1962-01-25

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to purchase, out of the exchange fund account maintained under the act, securities of the international monetary fund.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to ask the Minister of National Defence whether, as reported in a press article, the Canada-U.S. joint defence committee has not met since July, 1960?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: I cannot offhand recall the exact dates, Mr. Speaker, but I think it was somewhere in that area.



REPORTED AGREEMENT TO INTEGRATE NUCLEAR TEST AND DISARMAMENT DISCUSSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he has any comment to make on the recent statement of the British prime minister as to the attitude of the United Kingdom in its negotiations with the United States, agreeing with the Soviet union that the nuclear test discussions should be integrated with the general discussions on disarmament?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I would not care to comment on the statement by the British prime minister but, during the recent session of the United Nations, either General Burns or I suggested it might be worth while to have
that particular part of the disarmament subject dealt with in the general committee. In any event, we had no particular objection to it, so that is the course which has now been proposed by the west.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and ask whether it is his intention to introduce any legislation this session based upon the recommendations of Dr. Sinclair with respect to licence limitations?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: No decision has been reached in this regard, but it would seem unlikely. This would depend on the length of the session.


Frank Howard: As a supplementary question, would the minister care to comment upon a Canadian Press dispatch relating to the minister's visit to the west coast last year, in which dispatch the minister is quoted as saying he is opposed to licence limitations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member seems to me to be seeking an expression of opinion rather than information in asking about something said by the minister a year ago. Furthermore, the urgency that is usually required of oral questions seems to be lacking, as there was ample opportunity since then to ask that question.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conceplion):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the alleged unsafe condition of the air terminal at Sydney, Nova Scotia, would the minister please advise the house if there are any immediate plans to improve conditions there?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: The airport at Sydney is in no way unsafe. I have had some representations from the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) relating to various improvements

Inquiries of the Ministry which could be undertaken at the airport, and these representations are being investigated by my department at the present time.
(Translation):



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) a question. Could he give us a progress report on negotiations between the Canadian government and the British government with regard to some announcements he made in this house during the last session concerning some restrictions on inland or coastal traffic, which was to be limited to vessels sailing under the Canadian flag?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce to the house that the United Kingdom government, as was provided in the treaty, has agreed to serve as go-between with the other signatories so as to inform them of the Canadian government's intentions and ask for their approval of this government's decision.
I am happy to report that up to now Australia, Ceylon, Malaya and Sierra Leone gave their agreement to that decision. New Zealand and Ghana have unofficially indicated that they were about to transmit their agreement. We still have to hear from Nigeria, Cyprus and the Irish Republic, but we are expecting an answer very soon.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the minister able to tell us when the new regulations will be enacted?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, as I said during the last session, for the government's intentions to take effect legislation will have to be introduced during the current session. As soon as the last signatory of the treaty will send us his approval, the appropriate bill will be submitted to the house.
(Text):



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO EMPTY ELEVATOR SPACE AT LAKEHEAD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I wish to direct to the spokesman for the Minister of Agriculture a question prompted by concern among the laid-off elevator workers at the lakehead over the fact that there are in lake-head elevators this year 18 million fewer


bushels of wheat than there were last year. Can the minister give an explanation for this situation or can he give any assurance that this empty space will be filled before the shipping season opens?


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: I find it rather difficult to answer this question offhand, Mr. Speaker, but I will make inquiries from the department and have an answer for the hon. member tomorrow.



STATEMENT ON ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL GRID

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) asked me what steps have been taken to promote interest on the part of provincial governments in the development of a proposed national power grid. I stated my recollection was that a letter had been sent to the premiers of the various provinces.
In that letter I pointed out that there are substantial advantages for the nation as a whole that could be achieved in the development and use of electric energy if approached on a regional and national basis and that the establishment of long distance transmission facilities between provinces, and ultimately between the different regions of Canada, would make possible the development of hydro electric sources in remote locations that would otherwise be deferred for many years or not developed at all.
I expressed the belief that interprovincial connections and arrangements would make possible substantial economies in reserves and in capital requirements, and would be of benefit to industry and to consumers generally.
I further pointed out that the government of Canada, owing to the nature of the problem, would be glad to assist in its study and solution. It affects the nation as a whole as well as each of the provinces and the relations between provinces. To that end, in view of these circumstances, I expressed the view that a conference should be convened where the provincial ministers primarily involved, accompanied by their technical officers and power advisers, could discuss with federal ministers the basic problems associated with the development and transmission of electric power within Canada. I expressed the hope that such a meeting, if agreed to, could be

convened at Ottawa at an early date. I have asked the views of the provincial premiers and when their response is received, the house will be advised further.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, January 24, 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, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Pearson.
Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great compliment to a backbencher to be interrupted by experienced members of the house. I had this privilege yesterday, as recorded on page 170 of Hansard, when the house leader of the New Democratic party made one of his negative remarks. I was not surprised because we have never had anything but negative remarks from that corner of the house or from those who sit to their left. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) suggests that we can get rid of all our problems by merely getting rid of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his government. I suggest that is not our problem but rather, as the present government has done, we must do more to get rid of surpluses as we have done with our surplus wheat.
Our Liberal friends are also negative. They appear to agree entirely with such criticism. They offer nothing but negative criticism. The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) said that it is treason to sell wheat to red China.


Mr. Carter:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not say that at all. I said that in time of war it is treason to sell to an enemy.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I believe you have confirmed what I have said. Getting rid of our surplus grain when there is a surplus is something very close to our hearts in western Canada. It is not only important to western farmers but it is important to the whole economy of our country to keep our ships busy, our railroads busy, the dock workers in Vancouver busy and to reduce storage costs. We have been accused of gambling with the Canadian taxpayers' money. I would venture to say that the money we save on storage of this grain alone will make up for any possible loss on delivering the grain to China.
But enough about grain. I think the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and the leader of the left-wing party should concentrate on getting rid of other things than the Prime Minister and the present government. I should
The Address-Mr. Bigg like to see them help us get rid of the idea that Canada owes us a living. We owe Canada a great loyalty, the loyalty of labour. I should like to suggest that the time is now ripe when the federal government should take some steps to establish a labour code for Canada. We do not want to dictate to labour but it seems necessary that by adding to the bill of rights or by means of some other federal statute we give support to the workers of Canada, the man who wants to work. I suggest five points that might be covered in such a labour code.
I think we should guarantee workers the secret ballot. Democracy is a farce without the secret ballot. I think we should regain control of our unions by seeing that the headquarters of all unions are in Canada and that any recognition of international unions is no more than, shall I say, a spiritual one. The real control of unions should be within Canada. Their headquarters should be here and the dues should be paid here. No man in Canada should have to pay dues to a union, whether or not he belongs to it, except as a matter of choice. Having paid those dues, he should have the right to have the books audited, the same as any other organization.
I think we should eliminate the criminal element in our unions in Canada by barring persons from holding office or by saying we will not deal with men who have a criminal record within the past five years covering certain crimes such as violence to the person, sedition and riot. I am not going into the specific details, but the working people of Canada know this is essential. I should like to see the time come when we would step out in front and give the working people this basic freedom to elect their own officers and make sure they have the right kind of officers.
Then, too, I feel before a union has the right to call workers out on strike there should be a secret ballot taken. If they do go on strike then, from time to time during that strike, another ballot should be held to ascertain whether or not the workers are willing to subject their families and themselves to the economic strains of remaining out on strike beyond a reasonable length of time. I think this can be done. The constitutional angles can be worked out, and we should go on record as saying that we will give the working men of Canada the same fundamental rights which we preserve for every other segment of our community.
There are other things which are required, when we look to the future. Transportation across Canada will remain one of our major problems. When a second trans-Canada highway is built-I know it will be built and you know it will be built-I believe we should take a good look at it to make sure it


Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rose-monl):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to associate myself with those previous speakers who have congratulated on their promotion some of our colleagues to your right, and I refer in particular to the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) and the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn).
As for the others, the forgotten ones, those who had ambitions but who had to remain inconspicuous, I sympathize with them, more
The Address-Mr. Deschatelets especially as it seems quite obvious today, on the eve of an election, that they have missed the boat for a one-way trip.
Mr. Speaker, the present government has been charged with lack of leadership. I rather think that will be the characteristic of the Conservative administration, whose term of office is about to expire, and especially its inability to take a stand squarely and firmly and to propose solutions to the problems we are now facing in Canada, when those problems first came up.
In such a context, the speech from the throne did not disappoint us. In fact, it does not indicate at all in what way the government intends to make up the astronomical deficit of nearly a billion dollars which we are going to show. Nor does it mention how the government intends to readjust our economy in terms of the common market. In short, apart from the winter works program which we have often denounced as inadequate, the speech from the throne does not mention anything, not a single long term or short term measure capable of putting to work a substantial proportion of our unemployed.
The speech from the throne does not say a thing about the government's position in the field of nuclear weapons. The silence of the speech from the throne on the matter of nuclear weapons is ample proof that we were justified in the criticism we levelled against this government last year when we said that it had no defence policy.
Furthermore, the speech from the throne does not propose any concrete measure to promote national unity at a time when confederation is subject to a large-scale assault.
Last Monday, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), in a speech which can be considered as extraordinary, and which has been commented on in the press all over the country, expressed not only the deception but the discontent both of the opposition and of a majority of Canadian citizens, because we are in this rather extraordinary position where about 50 Liberal members of the opposition are now able to speak on behalf of the majority of Canadian voters, as is shown by the latest Gallup polls conceding to the Liberal party a much more considerable proportion of the votes than to the Conservative government, which does not represent anything any more, although it is still in power.
Mr. Speaker, issues are not lacking today, but I shall limit my remarks to only two of them. First, unemployment, and then national unity.

The Address-Mr. Deschatelets
I want to raise the question of unemployment because I represent a constituency mostly made up of industrial workers and also because the unpopularity of the government is mostly the result of its inaction concerning that question of national importance. But before coming to that point, I should like to go back a little so that there is no misunderstanding, and quote figures which were given in a speech by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) when, on March 2, 1960, he quoted the official figures supplied by the dominion bureau of statistics for the period 1946-56 concerning unemployment during that 10-year span of Liberal administration. And I do not hesitate to quote these figures since they were then given in the presence of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) who asked one or two questions, but did not dare question those figures.
Well, the hon. member for Laurier established and proved that the annual percentage of unemployed in Canada, in comparison with the labour force, from 1946 to 1956, was never any higher than 2.8 per cent. You will recall that according to experts, you have full employment when unemployment is only 3 per cent of the labour force. Those figures are indisputable. Therefore it is a fact that for the 1946-56 period, in terms of average annual percentage, there was full employment in Canada, and that was under a Liberal administration.
And that was the situation when the Conservative government took over the affairs of this country. Since then, everyone knows that unemployment has reached astronomical proportions which compare easily with the figures for the 1930-35 period. Astonishingly enough, the government has always been helpless and unable to find at least a partial solution to the problem, despite considerable administrative deficits which now amount to $2 billion.


Mr. Ricard:: You are talking about the Lesage government.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: And I would say that none of those deficits included expenditures directly intended to solve the unemployment problem. There is no direct expenditure meant to solve this problem with the exception, of course, of the amounts spent for winter works. And even now seasonal unemployment is mentioned. Referring to the speech from the throne, I find at page 2 of Hansard for January 18, the following sentence:
-notable progress has been made in meeting the problem of seasonal unemployment.
I am very anxious to hear at election time
the Conservative members, especially in


urban constituencies, tell the Canadian workers that we have had seasonal unemployment from 1958 until today.


Mr. Pigeon:: Let Mr. Lesage take-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: At this time, it is the first problem-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Let Mr. Lesage take his responsibilities.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: If my hon. friend has any question to ask, he will have every opportunity of doing so a little later, but I wish to say this. My hon. friend has already taken part in the debate on the speech from the throne and he was wise enough not to mention the unemployment question.
Mr. Speaker, after reading that sentence in the speech from the throne, I say that even now the government is still trying to deceive the country, to minimize a problem which has lost nothing of its seriousness, and I will prove it with figures, one of which was given to me by the Minister of Labour himself. To make my task a little more difficult, I shall use only the statistics for last November 30.
Through sampling, the dominion bureau of statistics established that on November 30 there were 349,000 unemployed in this country. This figure represents about 5J per cent of the labour force. It is already high for that month of the year. I mentioned earlier that I represent a labour riding, that I am familiar with the situation and that I do not admit that the figure of 349,000 tells the true story.
I contacted the Minister of Labour and asked him to give me the number of unemployed receiving unemployment insurance benefits as of November 30. The letter I got from the minister shows that, as of November 30, 385,964 unemployed were receiving unemployment insurance benefits. There was, therefore, 36,900 unemployed receiving unemployment benefits over and above the figure given by the dominion bureau of statistics.
Therefore, I say that if approximately 386,000 unemployed were drawing unemployment insurance benefits in November, those people had met several requirements provided under the law: they had worked, they had lost their job for reasons beyond their control; in short, they were eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.
If there were 386,000 unemployed on November 30, I should like to know how many there were then who were not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits for various reasons. That figure has never been disclosed.

I said earlier that the government, bymeans of a subtle policy, attempted to minimize the importance of this problem, to conceal its actual acuteness.
It will be recalled that for the past year or year and a half, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) has not given us every month the statistics released by the national employment service whereas, under the previous government, we were provided with all available data and their interpretation was left to each individual.
I made enquiries with unemployment insurance experts. Last year, I stated that with the help of experts, I was ready to place that evidence at any time before the industrial relations committee which has not sat for the last four years. Indeed, it is the only committee of the house which has not convened except for the setting up of the committee at the beginning. That committee would have been best suited to deal with Canada's most important domestic problems.
To sum up, on November 30 we had 386,000 unemployed who received benefits, that is genuine unemployed. In addition to that, the number of unemployed who received no benefits, because they had been unable to prove that they were entitled to them, is estimated at 128,666. So as a grand total we had the impressive figure of 514,666 unemployed in Canada last November 30.
Mr. Speaker, if to that already huge total for the month of November you add the wives and children of those unemployed, that is the Canadian citizens who suffer from that evil, you reach a figure that surely indicates the national significance of that problem.
Let no one ever tell you that the Prime Minister and the Conservative government have kept their promises, at least the most important promises that were made to the Canadian people.
As I said a moment ago, I challenge the Prime Minister to go in any urban riding in Canada today and claim that he fulfilled his commitments as far as unemployment is concerned. And he had made the firm commitment that "No one shall suffer", and this statement will constitute a backfiring slogan in the forthcoming election.
Let us examine the defence offered by the government since last year to the charge that they showed nothing but inertia in the solution of the most important domestic problem we face. I followed and I read again
The Address-Mr. Deschatelets with amusement the claims of the Secretary of State (Mr. Noel Dorion), the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pierre Sevigny), who for a year and a half have been campaigning up hill and down dale instead of staying in their office and looking after the affairs and the problems of their departments. They made comments about unemployment which were utterly irresponsible. And I am going to try refuting them.
The Secretary of State and the Associate Minister of National Defence made the following statements:
1.	The present unemployment situation (they said this at practically all the meetings where they spoke) must be blamed on the former government.
2.	It is the result of unforeseen and unforeseeable circumstances.
Let us look into the first reason advanced, i.e. that "the former government must be blamed."
Earlier today, I quoted indisputable figures to the effect that, in the decade from 1946 to 1956 the average annual unemployment did not exceed 2.8 per cent of the total labour force. This is based on irrefutable figures. Moreover, I shall advance this argument, which is also unassailable. When we left office in 1957, we had an amount of $926 million in the unemployment insurance fund. Now, if there had been massive unemployment under our administration, why was such a large amount left in the fund?
As to the second reason alleged, it is slightly more subtle: "The unforeseeable and unforeseen circumstances which the government had to face."
I should like to turn against the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), as a boomerang, a feat that he likes to recall, namely the reading in January 1958 of the report on Canada's economic prospects. This is a fact that should be emphasized today, after the government has been four years in office, because when the Prime Minister read to the house in January 1958 a report on economic prospects, he could at that time attempt to throw confusion just before a general election. All the same when he read that document, he acknowledged publicly that clouds were piling up on the horizon. Today, four years later, his ministers cannot plead ignorance.
I apologize for taking up so much time on this academic discussion, Mr. Speaker, because there is only one thing that matters and it is that the present government was elected on definite promises, and got the support of 208 members of parliament. When it came into

The Address-Mr. Deschatelets office, it received a rich inheritance. There were $926 million in the unemployment insurance fund.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Unemployment was then on the rise.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: We had reduced the debt by more than $2 billion following numerous surpluses. As early as 1958, there was nothing to stop the present government from taking energetic steps, as was its duty, to face existing problems.
I submit that if, way back in 1958, the government had followed the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition-nobody can refute that-and substantially reduced taxes instead of increasing long term expenditures, we would not be in the tight spot in which we find ourselves today.
I cannot blame the government for trying to delay the general elections. How could a Conservative member justify before his electors the inertia of his government after the four years it has been in power?
In the speech he made to move the adoption of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the member for Laval (Mr. Bourdages) stressed the importance of national unity. That is the second point I wish to deal with. That is a very important question especially in present conditions. But if we want to obtain tangible results, the first requirement whenever we speak of national unity is to speak with conviction.
It is essential that a political party preaching national unity at least be a party representative of national unity. Mr. Speaker, in 1958, during the first session, I said that the Conservative party was not representative of national unity, but a party where could be found reactionary and opposing tendencies. Subsequent developments proved that I was right. We all remember that last fall, as he does even now, the hon. member for Rober-val (Mr. Tremblay) denounced confederation; does this not prove that I am right?
If we examine certain speeches made in this house during the Suez crisis in December, 1956, for instance, the speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) and by Conservative members then sitting in the first row, we find that the contentions and ideas of the hon. member for Roberval on national unity are completely opposed to those of the leader of his party.
Therefore, how can a political party, comprising such diverse elements now preach on national unity, especially when one of the Conservative leaders, a few years ago-and I am talking here of the Minister of Veterans


Affairs (Mr. Churchill)-claimed that the support of the province of Quebec was not needed to get a Conservative government elected?
I hope the Prime Minister will remember that most of the Conservative members in Quebec were elected with the full support of the Union Nationale, and I find most extraordinary the efforts of the Secretary of State, for instance, who tries to deny something that is common knowledge and that he, himself, should be the first to admit.
I have also here a letter addressed by the member for Gaspe (Mr. English) to the Hon. Mr. Duplessis after his election, and in which he thanks the premier for the work done by the Quebec liquor board police.
Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed in this House of Commons the consequences of that situation no later than last year-


Mr. Roland English (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Is the member rising on a point of order?


Roland Léo English: Mr. Speaker, I should like the hon. member to read into Hansard the contents of the letter he has just referred to. I have no intention of defending the Hon. Mr. Duplessis, but I have always been one of his good friends and it seems to me that I can be proud to say so in this house. However, I should like to acquaint myself with the letter which the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) has just referred to.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to read this letter for I have it right before me. However, I would not like the time taken for this to be counted in the limited speaking time at my disposal. I will gladly read the letter if I am given a little extra time.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You have already wasted 15 minutes.


Mr. Flynn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rose-mont has just referred to a letter and he knows very well that he is not entitled to do so unless he produces such letter or reads the full contents of it. Otherwise, that would be the equivalent of innuendos-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He is an expert on the matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt an interesting debate but I must inform the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont that his time is up.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You will be more serious next time.


Mr. Caron:: The press is always wrong.


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Deputy Speaker, first of all I should like to tell the house how glad I am to see that our distinguished Speaker (Mr. Michener) is still presiding over the proceedings of this house.
I should like also to take this opportunity to congratulate you very sincerely on your appointment as Deputy Speaker of the house.
May I also extend my most sincere congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, Messrs. Bourdages and Browne (Van-couver-Kingsway), as well as to my great friend the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn), our new Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.
I also extend my heartfelt congratulations to my colleague from St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) on his appointment as parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister should have appointed you also.
(Text):


William Heward Grafftey: I have hardly got under way, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) is interrupting me. We meet today in a very different House of Commons from that in which members met a number of years ago. Why? Because the members who support the present government are active members of parliament who travel to every corner of this country to keep in touch with the people. We meet in a different House of Commons today because the people of Canada are more interested in what is going on here than they have ever been before.
Why are the people of Canada more interested? Simply because as a result of the actions taken by the government the House of Commons in which we meet today has at last been restored to its proper role in the public affairs of this country. In comparison with days gone by, I ask hon. members to look at our attitude as displayed in the speech from the throne with regard to redistribution, closure and all those things that make this House of Commons a more central and active body in our public affairs. That is the reason. It is something that is hard to pinpoint but I ask everybody to stop, think and compare the role that the House of Commons is playing in our national affairs today with that played
The Address-Mr. Grafftey seven or eight years ago. I repeat that the people of Canada are interested in what is going on here because the doors of the cabinet are open. Members of parliament are working and by a sincere approach to parliamentary rights this institution has been restored to its proper place in Canadian public affairs. (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, we must remain as it is, because the Progressive Conservative party, under the leadership of our eminent Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), will always keep in touch with the Canadian people. I repeat, we shall always keep in touch with the Canadian people. In fact, during both periods after the last two sessions, each member toured his constituency. So I repeat that we are the party of the people; the voice of the people will always remain our strength. (Text):
I will not be so presumptuous, Mr. Speaker, as to lecture the opposition today. I could not do so and I would not. I also agree very often with what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) says, that they are not responsible for policy and sometimes I thank God that this is so. It is the government that is responsible for policy. I also realize that the word "bipartisanship" is often very loosely used. Perhaps we bandy it about too loosely. For my own part, nobody likes more than I do a purely political combat both within the House of Commons and outside the house when there is a sincere difference of opinion on the administration of public policy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are too tough for your opponents.


