1962-10-04

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. According to a New York Times dispatch from Washington, presidential orders are to be issued legally banning U.S.-owned ships under foreign flags of convenience from trading between Cuba and the Soviet union. Does Canada contemplate similar action with reference to deep sea vessels owned by Canadian companies but flying the British flag?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker.
Canada is not directly involved in this whole development. As a matter of fact I believe the United States has in mind various other countries which are actually engaged in this trade.



LUMBER-REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING IMPORTS INTO U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Nicholson (Vancouver Centre):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the importance of the hearing now being conducted in Washington by the United States tariff commission to look into a request by the forest industry of the Pacific northwestern states that exports of Canadian lumber be restricted, has the government instructed counsel to appear before the tariff commission to safeguard Canadian interests?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I think the answer to what this government is doing to assist the lumber producers of British Columbia in presenting their case in Washington was given yesterday when I replied to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: A supplementary question. As I understand it, this does not only involve lumber exporters in British Columbia but lumber exporters in all parts of Canada. Are their interests not being safeguarded?


George Harris Hees: As I said yesterday in my answer to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, the Canadian government has taken the steps which it believes proper to be of every possible assistance to the lumber producers of Canada and, because of their particular interest, to the lumber producers of British Columbia in presenting their case.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: My question was, has
counsel been instructed to appear in order that witnesses may be cross-examined? I did not ask what assistance is being given but whether counsel had been instructed.


George Harris Hees: The government does not appear
before the board in cases of this kind.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koolenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister this question, which I trust I have properly regularized. Should former governors of the Bank of Canada James E. Coyne and Graham Towers be asked to testify in secret before the royal commission on banking and finance, would the Prime Minister assure the house that he will arrange for the amendment of the commission's terms of reference so that this undemocratic cloak of secrecy may be dissipated?


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the hon. member, I think he made his question even more hypothetical by the terminology he used. There is no indication that the former governors will be called, or that they may be called, as the hon. member has indicated in his question. I feel that at the moment his question is quite hypothetical and therefore not in order.



REQUEST FOR TAX RELIEF FOR PRIVATE PRODUCERS OF POWER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the urgent problem confronting the privately owned public utility companies in this country, is it the intention of the government to take immediate steps

Inquiries of the Ministry to provide tax relief to the private sector of our economy devoted to the production of power?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member sent me notice of his question this morning. I can only say in reply that if this affects taxation, as it evidently does, it would be a budget matter, and if the government were going to take any steps with regard to it they could not be disclosed until the budget was brought down.



SIGNATURE ON CANADIAN DOLLAR BILLS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister explain why Canadian dollar bills dated Ottawa, 1954, one of which I have in my hand, bear the signature of Mr. Rasminsky as governor when he was appointed only in the summer of 1961?


George Clyde Nowlan: This is a matter of mystery which I will have to look into before I can answer. Perhaps the hon. member would give it to me. I should like to have it.


Lionel Chevrier: No, I will not give it to you but I will send it across.
(Translation):



GOLD RESERVE AND MONEY SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, I answered a similar ques- gate): May I ask a supplementary question, tion to this on September 28, 1962 and the Could the minister say whether information answer will be found on page 18 of Hansard, on this subject has been given to persons outside the house which is being denied to the POWER\thouse?']
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put the following question to the Minister of Finance of which I sent him notice.
Could the minister tell us what is the value of the gold reserve kept in the Bank of Canada as a guarantee for the money supply of our country and what is the amount of the money supply at present?


Mr. Speaker:: I must point out to the hon. member that his inquiry is worded in such a way that it is improper on the orders of the day. Under our rules, a member must give previous notice of his question long enough in advance so that the minister may prepare a reply. I feel that this question is out of order.
(Text):



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Since the curtailment of bank credit by the
[Mr. Thompson.!
chartered banks has seriously affected the operation of thousands of small businesses, will the minister consider emergency measures to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act in order to provide short term credit?


George Clyde Nowlan: I cannot accept the terms on which that premise is based. Any business to be brought before the house will be announced by the leader of the house from time to time as required.
(Translation) :


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Is it the intention of the minister to offer to small private concerns low interest loans because at the present time too many of them are going bankrupt as a result of the tight money policy?
(Text):


George Clyde Nowlan: Government policy on this or any other matter will be disclosed to the house from time to time as required. (Translation):


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance concerning a report published yesterday, October 3, in La Presse.
Is it true that the Bank of Canada issued a million of the counterfeit $1 bills which were circulating-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not consider it proper, on the orders of the day, to ask questions which deal with reports published in Canadian or foreign newspapers, especially when they require such a detailed answer as this one does.
(Text):


REPORTED REDUCTION IN CAR LOADINGS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hai):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question arising from the dominion bureau of statistics daily bulletin dated October 3, which indicates that there has been a sharp reduction in car loadings of wheat and other grains for the seven day period ending September 21. Could the minister advise the house of the reason for this, and when he expects this trend will be reversed?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agricul- Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-lure):: Mr. Speaker, I answered a similar ques- gate): May I ask a supplementary question, tion to this on September 28, 1962 and the Could the minister say whether information answer will be found on page 18 of Hansard, on this subject has been given to persons outside the house which is being denied to the POWER	house?



