the best way of knowing if an increase is justified is to consider the upward trend in the cost of living since they were adopted.
Rent stood at 91.4 per cent in 1945 and had reached 132.7 per cent in 1960; the cost of clothing, which stood at 66.9 per cent in 1945, had increased to 110.9 per cent in

The Address-Mr. Racine 1960; the cost of food, which stood then at 66.3 per cent, had climbed to 122.2 for the year 1960.
That means that the value of the dollar, taking these statistics into account, is almost half what it was when the allowances were put into effect; and we can conclude that the buying power of the Canadian family has decreased by that much, whereas it should be increased to stimulate the country's economy.
These statistics not only show but prove that an adjustment of the family allowances rate is necessary. The adjustment is all the more essential since the Conservatives came to power, because they brought with them unemployment as it exists today.
By overlooking family allowances, the government is condoning a lack of distributive justice and puts many Canadian families in an intolerable situation, depriving them of a buying power that, while improving their economic conditions, would contribute to give back to the country, in a large measure, that economic development it should have.
I am not surprised at the inaction of the government in that regard. The Tories have always proved, by their statements, that they were against the allowances, and the attitude of the present government proves again that the Conservatives have not changed their minds and still have a great disregard for the families that make up our country.
I should not like to repeat today the ungracious statements made by the leader and members of the Conservative party on this subject, but it is agreed that immediate action is imperative.
Speaking of the next general election- it is bound to take place-and, in that connection, we just have to refer to a Canadian Press report of January 3 last entitled: "1962 holds promises of a bright future-Mr. Diefenbaker". According to the Prime Minister, a year of promises, and he knows what he is talking about. This will be an election year and we, on this side of the house, are awaiting the election eagerly, not for our own satisfaction, but for the benefit of the Canadian people. We feel that the slogan "Follow John" will not bring to the Conservatives the same results as in 1958.
Farmers who form one of the most important parts of our population feel the same way as we do concerning the government's inertia. As a matter of fact, the January 17 issue of Terre de Chez Nous published an article entitled: The federal government's inertia exposed. The article states further on

that the Canadian federation of dairy farmers has expressed, on behalf of Canadian dairy farmers, its regrets and disappointment in the face of the federal government's inertia
Speaking on behalf of the 350,000 members of the federation, the president, Mr. Lutes, deplored the government's failure to take action on a brief which was submitted about two months ago and which urged the immediate payment of 14 cents a pound1 to subsidize the consumption of butter.
For his part, Mr. Pierre Cote considered the present butter consumption deplorable and pointed out that it was going down every month, while the surplus amounted to more than 200 million pounds.
As Mr. Cote says, it is obvious that this surplus is due to the high resale consumer price and unless the federal government takes the necessary means to improve the situation by paying a subsidy, there is no hope of solving the problem.
If the situation is so serious, it is because of the present government.
Here is what Mr. Paul Henri Lavoie writes in the December 6, 1961 issue of Terre de Chez Nous:
The change in government at Ottawa has only made matters worse since the views of those concerned, the producers, have practically always been systematically ignored. Such was the case, for instance, when the oft-repeated suggestion was made that a subsidy be paid for butter consumption. What was bound to happen did indeed happen. Faced with a situation which could soon become disastrous, after they ignored the producers' recommendations when it was time to make decisions, the government is now inclined to blame the producers and make them pay the full price for mistakes in which they had practically no part.
That issue of Terre de Chez Nous did not mince words in regard to the government. At the present time, the only place where butter consumption can be increased is on the domestic market and the only way to do that, is to pay consumer subsidies.
In fact, there can be no question of exporting our surpluses, except at a loss, since prices on world markets are lower than those on the Canadian market. Then, why not have Canadian families benefit by such a subsidy instead of the importing countries?
The unemployment situation is still a source of worry in Canada, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's formal promise that, if he were elected, no one would have to suffer from unemployment.

The Address-Mr. Racine
What is even worse is that the unemployment insurance fund, to which employers and employees of our country are contributing, is practically depleted. Almost $1 billion has been spent recklessly by the government in this field alone.
The Liberal leader was certainly right when he said in the course of this debate that the slogan "Follow John" had been very costly for the Canadian nation.
The Unemployment Insurance Act has been in force since July 1, 1941 and last year it had been in existence for 20 years.
It is quite impressive to note that under this Liberal legislation, during that period of time, over $3 billion was paid out in benefits, that is an average of more than $400 million each year paid out to those who suffered from unemployment, but there have been so many unemployed in the last four years that the fund has decreased alarmingly.
On the occasion of the twentieth anniversary, the dominion bureau of statistics published a special article which was reprinted in the Labour Gazette, the official publication of the Department of Labour.
Analysing that article in the light of the statistics on the situation of the fund, we note that due to the present unemployment situation, and the great number of benefits being paid, there has been in the last four years a huge deficit between the average annual revenues and the amount of benefits paid out. Therefore, we cannot but condemn this government for its failure to end unemployment.
What has the present government done to solve the unemployment situation? Nothing worthwhile, except passing the buck and putting the burden on the municipalities. And yet, the present situation is the very confirmation of the inefficiency of this government. What have the members of the cabinet done recently? They have travelled a lot. Sometimes, we find the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) in Quebec city preaching repatriation of the constitution, while the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer), makes announcements about shipbuilding in British Columbia.
At about this time last year, the Prime Minister went to Japan, ostensibly to pave the way for the textile messiah, the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard). Indeed, they have travelled a lot, but they have accomplished very little, and the people will certainly call them to account in the next national election.
Electoral blackmail has but a minute importance nowadays, and the Prime Minister
is well aware of that. That is why he backed down during the last session on the issue of the amendment by the other place of the bill giving certain powers to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan). It is a well-known fact that the amendment aroused the ire of the Prime Minister who tried his hand at electoral blackmailing.
That is what led Mr. Vincent Prince of La Presse, to make the following statement about the Prime Minister in an editorial dated July 12, 1961, I quote:
Then why should he resort to threats? We see only one plausible reason:	Mr. Diefenbaker Is
engaged in political blackmail. He is looking for a campaign issue.
What was true at the time that editorial was published is still true and the Prime Minister is still looking for some issue which would appeal to the people in the next election.
He tried hard in the speech from the throne to win friends among our senior citizens, but when he carries the pleasure as far as saying that the Liberals are repenting, he is wittingly mistaken because how could he have granted that increase if the act had not been passed by a Liberal government?
According to a report published in Le Devoir of January 10, the Prime Minister said:
Everyone still remembers the famous six dollars the Liberals had promised in 1957.
The Prime Minister should know that it was not a Tory promise but a Liberal action, and the article goes on to say:
Those who today are making promises are the same ones who believed then that six dollars were adequate.
The Prime Minister is knowingly and wilfully overlooking the fact that this measure was introduced by the Liberal party and that out of the $65 paid to the aged, $46 come from the Liberal party and not from the Conservative government. Has the Prime Minister forgotten that the pensions now received by our senior citizens come, in the proportion of 70 per cent, from a Liberal government?
Those who benefit from those pensions have not forgotten and will not forget. They will not forget that, while they benefit from an increase, their children and grandchildren were completely overlooked.
They will recall the consideration which the previous Liberal government gave to the welfare of Canadian families, that is to say to their children and grandchildren. They will recall that the last speech from the throne was as lacking as the previous ones in family benefits, and that the important question of family allowances was ignored. Such is the

The Address-Mr. Racine sympathy shown by this government to our families who, by the thousands, are suffering from unemployment due to Conservative policies.
It is a Tory speech from the throne, since it is against the family like the party and government now guiding Canada's destiny.
There is nothing surprising about the fuss being raised in this administration, if we consider the contradictory statements made by cabinet members.
At the Accra conference, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) stated that Great Britain's intention, with regard to the common market, is bound to dismember the commonwealth. In Halifax, the Prime Minister said he was confident, on the contrary, that the British would protect Canada, while in Windsor, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) stated emphatically that Canadian trade would greatly suffer.
In the atomic field, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) cannot get over the fact that Canada is without nuclear warheads, while the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) is happy about the fact that we do not have any. No wonder things are not running smoothly.
When I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) on January 29, I was not so much interested in the topic he discussed as in the designation he used for the previous Liberal administration. He mentioned at least four times the St. Laurent-Howe administration, but speaking of this government he said the "Diefen-baker government".
As a Conservative member, he was perfectly right in not associating with the name of the Prime Minister that of a French-speaking member of the cabinet.
The Liberal party has always respected the two main ethnic groups in Canada: we had the Mackenzie King-Lapointe team, then the Mackenzie King-St. Laurent team and finally the St. Laurent-Howe team.
I wonder how the present Prime Minister can claim to be the champion of national unity when he did not do anything along that line.
Let not the Prime Minister be mistaken about it, the public is aware of those facts. I wish to quote a few paragraphs from an article of Vincent Prince published in La Presse of December 29, 1961, under the title:
Water-carriers in the ministry.
Here is what the article says:
Most newspapers had foreseen that Prime Minister Diefenbaker would take advantage of his

trip to Quebec yesterday to announce a major cabinet shuffle and the strengthening of the position of French-speaking ministers within the-ministry.
Once again, the Conservative leader belied the prophets. Nothing of the sort happened. The various heads of departments remained the same and the only change in the Quebec representation is that Mr. Jacques Flynn, the member for Quebec South, has replaced Mr. Paul Comtois, recently appointed lieutenant governor of the province.
The ministers from Quebec continue to head the least important, or at any rate the least glittering departments in the federal administration. True enough, Mr. Noel Dorion has been appointed chairman of the privy council, but that is purely an honorary title. He is still Secretary of State and his functions have not been extended, contrary to what others had expected.
The new minister, Mr. Flynn, has simply inherited the portfolio of his predecessor, mines and technical surveys, while Mr. Sevigny remains Associate Minister of National Defence, Mr. O'Hurley, Minister of Defence Production, and Mr. Balcer, Minister of Transport.
And I continue to quote from that same article in La Presse.
Except for this last department, it will be admitted that the posts entrusted to our representatives are rather uninfluential. More generosity could surely have been shown. The Department of Justice, for instance, would have suited us very well. Mr. Dorion or Mr. Flynn would have been equal to the task. In any case, the more important portfolios-finance, trade and commerce, national defence, national health and welfare, agriculture, etc., continue to slip away from us.
It is unfortunate that Mr. Diefenbaker should have chosen the capital of French Canada to announce that he is perpetuating our inferiority in his cabinet. It was not worth the trip for his ministers. The announcement could just as well have been made in Ottawa.
Can the Prime Minister claim to be the champion of national unity when he flatly turns down, without an explanation or any consideration, the request for the setting up of a royal commission on bilingualism?
Can the Prime Minister claim to be the champion of national unity when he attempts to work up the rest of Canada on the question of the flag? What is he trying to do, in this regard-appeal to race prejudice?
This is what we are asking ourselves when we see how hard he has been trying to revive a badly reported statement of the leader of the Liberal party, made in Amherst, Nova Scotia, last November, and which our leader has described as inaccurate.
What is the Prime Minister trying to do when he asks his lieutenants to spread out this inaccuracy all over Canada before the election? Here are the views expressed in an article published in La Presse of January 23, 1962, I quote:
For one, I am afraid that the campaign Mr. Diefenbaker seems to be launching will put us back a hundred years. What are our Englishspeaking compatriots going to think? They will most

naturally infer that any concession on their part on the flag issue would be equivalent to yielding before an articulate minority which is bent on sabotaging the feelings of the majority, of deriding the noble British traditions.
No, let us hope-
The article continues:
-that Mr. Diefenbaker will think better of it and that in the interests of the national unity he is talking so much about, he will abandon his plan to use for electoral purposes the alleged statement of Mr. Pearson.
That is the credit to be given the Tories and their leader on the issue of national unity.
There is only one thing we must hope for, namely that the general election will be called as soon as possible so that the mess may be cleared without delay, because the people of this country are anxious for a change, they long for a sound economy in all areas both industrial and agricultural in the best interests of all concerned.


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask
whether the member would allow a question now?


An hon. Member:: Too late.


Georges-J. Valade: Would the member allow me to put my question?


Mr. Speaker:: I regret, but it is too late now, since the member for Beauce (Mr. Racine) has resumed his seat.
(Text):


Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, may I join with my colleagues in congratulating both the mover and the seconder of this address for their speeches and contributions in this house. This, of course, is not done in any perfunctory way for, as has been said before, they both made very able contributions and can certainly see the reason for their particular choice by the Prime Minister in giving them and their constituencies this important honour. May I also congratulate you, sir, upon your elevation to this important office, and also your colleague the new Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Flynn), and all those who have received appointment as parliamentary secretaries.
I should like to deal with a variety of subjects in the time allotted to me, and at the same time refer to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition in so far as his remarks concerned the question of Canada's prestige abroad. Hon. members will recall that the Leader of the Opposition cluttered up the record of Hansard with opinions of other people. It would be interesting if there were a law of plagiarism in this country, because if there were such a law undoubtedly the Leader of the Opposition would have been speechless, as he had very few opinions of
The Address-Mr. A. Smith his own. Fortunately, however, there is no such law. I say "fortunately" because I intend to refer to some quotations by people who hold somewhat different views than the Leader of the Opposition.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If there were such a law your speech would be concluded before it had begun.


Arthur Smith: We will hear from the kindergarten of the Liberal party later. I should like to deal with other matters because I think it is important at this time, which may well be the last opportunity for any hon. member, including the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), to make himself heard. Therefore I intend to deal with these items simply and clearly so that even he may understand them.
First may I deal with a question of Canada's prestige abroad. One finds it difficult to understand how such a distinguished parliamentarian as the Leader of the Opposition, who has depended so much for his reputation in the field of diplomacy on the need for the cooperation of others, can now attempt to destroy the reputation of this country abroad. There may be no purpose for following a completely bipartisan policy on external affairs; that is, there is no such need if the principles involved are of such a divergent nature that the parties of this house cannot agree with them. But I suggest that before we decide to expose these differences to the world we had better substantiate by chapter and verse what these differences are, rather than taking the course followed by the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues in trying to speak out of both sides of their mouths at the same time.
The Leader of the Opposition described the prestige of this country as declining. The only examples he could cite were certain editorial opinions from various foreign editors whose ego was offended by certain action Canada has taken, and which does not conform with their respective opinions. That is to say, it was in the best interests of these editorial writers to take a particular course, motivated by factors with which we could not and would not be expected to agree. I suggest that each of us should remind ourselves that we are not in this house as members of the United Kingdom parliament or the United States congress, but we are here as Canadians, responsible to the people of Canada, and this is where our first interest must lie.
The Leader of the Opposition took it upon himself, as perhaps the only vestige of evidence, to suggest that our prestige abroad had suffered by the representations made by members of the cabinet in their discussions with the United Kingdom in connection with the

The Address-Mr. A. Smith common market. I suggest, sir, that we really could not expect that any member of government would not press for all the advantages to be gained by Canada in any of these deliberations. Is it not equally true that representatives of the other commonwealth countries who occupy the same position as our Minister of Finance took exactly the same line of argument on behalf of their countries at this conference?
The Leader of the Opposition criticizes the forecful way in which the Minister of Finance took up the question of Britain's entry into the common market; not opposed to it, but hoping it would take into consideration all the factors that involve this country. What do other Canadians think of this attitude? One can draw opinions from many sources. I should first like to refer to an important quotation from a very responsible body of Canadians who are vitally important to our community. I refer to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, who in one of their publications say this:
The Canadian Manufacturers' Association believe that the position taken by the Canadian government will be helpful in strengthening Britain's position in these negotiations. Canada, after all, in common with the other commonwealth countries, can hardly be blamed for making the most strenuous efforts to maintain as far as possible that preferential access to the British market which she has so long enjoyed.
Of course this is a position which Canadians must take in the interests of the development of the prosperity of their own country. What about the attitude of the world abroad toward this country? It is hard to evaluate any evidence in support of the position we have taken in the international community, but naturally as a country grows up and assumes more responsibility it is bound to run into divergent views. We do not disagree in international matters for the sake of disagreement but, as we become increasingly active in the world community, we are bound to encounter different points of view.
Nevertheless we have accomplished a great deal during these past five years, and I think it worth while to place on record some of the things which have been achieved under the guidance of the present Secretary of State for External Affairs. Certainly we can say that under his direction Canada was fortunate in being recognized as one of the vice presidents of the United Nations during the past year. It is well to remember that this international forum is a far more competitive body today than it was in the days when the present Leader of the Opposition was so closely associated with it. At that time there were some 55 member nations, compared with 104 who now occupy seats in that chamber.
There are many more achievements which could be listed. Mr. Marcel Cadieux has been elected a member of the international law commission by the general assembly. We are one of three western countries represented on the committee for the Congo and, of course, we have troops in that country, and have participated in all military actions when invited by the United Nations. We have played an important part in the work of the committee on outer space. We have been one of the principal supporters of the issuance of bonds to support the United Nations. The same comment applies to the project for a food bank. Canada played a role of first importance in the promotion of the resolution regarding radioactive fallout. We were co-sponsors of a resolution asking the Soviet union not to explode the 50 megaton bomb, a resolution which received the support of 87 nations. We were members of the committee of 10 on disarmament and we are members of the present committee of 15 nations. We have established close relations with the new African states, particularly with the French-speaking states, and so on. There are two and a half pages of accomplishments listed here, and I think the house should be made aware of these factors. I ask you, then, does this look like a record of a country which is losing prestige abroad.
In addition to this contribution let me say, as one who has been privileged to sit through three general assemblies, that there was never a day when delegations from other countries did not come to ask us for help or co-operation in connection with resolutions which were to come before the United Nations body as a whole. In the course of the opportunity I have had to visit some 14 countries this year I saw evidence of the respect held for this country, offered to me not as an individual but as a representative of Canada. What does concern me, however, is that for so long Canadians have counted themselves as poor relations to other countries. We have no reason to adopt such an attitude, because our record is one of considerable achievement. That an hon. gentleman with such a responsible task as the Leader of the Opposition should try to drag down the position we occupy abroad is, to my mind, one of the most retrograde steps that could be taken, and I suggest the hon. gentleman has done a great disservice to this country as a whole.
I turn now to another aspect of this subject. I do not propose to look to the past any more, but to look ahead. I think it is important to remind one another as we may shortly enter a new election and a new parliament that we should try to assess what has to be accomplished in the years ahead. I do not contend that it is the responsibility of this

parliament to argue whether or not this government has completed all its election pledges given prior to the present year. I am prepared to let the public of Canada, the small business men, the farmers, the people from the eastern provinces make that decision.
I suggest we might look ahead at some task which, conceivably, the next Conservative government might undertake into the process of its ordinary business over the coming years. First of all I might revert to the field of international affairs. Canada, as I have said, has taken part in a number of aid programs, primarily through the Colombo plan. It has also given extensive assistance to refugees throughout the world. I have a feeling that we might make a greater contribution in another field. My experience has been that many of the countries which receive aid view it with a certain suspicion. They are inclined to inquire what strings are attached to it. Regardless of the course we follow, we must close the gap between the have and the have not countries. So we have two choices open to us; first, to continue to provide goods and services or, second, to assist those countries by providing technicians, educators and others with special skills.
As an example, I visited a clinic in Egypt which was contained in a refugee camp with a population of 3,000. This particular clinic, with two doctors on its staff, treated 550 people in the course of the day I was there. Hon. members can imagine the sort of treatment those unfortunate people received. I thought at that time that if it was possible to have one doctor from any of our graduating classes in Canada, someone about to enter his profession, spend a year or two at this clinic, what a help it would have been to these people. I have often thought, when I have seen refugees attempting to take vocational training courses without text books, what a useful thing it would be if an institution such as our trades and labour unions could arrange to supply these people with the necessary technical books. I have thought the same thing with regard to assisting underdeveloped countries to develop their oil fields, water resources, drainage, farms and so on.
Thus in the next parliament I suggest that we might review the whole operation of mutual aid. Having set up an effective office of mutual aid under an able director, it seems to me that we might shift our emphasis to providing more personnel. I suggest that it might be more acceptable than offering either material aid or cash. The Colombo plan is an example of the success we have had in that field. I do hope this scheme can be expanded to cover countries outside the commonwealth.
The Address-Mr. A. Smith The second matter I would like reviewed in a new parliament concerns taxation. Anyone who has been exposed to the present taxation statutes of Canada will realize the difficulty in trying to understand the complications involved. It seems to me that we might review the statutes to determine whether our present laws provide sufficient incentive for business, corporate entities and individuals. We might ask ourselves whether we are taxing ourselves to such an extent that private interests cannot expand because tax incentives do not warrant it. Thus I think there should be a clarification of the present tax statutes.
I have often suggested in this house another matter into which the government of the day might inquire. My friend the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources will appreciate what I am about to say. National park policy should be reviewed to determine whether the present act is capable of meeting the two extremes with which we are presently confronted, on the one hand the position taken by those who wish to see the parks maintained as natural museums, and on the other the position taken by those who wish to see ordinary development of the parks for the enjoyment and use of the public. A thorough review of the legislation is needed to eliminate this contradiction.
I turn now to the question of defence, a matter of considerable importance in this house. At some stage we must come to a conclusion as to whether or not Canada will assume nuclear arms. I think all of us can sympathize with the position taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the government, that at a time when Canada is playing a vital role at the United Nations in attempting to work out a satisfactory disarmament agreement it would be very unwise for a country that has assumed leadership in this important field to equip its forces with nuclear weapons, tactical or non-tactical.
I hold a view which may differ from that held by hon. gentlemen on the front benches. 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.
This is a somewhat different position from that taken by the Leader of the Opposition, who in one report is stated to have said in a

The Address-Mr. A. Smith speech that the Liberal government would consider allowing United States troops to have control over nuclear weapons in Canada if it were proved that a United States base here were absolutely essential. This is an example of the hon. gentleman talking out of both sides of his mouth. Of course the hon. gentleman said nothing about the criteria or about who would decide that it was absolutely essential.
When the present government again receives a mandate from the Canadian people it might well look into the question of transportation. I believe the time has come when a new bilateral agreement should be negotiated between Canada and the United States with respect to fifth freedom rights, permitting Canadian carriers to serve a greater number of major United States centres. One of the many anomalies existing in the present agreement is that the markets of San Fran-cisco-Vancouver, Chicago and Montreal are not served by any Canadian or American non-stop carriers but are served by foreign carriers. This situation weakens the position of the Canadian aviation industry. Many other anomalies could be cited. Negotiations should be entered into with the United States so that these and other routes could be made available to Canadian carriers.
I turn now to another matter on which I have frequently spoken in this house; Canada's No. 1 mineral resource, the oil and natural gas industry. The government is to be congratulated on all that has been accomplished in this field in the past five years. I remind the house that in less than five years the Borden commission was established, which analysed the future of the industry and its problems. The appointment of the national energy board arose out of the recommendations of that commission. Following this the board, operating under its composite regulations, promptly handled 11 applications for the export of gas to the United States and dealt with 17 power licences. The board and its chairman deserve commendation for the promptness with which these matters were handled. Following this new regulations came into being governing the Northwest Territories and the Arctic. This was essential for the development of these vast areas. More recently, of course, we have witnessed the establishment of a national oil policy which has been eminently successful in its first year in reaching its target without encountering any real difficulties.
All of this has been accomplished in less than five years. We do well to remind ourselves of it, and to place these facts on the record. Under the new national oil policy the target of 640,000 barrels of oil has been


reached this year. We are well on our way to meeting the target of 800,000 barrels by 1963. We should remind ourselves that the Borden commission stated that if such a policy were introduced it must not operate entirely at the expense of oil flowing into the export markets of the Pacific northwest or the United States as a whole. It should be pointed out that a large percentage of Canada's increased production has been exported to the United States rather than being channelled to the Canadian consumer. This is understandable; for oil, like other mer-chandisable products, follows the line of least resistance. Thus it has captured relatively virgin markets in this initial instance rather than replacing crude oil from foreign sources. It is, however, significant to note that in the next two year period the refinery capacity of Ontario alone will have increased by some 55,000 barrels, and thus we can expect to reduce the flow of oil into these export markets.
The house, I am certain, is familiar with the concern expressed by the United States secretary of the interior and other officials in that country over the level of increase in Canadian oil exported into the United States. The desire of the United States administration to maintain markets for their own producers is understandable. Consequently it might be well to remind ourselves, and in particular the petroleum producers, that if we are to achieve our future targets they cannot be realized at the expense of heavy flow of export sales south of the border without an equal increase diverted for domestic consumption.
I congratulate the government on the development of an oil and gas policy, something which has been required for many years and which, I regret to say, was ignored by the previous administration. I ask the government to give consideration to a new problem that is on the horizon in relation to this industry. It should be recognized that within the next short period of time the North American continent may face an oil shortage. The economic well-being of a country often depends upon its petroleum resources. It is estimated that the safe minimum of 11 years of oil reserves is dangerously close. We are going to have to ask the industry to step up and increase exploration and development. Predictions for the next 20 years indicate that the industry will be called upon to find new reserves that will yield substantial quantities of oil, up to 800,000 barrels per day or several times the finding rate during the last few years. In fact another authority, the Chase National Bank, has predicted that the demand for oil will be 73 per cent greater in the decade ending in 1970.