William Heward Grafftey: I am sure the hon. member for Essex East, like myself, has a sincere love for good, honest, clean, political warfare when there is a sincere difference of opinion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say you are
too tough.


William Heward Grafftey: But I want to put one thought before the House of Commons today. What has the party of divide and rule been doing lately? I have always said and I say again that there are two fields with regard to which the major parties in the house should have a basic, united approach. One relates to our prestige abroad; the other relates to national unity at home. As a young man, before I came into the house of Commons I said to my friends and also publicly that I would never use national unity or our prestige abroad as political weapons. But what has the Leader of the Opposition been doing lately? What has he been doing lately in the province of Quebec? He is against joint

The Address-Mr. Grafftey federal-provincial programs in that province, but outside of the province of Quebec he is in favour of them.


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: Quote him.


William Heward Grafftey: I do not have to quote him.
I just have to ask hon. members to look at the speech he made in Amherst, Nova Scotia, and his other speeches outside the province of Quebec. Has he ever made such speeches in the province of Quebec? No, because he is still a captive of the old divide and rule boys.
(Translation):
We advocate the same policy for all Canadians throughout this vast country, Mr. Speaker. I am not "Martin" in the province of Quebec and "Martin" in the province of Ontario: I may say in all sincerity that I am Grafftey in every Canadian province.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This was also the statement of your former chief, Mr. Duplessis.


William Heward Grafftey: I would not say that the party of Cartier and Macdonald is the only party of national unity, but I do say that we have sincerely and actively supported the true spirit of national unity, every single day, every single week and every single year. I reiterate that we advocate the same policy for each part of this country.
(Text):
The other subject is our prestige abroad. I understand that the subject of Suez was brought up in speeches a few days ago. A few years ago there was an honest and sincere difference of opinion on the subject of Suez between the two major parties in the House of Commons, but I should like to put this thought before the house. On major matters involving international affairs the then secretary of state for external affairs at all times received nothing but bipartisan support from all members of the present government and Conservatives generally from one end of the country to the other. We united, put country before party at all times, and never washed our dirty linen outside of the Canadian family circle.
One who has read Canadian history with any degree of care must admit that after confederation in 1867 we really did not have too many basic and fundamental problems abroad. I think that is perhaps quite true of many young countries not long joined together by confederation or which have recently achieved nationhood. To put it briefly, we did not have too many axes to grind abroad. Today, however, there is a different picture. Canada is playing a greater and greater role in world affairs. For example,
[Mr. Grafftey.}
there are the problems with respect to the common market. We also are aware of the position the opposition has taken when we have had these problems abroad.
I say to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and to all members of his party, that as Canada is becoming a more adult nation in the family of nations on the world scene, it will not be helpful to our prestige abroad if every time we are faced with a problem, before a practical solution is even suggested- oh, I admit again we are responsible for the solution of these problems-they say, "Oh, we are losing prestige abroad. Is it not a terrible thing?" I suggest that by sowing these seeds abroad the Liberal party, under their present leader, are doing that which we never did during the war and post-war years.
In Brome-Missisquoi, from where I come, the two historical ethnic groups that formed Canada in confederation live side by side in greatest harmony. I am going to be very frank with all hon. members. We all know, we can talk about it openly right here today, that the question of separatism is being discussed quite widely within the province of Quebec. It is being discussed here, it is being discussed there. It is being discussed on television, on public platforms, just as it has in years gone by. The very minute the subject was brought up, what happened? We heard the same old story. The divide and rule boys rushed into the province of Quebec and said, "Oh, national unity was never at a lower ebb." Again, they are putting party before country. I sincerely hoped, Mr. Speaker, that this was the sort of subject I would never have to touch upon when, as a young man, I was elected as a member of parliament to this House of Commons. However, such action on my part has been made necessary by the course that the Leader of the Opposition has taken in directing the activities of his party.
We have heard the expression "national unity" bandied about by many members of the opposition. The party of Macdonald and Cartier, the party now directed by the Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker has, in this modern day and age, done more for national unity in the last four or five years than any party before it. I say definitely that the provinces- I do not like to use the expression because it sounds almost as if one were doing the provinces a favour-have never received better treatment. However, I will say this, that the attitudes of this government have caused better dominion-provincial relations than ever before. I think it would be right to say that if one chose to look at a few statistics in the Department of Finance he would see that the provinces have received better treatment from this government than from any government before. Realizing that the municipalities have

great problems by our winter works program and by our legislation in relation to housing we have done more than any preceding government to put the municipalities of this nation on a sound basis.
With this in view, sir, 1 should like to suggest for the consideration of the government the establishment of an agency of government which might be known as an agency of provincial-municipal affairs. It has been suggested that we might have a permanent secretariat for the continuing dominion-provincial conferences. Also, it might be wise to have the same central agency for so many of the joint dominion-provincial programs which need so much assistance and co-operation. We see also many taxation and housing problems facing the municipalities. We see from the federal government the municipal winter works incentive program. It is with this in mind that I have suggested at the present time the advisability of establishing an agency of provincial-municipal affairs. I noticed that in the United States the president has tried to pilot through congress approval of the nomination of a secretary of urban affairs. It is not just because of that, however, that I make this proposal for the government's attention. I do suggest that, in the Canadian scene, what I have said merits some consideration.
Many people have said, Mr. Speaker, that the next election will be fought on the basis of free enterprise versus public ownership or pure socialism. Reference was made to this by our leader, and by the leaders of other parties as well as many others outside parliament. Well, this is certainly going to be one of the major issues in the next election campaign. On this subject I do not even pretend to speak for my party or my government, but for a few brief moments I should like to touch on this very important topic. Today, sir, the choice is not one between free enterprise and state ownership; it is a question of degree. How much state ownership should there be and how much free enterprise?
Before getting into my very brief discussion of this point which divides the major parties of this house, I should like to make a few general remarks. I think we will all admit that before the turn of the century, and before the rise of trade unions, old time free enterprise displayed many irresponsible attributes. In the old world, and I think a lot of us are very sorry when we think of this, there was much bitter cleavage between the owners and the workers, the haves and the have nots. It is my firm impression that, for good or for bad, it was in this bitter atmosphere that old world socialism was born. I firmly believe today that the New Democratic party and the
The Address-Mr. Grafftey Liberals are attempting to apply old world doctrines of the past to new world realities. They are adhering to outmoded conventions in the new world where there is no class bitterness, even though I would be the first to admit we have much progress to make in pushing back the frontiers of want.
Then, I am sure the members of the opposition are going to ask me what the members of our party stand for? For many years we have said that where, in the national interest, an economic activity is desirable and private enterprise cannot or will not initiate it, then the government can and should provide the necessary stimulus for the initiation of that activity. This is one of the principles to which we have always adhered. But we believe that in many cases individual Canadians know what is best for them. You cannot legislate to change the hearts of men. Unlike the Liberals or the New Democratic party, we do not possess the arrogance to believe we can always tell the individual what is best for him or her.
These are the basic differences of degree which I think should be made clear, because that is what is in the hearts of those of us who believe in this development of the free enterprise system. We believe where there is government there must be planning. Those who oppose us in the House of Commons appear to think we are for a hodge-podge of non-planning.
That which divides us from hon. members opposite is simply this: we do not believe you should have planning and government in as many places as they would like to have them. We plan and we govern where necessary. I believe that the Liberals and the New Democratic party would like to plan and govern for the sake of planning and governing.
We believe that government is of the people. Their attitude to the whole business of socialism versus free enterprise, in degree, is based on the fact that they have become detached from the realities of 20th century life. I think they have become detached from the people, in fact.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend permit a question?


William Heward Grafftey: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does my hon. friend agree with the view of the late Arthur Meighen, that the Conservative party in recent days has abandoned its traditional position and has become quite socialistic?


William Heward Grafftey: I could not accept that quote verbatim, but I would say this: I will agree quite sincerely, yes. I will agree that in so far as the Conservative party is not the
184	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Grafftey captive of doctrine, the way you are, we can abandon fields of activity. We are not the captive slaves of doctrine.


Mr. Bourgel:: It is a question of degree.


William Heward Grafftey: It is a question of degree. I am quite sure that we as Conservatives often use the expression. "Maybe our grandfathers would roll over in their graves if they could see what we are doing now."


An hon. Member:: They sure would.


William Heward Grafftey: But we are still not abandoning our principles. The trouble with the Liberals and the New Democratic party is that their change in degree is very different. You are captives of your doctrines.
Those things which move the present administration are based on our high degree of respect for the individual and individual rights. I put the following proposition before each and every hon. member. The spark from heaven-who picks it up? The crowd, never: the individual, always.
Conservative action and principles do not concern themselves with idealistic doctrine. We are not the captives of a doctrine. We concern ourselves with the individual, the rights of the individual and those things which make a free individual in a free enterprise economy. These are differences in degree which are very important.
We also recognize that free enterprise, when it is free, as opposed to public ownership, is often regulated by government. Let us admit that the government sets the rules of the game. We also understand that by proper planning even a Conservative administration has a large, proper and important role to play in the public sector of the economy.
We recognize that the provinces have a great need for schools; the municipalities have a great need for houses; the provinces have a great need for roads. We recognize that in this day and age-some people think, for good or bad: I think, for good-government has a large and important role to play in planning the public sector of the economy. We admit that the government, by its taxation policies, may affect the whole economy. By its policies, regulations and action it can encourage free, individual, private enterprise. I also say that the government has its responsibilities in economic growth, in what we always talk about as a steady growth of the annual gross national product.
With other levels of government, municipal governments and provincial governments, let us all admit that the federal government obviously has responsibilities in this public sector of the economy. But we say we differ from the Liberals. In order to put their

program before the people, Mr. Pearson and Mr. Lamontagne, and all those who have been speaking lately, would use such a high degree of state regulation and control that we would be living under worse than wartime conditions. We do not believe, although we are living in very tense days, this is at all the right thing to do in a democratic country. That is all there is to it.
I repeat myself and I say this. In Canada we have a civil service that is second to none and I am very proud of it, as is every other Canadian. We have a great civil service. But this is not thanks to the present Liberal opposition. When we talk about the old bureaucrats coming in and wanting to take over, we just mean that a number of years ago, in the post-war years, by political interference with the top ranks of the administration, no party in the history of this country did more than the Liberal party to change the proper balance of power within this country. We saw the unholy spectacle of senior politicians jumping into senior posts of the administration and within a very short time, as if nothing was wrong with it, they jumped right back again into the political arena. Nothing damaged the spirit of the parliamentary rights of a proper democracy in this country more than that performance.
What do we see now? I see this even in my own constituency. I see this type of bureaucrat, who was not a credit to the public affairs of this country, coming out into the partisan, political field. These are the type of men who are controlling the Liberal party today. These are the type of men who think, "Oh, the heck with the people; we will govern anyway". You remember, "Who is going to stop us?" They say, "We will tell the people what is good for them". They do not ask the people what they think they should have. They say, "They do not know what is good for them. We are going to tell them what they should have anyway". They are far removed from the people.
That is the Liberal attitude. That is the attitude today on the top rungs of the Liberal party, a party that has forgotten its lesson, a party that is still so removed from the people that it accepts the points of view of former senior bureaucrats now in the active political arena who would like to impose this whole type of regulatory state control on the Canadian people and this House of Commons. That is the sort of closure attitude that we saw in earlier days. That was the whole attitude of years gone by. But the Canadian people will not be fooled by it again.
This party has often said it was a mistake to attempt to transfer Liberal doctrine from

the old world to the new. There is one thing they have transferred. The old world Liberalism was born in Malthusian and Ricardian gloom. They have certainly transferred this gloom to the new world. They are so gloomy that they do not think the people know what is best for them. They are so gloomy that they do not think this is a united country. They are so gloomy that they do not think we have any prestige abroad. But the people know better.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the youthful and buoyant member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) will excuse me, I trust, if I do not try to follow him in his meanderings, in his twisted arguments, and more particularly in the inconsistent views he just now expressed in his speech.
According to parliamentary usage, Mr. Speaker, I would like to tender my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. members for Laval (Mr. Bourdages) and for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne), for their excellent contribution to this debate.
I also want to take this opportunity and congratulate the new Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Flynn). We have known him at work as deputy speaker. We did not always like his decisions, but we nevertheless wish him every success in his new and important responsibilities.
As for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, all I have to do is to extend to you the same good wishes I expressed when you were appointed Deputy Speaker of this house and to repeat what I said then: I trust that you will put into practice and apply the rules of the house in the same spirit of justice and kindness shown by the Speaker himself.
During the last session, I made an offer to the government with respect to the co-operation that the opposition was willing to extend concerning the business of the house.
I wish to renew this offer I made last April. I think every member will agree that sessions are too long and especially that sittings are also much too lengthy at the end of a session. It would definitely be possible to shorten them if we could agree on more orderly debates.
The Address-Mr. Chevrier
Even if an election may possibly be held this year, why not come to an agreement on the length of debates? For instance, the leader of the house could perhaps inform us of the business of the house, one week in advance, as he did on some occasions last year. In my opinion, it will be appropriate to agree on the length of debates concerning legislation, appropriations for the various departments and other measures introduced by the government. This could be subject to certain reserves I proposed during a debate we had last April. Thus, Mr. Speaker, we would avoid the rush and cramming which marks the end of every session. I hope the government will take into consideration this suggestion which is made solely for the purpose of being useful to the house.
Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne does contain a few measures we will support, but its main characteristic is that it makes no mention of our current fundamental problems such as chronic unemployment, exports, defence and economic development.
For the past 12 months and even before that the Conservative government has lost its popularity with the public. Gallup polls and the by-elections which are held now and then are a proof of that.
(Text):


Mr. Churchill:: Three by-elections in May that prove the other thing.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: And that is why the Prime Minister ordered his ministers to drop everything and go after voters. It is indeed the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) who said so in a statement to the press. And the Prime Minister is travelling across the country with his ministers to take the people by storm for fear that the popularity of his government will decline in the public opinion.
Besides, an inquiry we have made clearly shows that, during a 73-day period after the prorogation of the last session, the Prime Minister spent less than half the time in his office.
The same goes for the other ministers who, instead of dealing with the affairs of state or the affairs of their departments, spend their time playing politics and contradicting themselves on important issues. The more they travel and the more they speak, the less the population thinks of them. They have lost the confidence of the Canadian people, and I dare say, with proof on hand, that we now have the most incompetent government that Canada has ever known since confederation. If proof be needed, here it is.
186	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Chevrier
What should we think of a government which, in its haste to say that it has reached an agreement with the United States government on the greatest international hydroelectric power development project ever, signs a treaty even before having entered into an agreement with the province which owned the potential electric power, that is to say, British Columbia. This government made itself ridiculous in the eyes of the people by putting the cart before the horse.
Now, what about the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) who picked a quarrel with the Secretary of the Interior of the United States, Mr. Udall, because the latter was impatient with the delays of the Canadian government in carrying out its obligations under the treaty? What a fine example the Minister of Justice has given us of the international co-operation which must exist between our two countries. Is it any wonder that we, on this side of the house, should say that we are losing prestige in the United States?
What about the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and his leader, the Prime Minister who dismissed the ex-governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Coyne, without even giving him an opportunity to appear before a committee of his peers of the House of Commons, and this contrary to every right mentioned in the bill of rights sponsored by the Prime Minister himself? What harm has not this domestic quarrel done to Canada's prestige abroad. And the Minister of Finance, not satisfied with having contributed to the firing of the former governor of the Bank of Canada, went to Montreal, barely a week ago, and attacked him violently.
Mr. Speaker, I prefer Mr. Coyne's word to that of the finance minister, and many citizens have the same opinion. I have only one thing to say to the minister: he debased himself, in that quarrel, and the result of the by-election in the provincial riding of Eglinton has proved it eloquently.
How touching it was, yesterday, to hear the Minister of Finance tell us about the great friendship that exists between himself and the British ministers, and about the warm and friendly relations he had with them, in connection with the entry of Great Britain into the common market.
Mr. Speaker, I give the same importance to that statement as to the praise the Minister of Finance had for the Prime Minister after the latter had tried to remove him from office.
What should we think of the contradictions in the field of defence? While at the UN the Secretary of State for External Affairs


(Mr. Green) moves resolutions on disarmament and the abolition of nuclear tests, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) spends the enormous sum af approximately $600 million to buy entirely useless armaments, unless they are equipped with nuclear warheads.
And what about the attitude taken by the Prime Minister himself in connection with the customs tariff bill last year, when he violently attacked the Senate, simply because its members refused to give discretionary powers to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan)? How can he reconcile such attitude with the clause of the Canadian Bill of Rights which provides for appeal against decisions rendered by a lower court?
After having threatened the Senate with calling an election on the matter, the Prime Minister had to swallow his threat, because he was afraid to face the Canadian voters.
How can we trust a government whose members do not even trust themselves, or each other?
After having liquidated Mr. Coyne, the Minister of Finance was almost liquidated himself by the Prime Minister. He himself just missed being the victim of the Prime Minister's wrath.
The Minister of Justice has also been placed on the black list and, according to press reports, it is the Secretary of State who was supposed to replace him.
The Prime Minister may go on denying those squabbles and quarrels to his heart's content, but he certainly will not deny that the information published in the press on this matter was based on ministerial indiscretions.
Do you know what came to mind when we read the information and rumours which circulated for a week all over the country? They reminded us of what happened very recently in Moscow, where there also the supreme authority of the government was being questioned, and where internal quarrels within the party were making the headlines.
How can we have confidence in a government, when several of its ministers contradict one another publicly on a matter which has become vital for this country? I refer of course to our trade policy.
The Minister of Finance says that Canada should not belong to any trade group from which the United States would be excluded. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) for his part, says that any trade alliance including the United States would be dangerous for Canada. Finally, the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny)

proposes that both Americas form a vast common market. As for the speech from the throne, there is not a word about that in it. It simply states that Canada must keep away from any trade alliance and organize its trade on a multilateral basis.
Can you imagine greater confusion? How can we trust a government which behaves like that?
How can we trust a party in power when, on a matter gaining more and more momentum in Quebec, the question of separatism, the Conservative members of the same province take diametrically opposite stands? The ministers from Quebec have all made statements and denounced the idea of separatism; but the hon. member for Koberval (Mr. Tremblay) supported it time and again. Rumour even has it now that he is about to become one of the leaders of that movement in Quebec and that he would be followed by several Conservative members.
Who in this house represents the real stand of the Conservative party?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi will follow them.


Lionel Chevrier: Now, concerning the speech from the throne, I must say that it contains a sentence which, to say the least, is mysterious and becomes practically incomprehensible when compared to the stand taken by the Prime Minister in his speech before a group of Ontario Conservative women. I should like first to quote that enigmatic sentence of the speech from the throne:
My government plans to recommend to you a number of measures that will constitute further steps in working on the purposes of the confederation and identifying more clearly the Canadian nationality in various aspects of public and business affairs.
We heard rumours before the opening of the session to the effect that the government was ready to declare "O Canada" our national anthem and to introduce bilingual cheques. But following the speech made by the Prime Minister in this house, after the Leader of the Opposition, we now know that such is not the Prime Minister's intention.
On those two matters as well as on many others, the Conservative party is quite divided. But there might be one measure that could greatly contribute to identify-and here I use the very words of the speech from the throne:
-more clearly the Canadian nationality.
This would be to give our country a distinctive flag. But there again, after the talk given by the Prime Minister to a Conservative
The Address-Mr. Chevrier women's club in Ontario, it would seem that we have nothing to expect from this government.
The Prime Minister seems more interested in aggravating the division within the Canadian nation and in setting the rest of Canada against Quebec than in promoting national unity by trying to find a solution to the present crisis.
About this famous speech of last Saturday, here is what the parliamentary correspondent for he Devoir, whose sympathy for the present government surely is not found wanting, had to say. The article, published in the 23rd January, 1962 issue of he Devoir, is entitled:
What is Mr. Diefenbaker driving at?
Even the old guard of the Conservative party is baffled by the Prime Minister's intervention and the Quebec wing of the party admits that its leader has placed himself in an unpleasant situation from which he will have to pull himself promptly by expressing his views more clearly.
Then the article states:
In any case, it is being said everywhere that Mr. Diefenbaker's denunciation of Mr. Pearson, in the wording reported to have been used and which has not as yet been denied, is in very bad taste. Nobody is pleased with it because a certain unfriendliness that political leaders have always tried to temper might be revived between the two ethnic groups.
Those are not my words but those of Mr. Clement Brown who, as everyone knows, has much sympathy for this government.
I fully share the views expressed in this quotation and I think that the Prime Minister owes explanations first to this house and also to the whole Canadian nation, in regard to his intentions and his stand on this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lionel Chevrier: What has the young member for Brome-Missisquoi, to say about this statement, he who always uses the expression "divide and rule"? What has he to say about the report published in he Devoir and in which the leader of the nation is asked, under the circumstances to at least give some explanations? And I repeat, the Prime Minister owes the Canadian people, as well as this house, an explanation in this respect.
(Text):
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
(Translation):
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, when we
adjourned this morning, I was dealing with a subject in which, I am sure, we are all
188	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Chewier interested. Along the same lines of thought, I should now like to refer to a speech made in Sherbrooke by the Minister of Justice.
In it, he accused the Liberal party of accentuating the differences between the English Canadians and the French Canadians. He took the Liberal party to task, and especially the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), who, according to him, on the subject of federal-provincial relations, preached one doctrine in the province of Quebec and another one in the rest of Canada.
Here is part of an article from he Soleil of November 6, 1961, which quotes the minister as follows:
As long as people like Mr. Pearson would offer us double-dealing programs and as long as politicians like the Liberals would promise to increase federal aid when they find themselves outside Quebec and pledge that they will do away with it when they are here, we could expect serious conflicts between the two groups.
I challenge the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton)-I understand he intends to make a contribution to this debate-to prove that on the subject of federal-provincial relations or any other political problem, the Leader of the Opposition expressed in the province of Quebec views which were different from what he said elsewhere.
I think that the Minister of Justice is cheeky and arrogant when he says such things, especially after the speech delivered by the Prime Minister himself before a group of Conservative women at the Chateau Laurier.
1 think the minister was impudent in making such remarks. One wonders if the Conservatives are getting ready to ignore the province of Quebec during the next election campaign and to follow the doctrine set forth by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill), emphasized by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton), in 1957 and 1958, namely that their party can form a government without the province of Quebec.
A party which acts that way, Mr. Speaker-


Léon Balcer: You said that in 1958 and you know what were the results.


Lionel Chevrier: -undermines the very basis of confederation.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is what you have always done.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Dishonest, dishonest.


Lionel Chevrier: That is moving backwards-


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member has just said that the member who has the floor


is dishonest. Twice did he state: "You are dishonest." I ask that he withdraw his remarks.


An hon. Member:: It is true.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would repeat the point of order. I did not hear the words complained of and do not know that they were recorded.
(Translation):


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has said twice that the hon. member for Laurier was dishonest and I ask him to withdraw his statement.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that those words came from the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, they do not disturb me at all.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: A point of order having been raised, I think it should not be passed over too lightly. Perhaps the hon. member for Joliette-l'Assomption-Montcalm would indicate whether or not there is any substance in the accusation that is made.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) has implied that the Conservative party wanted to divide the country, which is utterly false. That is a dishonest statement from the hon. member for Laurier. (Text):


Mr. Speaker:: That was not quite the point that was made. The point was that the hon. member had accused the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) who had the floor of being dishonest. If such a statement was made, I am sure that the hon. member would not wish it to remain on the record. (Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I shall comply with your decision and abide by standing orders.


Lionel Chevrier: I said that if the Conservative party does that, it will undermine the very basis of confederation while giving a poor example of national unity. It is just going backwards, and if it goes on in this way, I have only one thing to say, that one day it will reap what it has sown.
There is another matter mentioned in the speech from the throne, that is the establishment of a national power grid. It has been said that Ottawa will soon start negotiations with the provinces with a view to creating that power system. I wonder if that is another visionary project. But if I understand it well,

it would mean taking power from those provinces who have a great abundance of it and giving it to those who have not.
The principle of the project has perhaps some value, but the province of Quebec, which is one of the richest if not the richest, in hydroelectric power will, I am sure, think twice before accepting such an arrangement.
However, I would like to draw the Prime Minister's attention to the statement made yesterday by a government expert with regard to hydroelectric power. I am thinking of Mr. H. L. Briggs, one of the ablest men in Canada, who is member of the national energy board in Ottawa. I would like to read this statement into the official record. In a speech he made before the Engineering Institute of Canada, Mr. Briggs said this:
(Text):
That no advantage Is clearly apparent to justify the construction of a trans-Canada grid system.
(Translation):
And a little farther on.
(Text):
A transmission grid system interconnecting major power resources across northern Canada, built with tapoff connections taken southward at intervals for the purpose of supplying large power consuming areas, is for economic reasons of no interest.
(Translation):
And again:
(Text):
The major objection to a national grid is that it would necessitate interruption of transmission, taking power out here and putting it in there. The only economical way to transmit power over long distances-500 miles and more-is by direct current transmission. The conversion from alternating current to direct current and back again, which would be a necessary element in a national grid, is a very expensive operation. Over long distances only continuous high value-firm power-loads are able to make a line pay off.
(Translation):
Here is the conclusion:
(Text):
So that instead of a national grid we should be directing all our efforts, especially research, towards the tapping of isolated large potential sources of hydro power in Canada.
(Translation):
Such is the opinion of the Canadian government expert, Mr. Briggs, recently appointed by the Prime Minister himself. Besides, if I understand the situation, this project is, to say the least, premature. According to the information I have at this time, this item is on the agenda of the next interprovincial conference, so that if the provinces come to an agreement, there will be no need for a federal-provincial conference.
I will now deal with another aspect of the speech from the throne.
The Address-Mr. Chevrier
No new measure is found in the speech from the throne to promote economic development and to fight the chronic unemployment problem which affects the country.
Since the Conservatives have been in power, the economic situation has deteriorated, which is why unemployment has taken alarming proportions. Our economic growth has not been strong enough to provide enough jobs to absorb the increase in the labour force.
In 1961, the rate of increase of our national product was only about 2 per cent, which is lower than the increase in population; whereas at the time we were in power, the increase, over a period of 11J years, was approximately 4J per cent. Moreover, in 1961, unemployment reached the rate of 7.2 per cent, a record that has been surpassed only under the Bennett administration.
What has happened since 1957? Our economic development has slowed down. It has become less than the population increase. Our per capita production, in real value, has diminished, so that if that development had continued at the same rate under the Conservative administration as under the Liberal administration, that is 4.5 per cent, we would have produced $11 billion more that we do now.
That is why there is so much unemployment. According to the latest statistics released by the Department of Labour, the number of unemployed stood at 413,000 in mid-December and that despite the measures of which the government boasts in the speech from the throne.
The speech refers to far reaching steps which have improved the economic situation. I say to the members of the government that, in spite of those far reaching steps, it remains true that unemployment, in mid-December, was more than double what it was when we were turned out of office in 1957.
In spite of those long range measures, the unemployment insurance fund has dwindled to less than $100 million, whereas it was close almost to $1 billion at the time we left office.
Besides, those far reaching steps mentioned in the speech from the throne make no reference at all to the structural, chronic and cyclical features of unemployment, nor to unemployment caused by automation. No steps are contemplated to check that particular aspect of unemployment.
In the 12 months from June 1960 to June 1961, 48,000 Canadians, 30,000 of whom were Canadian born, left this country for the United States. Does the government propose to solve unemployment by means of emigration?
190	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Chevrier
Those far reaching measures, referred to by the government, provide nothing, or practically nothing, for the depressed areas. So far, the government policy has been practically valueless in respect of those depressed areas.
When we suggested to the house a ten point program-as mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members-we were held up to ridicule.
The speech from the throne simply says that, with regard to trade, the government continues to advocate multilateral exchanges. In the matter of international trade, we are now going through a troubled period, and all the government does is to blame the ministers of the British government.
The harsh, difficult and complicated competition between the United States, Canada and Great Britain with respect to the new arrangements of the common market hardly seems to have worried this government until just a few months ago.
Instead of embarking on a dangerous protectionist policy, instead of complaining, as did the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance at Accra, instead of its ministers protesting and contradicting one another, the government should reconsider our trade policy in a more liberal light. It is only proper to consider the possible extension of European achievements to the Atlantic region, so that existing groups may be transformed into a wider partnership.
Just consider the course taken by the President of the United States. He suggested to congress a dynamic and interesting plan which consists in lowering their tariffs by at least 50 per cent, provided the common market countries do likewise. Those countries have not, as we have, close trade relations with Great Britain. Has any thought been given so far to the difficult position the free world will be in with respect to the countries forming the common market?
What is Canada doing now, to ensure the expansion of our trade with Europe? Nothing.
As to our policy, it is quite clear. The Leader of the Opposition has explained it in Vancouver, in 1958, and in this house. It consists of the setting up of an Atlantic economic community, of which Canada, the United States, Great Britain and other western European countries would be members.
This policy has been advocated in Canada by an ever-growing number of leading businessmen. It has been discussed at the conference of the manufacturers association, held in Halifax. It has been suggested by many Canadian businessmen, but the government does not seem to pay any attention to recommendations made to it.


Mr. Eric Kierans, president of the Montreal stock exchange and of the Canadian stock exchange strongly supported this last September 13 when he stated:
I do not think it is possible to find a satisfactory answer to our lowered production and to unemployment without putting an end to our present conservatism . .. We must keep up with developments, get out of the rut of tradition, and be dynamic and imaginative in the face of new conditions... It is urgent-
He adds:
-that Canada go ahead and join the common market.
(Text):


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


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I had thought that perhaps as I began my remarks this afternoon I would remind the house that today is the day when we celebrate the glorious traditions of that great Scottish poet, Robbie Burns, and that I might take the liberty of introducing one or two quotations from his works into the record at this point. However, sir, as I listened to the speech which has just been delivered by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) and cast my mind back over other speeches we have heard from the other side of the house, particularly from the official opposition, it occurred to me that perhaps these quotations might come more aptly after a brief review of what they have said; because never in my view, sir, has there been a clearer illustration of the depth of perception and ability to analyse character than is afforded by some of the pungent remarks of the great poet as applied to the kind of speech we have just heard. And in that connection, I was going to say that we have just listened to an unfortunate speech from the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), but I will not use that word because I recognize that at a time like this, with the winds of election in the air, there are certain tendencies which manifest themselves on the part of those who have previously been in office. They tend to be carried away by their own enthusiasm, perhaps by their own desperation and I put down to that tendency the kind of remark that was made by the hon. gentleman.
But there are some things he said cannot be overlooked. The first one of those with which I should deal was that part of his speech in which the hon. gentleman challenged me to give an example of an occasion where the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) had said one thing in Quebec and another thing in other parts of Canada. Well, I do so gladly. The part of my speech in Sherbrooke to which the hon. member referred was the portion in which I was dealing particularly

with a remark made by the Leader of the Opposition. I have not got the exact text before me, but this remark has been widely quoted. It is to the effect that if a Liberal government were in office it would regard it as one of its responsibilities to bring about an end to the co-operative cost sharing programs between the dominion and the provinces. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said in the province of Quebec. I challenge him to say where he has ever said anything even remotely resembling that in any other part of Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; the minister has quoted me and I would ask him to give the source of the quotation or the speech I made in Quebec about which he is talking. I ask him to do that, because he has made this statement.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I said I did not have the text before me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But I pointed out to the hon. gentleman that he has been widely quoted to this effect and has never before issued a denial. We recall speeches he has made on some occasions when it has been suggested that the press reports were not entirely accurate. I take it that is what he is saying now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I speak to the point of order? Will the minister, not having any source on which to base the remark except some unnamed press report which he cannot identify and the date of which he cannot specify, at least say that his reference is to the speech I made in Quebec city about two months ago?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, that is it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We can clear this up. The speech I made in Quebec city and that part of it which dealt with the subject about which the minister is talking, was also made the week before in Winnipeg.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think we will have to send for the record.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You had better.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then, we can set this matter straight. I hope to have it before the conclusion of my remarks.
The next thing to which the hon. member for Laurier referred and which I want to correct, was that portion of his remarks dealing with the Columbia river treaty. The hon. gentleman said in that respect that we had concluded a treaty with the United States without even arriving at any understanding with British Columbia. Everyone knows, Mr. 26207-1-131
The Address-Mr. Fulton Speaker, that this is not correct. Everyone knows that we had the most complete understanding with British Columbia. Everyone knows that we had the agreement and the consent of the British Columbia government to sign the treaty in Washington on January 17 last year. All these facts have been put on the record. The correspondence establishing these facts has been quoted in the house. Everyone knows, except apparently the hon. member for Laurier, that what has happened has been that British Columbia has changed its position. It is, therefore, completely inaccurate and reveals a prodigious lack of knowledge of the circumstances, to say what he did say, that we signed a treaty without having any understanding with British Columbia.
Now, sir, I must presume that possibly the hon. gentleman knew as little about the St. Lawrence seaway as he apparently knows about the Columbia river. This then would, of course, explain why my colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) had such a mess to inherit, a mess that is still being cleared up, in terms of contract claims miscalculated and similar matters. Indeed, perhaps, it explains also why there was such a mess with respect to tolls on the Jacques Cartier bridge.
This, in turn, Mr. Speaker, brings me to the remarks of the hon. member for Laurier in which he referred to changes in this government under the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). Of course, the hon. gentleman must himself have poignant recollections with regard to cabinets and those who leave them as well as those who enter them, poignant recollections of the days when he came back, hat in hand, to see if he could gain readmission to a cabinet which, on an earlier occasion, he had left. However, perhaps we can overlook those things and, as I say, put them down to over-enthusiasm generated by the atmosphere in which the hon. gentleman is now living.
There was one portion of his remarks which I do not think can be overlooked and that was his direct attack on the Prime Minister with respect to Canadian unity. It was a grossly wrong thing for the hon. gentleman to do, to suggest that the Prime Minister would do anything to disrupt Canadian unity. This kind of attack is the measure of the desperation of my hon. friends opposite, for it is well known that no man in the-


Lionel Chevrier: Made in the House of Commons, not outside.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -no man in the history of Canada has devoted himself-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What attack?

The Address-Mr. Fulton


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the minister has the floor.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -no man has devoted himself or his whole life to the cause of unity in Canada to a greater extent than has the present Prime Minister. If my hon. friends need reminding of that fact I would point out that in 1958, in recognition of the services of this Prime Minister to the cause of Canadian unity, the Canadian people from coast to coast caused to be sent to this House of Commons in support of that Prime Minister, the largest group of members from any party in the history of this country, including the largest group of members from the province of Quebec. Certainly, it was the largest group from Quebec ever supporting this party, if not the largest group in the history of Canada supporting any party. Not all the skilful efforts of which the hon. member is capable will serve the purpose which he has in mind, that of creating a schism between the Conservative party and the province of Quebec.


Lionel Chevrier: It is there now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In general, as I listened to what I shall call the self-starting wrath, the sharp words and the shrill tones of the hon. member for Laurier, my mind was cast back to one of the quotations from Robbie Burns. It applies, of course, equally to all of those speeches we have heard from all members of the opposition, and will indeed hear probably more frequently in passing days. This self-cultivated wrath reminds me of the quotation from Tam O'Shanter:
Where sits our sulky sullen dame Gathering her brows like gathering storm Nursing her wrath to keep it warm.
Then, I come to the speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) in which he has himself admitted he uttered one statement which would be generally regarded as being accurate. This was the statement he made to the effect the next election will be fought on the record of the present government, a record which I regret to say he then proceeded to distort.
Indeed, I was conscious, as I am sure you were, sir, of more than passing expressions of dismay crossing the countenances of those who sit behind him when they realized the position they were being placed in, that it was going to be fought upon the record of the government; because the record of this government under our Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) is a record of greater accomplishments in more fields than in any similar period in Canadian history.
In order to see this record in proper perspective it is necessary to set it against the

background of the situation which this government and its Prime Minister inherited in 1957. Here I can do no better than refer to words taken from the Montreal Gazette outlining the situation, as follows:
They reached the treasury benches, after 22 years in opposition, at an awkward moment. The national economy... was already beginning to sputter. A downturn in employment, already apparent, was to get much worse before it changed for the better. The rate of economic expansion was slowing down almost to a crawl. They inherited a trade deficit of enormous proportions. Despite the slowdown, inflationary pressures remained disconcertingly strong . . .
This then, sir, was the situation when we assumed office. It is against that background that the record of the government under the Prime Minister has to be assessed. And that record, against that background, is outstanding. It is a record of recession halted, of recovery initiated, of expansion under way, of developments undertaken and of promises fulfilled.
When we come to compare that record with the record of our predecessors in office, and when we come to analyse that record as compared with the situation that we inherited, then indeed I can understand the embarrassment of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) when he is reminded of that old gang with whom he used to sit in office, with many of whom he has surrounded himself again-that same old gang. No wonder he was embarrassed the other day when the Prime Minister made some reference to the gathering at Kingston where the old gang reappeared.
Again, sir, I was reminded inescapably, in thinking of the embarrassment of the Leader of the Opposition and those who sit behind him, of another quotation from Robbie Bums, taken from "Ae Fond Kiss".
Had we never loved sae kindly,
Had we never loved sae blindly.
Never met-or never parted.
We had ne'er been broken hearted.
Here they are, as the Prime Minister pointed out, the same old gang and it is no wonder that there is embarrassment on the other side of the chamber when those personalities and that record are compared with those of the present government. But one thing must always be borne in mind in discussing a record of accomplishments: that results are only accomplished as a result of hard work and planning. They only come about as a result of team work. There is a team in the present cabinet, and a good team that works together.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lionel Chevrier: Pulling in four directions.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is a team that is proud to work under a great leader such as our Prime Minister. Even our friends who jeer and scoff would not, I think, deny the fact that good results do not come about by accident. Heaven knows, they claimed enough credit for the circumstances and happenings in the years they were in office, and I can hardly think they would be unwilling to admit that these things have not ceased to come about except by hard work and planning.
The record which I want briefly to analyse today has come about as a result of intensive planning and constructive work in a number of fields. I wish to refer to a few particularly. I think for first of all of the trade and economic field where the greatest credit, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, is due to the constructive planning of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), the former minister of trade and commerce, now the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill), and his successor, the present minister. I should like to mention just a few things that form part of this record.
First of all there were the initial steps. We did not let the grass grow under our feet. We called a commonwealth trade conference within a few months of taking office in 1957, and more recently there has been what has been described as the most successful trade conference in Canada's history, when all the trade commissioners of our missions abroad came back and met in conference some 1,300 Canadian businessmen. In the past year seven trade missions have been abroad and there are 20 to go within the next 12 months. The results are already beginning to become apparent in terms of our increasing trade.
Then there was a further measure in the extension of export credits. Under this government new facilities for the financing of export from Canada have been made available to the extent of $200 million, and a further increase is forecast for this year in the speech from the throne.
As a result of these efforts we can see the following as typical accomplishments. It has been made possible for Canadian firms to accept orders to supply a newsprint mill in Chile. Orders have been accepted in Canada for the production and export of 70 diesel electric engines for the Argentine, 56 diesel engines for Brazil, rails to Mexico and projects in eight other countries, for a total of $82 million, are now under consideration; and five others, for a total of $214 million, are to receive immediate study.
Other measures in this general field of the expansion of our export trade include, of course, that bold and courageous measure of the devaluation of the Canadian dollar
The Address-Mr. Fulton announced by the Minister of Finance in his budget last June. I do not suppose that anybody anywhere, even in this house, on whatever side he sits, would not readily admit that this has been one of the most helpful measures in stimulating production and export from Canada.
What have been the results? The most obvious result, of course, is the reflection in the record that at the present time production is at an all time high; employment is at an all time high, and our trade deficit has been transformed from an enormous deficit into a respectable surplus.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What about our balance of payments?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There are forecasts made in newspapers and by economists of all shades of political opinion or leaning that in the current year Canada's gross national product will reach a level of $40 billion, an increase of 7J per cent over last year.
My hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition boasted in the course of his speech about the average increase in the g.n.p. of 4| per cent during the years 1945 to 1957. It would have been a miracle if they had been able to avoid an increase in the gross national product at a time when Canada, with her economy undamaged, was in a position to enjoy almost unrestricted access to the markets of Europe, not only in the provision of consumer goods but even in terms of producer goods while those shattered economies were being reconstructed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Have you ever heard of exchange controls?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Those conditions were totally different from those we have faced since 1957. I should have thought therefore that the Leader of the Opposition, who claimed some desire to state matters accurately and with a sense of proportion, would have given due credit to this government for this great increase in the gross national product which is forecast for this year, bearing in mind the fact that there have been the economic difficulties, which we have shared, incidentally, with even so strong an economy as that of the United States.
Other manifestations of the success of this planning in the export field are found in the fact that a trade deficit of $713 million which we inherited in 1957 has been transformed into a modest but respectable surplus.
Turning from this brief summary of the measures taken with respect to export trade and production, may I emphasize that the government has not neglected the domestic economy. It will be appreciated that measures dealing with export credit facilities and so