I have brought these figures to the attention of the house for one reason. If we are going to face a shortage of oil we had better recognize it now. We had better accept also that the necessary increase in exploration and development are going to cost a great deal of money. In fact, in terms of dollars it is estimated that it will require an additional $50 million a year. What disturbs us is that while this money may be found it might not be found in Canada, and we would hope that it could be obtained in our own country. It is particularly important that the Canadian independent companies be able to participate in the development of this important resource.
It is for this reason that I ask the house and the government to give consideration at the earliest possible date to amending the present depletion allowance. This is a very technical problem and I do not intend to go into detail. I merely remind the government of the urgency of the situation, the demands that are going to be made upon the industry, the necessity for developing capital in Canada, and the fact that we are going to have to give Canadians the opportunity to compete on the same basis as foreign companies. Therefore I suggest to the government that if we are going to meet future demands, if Canadians are going to have the opportunity to compete in the future, the best way we can do this is by amending our own taxation statutes, thus making available more Canadian capital and providing more incentive for the independent Canadian companies so they can compete on the same basis as their counterparts in the United States in the development of our own petroleum resources.
I have covered a variety of subjects, and I close by reminding our friends opposite that when we face a new session of parliament following an election, perhaps those in the opposition might look back and recall how they got themselves in the position in which they are today. I have referred to the Leader of the Opposition, who has shown considerable lack of courage in dealing with almost every subject. On the question of the sale of wheat to communist China he has two policies. He has two policies on the flag. He has two policies on national defence, and the best contribution he can make in attempting to obtain votes is to out-socialise the socialists by adding another $10 here or there to this or that pension, or by attempting to destroy the reputation of this country abroad. If he has any desire to obtain the position of prime minister of this country, I suggest to him that he had better take a lead from the present government and the present Prime Minister and recognize that forceful policies are those that are going to be accepted by 26207-1-674
The Address-Mr. Dupuis the Canadian public as a whole, and that only by giving some indication that he has the qualities for leadership will he ever be accepted in this country.
I suggest, too, that when he welcomes back Canada's first man in space, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), he will perhaps have completed his role of getting into bed with the socialists. I have noticed that many young Liberals throughout the country, including the group who met recently at Milford Bay, have suggested that the Liberals might join the New Democratic party. Of course as one professor, a former Liberal, has said many times, it is the inevitable end of the Liberal party to become absorbed eventually by the socialists of this country. Even I, Mr. Speaker, recognize the need for true Liberals to act as the opposition to any government, and I would not want to see them completely taken over by our socialist friends.
May I close as I began, by asking the Leader of the Opposition if he will not display a little more of that type of leadership which he gave at one time as secretary of state for external affairs, so that Canada will progress and will even exceed the expectations of those of us on this side. For him to sit back and take a purely negative role is not going to be helpful to anyone either inside or outside of Canada.
(Translation):


Mr. Yvon Dupuis (Si. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville):: Mr. Deputy Speaker, 1 should like first of all to congratulate you most sincerely on your recent appointment to your present duties. Even though you have been occupying the chair for only a very short time, you have conducted our proceedings with dignity, fairness and efficiency.
Mr. Speaker, we are discussing at present the speech from the throne which was delivered at the opening of the fifth session of the twenty fourth parliament.
We have sat in this house for five sessions and will eventually have a general election.
It is our duty, as members of the opposition, to look carefully into the policies of the government which has ruled the country for the past five years.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who now holds the finance portfolio (Mr. Fleming) made a tour of Canada to promise balanced budgets and he promised that there would be no more budget surpluses in Canada.

The Address-Mr. Dupuis
Well, he did not take long to keep his promise. He was barely in power before he changed the Liberal surpluses into Conservative deficits with the result that he has succeeded, for his part, to leave us with the largest deficits since confederation.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a far cry from the promises the Conservatives made right and left in Canada during the last election campaign.
The Conservative administration of the last five years has been a costly proposition, and it is true to say that this Conservative administration has cost more to Canada than the last world war.
The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Dief-enbaker) also stated across the country that as long as he would be Prime Minister, no one would suffer from unemployment.
Well, Mr. Speaker, during the last four years, we have experienced the most alarming situation since the dark days of R. B. Bennett.
At the beginning of the session, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) delivered a very fine speech during this debate on the address in reply. He expressed regret and rightly so, over the fact that Canada is losing prestige among the nations of the world. And when we say these things, Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition reads in the house extracts from newspapers which prove that Canada's loss of prestige is regretted throughout the world, our hon. friends opposite start to cry: "What a shame to discredit one's own country like that."
When we tell the Prime Minister that unemployment is continuing, when we tell him that the economic situation is bad, he answers that we are belittling our country.
This reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of somebody else just as famous as the present Prime Minister. I refer to the Hon. R. B. Bennett. He too, in 1935, when it was said in the house that there was unemployment in Canada, that Canada was suffering from a depression and economic insecurity had this to reply-if you listen carefully you will get the impression of hearing the present Prime Minister:
Why depreciate this country's position among the nations of the world? Why try to make us believe that it suffers more than it really does, when people abroad who observe our conditions without prejudice find that we are progressing and, seeing what we are doing, say when speaking of Canada:	"That country occupies the most
enviable position in the universe today."

Well, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister today has the same reactions as Mr. R. B. Bennett yesterday, because he finds himself in the same position, and has to face the same conditions. Moreover, as in the case of the former Conservative prime minister, his only excuse is to say: "Our opponents want to smear this country's good name."
Mr. Speaker, is it the fault of the opposition if this government has been in a muddle all along the line for the last four years? Thus when I look across the aisle, I am reminded of the way the Prime Minister has been in the habit of shuffling those front benches in the last four years. Do you want a few instances, Mr. Speaker? Here are a few: at the opening of the 1958 session, the Secretary of State was appointed as minister of citizenship and immigration. The deputy speaker was appointed as secretary of state, and later on was called to the Senate- for reasons of ill health; it was the first time the Senate was being transformed into a nursing home. A little while later, that same person went for treatment to Jean Talon hospital. After a while, the minister of transport was appointed as Minister of Trade and Commerce, the former minister of trade and commerce moved to veterans' affairs, and his predecessor went for a stay in the Senate.
The then minister of agriculture, an egg, hog and poultry specialist, suddenly became Minister of National Defence. His predecessor had to abandon his portfolio on account of the criticism levelled at him, and he was appointed as lieutenant governor of British Columbia.
The minister of northern affairs lost his bearings and fell into agriculture.
Another deputy speaker was appointed as Associate Minister of National Defence, and since then he has become a specialist on communist affairs.
The minister of mines and technical surveys has become lieutenant governor of the province of Quebec.
The present Minister of Transport has occupied so many different benches and held so many portfolios that one is wondering where he is going to next. He started as solicitor general, then was appointed as secretary of state, and he is now Minister of Transport.
The leader of the New Brunswick Conservative party was in a sorry plight. He was called in and given a seat in the house, and he is now lost in the woods.
The situation remains the same and the burlesque show goes on.

In order to lend glamour to the last seats parade, the Prime Minister of this country thought it advisable to present a public show in the city of Quebec. There, with drums and trumpets, a lot of hullabaloo and a carefully planned publicity flavoured with all sorts of conjectures, we were told that this great statesman would be accompanied by his ministers who were coming to Quebec by plane, by jet, by sea and other means of transportation, as the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) so aptly put it yesterday. Once there, the most sensational announcement which the Prime Minister could make did not concern a shuffling of cabinet seats, because there had been so many changes before, but he said that the Secretary of State had been appointed president of the privy council and that all our people, and more particularly the people of Quebec, should rejoice. Everybody therefore looked eagerly forward to see what new importance the Secretary of State would have in the house.
Well, since his appointment as president of the privy council, we find that the Secretary of State is still as usual in his back seat, in the second row.
Mr. Speaker, the show the Prime Minister presented to our people and the world just proves that the utmost confusion prevails in the ranks of our opponents.
Did we not see the post of deputy speaker of the house become, somehow, a springboard to a cabinet post. Three deputy speakers have used this spring-board to become ministers. Obviously, hon. members on the treasury benches are not exactly lacking in the ability to turn foolish somersaults.
Mr. Speaker, when opposition members state that there is confusion, uncertainty and depression, those on government benches tell us that we exaggerate and jeopardize this country's prestige.
Do you wish to have concrete proof that our hon. friends opposite are nervous and embarrassed?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Yvon Dupuis: I can hear the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm laugh.
I was waiting for his first guffaw to tell him something.
Mr. Speaker, if you look up yesterday's Hansard, you will see that speeches in this house were made by members from the province of Quebec, among others, the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) spoke for all the time allotted to him, without being interrupted even once by the opposition, but things were different when opposition members rose to speak.
The Address-Mr. Dupuis
In fact, during the speech of the hon. member for Dollard, there were seven interruptions, including five on the part of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm who apparently does not know how to behave in this house.
The hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) took the floor a little later and was interrupted 36 times during his speech, including 12 times by the ever-present member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, eight times by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) and seven times by the hon. member who, in a chance move, was appointed parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Ricard).


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You set the example for us, what else can you expect?


Yvon Dupuis: Well, Mr. Speaker, here is another intervention by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. He does not like to be taught a lesson. When we talk about the last four years, he always shouts: "Tell us about the two flags. Tell us about the 22 years of Liberal administration."
Well, Mr. Speaker, once and for all, I shall tell him about the two flags and the 22 years of Liberal administration, and I hope he will understand.


An hon. Member:: He cannot understand anything.


Yvon Dupuis: The Liberal party has in its ranks people who have the strength of their convictions and the courage of their ideas. There are people in the Liberal party who, when they speak of a flag, state exactly what stand they will take concerning a flag after they take over, soon.
Since the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm wishes to speak about the flag, I shall tell him that the Leader of the Opposition has the courage to say that he will suggest for Canada an absolutely distinctive flag, but that we shall be able to use the other one as a symbol of our membership in the commonwealth, and I must draw also to the attention of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm that our leader and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickers-gill) have the courage to express their views, but the Prime Minister, the leader of the hon. member who repeatedly interrupted me, did not utter a single word during the discussion on a bill concerning the adoption of a flag to indicate what stand he would take concerning a distinctive flag. Or I should rather say, Mr. Speaker, that he once had the courage to do so-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Things have changed-

The Address-Mr. Dupuis Mr. Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to call the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Things have changed in the past 20 years, you know that.


Yvon Dupuis: The hon. member had better listen because he has a lot to learn from the Liberals.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Oh no, not much.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, has the man who is now Prime Minister of Canada ever voiced his opinion about a flag? Yes, twice. He did so lately, before the Ontario association of Conservative women in an attempt to appeal to racial prejudices on the flag project. I need not go back over this, for all the newspapers have talked about it.
And before that, the last time he had expressed his views on the project of a flag was in 1945. This is what I find in Hansard-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Twenty years ago.


Yvon Dupuis: *-on page 2089-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Twenty years ago.


Yvon Dupuis: On page 2089 of Hansard for November 13, 1945.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Twenty years ago.


Yvon Dupuis: You go back 22 years ago, so we can go back 20 years. This is what the present Prime Minister said at that time:
I cannot see eye-to-eye-and my sentiments so carry me that I must be restrained when I say this-with those who would deny the union jack a permanent and prominent place on the flag of this country; and the place of honour on any flag is the upper corner.
And the Prime Minister added:
Some say, why not compromise? I will compromise on anything, hut, speaking for myself, not to the extent of the removal of the union jack from our national flag.
Mr. Speaker, I need not discuss the ideas put forward by the Prime Minister in 1945, but I should like to know what he thinks of the national flag, in 1962.
f While our leader has expressed his stand concerning the flag-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Two flags.


Yvon Dupuis: The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm says "two flags". In the province of Quebec, under his friend, Mr. Duplessis, on particular commemoration days or great ceremonies, two flags were displayed: the lilied flag, unanimously adopted by the Quebec legislature, and the papal flag. The two flags used to float side by side.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Duplessis was then using two flags. Today, the hon. member for Joli-ette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, with his narrowmindedness and his parliamentary pettiness, tries to ridicule a man who is worth a thousand times more than he is. Our leader-in case our friend from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm does not know it-is a member of the Liberal party. If we go back 22 years ago, as the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm wanted to a moment ago, I say before the house and before the country that the Liberal party, the party which, during the 22 years mentioned by my friend, has given all the social security measures to Canada, while after four years, our Conservative friends feel happy to see the Conservative Prime Minister agree to add a total of $19 to old age pensions.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Six dollars.


Yvon Dupuis: I am proud to say that while the Conservatives gave $19, we gave $46 and we passed the legislation on old age pensions.
We have nothing to learn from those people concerning Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal party alone is the one which, in 22 years, has built this country's sovereignty, autonomy and greatness.
When I refer to those who have guided our country's destiny, of those who have represented Canadian politics, I think of the one who, today, is the Leader of the Opposition. He is a man we respect, because he is great, because he has brought Canada into notice throughout the world.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Two flags.


Yvon Dupuis: Is the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm completely mad? I have already asked him three times not to interrupt me. I am asking him a question, not asserting anything, but if he persists, that is what we will think.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville, in my opinion, is lacking in dignity in this house. He has just used a term which is surely not parliamentary. He might very well accuse his colleagues, he is just acting like a naughty child. He lacks education. I am not surprised to see him change ridings.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question of privilege, the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has just said I am acting like a naughty child. Indeed, out of the abundance of the heart the mouth

speaketh. Actually, the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister refers to spewing and the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to naughtiness. But I am not calling him a naughty child because I use parliamentary expressions.
Yesterday, he interrupted the member for St. Denis 12 times during his speech. If we count the times he has interrupted me until now, I think he is about to beat the record of interruptions in this house.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member for Laurier, 32 times.


Yvon Dupuis: I should like to remind the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm that in 22 years we introduced all the social security legislation, we passed all the legislation concerning the sovereignty of this country, we offered balanced budgets, and those were prosperous years for the people of our country. In the last four years, under a Conservative regime, we have known the greatest deficits and the most serious unemployment situation since confederation. We are now witnessing the most serious confusion since confederation.
When I think of the leaders who have presided over our country's destiny, I like to compare the Lauriers, Kings, St. Laurents, Pearsons and Guthries to the Tup-pers, Brackens, Bordens, Bennetts, Manions, Meighens, Hansens, Drews and Diefenbakers.
Mr. Speaker, I am not afraid to tell my friends that when they are prepared to hold an election, we shall be ready to face them. We are ready to face those from the province of Quebec who are here so well represented by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, those who were promising that a Conservative government would give Canada an ambassador to the Vatican. Where is the ambassador to the Vatican?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Why don't you tell us something about the two flags?


Yvon Dupuis: Those who were promising the abolition of our contribution to the Colombo plan. What have they done about it? They have doubled its amount. Those who had promised to give Canada a distinctive national flag and who, now, are refusing to do so, a matter about which today their leader does not want to commit himself, but about which our own leader has made a formal promise in listing it, in the Liberal party platform.
Where are they today those who in 1958 promised us that "O Canada" would be adopted as our national anthem, that federal
The Address-Mr. Dupuis assistance to universities would be abolished, but who, instead, voted to increase such assistance when they had an opportunity to abolish it.
Where are those who promised us the deepening of the Richelieu to promote the economy in that area? During four years, they obstructed that project, while the hon. members for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) and myself urged that a study of the deepening of the Richelieu be started as soon as possible in order to stimulate the economy of that area.
Mr. Speaker, are you aware that the Prime Minister has failed four times to keep his promise to visit the area? In fact, it is only after he was goaded and criticized, when he realized that his members would be defeated in our district if he did not agree to consider the deepening of the Richelieu river, that he decided to come back at the beginning of winter to stage a public show in the city of St. Jean.
Mr. Speaker, I will take a few seconds to tell you what happened. First of all, you may remember that I stated in the house that on September 21, 1959 the Prime Minister had promised to visit the Richelieu district but that he had just taken a short ferry tour in the vicinity of Sorel, after which he left in a convertible for the Gaspe peninsula.
Since then, he promised on three occasions that he would come to St. Jean. The last time he spoke about it, there was a lot of publicity; pamphlets were distributed from house to house, cars went through the streets with loudspeakers, pamphlets were handed out on the church steps, full pages of advertisement were printed in local newspapers and flash announcements were made on the radio.
The great man was supposed to come to St. Jean on December 12, 1961 to inform the local population of an important, a serious decision taken by his government. Well, believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, we were awaiting for the fourth time that long promised visit by the Prime Minister, but he did not come. Yet, on that day, December 12, 1961, during the evening, some Conservatives had gathered at the Paul Beaulieu school, in St. Jean; it was only a coincidence.
And all that time, those Conservatives gathered together were waiting for that statesman who did not come. But the telephone rang. The one who acted as master of ceremonies, the hon. member for-I forget his name, he so seldom makes any contribution to our debates-oh yes, the hon. member

The Address-Mr. Dupuis for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson), informed the gathering that unfortunately the Prime Minister had been held up in Ottawa, at the airport, because of bad weather.
You know, Mr. Speaker, ever since morning the weather had been bad. It was cold and it was raining.
Then, all the airports had advised their passengers that no airplane would take off that day. But the premier of Quebec, who had appointments in Montreal, seeing that the planes could not take off, took a car to get to Montreal at half past twelve, the same day, whereas the Prime Minister of Canada, who is not aware of what goes on at the transport department, waited until five, or five-thirty, to get to the airport in Ottawa and there, accompanied by two of his dear ministers from Quebec, he learned that the plane could not take off and that unfortunately he could not get to St. Jean. Can you picture that, Mr. Speaker, three toads caught in the ice, unable to take off.
During that time, the Conservatives were waiting at the Paul Beaulieu school, where the Prime Minister called them from Ottawa, to tell them this:
Thanks to the numerous representations made by the Conservative members in favour of the Richelieu seaway project, the present government has decided to entrust an international joint commission with the task of studying the possibility of implementing that project.
Yet, when the Prime Minister said: "thanks to the representations of the Conservative members", he was not telling the truth and he knew it. Those who have intervened in this house for the deepening of the Richelieu are the hon. members for Richelieu-Vercheres, Laurier and myself. If you refer to the official reports, Mr. Speaker, you will find that 35 interventions in favour of the deepening of the Richelieu were made by the opposition members for the constituencies I have just mentioned, while on the other side of the house, we heard the famous speech-burial or cold shower speech that the transport minister made in Montreal on December 7, 1960, before the chambers of commerce, who were calling for the deepening of the Richelieu.
Mr. Speaker, I will give the second part of my speech when we come back this afternoon.
(Text):
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there is such terrific interest in the United States astronaut who is now on his way back down to earth, could I ask for the unanimous consent of the house in requesting that all rules be suspended and the house recess for half an hour?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there is unanimous consent to the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver East the sitting may be suspended to resume at the call of the Chair. Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Then I do now leave the chair.



SITTING SUSPENDED

[Stage Direction]
At 2.40 p.m. the sitting of the house was suspended during pleasure.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 3 p.m.
(Translation):
Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be words of appreciation to you, on behalf of this house, for having kindly adjourned proceedings for a few minutes, so that all hon. members gathered in the hall might watch the extraordinary feat just accomplished by that 40-year old hero of the U.S.A., Colonel John Glenn, Jr.
Colonel John Glenn, Jr., has just gained the right to the whole world's greatest admiration.
In every field the United States has great renown. This has now been confirmed in the scientific field. The United States could not lag behind. This scientific feat will considerably increase the confidence of the free world in our southern neighbours. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that their scientific achievement will serve peaceful aims, because we are well aware of the mentality of our neighbours, and we know that they will be able to improve that scientific development, for the sole welfare of all the peoples of the world and not for their destruction.
On behalf of all my colleagues and of all the members in this house, I tender to the President of the United States my most sincere congratulations. I can assure him that the name of the United States now shines brighter than ever on the international horizon.


Noël Dorion: Mr. Speaker, for once I agree with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat and I

readily endorse his very eloquent remarks about the exploit achieved by Colonel John Glenn, Jr., and, through him, by the mighty American nation. That scientific achievement is sure to be epoch-making and I hope it will be a milestone on the road to world peace.
Mr. Speaker, the debate on the speech from the throne affords all parties in the house an opportunity, first to assess the government's record, second, to learn of the government's policy and of the legislation it proposes to put before the house, and finally-and this is just as important as the others-to allow the opposition or the parties of the opposition not only to criticize the government, but to state what policy they would follow if they were in power.
While in the course of my remarks, I shall do all I can to avoid touching upon points already so ably covered by my colleagues of the government and hon. members opposite, I shall try not to lose sight of this threefold objective.
As everyone knows, the riding of Belle-chasse, which I represent in the house, is an exclusively rural constituency which is dependant on three main sources of income: dairy products, hog breeding and wood lots.
The Agricultural Stabilization Act, passed by this government, has been of great benefit to the Bellechasse constituency, as it has to all of eastern Canada. Formerly, under the previous regime, unstable prices had been a source of worry and disappointment. At times prices were quite high, at other times they were too low and, naturally, this had a substantial bearing on the farmer's income.
Because of these excessive fluctuations farmers could not plan their crops on the basis of the annual yield they and their families could rely on. This act was meant to put a stop to those price fluctuations and to ensure that the annual income would be more stable and predictable.
As everybody knows, its purpose was to provide, in the case of nine staple products, a price support of not less than 80 per cent of the average for the ten previous years. Among the nine staples covered by this act, are beef cattle, hogs, eggs, cheese and butter.
The act also provides for an optional support price on many other products such as processed milk.
The Address-Mr. Dorian
The act was applied through various methods: direct purchases, deficiency payments, fixed payments to the producer and fixed prices guaranteed in advance for a year.
In view of the agricultural situation in eastern Canada, and especially in the constituency of Bellechasse, I shall dwell on only a few of the products, those of greatest importance to the farmers in my area.
For instance, the price of butter, which had been 56 cents a pound under the previous regime, was fixed at 64 cents.
Producers of whole milk, delivered for butter and cheese production, get a 25 cent subsidy on each hundred pounds, which helps farmers considerably. Incidentally I may say that for the year 1959-60, $10,951,000 have thus been paid out, including $4,731,000 in the province of Quebec. Besides, in the year 1960-61, the sum paid by the government reached $10,394,000, out of which $4,545,000 were paid in the province of Quebec.
As regards the portion received by the province of Quebec and the eastern provinces, under that act and various others passed by this government, if I had the time, I could give figures which might well change the views that my hon. friend from Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) was expressing the other day when commenting on the estimate he personally approved, as we did, in favour of western farmers, following the drought which prevailed in that area.
The other day, I attended the annual meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and I realized that there are rather acute problems, with which the government, indeed, intends to deal as soon as possible.
There is, for instance, the butter surplus, stocks of which, if I am not mistaken, amount to about 200 million pounds.
What is the cause of this overproduction? It must be noted, first of all, that in the province of Quebec, the embargo which had been placed on margarine has been lifted, with the result that consumption on the Quebec domestic market has fallen off, while the consumption of margarine has gone up. That decrease in domestic consumption extends all over Canada. And here, I would point out that it is time doctors agreed with one another in their views.

The Address-Mr. Dorion
There is at the present time a pernicious propaganda being conducted, which in my opinion is unfair to dairy products. According to that propaganda, it is increasingly held that dairy products absorbed in some quantity by the consumer are liable to induce certain disabilities, certain difficulties capable of endangering his health. Quite fortunately, another school of thought in the medical profession has made itself heard and is attempting to put a stop to those so-called theories which have been advanced only in recent years.
How can we solve that overproduction problem? Should we discourage the producer?
I do not believe so, and here are the reasons why I am led to suspect the kind of propaganda that is being carried on throughout the country.
I repeat that the government, at the suggestion of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, is seeking solutions which should soon be defined and implemented.
The idea of a food bank expressed by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker) is making some headway. The United Nations Organization is considering such a thing. I am convinced that the establishment of such a food bank would facilitate the disposal of certain goods presently in storage.
In Switzerland, the same problem exists. And I should like here to quote the opinion expressed by Messrs. Shefrin and Manzies of the federal Department of Agriculture.
It may be significant in this regard that a country like Switzerland should have found more appropriate to consider giving dairy products each year to underfed countries rather than proceeding to a difficult and costly readjustment of its agricultural industry through a decrease or increase in production.
Besides, those learned experts foresee at the same time that the total consumption of foodstuffs will increase by 70 per cent and that the sale of such goods will double in Canada during the next 20 years. A provident government should not be afraid of temporary difficulties when the future looks so brilliant.
Another problem which also interests eastern Canada, particularly the constituency of Bellechasse, is the hog breeding industry. Farmers are happy about the stabilization act under which the price of hogs was recently fixed at $23.65 per hundredweight up to a maximum of 100 head and under which a three dollar premium was added last year for class A. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the average market price of hogs last year reached $27.50 per hundredweight.


An hon. Member:: Why was it not stabilized at $23?


Noël Dorion: Since my time is very limited, if the hon. member agrees, I shall answer his question at the end of my remarks.
Through that policy, it has been possible to reduce hog production without affecting 90 per cent of Canadian breeders. It prevented the accumulation of an ever increasing hog surplus. It clearly cuts the ground from under the feet of certain profiteers who were sabotaging the financial assistance legislation to farmers.
It has made possible the improvement of hog production to the extent that we are able to maintain our sales on the American market, even though the embargo was lifted last year and Canadian hogs sell at a higher price than American hogs. To show the value of this legislation, may I quote from a brief submitted to the cabinet on February 29, 1960, by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
Our last annual and general meeting has again reaffirmed the general principles behind our price support policy. This policy takes into account the following principles: generally speaking, it is desirable to support the prices at the level of the market through direct purchase by the State; the support prices must not create cumbersome surpluses; confused situations must be avoided in agriculture, and we recognize the deficiency payments method which should be applied when the producers believe that this formula, or a combination of direct purchase and deficiency payments, is the best approach.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I shall turn, as I always do, to the needs of the county which I represent in this house. There is a third point, which bears on the rehabilitation and development of rural areas and it is, I believe, another step towards the economic restoration of our Quebec farmers.
The percentage of farms having an annual production of less than $1,200' amounts to 28 per cent in the whole country. In Bellechasse, two thirds of the farms draw most of their income from the forest.
This legislation will surely help to improve the situation and brighten living conditions on our farms. In this legislation, I should like to quote the opinion of an expert, who was deputy minister of agriculture in Quebec and who is still employed by the provincial government, Mr. Albert Rioux. This is what he said as reported by La voix nationale in August 1961:
It is with a view to boosting the economy of the underdeveloped rural areas that the federal parliament has just passed a legislation on rural development. This legislation provides for all projects capable of raising the standard of living

of farmers of a given area. It even provides for the industrial, touristic and educational developments which stimulate agricultural production. All sectors of the economy depend on one another, and agriculture benefits from all other economical activities. This legislation calls for the co-operation of provincial and local authorities. On this basis, it can be the starting point of an era of prosperity for the areas which have not yet benefited from industrial development.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier today, one of the aims of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne is to allow the opposition not only to criticize-indeed I heard as recently as yesterday the hon. member for Laurier say on the air that the responsibility of the opposition did not only consist in negative criticism, but in the working out of its own policy, so that the public might have an idea of the risk it is running if it ever was inclined to change its government. Now, on this point, I heard some opposition speeches. More particularly, I listened to the Leader of the Opposition, and read his speeches which I had not heard. I admit that I faced there a most troubling lack of material, which proves a real lack of political thinking in the ranks of the opposition.
If that gap is to be filled, we should, so to speak, go back to the various conventions held by our Liberal friends where they were so lavish in their promises and in all sorts of very contradictory talk.
For instance, in a matter in which I am deeply interested, as, indeed is the government, free education was promised at all levels. Ten thousand university scholarships of a $1,000 each a year were offered for a four year period, according to need and merit.
In a party resolution, I read this:
The provinces have the responsibility to see to it that teaching in their primary schools is improved so as to fill the children's needs.
Therefore, from now on, under the rule of the gentlemen opposite, primary teaching would be taken out of their jurisdiction. Is it possible to carry further the non-observance of and disrespect for, the constitution of 1867, which, on that vital point, was precisely enacted to safeguard the co-existence of both the cultures of the two basic groups in our national community?
And I also read this:
Vocational courses and higher education in universities-
-and it is well known, in this respect, that the concept of a university varies according to the province, whether we think of Quebec or of any other province, because cultural methods differ.
26207-1-68i
The Address-Mr. Dorion
Vocational courses and higher education in our universities cannot be the sole responsibility of the provinces... The federal government must share with the provinces the cost of higher education.
In other words, a partial but very significant sharing of the central authority with the provinces in educational matters, and, as I said before, in spite of the very clear and precise words of the 1867 act.
Indeed, to make us fully realize the effects of such a policy, may I quote what the hon. Mr. Garson said in this House of Commons on January 28, 1957. As a matter of fact, after having read an excerpt of the Rowell-Sirois report, saying that the provinces must control the education of our young people while they are at school, he made the following comment:
I would point out that if federal subsidies were large enough to be of any value to the provincial governments who would receive them, the federal treasury could not justify the distribution of such large sums of money to the provincial governments without assuming some responsibility as to the way they would be spent.
Could it ever be stated more clearly that this would mean the intrusion of the central government in the exercise of powers which are the exclusive and express responsibility of the provinces?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, no, sit down.


Noël Dorion: I regret, but as my time is very short, I cannot do it now. When I finish my remarks, I will gladly answer your questions.


Lionel Chevrier: My question only concerns-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Noël Dorion: Have no fear, it is not unwillingness on my part, but I am afraid that what I have to say might exceed my time limit.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I say that Quebec, in particular, cannot .accept this suggestion. On this point, I am content to use as my sole argument the conversation of the Hon. Mr. Lesage himself who, in this regard, follows the well-established tradition in the province of Quebec.
Does this mean that one of the principles behind confederation is transgressed when these provincial powers are touched? In this respect, may I quote the view expressed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) in this house on July 18, 1959:
The province of Quebec has a point of view in regard to education which I think all hon. members of this committee have a duty to recognize.

The Address-Mr. Dorion It is patent that a different view altogether is taken of this subject in the province of Quebec from the view that is taken in the other provinces of Canada. Those who know the history of the province of Quebec understand the point of view of that province today and will know that Quebec regards this exclusive jurisdiction over education as something fundamental to the ethnic survival of that province and its people. This has been the view of the people of Quebec down through the years, that its jurisdiction over education is the sheet anchor of the survival of the culture, the language and the institutions of the province.
The minister then pledged solemnly to make all the necessary efforts in order to solve this difficulty arising from federal grants to universities.
Everybody is aware that thanks to the efforts which were made by the people of the province of Quebec, thanks to the goodwill and comprehension shown by our fellow-citizens of the other provinces, a formula has been worked out which safeguards the essential rights of the province of Quebec and of all the provinces in the field of education.
Mr. Speaker, I should also like to remind the house in this respect that the speech from the throne precisely contains the promise that this alternate formula, which has proved completely satisfactory to the province of Quebec, will be added in due time.
You will be asked to increase the federal grants to universities and make suitable provision in those cases where alternative arrangements are made for supplementary provincial grants in lieu of federal grants.
Moreover, it is known that the grants have been raised to $2.00 per capita for each province. Thus, the government of the province of Quebec will receive the additional sum of $2,500,000, while the exercise of its exclusive rights in the field of education will remain untouched and this excellent measure, contained in the pact of 1867, protected.
This is what prompted La Presse-obviously, all the credit had to be given to Mr. Lesage, as if we had nothing to do with this decision-to make the following comment in its January 27, 1962, issue:
From an exchange of correspondence-
The exchange is between the premier of Quebec and the Prime Minister of Canada.
-Quebec won Its point inasmuch as at the request of Mr. Lesage, Ottawa agrees to an alternative solution in order not to force down the throat of the province federal grants which are unacceptable in the exclusively provincial field of education.
In other words, we who were particularly interested-I am speaking of interest in the noblest sense of the word-in seeing that that clause of the Union Act of 1867 remained intact had to wait for a Conservative government, for the present Prime Minister-who
IMr. Dorion.]
was smeared in the province of Quebec as anti-French Canadian-and his government to see the return of that right of which those provinces that wish to do so may well avail themselves.
Moreover, the party which held power for 22 years, just found out that Canada was a bi-ethnic and bi-cultural country and that we should preach and spread bilingualism at the federal administration level throughout the country. In this regard, we inherited a very heavy legacy, a legacy of stubborn silence and apathy if not of denial every time Ottawa was asked to give a practical illustration of the bilingual aspect of our country. We have had that practical illustration in the last four or five years, since a Conservative government took over. I shall give but a brief list because I do not want to be repetitious:
Introduction of simultaneous translation in the Senate and in the House of Commons; bilingual stationery and forms in several departments. And here I would urge the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) to pay a visit to the printing bureau which comes under my department; he will see what goes on today and will be able to compare with what was going on under the Liberal administration.
Geographic maps and the Canada Atlas are now published in both languages. The Canada Year Book and that other important publication entitled Canada 1961 were published for the first time last year simultaneously in both languages.
Signs on public buildings have become bilingual following a simple instruction by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker).
Finally, the printing of bilingual cheques.
In this regard, it was said: too little and too late. Not at all. Neither too little nor too late.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, if anything may have an educational value, it is precisely that small piece of paper which from now on will indicate everywhere from Vancouver to Newfoundland, that in this country, there are two distinctive groups, two basic groups which form the Canadian community and which have the same rights and the same privileges and which must enjoy the same treatment.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but his time has expired.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the minister allow me a question?


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Since the minister's time has expired, the unanimous consent of the house would be required before a question can be put to him.


Noël Dorion: I shall make a deal with the hon. member opposite. If he allows me to continue, I shall answer his questions with pleasure.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of this house, I should like to put a question.


Noël Dorion: I thank the hon. member for Laurier.


Lionel Chevrier: I said that with the unanimous consent of the house, I should like to put a question.


Noël Dorion: I first request the unanimous consent. If the hon. member for Laurier wishes to give that consent on behalf of his colleagues, I shall continue and then he may put his questions. It will be an exchange of courtesies.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: In the absence of unanimous consent, the minister may not continue and questions cannot be put to him.


Mr. Maurice Bourgel (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, before getting on with the remarks and congratulations I have to offer, I wish to take exception to a statement made by the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion), in which he said that the Liberal members from the province of Quebec had charged the present Prime Minister with being anti-French Canadian. Well, I want to remind the Secretary of State that the first people who charged the present Prime Minister with being anti-French Canadian were the delegates, the Conservative leaders of the province of Quebec at the convention held in this city of Ottawa in December 1956.
There is no doubt because they are now ashamed of their gestures, words and actions, at the time, that the Secretary of State- like many others-is trying to accuse the Quebec Liberals of exploiting the problems of language and race.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of this house for 22 years, and I have gone through six elections in the province of Quebec, and I challenge the Secretary of State to prove to me, or to find a single case in which I could have accused the present Prime Minister of being anti-French Canadian or of being a Protestant or a freemason. I challenge him to claim the contrary.


Noël Dorion: It is not to the member for Levis that I have attributed those words;
The Address-Mr. Bourget he knows very well to whom they are addressed.


Maurice Bourget: Those are gratuitous words, like so many other things you do which are gratuitous.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to kindly address himself to the Chair.


Maurice Bourget: Very well, Mr. Speaker. I will close my remarks about the matter, because I would not like-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You are putting your foot in it.


Maurice Bourget: -to deal with questions of prejudice. On the government side, and especially the members from Quebec have been trying for some time to have us believe that the Liberal members are stirring up racial prejudice.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is true.


Maurice Bourget: Well, I repeat, Mr. Speaker, because I know that on the government side, and particularly among Conservative members from the province of Quebec, they do not want to admit they were the first in this country to smear their own leader. And you cannot deny that; we have seen it on television and in newspapers, in December 1956. The member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) was probably present at the convention, when it was said that the present Prime Minister had disowned the French Canadians, because he had not accepted that a French Canadian support his nomination.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Mackenzie King did the same thing.


Yvon Dupuis: We did not say that.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate you, first of all, on your appointment as Deputy Speaker of this house and to wish you, at the same time, much success in your new functions. I should like also, according to established practice, to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address.
I should like also to congratulate and extend my best wishes to all those who, on the government side, have obtained either a promotion or an extension of their term of office.
I hope they will manage to fulfil their task with great wisdom, because they must realize now that their stay in their new posts will be of short duration.
As far as the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Flynn) is con-

The Address-Mr. Bourget cerned-I regret he is not here at this time,
I understand it is not his day of guard duty-I congratulate him in particular, but I take the liberty of giving him one piece of advice, that is, not to try to imitate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) who is known for his exaggeration.
I had the opportunity, very recently, to read in a newspaper a report of an interview that the minister had given, and during which he stated that the Conservative party could have elected, at the next federal election, more members than the 50 they now have in Ottawa. He claimed that the Liberal party myth had been broken in 1958.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that at the time, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys was not speaking in earnest but in jest, because he must realize now that the present Conservative bloc will completely disappear after the next election and that the accident which occurred in 1958 will not happen again.
I should like now to mention the masterful speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) in this house on January 22 last, in which he showed, with supporting evidence, that the Conservative policy is a failure.
That speech caused the Prime Minister to lose his temper to such an extent that he forgot, at the outset of his remarks, to follow the long established tradition in this house, that is to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address.
Like many others, I would have understood such a reaction if he had had an important and urgent statement to make, but far from it, all he did was to quote some selected extracts from a newspaper item.
It would be proper to point out that this article which, according to the Prime Minister, criticized the previous Liberal administration, stated also, as reported in an editorial published in the Ottawa Citizen of January 23, 1962, and entitled:
(Text):
The Prime Minister did not say that the same article had been even more critical of his regime and had included this sentence: "Instead of improving with the change of government, things got worse".
(Translation):
This oversight of the Prime Minister is, in my opinion, truly inexcusable; it clearly shows that our leader landed heavy blows from which the Prime Minister has not yet recovered.
Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that this is the last session of this parliament and that a general election will soon take place.


Consequently, it came to my mind that it would be appropriate to review the Conservative government's administration during the last four years.
I will certainly not have enough time to examine all they did and all they failed to do during that period of time. That is why I shall limit myself to the three points which, I feel, are of major importance for the economy of our country.
First, I should like to speak of employment or perhaps I should say unemployment because unemployment has been prevailing during those four years of Conservative administration.
It is hard to forget the harsh words the members of the present government had for the former Liberal administration when they were sitting on this side of the house. At the time, they were claiming that there were too many unemployed in Canada.
We have not forgotten either the Prime Minister's vision of a Canada where there would be no unemployment under a Conservative government. His famous statement that as long as he would be Prime Minister, no one would suffer from unemployment in Canada, cannot be forgotten nor will it be forgotten especially during the next election campaign. According to him, the Conservatives had found the solution to the problem.
That was the refrain we heard during the
1957	and 1958 election campaigns. They painted a rosy vision for the benefit of the Canadian people but, after four years of Conservative regime, the public realizes that the colour of the vision has turned to a dark blue. Since the early thirties, never has unemployment been so serious in Canada.
To prove my point, I merely have to refer to statistics compiled by the d.b.s. and published by the Bank of Canada in December 1961.
If we compare the last four years of Liberal administration, that is from 1953 to 1956 inclusively, with the last four years of the present Conservative administration, or from
1958	to 1961, we see that the number of unemployed under the present government has been twice as high as under the Liberal government.
In fact, according to these figures, the number of unemployed under the Liberal administration was as follows:

Liberal Administration
Year	Unemployed	Percentage of labour force1953	162,000	31954	250,000	4.61955	256,000	4.41956	177,000	3.4
Well, that was the situation under the Liberal administration.
Let us see now what happened since the Conservatives came into power, that is since 1958:
(Text):


An hon. Member:: What month? (Translation):


Maurice Bourget: Number of unemployed- (Text):


An hon. Member:: What month?


Maurice Bourget: That is the average for the year. If the hon. member wants to have this information I can pass him the book. (Translation):


Mr. Tremblay:: Tell us about Mr. Lesage.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The thunder has wrought havoc in Quebec.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, I would have an answer to those interruptions, but I prefer to control myself.
Here are the figures relating to unemployment under the Conservative administration:
Conservative Administration
Year	Unemployed	Percentage of labour force1958	432,000	T.l1959	373,000	6.01960	448,000	7.01961	469,000	7.2If you	figure out the average	for the last
four years of each administration, you note that under the Liberals, from 1953 to 1956, the average was only 3.8 per cent, while it has gone up to 6.8 per cent under the Conservatives.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: That is a misinterpretation of statistics.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, if this is misinterpreting statistics, then I should tell the hon. member that these are statistics published by the Bank of Canada in December 1961.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Your interpretation cannot be accurate.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, if I have misinterpreted these statistics, then the hon. member for Roberval, who does not know whether he is in Ottawa or elsewhere-for even we do not know where he stands at the moment

should complain to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), who is responsible for the Bank of Canada.
The Address-Mr. Bourget


An hon. Member:: Tell us about Mr. Lesage.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, having been asked by government members to speak about Mr. Lesage, I will do so.
When your friends were in power in Quebec, what did you do about unemployment?