The Address-Mr. Fulton on of the kind to which I have been referring are of primary interest to large manufacturing concerns engaged in the export field. But we have been conscious of our responsibility to find constructive measures to look after the needs of small and medium sized businesses as well.
Important and far reaching measures in this field have been taken under the initiative of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming)- measures such as the Small Businesses Loans Act. For the first time in our history loans under government sponsorship are available to small business to a maximum amount of $25,000. As a result of the legislation it is estimated that 90 per cent of the whole field of those engaged in small business are eligible for loans of this type. The success of the measure and its soundness can be seen when we find that since the inception of this legislation no fewer than 2,737 loans to a total dollar value of $23 million had been made up to November 30, 1961.
Also in this field must be placed the changes in the Industrial Development Bank Act. As a result of the amendment which we introduced, the financial resources of that bank have been increased from $150 million to $400 million. The coverage has been extended so that instead of the facilities of the bank being available to very restricted fields of business they are now available to the whole field. Again, the results can be seen in the statistics. Comparing the number of loans made last year with the loans made in the last full year of the former administration, we find that they have risen from 232 in 1956 to 1,070 in 1961, an increase of nearly 500 per cent, and that the total of loans made up to the time the Liberals were dismissed from office was only 349 as against 1,364, the present total, representing an increase in total loans of almost 300 per cent. In terms of the annual value of loans up to 1956, the figure was $17 million. At the end of 1961 it was $71 million. We find, finally, that the total of the loans made in the 17 years of the bank's activities amounts to $320 million of which $206 million have been lent in the last four years. In other words, 55 per cent of the loans have been made in the last four years.
Mr. Speaker, that is a very brief summary of the record in this sphere of production and export and of the measures taken to provide economic stimulus. As the house and the country know, this record is matched in the field of our direct development programs where prodigious progress has been made. Time is limited and the story of our development program is too well known for it to be necessary for me to deal with it


here. I should like, therefore, to pass to another phase of our record in this attempt to present a complete and rounded picture.
I wish to emphasize that, reflecting the humanitarian views of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) our efforts have not been limited to the field of production and physical resources. We have cultivated also, as is the duty of government, the field of social justice and of the conservation and protection of human resources. We are, therefore, able to point to a record unequalled in a similar period of Canadian history-an unequalled record of measures for reforms and improvements in the field of social justice. The years of this administration have so far seen the inauguration of a scheme of hospital insurance, an increase in every field of welfare payments both to veterans and civilians, and a tremendous record under my colleague the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) in house building, urban redevelopment and slum clearance-a program which, of course, serves a dual purpose, providing as it does for the long term welfare of our citizens as well as a tremendous economic stimulus in its immediate aspects.
Of course, we do not claim that we have solved all the problems. We have never made any such claim. What we do say is that the record is one of creditable performance, and particularly creditable performance with respect to promises made. We also claim that the success of our plans and efforts is reflected in vastly improved conditions of labour and employment. Particularly is this remarkable as compared with the labour and employment situation which we inherited.
A great deal has been made and will, of course, continue to be made by members of the opposition of the unemployment situation today. Heaven knows, we do not claim to have found all the answers or to have finally solved this problem. We recognize and accept our responsibility to continue our efforts and even to increase them as forecast in the speech from the throne. But I do think it is essential that we should invite the country to view this matter in a proper perspective. In particular it is fitting that we should remind the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) that our record with respect to unemployment in four years compares very creditably with that of the Liberal government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That low growling bespeaks uncertainty. There is a muted and uncertain voice coming from Essex East. It will become more muted and uncertain still when the figures are placed on record.
If we take the last four years for which the opposition was responsible-it is true

I include the year 1957, because I hardly think they will claim a total lack of responsibility for the last few months of that year-we find that unemployment rose by 116,000 over that four year period 1953-1957. It is true that unemployment has risen by a few thousand more from 1957 to 1961; the total is 122,000 based on the mid-December figure of 400,000 unemployed. But when one considers the vast increase in the labour force which has taken place since 1957, and when one considers the complications of the economic recession which we inherited, we are entitled to suggest to hon. members opposite that there is scarcely cause for pride on their part-scarcely cause for the gloating in which they have been indulging when discussing the increases in unemployment since 1957. They find it convenient to forget the recession of 1954-55-a recession in the midst of prosperity-but it is healthy that they should be reminded of these things occasionally, because they are the ones who say: "Put us back in office." This same old gang which did so marvellously before is saying "Put us back in", but I think the people will remember their record too well.
The results of the measures taken in this field by the government generally and by my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) in particular have been that there were 65,000 more people employed in mid-December than a year ago. The unemployment rate is the lowest in any year since the year 1956, while labour income is at an all-time high.
It might be interesting in analysing these forecasts of doom and gloom to have a look at the statistics of labour income. Hon. members will find that in the last complete year when the Liberals were in office, the year 1956, labour income per man employed stood at the level of $2,666 whereas in October 1961, the last month for which I have official figures, it was at a level of $3,174. In terms of total labour income this had increased from $14,890,000,000 in 1956 to $19,642,000,000 by October 1961.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the minister but he has gone beyond his time. I allowed him a little latitude because I was rather remiss with the hon. member for Laurier when he was speaking, as a result of which he had a few minutes extra.


Mr. Alan Macnaughton (Mouni Royal):: The Address-Mr. T. M. Bell
I fear that this present session of parliament is going to deteriorate into nerve wracking waiting until the approaching election. In this atmosphere the spirit required cannot be generated. I think it is imperative that we have the election as soon as is humanly possible so that we can begin to put this country back in the main stream of world affairs.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: It is my intention, Mr. Speaker, during this traditional throne speech debate to mention some matters that have general maritime and particular constituency significance. They can be brought under the two subjects of power and transportation. I mention power because of the words in the throne speech with respect to a national grid and transportation because of the recent tabling of the second volume of the royal commission report on transportation. Power and transportation are the two overwhelming burdens of the maritimes and nobody suggests for one minute that they can be cured overnight. It is a process of gradual chiselling away at the small problems connected with both. By means of a little bit of history I intend to show that this government has a happy record of achievement in both these important fields.
First, may I deal with power. As every schoolboy in New Brunswick knows, the story of power in New Brunswick begins with Beechwood. The Flemming administration in an aggressive way approached a co-operative Conservative government at Ottawa and laid the basis for the initial steps toward cheaper power in New Brunswick. Moves were then made with regard to thermal power and, with joint provincial and federal co-operation, the first unit was set up at East Saint John in my constituency. To give you an idea, Mr. Speaker, just what this means to new industry, may I repeat a story-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Thomas Miller Bell: The Address-Mr. T. M. Bell and also by the Atlantic premiers. The suggestion is that a capital projects commission should be set up which would investigate the feasibility of various projects that apply to the maritime provinces, and then a national development fund would be used to finance those which have possibility. This is one of the ways those secondary industry projects which are finally approved might be financed. The factor of transportation might be used as a basis for subsidization. This is a novel idea. It is something that I hope will come forward.
These are all the remarks I wish to make, Mr. Speaker. I merely wish to repeat that this government, in my honest opinion and in my frank assessment, has shown a good record of achievement in both power and transportation fields. There is a lot more to do. I suggest that one of the answers is in this capital projects commission and the national development fund. I hope that this will be kept in mind. I think we can take honest pride in what has been done by this government in every field of endeavour, but particularly in power and transportation. In the maritimes we are much the better for the leadership of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Will the hon. gentleman now answer my question?


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The hon. member stated that the first thermal plant as a joint federal-provincial project was built at East Saint John, New Brunswick. In view of the statement made in the last session by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Dinsdale) and the former minister of mines and technical surveys to the effect that the federal government could not participate in this plan because the plant used oil, will the hon. member inform the house as to the amount which was considered by the federal government and when it was paid?


Thomas Miller Bell: I simply said that the method of thermal plant assistance was set up between the provincial government and this government. It is true that there was a death-bed repentance by the former federal minister of public works; but we claim full credit, and I think honestly so, for initially setting up this plan for thermal plants. The decision to burn oil at East Saint John was a decision taken by the then government of New Brunswick, over which I had no control, and it has been verified today by the present government contrary to the promises they made during the last election.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, before I commence the remarks I have to make this time I would, despite the expression of opinion which was exhibited last week, wish you a happy term in your new appointment as Deputy Speaker. I want to congratulate you upon your promotion from parliamentary secretary to the office of Deputy Speaker. I wish both you and the newly appointed Minister of Miines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Flynn), a very happy sojourn in office, although being a politician I hope I will be forgiven if I express the wish that your term in office might be brief.
We were all looking forward with a good deal of anticipation to the speech from the throne. I regret very much that, in the main, the speech from the throne ignores the economic health of the Canadian community. It is true there was an effort to play Santa Claus by handouts to this section or that section of the population. However, in the main, there is no recognition of the serious plight in which our economy now finds itself. I was amazed to hear our Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) say the other day, as recorded on page 87 of Hansard, that 75 per cent of the Canadian income tax payers are paying less today than they were when this government came into office.
I contend that this situation does not arise as a result of amendments to the Income Tax Act or a lowering of taxation levels. I contend that if his claim is accurate it is because Canadians are no longer as prosperous as they once were. Boasting of the fact that 75 per cent of the income tax payers today are paying less income tax indicates, in the light of the limited changes that have taken place in our taxation structure, that the incomes of the people have been reduced to a deplorable degree.
The economy was not really dealt with in the speech from the throne, and there is hardly any mention of the still serious problem of mass unemployment. In so far as agriculture is concerned there was what is, in effect, a handout. There was nothing for the unemployed, and in so far as the average businessman is concerned there was no hope for a growing Canadian economy. A lot has been said in recent months about the government keeping its election promises. There is one over-riding and important election promise that has yet to be fulfilled and the speech from the throne gives no indication of any intention of attempting to fulfil it, namely the promise, that as long as our present Prime Minister is prime minister no one in Canada will suffer from unemployment.
I was most amazed today when a minister of the crown referred to the activities of the government as "recession halting". That is

a new terminology in Canadian political annals and I hope the attitude of the government will be on a more optimistic and positive note in the future than merely expressing the aim and hope of being engaged in the practice of recession halting.
Many of us had expected an early election. I see little in the speech from the throne that causes me to believe that an early election is imminent. I agree with my house leader, that after a budget has been presented, as far as we are concerned an election can take place at any time. The more time the government gives us to organize across the country, naturally the happier we shall be.
Many political analysts agree with me that if an election were held very shortly it would in all likelihood result in a minority government, because no matter how you analyse the constituencies of Canada, if you give any one of the major contending parties all the benefits of the doubt you do not emerge with a clear majority for any party.
I am not particularly alarmed at this prospect. A minority government, while it results in uncomfortable situations for the government in office, often means that the common people of Canada receive great blessings. This has happened when we have had a minority government in office or a government with a very narrow majority.
We are completely confident that our hopes and expectations in an election campaign will be realized. To support our hopes we have only to look at the by-elections held last week in the province of Ontario. In all the constituencies except the two in the city of Toronto the increase in the support of our party exceeded the increase in the Liberal party support.
It is significant that in each of the five ridings the Conservatives lost by 11 or 12 per cent. However, in the three constituencies outside Toronto our gain was much greater than was the gain of the Liberal party. With regard to the two ridings in Toronto, Eglinton we lost 3 per cent, the Tories lost 12 per cent and the Liberals gained 15 per cent; and in Beaches the Tories lost 11 per cent, we gained 4 per cent and the Liberals gained 7 per cent.
How is it that in these two ridings in the city of Toronto the Liberals made gains while our gains were most modest, whereas in the other three ridings we far outstripped the Liberals? We have evidence that immediately prior to voting day in these two Toronto ridings there was, apart from the advertisement in the Globe and Mail, a door-to-door distribution of a leaflet which was professed to be put out by the communist party of Canada. The leaflet urged support for the New Democratic party candidate.
The Address-Mr. Regier
In addition, we have plenty of evidence that there was almost a complete house-to-house telephone canvass made in which the message was, "This is the communist party calling, and we would urge you to vote for the New Democratic party candidate". I know that the communist party in the city of Toronto does not have the resources to conduct this kind of campaign and I deliberately charge the Liberal machine of the city of Toronto with conducting this campaign and pretending that it was the communist party relaying this message to the voters in both Eglinton and Beaches.
May I assure the Liberals that if they once again undertake this below-the-belt type of campaigning we have a people's political machine, and they may well find that there will be telephone calls saying, "This is the communist party calling. We urge you to support the Liberal candidate". We can play this game as well as the Liberal party.


Augustin Brassard: Everybody knows the communist party does not support us.


Erhart Regier: The major issue facing our people, of course, is that of our own and in fact the survival of civilization itself. This is our first consideration. In this regard I am very happy to share the sentiments expressed by His Excellency the Governor General in the speech from the throne when the said:
While the world outlook contains elements ot continuing danger, there are some grounds for cautious optimism.
My observations at the United Nations lead me to believe that to be a most accurate assessment of the world situation as it now prevails. At the United Nations one cannot help noting how the newly emerging nations of Africa and Asia are beginning to take over. They constitute a majority of the population of the world and they have every right to exercise their influence.
We notice a growing resentment on the part of the major powers who see that their own influence is lessening. They are bitterly disappointed. They feel that the peoples of Asia and Africa are most ungrateful to them. After all, both Washington and Moscow have the basic concept that the rest of the world owes them great appreciation. The rest of the world does not share this proffered benevolency of either Moscow or Washington.
We can expect that in the months, if not in the years, ahead there is going to be a growing tendency on the part of the major powers to limit and curtail the growing power of the United Nations. I hope Canada will never support either Moscow or Washington, or General de Gaulle or any of the other major power leaders if and when they make

The Address-Mr. Regier moves that would curtail and lessen the growing influence of the United Nations toward the cause of world peace.
I regret that Canada's contribution to world peace is not what it might be. I admire the tremendous efforts that have been made in this regard by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green). I should like to repeat a plea I have made previously to him, that when he is unable to represent Canada abroad he do his best to obtain as his spokesman the best person he can get. It is hardly good enough to have ministers without portfolio, or other people who may have good intentions but who have not the ability of the minister, attempting to represent as important a country as Canada in international matters.
I have been at the United Nations for at least a limited period during each of the preceding four years. I believe that only the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Pearson) has a better record than I in this regard. I regret to note that the prestige of our country is rapidly and decidedly declining.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Where?


Erhart Regier: At the United Nations.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, nonsense.


Erhart Regier: How can it be otherwise when we have a minister making very welcome speeches on the rostrum of the United Nations and when we have at the same time-and these people are no longer ignorant; they are not so stupid that they do not know what is happening in Canada-a Prime Minister who refuses to support publicly the attitudes expressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and when we have a Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) who goes out of his way to put the knife into the good expressions of Canadian attitudes that are being voiced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Utterly wrong.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is complete nonsense.


Erhart Regier: The Minister of National Defence is so desperate that he is appealing to Canadians in uniform to break with all tradition and to become political and to expose themselves in the battle he has waged inside the ranks of the government.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is no justification whatever for such a statement.


Erhart Regier: Representatives of other nations know that we are a divided house on this matter and therefore while they listen to our Secretary of State for External Affairs with great interest, while they respect him and wish him well, they doubt very much whether

he is speaking for Canada because they are aware of the refusal of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) to support him without question; they know very well that back home we have a Minister of National Defence who is conducting an aggressive campaign in order to defeat the objectives of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Erhart Regier: My time is very limited. At the end of my speech I should be happy to deal with the hon. gentleman's question if time permits. Let us consider the attitude expressed so ably by a member of the other place who is now the deputy leader of the Canadian delegation at the United Nations. I refer to the former minister of veterans affairs. His speech on the Peking government and the possibility of its admission to the United Nations was an excellent one. Most Canadians will agree with it. He repeated almost word for word what a former leader of mine, Mr. Coldwell, said in this house roughly eight years ago, namely that we ought to recognize the regime in Peking and demand that the people of Formosa be given the right to selfdetermination. Well, when it came to a decision, what did the Canadian government do? It failed to follow through. It failed to support its sentiments with action and Canada continued to straddle the fence and support the policy emanating from Washington.
What about aid to underdeveloped countries? Oh, it is easy enough for us to boast that we have met every legitimate demand placed upon us by the United Nations or to point out that we are spending money on international aid which, on a per capita basis, exceeds that offered by many other nations of the western world. But in relation to our ability to render effective international aid our efforts leave much to be desired.
The Liberal policy on nuclear weapons is, I contend, no better than the policy of the government. The policy of the government is one of confusion. We are not very sure what the policy is. This, I contend, has been the deliberate intention of the present government; they want to delay any announcement of policy until after the next election.
I contend that we in Canada have nuclear weapons today but this government has not the honesty, it has not the guts, to tell the Canadian people that we have nuclear weapons and then to go out and defend its policy.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just made a statement which is really an echo of stories carried in newspapers to the effect that we have nuclear weapons in Canada. This was

categorically denied by the Prime Minister and by myself. There is absolutely no foundation for any statement of that nature and I would therefore ask that the hon. member withdraw the allegation that there are nuclear weapons being held in Canada at the present time.


Erhart Regier: On that point of order, the minister has no right whatever to request that I withdraw my statement. He has the privilege of calling it a false statement but I have the right to make that statement as long as I believe it to be accurate. If I may, I should like to tell the minister what leads me to make this particular statement. I have some confidence in the good intentions of our Prime Minister-more, even, it may be, than a number of his own cabinet colleagues. Last fall the Prime Minister assured this house while he was being questioned by the Leader of the Opposition on the subject of nuclear weapons that although the decision would not be subject to the consent of parliament the government would not shrink from its responsibility if and when the time for action came.
Neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of National Defence can make me believe that if action becomes necessary, if an attack actually comes, the right hon. gentleman would then assume his responsibility and send an ox cart to the heart of the United States to take delivery of nuclear weapons and bring them up to our Bomarc base at North Bay. I am sure the Prime Minister has a greater degree of responsibility than that. The minister is now telling us that we have no nuclear weapons in Canada. I say that I believe the minister's statement is false. It could be possible that the minister himself does not even know whether or not we have nuclear weapons here.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just stated that my statement is false. It is contrary to the rules of this house to say that and I would ask you to have him withdraw it.


Erhart Regier: Once again, with regard to that point of order, I say I believe the statement of the minister to be false, and I contend I am within our rules in making that statement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is contrary to the rules of this house to accuse another member of deliberately making a false statement. I do not believe that the hon. member who has the floor has indicated that a false statement was deliberately made by the minister. He could, perhaps, assure the Chair that that was not his intention.
The Address-Mr. Regier


Erhart Regier: I am only too happy to do that, Mr. Speaker. I intended my latter remarks to indicate that the possibility does enter my mind that perhaps the minister himself is unaware whether or not we actually have nuclear weapons in Canada.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On a question of privilege, I said categorically that there are no nuclear weapons in Canada. I am, I think, in a better position than anyone in Canada to know whether or not there are. Having stated categorically that there are no nuclear weapons in Canada, for the hon. member to say that what I have said is false is not permitted by the rules and I would ask for a complete withdrawal on his part of his statement that what I have just repeated is a false statement.


Erhart Regier: If it will make the minister happy I am perfectly prepared to withdraw the statement that he has stated a falsehood. I believe that in his own mind he has not done so. But I am not bound to accept the minister's statement that there are no nuclear weapons in Canada. I have the right to my own opinion as to whether or not nuclear weapons are actually on Canadian territory at the present time. I come back again to this point. If there were not, this government would be proven to be completely irresponsible in that they had refused even to place an order for conventional weapons to supply our Bomarc missile sites.
Before concluding I should like to mention a few other problems. I hope this government, prior to holding an election, will consider its obstinate refusal to view favourably the pleas of retired civil servants. The government has gone a long way towards adjusting pensions for civil servants who will be pensioned off in the years to come. An increase was given in 1953 of 7 per cent, in 1956 of 7 per cent, in 1957 of 6 per cent and in 1960 of 6 per cent, but the government has refused to pay compensation to those civil servants already retired, many of whom are suffering severe hardship even though they know there is $ 1J billion in the pension fund. They feel that some of this is rightfully theirs and they believe they ought to receive consideration.
It is also my hope that the government will "call off the dogs" in regard to so-called Chinese illegal immigrants. The government's policy in this respect is a disgraceful one. We may remember that a certain Herr Hitler, upon finding one of his officers killed by a sniper in a German occupied village, be it Russia or elsewhere, would take revenge on the village by demanding the production of the culprit within a limited number of hours, or let the village suffer the consequences. The consequences at times were a wiping out

The Address-Mr. Regier of the whole village on the following day. Communist countries have been found guilty of using the same terror tactics but never before, to my knowledge, has a Canadian community, or a section of a Canadian community, been asked to "produce the culprit or else".
The government has dragged through the mud the good reputation of tens of thousands of loyal Canadian citizens of Chinese descent, and I very much regret that one of the members of parliament has been aggressive and active in helping to smear people of the same origin as himself.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Erhart Regier: I have also been disgusted to read reports in Vancouver, reports on good authority, that lawyers are asking for $1,500 or $2,000 as fees in order to assist in bringing in an immigrant, while the local member of parliament has to do the leg work. The procedure is very simple but the lawyers are taking advantage of the situation and are offering protection at the rate of $55,000. While I am dealing with this subject I wonder how the search warrants are being obtained for raids on private homes, and I hope the Prime Minister will take a very careful look at some of the practices that are being carried out. I know the task is difficult, but when the R.C.M.P. and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration have a difficult task they should not resort to unheard of practices in Canada, demanding of a whole community that they produce the culprits or else suffer the consequences as a community. That practice should be terminated at a very early date.
National unity has become a topic of discussion within recent years. I come from the province of British Columbia. Down through the years we in that province have had happy associations with our French Canadian fellow citizens residing in the province of Quebec. We are not alarmed by the so-called separatist movement. We do not believe it reflects the opinion of the vast majority of the people of Quebec. However, if they want to go it alone, British Columbians will not make any effort to stop them. We shall wish them godspeed and good luck, and we shall work as neighbours with them in the future.


Mr. Cardiff:: Does the hon. member speak for British Columbia?


Erhart Regier: I am speaking on my own behalf, but believe I also express the sentiment of the vast majority in the province of British Columbia.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: That is a little better.


Erhart Regier: We have no desire to hinder or impede the aspirations of the people living in the province of Quebec. We only ask in return that our rights be respected.


We, too, entered confederation upon certain terms and conditions and we have always received respect for those rights. We trust our compatriots in the province of Quebec will continue to grant respect for those rights. On this issue we share most of their sentiments in that we believe the people of each province should continue to enjoy certain basic rights that are native not only to their blood but to their tradition and choice.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member answer a question, as he agreed to do?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time having expired, the unanimous consent of the house would be required. Is that consent forthcoming?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the hon. member whether he will name the countries whose representatives at the United Nations have indicated to him that Canada's prestige has been lowered? What are these communist countries?


Erhart Regier: I wish to assure the minister that I hardly ever had even a nodding acquaintance with representatives of communist countries while attending sessions of the United Nations. However, I would say that without exception all the delegates to whom I had the privilege of speaking about Canada in New York said to me that Canada's prestige, because of our lack of definite policy, has continued to decrease.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What countries? The hon. member has not answered the question. I asked what countries are represented by these people to whom he has been talking.


Erhart Regier: I am willing to defend Canada's attitude when I am outside Canada. I am even willing to defend this government. But the minister is asking too much when he asks me to label other countries.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Just libel Canada.


Mr. G. C. Fairfield (Portage-Neepawa):: The
Prime Minister stated in his speech on Tuesday that he noticed a great lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Liberal party to discuss agricultural questions when members of that party were speaking in western Canada. In fact, they seem to have left the appraisal of agricultural policy up to the farm unions and the federation of agriculture. Perhaps it is just as well. The hon. member for Essex East is not in the chamber, but I must tell him that he has not got the sympathetic ear of Canadian farmers, either in the east or the west.

I should like to deal with one item which appeared in the throne speech, and I quote:
The success ol the recent "Resources for Tomorrow" conference demonstrated the benefits of co-operation between governments in this field. My government, in consultation with the governments of the ten provinces, is examining suggestions made at that conference for co-operative measures to encourage the wise management and multiple use of Canada's natural resources.
The Prime Minister made a speech in Regina, I believe in February, 1958, in which he stated it was the intention of this party, if elected, to set up a national conference on conservation. This promise was implemented by a meeting of federal and provincial cabinet members on November 17, 1958 in order to examine ways and means of setting up such a conference.
In August of 1959 a secretariat was set up in order to determine the terms of reference. Their planning finally resulted in the conference which was held in Ottawa last October and November. I believe a summation of this conference has been distributed to the public. I do not think I anticipated these events when 1 made the following comments in August of 1958 as found at page 3506 of Hansard of that year. At that time I stated as follows:
It seems to me that a national conservation foundation, supported financially by this government and by private enterprise, could do for Canada what similar bodies are doing for other countries, and if truly national in its representation could offer logical and much needed means of bridging the gap between the efforts of federal and provincial governments and private bodies concerned in the field of wildlife management.
On examination of this summation which I have obtained of the conference held in October and November we find some tentative recommendations which have been made. For instance, on page 2 we find the following:
Many of the research problems would be substantially met by the adoption of the proposal of the research workshop-establishment of a renewable resources research council.
At page 5 of this summation we find the following:
A national, interprovincial body in the resources field, perhaps a natural resources council should be established with provision for federal and provincial finance and participation, and with a staff of its own.
At page 7 of the same document we find the following:
A national resources council should be established consisting of appointees, governmental and non-governmental, of both federal and provincial governments, whose functions would include:
(a)	Delineating resource regions and setting up, where considered desirable, ancillary regional resource councils crossing provincial boundaries if necessary;
(b)	Advising the government of Canada on national policies;
The Address-Mr. Fairfield
(c)	Suggesting to provinces programs for resource use and development;
(d)	Providing services such as libraries, information, research and engineering;
(e)	Allocating funds provided by the government of Canada to assist provinces with approved development programs.
One thing which I find is of quite a great deal of interest and which would be of great value in broadening the scope of interest in this council is to be found at page 9 of this summation where we find the following:
To be effective, this agency should be representative of the federal and provincial governments, commercial interests, universities and associations.
The studies of the conference on water and wildlife are of most particular interest, as far as I am concerned and I think to many other communities in Manitoba and throughout Canada. I am sorry to bore the house with so many quotations but I do not think this document has been very widely read and yet it is an important document. As found at page 28 of this summation I quote these two guide lines:
1.	A more positive stance in resource development matters is required in Canada. This is particularly so in "official circles" in Ottawa but is also true in the provinces.
2.	The development and management of the water resources of Canada should be based on multipurpose integrated planning which takes account of the needs for domestic and industrial water supply, recreation, irrigation, power, flood control, navigation, pollution abatement and other uses.
Again at page 29 we find the following, and I may say that this is a most significant paragraph as far as I can ascertain:
There is widespread feeling that federal participation in water resource development is based on a series of ad hoc arrangements administered by several departments without any effective coordination between them. Legislation and administration is frequently negative rather than positive -i.e., it is designed to protect the status quo rather than to search out and encourage possibilities for a more rapid development of resources.
In this respect there is a problem that affects my riding and probably affects the whole of central Manitoba as well as the city of Winnipeg somewhat. The federal government has agreed in principle with the government of Manitoba on a system or plan of flood control of the Assiniboine river valley. This has been a great problem to that part of the country for many years. Preliminary investigations on this subject were begun in 1945 and have been continued up to this time. This entails the construction of a dam at Shellmouth and a diversion at Portage la Prairie or a dam at Holland, Manitoba. It seems now that the provincial government would rather have the diversion at Portage than the dam at Holland because of the better cost benefits of the diversion at Portage la Prairie. I have lived in this

The Address-Mr. Fairfield area for some time now and there is no doubt of the necessity of control of flooding of the Assiniboine river, but, as referred to in the last paragraph which I read from the summation of the conference, I believe this is really an "ad hoc" arrangement.
Here we shall have a ditch 600 feet wide, starting at the Assiniboine river and going northward to lake Manitoba, a distance of 18 miles or 19 miles. It practically slits Canada in half. It will have seven railroad bridges and only three highway bridges across it. It is intended to carry the excess flood waters of the Assiniboine river into lake Manitoba. Those who are in authority say that this is a method of conservation of water, that they are going to store it in lake Manitoba; but as a conservation project, it seems rather odd to me, because even with fair-sized floods they admit it will raise the waters of lake Manitoba only a matter of inches. At any rate, when it reaches lake Manitoba of what use it is going to be from there on I do not know because from there most of it goes into Hudson bay and the Arctic ocean. They contemplate digging another ditch between Port-tage la Prairie and Winnipeg from lake Manitoba back to the Assiniboine in order to carry some water from lake Manitoba to assist Winnipeg in draining their sewage down the Assiniboine river into the Red river.
But what I fear about this diversion and I am afraid that many others in my area fear it as well-that it may fail as a flood control measure. At the lake end of the diversion the country is extremely flat for three or more miles and in fact it is about on a level with the surface of the lake. At times in the spring here, with strong north winds and when the lake is backing up, you will see shockingly great ice jams up against the south end of the lake, sometimes as high as 30 to 40 feet. When the water is starting to drain out this diversion into the lake and then strikes these dams of ice, in order to protect the community from flooding which would occur the dikes of the diversion, this would necessitate closure of the gates at the entrance of the diversion at the river. In other words, this would be a $12 million failure. I have asked engineers what they would do about it and they have said that they would go out and dynamite these ice jams that occur. I have never seen any ice jams broken up satisfactorily by dynamite.
When one considers the splitting in half of a whole community, in fact, practically the whole province, the cost of valuable farm lands for the project, the certainly doubtful water conservation benefits and, above all, the possibility of failure of the project as I have explained, one wonders whether the


construction of the Holland dam, though more costly, would not in the long run be of more benefit to the community and the country. It would be a true water conservation project with satisfactory flood control as well. One difference between the two, and it is quite substantial, is that the dam is more expensive. The only other difference is that instances of the Assiniboine breaking its dikes in its lower reaches and flooding the countryside would, with the dam, occur once in 80 years while with the diversion it would be once every 144 years, if the diversion works. This is my only apprehension and it certainly has not been allayed by any studies I have made of the subject.
My second interest in the report of this conference has to do with wildlife conservation and management. We all know the history of the disappearance of the carrier pigeon which occurred in our grandfathers' day and the near extinction of the buffalo which was prevented only at the last minute. As stated in this report, wildlife is a recreational resource and should be a public responsibility. Here are some of the goals as outlined in the summation on page 32:
1.	Wildlife management will continue to be primarily a public responsibility.
2.	No species should be allowed to become extinct through the instrumentality of man.
3.	Management practices will not be nationally uniform, but will vary with local conditions and the requirements of various jurisdictions.
4.	Ethical considerations are at least as important as economic considerations in wildlife management.
5.	Ideal populations of wildlife species are those that will maintain themselves without serious disturbance to their environment and satisfy the public demand for recreation. Compatibility with other interests should be sought through mutual adjustment.
6.	Adequate habitat is the quantity and quality of living space that will protect the production and distribution of ideal populations.
When one examines the figures, particularly of migratory waterfowl, one sees that the hunting pressure on this species is far more than they can stand, particularly in the United States. I think many hon. members have seen the figures and there is no point in reiterating them here. Upwards of two million duck stamps are issued per year in the United States and approximately 800,000 duck shooting licences are issued in Canada. With a population estimated at possibly 35 million ducks in North America, this means a great deal of pressure.
However, let us not forget that from the point of view of the tourist industry at least this is a tremendously important recreational resource. Here we find that despite all warnings we are depleting the capital stocks of breeding birds not only by hunting but by destroying the breeding areas by uncontrolled

drainage. Despite our history of cycles of dry and wet years, this drainage has caused a permanent reduction of breeding areas, particularly in western Canada.
All of you are perhaps familiar with the results of the drought which occurred in the thirties. At that time the duck population became very dangerously low. Fortunately, people were so broke that they could not buy licences or shells to shoot ducks so there was not the same pressure on the capital breeding stock. This is not true at this time. In western Canada we seem to be entering a dry cycle and unfortunately, or possibly fortunately, because of the economic upsurge of the country at this time under the present government people are able to afford lots of ammunition and the pressure on these birds is extremely high.
Dr. Albert Hochbaum, an internationally renowned biologist, is in charge of the Delta waterfowl research station in Manitoba and he states unequivocally that the scattered small sloughs and potholes in western Canada make up in total the most important breeding grounds for ducks probably anywhere in the world. I am happy to see that there have been consultations between Canadians and their counterparts in the United States with regard to the preservation of the integrity of the remaining areas, possibly through the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act in Canada. Perhaps this can be done on a co-operative basis between the United States and Canada and without embarrassment to the farming operations of the areas involved and perhaps even with some subsidization to the owners of the land in question.
We have got to understand that this is not only a national but an international question. We not only have to replace some of these breeding areas but we also have to change some of our hunting regulations. Many hunters will recall that in the past two years we have restricted the shooting of canvas-back and redhead ducks because their numbers are extremely low but it requires a trained biologist to distinguish these birds even at close hand. Certainly untrained hunters, and that includes most of us, cannot recognize these birds in the air. The regulations must recognize the varying habits and reproductive abilities of different species of waterfowl. In poor years this may lead to regional limitations as a protection for those places frequented by the rarer species.
Many hunters in western Canada say, "Well, if we do not shoot them someone down the line will". There is interprovincial and interstate jealousy regarding the sharing of the waterfowl supply. Publicly sponsored shooting preserves have become a blot on
The Address-Mr. Robichaud the management of waterfowl in the whole of North America. The Milwaukee Journal of October 12, 1960, had this to say about the publicly sponsored killing of Canada geese at the Horicon wildlife refuge:
Goose shooting at Horicon does not qualify as a sport. It is a slaughter. If this is what waterfowl refuges were created for, then we are no better than savages.
In this context we must gauge the need for the continuation of this species of wildlife against the recreational needs of the public, always remembering, of course, that the supply of waterfowl is not inexhaustible. In my opinion Canada has an opportunity to take the lead in shaping a modern plan of waterfowl management that is based on the life facts, and needs, of the different species of ducks and geese. In this way we may promote by example-we know, of course, at whom this is aimed-a pattern of wildfowl management that will influence practice and procedure in other regions of the annual range of waterfowl.
(Translation):


Mr, H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with a long established custom in this house, I should like first of all to congratulate the mover of the address, the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Bourdages) and the seconder, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne). I am glad also to take this opportunity to congratulate you sincerely on your appointment to the post of Deputy Speaker and chairman of committees. We are sure you will ably fulfil your duties in this important post you will occupy during this session.
I should like also to extend my congratulations to the new Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Flynn).
I hope that, during this session, the new minister, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn), will show me the same consideration as did his predecessor.
These, Mr. Speaker, are all the bouquets I have to toss at the government, at least for the time being. I propose to find fault with the speech from the throne, as is the right and duty of any member of the opposition. However, I certainly do not propose to stoop to the level reached by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) last Saturday when addressing a group of Conservative ladies, here in this city, or when, during his speech on the address last Monday and Tuesday in this house he attacked certain persons.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, I cannot allow to go unchallenged the statement made earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) when he said that the first

The Address-Mr. Robichaud project under a joint federal-provincial program for thermal power plants was the building of the East Saint John plant. Hon. members in this house know very well that statement after statement was made last year by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Dinsdale) and the former minister of mines and' technical surveys to the effect that the federal government could not contribute to the construction of the East Saint John thermal plant, because that plant was built to use oil, not coal. Furthermore, the hon. member charged that the present government of New Brunswick was not keeping its electoral promises. The facts are that tenders were called only a few weeks ago by the New Brunswick electric power commission for the construction of the first phase of a thermal power plant to be built at Grand Lake. This plant will use coal only. This plant is designed to use 100,000 tons of coal a year in order to help the coal miners of New Brunswick. One hundred thousand tons is equal to 10 per cent to 12 per cent of the total coal production of the province of New Brunswick.
We have reached the fourth day of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. This, according to the Prime Minister's (Mr. Diefenbaker) own statement was supposed to be a long one. The facts are that the speech from the throne opening the fifth session of Canada's twenty fourth parliament was somewhat shorter than the one which opened the fourth session on November 17, 1960. If the Prime Minister's statement is to be accepted, I suggest we cannot help but give some serious thought to those unconfirmed reports circulated on parliament hill on opening day to the effect that the speech from the throne had been toned down by some last minute deletions.
In other words, those social and respectpaying visits to the Prime Minister's office on the opening day, first by a group of 60 members of his party and later on by a different and smaller group, could very well have been anything but social calls or respect-paying visits. No wonder that what was intended to be a long speech from the throne became a somewhat shorter speech than last year. No wonder the customary advance copies of the throne speech for the press, radio and television were suddenly withdrawn.
As this session progresses we will be in a position to judge the sincerity of the government when it implements, through new legislation or by other means, the measures described in the speech from the throne. In reviewing briefly the speech from the throne
(Mr. Robichaud.]
delivered on November 17, 1960 at the opening of the fourth session of the present parliament, I noticed certain things which I feel should be brought to the attention of this house. On page 3 of Hansard for November 17, 1960, we read the following:
Among other measures in the long range program, you will be requested to approve a number of major projects of national development. The largest of these will be the development of the water power on the Columbia river. Agreement has been reached with the government of the United States on a plan for the co-operative development of the use of these waters and a treaty will be submitted to you for approval in due course. You will also be asked to take the action necessary to fulfil Canada's part in implementing it.
When asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), as reported on page 16 of Hansard for January 19 of this year, whether it was the intention of the government to submit the Columbia river treaty to a committee of the house for examination during the present session, the Prime Minister replied that there was no intention of doing so. I ask now, how can we believe, how can we rely, on what we read in the speech from the throne under this government?
Again on the same page of Hansard for November 17, 1960, we find the following words:
A bill to revise the Immigration Act will be laid before you.
Those words were read by His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber. There was a solemn commitment on the part of the government to undertake to revise that very important act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: When I am finished, Mr. Speaker, because my time is limited. Once again, the government shirked its responsibility, and on the second day of this session announced new immigration regulations when it had already promised to change the act and to do so with parliamentary approval.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the hon. member know-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On the same page of Hansard we find this:
Amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act will be placed before you to safeguard the basic purpose of the act, to strengthen the fund and to correct abuses which have developed in practice.
After the longest session in Canada's history, the government did not have the courage to face a critical situation, an unavoidable situation, which it had created by its lack of policy and its mismanagement of the nation's business. This government took office in 1957 after years of progress and

growth under the previous Liberal administration. Anyone who reads the present speech from the throne cannot help but realize there is a general election in the offing in this country and that we have here a government which is still unaware of the fact this country needs a national program, a program which can step up the rate of economic expansion and minimize unemployment in this country.
The speech from the throne, as well as the speeches delivered by the mover and seconder of the address, are nothing but self-congratulatory documents-speeches congratulating the government because in December, 1961 and January, 1962 the unemployment figures are lower than for the same period last year, a period when the unemployment record was the highest in Canadian history. There is very little in the speech from the throne which could give assurance that this government is prepared to initiate at long last a policy or a program which could result in stepping up the rate of economic growth and minimize the unemployment problem.
What is there in the speech from the throne for the Atlantic provinces? What is there for these provinces which in 1961 were relatively worse off in relation to Canada as a whole than they were in 1958 or 1960? In the first 11 months of 1961, while the rest of Canada seemed to be holding its own in average unemployment, the Atlantic provinces were showing an increase of 11.7 per cent. The slow recovery of the Atlantic region is proof that something must be done for its development; some drastic measures must be introduced to launch a regional development plan calling for large scale federal assistance to local industries, and a larger public works program by the central government.
What is being done about those very important promises embodied in the 1957 Atlantic resolutions? What about resolution No. 1, which reads as follows:
A national development program of federal assistance for developing the resources of the Atlantic provinces, having regard to their differing needs and varying financial capabilities.
What about resolution No. 2?
Industrial decentralization by placing a more equitable share of defence contract expenditures within the Atlantic provinces by the establishment of crown corporations; and by encouraging private enterprises to locate in the area and to encourage the processing here of our natural resources as a result of special fiscal consideration.
What about resolution No. 5?
Capital projects program to provide federal capital assistance for provincial projects designed to enlarge the basic economy of the area.
The Address-Mr. Robichaud
Notwithstanding the position taken by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae) in this house on January 23, Tuesday of this week, I say that those promises embodied in the Atlantic resolutions have not yet been redeemed and there is nothing in the speech from the throne which indicates that they will be honoured in the present session.
The hon. member for York-Sunbury spoke in complete contradiction of the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Fleming), who in Fredericton on October 22 last made a review of the Atlantic resolution promises and claimed that those not yet redeemed would be honoured at the next session. The hon. member for York-Sunbury gave to the federal government credit for the establishment of an electronic plant in Campbellton. The people of New Brunswick know that the plant under consideration in Campbellton, New Brunswick, is being financed by the government of the province of New Brunswick and the company's operation will be partly financed by a guaranteed loan from the province.
The hon. member for York-Sunbury has forgotten that during the Liberal administration, right in his own backyard, only 12 miles from Fredericton, the federal government spent from $60 million to $70 million for the construction of Camp Gagetown, and during those years of construction from 3,000 to 5,000 men were employed in the construction of that camp.
The hon. member, while mentioning different airports where some work has been done in recent years, seems to have forgotten Cornwallis in Nova Scotia, Greenwood and the Halifax dockyard. He seems to have forgotten the Chatham air base, St. Marguerite, the munitions depot at Renous, and again in his own constituency, the munitions depot at McGivney. He also seems to have forgotten the air base at Summerside.
There is nothing in the speech from the throne leading to the establishment of a national development fund which would result in the expansion of industrial capital in the area. Such a fund could operate jointly with provincial governments and result in the expansion of secondary industries in the Atlantic provinces. It could also take care of those capital projects which are essential and which must be undertaken if the Atlantic region is to share in the creation of lasting assets required to bring the Atlantic economy in line with that of the rest of Canada.
A situation where unemployment remains 75 per cent higher and where incomes are 40 per cent lower than the rest of Canada cannot be accepted and must not be accepted as incurable. If such countries as Britain,
210	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Rohichaud Italy and Norway are able to cope, and to cope successfully, with similar situations, why should we in Canada allow such conditions to prevail?
On October 23 last the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) saw fit to release a statement on the Chignecto canal. This statement, ruling out construction of this long awaited project, was based on what the minister called a special study which had indicated that it would be "very unsound economics" to proceed with the project at this time.
What is still to be found out is, what kind of study has been carried out and by whom? Everyone in this house recalls the announcement made in June, 1960 by the Minister of Forestry, then premier of New Brunswick, who stated, as reported in the Chronicle-Herald for June 22, 1960:
The premier told newsmen that his government proposes to share in the payment of up to 50 per cent of the cost of a study of the feasibility of the Chignecto canal, from an engineering standpoint "in the light of modern conditions and in relation to proposed routes".
He would make the offer to the federal government, which would be asked to pay the balance of the cost of the engineering study.
On the same day, June 22, 1960, as reported at page 5242 of Hansard, the Minister of Public Works had this to say:
In reply to the hon. member for Charlotte, may I say that after consulting many times with Premier Hugh John Flemming, and the government of the province of New Brunswick, having undertaken to pay one half of the cost thereof the federal government has agreed to a survey being proceeded with to determine the feasibility of building the Chignecto canal.
Premier Robichaud of New Brunswick, as soon as he assumed power in New Brunswick after the June 27 election of that year, made it known in no uncertain terms that his government would honour the commitments made by the previous administration and that his government was prepared to pay one half of the cost of the Chignecto survey.
What results did we get? On October 21 last, the Prime Minister, in an interview in Fredericton stated in referring to the Chignecto survey that there would be a determination shortly.
As reported in the Telegraph-Journal of Monday, October 23, Mr. Diefenbaker said: "A very careful and comprehensive survey was undertaken to ascertain the economic possibilities" of the canal. He was unaware whether the survey had ended. When the study was complete the public works minister would give his views on the matter.
I repeat, the Prime Minister said he was unaware whether the survey had ended. Here was the Prime Minister, on Saturday evening in Fredericton unaware whether the survey had ended, and on Monday, October 23- 48 hours later-the Minister of Public Works 