Georges-J. Valade: There was no unemployment.


Maurice Bourget: You did not even see fit to take part in the winter works program, you did nothing and you should be ashamed to claim now that Mr. Lesage is doing nothing, when Quebec is the province which is contributing the most, in the whole country, that is, 40 per cent. That you cannot deny.


An hon. Member:: There was no unemployment at that time.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether we could have a little bit of order in this house. I have no objection to answering questions from those who are interrupting me, because their questions are getting sillier all the time-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It would be fitting that those who are interrupting from their seats stop doing so. The debate could then take place in an orderly fashion.


Lionel Chevrier: Especially the interruption coming from behind the curtains.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, that attitude of the government members from Quebec reminds me of the fact they always brag more in the house, where they are 208 strong, than in the province, when they try to explain the failure of their administration.
The supporters of the government can well claim that at the present time there are more people at work than there were during the previous years, and the contrary would be abnormal for an intelligent man, because the population increases and it is only normal that there should be more people at work.
However, what they cannot deny, is that the number of unemployed under the Conservative administration is almost double what it was under the Liberal government and nobody-I repeat nobody-can deny it.
Another fact that bears out my statement is that the unemployment insurance fund, in which there were more than $900 million when we went out of office, in 1957, is now on the verge of bankruptcy.
In fact, $25 millions are needed to replenish it. Is that not conclusive proof that the

The Address-Mr. Bourget present government has failed with regard to the employment problem?
What is more unfortunate is that during the first three years of the present Conservative administration, in spite of repeated requests from the opposition, labour unions, various public bodies who begged it to take the measures called for under the circumstances, the government kept on denying that the situation was abnormal. It was satisfied stupidly to contend that the situation was only transitory and that it would disappear with the snow.
Mr. Speaker, the situation will undoubtedly right itself, not with the disappearance of the snow, but rather with the disappearance of the Conservative government which has now been in power for four years.
I am sure nobody will dispute the fact that it is very difficult to find a way to solve a problem when one denies that it exists. It will have to be admitted-and saying this I am replying in part to the arguments of the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion)-that the Liberal opposition was not content with criticizing, but in many instances offered suggestions which would surely have improved the situation had they been implemented.
The only action of the government, apart from housing construction, was to launch a winter works program under which it pays 50 percent of the labour costs. And we know that in the end that 50 percent represents a mere 15 percent of the total costs of the works, and that the major portion of the costs, the largest financial burden falls on the municipalities. It has also been realized that many municipalities do not have the necessary financial means to undertake the works without borrowing at a very high rate of interest.
It is, therefore, very easy to draw the conclusion that as far as employment is concerned, the Conservative administration failed and forgot the fine promises they made to the Canadian people in the election campaigns of 1957 and 1958.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the second matter I would like to raise deals with the tax agreements between the federal and provincial governments. You will see, Mr. Speaker, that in that realm the results have not been any better than in the case of unemployment.
During the two election campaigns of 1957 and 1958, the supporters of the Conservative government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, launched an all-out attack against the St. Laurent administration, accusing it of pressuring the provinces and

municipalities, and adding that everything had to be done over again in that field.
I believe it would be useless to recall the words of the Prime Minister and his candidates during both those campaigns, they are well known. They repeated over and over again that the government was rich, but that the provinces and municipalities were poor and could not meet their constitutional obligations.
The Prime Minister and his party had committed themselves to give provincial governments as well as municipalities the revenues they would need in order to perform their important duties and thus help them to develop their natural resources.
During the various federal-provincial conferences that have taken place since June 1957, the provincial premiers have reminded the head of the government of his promises, but without much success.
The concessions made were really inadequate and that is the reason why most provincial premiers showed their dissatisfaction of the offers made to them during the last conference in February 1961.
The present government seems to boast of having given back the provinces their taxation rights. It should know, however, that the provinces already have had those rights for a long time and that Quebec for one has made use of them for many years. What the government forgot, however, was to give them an adequate part of federal revenues, that would have permitted them to fulfil their obligations which become heavier and more urgent.
As a matter of fact, if we take, for instance, the province of Quebec, we realize that with the new formula, it will receive, during the five years covered by the agreement, only $2.5 million more.
According to the new formula, a federal abatement of 16 per cent on individual income tax is granted, and it will increase by 1 per cent per year to reach the maximum of 20 per cent at the end of 1967. On the other hand, the equalization payments being set up on a new basis, that is on the national average rather than on the average of the two richest provinces, will decrease considerably. What is given on the one hand by extending the taxation field on individual income, is taken back on the other by decreasing the equalization. As the premier of Quebec said following the conference held last February:

It would seem that the government in Ottawa has manoeuvred in such a way as to block the economic development of the province of Quebec.
Since the 1 per cent yield on personal income tax gives the province of Ontario about $9 million a year, it follows that in the next five years that province will collect $180 million more than if the present arrangements had been maintained.
Of course, we do not object to the province of Ontario getting an amount of $180 million. On the contrary, we are glad of it, but Mr. Frost must have been very disappointed, because relying on the Prime Minister's promise, he expected to get $100 million more every year, not in five years. What we find unfair, however, is that Ontario will be getting $180 million more over the next five years and that the province of Quebec will hardly be getting anything.
The situation would be very different under a Liberal administration, because we would restore equalization on the basis of the richest province, with the result that the province of Ontario would lose absolutely nothing and that the province of Quebec would be getting about $150 million more.
To the regime of inequality and fiscal unfairness the present government has established, we will substitute a regime of equity which will enable not only one province but all the Canadian provinces to carry out their constitutional responsibilities.
As for financial assistance to municipalities, we can say without hesitation that the government's record in that respect is no brighter than in the field of fiscal agreements with the provinces. We could even add that the municipalities have been entirely forgotten. We might state that they were asked to shoulder a heavy financial burden when they were called upon to pay 70 per cent and even more of the cost of the winter works program to alleviate unemployment.
In this respect as under the previous topic, it is fair to draw the conclusion that the Conservative government has failed to carry out its promises.
Now, I should like to say a few words about the financial situation in this country.
At a press conference he gave in Saskatoon on May 27, 1957, the Prime Minister stated that he could carry out his program, reduce unnecessary taxes and have a balanced
The Address-Mr. Rowe budget. On that point, as on many others, the Canadian people have been deeply disappointed, because far from being reduced, taxes have gone up. Moreover, the government has shown a deficit every year and the total of those deficits, since 1957, comes up to more than $2 billion. Now, if you add the $900 million that came out of the unemployment insurance fund, you get a total of $3 billion.
Off-hand, one could think that such tremendous deficits were brought about by tax reductions but, as I said a while ago, taxes have gone up.
It is true that in December 1957, taxes had been reduced by approximately $204 million and by $35 million in the baby budget of December 1960, but those reductions are much less than the $352 million tax increase announced in the budget of April 1959.
To that increase of $352 million must be added an amount of $75 million representing the increase in the employees' contributions to the unemployment insurance fund. It can thus readily be seen that there has been no tax reduction but indeed an increase of $187 million.
Owing to that succession of enormous deficits, the per capita debt which was $670 at March 31, 1957, was up to $688 at March 31, 1961.
It would be in order to point out again the monumental blunder of this government when, in the fall of 1958, it made its famous conversion loan of $5,600 million. Some financial moguls were able to benefit by this loan, but many small investors lost from ten to fifteen dollars on each $100 bond they had to sell before maturity.
Furthermore, as I have already pointed out, that loan caused a very high increase in interest rates. Needless to say that the loan had disastrous consequences on the budgets of our municipalities and school boards.


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


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, if I failed to follow the remarks of the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) I hope he will not think I was not interested in the sincere and vigorous presentation that he made on this as on other occasions. It is not my desire either to increase repetition but I do wish to congratulate you, sir, on your elevation to the office of Deputy Speaker and I want to compliment you on the dignity and efficiency that you have already shown

The Address-Mr. Rowe in the chair. I also wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. Bourdages) and seconder (Mr. Browne, Vancouver-Kingsway) ol the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They are a further indication of the capable young men who are in parliament and I think the present government is very fortunate indeed in having among its supporters more young men with more ability and natural talent than I have seen in any group or party since I entered parliament. This is not a reflection on the splendid young members of other parties. One of the real differences, of course, is that there are more of them in our party.
Recently I have been described as one of the old guard, and I did not resent this. In fact, I am somewhat flattered because from my experience I realize that any government is better to have an old guard than to trust to the complacencies of those who seem to be off guard or the wilder illusions of those who seem to have no guard at all. I realize that many changes have taken place. The years that I have been in this house have been filled with change and challenge. In fact, I do not believe there has been any other period in the history of human affairs that has been more interesting, more exciting and more challenging. Since we began our sitting this morning, Mr. Speaker, the astronaut, Colonel Glenn, in whose safety we were all interested with the result that the house uniquely adjourned for a few minutes until he had landed safely, has been around the world three times.
Having been so long and so closely identified with the affairs that concern the lives of our people, one could not help growing and maturing a little in these swiftly changing times. I believe we are facing very difficult times and, as I have said, they are challenging. I feel that I have more regard for those who sit to your left, Mr. Speaker, than do many others in the house because there are few in this parliament who sat to the left of the Speaker longer than I did. I have a keen regard for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). He is an exceedingly fine gentleman whom I have known for many years and I have a high personal regard for him, which increases my sympathy for him in view of the dismal uncertainties that he must see in his future.
I also have a keen regard for the few who sit to your immediate left, Mr. Speaker, in the left hand corner of the house. I am aspecially sympathetic to them today because yesterday I believe they lost their capable leader, the colourful and energetic member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). In my view he has made a very important decision. I know he will be missed very much by the small group he was leading on the other side of

the house and I admire the British bulldog courage of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) in endeavouring to pick up and carry on the difficult task from where the hon. member for Assiniboia left off.
I am not surprised that the hon. member for Assiniboia sought this spectacular divorce in such a hurry but I am somewhat alarmed that he has chosen to marry the old, tired Liberal party. In fact, had he consulted me, which he did not, I could have introduced him to a much more attractive political lady. I realize, however, that all's well that ends well so far as he is concerned.
I must say, however, that there are much colder realities than these passing phases in political parties. In my opinion we are facing a very difficult period and I feel that the problems we have before us today are problems that to no small extent were created by the complacencies of the party that carried on the government in the 25 years prior to 1957. I know there would be a lot of criticism of any government, for uneasy lies the head that wears a crown. It is obvious to me that the complacency that prompted the former government to depend so much on the sale of raw products and pay so little attention to the promotion of secondary industry has cost our Canadian economy a very high price. The construction of sprawling factories and fancy bungalows seems to have prompted us to feel that no one else has done as well as we have. This is not true. In the last 25 years following the great war many of the leading industrial countries have had twice the industrial expansion that Canada has had.
It is true that we have sold our raw resources, the products with the least labour content in them. We took the money and we thought we were doing very well. There is always great national pride in any country. This careless trend, Mr. Speaker, has certainly been brought about by the extraordinary resources we had available for the countries of the world during the war and post-war periods. I know that this trend cannot be changed overnight. This situation did not develop during an election campaign. It is not going to be settled in any one term of office. It developed over several terms of office, but we have already conspicuous signs of improvement because we have the first favourable commodity trade balance that we have had in the last nine years. This is in bold contrast to the gigantic adverse balances we have had over many years, sometimes approaching a billion dollars. These unfavourable balances have contributed greatly to the international deficit position in which we are today, where we have fixed charges approaching a billion and a half dollars.

This serious situation can be improved, but when it was developing the former government had no positive trade policy. We drifted aimlessly, depending upon world capacity to buy us out of our future economic dangers. Instead of encouraging our secondary industries to produce more of our own requirements, we produced less. Between 1947 and 1957, our imports increased from 67 per cent, in relation to manufactured goods, to 78 per cent of our requirements. No other country in the world was buying so many of its manufactured requirements from outside the country. During the ten year period, we have seen one of the greatest industrial revolutions of all times. While the United Kingdom, Japan, West Germany and other countries, increased their industrial expansion at a much greater rate than we did-in fact, Japan increased it during those years almost three times as fast as Canada-our promising manufacturing industries and home markets were forgotten. While other important countries were encouraging industrial development by tax reliefs, accelerated depreciation, special allowances for research, bonuses, special freight rates, credit and guaranteed payments for exports, our secondary industries were left to grow up like Topsy. There was practically nothing done. As a result we bought in 1957 ten times more foreign manufactured goods per capita than any other country in the world. These are the facts that are disturbing, especially in a young country in view of the other problems that are associated with them.
In your native province of Ontario, Mr. Speaker, you have seen industrial development spread to western Canada. Industry is playing a much more important part than it ever has in the history of this dominion. However, we have lagged far behind, and as an example I cite our great textile plants. During the last ten years of the former administration, in this cold country where we use so many textiles, 80 plants closed down and 22,000 people lost their jobs. In so far as heavy industries, chemicals and electrical appliances are concerned, 50 per cent more of our requirements were imported during that period. This was the result of other countries encouraging their secondary industries which were able to export their surpluses. They were alive and alert to a situation.
During those golden years we smugly boasted of the degree of progress we had achieved, but we were really only receiving the fringe benefits of the industrial revolution occurring in many other countries during that period. We have had varying degrees of chronic unemployment and a growing need for social welfare benefits as well as
The Address-Mr. Rowe the costly subsidization of agriculture. I know that it may be difficult for some of us to see any relationship between these dangerous trends. However, when you stop to think of the billions of dollars that these trends have cost us, I say to those who still cling to the idea that we must encourage the export of our raw products instead of secondary industries, that they should stop and take stock before it is too late. The continuation of such a trend has curtailed opportunities for our people as well as development of the home market for our increasing agricultural production. We must never forget that no country in the world's history has become great without a vigorous industrial growth. Without this we cannot maintain the necessary educational needs of our time, the employment of an increasing population and the obligations involved by the consequent need of social welfare.
Despite our keen national pride, Canada has not had the industrial advancement anticipated by our pioneer statesmen. When the late Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir John A. Macdonald forecast a country with twice our present population before this time, they did not expect us to follow the lopsided development we have pursued, depending so much on the forest, the sea and the mine. To depend on these primary industries for adequate employment is to stand against the developing process of innovation.
It is not good enough to try to apologize in a general way or to say that the difficulty of unemployment that has been chronic in varying degrees in Canada for the last number of years is due to automation. I ask those who cling to this doubtful excuse to review conditions in the heavily populated countries that have taken fuller advantage of the latest industrial revolution following the recent war. These countries have led the world in automation, and yet they have no unemployment. Many of them, in fact, are short of labour. Sweden, Japan and West Germany, countries that are leading in industrial expansion, countries that are leading in automation, are today short of labour. Automation does eliminate some old jobs but it certainly produces many new ones.
I am glad to observe that the present government has shown an industrial concept which was lacking in the former government. I want especially to compliment our capable Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) upon his efforts to assist a much needed industrial expansion. It is most unfortunate that his efforts to encourage miscellaneous manufacturing industries by broadening the application of the regulation to determine goods of a class or
1066	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Rowe kind made in Canada for customs purposes was thrown out by those in the other place. This was a serious setback to the economic program of the present government. However, the conversion that he accomplished-against terrific objection-of the Canadian dollar from a premium dollar to a discount dollar has done more to develop our favourable commodity trade balance and encourage industrial expansion than1 any single government measure in the last 25 years.
May I also compliment the energetic Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) whose untiring enterprise has given new life to our exporting industries. There has been a tremendous revival in industrial interest, stimulated by the present government all along the line. Trade missions and trade fair programs have been expanding. Export credit facilities have been provided and many advances have been made by our trade commissioners in search of trade.
The funds and the function of the industrial development bank have been extended and loans to small businesses have been made available in greater volume. The establishment of the national productivity council, the national design council and the domestic consumers service all indicate clearly that this government has a new and modern industrial concept. As the GATT agreements are dying a natural death in the face of the new common market challenge, it is most appropriate and important that our government has taken such steps in the interval to put our economic house in order. It is also in keeping with the traditional policies of the Conservative party that these economic crises should be met as they arise.
Had it not been for the sound fiscal policies of the Conservative party under the Bight Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald-and this is an historic fact, Mr. Speaker-had it not been for the sound fiscal policies that gave birth to the industrial life of this country, Canada would have long since been annexed to the United States. She could not have stood alone, and so I warn our people that a revival of industrial expansion was never more needed than at the present time. Indeed, one can remember that the leading Liberal in Macdonald's time opposed that policy and ran one election on a platform of commercial union with the United States. I think they have changed a little bit since then.
Canada also faced one of the most critical economic challenges of our history in 1930, and it was the government of the Bight Hon. E. B. Bennett that secured the British preferences for Canada in 1932. In view of the great depression of those years the benefits of the imperial trade agreements were more [Mr. Rowe.)

or less overshadowed. They were discounted, they were lost sight of, but today they stand out conspicuously in history as one of the greatest achievements in all the long term of our relationships with Britain. That I believe is admitted now, but there are those of us who can remember that the colleagues of members on the opposition side opposed them. I was a member of the house at that time and I can well remember when every Liberal opposed them, except the former minister of agriculture, the late Mr. Motherwell.
However, since that time the Liberal party used those preferences for bargaining purposes, sacrificing some of them in 1938 in order to make a favourable trade agreement with the United States. Later, after lowering tariffs to the lowest point they ever reached in 80 years-just before GATT came into being-they had nothing left for trade bargaining but the imperial agreements. Even at that I have always been doubtful whether that agreement did Canada any good. It was a kind of sacred cow so far as economics are concerned; and now, Mr. Speaker, it is lost in the shuffle.
Thirty years later it is very amusing to find the Liberals very fearful of losing what is left in the British trade preferences. It must now be obvious to all that with fewer and fewer people producing more and more primary products, the only hope for an increasing population to find jobs and for an increasing agriculture to find markets is by the increased and rapid expansion which is possible in our secondary industry.
I regret that the hackneyed phrase "We must buy finished products from a country if we are going to sell our primary products to that country" has been accepted so generally. That is not true. As an example to the contrary, for many years the United States has been our best customer and yet she sold to Canada hundreds of millions of dollars worth of goods more every year during the past century than we bought from her. In the same years the United Kingdom bought many millions of dollars worth of goods more than she sold to us, and yet she remains our best overseas market.
We cannot hope to consume all the coffee, sugar, bananas and raw cotton which Latin America might wish us to buy in order that Latin America would be able to pay for the machinery and chemicals we have to sell. We do not need its copper, timber and wheat, but some other countries do need them.
In view of our years of international trading experience it is a strange concept now that we must balance our trade with Japan, while for 50 years we have had many times

the differences in trade balances with both the United States and the United Kingdom. Never in my experience have I read of a United States congressman pleading with the people of the United States to buy more from Canada, even in the years when we were buying over $700 million a year more from the United States than we were selling to the United States. Indeed, there were very few in this house who, during the past 50 years, expressed concern about the United Kingdom buying so much more every year from us than we did from her. Surely it is no more vital that we should balance our trade with Japan than with the United Kingdom? However, the economic challenges that are now on the horizon promise to be equally important as those we met in older days by older methods. Never in our economic history was it more important to increase our secondary industry expansion if we are to compete with the common market countries. However, we pray we may develop peace and better will among the nations of this new and smaller world. If so, we shall then be faced with a more exacting challenge if, at the same time, we are to gain disarmament and avoid economic depression.
Let us be ready when the objectives of our present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) are achieved. He is working hard towards that end and, when that time comes, I hope our improved standards of living will require enough new tools and gadgets to replace the employment now used in building atomic bombs and battleships. I urge the government-and I say this with all sincerity although I know I may be on ticklish ground in doing so-to give serious consideration in the near future to the establishment of a government department of industry to act in co-ordination with the respective departments of industrial development in the provinces. I feel this is of paramount importance, to co-ordinate all the efforts. I have referred to many of the efforts the government is making. I compliment the government for the steps it has taken, for the new concept that it has demonstrated, but I urge the government that the time is rather overdue when we should have a department of industry to accelerate the development that is so vital for our future.
As one whose interests are chiefly farming, and representing a rural district, I have no hesitation in forecasting that such a department of industry can be as important to our general Canadian economy during the next 25 years as the Department of Agriculture was in the past 25 years.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry-


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.
The Address-Mr. Crestohl


Mr. Habel:: As dean of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Then, will the hon. member
continue?


William Earl Rowe: The challenge to make such a theory an economic reality can be met by a new, enlivened spirit of co-operation. The old time sectional differences and class distinctions that tempted politicians to play on such ill-founded prejudices must be replaced by a new outlook. The west and the east, agriculture and industry, capital and labour must be more united and complementary to each other in this broadening concept of our future greatness. The vastness and variety of our resources can provide for increasing exports to the markets of older countries. Our high standard of living and increasing population can create a home market of unprecedented volume for our manufactured products as well as the greatest hope for our agricultural output.
I compliment the government upon the advanced steps they have already taken in this new concept regarding industrial expansion. Upon this approach depends new opportunities for the genius and enterprise that will develop a more balanced economic future so vital to all classes of our national society.
I hope that in the future we will have a more balanced development than we have had in the past. I am not going to lay all the blame on those who were in power for so long, but in all fairness I have to lay a lot of the blame on them. I say again that the present government cannot be expected to correct in one term of office the situation which has developed from such complacency. I hope that when this government is returned to office they will establish a new department of industry and give industry its proper place with agriculture in this country.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman permit a question that springs from his very interesting speech? In urging the government to establish a department of industry, is the hon. member suggesting that this department should plan the development and the direction of investment? Is he advocating some measure of planning?


William Earl Rowe: No, I had not thought of taking over the investments yet. I thought I would be interfering with the policies of some other party if I did that.


Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like at the very outset to join my colleagues in congratulating the mover and the seconder of the motion for the address to His Excellency. Of course, it is always refreshing to hear the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), who has such a
1068	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Crestohl tremendous knowledge of the legends and background of this house. It was interesting to hear him trot out again the shadows which proclaimed the old difference between the two major parties, protectionism against free trade. Whether in an indirect fashion he was promoting the old policies of protectionism and trying to change them somehow to meet modern times, I do not know. But it is always delightful and certainly informative to hear the hon. member address this house.
I should like to point out that the throne speech is, of course, the opportunity for the house not only to discuss the future plans of the government but also to review its past performances. Unfortunately, during the time allotted to a private member in this debate he can only refer briefly to some of the government's activities, but in a general way one cannot avoid taking an over-all view of the situation within the time allotted to an hon. member.
I think that, notwithstanding what the government has been saying, the reputation and the image of Canada has slipped during the past four years since this government took office.
Mr. Pallet!: Nonsense.


Leon David Crestohl: It may not be true in the opinion of some, and that opinion may be respected by others, but one should also expect that the opinion of those on this side of the chamber may also be based on reason and justification when making that statement.
I will try to illustrate some of the reasons which bring objective thinkers to a conclusion, after analysing the facts, that such may be the case. We may not want to admit it; it may be uncomfortable for some of us to admit it, but let us be objective and look at the facts.
It is true that before this government took office Canada was universally considered-not by the members of this house only, but universally-to be at the peak both internationally and domestically. Our country's advice was constantly sought. Our assistance as a mediator in international disputes was frequently invited. Those are facts. Our diplomats have helped to prevent many serious armed conflicts in various parts of the world. That, too, is a fact.


An hon. Member:: Remember Suez.


Leon David Crestohl: I am not saying that it was a universal panacea, but the fact remains that my statement is factual. Our country has been invited to intercede and intervene, and did prevent many armed conflicts in various parts of the world. All this was possible because our country enjoyed the highest respect and


esteem at every level. During those years we had a record of accomplishment, a record of achievement, and the record speaks for itself.
However, unfortunately this is not the position today. We now have a record of failure for the few things that have been attempted by the government since 1957. Let us look at some of them. Look at the fisheries treaty, for example, about which there was much talk by the government. That turned out to be a fizzle, a complete failure. There was an attempt, nobody will gainsay that, but it did not succeed.
Then let us look at the question of disarmament about which there was even more talk by the government. The discussions on disarmament also ended without success. The success that was hoped for was not forthcoming, unfortunately. Next I refer to the trade talks and the shifting of the 15 per cent imports to Great Britain, in which there was no achievement and only talk. This also resulted in complete failure.
My leader, in his forthright and effective address in this debate, quoted a statement made by a Tory member, Mr. Nigel Birch, in the British house of commons. That statement is so effective that it merits repetition and I will read what Mr. Birch said:
Look what happens when Mr. Diefenbaker became Prime Minister of Canada. He wanted to increase imports by 15 per cent. We were delighted. We offered him anything up to a full customs union. What happened? Nothing-
That is the quotation by a member of the British house. In addition, our relationship with the United States is strained by a number of incidents. Notably among them is the performance of the government in connection with the Columbia river power project. Then there is the inconsistency of our position with respect to the European common market, and the very recent difficulties resulting from our policy toward Cuba, which is vigorously objected to by our neighbours.
Our relationship with the United Kingdom is deplorable, notwithstanding the denial of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) the other day. These are only a few references on the international scene to indicate the change of Canada's image since 1957. But there are many more. We have been losing stature; we have been losing face, whether or not we like to admit it. I say this is very sad and very depressing. I admit it is unfortunate, but it is a fact. We have been losing face and stature in the entire world. It is a very good thing, especially in an election year, to do some stocktaking and soul searching, and Canadians are no doubt making comparisons, comparing what Canada was like before 1957 with what Canada has been like since 1957. Every Canadian has a right

to do that, and every Canadian will, no doubt, in his own way and by his own means try to draw conclusions from this comparison. Similarly this is the proper place and the proper time for members of the House of Commons to make this examination and do some soul searching. Let us see what such an examination would produce. Let us recall, for the purpose of comparison, a few of Canada's achievements during the 10 years before	1957-achievements which made
every Canadian swell with pride. I once referred to that period as Canada's golden era of international diplomacy. Some of the highlights deserve repetition. In the first place, Mr. Louis St. Laurent fathered the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In the second place this country was honoured by the election of a Canadian as president of the United Nations. Third, it was the courageous work of Canadian diplomacy which led to the creation of Israel as a sovereign state.
A Canadian was responsible for setting up a military force to maintain peace in the middle east and a Canadian diplomat was named its first commanding officer. Next, Canada was elected one of the three nations to supervise the truce in Indochina. Canada was also invited to help supervise the teams set up in Laos, Cambodia and Viet Nam. Then, again, it was on Canada's initiative that the admission was secured of 16 new countries to the United Nations, a performance which won the commendation of the entire world both east and west. Then there was the epic journey of a Canadian minister in the face of communist danger to liberate thousands of Hungarians and bring them to Canada where they are settled happily as good Canadians. There are many more such creditable achievements which I could mention, but the crowning glory for Canadian diplomacy was the award of the Nobel peace prize to a Canadian diplomat.
All these things made Canada very proud and elevated our prestige in the world to the loftiest level of respect and confidence. These are only some of the things which created an image of Canada that was respected and acknowledged throughout the world, whether members and supporters of the present government wish to admit it or not. Until 1957, these achievements, and others like them too numerous to mention, created in the eyes of human beings everywhere a splendid image of what Canada is like. People thought of Canada as really being one of the most wonderful countries in the world. It is no wonder people were anxious to come to Canada; they had heard these wonderful things about Canada.
The Address-Mr. Crestohl
When we examine these facts objectively, I say: which of the present government's accomplishments is comparable to any one of those I have mentioned? I do not know of one, nor, I think, does anybody else. The best the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), was able to point to was the speech delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) at the United Nations. It was a splendid speech, a splendid oration. I will admit that, and I think everyone will admit it. But what did it accomplish for the world or for Canada? Unfortunately, it accomplished nothing. It was just talk by the Prime Minister-important talk if you will, able talk, if you like, but nothing more. The Minister of Finance, still searching vainly for some accomplishment, also referred to the speech made on disarmament by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green). This speech, again, was a valiant effort, a splendid speech. But again I ask: what did it accomplish?


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: What did you accomplish in the field of disarmament?


Leon David Crestohl: I am putting before the house an affirmative record. I challenge hon. members opposite to show me a similar affirmative record. But I will deal with that question. What did we accomplish in the field of disarmament? We maintained the peace throughout the world where there were trouble spots. Our diplomats went out there at the risk of their lives and prevented these trouble spots developing into conflagrations. The speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs was very accomplished and very sincere, but unfortunately it accomplished nothing.


An hon. Member:: Boloney.


Leon David Crestohl: The hon. member may describe the accomplishments of his government in those terms. It is not my description. The speech accomplished nothing and that is as far as I will go. I regret its failure. It is unfortunate. I wish the hon. gentleman had succeeded. We shall come in a moment to the reasons why no success has been achieved. I say it is possible that we lacked the necessary world confidence and prestige to command the accomplishments for which we had hoped.
This government has now had four years of office. Let us compare briefly the two records. One is a story of achievement. I have just shown that there was 10 years replete with real achievement in the world of international affairs. What does the other record show? Unfortunately it shows nothing in the way of accomplishment. It has just produced talk. From what I have said, hon. members will see that some of us have the right to

The Address-Mr. Crestohl draw the conclusion that the image of Canada has changed and that our stature has declined. We say that these facts should be placed before the house and the country in order that they may judge. It is true the government attempts to hide these two records. It especially attempts to conceal the statements made by the opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Leon David Crestohl: If hon. members opposite are disturbed by what I am saying, I do not blame them. If I were sitting in their place I would also be disturbed.
The government attempts to hide the former government's record by the unbecoming observation that looking at these facts frankly is smearing the good name of Canada.
In my judgment the plaintive observation of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that we belittle ourselves when we talk of them is a weak defensive position for the government to take. If looking at the true facts makes us feel small, that is unfortunate; but that is the government's fault, not ours. The people of this country should be told the truth. The government should not attempt to sweep the truth under the carpet as it would prefer to do.
Other ministers have also made observations which have assisted in deteriorating the lofty status Canada built up until 1957.
The Minister of Finance did not enhance the image of Canada by his regrettable handling of our financial policy and the unseemly mess of the Coyne affair. Canadians travelling abroad in the past year often had to answer questions about what was happening in Canada, what action the Canadian government was taking that seemed to be changing Canada. Canadians have always been welcome everywhere in the world as representatives of a country which managed its affairs at home well and did its full international duty in an objective and unselfish way. Again I repeat that unfortunately things have changed.


An hon. Member:: For the better.


Leon David Crestohl: That is only a matter of opinion. I may respect the hon. member's opinion and certainly he should attempt to Tespect the opinions of others.
The choice of language of the Minister of Finance has brought our country little credit. He has built up a reputation for having at his command a choice collection of vituperative words which he musters to his defence when he lacks facts, truth or logic. This is most unbecoming on the part of one of Her Majesty's ministers and brings no credit to the minister or Canada. It shows a lack of


appropriate self-control and judicious restraint unbecoming to a minister of the crown. Let me illustrate this by reading from an item published in a newspaper friendly to the Conservative party. On November 30, 1961 the Montreal Gazette quoted the universally respected Manchester Guardian as follows:
If Mr. Fleming feels that phrases such as 'complete fabrication' and 'false in its entirety' can properly be used of our commonwealth correspondent's report, he should think again.
We have good reason to believe that our commonwealth correspondent's report was correct. He stands by the whole of his report.
I admire and respect the ability of the minister but I point out to him that the language he uses so lightly often goes abroad and has the effect of lowering the status of Canada in the eyes of the world. A minister of the crown should be more discriminating in his choice of language whether in this house or outside of it, nor should the minister attempt to hide behind the smokescreen of saying he was misquoted.
Nor was much prestige added to our country's standing by the cavalier statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) when he referred to Castro Cubans as being wonderful customers. The minister, of course, was quick to recant his assessment and attempted to laugh off his thoughtless remark by facetiously saying, like the late mayor of New York, Mr. LaGuardia, "when I make a mistake, it's a beaut". The statement made by the minister certainly did not endear Canada to its southern neighbours.
Canada's position was certainly not elevated by the present Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill) when he visited Russia in his former capacity as minister of trade and commerce. What he later explained as a joke turned out to be a tragic reflection on our country in the eyes of the entire western world. Ministers of the crown should not joke lightly especially when they are abroad and attempt to hide behind jokes of that kind. The minister is reputed to have stated that under the trade agreement with Russia Canada would also sell to that country, of all things, uranium.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. gentleman has accused me of making a joke when I visited Russia on a trade mission. I explained in the house what happened. I thought my explanation had been accepted by hon. gentlemen opposite. A planted story was foisted upon me by a foreign correspondent who had no connection whatever with Canada. He was the one who treated the matter as a joke. The hon. gentleman is now accusing me of doing

The Address-Mr. Crestohl
a disservice to Canada. The observation in question was made by a foreign correspondent. He is responsible for that disservice, as I explained when I made my statement to the house. I would ask the hon. member to immediately withdraw this statement.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Speaker, I was in the house when the minister made his statement. There was a series of them which-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Leon David Crestohl: Hon. gentlemen opposite are impatient to have me withdraw. I point out that I have a right to finish what I am saying before I withdraw, if indeed I come to the conclusion that I should withdraw.
The minister at that time made the statement that the remark with respect to the sale of uranium to Russia was a joke-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I said no such thing, Mr. Speaker. Again I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member is accusing me of things I did not say and he must withdraw.


Leon David Crestohl: Just a moment. If I have done the minister an injustice I will withdraw readily and promptly. If in saying the minister joked about the matter I am doing the hon. gentleman an injustice I will certainly withdraw. I was under the impression, as I believe many hon. members of this house were, in good faith, that in referring to the exchange between himself and the reporter the minister said, as I understood him, that the offer to sell uranium to Russia was meant as a joke. I did not see anything offensive in that. I believe that was the language that was used. All the newspapers reported it. I believe words to that effect will be found in Hansard. However, if the minister says he did not make the statement, that it was a joke, I will be pleased to withdraw. If the minister will now tell the house that is not what he said at that time I will withdraw.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, in addition, I made no offer whatever to sell uranium to Russia. What greater nonsense than that could the hon. member speak?


Mr. Graffley:: You do not know the hon. member.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I said nothing of the sort, Mr. Speaker.


Leon David Crestohl: If the minister says he did not offer to sell uranium to Russia I will accept his statement. I am referring to the fact that he was reported to have said that a similar statement was made only as a joke. If no statement was made by the minister to the effect that this was a joke I will certainly withdraw.


An hon. Member:: Another misquotation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, we have another interjection about misquotation. There was no misquotation. I tell you that it was a planted story dreamed up by a foreign correspondent in Moscow and based on no evidence whatsoever. There was no offer whatsoever by me to sell uranium to Russia at any time.


Leon David Crestohl: Did the minister make any reference to its having been a joke, because if it was thought to be so-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the minister has stated from his place that he did not make an offer to sell uranium either seriously or as a joke. I take it that the hon. member who has the floor is quite prepared, as he should be, to accept the minister's statement in that respect, and therefore I think we might proceed.


Leon David Crestohl: If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly withdraw it.


Mr. MacEwan:: Turn the page. Who wrote it?


Leon David Crestohl: Who writes your speeches?


Howard Russell MacEwan: I write my own.


Leon David Crestohl: How do you know I do not write mine?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has a limited time and if he is allowed to proceed it will be in accordance with the practice.


Leon David Crestohl: I was discussing how Canada has not maintained the lofty position that it held before 1957. I say that if the cabinet ministers and members on the government side of the house are prepared to dig their heads deep into the sand, like ostriches, they can do so but it is the duty of the opposition to tell the country the true facts, and that is what we are doing and intend to continue to do. We do not have to rely on misquotations. I do not know of any other government with such a record of accusing newspapers of misquoting and misunderstanding them. I have a raft of misquotations here that ministers have sought to use as excuses on the floor of the house. Of course people are misquoted. People can make mistakes but it is hard to understand such an overwhelming number of misquotations and mistakes. The clearest illustration we have was that provided by the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) in the house in the last few days. He could have been misquoted but I say that so many apologetic statements do not do the government or the country much good.

The Address-Mr. Matthews


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


Mr. W. F. Matthews (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be to congratulate the mover (Mr. Bourdages) and seconder (Mr. Browne, Vancouver-Kings-way) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I also extend my congratulations to the new Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Flynn) who will, we all know, do a fine job in his new position. We were all delighted with the selection of the new Deputy Speaker. The house is indeed fortunate to have a man of his standing and ability filling this important office.
Before I go any further, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I was somewhat riled by the remarks just made by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) and I just have to get it out of my system before I continue. The hon. member made the statement that the speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) at the United Nations brought no results. I take exception to that. The hon. member is wrong as always because the Prime Minister certainly did a wonderful job not only for Canada but for the world when he made that speech at the United Nations. The Prime Minister renewed the faith of many people not only in Canada but in other countries.
I happen to know of one man in my constituency who was a Liberal candidate in 1953. He thought so much of the Prime Minister's speech that he sent him a telegram congratulating him on it. I have not seen the telegram but I was told that this man sent it and I am sure it is on the Prime Minister's files. Yet the hon. member for Cartier gets up and says that there were no results from this speech. The man who told me about this matter is very highly respected. I like to have respect for people but when they get out of line for political reasons and make statements such as that made by the hon. member a few minutes ago it riles me, and I must take exception to them.
During the short speech that I intend to make I am going to speak mostly about my constituency whose name I am seeking to have changed to Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. The reason I am doing so arises from the fact that economic conditions there are good and getting better. I know that there are many other parts of Canada where the same conditions prevail. According to leading economists of the country things will improve as the months go by and 1962 will be a banner year. This improvement is largely because of the sensible attitude of many Canadians who have made up their

minds that they will not listen to the pessimistic and gloomy reports that have done so much harm to business, and who approve of the action that the government has taken to improve our economy.
Last week I was talking to a man who represents a large manufacturing firm in Canada. This gentleman calls on many retail outlets in Ontario. He told me that last year many merchants informed him that because of the cries of doom and depression many Canadians were cutting down on their buying. He said that many people told him that they were putting their money in the bank rather than buying many of the things they would like to own. This man went on to say that toward the latter part of the year customers had decided that these false cries of depression were not good for Canada. As this thought spread over the province, business gradually started to improve, Christmas buying was stepped up, and he now claims that Canada will have a very good year.
Why is there this cry of hard times, Mr. Speaker? What do these people who gloat over their gloomy predictions hope to gain by them? We are all supposed to be working and building Canada. If I had a man working for me who came to work with a sick and gloomy look on his face and spent the day whining and complaining, I would tell him to go and see a doctor and to come back to work when he was in a better frame of mind. What good is a gloomy pessimist in any business? What good to a city, a province or a nation is a gloomy pessimist who is always finding fault? There may be a place for these people but certainly it is not in business or in any position that is important to the people of Canada.
In every country there are sick people. Some have had accidents that have disabled them so that they cannot work. We have many people with no special trade. Many become discouraged and are not able to face the hard facts of life. All these people need encouragement and help, not a constant stream of gloomy predictions.
We hear grown men in mournful numbers say that people are hungry and have nothing on which to live. If there are people who are starving and hungry, these men who are talking about it should do something more than just talk. I have heard no word that these great friends of the needy, these great fighters for the poor and underprivileged, are doing anything to help them.
Canadians should analyse these men who are downgrading this great country. Check the lives of these men; find out if they ever did any thing to help our fellow men; find out if they ever did any work themselves; find out

if they ever made a real contribution to mankind. I was advised as a boy never to listen to a pessimist. Unfortunately I have had to do so in this house although I admit I quite often get out rather than listen. All these people do is see the dark side of life. They can never be depended upon when things get a bit rough. They are about as useful as a pair of sponge rubber crutches to a man with two broken legs.
What a great difference there is between the the pessimistic preachings of calamity and the constructive program of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the members of his cabinet. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) did not sit around and cry blue ruin because of the recession. He went to work to do something about it. There is an old saying, Mr. Speaker, that idle hands make idle minds. I think before this government came into power the situation was just the reverse because idle minds were making idle hands throughout Canada. The new government took office and reversed the situation again by setting their minds to work instead of being idle and developing various means for improving the economy of this country.
The Minister of Labour went to work on this particular problem and did a wonderful job. I should like to say a word about the winter works program. The Ladysmith Chronicle of February 1, this year, had this to say about the program:
The do It now campaign is rapidly taking on the complexion of some of our familiar seasonal shopping bargain campaigns, like January clearance sales. And so it should. The winter work publicity program has sound reason behind it.
The article goes on to say that the success of this plan thus far indicates what can be done. I will not read the whole of the article because my time is limited. I want to say this, Mr. Speaker, that on a number of occasions I have been called upon to take part in discussions with the various chambers of commerce in my constituency such as, the Galiano island chamber of commerce; the Chemainus-Crofton chamber of commerce; the Duncan-Cowichan chamber of commerce; the Salt Spring island chamber of commerce; the Ladysmith chamber of commerce; the Nanaimo chamber of commerce and the Pender Island chamber of commerce. I also attended meetings of the city councils of some of these cities like Duncan, Nanaimo and Ladysmith. The members of these organizations have always presented their suggestions and requests to me in a businesslike manner; they have never been pessimistic or gloomy about their projects. These men have been busy running their various businesses and engaging in community work. They have been too busy to sit around and wring their hands. There are
The Address-Mr. Matthews some members of parliament who could follow their example and the country would benefit.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, conditions in my constituency are good. Apparently the life saver of many members of parliament is the newspaper clippings. These clippings become very valuable at times, and I have a few here from which I should like to quote. The Cowichan Leader of February 7, 1962 contains an article with the heading, "January Exports 25 Million". It reads in part:
Lumber exports from the ports of Chemainus and Crofton totalled 25,507,170 board feet in January,-
That is in one month, Mr. Speaker.
-almost five million better than the best month in 1961,-
I could continue to talk about this subject, but I have others I should like to mention. The Ladysmith Chronicle of January 25, 1962 contained an article with a heading, "Che-mainus-Crofton Export Kings of Island Ports." It reads in part:
Judging from shipping figures released from various island ports, this area was well ahead of all Vancouver island ports in lumber shipments to foreign countries during the past year.
The article goes on to say that during that time various goods were exported.
Here is an article dated February 3, 1962, from the Nanaimo daily Free Press, which is headlined, "Nanaimo Port Shipping Has Busy January." The article continues to talk, not about depression, but about the good things that are happening in this country of ours.
There are other things about which I should like to talk. Here is an article from a newspaper indicating that a boat basin is going to be constructed in Nanaimo. This is the equivalent of establishing a new industry in the city, and it will mean a great deal to that city and to the economy of Canada.
An editorial appeared in the daily Free Press of January 19, 1962 headed, "Pulp Expansion Opens New Era for Nanaimo." It reads in part:
Decision of MacMillan, Bloedel and Powell River Limited to go ahead with an expansion program at the company's Harmac Pulp Division south of Nanaimo is received here with the greatest satisfaction.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the importance of this announcement is the fact that this $40 million expansion program will mean 400 additional jobs in Nanaimo and also about 500 people will be working during the time it takes to build this tremendous mill. The editorial goes on to say:
When the implications of such a step as MacMillan, Bloedel and Powell River Limited has taken are considered, one realizes that the 500 jobs which construction of this plant addition will create for two years, and the 400 permanent jobs which
1074	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Matthews will continue thereafter, are not the only employment benefits which this development will bring.
Needed will be many new homes, new schools, new service outlets of all kinds. This will mean new responsibilities for the local authorities, whether civic, school board or trustees of improvement and fire protection districts.
This is not the only new plant in Canada; there are lots more. We are not actually going to the dogs, as has been suggested. From the February 12, 1962 edition of the Nanaimo Free Press I quote this:
Building of B.C.'s $30 million submarine natural gas pipe line under the straits of Georgia from Vancouver to Vancouver island will start immediately.
This pipe line will go to two of the islands in my constituency. We have really nothing to worry about there.
Here is an article from the Free Press of January 6, 1962 which is headlined, "Job Picture on Island Looks Good." It reads in part:
A survey of national employment service offices on Vancouver fsland indicates there is a healthier employment level for this time of year than at any period in the past decade.
Those are the facts. Here is another sign of how the country is growing. This article is from the Nanaimo daily Free Press of February 14, 1962 and is headed, "Award Day at Crofton, Canada's Safest Mill." The article reads, in part, as follows:
Mr. Hamilton also pointed out that the new mill would have a considerable impact on the local economy, as $20 million is to be spent and four fifths of this will be on construction.
This will mean more work for the people in my constituency. I might add here, Mr. Speaker, that warnings were sent out from the employment offices of the region to the effect that much of the work has not started because they did not want people rushing in there and being disappointed.
The daily Free Press of February 9, 1962 carries an article with this heading, "Ottawa Grant Means Early Start on VTS." This vocational training school at Nanaimo is being built at a cost of $735,000, and the federal share, representing 75 per cent of that cost will be about $551,250.
Here is another article from the Nanaimo Times dated February 7, 1962, and it lists all the boats that have loaded at the port of Nanaimo during the month of January, 1962. We find that there were five ships from Norway, three from Liberia, one from Denmark, six from Greece, five from Germany, six from United States, four from Japan, five from Britain, one from Italy and one from Panama for a total of 37 ships. The total crew on these ships would number 1,152. It is estimated that a boat spends