released as a shock to the entire population of the maritimes his most disappointing and unacceptable report.
Where was the survey promised prior to the June 1960 election in New Brunswick? The people of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have a right to know what type of survey has been carried out in order to justify the minister's statement. On what basis could a cost of $142 million be determined if the promised engineering survey had not been carried out at all?
Had the Minister of Public Works and the Prime Minister already forgotten a report which was tabled in the House of Commons on January 19, 1953, part of which reads as follows:
The commission finds that at the present the economic returns to the Canadian people on the investment in the proposed South Saskatchewan river project are not commensurate with the cost.
This, however, did not prevent the present government from signing an agreement with the province of Saskatchewan for construction of this project on July 25, 1958.
How can we believe a Prime Minister who states on October 21, at a press interview, that he was unaware that a survey had ended, when as we have every reason to believe, only a few days before, the whole matter had been discussed by the cabinet and the Minister of Public Works had been instructed to prepare a statement on the whole matter?
How can be believe the same Prime Minister when a few weeks later in Charlottetown he tried to impress his audience by declaring that the long proposed causeway to link Prince Edward Island with the mainland was economically feasible? How could he know so little about the Chignecto canal and pretend to know so much about the causeway when, according to the Minister of Public Works' own admission in this house on January 22, no official or preliminary reports had been made available to the Prime Minister prior to his visit to Charlottetown on December 6 last?
The citizens of the maritime provinces have reacted to the bombshell dropped on them by the Minister of Public Works on October 23 last. The government cannot ignore the demand of the maritimes population and the Chignecto canal must become a reality.
The Prime Minister must be reminded again and again that no public project anywhere in Canada can do as much for an area as the Chignecto project can do for the Atlantic provinces. This offhand dismissal of the whole idea is not being accepted hands down by the citizens of the maritimes, and the present government has no right to base

its appraisal on such an incomplete assessment of all factors, whether engineering or economical.
As I stated earlier, while the Canadian economy demonstrated some growth during 1961, it was not the stable and continuous growth which Canada enjoyed from 1950 to 1957. While during these years the gross national product increased at an average rate of 5.6 per cent annually, the facts are that since this government took office the average increase has been less than 1J per cent annually.
What has been the performance of the Atlantic provinces in this supposedly booming year of 1961? According to statements which we hear every day in this house coming from the government side, we must accept it as a satisfactory situation. I have here a report produced by the Atlantic provinces economic council dated January, 1962, and this report gives a summary of the performance of the Atlantic region. Population increased by 1.8 per cent. Well, the federal government cannot take credit for that, I am sure. The labour force went up by 4.4 per cent. Here again, no credit can be taken by the government. It is true that employment itself increased by 3.6 per cent, but, at the same time, unemployment went up by 11.7 per cent during the period. Is that a satisfactory situation?


Thomas Miller Bell: Premier Ro-bichaud thinks things are good.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Indeed, if it were not for the foresight and the action of the provincial government of New Brunswick, in the Atlantic provinces, unemployment would be up by 14 or 15 per cent.


Mr. Stewart:: Nonsense. Give the figures.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am giving the figures. These figures have been produced as a result of a survey made by APEC. Farm cash income, down 5.8 per cent as compared with 1960; fish landings, down 6.6 per cent; pulp-wood, down 28.7 per cent.


Robert Dugald Caldwell Stewart: Why didn't you set the price a little higher? That is up to the provincial government.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Ask the Minister of Forestry what he did on that matter when he was premier of New Brunswick. He was there for eight years. He had plenty of time to do it. Perhaps for the same reason as was stated earlier by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert-he had no responsibility. When it was decided that oil would be used in the East Saint John thermal plant, who was responsible for the decision?
The Address-Mr. Robichaud
All the hon. member for Saint John-Albert had to do was to turn to his colleague, the Minister of Forestry, sitting two seats away from him, and ask him why.
To continue the report: coal, down 18.2 per cent-


Robert Dugald Caldwell Stewart: Read the rest of the figures -the ones further on.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I will. Manufacturing shipments, no change; housing construction, up 5.8 per cent. Here I would say that the federal government may take some credit. Building permits, up 16.3 per cent. Well, the federal government can certainly take no credit for that. Retail sales, up 1.2 per cent. They had to show an increase because the population had increased by 1.8 per cent. New car sales, 6.4 per cent.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Up.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes, but that is no help to the economy of New Brunswick or the Atlantic provinces.
The decline in Atlantic income derived from our primary industries such as farming, mining, forestry and fisheries is significant indeed. It is true that due to the foresight of our provincial governments, particularly in the province of New Brunswick, some action has in recent months been taken which leaves us with hopeful signs for the future. The facts are, however, that nowhere in the speech from the throne can we find any reference, any hope that this government will contribute or is prepared to contribute to the development of our resources in the Atlantic provinces having regard to their differing needs and varying financial capabilities.
I have on the order paper a resolution which calls for urgent consideration of the advisability of establishing an Atlantic provinces capital investment fund for the purpose of financing large projects essential to further economic development of the primary industries in these provinces. Such a fund, together with special low rate capital loans, provided by Ottawa for new industries, would result in promoting industrial development in the Atlantic area.
Nothing in the speech from the throne gives the least hope that the government intends to introduce measures which would create conditions to attract capital into the development of our national resources. The first and most effective measure to be connected with the establishment of a capital investment fund should be a provision for federal tax concessions to industries now established and willing to establish themselves in the Atlantic area.
There is an urgent need for such extraordinary measures in the Atlantic region,

The Address-Mr. Churchill but the time has come for extraordinary national measures to make it possible for our area to participate equally and properly in the fundamental principle which led to confederation 95 years ago.
(Translation):
Not only has the speech from the throne ignored the urgent needs of a baffled people, but one wonders if the government of the day is not more interested in luring the electors than in trying to remedy the alarming conditions which face the Canadian people at the outset of this new year.
In spite of an accumulation of successive deficits which total over $2 billion, of the depletion of the unemployment insurance fund in which there was $900 million, the present government, in the four and a half years it has been in power, has been unable to ensure in Canada the progress, prosperity and prestige enjoyed by our country under the previous Liberal governments of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King and the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent-


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to remind the hon. member that his time has expired.
(Text):


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is customary in a great many debates for hon. members to rise and say they have no intention of participating but are encouraged to do so by what has been said by a previous speaker. That, sir, is the situation under which I enter this debate, not only because of what was said by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) but because of statements made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier), the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson).
The speech we have just heard ended on a note presently being sounded by many prominent members of the opposition about an alleged decline in Canada's prestige throughout the world. Statements like that cannot be allowed to go without question, and I intend to deal with the matter. Just a few minutes ago we heard the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam talking about his experience at the United Nations. It seems that everybody who goes to the United Nations becomes an expert on that great world organization. The hon. member told us about conversations he had down there with people who expressed dislike for Canada's policy and for Canada itself. Apparently he agreed with those statements.

When I asked him to name the countries whose representatives made such remarks, he declined to do so. He said everyone with whom he talked at the United Nations expressed dislike for Canada's policy, but he failed to name a single representative or country. He himself was quite prepared to downgrade Canada, and to proclaim in the House of Commons that in his opinion, and that of some of his dubious friends at the United Nations, Canada's prestige is not as high as it used to be. I repeat he did not name a single one of those representatives.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver East, also speaking about his experience with the United Nations-he in his own opinion being another expert with regard to that organization-said as reported in Hansard at page 168:
*-one of the greatest heartbreaks of my life is to see the way in which this government has brought Canada into international disrepute and made her the laughingstock of the nations of the world.
Now, sir, some of the best representatives in the House of Commons come from the great province of British Columbia. These two gentlemen represent the constituencies I have mentioned, but there are other representatives of that great province in this house and I do not know a single person in British Columbia who would downgrade Canada in the way these gentlemen did yesterday and today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is not in the tradition of British Columbia, a province which has been in the forefront of activities aimed at national unity and keeping the prestige of Canada high throughout the world. I regret that the province should now, through the mouths of these two representatives, be disturbed, as we are disturbed, over expressions which would lead to the discredit of our great country. Of course the stage was set a few days ago by none other than the Leader of the Opposition who, with all the experience he has had as a former secretary of state for external affairs, and with his experience in international affairs, went so far as to lend the weight of his influence to downgrading Canada, and engaged in casting aspersions at the present Secretary of State for External Affairs. He set the tone and lesser lights followed it, but none of these gentlemen represent the opinion of Canadians. They are so far removed from the people that they have lost touch with the opinion of Canadians across the country.

One of the best representatives in the government at present is our esteemed colleague and long-time member of the House of Commons, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He is the type of representative, who along with others from that great province, established the reputation of British Columbia in the House of Commons. He has been in the house since 1935 and was one of its most effective members during all the years he sat on the opposition benches. He is a man dedicated to the task of maintaining Canada's proud name in the international realm. He is dedicated to the pursuit of peace and the people of Canada recognize that and pay tribute to him for the great leadership he is showing in a very difficult sphere. He is struggling for peace.


An hon. Member:: It is a pity his party would not follow suit.


Gordon Minto Churchill: His party is right behind him in his efforts. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is struggling to achieve disarmament. We all know the history of the world during the last 30 or 40 years and the great difficulty there has been in maintaining peace, difficulty negotiating with communist countries, and difficulty pertaining to attempts to achieve disarmament. Yet, in the face of all the disappointments he has had throughout his lifetime, he is carrying a torch in this great endeavour to maintain peace in the world and to effect disarmament.
What man could pursue a greater cause in the face of the disappointment of earlier years? In spite of that the Leader of the Opposition, who served in the capacity of secretary of state for external affairs, at-temps to discredit the present occupant of that office and, to my great regret, both inside and outside the house lends the weight of his experience and authority to suggest that Canada's influence in world affairs had decreased, the inference being that when he was secretary of state for external affairs Canada's international status was never greater.
I well remember the late Gordon Graydon, the former member for Peel, being our spokesman on external affairs, and the close co-operation that existed between the opposition and the government in the field of international affairs. The late Mr. Graydon supported the then secretary of state for external affairs, realizing the difficulties of his position and realizing that, for the benefit of Canada's stature in the world, the Canadian parliament should present a united front. That situation prevailed until the Suez crisis in
The Address-Mr. Churchill 1956 when the then secretary of state for external affairs was not at his best. I will not recite the situation that prevailed in those days. I offered criticism, as did others of the action of our then secretary of state for external affairs. However, we did not downgrade Canada. We did not say that Canada's international reputation was destroyed because of the mistakes he made during that crisis. We pointed out those mistakes but we did not downgrade our own country.
Similarly, Mr. Speaker, Canada's stature in international affairs has never been higher than it is under the leadership of the greatest prime minister of our day, namely, the present Prime Minister. Who, among the leaders of the world, had the courage at the United Nations a year ago to stand up and lay before the United Nations and the world the situation with regard to Russia and the falseness of the Russian position in pretending that it is not an imperialist power and that it is not subjugating nations which have come within its sphere of influence? It was our Prime Minister who did that and he received world acclaim for so doing. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that Canada's stature in world affairs has not been diminished one iota, since this government took office.


Lionel Chevrier: It has been diminished.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It now stands high among the nations of the world. Who are these people who are condemning Canada at the United Nations? A great many members of the House of Commons have travelled widely around the world. Every one of them, when he comes back home, tells of the great acclaim that is accorded Canada by people in countries of the world. Who are these representatives at the United Nations, these unnamed people, who are decrying Canada? I suspect it is some of the people who go down there from the New Democratic party-the old and defunct C.C.P. party-who have been decrying Canada and then that somebody perhaps has agreed with them, thinking they represent Canada.


Mr. Winch:: Ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They are not good representatives of Canada abroad. I know that you yourself, Mr. Speaker, have travelled very widely. I suggest that if you go to any country in the world, outside of the iron curtain countries, you will find that the name of Canada is held in the greatest esteem and for very good reasons. There is no obligation undertaken by Canada under the United Nations that she has not fulfilled. I ask hon. gentlemen opposite this: Have you already forgotten the

The Address-Mr. Churchill war in Korea when Canadian soldiers, airmen and representatives of the navy played their full part? Have you already forgotten our troops who are in the Gaza strip between Israel and Egypt and who have been there in rotation for years performing their duty in behalf of maintaining peace? Have you already forgotten our men who are in constant danger in the Congo? Have you forgotten our men who have been standing guard in Europe for so many years?
Canada has been playing her part in all international affairs where assistance has been required of a military nature and has similarly played her part where assistance has been required on the economic plane. Canada has never failed to pay her share of the cost of the United Nations, has never failed to respond to requests for food for the underdeveloped countries, has never declined to assist the various other operations conducted by United Nations bodies, whether it is with regard to medical care, health education or providing educational opportunities.
There is no field in which Canada has not been playing her part internationally. We are one of the leading members of NATO, an organization which is set up and maintained in order to preserve our freedom. I may mention the Colombo plan. My hon. friends opposite can share with us in any credit that is due Canada under the Colombo plan and I may say that a great deal of credit is due. We co-operated with them in days gone by when they proposed appropriations for the Colombo plan and they have co-operated with us similarly. Under the Colombo plan Canada has played her full part with other nations of the world in assisting underdeveloped countries.
Just a year ago I had the good fortune to be in India at the official opening of the Canada-India atomic reactor in Bombay. Full praise was given to Canada's assistance in that operation by Prime Minister Nehru, by representatives of his government and by the people who were assembled there on that occasion. I had the good fortune to go into the state of Madras where, under the Colombo plan, Canadians and Indian engineers and the people of India have constructed great hydroelectric works. The reception afforded our party is almost beyond description.
We travelled through some 15 to 20 Indian villages in the state of Madras, and at every village there was an arch expressing welcome to the Canadian representatives. At every village the villagers turned out to shout again and again, "Canada", "Canada". Thousands of people in that area know Canada and

know what Canada has done. Ten thousand of them worked on the dams and on the works in that Kundah project. The word "Canada" is there on large boards. It is inscribed permanently on bronze plaques in buildings that have been erected at the power stations. The people of the province of Madras who worked on the dam and those who are benefiting from the electric power supply know the word "Canada", are happy to meet Canadians and speak highly of Canada.
The same is true in Pakistan. One of the finest hydroelectric developments in southern Asia is at Warsak. The great dam was built there by Canadian engineers and skilled Canadian technicians, with the assistance of the people of Pakistan themselves. It is a great monument to Canada's efforts to assist an underdeveloped nation. The people of Pakistan, from President Ayub Khan down, could not fully express their appreciation of all that Canada has done. You cannot tell me that Canada's name is not held high in India and Pakistan. There is no discrediting of Canada in those two countries.
The same is true in Europe. Not a country in western Europe has anything but good to say with regard to Canada. Canada is known in western Europe. There is the friendliest feeling for Canada in western Europe. You have only to go to France, Belgium or Holland, as I have done as the representative of the government on trade matters or with regard to the Canadian wheat board or as the representative of the government to attend memorial services at Vimy Ridge or at the cemeteries in Belgium and Holland, to find out that this is so. Irrespective of the particular field of endeavour that one represents, I have found nothing but respect and praise for Canada and an understanding of Canada which the people of these countries find it difficult to express.
You cannot tell me that Canada's name is not held in high regard in these countries. France, Belgium and Holland have not forgotten the contribution Canada has made in two wars. These things remain in the hearts of these people and, although there may be the odd criticism here and there of some action, basically the people of these countries have nothing but the highest regard for Canada and the Canadian people. On some other occasion I hope to inform the House of Commons of the great respect, care and attention which the people of these three countries that I have mentioned pay to the sacrifices made by Canadians in both world wars.

I put it to my friends here in the House of Commons that these reports about Canada's name being held in low regard at the United Nations have no resemblance to the truth whatsoever. Two or three disgruntled representatives of some country at the United Nations find fault with Canada over something that may have happened but that does not represent the feeling of the people of these various countries. All you have to do is to visit the countries to see what the reaction of the people is. Canada's name is held in high regard.
Canada is respected for several reasons. As I have said, Canada has played its full part with respect to its obligations under the United Nations and has been playing its full part in NATO all these years. Canada is recognized as a country that has no selfish ambitions for power and as one which makes no demands upon other nations. Canada is recognized as a generous country that is ready to help, ready to exchange students, ready to exchange technicians, ready to send doctors, nurses, scientists and engineers abroad to assist in countries which are developing.
Where in all of that is disrespect for Canada? Where in all of that has Canada lost her prestige throughout the world? She has not lost it at all. It is higher than it has ever been and those people in this country who pose as experts on the United Nations, as experts with regard to the opinion of people in other countries, are not fooling anyone at all. They do not know what the situation is in other countries of the world. Let them stand up here and tell us what country of the world is finding fault with Canada other than some iron curtain country. I challenge them to put the names of these countries before us. Oh, no, they do not want to embarrass those dubious friends of theirs at the United Nations. They do not want to get themselves involved in some way with some peculiar type somewhere in the world. Oh, no. They will not disclose that information. They will decry Canada. Canada is this, that and the other thing. Canada's reputation, they tell us, has been destroyed.
Not one word of that is true. Canada's reputation is high and Canada's prestige throughout the world will be retained under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Foreign observers see in this country a stability of government which they did not recognize in 1956. They see a stability of government which they recognize as good for this country and good for the world.
The Address-Mr. Churchill
Within the British commonwealth of nations Canada's position is still the same and still assured. There is the greatest friendliness within that organization. Our party has always stood for a strong commonwealth of nations. Not so with the Liberal party across the way. I pointed out in 1956 that I had gone to the trouble of reading all the speeches that had been made by the Leader of the Opposition when he was secretary of state for external affairs. I kept notes of all his speeches to see on what occasions he had mentioned the commonwealth. He almost never mentioned the commonwealth or did so simply by way of an aside if there was to be a commonwealth conference. I examined all his speeches in the House of Commons and he never mentioned the commonwealth unless in response to a question. That represents the stand of the Liberal party with regard to the commonwealth. On the other hand, our party has always been strongly in favour of a strong commonwealth. We have supported the commonwealth and will continue to do so.
I hope there will be an end in this debate or subsequently to these disparaging remarks about Canada's prestige in world affairs, these disparaging remarks with regard to one of the greatest members of the House of Commons, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, these disparaging remarks with regard to the leadership afforded by the Prime Minister. This is not the way in which Canada should present herself to the world. We can have all sorts of differences locally-and there are plenty of things on which to differ-but as far as world opinion and international affairs are concerned we should show a united front. That is not being done at the present time in the light of what was said by the Leader of the Opposition just the other day. This is not good for Canada and no one knows better than the Leader of the Opposition the damage that can be done to Canada's reputation abroad by statements such as he made in the house the other day.
I suggest that if the name of Canada, a country which has given so much in the past and which is continuing to make such a great contribution at the present time, is to be maintained as it has been down through the years responsible Canadians must not downgrade our country. For a small country Canada has made proportionately as great a sacrifice during the last 40 years as any country in the world and Canada is prepared to continue in all the efforts that are now being made to defend ourselves in case of necessity, to negotiate in order to preserve the peace and to lend all our efforts for the preservation of peace. Let us not forget our young men scattered throughout the world at the present time

The Address-Mr. A. Brassard and our young men in Canada who are standing on guard hour after hour in case of necessity. Canada is playing her full part and Canada's name should be praised and not downgraded in the House of Commons.
(Translation):


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join those who spoke before me in congratulating the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Bourdages) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) for the honour the government has bestowed upon them by asking them to be respectively the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I also wish to commend the Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau). I wish him success in his new office. We hope, or rather we are sure, that he will perform his duties with understanding, judgment and impartiality, the more so since he will have you as an example, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn) also deserves congratulations for having been appointed Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. I wish him and the new parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard), every success.
Like most hon. members, I have followed closely the speech which was delivered by the leader of the Liberal party (Mr. Pearson) during the debate on the speech from the throne, and I wish to say that seldom have 1 been as proud to be a Liberal and to have for a leader the hon. member who spoke in this house on Monday. I know that those feelings are fully shared by my colleagues.
His comments reflected common sense and moderation. In spite of what the hon. members opposite may think, he has drawn a true picture of the state of affairs in Canada, and that is why his speech hurt. It did indeed, and the pain it caused may be seen in the fact that there were 74 interruptions by seven ministers, not to mention those by private members.
Do you know who won the competition? None other than that man of a few words, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). No, it was not the Prime Minister. I would say that it was on the part of the minister, a bit of a revenge for the 1956 convention. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) was well ahead with 46 interruptions.
Would you like a few samples from his stock of words, which paint him better than the best painter's brush could? Here are a few:


Nonsense . . . That is not true ... Silly talk .. . Lies . . . Foolish statement. .. Misrepresentation ...
And there are many others. All on fields in which, it must be agreed, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) has long shown himself to be an expert.
The runner-up was the Right Hon. Prime Minister with seven interruptions. He surely deserves a certificate of merit. His interruptions, although not so numerous, were a little more insidious.
I am sure it will not please my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) nor the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill) to hear me quote some statements and some views set forth by the Prime Minister, and then say what I think of such behaviour in this house.
On page 39 of Hansard for January 22, 1962, concerning a copy of the speech from the throne sent to the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister stated:
The hon. member received a confidential copy in the usual way. Did he respect the confidentiality of that document, or did he make it available to others?
Mr. Speaker, whoever has carefully studied the two men since 1957 cannot but wonder that such a question should have been put by the one who has asked it. He should be the last one to doubt somebody else's statements, especially those made by the leader of the Liberal party, who is known as a man who has always shown the highest regard for truth and the oath of office.
And what are we to think of that other inference, of a truly personal nature, made by the Prime Minister, and which I find on page 73 of Hansard:
I want to tell the hon. gentleman this: that is one subject, softness on communism, that he should not discuss.
The Prime Minister was indeed justified in stating during that same speech:
To increase one's own prestige in one's eyes it is not necessary to run down another.
He was really speaking "ex cathedra" when he talked that way.
The third one was the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) with his six interruptions. I must admit that they were slightly less numerous than those he made during the famous pipe line debate.
Fourth in line, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) with four.
Ex-aequo in fifth place, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker).
Now, sixth in line, we see the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) to whom we shall give a consolation prize.

No doubt, the speech of the Leader of the Opposition helped further aggravate the almost open sores of the present administration.
When I speak in this way, it is not because I am despaired, as I am not here to get myself re-elected, no more than are my fellow members.
We are here to look after the public's interests and, from time to time, pass judgment on those of our colleagues who, in our modest opinion, may show weaknesses in carrying out their responsibilities.
I not only listened to the Prime Minister but also admired the elegance and flourish of his gesture which invariably precedes his word in the best tradition of ancient Roman rhetors. I also admired the varied modulations which expressed a great variety of feelings, and I also admired the great ease with which he passed from the angriest to the most amiable tones.
Mr. Speaker, may I point out that it is six o'clock?
(Text):
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
(Translation):
Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, before the house recessed I was saying how much I had admired the performance of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker) last Tuesday, during the debate on the address in reply.
Neither should I fail to mention his great facility for resorting to irony and sarcasm and more particularly the incredible agility of his gyrations among his colleagues, an agitation which gives us an almost unique and priceless opportunity to study him in profile, from the back, in full face, half and three-quarter face, from half back, semi-profile, in short in all the postures very peculiar to him and which command the required applause.
I also discovered in him a rather doubtful talent for imitation. Perhaps, because of one of his more recent statements he has, this year, dropped one of his favorite practices which consisted in looking straight and insistently at the press gallery. If he ever decided to make peace with the newspapermen and return to his old love, I should hardly be surprised if he became one day
The Address-Mr. A. Brassard the half pleased recipient of an "Oscar" which, for him, would admirably replace the Nobel prize for peace.
His final scene in the last parliament, in 1958, had left me dumbfounded. However, I realized that having been some time in opposition he could not be expected to forsake his true nature so soon. The display and the show we witnessed Tuesday morning appalled me. Just to think that the performer was the first citizen of my country. If he ever deigned to glance at my humble remarks, he would doubtless have a taste of the medicine so often served to others, and if he realized what others feel under such attacks, he might perhaps decide to leave to others in his party who are well qualified in this field and able to do that kind of work such a task unbecoming to the Prime Minister of my country.
Conservative members complain when we speak like this. Some of them-not all of them fortunately-speak one way and act differently.
If we challenge what they do or what they say, we are accused of working against national unity. Mr. Speaker, this way of thinking reminds me of the strong protests of somebody who would try to strangle you and be shocked if you shouted for help.
Mr. Speaker, shortly before the six o'clock recess, the hon. member for Bumaby-Coqui-tlam (Mr. Regier) charged the Liberal party with using mean and fraudulent tactics in the election held in two neighbouring ridings of Toronto. He contended that the Liberal party was responsible for the distribution of certain communist pamphlets. He also asserted in a most assured way that the electoral machinery of the Liberal party in Toronto had been used to make phone calls, ostensibly from representatives of the communist party, to advise voters to cast their ballots for the candidates of the new party.
The hon. member stated moreover that this campaign could not have been the work of the communists, on the ground that they did not have the required means. Now-I am only addressing myself to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam-I must say I am rather surprised to find him so well informed on the financial status of the communist party, for it is usually a well kept secret.
I might add, again for the benefit of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, that I would not be surprised if the communist party really conducted this base attack. We have a party called the social credit rally which has a 15-minute television program every week during 26 weeks a year, and to my knowledge, that party has no official source of income.
218	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. A. Brassard
Furthermore-and here I am slightly hesitant-I would not be surprised if the communist party had succeeded in these attacks, for to whoever has read the article published by Mr. Tim Buck in the May-June 1961 issue of "The Marxist Review" under the title "The New Party and our Responsibilities", the doings of certain communists are no surprise. Mr. Speaker, it would be dishonest on my part to infer, by quoting that article, that the new party is a communist party. It would be dishonest, unskillful and, in my opinion, wrong. But this does not mean that the communists do not have their reasons for granting them their support.
I should like to quote two paragraphs from pages 20 and 21 of this pamphlet:
(Text):
Politically the New party is the fruit of more than 40 years of interest and experimentation by the labour movement, ripened by the pressure of the great historic changes taking place in the world-
To those good comrades who ask: "Why should we devote energy to help the New party, why not concentrate upon building our own?" The answer is that there is no solid wall between positive activity in your union or any other organization on behalf of the New party and the building of our own; on the contrary, the two tasks supplement each other.
(Translation):
That is what Mr. Buck thinks and those are the instructions he gave his supporters and members of the party.
Once again, I do not claim the new party to be a communistic party but, in view of the formal accusations put forward by the hon. member of Burnaby-Coquitlam, I thought that I could be as bold as he was and return the stone he threw on our side.
That does not keep me from having great respect for a great many members of the new party who are sincere, just as I know that others have slipped in by opportunism, because they were disgusted or merely trying to attain prominence.
To come back to the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, like some of my colleagues, I do not deny that it contains some good news, such as the increase in old age pensions and perhaps certain other measures.
The Prime Minister recalled with emotion what he has done in the field of old age pensions. But how could pensions be increased, Mr. Speaker, if not because the law was already on the statute books of Canada and it had been put there by the previous administration.
The Conservative members have only to weigh the introduction of that social measure, they only have to weigh the amount which we have paid and compare it with the $19 which the Conservative party has added to


those pensions, and I hope that they will be objective enough in their judgment to realize where the greater share of the credit belongs.
Besides, it is no secret that in the past the Conservatives have never entirely approved the very principle of allowances, of social measures. Do you want examples? Concerning old age pension only, Mr. C. H. Cahan, ex-member for St. Lawrence-St. George, said this on April 15, 1926, page 2470 of Hansard:
(Text):
It assumes that at 70 years of age every Canadian who has lived in this country for 20 years is utterly incapacitated to earn a living. I object to that assumption, because actual incapacity should be the fundamental principle embodied in any pension scheme.
At page 2474 of Hansard of April 15, 1926, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen said:
Now aside from the fact that the provinces have taken care of this situation, this being their responsibility under the constitution, this legislation is not framed on the principle of disability at all. As a matter of fact there is no principle of any kind underlying it.
(Translation):
No wonder, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. King's bill on old age pensions was nipped in the bud in the Senate by a Conservative majority.
(Text):


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Not by the Conservatives. Can I ask a question-
(Translation):


Augustin Brassard: You may ask
questions when I am finished. I shall then be glad to answer them. Besides, I figure that the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister is entitled to participate in the debate and that he may take the floor without having to ask permission of his whip.
Another thing, Mr. Speaker, about those increases. When the Liberal party increased old age pensions-I am not discussing the amount-at the same time, it increased family allowances. The cost of living index at the time was 74.6 while it is now 129.2.
Why have family allowances been completely ignored? Why have they not been extended in the case of the 16 to 18 year-old age group, as the Liberal party had suggested, and as it is still proposing to do?
When the Liberal party introduced the Family Allowances Act, the Conservative party raised an outcry of protest. Neither insults nor, in some cases, abuse were spared.
No wonder there is no mention of them in the speech from the throne. I could quote a few arguments put forward by those who spoke against the family allowances bill at

the time. Mr. John Bracken, a prominent figure, called it a "national bribe" as reported in Hansard for June 27, 1944.
According to the official report for June 27, 1944, Mr. Graydon stated:
(Text):
Liberal party politics.
(Translation):
According to page 5577 of Hansard of July 31, 1944, Mr. H. A. Bruce said this:
(Text):
I am not intimidated by the threat the Prime Minister has made and I now declare that this measure is a bribe of the most brazen character, made chiefly to one province and paid for by the taxes of the rest.
(Translation):
According to page 5365 of Hansard of July 25, 1944, the same Mr. Bruce said this:
Surely there must be some alternative to baby bonuses which will preserve the sanctity of the family, maintain a normal birth rate and place the major economic burden of raising children where it belongs, upon the parents.
(Translation):
Is it surprising that there should be so much confusion in the name, ideas, speeches and actions of some Conservatives.
First of all, the name breeds confusion. Mr. Speaker, how can one explain that in 1962, the party is still called both progressive and conservative at the same time? It is a paradox, better still, an anachronism, in this day and age, when our society undergoes basic transformation, when we have to adapt to changing conditions not only in Canada and in the United States, but throughout the world, including Asia and Africa.
Here is further proof that they often contradict themselves. My leader has often been accused of seldom speaking about the commonwealth. Mr. Lester B. Pearson was quoted; I think it was by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, when he spoke of the Suez crisis which occurred when the Liberal government was in power. In my opinion, the role played by the present Leader of the Opposition during the dark days of the Suez crisis, when he was secretary of state for external affairs, is much more glorious than the one which the Prime Minister of Canada played at the commonwealth prime ministers' conference in London where one could see the beginning of the disintegration of the commonwealth, because of the way he acted at that conference.
(Text):


Mr. McGee:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Augustin Brassard: When I have finished my speech I shall be delighted to answer any questions.
The Address-Mr. A. Brassard (Translation):
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the role played by the former secretary of state for external affairs in the Suez crisis amounted to preserving world peace. That is why he received the Nobel prize for peace.
And here is another example of the contradictions that are to be found between the speeches and the deeds. Everything has been said in this house and outside about the bill of rights. We adopted it. And then what happened? The first government to transgress it is the very same one who introduced the bill, by condemning a man without giving him a hearing.
Again last Tuesday, none other than the Prime Minister himself violated the principles of the bill, in this very house, in accusing former servants of this country, persons who were absent, laying serious charges against them, when he knew full well that they could not come here to defend themselves before him and to refute his charges.
(Text):


Mr. Henderson:: Watch your blood pressure. (Translation):


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, I shall follow the advice that the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Henderson) has just given me.
I should now like to deal with a problem affecting my section of the country, since it has to do with agriculture. We have had a problem, which I have submitted to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton), and I must thank him very much, because he did deal with it. Besides, my colleagues of the other three constituencies in the area had done the same thing. He dealt with it and applied the solution that the federation of the C.F.U. of the four constituencies of my area were asking for. Unfortunately, and it is not the minister's fault, a sharp rise in the price of grain followed closely the adjustment, so that the grants were almost wiped out. But just the same, I would point out that the Minister of Agriculture did act upon the request of our C.F.U.
Today, we have a problem in the cheese industry. This is a part of the economy of my area which is very important and remunerative for our farmers, because our production reaches from 8 to 10 million pounds a year. That whole production is sold to one purchaser through the Saguenay Co-Operative Chain.
Since April 1, 1961, the curing of cheese was fixed at 10 to 21 days in the curing rooms. The curing temperature was formerly from 45 to 50 degrees, because the purchaser acquiring the whole production of cheese of the area himself asked that the cheese be kept

The Address-Mr. A. Brassard at temperatures varying from 45 to 50 degrees. The federal government has put the minimum at 58 degrees. That is a general rule, but our cheese is of a rather special kind, in that it is not produced in round cheese, as the Canadian cheddar, but in squares, and the greater part of it is not exported.
This is causing great damage to our industry, in that we are losing points and money on the grading of our product.
The 21-day regulations are also slightly surprising, because recently the period of curing was set at 10 days in the plans supplied by the federal government for the construction of curing houses in Canada.
The Catholic Farmers' Union has held talks with the Minister of Agriculture, who replied that he was under the impression that those regulations had been applied in our province-
(Text):


Gordon Minto Churchill: Your time is up. (Translation):


Augustin Brassard: Because-
(Text):


Mr. Denis:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (Translation):


Augustin Brassard: The minister
replied that he was under the impression that the officials of the department had come to an agreement with the representatives of the C.F.U.
I would ask the minister to send a representative in our province to hold further discussions with the directors of the C.F.U. in an attempt to find a solution to this problem.
Mr. Speaker, before concluding my remarks, I should like to relate a minor but very pleasant incident which occurred at the beginning of January 1961 when my leader was the guest of an international conference of newspaper circulation managers. At the guest table were seated the chairman and all the delegates to the conference as well as the president of the Montreal Gazette. My leader was introduced by Mr. Colvey, the Gazette's circulation manager.
I should like to tell the house how he introduced my leader, as reported by the press the following day.
(Text):
Mr. Pearson, he said, is the greatest citizen of this country and the future prime minister of Canada.
The article continued:
The Gazette being known as a Conservative paper and Mr. Charles H. Peters, president of the council o' the administration of this daily, being at the head table, this political allusion did not pass without creating a stir among the guests.
fMr, Brassard (Lapointe).]
(Translation):
It is easily understandable.
Mr. Speaker, I hope it will not be too long before the government gives us an opportunity to go to the country, let the Canadian people have a look at the balance sheet of the nation and see Mr. Colvey's so accurate prophecy come true.
(Text):


Frank Charles McGee: The hon. member indicated he would reply to questions at the conclusion of his speech. Does he now agree to do so?


Augustin Brassard: Surely.


Frank Charles McGee: The hon. member made a statement a few moments ago that the Prime Minister had presided over the beginning of the dissolution of the commonwealth. I would like either the hon. member, or his leader who is in the house, to say whether he agrees or disagrees with the Prime Minister's stand on apartheid at that conference, instead of trying to weasle out of the question as he did.
(Translation):


Augustin Brassard: I will not ask my leader to answer in my name. All I can say is that the hon. member did not hear me or did not understand. I said that the way he proceeded at the last conference of the commonwealth prime ministers had been disastrous since we had lost a member of the commonwealth. I was speaking about the way he proceeded.


Lionel Chevrier: He does not understand
anything.
(Text):


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: I appreciate very much the privilege of participating in this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne which was very ably moved and seconded by the hon. members for Laval (Mr. Bourdages) and Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne). In doing so I wish to go on record as supporting the address and most emphatically opposing the amendments to it.
I have listened with interest to the remarks of the last speaker, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard), and cannot help but feel he was a bit unfair-indeed it might be put more strongly than that-in accusing the government of using old age security allowances, old age assistance, blindness and disability allowances in such a way as to favour one section of the country as against another. In fact I do not see how he can contribute to unity and good fellowship in all parts of the country by accusing the government of that kind of conduct.
The contents of the speech from the throne indicate that the government will continue

to serve the best interests of all sections of the country, fairly and impartially. Recent articles in the press divulged that the government has fulfilled some 50 or 52 of 60 promises it made, and the measures outlined in the speech from the throne will certainly contribute very substantially to the fulfilment of election promises made in the 1957 and 1958 campaigns. The promise made to our elder citizens that their interests would not be forgotten will be fulfilled by the proposed increase of $10 per month in old age security. Recipients of old age assistance and the blind and disabled will be provided with similar increases by co-operation between the federal and provincial governments. The needs of the farmers will be met by acreage payments in the prairie regions and in other parts of Canada through price supports and stabilization of prices under the Agricultural Stabilization Act.
Of exceptional importance, I believe, is the information contained in the throne speech that conferences are being held with the various provinces concerning the amendment of our Canadian constitution and that agreement has been reached on methods for accomplishing this objective in our own Canadian parliament. Ratification by the provincial governments of this agreement will mark the completion of Canadian sovereignty.
Of paramount importance also is the intention of Canada to begin the construction of an electric power grid from coast to coast. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Dinsdale) told the northern development conference in Edmonton last fall that whereas only 22 per cent of Eskimo children had access to school in 1957, 60 per cent of these children are now in school, some of them already in high school, and that by 1968 there will be a place in a classroom for every child of school age in the Northwest Territories. The territories themselves are also being reorganized and will have two districts instead of one. The two councils should be able to give closer attention to the needs of these areas.
These developments clearly show that the present government has in no way lost the vision which the people of Canada found so appealing in 1957 and 1958 and which I would predict they will again find appealing in 1962.
We have some national problems which are grave, and there are plenty of these problems. Time does not permit us to cover much of this ground in the time allowed to each member who speaks. However, there is one of these problems to which I should like to draw some attention and on which I should like to make some comment. It concerns our butter surplus.
The Address-Mr. Thomas
I should like to commend the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) for the efforts he put forth in order to bring before the members of this house and the country generally the situation as he sees it. He put a great deal of effort into the preparation of his speech. I cannot agree with the solution he suggested. However, he put on the record a great deal of information.
One of the promises which helped to elect this government was that the farmers of Canada should have a greater share of the national income. With this objective in view the government three years ago increased the support price of butter from 58 cents to 64 cents per pound. Because our housewives are buying 25 cent margarine instead of 64 cent butter, we have accumulated upwards of 200 million pounds of butter which is surplus to our requirements. Because butter tends to deteriorate if kept too long in storage, the surplus has proven to be an embarrassment to all concerned. There is no market for this surplus outside of Canada. Butter is available on the world market at half the price of our product. We therefore cannot dispose of it outside of our own country without being accused of dumping. It is doubtful that the domestic market can be expanded to an appreciable extent as margarine has been found to be a generally accepted substitute and it is available at less than half the price of butter.
I do not suppose that any agricultural problem has been given as much consideration during the last two years as has the matter of this butter surplus. I wish to commend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) and the government for one thing in particular, namely for not reducing the support price on butter. I submit that we cannot assist the farmers to obtain a greater share of the national income, as was promised, by cutting the prices of their products; nor do I believe that cutting the price of butter would contribute any appreciable relief to the present situation. The farmer's expenses are inclined to be rigid; and if the price of his product is cut, his only alternative is to produce more units in order to satisfy his requirements. The solution lies rather in diverting our small surplus production of milk to other uses, preferably for use as a supplement in the rations of hogs, poultry and veal calves. This diversion should take place before the milk leaves the farm and before the costs of transportation, processing and other possible costs are added to it.
The Dairy Council of Canada, at their recent convention, requested the government to solve this problem by subsidizing the consumer price of butter to the extent of 14

The Address-Mr. Thomas cents per pound while maintaining the support price at its present level of 64 cents per pound. The weakness that I see in this proposal is that we have no reasonable assurance that the remedy would be successful. It was found by Great Britain and the Netherlands some years ago, when they were faced with a similar problem of the substitution of margarine for butter by housewives, that the buying habits of the consumer were not changed until the price of butter was dropped almost to the level of the price of margarine. I think this situation could be explained by the fact that those people who find margarine an acceptable substitute at a cost of 25 cents per pound are not likely to return to their butter-buying habits until butter can be purchased for approximately the same price. It would likely be found that the purchasers of margarine are those who are most influenced by economic considerations and they are not likely to purchase butter unless the prices are nearly comparable. The proposed subsidy of 14 cents per pound would therefore probably not result in diminishing our butter surplus.
Again, I think another weakness in this proposal is that the domestic market is still consuming 75 per cent of all the butter produced in Canada. Therefore only 25 per cent of our production is surplus. If a general subsidy of 14 cents per pound were applied, we would be subsidizing unnecessarily three pounds out of every four pounds. We would therefore be paying for four pounds or 56 cents per pound for every pound of surplus that we disposed of. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is too expensive a way to solve the problem.
I would suggest that the solution lies in the more complete organization of the dairy industry under marketing boards through which the producers themselves can take the necessary steps to prevent the very small surplus of milk production from exerting undue pressure on the price structure of the dairy industry. Milk is the most universal agricultural product in Canada. Production of many farm products is confined to limited areas but milk is produced almost everywhere. When the dairy industry is depressed the whole of our economy suffers.
No matter how we undertake to support the dairy industry, the surplus will find its way to the point of support. We tried skim milk powder and got into trouble with the surplus. We changed from skim milk powder to butter and we are now in trouble with that. There is no solution to this problem, I submit, except to control the surplus at its source and have the milk fed to farm animals before it gets into the channels of trade.