approximately $10,000 during loading operations for various things the crew needs. I have cited the number of ships visiting the port during one month, so hon. members can understand why I am happy.
I have in my hand a card which is a notice of a general meeting at the south end hall, on Thursday, February 22, of the Ga-briola island ratepayers and residents association. The interesting part of the notice reads as follows:
Progress in Sixty Two is up to you and you.
This is an indication of the spirit the people of Gabriola island have. I am going a bit out of my constituency now, but the January 15 issue of the Free Press contains the story about the Qualicum river project to encourage the development of salmon where a million dollars is being spent to help increase the salmon catch.
There are many other projects in my constituency and I could go right through a list of them. They include a public building at Ladysmith, $40,000; harbour improvements at Ganges, $185,000; boat harbour at Nanaimo, $600,000; approach renewal to Chemainus, $13,000 and float renewal at Cowichan bay, $5,300. We certainly have to congratulate our very energetic Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) for the interest he has taken, not only in my constituency but in every area across Canada.
There is a new hospital being built at Nanaimo and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) has informed me that the federal grant for that hospital was $454,953, for which I thank him very much. I could go on and on, but here is one type of headline I have in mind "Forty million dollar expansion at Harmac." We have a good government in power right now and things are really happening.
Last week end I was in another constituency, Pontiac-Temiscamingue. The Deputy Speaker took me there and I saw a great pulp mill in which the men are working seven days a week. There is no unemployment; they are all working and at the meeting I attended they could not understand why some politicians should be talking about gloom and doom when they now have it better than they ever had it before. Previously if they got three days work a week they felt very fortunate, and now they are working seven days a week. The manager of the mill told me he could not understand people in parliament starting such terrible rumours, saying that things were never so bad; and he was not speaking solely of his own area. He told me he had toured the United States and all across Canada, visiting various pulp mills, and he found the economy in that industry was tremendous.

On the Saturday night I attended a meeting with the Deputy Speaker, who made an excellent speech. Afterwards my wife and I talked to various people and they were all tickled to death with the way things were going and could not understand why anybody would gripe, complain and talk about doom and gloom.
In our local paper in July, 1960, there was a story which reads as follows:
'Gloom aggravates recession' says head Canadian
collieries.
Incidentally, the colliery near my constituency at Port Alberni is starting a large pulp mill. The story continues:
A company president warned Thursday that gloom aggravates recession.
Norman R. Whittal, president of Canadian Collieries Ltd., said at the company's fiftieth annual meeting:
"The public is wont to accept the gloomy forebodings of their leaders and this gloom, spreading throughout the country, in itself aggravates a recession such as we have experienced over the last few months."
That was in July, 1960, and that is a fact. It is disgraceful to have members of the House of Commons attempting to downgrade Canada and attempting to make Canadians believe there is a decline in Canada's prestige throughout the world. This is not well received by Canadians and is an unwarranted attack on Canada's high standing among the nations of the world. It is an attack made for political reasons.
In October, 1960, I was a delegate to the interparliamentary union at its meeting in Tokyo, and the Canadian delegation received a wonderful reception from delegates representing all the democratic countries of the world. We discovered for ourselves that Canada's reputation and prestige is highly respected by all. During my time there I had some interesting experiences which gave me an idea what they think of Canada. At one reception, where we all wore our badges with the inscription "Canada" one page boy came up to me and said "Me Broda". He knew that we came from Canada; he knew the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Montreal Canadiens. He himself was a goal tender and all he could say was "Me Broda". Evidently he knew some of the Canadian players.
Later the president of the ice skating association of Japan called at my hotel and talked with me for three quarters of an hour. Certainly there was nothing there that would lead anyone to think that our country was not highly thought of. I have a letter from a Mrs. Takae Sugita, dated November 17, 1961, in which she says:
Dear Mr. Matthews: Last year we had the pleasure of greeting the M.P.'s from Canada and this year we were honoured by the visits of the Prime
The Address-Mr. Meunier Minister, Mr. and Mrs. Diefenbaker to Japan. It was really a memorable occasion. The Japan-Canada Society gave a luncheon in their honour at the Imperial hotel and my husband and I also attended it. There was quite a good turnout of the Niseis in Tokyo. Everybody thought that Mrs. Diefenbaker was so charming and friendly. The Japanese say that if a thing happens twice there will be a third. I wonder what is in store for us next year.
From that one can see how welcome was the visit of the Prime Minister and Mrs. Diefenbaker.
I do not know how much time I have left but I should like to say that people talking gloom and doom remind me of a story I once heard about Pat, who was lying sick upstairs in the firehall. The firefighters sent Mike to cheer him up. Mike climbed up the winding staircase to the bedroom where Pat was lying on the bed. He couldn't help saying "You look pretty pale Pat, I don't know whether you will make it or not. Terry Grady had the same disease as yourself. He looked all right but suddenly he died. You will be all right and I don't want you to worry. However, Gil Finnegan of the iron workers union, a very strong man who never had a day's sickness in his life, he contracted the same disease. He was looking pretty good too but suddenly he handed in his lunch bucket and departed this land. Don't worry Pat, I don't want to worry you. I'm sure you'll be all right." Mike then turned and started down the winding stairs but just as he got to the top of them he turned round and said to Pat "There's one thing bothering me Pat. How do they get a body down these winding stairs." That is the kind of comfort some people give, and it does not help our country when it needs encouragement.
Canada has prospered since the days of depression. There has been a depression in Canada and the United States but we are now well out of it. The picture today is bright and the prospects for the future are colossal. The duty of all governments is to make sure that the sick, elderly and underprivileged are properly cared for, and this the present government is pledged to do and is doing. There is a glorious future for all young Canadians. Those who have been misinformed should take a new look at things, listen to the right people, and they would then discover the facts and their faith would be restored.
(Translation):


Mr. Adrien Meunier (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Messrs. Bourdages and Browne, Vancouver-Kings-way), on the manner in which they performed their task.

The Address-Mr. Meunier
The case they had to defend was rather weak and their arguments were not too convincing, but nevertheless I congratulate them for their courage and also for assuming their responsibilities and carrying out their duty.
I must also congratulate the Deputy Speaker on his appointment. Knowing his competence and his integrity, I am sure that he will conduct our proceedings with fairness and dignity.
The speech from the throne sets out the legislation to be brought before the house during the coming months.
Other members who spoke before me or will speak later on undertook or will undertake to emphasize its omissions which cause Canada to have no definite policy, a situation which, in my opinion, gives rise to unrest within Canada and concern abroad.
I should now like to single out statements included in the speech from the throne which are just political footballs.
First, there is the proposed amendment to section 94a of the constitution to establish a contributory old age pension plan and other benefits. The Prime Minister mentioned that in 1958. He did not say a word about it for four years, and now that we are on the eve of an election, he brings it up again to offset the program advocated by the Liberal party before the opening of the session.
The national grid system is another political football. This project which would require the provinces' consent would make it possible to convey power from one province where it is abundant to another province where it is scarce.
The principle itself may have some merits but the provinces where power is plentiful will have to think twice before parting with such resources.
Indeed, that project is merely intended to please the provinces which do not have enough power. It did not seem advantageous to a member of the national energy board, Mr. H. L. Briggs, who explained the proposed system before the Engineering Institute of Canada. His remarks were quoted by the hon. member for Laurier in the speech he made January 25 last, as reported on page 188 of Hansard.
I should now like to turn to what the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) said in this house on January 23 and as recorded in the official report, page 113, which reads as follows:
There has always been numerous reasons for French Canadian dissatisfaction with the federal

government. Some were well founded and others were merely based on prejudice. However, one of the most serious causes of discontent of French Canadians throughout Canada, and not only in Quebec, was undoubtedly the offhand and indifferent attitude of the previous government not only toward the French Canadian minority, but towards all minorities in Canada. And minorities then included everything that was not Liberal, not Grit.
According to the hon. member, the Liberal party which was in power from 1935 to 1957 was responsible for the discontent of French Canadians throughout the country because of its offhand and indifferent attitude towards all minorities in Canada.
The hon. member's statements are not too clear; indeed, one minute he speaks of the discontent of French Canadians throughout the country and, the other, of the discontent of minorities in Canada.
It is easy to tell, when you read the hon. member's address, that he is not quite clear on that point, that there is still some confusion in his mind on that matter, but not enough, though, to prevent him from asserting anything.
However, to illustrate that discontent and to give strength to his argument, the hon. member gave us an example. I quote:
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I seriously think that the previous government which could have done so much during the 22 years it was in power, is greatly responsible for the discontent of certain groups of Canadians. Some people were driven to despair by the lack of understanding of the government of the time.
Need I illustrate the point? In 1942, there was only one member from Quebec in the Canadian cabinet.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member got his information and I did not try to check that. However, I can tell him honestly, that under the Liberal administration in 1942, after the death of the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe and the resignation of Hon. P. J. A. Cardin, and before the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent was sworn in, the French Canadian ministers in office, whether there was one, two or three, had as much value, each single one of them, as the whole group of French Canadian ministers who are now members of the cabinet under the present government.
As far as the treatment of minority groups under a Liberal administration is concerned, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm had better read his history. Then, he would know that the members of minority

groups in this country entered Canada under a Liberal administration and were always treated with fairness.
Under the Laurier administration of 18961911, there was an immigration movement, and you have only to ask the Jews, Italians, Poles and others who settled in Canada then how they were treated.
Not one of them complained about the freedom they enjoyed, no more than they had to claim the rights and privileges to which they were entitled. All these persons were subject to our laws, were treated on the same basis as our other citizens and enjoyed the same privileges.
The immigration movement which had started under Laurier stopped from 1911 to 1921, mainly because of the war of 1914-1918.
Still for the benefit of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, the immigration was resumed under a Liberal regime, from 1921 to 1930.
Once again, it slowed down from 1930 to 1935 due to the depression and the high unemployment level.
From 1935 to 1945, the slack which had been felt during the previous period was not picked up, because, during those years, the Liberal government concentrated on putting the country's economy back on its feet, following which it had to face the problems brought about by the second world war.
However, immigration started up again after the war, and we had the good fortune of having a strong flow of immigrants bring us, as well as some capital, technicians, farmers and engineers who, through their efforts and special skills, added to the nation's wealth.
Speak to these people today and you will discover that they have never had any feelings of contempt toward the Liberal government which had helped them to find a new homeland. They are happy and satisfied with the life they lead, the freedom they enjoy and the benefits they derive from their rights and privileges.
For my part, I have in my constituency some 6,000 Italian and some 1,500 Polish and Ukrainian electors, and never have I heard them criticize the Liberal government which had helped them, nor speak of having been treated in an offhand manner or with indifference by the leaders of the Liberal party.
I understand that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm meant to speak instead of the French Canadian minority, which complains about not getting its share of the advantages provided for under the terms of the British North America Act.
The Address-Mr. Meunier
Besides, as he said in his statement, some reasons are well founded while others are simple prejudice. There may be some truth in what the hon. member stated, but I can tell him that the separatist movement in Quebec is not due so much to situations that arose during the Liberal administration, but rather to the fact that the citizens of Quebec recovered on June 22, 1960 a freedom they had been deprived of for 16 years.
Let us hope, however, that the grievances of that movement, if they are justified, will be settled in a spirit of harmony and justice.
However, the Prime Minister could have tempered the separatist movement in Quebec by creating a royal commission on bilingualism in Canada instead of giving a categorical no to that request.
Whether we want it or not, whether we reject such a request or not, the French language, in my opinion, enjoys a great importance today in international relations. The peoples of African countries, like those of many Asian countries, speak French, and French is used more often than English in diplomatic and international relations.
And to prove my claim, here is what the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) said yesterday, in Montreal, to the members of the Canadian club, as reported in Le Devoir this morning:
Canada can play a major role in helping the new French speaking nations of Africa. In those words did Canada's Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Hon. Mr. Green, call discreetly yesterday on the collaboration of French Canadians for the international prestige of our country.
Mr. Green, who was speaking to the members of the Canadian club of Montreal, spent some time explaining the position held by Canada in "the world of 1962".
If Canada is to play a part with the French-speaking nations of Africa, this obligation should not be met only by the French Canadians but also by the English-speaking Canadians. We want every citizen in this country to assume his share of the beneficient part Canada must play in Africa as well as in other foreign countries.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal now with another matter. I wish to urge my Conservative colleagues from Quebec not to mislead the Quebec voters in the next election campaign on vital issues out of which they made capital in 1957-58. They will have to remind the Quebec voters that Canada does not have an ambassador to the Vatican as yet. Some criticized the Liberal party for not having done a thing about such an appointment and, with a great emotion in their voice, pictured us in the eyes of the people as almost atheistic individuals because we did not make such an appointment.

The Address-Mr, Meunier
That issue was linked with religious considerations instead of being discussed from the point of view of diplomatic relations and good will.
Another issue our Conservative colleagues from Quebec should not forget to mention to the people is that of the Canadian contribution to underdeveloped countries under the Colombo plan.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we find in the speech from the throne the following sentence:
You will also be asked to appropriate funds to maintain Canada's external aid program.
In the 1957 and 1958 elections, they made capital out of that issue. Under the guidance of their grand master at the time, the leader of the Union Nationale, they relied on the slogan that "Duplessis was giving to his province and the Liberals to foreigners".
They spread all sorts of slanders. Again with emotion in their voices, the Conservatives from Quebec contended that the Liberals were giving everything to foreign countries while the population of Quebec was overburdened with taxes, and that with that money it would be possible to carry out several projects in Canada. But they were omitting to give the actual reason for this assistance to underdeveloped countries, which is to help these people to overcome poverty and to prevent them from being the victims of communist philosophy.
The people must be told that this government has maintained the policy of the previous Liberal administration, that it has increased its contributions from $35 million to $50 million and that in addition it is giving assistance to the West Indies and Ghana.
Another thing I would like to recall to my Conservative colleagues from Quebec is that they should not repudiate the friendly and brotherly relations they had with the Union Nationale government in order to be elected in 1958.
Now that the Union Nationale party has gone into the valley of humiliation, everyone denies having had any relations with it.
However we know that in 1958 the organization of the Union Nationale was in attendance on the Conservative party and1 that money was not lacking.
I shall not take time to speak of letters of thanks or kisses of friendship exchanged during that election campaign, because they are facts of common knowledge to the people of Quebec.
However, for pity's sake, my Conservative colleagues from Quebec do not disown what you have worshipped.

We would be surprised, if each one of the Conservative members from Quebec were questioned, to learn where the funds they used to be elected came from.
The generous hand of Hon. Gerald Mar-tineau was very helpful to them. And the purveyors of the Union Nationale government were well thought of and thanked1 for their generosity. I can tell the Quebec Conservatives that I know what I am talking about and that if they would rather forget those things, we shall not fail to remind them and to set the record straight.
Once again, gentlemen, be logical and frank. Don't burn down what you have worshipped.
Before concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not mention the kind of circus meeting the Conservatives organized in Montreal, especially and mainly in St. Denis constituency on the 30th of November last.
The meeting was for the purpose of choosing the Conservative candidate who, according to certain newspapers, had not come or, having come, half-opened the door and seeing that the attendance was poor, did not enter.
Listening to a certain speaker at that meeting, Mr. Speaker, one would have thought that it was the continuation of the Union Nationale campaign.
We know that the provincial constituency of Laurier is included in the federal constituency of St. Denis.
Judging from an earlier speech by an hon. member, we would think the Union Nationale was still campaigning.
True, there were not very many people present, although the meeting had been publicized a great deal. However, I believe more respect should have been shown for the ears of the listeners.
As a matter of fact, at that particular meeting, the member for St. Jacques (Mr. Cam-peau) was rather vulgar, as pointed out by La Presse last December 1. I quote:
So far as Mr. Campeau is concerned, here are some noble expressions he used in connection with the Liberals: Liberal yoke, Liberal dirt, political scavengers, red cancer, organized gangsters, advocates of rottenness, downgraders of French Canadians, etc.
Judging from the tone of the speech, we certainly recognize the Union Nationale, now disowned by the Conservatives. However, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Union Nationale era is over in Quebec and that we, in the Liberal party, do not propose to imitate Tory speakers in that connection, using vulgar expressions like the member for St. Jacques

has done, because we respect the intelligence of the voters.


Mr. Paul Lahaye (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I add to the congratulations and well deserved praise directed to you by the majority of hon. members who preceded me in this debate. I also extend my congratulations and best wishes to my excellent friend, the hon. member for Pon-tiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) upon his appointment as chairman of the committee of this house. The same applies to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, Mr. Bourdages and Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway).
Last Sunday evening, in my constituency of Champlain, in the town of Cap de la Madeleine, a convention of the Liberal party was held, and when I read the report published by Le Nouvelliste, the local Trois Rivieres newspaper, I was amazed to see a statement made by the main speaker, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). I regret that the hon. member is not now in his seat, but I am sure that he will have no difficulty in getting acquainted with my remarks.
As mentioned this morning by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), the hon. member for Laurier is supposed to have criticized, among other things, the subsidy of $40 millions voted for western farmers after their poor harvest, while nothing was voted to help eastern farmers.
I can hardly imagine the hon. member making such a statement, and if it is accurate, I challenge him to go and repeat it on the prairies. I shall have the opportunity in a moment to show what the Conservative government has done for eastern farmers.
The hon. member for Laurier has also strongly criticized the policy of the Conservative government in the field of agriculture. He has accused the present government of having lowered farmers' income by abolishing support prices on foodstuffs, mainly eggs and butter.
Mr. Speaker, I consider that as a fallacious and unwise statement. Such a statement on the part of the so-called Liberal leader in the province of Quebec gives us an idea of the kind of arguments our opponents will use in the next election campaign.
The Address-Mr. Lahaye
It will be a bitter pill to swallow for our opponents to realize that the Quebec oracle from Cornwall is no statesman, but a petty politician. Either the member for Laurier is completely ignorant of agricultural policy- which he cannot afford to be in his capacity as the right hand man of the Leader of the Opposition, or he is horribly and wilfully distorting the truth.
If the hon. member for Laurier has any sense of justice and fairness, he will ask the paper I have quoted-if his statement has been misquoted-to put the facts straight. But, if his statement has been correctly reported, he will have to state on the page where the convention was reported that support prices are still in force for butter and eggs, the support price amounting, as everyone knows, to 64 cents a pound for butter, while the one on eggs not only has been maintained at 33 cents but increased to 34 cents last year for grade A eggs.
Mr. Speaker, as a lifetime farmer and the member for a rural riding, I believe I am entitled to make certain comments concerning the agricultural policies of the present government.
I will start by admitting that our dairy industry is going through hard times and, before making a survey of the situation which exists today and putting forward certain suggestions, I will briefly refer to the situation which prevailed before 1957, when the government which has since been put aside was in power.
Even though, by doing so, I might be accused of being prejudiced by my opponents, I would say that one of the greatest difficulties now encountered by the dairy industry results from the fact that the previous government, on the eve of the 1957 election, in a purely partisan gesture, with the purpose of window dressing, raised the price of skimmed milk powder to 17 cents a pound, which raise had never been requested by any agricultural organization.
Mr. Speaker, that is the origin of present conditions. That was the starting point of the difficult situation experienced by our dairy industry, and to prove it I should like to quote a farming publication which most hon. members-at least those from Quebec-will or should know. I am referring to Terre de Chez Nous of December 6, 1961. It contains an item signed by the editor, Mr. Paul-Henri Lavoie. This publication is in no way related

The Address-Mr. Lahaye to La Reforme nor any Conservative paper, for I have never seen its editor on Conservative hustings. After taking a look at the position of our dairy industry, Mr. Lavoie says this:
There is, first of all, the setting by Ottawa of a price of 17 cents a pound for powdered milk just before a federal election, whereas organized producers never asked for such a price and their maximum claim stood at a fairly lower level. A complete organization was then developed in processing plants in order to take advantage of that very high price, which resulted in a considerable production increase.
Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, this was in the December 6, 1961 issue.


Mr. Deschatelets:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Lahaye: Certainly.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Does the hon. member know that according to the most recent 1961 statistics, prices paid by Canadian farmers have increased while their income has been lower than for the previous year?