Press reports indicate that the provinces of Ontario and Quebec are at present reviewing their milk marketing legislation with a view to more effective organization of the dairy industry in these provinces and if these areas, where about 70 per cent of the milk in Canada is produced, are brought under closer control then a small surplus should not be permitted to depress dairy prices, and if the milk can be fed to livestock on the farm the build-up in our dairy butter surplus should be stopped. Nothing effective can be done until the build-up in our butter surplus is stopped. If this can be done, I think it will not be too difficult then to find ways and means of disposing of the surplus. We can dispose of it as we disposed of our canned pork. Coupons could be given to those whose incomes are small or who are in receipt of welfare payments of various kinds so that they could buy butter at a price level the same as that of margarine. There are other ways that it could be done but I can see no point in speculating about ways and means of getting rid of our surplus until we have managed to find some means of stopping the build-up of that surplus.
I should like to place on the record several comments concerning the dairy problem made by leaders in the industry at the dairy farmers of Canada convention held in Montreal last week. Mr. Frank E. Lutes, president of the dairy farmers of Canada, is reported in the Western Producer of January 25, 1962, as having stated that there is an urgent need for a national milk plan. He is quoted as follows:
Lest there be those who fear the element of compulsion suggestive in board marketing, let us consider that the lack of direction and planning in our national production is posing some real compulsion at the moment-compulsion to reduced income on the part of a great number of dairymen.
Mr. Romeo Martin, general manager of the Quebec co-operative federee, said that a steady increase in butter production since 1949 has been coupled with a steady decline in domestic consumption and that more margarine and other substitutes were being consumed each year and many Canadians were cutting down on fats in their diets. He said that better equilibrium between production and consumption is essential but should not be sought by lowering production since present farm cash income is much too low.
Again we come back to the point I have tried to make that farm requirements are quite rigid and that if you cut the price of the farmer's product his only recourse is to increase the number of units produced which only adds to the problem. Mr. Martin is reported as having said that Canada's butter surplus had no outlet in foreign trade and

that world prices were much below Canadian prices. The convention recommended that quotas be established on fluid milk production, based on each producer's production in 1961.
It is quite evident from the news reports of that convention last week that the dairy-farmers themselves are quite aware of the need for some measure of production management and with both producers and governments working on the problem it will likely only be a matter of time until a solution will be found which will prevent the accumulation of unmanageable surpluses of butter. Then the butter surplus can be reduced without unduly disturbing the price structure of the industry.
I wish to refer to one or two other matters before I conclude. The various programs of the federal government for the promotion of better living conditions in all parts of Canada have proved to be beneficial to my constituency of Middlesex West. Our appreciation goes out to the government for the new post office building now under construction in the village of Delaware. Plans are being prepared also for new public buildings at the village of Lucan and the town of Strathroy. The government is participating with the province of Ontario in the construction of the $1 million Parkhill dam. Seventy five per cent of the cost of a new $1 million extension to the Strathroy district collegiate institute to serve as a composite high school will be contributed by the federal government. The province will contribute the other 25 per cent. A grant of $243,000 was made toward the construction cost of the new Strathroy hospital.
Numerous extensions to rural mail routes have been allowed to provide better service to individuals who have been able to qualify under the revised regulations. House to house service in the suburban areas of the city of London has been widely extended as suburban development has proceeded. The Hutton side-road overpass has been completed and the grade crossing fund under the control of the federal government stands ready to contribute 50 per cent of the cost of the new four-lane overpass on Oxford street west as soon as the city has completed its plans for the rebuilding of that traffic artery.
I feel that this opportunity should not pass without mention of the fact that the Queen's guineas prize for baby beef steers has been won by junior farmers in Middlesex county for the past three years in succession. This award was instituted many years ago and was called the King's guineas, and it has now become a special prize of $250 awarded to the boy or girl who feeds and exhibits the best 26207-1-15J
The Address-Mr. Badanai baby beef animal from the province of Ontario at the royal winter fair at Toronto. This year the winner was Shirley Earley of R.R. No. 3, Kerwood; the 1960 winner was John Giles of Glencoe and the 1959 winner was another of the Earley clan, a cousin of the 1961 winner. This is an indication of the very fine type of livestock that is produced in Middlesex county. Full credit must be given also to the young people concerned for their skill in feeding, training and exhibiting these animals.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly that this government has done a wonderful job of administering the affairs of this country. I feel that they continue to offer the best hope for continuing government of the people, by the people and for the people of Canada.


Mr. Maiheson:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Will he kindly indicate whether or not he agrees with my recommendation of January 23 that the government grant an immediate consumer subsidy of 14 cents per pound on butter so that butter can be put on the market at 50 cents a pound without loss to the producer?


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) will read what I said in Hansard he will find my answer fully given.


Mr. Matheson:: Do you agree or not agree?


Some hon. Members:: Read his speech.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: I think there are better means of dealing with the problem than by paying a subsidy as the hon. member has suggested.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: It is
a great privilege, Mr. Speaker, to speak on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I shall use the limited time at my disposal to make a few observations and suggestions which, without being presumptuous, I submit with sincerity.
First of all, sir, I should like to congratulate you upon your appointment as Deputy Speaker. I have had occasion to observe your fine qualities and friendly attitude which will ensure success in the discharge of your duties. I should like also to congratulate the new Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Flynn). If he achieves the success in his new position that he achieved as deputy speaker during the past session, then I am sure he will enjoy a successful term of office. Congratulations are also in order for the mover (Mr. Bourdages) and seconder (Mr. Browne, Vancouver-Kingsway) of the address who, in their speeches-leaving the usual exaggerations aside-displayed remarkable enthusiasm for what the throne speech contained. Under the circumstances, this is quite understandable.

The Address-Mr. Badanai
It is true that the speech contains some measures which are good and will receive unanimous support, such as the legislation designed to increase old age pensions, pensions for the blind and disabled. We were happy to learn that steps will be taken to set up a contributory old age pension system, conditional upon the agreement of the provinces. I am informed, however, that this procedure is not really necessary. The government has the power to introduce a contributory system of old age pensions without an amendment to the British North America Act. The appointment of an independent commission to recommend the redistribution of federal constituencies is to be commended, provided the members of this commission are selected after consultation with, and approval of, the leaders of the opposition parties. The increase in federal loans to finance exports and the broadening of the Small Businesses Loans Act are measures that may well prove beneficial and will receive my support, as will the increase in assistance for the education of the children of the war dead.
The rest of the speech, however, with the exception of a few localized handouts, contained vague and guarded references of a miscellaneous nature but nothing tangible was said about a national program which would expand our economy and create employment on a mass scale. The unemployment picture may be a little better than it was, but not much. I have just received a report from a northwestern Ontario commission on unemployment. This is a body of men appointed by the mayors of the two lakehead cities, Fort William and Port Arthur, to study the problem and offer suggestions. Questionnaires were mailed to more than 3,000 employers and 120 union locals. Replies were received from 800 employers and 27,000 men and women. These have disclosed that since 1956 the rate of growth of jobs at the lakehead has slowed down to one third of the rate in the early 1950's.
Between 1951 and 1961 the twin city population increased by over 25,000 persons. The population has increased by 35 per cent and the job opportunities have increased by only 12 per cent. The immediate result has been an increase in unemployment, particularly since 1956. There are about three times as many unemployed registered now as there were in 1951. The population increase will have its major effect on employment between 1963 and 1970. By 1966, there will be at least 1,200 extra job seekers coming from the schools each year. Our present rate of increase in jobs is about half the required rate. It is therefore obvious that the government must make strenuous efforts to meet the employment problems in the years ahead.


While I have been pointing out the difficulties in the district of Thunder bay, everyone knows that this is also the experience of other regions in Canada.
The establishment of a capital development fund to encourage secondary industries and employment-creating development, administered by an advisory council, should be considered at the earliest possible moment; and the establishment of a municipal road fund to enable municipalities to expand their services and construct much needed municipal projects.
The ultimate goal of the government should be a real attempt to enact employment policies which would provide the substance of the right of the individual to be gainfully employed. The country is tired of hearing the recital of accomplishments of the government, many of which in reality are without substance. There is recovery, but there are no jobs.
No doubt many hon. members have had the experience of talking with a jobless man, married and with a family. You get the feeling that he has to fight a constant battle against frustration. Unemployment insurance benefits may keep his body together, but what will keep his spirits up? All around him are the signs of a prosperous community and he is not a part of it; and those who are part of it, in some instances treat him as a second-class citizen. Unemployment is by far the biggest problem facing the government today.
The kind of economic policies and measures contemplated in the speech from the throne will not provide enough jobs in the time immediately ahead. It is a serious and complex problem which requires a concentrated effort in relation to which, up to the present, the government has given no dynamic leadership.
The speech from the throne did mention the need to bolster the unemployment insurance fund. The special committee appointed by the government to study the question of the unemployment insurance fund-which has taken a severe beating in the past four years- will in its own good time recommend some action which I hope will place the fund on a sound actuarial basis.
The latest figures of the dominion bureau of statistics seem to show that seasonal unemployment is something apart from chronic unemployment. It is an occurrence even in good times of full or near full employment and should be dealt with separately.
During a debate on a supply motion last September I suggested that consideration be given to setting up two separate systems with separate funds, one for seasonal workers and the other for non-seasonal workers. The latter would serve non-seasonal workers, which was

the purpose for which the unemployment insurance fund was originally established-to give regular workers some degree of protection against loss of wages during brief periods of unemployment. Such a fund should be as nearly self-sustaining as possible, while the other fund would require substantial annual assistance from the government. Since a decision has to be made soon and the day of decision cannot be postponed indefinitely, I sincerely trust that this suggestion will be considered by the government.
On various occasions I brought to the attention of the government the need for a new building to house the unemployment insurance commission in Fort William, which now occupies an old, dilapidated building which served as a post office 30 years ago when the city had less than half the population it has today. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) is well aware of the situation and agreed with me that a new building is the only solution to this problem.
Recently it has been suggested that the present post office, which cannot be operated efficiently any longer-it lacks space to take care of the present postal traffic, which has increased threefold, and the location does not lend itself to an extension of facilities or an extension of the building-should be relocated and a new post office should be built on the site where we hoped the new unemployment office would be constructed, moving the present unemployment insurance commission office to the present post office building. This move would be history repeating itself 30 years after a similar move had been made. This is not my suggestion; it has been suggested to me by those in authority in our city. However, I do suggest that the departments concerned give serious consideration to these matters as soon as possible.
Another project that would help the employment situation in the lakehead area and which could be undertaken as a winter works project, is the extension of the existing administration building at the lakehead airport and the extension of airfield runways to handle Vanguards and other large aircraft.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) announced in Fort William last April that $650,000 had been appropriated by the Department of Public Works for this project. Only a few days ago I was advised that treasury board, in their review of the Department of Transport estimates, had reduced to $100,000 the amount for this project to commence late in the fall. This is a disappointment, as we anticipated that the work on the airport would mean employment for several hundred men early in the year.
The speech from the throne differed very little from the generalities of other throne
The Address-Mr. Badanai speeches to which I have had the privilege of listening. One passage which struck me as being rather obscure was the reference to the promotion of world trade. It did not propose any line of action. It simply said something to the effect that the government has renewed promises of support for the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis. What does it all mean?
What a contrast to President Kennedy's recent state of the union message in which the president spelled out the movement of the United States toward lower tariffs and freer trade. Had the speech from the throne contained a proposal that the government would examine the possibility of joining the European common market, and given assurance of definite action for early implementation leading up to the immediate creation of a north Atlantic market with the gradual removal of tariff barriers on either side of the Atlantic, such a statement would have been something to cheer. But instead there was a sidestepping of the issue with meaningless phraseology.


Frank Charles McGee: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Hubert Badanai: After I am through, I will. Japan has adopted a program of trade liberalization affecting many products which we export, notably, pulp and paper packing, wrapping and tissue paper, nickel and forest products and many other items. This liberalization of trade has been made possible by the high international evaluation of Japan's ability for expansive economic growth. Where does our Canadian prospect for economic growth stand? The prospect for economic expansion is closely related to the tariff and tax policies of the government which, so far, have been deficient in the real promotion of trade, and no amount of genial salesmanship on the part of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) can be regarded as an effective substitute.
There is not a word in the speech from the throne about trade with Latin America, though this is a field which, if properly cultivated, might yield an appreciable harvest. It has been reported that Dr. Raul Prebisch, executive secretary of the United Nations economic commission for Latin America, expressed the thought that the people of Latin America would welcome the opportunity of sitting round the conference table with Canadians to explore whether there are any fields in which mutual trade can be expanded. South America's 150 million people could offer a new and substantial market for Canadian products. In 1960- I have not the figures for 1961-we purchased approximately $270 million worth of

The Address-Mr. Badanai goods from South America, while they only purchased from us something like $127 million worth.
The continent of South America appears to be ready to accept a new concept in international relations and trade, in the hope of exchanging their products for manufactured goods and machinery which at their present stage of low technological development they cannot hope to produce themselves.
The field is, therefore, wide open for Canada to sell her manufactured goods in this rich market. Such goods are badly needed in Latin America to help the economic balance of those countries and, in exchange, we would receive valuable natural products. Let us not forget South America when we are considering the expansion of our exports.
Another disappointing feature in the speech from the throne was the total absence of any reference to tax cuts. I know that some will say: how can taxes be cut at a time when welfare costs are to be increased? The way to cut taxes is simple: just cut them. We can learn from the experience of other nations, an experience which has shown that lower taxes often mean higher revenues. This is because more goods can be sold at lower prices. One has only to look at the phenomenal success of food markets and chain stores for proof of this contention. They have shown that low prices and high volume run up larger profits.
The truth of the matter is that far from having recovered its buoyancy, as we have been led to believe by this government, the Canadian economy is still going backwards, and the fact remains that in the absence of meaningful tax reductions there can be little prospect of a lasting improvement in our economy.
Last October I visited Italy. I was particularly impressed by the tremendous economic progress which a country so poor in natural resources has achieved during the past few years. Italy's gross national product for 1961 was expected to have reached, by the end of the year, the highest percentage increase ever recorded. Industrial production, also, was expected to reach an increase of 15 per cent as compared with the previous year.
I asked officials of the government and leading men in industry whom I had the privilege of meeting what was the secret of this prosperity. The reply I received was to the effect that the recovery of the Italian economy, which had been in the doldrums after the war, was no miracle but, rather, the result of common sense in applying efficient methods of manufacturing and

production and flexible government tariffs and export policies, including a moderate tax incentive policy, to aid exports. We would do well to ponder the reasons underlying the success in world markets achieved by a country as poor in natural resources as Italy.
I also visited Israel. Here, indeed, is something to behold. In spite of very limited natural resources and a small population the per capita productivity of this country is simply amazing. They have a productivity council, one of the most successful of its kind, and with the aid of the government it is training 4,000 students a year in industrial management courses. It is to be hoped that when the Canadian productivity council gets into top gear-and I am afraid it is running in low gear now-it will make Canadians more conscious of the need for productivity than it has been able to do so far.
The Montreal Gazette of January 24 has an editorial on this subject from which I wish to quote a paragraph:
The competition that Canada faces in her trade with the world is along a vertical, as well as along a horizontal line. That is to say, she must compete not only with the industries of other nations as they are today; she must be preparing to compete with these industries as they will be in a few years time, say by 1970. To win today (difficult as that is) will not be enough, if Canada will lose tomorrow.
It was generally anticipated that the speech from the throne would disclose information that an amendment to the Immigration Act would be introduced at this, presumably, the last session before the general election. However, the Prime Minister decided on an order in council approving a formula which changes the regulations. This course was taken as a substitute for a change in the act. The statement read by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) last Friday with reference to regulations which will make it possible for immigrants in all parts of the world to enter Canada if they can qualify in respect of education, training and other skills is supposed to be an improvement on the former regulations. This seems to me to be just another way of saying to a prospective immigrant, if for any reason he or she is not wanted: we are sorry, but unfortunately you do not meet the requirements of our regulations so your application for admission to Canada is therefore not approved.
My friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) aptly described the new regulations when he said:
The hon. lady has said that the new section 31. which is substituted for section 20 of the existing regulations, abolishes discrimination. Of course, it does nothing of the kind. It substitutes one

The Address-Mr. Ricard
set of criteria for discrimination for another. I am one of those who think that the words "discrimination" and "selection", as any dictionary shows, mean precisely the same thing, and they cannot mean anything different. The hon. lady is well aware, as she has said previously in the house, that there is in the existing regulations no racial or other similar discrimination, and I am glad there is not going to be any such discrimination now.
But I suggest that what the hon. lady has done is to make it necessary to look at every individual case and compare it with every other case, and that, by abolishing some of the convenient general categories she is going to create an administrative problem that it will be absolutely impossible to cope with if we are to have any substantial immigration. Of course, if the pattern of 1961 is to be followed, when we had a net emigration from this country, it is probable that the new regulations are well designed to serve that end.
Finally I should like to point out that what the government undertook to do five years ago was, not to change the regulations but to change the act, and that has not been done.
Feet that once trod pavements in Britain and Europe are now wearing two and one third million pairs of Australian made shoes and sandals, and this means an extra factory-bench in shoe factories to every ten existing previously. Inside the shoes, the immigrants in a year wear five and three quarter million pairs of socks and stockings of Australian make. They need 2,000 tons of soap. They puff 5J million pounds of cigarettes and tobacco. They eat more than 1J million gallons of ice cream. According to the bureau of census and statistics, an immigrant and his wife supporting two children are estimated to spend each year on the average for food and drink $1,275-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
(Translation):
For my part, Mr. Speaker, I am going to reserve my criticism of the minister's statement until we can see how the new regulations are going to operate. The provision for the admission of a wider list of non-white immigrants who have relatives in Canada, and the broadening of the type of appeals which may be taken before the immigration appeal board, is a welcome change with which few, if any, can quarrel. However, the unfortunate fact is that in 1961 fewer people immigrated to Canada than emigrated from the country, mostly emigrating to the United States.
No one is advocating wide open doors to all and sundry, but I cannot let this occasion go by without expressing concern at the slow flow of desirable immigrants which, for all intents and purposes, has been practically stopped since 1960. Those of us who retain faith in the growth and development of this great and glorious country which we are proud to call our own, believe that desirable immigrants should advance our economic and cultural well being, and be capable of creating a Canadian industrial development by enlarging Canada's domestic market.
What is the worth of an immigrant? The department of immigration of Australia has the answer to this question which in effect, means that before an immigrant begins earning and spending, each adult immigrant worker's value, as he walks to his bench or desk, or to the construction site of a building, has been calculated by Australia's federal treasurer, at $15,000. This is the official cost of feeding, rearing and training an Australian born child up to the working age. Today, every tenth shop girl in Australia's shops owes her place behind the counter to the growing demand which immigrants are creating and helping to fill.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes that remain, I should also like to comment on the unconsidered statements which have been made in this house in the last few days. Opposition speakers have tried to make us believe that Canada's prestige with the other commonwealth nations was declining.
Mr. Speaker, as you were in our group, you know that I had the advantage of going around the world two years ago, and that I attended the commonwealth parliamentary conference in Canberra.
At that conference, I was able to meet parliamentarians from all the commonwealth countries and I discovered with pride that Canada was held in very high esteem and was very much respected by people, as well as its Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green).
I also had the opportunity, last October, to attend the NATO conference in Paris. There again, I had contacts with parliamentarians from every country and, to my great satisfaction, I found among them an unparalleled esteem and respect for Canada. When hearing some remarks like those made in this house by people who are supposed to have great experience in the matter, for instance the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), I may well say that, apart from being surprised, I was deeply affected.
Far from throwing discredit on our country, far from belittling the prestige it enjoys and should enjoy abroad, I feel that we should use all possible means to boost Canada, because it is a great country, which commands universal admiration.
Wherever we went-and you are aware of that as well as I am, Mr. Speaker, since you were a member of the party-when we uttered the word Canada, when we said we

Division
were Canadians, we were greeted with open arms and with these words: "I would like to live in your beautiful country".
This is quite different from what the members of the opposition would have us believe and it is quite different from the disparaging comments these gentlemen put on record.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being 9.30 o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to section 4 of standing order 38 as provisionally amended, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question of any amendment before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Shall I call it ten o'clock?


Mr. McGrath:: May I call it ten o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the main motion.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I move the adjournment of the debate?


Mr. Herridge:: I rise on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the proper course is for me to call it ten o'clock and deal with the order of speaking when we resume.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise on a question of privilege. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) this afternoon paid tribute to Scotland's immortal bard. I wish to join with him on behalf of this group. With his humanitarian sense of brotherhood, if he were alive today and viewing the Canadian scene, I am sure he would say to all those in Canada who preach disunity:
Diel take all talk of a first race Great weapon of the Nazi case And may this evil soon be hidden On some auld midden.


James Aloysius McGrath: As a poor, humble Irishman, may I call it ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Might I inquire what the business will be for tomorrow, and can the house leader give any indication what it will be on Monday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow we will take the supplementary estimates which were tabled the other day. The business on Monday will depend on the progress which is made tomorrow.
Business of the House


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the Minister of Finance be here tomorrow?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member for Essex East be here tomorrow?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the Minister of Finance be here tomorrow?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It will depend upon whether or not the hon. member for Essex East is here.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
*16
[Stage Direction]
Friday, January 26, 1962