Paul Lahaye: Mr. Speaker, I think I should call it six o'clock, and I shall answer the question of the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont after recess.
(Text):
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
(Translation):
Paul Lahaye: Mr. Speaker, before recess, the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) asked me a rather ambiguous question. Since he knows a lot about agriculture, I am sure he will find in my remarks a clear and exact answer to his question.
However, I could tell him that he may find an answer right now to part of his question if he reads an article which was published in La Presse on February 2, 1962, concerning the federal bureau of statistics. Its title is:
Higher income for farmers in 1961.
That, in itself, already contradicts what he implied in his question.
The article in La Presse reads as follows:
According to federal bureau of statistics figures released today, the income of Canadian farmers has reached a new high of $2,928,900,000 last year.
A DBS survey shows also that the farmers* income went up for all types of crops, except potatoes, oats and barley.
The total farmers' income, not including deficiency payments, was 5.3 per cent higher than in 1960 when it reached $2,761,000,000. The previous record, which dates back to 1952, was $2,839,100,000.
tMr. Lahaye.]
Last year, agricultural income went up in seven provinces. However, there was a decrease in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia due to the drought and disease which affected the potato crop. No statistics were released for Newfoundland.
Mr. Speaker, this is a rather conclusive answer to the insinuation made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont in his question.
I shall now take up my speech where I left off before recess.
I was saying that the obviously political stand taken by the Liberal party was designed to increase its popularity in rural areas on the eve of the election. It is that attitude which led to the unfortunate situation of the dairy industry today.
At a price of 17 cents a pound, that most precious commodity was a determining factor in the establishment of some 20 milk powder processing plants. It was really gold powder.
As a result, butter fat stocks went up considerably. We can see to what extent those people have lost all sense of proportion. While the minimum price of butter was set at 58 cents a pound, the minimum price for skim milk powder was fixed at 17 cents a pound. You could not have a better example of a complete lack of good judgment, a complete lack of everything that could help to alleviate the situation. Honestly it is contrary to common sense.
As a result, we have seen our powdered milk surplus pile up quickly and become in no time a burden that could not be supported. Our butter surplus also grew tremendously.
The floor price of butter is set at 58 cents per pound and the floor price of powdered milk at 17 cents. What nonsense.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, do you think the farmers of Quebec and Ontario-the two butter and cheese producing provinces-will want to rely on the Liberal party and go back to chaos?
On the other hand the Conservative government immediately took the required steps to remedy that senseless situation.
The minimum price for butter was fixed at 64 cents per pound, and a 25 cent subsidy has been added since.
I state, as a matter of principle, that, under no considerations whatever, must the minimum price of butter or subsidies be removed, because present conditions in the dairy industry of the province of Quebec,

our largest butter producer, should not be changed.
There is no reason why the farmer should see the price he is now getting for his milk go down for this would amount to a disaster.
I do not have the slightest doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the present government, which is constantly looking after, not only the western farmers, but also the eastern farmers, will be the one to receive the farmers' vote, because it is the one which will be asked to keep on helping the farmers who, like all other people, are entitled to a livelihood.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: When is the election?


Paul Lahaye: It will probably come too soon for my hon. friends on the left side, the cold spot.


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: That remains to be seen.


Paul Lahaye: Mr. Speaker, I shall continue for a short time with the government's agricultural policy. I wish to establish that, as far as eggs, poultry and other agricultural products are concerned, the government has done a lot, first through the Agricultural Stabilization Act and, then, through minimum prices.
Whatever the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) may say, I am convinced that the Agricultural Stabilization Act has kept the price of eggs above the minimum price and that the government has not had to pay any subsidy to support it, at least not this year.
It is the Agricultural Stabilization Act that has created a balance between production and consumption.
There might be during a few months a small surplus of eggs and it is to be expected that this situation will right itself around the last six months of the year, which still leaves a minimum price for eggs, in case of need.
A similar provision exists for beef and pork.
You remember, Mr. Speaker, that before 1957, because of a policy that had nothing to give confidence to farmers, there was no way to stabilize prices. There were fluctuations, which were not decent, in the price of pork. In fact, the prices ranged from 17 to 40 cents a pound. Some farmers were almost driven to bankruptcy, because after buying piglets at the time the resale price was 40 cents a pound, they could hardly sell them after fattening, because the sale price had dropped sharply.
26207-1-694
The Address-Mr. Lahaye
On the other hand, in view of the sudden rise in the price of pork, at certain times, doctors, lawyers, hotelkeepers bought pig farms of about 1,200 to 1,500 pigs and lost considerable amounts of money, although that kind of farming, normally, was rather profitable.
Fortunately, the Conservative government has stabilized prices by setting a minimum price of $22.65. Last year, after a necessary adjustment period because there were hundreds of millions of pounds in warehouses, the price of pork went up a little to reach a high of approximately $5 more than the maximum price of the previous year and this, without any subsidy from the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, I say that this legislation clearly establishes that the government is granting some protection to that agricultural class, in a country where there are too many producers for the number of consumers, and which will still have to be protected at least for a period of few years, the length of which we cannot determine as yet.
The voters will surely have confidence again in the government as they will be sure to continue to have a decent standard of living comparable with that of other classes.
With reference to the agricultural industry, on account of a policy which has been called for some reason vertical integration, we have seen a constant increase in chicken and turkey production, to such an extent that last year, prices went down to levels which were far from encouraging.
This government then decided to establish a tariff of 12 per cent on poultry meat imports from the United States. Unfortunately, because of the constant reduction in price, that 12 per cent represented at a given time only about 2J cents.
Such protection was inadequate. Therefore, we saw last year that the federal government concerned over the agricultural class as usual, while keeping the tariff at 12 per cent, established a minimum of five cents a pound. This means, Mr. Speaker, for the information of the member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont who may not be aware of it, that the minimum applicable to imports of poultry, pork, chicken or turkey meat from the United States constitutes a protective tariff of 5 per cent. This now enables our farmers to continue their production.
1082	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Lahaye
I have with me today the publication Terre de Chez Nous. In the February 14, 1962 issue,
I saw what, in my opinion, was an extremely practical suggestion from the Ontario minister of agriculture. I quote part of that article:
When recently addressing a group of farmers in his province, the Hon. W. A. Stewart, minister of agriculture, expressed his intention of curbing the farm integration system to some extent in order to help the family farms to survive:
"The Ontario government is willing to introduce some legislation during the next session in order to curb the expanding vertical integration of the farming industry.
"It is prejudicial to the best interests of farming in general and of the family farm in particular that the food processing industry should completely control, not only the processing of farm products, but also the future and income of the farmers".
Mr. Speaker, I find that suggestion most reasonable and I recommend it wholeheartedly to the present premier of the province of Quebec. He could, indeed, take some very constructive action by controlling the packing and cattle feed industries whose production regular impinges on a field which rightly belongs to the farmer.
I am making that suggestion for the benefit of the Quebec farmers, and it should be applied by the ever busy and quite confused premier of that province.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) who, at my request, finally recognized the pitiable situation that prevailed in the constituency of Champlain in respect of the erosion of river banks caused by the boats sailing through especially since the St. Lawrence has become a seaway.
Before 1957, only a few loads of stones were used as they were granted from time to time to friends of the government, but since then continuous retaining walls were constructed. At first, they were dry walls 1,000, 2,000, or 3,000 feet long, depending on the money we had been able to secure.
I was told today by the minister that very important contracts had just been awarded. One of those, in the amount of $66,601.80 is for the construction of a protecting wall 1,620 feet long which will be a permanent structure. That is what I have long been asking for and after studies made by engineers, my request was finally granted. I think it is an innovation. Another contract was awarded for a similar wall which is to be 4,165 feet long and its construction is to begin imme-


diately at Cap de la Madeleine. This contract is for an amount of $175,216.25.
I note, in the votes for the current fiscal year that an amount of $200,000 was put aside for the construction of retaining walls at Champlain and that another amount of $200,000 is for Cap de la Madeleine.
This is worth noting. This is about ten times as much work as was done under the former administration during the four years before 1957. I give credit for it to the Minister of Public Works and to the Conservative government.
I should like to say a few words about the proposed Trois Rivieres bridge, a project which has been under consideration for a long time. I had the honour to participate in the debate, last year, on a bill to extend by three years the rights of another government or a public body, which would care to take it under its charge. I should like now to elaborate on the remarks I made at the time. In no way should I like to displease my colleague the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer), but I expressed the view last year, that it seemed more appropriate to have the bridge at Cap de la Madeleine instead of Trois Rivieres. I had pointed out at the time that the shore was about 30 feet higher at Ste. Marthe in Cap de la Madeleine than at Pointe du Lac. There is a second reason which would be quite strong-a bridge that would link the mainland to the north of the river, at Ste. Marthe in Cap de la Madeleine, would connect directly with the Shawinigan-Grand'-Mere-La Tuque highway, which will be completed up to Roberval, passing through the park, to end up at Quebec city.
There is still another reason. We are earnestly asking-and, in this connection, I have the support of the municipal authorities of Cap de la Madeleine and of certain advisory bodies that we respect and whose suggestions we usually consider-that Cap de la Madeleine be provided with a wharf which could accommodate vessels of a certain tonnage. This would be correlated with the proposed bridge, because a wharf which could accommodate vessels, ocean-going vessels, would also permit those vessels to unload at Cap de la Madeleine their cargo which is often shipped to industries of Cap-de-la-Madeleine, Shawinigan and Grand'Mere, and that without any traffic snarls on Duplessis bridge, thus clearing Trois Rivieres where traffic becomes particularly heavy at peak hours.

The national harbours board claims that the revenue of the wharf at Cap de la Madeleine does not justify the expense involved.
I would humbly submit, Mr. Speaker,-and I believe the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Public Works will understand my argument-that it is impossible, when there is no adequate wharf to accommodate a vessel, to make any profit. Let there be a wharf of an appreciable length to accommodate an ocean-going vessel or a ferry boat of a reasonable tonnage. Then, traffic will become heavier at Cap de la Madeleine, which will relieve Trois Rivieres and help that city and Cap de la Madeleine to continue to prosper.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has now expired.
(Text):


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, things that happen in parliament occasionally happen very suddenly, and sometimes you find you have a promotion when you do not expect you are going to be promoted. It may be that way at the present time.
Tonight I should like to speak about a problem in my riding, a problem which I think affects all Canada. Recently I talked to a national press representative whom I drove through my constituency, and he was very surprised to find such a large fertile agricultural area in that part of northern Ontario. This area was completely unknown to him and I presume that some people across the country are still unaware of the fact that the riding of Timiskaming contains the odd geographical phenomenon that is called the little clay belt. However, in years to come a great deal more will be heard about the little clay belt, and as the need grows for more agricultural production in Canada I believe this very large natural resource potential of agricultural production will come into its own.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The same as the Kootenays.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, it possesses some similarity to the Kootenays. I understand our areas are similar in length of time of development. In many cases the people occupying the farms in my riding are the original pioneers who cleared the land 50 or 60 years ago. Indeed, there is not one farm in the Timiskaming riding which has been worked longer than 70 years. The little clay belt has a teriffic agricultural production potential, but it is a potential that will not be realized until we
The Address-Mr. Peters are able to develop markets and increase our consumption of the products produced in that area. The agricultural potential of all northern Ontario will be realized in years to come, when probably the area will be the breadbasket of all America. In Timiskaming we have a million acres of arable agricultural land. The hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel) represents another area, the great clay belt, that in the more distant future will be brought into production with a capacity of 6 million to 7 million acres of farm land.
In the little clay belt we have 300,000 acres of taxable farm land. We have 1,600 farms that produce agricultural products to supply the needs of close to 100,000 people. Unfortunately because of our inability in years gone by-particularly in the last 20 years- to develop markets and dispose of the agricultural production of which we are capable, we now have only 400 farming families that receive the major portion of their income from the land on which they live. This indicates, of course that many of the farms occupied by the 400 farmers have increased in size and production. Advancements in automation and technocracy have made their impact and now less farmers are producing more than ever before.
This is a very interesting agricultural area. It is what one would call a mixed farming area. We have about 25,000 head of cattle, and I am trying to interest the federal government in vaccinating them against brucellosis and making it a controlled area. These cattle are both beef and dairy production. We have a large new industry being built up in beef in conjunction with the community sales of that area. Therefore this is a very important agricultural area. It is an area that is, in my opinion, representative of agriculture in all parts of eastern Canada and the problems we have are probably very representative of the agricultural problems across the country.
I will not detail all the commodities that are produced there, but I should like to mention one. Maritimers are very proud of the fact that they grow very good potatoes. They do not grow really good potatoes. The people from my area won the Canadian championship in the potato class at the royal winter fair this year and they know, because of past experience, that they will continue to win it. This is an indication of the fact that in northern Ontario we have a very great potential in this field; and the surface is only scratched.
We have another problem, and this is certainly true of all eastern agriculture. I should mention that the previous speaker placed some emphasis on this problem as it affects the

The Address-Mr. Peters province of Quebec, including his riding. I think it affects the producers in the agricultural industry all across Canada. I refer to the problem of the lack of markets and marketing facilities, which includes supervising, grading and inspection.
We could probably produce enough potatoes in Timiskaming to supply the needs of southern Ontario as well as our own area, but because governments have not yet been interested in establishing grading stations and providing the capital necessary for co-operative enterprises to develop marketing, grading, packaging and the other forms of development that are necessary to put a uniform and well graded, well inspected potato on the table, we have not been able to induce enough people to come into the area and produce this commodity.
This becomes a real problem. Do you get all the producers into the area and produce the potatoes, with no market for them, and then establish the grading stations and facilities for packing these products; or do you develop a product, get a brand name for an area or region and then, when you have the trading and co-operative facilities for handling and storage, go about establishing markets for those products?
In northern Ontario we have other problems that may exist in other parts of eastern Canada. We are plagued with a high freight rate. I wish to refer to one specific item, that grain can be shipped from Winnipeg, Manitoba, to North Bay at 80 cents per 100 pounds. On our own railway, if it is shipped from North Bay to New Liskeard, the freight rate is 31 cents per hundred pounds. Therefore we have problems in connection with high freight costs which we have not been able to solve. There have also been problems in connection with the high cost of fertilizers, machinery, and particularly the high cost of rural living. This is perhaps the greatest problem that rural agriculture faces today. I refer to the price that is charged against land in the form of taxation in order to cover rural roads, rural education, rural communities. In particular, the municipalities which have been spreading into the townships, where rural taxation has to cover many facilities, are not able to carry these costs. This has placed a burden on the farmer and on the rural taxpayer, a burden that has not been asked of any other segment of the Canadian economy.
As the years go by, there is an increasing desire to supply those living in a rural economy with what are considered in the city to be the necessities of life. We desire to raise the standard of living of the people and the standard of housing and facilities,

and I believe it is impossible for the municipal tax structure to be continued at the present basis.
While it is true that farmers in my area do not receive some of the benefits of farmers in other parts of the country, I believe that something has been done by this government, and something has been done by provincial governments to assist in this problem. We have heard very little objection to the acreage payments being made to farmers in western Canada. We have heard, of course-and we agree with this statement- that these payments should be made on an annual basis, because the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) says these are payments that are being made to establish in Canada a true price system for wheat. If this is true, I suggest that these payments should be made on an annual basis and they should be made regularly, because if a true price system is desirable one year, it is desirable each and every year.
Many of the other subsidies which have been given to agriculture in other parts of the country have not been made available to the farmers in eastern Canada. I refer in particular to my area and such schemes as disaster assistance, money that would be paid in the event of disaster. In most cases, when this kind of assistance is asked for, because the area is small, the regions are separated and the disaster is of a localized nature, it is very difficult to get any type of assistance for farmers who may suffer on this account.
Mr. Speaker, we have all heard of the drought in western Canada and we sympathize with these farmers. I believe we should demand that this government give immediate attention to this immediate problem and do something for the farmers of western Canada who are plagued by drought, and where the indication is that the situation will be worse, not better, next year. This assistance in the main has been of a very short term nature. In the last few years we have experienced only one major program of the Conservative government to develop something for agriculture on a long range basis. We have supported this program. I have heard many Conservative members rise and say that A.R.D.A. has been an exceptional achievement of this government and that it will do a great deal of good. We supported A.R.D.A. We believe that this program will do some good on a long range basis, but for goodness sake let us not make it too long; let us get cracking on it. If

it needs some improvement in order to induce the provincial governments and municipalities to participate, let us get going. Already we have waited 40 years, which is much too long, to solve some of the problems in connection with putting agricultural land back into reforestation and beginning a national conservation program of this nature.
We believe that one of the major necessities of Canadian people in the field of agriculture lies in the area of orderly marketing. The New Democratic party believes that one of the long term programs that will help stabilize agricultural production and farm prices is the establishment of a national producers marketing board.
The New Democratic party believes that one of the long term programs that will help to stabilize agricultural production and farm prices is the establishment of national producers marketing boards.
Agricultural producers today have insufficient marketing power. In order to strengthen the marketing position of producers and provide them with a realistic price for their products it will be necessary to enact legislation to provide parity price levels for products under the control of a system of producers marketing boards.
To ensure flexibility these boards should be organized on a commodity basis with a defined jurisdiction on a regional basis. As an example, a potato producers marketing board operating within the maritimes area will be separate from another operating in northern Ontario. The efforts of each board will be co-ordinated through the development of a federal producers marketing board. Each of these units could operate in its separate sphere in supplying service to its area producers for export, and for their share of some common internal market. Their efforts will be co-ordinated and rationalized by the federal producers marketing board.
In respect to production, a provincial producers marketing board would have the responsibility of keeping the supply closer in relationship to the demand for the commodities. This could be done by taking the historic production of individual producers as a starting point, a system of producer licensing and any other powers the board must require.
In the marketing of the product, the provincial producer marketing board should have the responsibility and the power to deal adequately with the production and assembling of the product to the wholesaling and processing level. Provision should be made in the act to allow the processors and/or the wholesalers to become agents of the federal
The Address-Mr. Peters board if producer boards were to request such action. If this were done it would mean the establishment of boards of produce commissioners. For example, in respect to dairy products, vegetables and meat the commissioners would set margins of operations for processors and wholesalers in a similar manner to that in which the board of grain commissioners now operates.
In establishing the price of a given product the federal government would have the responsibility of bargaining on behalf of the consumer with the producer marketing board for producer price guarantees for the commodity. These prices would be set with reference to total farm costs and levels of farm income in relation to the rest of the economy, and be re-negotiated at the end of an agreed production cycle of the commodity. In contrast to the fixed producers' prices, the consumer market price would be a free-flowing market price. If supplies become sufficiently strong to depress the market price below the guaranteed producer price, compensation will be paid to the producers through payments from the consumer revenue fund, and in relation to individual production should market prices fall below the guaranteed producer price. To illustrate how this would work, using butter as the example and presuming that the producers marketing board are in control of supplies, several steps would be required. These would be:
(1)	Necessary legislation drafted at the federal level with respect to agreed prices which would provide incentives for producers to organize.
(2)	The producers in each province interested in butter production would have the responsibility of establishing the producer marketing board. A majority of producers in favour would be required to put the provincial marketing board into effect.
(3)	If sufficient provinces established these boards representing a majority of the production, the plan would be declared in effect.
(4)	The producer marketing board would bargain with the appropriate agency of the government-the agricultural price board-* for a guaranteed price to the producer for a specified period of time. This time period would be related to the production cycle of butter.
(5)	The guaranteed price and the possibility of deficiency payments would be only available to producers through the producers marketing board.
This means that if some provinces produced some butter but chose to stay out, they would run the risk of price penalty in the event of a strong production flow when consumer marketing prices descended below production

The Address-Mr. Peters prices. Commodities flowing into the export field would have to be handled by the federal producers marketing board.
It should be possible to draft this type of program so that producers in various areas could take advantage of different degrees of government participation. It might be, for instance, that producers in a given area of Canada would want only to be able to assemble the commodity and market it with a minimum amount of government participation in the pricing field. It may be that others would want more substantial government participation. The program should be flexible enough to accommodate these area differences.
To summarize: (1) The plan is designed to give maximum marketing power to the producer of the commodity. This would be done by giving the producer marketing board of the commodity in question responsibility and authority to rationalize the production of the commodity and to assemble it into position, and also by giving the producers the power to rationalize price in relation to farm costs and levels of farm income, and to become more effective in bargaining for that price.
(2)	The plan is designed to let the consumer benefit from an abundance of supply by allowing the consumer price to decline in the face of strong production.
(3)	The difference between the price the consumer pays and the price the producer requires is to be made up by deficiency payments.
(4)	This program would not be implemented until the producer marketing boards were organized on an area and commodity basis representing a majority of the production.
I do not expect that all the farm representatives have been able to follow this proposal-


Mr. Charlton:: May I ask the hon. member a question? I wonder if he would care to say from what he is quoting?


William Arnold Peters: I am quoting from my own notes. The proposal has been designed and adopted by the national council of the New Democratic party as a plank in their agricultural program.
I am quite happy that there should be a few chuckles. This is a program in relation to only one aspect of a long range plan that will assist the farmers of Canada. The New Democratic party is not the only body interested in farming which is concerned with this problem. This year the national farmers union made a submission to the government on January 31, and on the subject of personal ownership, said that they were interested in personal ownership as applied to farmers and the farm community. I quote from page 5 of the submission:

To halt the artificially promoted trend to bigness and vertical integration, farmers will have to seek remedies in the marketplace.
The report of the restrictive trade practices commission of August 3, 1961, indicates that the three largest meat packing companies together slaughter more than 60 per cent of all the cattle and more than 60 per cent of all the hogs in Canada. The report says that the position of the largest of the three, namely, Canada Packers Limited, in the market is so dominant that it is against the public interest and to the detriment of both producers and consumers.
Correspondence of the company, quoted by the director of investigation in his statement of evidence, shows that the company is trying to eliminate competition and break markets.
There is no doubt in our minds that the concentration of so much market power in one corporation is against the public interest and constitutes a definite threat to the survival of the family farm.
Short of bringing the three largest meat packing companies under public ownership, we can conceive of only one other measure to limit this power, namely, to give farmers countervailing power in the marketplace.
We, therefore, urge your government to use the power given it by section 95 of the British North America Act to enact enabling legislation providing for the establishment of national marketing boards with mandatory powers and controls over the marketing of commodities produced on farms, including those owned or operated by processors, distributors and manufacturers.
National marketing boards will do much to limit the abuses and antisocial practices of monopoly power in the market place as evidenced by the restrictive trade practices commission in its recent investigation into the meat packing industry.
It is not sufficient to speak of the need for establishing national marketing agencies or boards. The government advocates a national power grid but will do nothing until the provinces have committed themselves. The position is no different in agriculture. We suggest the establishment of a national marketing board to handle agricultural commodities and regulate their distribution in the interests of the producer and consumer. This beneficial objective can be met only through the government spelling out a program which I invite all hon. members to consider and support.
To make it abundantly clear that we are sincere in advancing this proposal I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch):
That the following paragraph be added to the
address:
"This house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to give agricultural producers proper and countervailing power in the market place through, among other things, taking steps to provide for national marketing boards."


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose this is what we have to expect, and we must just take it with all the equanimity we can muster.


Mr. Benidickson:: Filling in a vacuum.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We know that our hon. friends opposite in the far corner of the chamber are socialistically minded. They are quite justified in putting forward their views as they are doing here. I merely wish to point out that the attitude of the present government towards farm problems seems to me to be very sensible. We have not ignored these problems and have been prepared to take special measures. I think of the action taken through the wheat board. We can remember the price support that was placed under butter and various other commodities. All these problems have been dealt with, as far as possible, on their merits and in a practical way. I would think that farmers from coast to coast in this country have a great deal about which to be satisfied.
I must say this proposal made me almost dizzy when I heard of the various calculations that were to be made and the various people that were to be consulted. Quite frankly, this seems to me to be the essence of socialism. It appears to be a negation of freedom.


An hon. Member:: It seeks to give countervailing power.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Those words are used, but the essence of the proposal seems to be to dragoon people. The idea this government adheres to is that measures should be designed to help people help themselves. My hon. friends opposite will say the present proposal seeks to accomplish this, but the kind of interference and control this proposal embodies is such that as far as I am concerned it is inconsistent with the aims of the party to which I belong.
The present government is practical. We have dealt with various things which seemed to be in an exceptional position. The wheat board is one of them. But this goes beyond that and, as far as I am concerned, I could not vote for this proposal.
I wish to discuss a subject tonight which is as old as the hills. I believe it continues to be of immense importance. Indeed, in the difficult days in which we are living now I feel it is acquiring a special importance. I refer to relations between labour and capital and particularly to co-partnership with the aim of making the ordinary workman feel he is part of the show, working for himself. I shall have some distinguished witnesses to call, the first being Lord Amory, the present British High Commissioner, who in England was a manufacturer and who has views on the subject. He, by the way, was deputy chairman of what I believe was known as the co-partnership institute.
I also wish to call as witness through his writings Mr. James F. Lincoln of the Lincoln 26207-1-70
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell Electric Company of Cleveland who has written a book which I believe we should all read. It is one of the most stimulating and impressive books I have encountered for a long time.
Third, I wish to call as witness a Canadian manufacturer, Harold Lusk, an expresident of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, a most broad-minded, you might almost say evangelical man, in his approach to his business, but nevertheless a man who pays his wage bills, and pays dividends to his shareholders. In other words, he runs his business in a practical way.
I wish also to say I am merely following in the steps of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) when I discuss this subject. Last June the Minister of Finance in talking about what was required to meet the situation used these words:
To secure a maximum increase in employment it is desirable-I should say essential-that every industry, every business and every labour organization should give renewed thought to increase of productivity, the improvement of efficiency, and the competitiveness of costs and prices.
Hon. members might say there is nothing new in that, and perhaps there is not, but I will be coming back to this point and I think I will be able to satisfy hon. members of the house that although there is nothing new in these concepts they have not been put into practice.
I now wish to quote from the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I remind the house that in the world in which we are living today we have fresh competition. Western Europe has been given a flying start by the Marshall plan and it is now competing with us as never before. I shall read an extract from an interesting speech the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) made last November in Toronto when addressing a group of manufacturers. The minister said, among other things:
Western European industries are efficient, and have a high degree of technological skill. They also have lower wage rates than we have in Canada. Most important of all, there exists in western Europe something which we have in all too few cases in Canada-a high degree of co-operation between management and labour, which enables them to work together constantly to improve design and quality, and to lower costs. The result of all these factors is that most of the industries in the common market countries produce products which are equal to or better than ours in quality and design, and sell at lower prices.
I hope that hon. gentlemen have registered that and will ponder the seriousness of that statement with regard to ourselves.
The highly competitive position of western European industries today is the result of hardheaded, practical thinking on the part of both management and labour. They know that unless their product

The Address-Mr. Macdonnell is the best buy on the market it will not be sold and there will be no profits for the company and no jobs for the labour force.
Those are the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He goes all out to advocate co-partnership, to advocate that management should sit across the table from its employees not merely to discuss wages and hours but to discuss the operations of the company. He pointed out that this is the kind of thing that goes on in Europe, and I believe that in Germany it is required by law that the men have a certain say in the management of the company.
In spite of the lead given by these two ministers I am disappointed to find that the speeches of business and financial leaders in the last few months have seemed to ignore this point, have seemed to ignore the importance of making the men feel that they are part of the show. These speeches that I speak of stress lowering taxes, increasing depreciation, raising tariffs and giving export subsidies, all of which may have their point, but I draw the attention of hon. members to two things. The first is that all these four things that I have mentioned are entries in books, and are in effect subsidies. They do not suggest that a single man in a single factory is to do better work and produce more goods, which after all is the important thing. On this matter I wish to quote from James Lincoln's book, "A New Approach to Industrial Economics". First of all I wish to read an interesting sentence indicating the spirit in which Lincoln took on his job. He set himself a standard which hon. members may think a bit high, but which I believe he has worked out literally. When he was appointed many years ago he set up an advisory board which I believe has met every two weeks ever since. He says this:
I knew that if X could get the people in the company to want the company to succeed as badly as I did there would be no problems we could not solve together.
These are plain, simple words but I think hon. members will agree with me that they say a lot. When one can say, as one can, that Lincoln succeeded in that effort, it is not surprising that this company of his has had a brilliant career. Lincoln is frank in his criticism of manufacturers. He refers to the days that have gone by when he thinks manufacturers were effective in giving full play to their men, enabling them to do their best work. He says this, speaking of the manufacturer in the U.S.:
He has now failed to get the co-operation of the worker and is losing out because of friction. When he gets co-operation, he can and will win again. This is not a theory only. It is the history of all manufacturers who have designed a proper product

and built it with co-operative workers. Wage rates per hour are of little importance in themselves. The important thing is wage cost per piece. This depends on efficiency of operation and on that only.
I quote another statement of Lincoln.
Perhaps he is a little exuberant and perhaps there is a little exaggeration but nevertheless he has succeeded to the point where he is entitled to make this statement:
When a properly designed product is made by co-operative workers, the cost can be reduced by any amount desired by the group involved.
That is a strong statement but nevertheless he gives cases where costs have been brought down not by 20 per cent or 50 per cent, but by larger amounts. He says again:
When the worker is rewarded and stimulated in a way acceptable to him, such co-operation can be gained.
He is quite frank in saying that he thinks workers have not always been treated as they should have been.
I wish now to say a word on the present economic situation by Deutsch, who is now at Queen's University but was formerly with the Department of Finance in Ottawa. He says this:
It is obvious that the recovery which is now taking place will have to be much stronger than any of the cyclical recoveries since the end of the war if full output and employment are to be achieved. If such a strong upswing is not realized the problem of substantial unemployment will persist further into the future.
This next I find very interesting:
Our export trade, always a vital factor in Canadian economic growth, is confronted with the prospect of an entirely different world. The developments now taking place point to the division of the world into large trading blocs, each with a huge internal market surrounded by protective barriers of one sort or another. The irony of it is that these developments indicate the possibility of Canada being cut off from the one special trading area with which she has been historically associated, namely, the British preferential system.
There is another aspect of our trading position which is being affected by new and powerful forces. The underdeveloped countries are entering and will continue to enter into the world market with an increasing volume of exports produced in low wage industries.
I also want to quote from what the president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Mr. Mathers, had to say recently in Halifax:

productivity figures from 1949-58 make sad reading for us in Canada. In Japan productivity growth over most of this period was at the rate of 5.5 per cent per annum. In West Germany the rate was 5.3 per cent, in Italy, 4.5 per cent, in France, 3.7 per cent and in the United States 2.3 per cent. In Canada by comparison it has been 1.8 per cent.
He goes on to point out that a high ranking Canadian economist estimates that a growth rate of between 4 and 5 per cent annually is necessary if we are to remain in the race for a share of the world's markets. Having quoted

Lincoln, 1 wish to quote from Lush and then from Amory. Let me say that these are two practical men. They are not long-haired evangelists. Lush has practised profit sharing for 13 years. He has this to say:
It has been said with much truth that the only way to defeat communism is with a better ideology, and just as soon as management raises its sights and comes through with higher thinking, backed by unselfish leadership, management will find that slowly but surely its role of leadership will be accepted. Loyalty, good will and confidence cannot be bought. These must be won.
I also want to read from Amory. He has been a manufacturer and he is deputy president of the industrial co-partnership association. He says this:
Let the chosen representatives of employers and trade unions get together and make a reappraisal of what is needed by industry for maximum efficiency in the interests of all. If this were done with honesty and good will, many time-honoured techniques of both sides would be discarded as outworn and irrelevant to the needs of today and tomorrow.
I have always believed that in these matters the prime responsibility for the initiative lies with the employers.
I want to stress that again. The prime responsibility lies with the employers.
Let the employers first make a sincere reappraisal of their practices to see if they really measure up to an attitude of partnership and consultation on equal terms.
I continue with another quotation from Amory:
Our system of democracy is on test industrially as in other fields. We are competing with communist countries whose governments do not allow either free choice to interfere with its priorities or controversy and competing loyalties to weaken its single-minded concentration on economic results. In this race the free democracies are in danger of being left increasingly behind. In the face of this competition, we shall only survive if we cut out the waste, the misdirected efforts and, worse still, the inertia that results from our over indulgence in the luxury of scrapping about the subdivision of our present earnings and replace this with a much more dynamic spirit of positive co-operation.
I am sorry to read at length but I felt that it was worth while to put on the record these statements by practical men who have proved the success and feasibility of what they say.
I have made some considerable inquiry, so far as I can, as to the attitude of the ordinary hourly worker. I said the other day to a man who had a good deal of manufacturing experience, "would you say that a considerable number of hourly workers have very little interest in what they are doing?" He said, "you could put it more strongly than that."
I am going to stick out my neck by giving a small experience of my own. Years ago, 26207-1-70J
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell when I was in business, our company occasionally discharged the functions of receiver and manager. We were for four years the receiver and manager of the Dominion Steel and Coal Company in Nova Scotia. We got some good advice when we were going there. We were told that the workmen were mostly from Scotland or had a Scottish background. We were told, "you can lead them anywhere but you cannot drive them an inch". This was good advice, and I like to think we followed it.
We had two great advantages, of course, as receivers. First of all, we were not regarded with suspicion as the owners often are. We were not the owners, we were merely another employee. We were working for the benefit of the company and the workers knew that their pay was the first thing that came out of the earnings we made. We had an advantage there. Second, we had another advantage in that we were bound to give the worker the full story of the operations of the company. I think that is a very important matter. I think a great deal of the dissatisfaction from which workmen suffer results from the fact that they do not believe they know the whole story. Those of us who are at all familiar with these matters know that that is true.
Even the best of manufacturers, even the best people in business, often consider themselves entitled to at least some accelerated construction here or a little extra there so as to keep the accurate story of the earnings from the worker. Now, coming back, I want to add this from my own small experience. We had, I think, a very good relationship with the workers during the four years we were there. They came on one occasion and asked for more wages, and it was my duty to explain the situation to them. One thing they found difficult to understand was depreciation, but they accepted it. They believed what we told them, and at the end of the day they said that it looked as if the money was not there. They did not press their request. No one can ever make me believe that if you are able to get a good relationship with sensible men who believe you are sincere you cannot talk to them as man to man on sensible terms. I want to say that there is no mystery about getting on good terms with men. Various people have done this. Simpson-Sears, Dominion Foundry and Steel in Hamilton and other companies, to mention no more.
I have been tremendously impressed with this Lincoln book. I wish I could prescribe it as reading for everybody. I cannot believe

The Address-Mr. Macdonnell anybody could read that book by James Lincoln without being impressed. Furthermore, when you get the figures, you realize it is little short of a miracle. As you recall, he said if he could get people in the company to want the company to succeed as earnestly as he did there would be no problem that they could not solve together. This man has proven the truth of that statement, just as other people have. Lush said that he was afraid of what would happen in a bad year but when a bad year came the men took it in their stride without complaint. This impressed him and it impressed me very much.
I cannot see any invalidity in this argument of co-partnership and making the men feel they are part of the show. It only wants a little thought to realize that if the men believe they are part of the show they will be absolutely different. Indeed, the argument goes farther. It is that when men have a feeling that any improvement is going to go automatically into the pocket of the shareholder, whom they do not know and of whom they are suspicious, why would they try to work better? He says they will not, and I am afraid that may be true.
I come back now to what Amory and others have said about the responsibility of management. I have been very clear in what I have read to you. Lincoln is even clearer, and I read that to you. What is the answer? Are these men right or wrong? I cannot believe they are wrong. As I read this book through. I was deeply impressed. The figures are there and you can find out what happened with regard to the Lincoln Electric Company. There is nothing phony about it. I can see no catch in it at all.
Now, I have suggested that the remedy proposed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) is the right remedy and that their appeals to the business world should have been taken more seriously. The suggestion is that there should be more partnership. I have read to you what Amory has to say about it. I have read to you what Lush has to say about it. I have told you that I have been in touch with the people in Simpsons, who told me there was no question about the soundness of co-operation. Simpsons is not a small organization, it is a big organization. Dominion Foundry and Steel in Hamilton is not a fly by night operation; it is a big organization and they practise it. It is increasing. It has multiplied about ten times in the United States.
For the life of me, I cannot see why it should not expand. I think I can understand what the difficulty is. I heard of one meeting in which two believers in profit sharing talked

with a group of businessmen, but they did not get anywhere. I believe it was Lush who told me that the reason they did not get anywhere was most of the men there were not owners, they were managers. He said he thought these men would have liked to go along the lines of profit sharing but their owners did not like it. I am afraid that is an attitude which has become widespread among shareholders. They take the attitude, this is ours and we can do what we like with it. I believe that idea is not only bad for the company, I believe it is bad for the country.
Now, I always hesitate to suggest legislation as a remedy, but perhaps there should be a tax benefit to companies who practise some kind of sharing with the men. There is no magic about profit sharing. It can be done through shareholdings as one method. Whether or not there should be a tax advantage to give people some inducement to practise this method, I do not know. I feel as sure as I am standing here that it is one method of getting us out of our difficulties. The men whom I have quoted have no doubt, and they are people who should know. The results are not balanced or uncertain; the results are clear and convincing, even startling.
I wish I had Churchill's voice so that it would carry. I was never so sure in my life that I am right. I wish I could do something to help the minister. He has tried his best, but it is difficult. He has met a lot of rather stiff opposition from the ordinary company management.
Of course, it is not going to be easy. Some of my business friends have pointed this out and I said to them I do not pretend it is going to be easy. I think it is going to be very hard because I believe it means that you men have not only got to take the initiative, you have got to make the people across the table feel you are sincere and pretty nearly have got to admit you have been in the wrong". All these authorities think that management should take the initiative since they ought to be better educated. They have had more opportunity to travel and to learn. Taking the initiative will be difficult and I told them that I know it is difficult. That is a very hard thing for a successful man who has been carrying on a business. It is hard for him to take any action which in effect says he is wrong.
These three men I have quoted made such strong arguments that it convinced me; I think everyone will agree that we in this country, if we are going to compete with this new European competition, have to get our costs down. It will not do at all if we are going to get them down by every other device

except doing better work. Therefore I suggest this new approach by Lincoln to industrial economics. I prescribe a chapter of it every day for manufacturers, and if they are not cured in one reading then I would prescribe "the mixture as before" until they are cured.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask the hon. member a question? His argument is a persuasive one but has he thought of presenting it to the national productivity council and, second, does it not seem possible that his argument may be an indictment of that organization which his own government set up not so long ago?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am so glad you asked that question because I intended to mention the national productivity council. I would hope very much that the national productivity council would follow this line of reasoning and would stress it in their work. Thank you very much for asking that. I would like to think I am not treating the question too lightly. What I say, is, don't neglect this subject. I do not think anyone who takes the trouble to dig into this book can possibly reach any conclusion but that, it is very well worthy of serious consideration and I hope my manufacturing friends will mark, learn and inwardly digest what it contains.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have only a very few minutes before the vote will be taken on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), but I think it would be interesting to compare the amendment-which undoubtedly the hon. gentleman did himself-with one of the points in the summary of the submission to the government of Canada by the national farmers union, which reads as follows:
Short of bringing the three largest meat packing companies under public ownership, the N.F.U. sees only one other measure to counteract their dominant market power, namely by giving farmers countervailing power in the market place. The N.F.U. therefore asks for enabling legislation to establish national marketing boards with mandatory powers and controls over the marketing of commodities produced on farms, including those owned or operated by processors, distributors and manufacturers. It therefore asks the federal government to use its power under section 95 of the British North America Act and enact enabling legislation.
The Address-Mr. Pickersgill of the decisions as I recall them, and I am speaking very much from memory as I haye not looked up these cases for a long time, was that in most commodities the jurisdiction would be in the provincial and not in the federal field. I would doubt very much if the jurisdiction could be founded under section 95 in any case; that section relates to agriculture, not to marketing.
But, sir, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture also presented views to the government of Canada and I have a copy of the views that they presented. In their presentation they indicated very clearly that marketing legislation may be necessary. They say, after referring to certain things that relate especially to Ontario:
Continued study should be given to the difficult question of what further national marketing legislation may be needed to implement national programs of producer marketing as they develop in the
years ahead.
We agree completely with this view. I do not think there is any doubt where the Liberal party has stood about the rights of producers to market their products in their own way, if they wish to do so. We have stood solidly behind the wheat board because it undoubtedly is within the jurisdiction of parliament, and we feel that farmers, whether the jurisdiction is federal or provincial, should have this right if they want it. But we fear that, since we are asked to make a mandatory statement, without examining whether in fact it is suggesting a serious invasion in a field of jurisdiction that was given by the British North America Act to the provinces, and not to this parliament, this would not be a proper motion for us to support at this time without having a careful opinion from the law officers of the crown that this would really be within the jurisdiction of this parliament. For that reason we shall not find it possible to vote for the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to pay the traditional compliments to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne and also to the new Deputy Speaker and the former deputy speaker who 
is now the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Flynn). Any congratulations extended to these hon. gentlemen must today take second place to congratulations to the first United States astronaut, Colonel John H. Glenn.
Individual feats of heroism capture the imagination of the world. In this magnificent feat today there may be contained the seeds of a growing together, an easing of tension, a turning away from the ways of war to a more peaceful way of life. Astronaut Glenn joins two great Russians, astronauts Titov and Gagarin. I venture to say there will be a comradeship between these three men who are the first of the human race to brave space which is beyond the ideological conflict between the east and west.
It could well be that the acclaim which is so freely given to astronaut Glenn from the western world may be also given from the eastern world. Bravery knows no boundaries. Heroism is something all mankind can admire. This tremendous feat today could well mean a turning point in international relations. I say that the congratulations and good wishes of all free men must today be extended to astronaut Glenn.
In the course of my remarks I intend to review the accomplishments of the government but before doing so I shall deal with the subject of the export of power. I have in my hand an article which appeared in the Financial Post bearing the headline "How Power Companies Fared in Export Bids" from which I shall read a few excerpts:
National energy board this week approved eight applications to permit export of power to the United States, but:
In all cases, the licenses granted were considerably more restrictive than those asked for.
And again:
Although the national energy board decisions were released all in one batch, some of them have been hanging fire for months.
And still further:
Ontario-Minnesota Pulp and Paper, which had asked for a 10-year licence, was given only one year, while most of the others were given three to five year licences.
I believe the national energy board is doing a magnificent job in the implementation of our national oil policy but it seems to me it is a little behind the times in the field of power exports.
I wish to quote from an article which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of February 13, 1962, referring to an address made by Mr. H. F. Beique, president of the Canadian Electrical Association and president and general manager of the Quebec Power Company, in reporting to the association. The article states:

In 1951 thermal generation represented only 14 per cent of net generating capability in Canada. In 1961 it reached 19.3 per cent; by 1972 it will represent 31 per cent of our capability, or very close to one third.
The article deals with statements Mr. Beique made with regard to the over-all cost of power as a factor in total manufacturing costs. The article states:
In these days, when competition for international markets is perhaps our most serious problem, the cost of electricity in Canada, for all manufacturing, is but eight tenths of a cent per dollar of product.
In primary manufacturing, it is 1.8 cents, whereas in secondary manufacturing, it is only four tenths of a cent.
These costs are so low that they are insignificant; as a matter of fact, it may be said that even if electricity were free to industry, a small increase in wages or in the cost of materials would annul the gain made.
The point I am attempting to make is that I believe the government must re-examine its policy governing the export of power and bring it up to date. An arrangement should be made under which power may be exported under terms which will allow the recapture of that power, with sufficient safeguards incorporated in the export licences to prevent any part of Canada from which power is being exported suffering from a deficiency of hydroelectric power. If the power is truly surplus there is no reason why five year applications should be reduced to one year, or why a 25 year application for the British Columbia Electric should be cut to five years.
Business of the House If the power is truly surplus for 15 years and there is a reasonable safeguard placed on top of the calculated requirements, I suggest the board should look at this realistically.
May I call it ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I take it that tomorrow and Thursday we will go on with the debate on the speech from the throne. Can some indication be given to us by the house leader as to what we will do on Friday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The throne speech debate will continue tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. It is one of those debates that may be concluded at any time. I do not think I should go beyond announcing that business for tomorrow.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, should we complete the throne speech debate before Thursday, which I doubt, could the house leader give any indication what the business will be then?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is a hypothetical question, Mr. Speaker. They are often asked in the house but never answered.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister raised the hypothesis.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 21, 1962