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. R. Berger (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Toronto Globe and Mail carried a report this morning that technical talks are taking place among officials of Canada, the United States and British Columbia regarding the price that the United States would pay for Canada's share of the power to be made available from the development of the Columbia river, does this mean that the larger question of policy concerning whether long term contracts for the sale of downstream benefits should be made has been settled?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report and therefore am unable to comment upon it.


Mr. Jack Davis (Coast-Capilano):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Would the minister please advise the house whether he is correctly quoted in the current issue of the Kamloops Sentinel to the effect that there is no necessary connection between the reference in the speech from the throne to long term export of electrical power and ratification by Canada of the Columbia treaty?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Public Works):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Canada's contribution
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. MacEachen (Inverness-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to ask whether it is a fact that the Canadian government has already advised recipient nations that it intends to reduce its contribution to the Colombo plan.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I think I dealt with that question yesterday. When the estimates come down the hon. member will see what provision has been made in that regard.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate really should not be so suspicious.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: A supplementary question. Will the minister-


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of National Defence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Essex East indicates that he has a supplementary question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the minister for external affairs confirm that two countries have been told by him that assistance under the Colombo plan will be reduced this year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What the hon. member did have was a related question, and if he asks it in its proper turn, I will now recognize the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, Your Honour yesterday used the expression that related-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am speaking to a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has raised a point of order; therefore I must hear him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to have from Your Honour a
precision which, I say with due respect, in the circumstances is not apparent. Surely a question such as that which I just addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the question which I addressed yesterday and which caused Your Honour to observe that it was a related and not a supplementary question, is a distinction which will have to be justified; because the use of supplementaries during the question period is traditionally a very cherished right of oppositions and should not be in any way abridged by Your Honour without the most careful consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in full agreement with what the hon. gentleman has said in his last remarks, and it is not my intention so to do. However, I think it would be quite clear that it is in the relationship between hon. members that one feels there has crept in

Inquiries of the Ministry a sort of extra latitude in the interpretation of supplementaries as against related questions. When I say "related questions" I mean questions referring to the same topic. A true interpretation of a supplementary question is that it is one which goes to clarify a point which may not have been indicated clearly in the previous answer. I feel that is the true interpretation of a supplementary question. I quite agree that the questions which come forward in what I call the guise of supplementaries may be perfectly proper questions. However, I should prefer to term them related questions. They may be asked, and hon. members have a full right to ask them, but not to have them come in under the guise of supplementaries, as that procedure really in effect usurps the right of another hon. member to ask a question. If we try to work within these ground rules I think we shall see how it comes out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Speaking on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I point out the serious consequences of what Your Honour has just said. For four years Mr. Speaker Michener, than whom there was perhaps no better Speaker in a long time, treated supplementaries as I have indicated and not as Your Honour now proposes to treat them. What Your Honour is now doing is to destroy the practice of at least four years, if not longer, simply by making a distinction between what you call a related question and a supplementary question. With great respect I submit that Your Honour has no power to disregard the custom of this house as established by Mr. Speaker Michener.


Mr. Speaker:: I will agree that I am the servant of the house. Acting in that capacity I will try to discharge my duties to the best of my ability according to interpretations which I hope are reasonable, and we shall see how we get along. I certainly do not wish to curb the right of hon. members to ask proper questions. However, the fact may be that the hon. member and I view these matters somewhat differently. Perhaps the hon. member also views them differently now than he did at other times.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
Secretary of State for External Affairs a supplementary and related question. Will he say whether or not the government has advised at least two recipient countries under the Colombo plan of the government's intention to reduce Colombo plan assistance during the current or coming fiscal year?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well it would not be proper for me to give an answer to that question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The minister says it would not be proper to answer this question, when the minister has allowed information to be given to the public outside this house, yet denies it to parliament.


Howard Charles Green: Now, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege. I made no such statement outside the house to anybody.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Did your department?


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, again I should like to address this question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that United States air force officers at NORAD headquarters have said that Canada's non-nuclear air defence weapons would be more harmful than helpful in the event of an all-out nuclear attack on North America, and in view of the fact that Air Marshal Slemon has confirmed those views, will the minister assure the house that these statements on policy matters by senior officers will cease?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have not been made aware of the statements to which the hon. member refers. I will study the matter and report to the house.


INQUIRY AS TO NAVAL AND AIR EXERCISES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister in a position to advise the house as to the character of the naval and air exercises involving Canadian forces, of which there is notice in the London Times of October 3, 1962?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, I shall take this question as notice and advise the hon. member.


COST OF PROPOSED NEW RADAR WARNING NETWORK
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to pose a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Will "The Oracle"- and in this case I am not referring to the

minister but rather to the kind of space age D.E.W. line consisting of 13 sites in the United States and seven in Canada as described in the Financial Post of September 29, 1962- be constructed as a joint project by the United States air force and the Royal Canadian Air Force? If so, what will the cost be to the Canadian taxpayer?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, this is information gathered from a newspaper article. I shall have the matter studied and will give precise information to the hon. member.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Last Tuesday I asked the minister whether he could furnish the house with information with regard to the proposed expansion of the lakehead airport, and whether a start would be made this fall. His answer was to the effect that he would check with the department and find out. I wonder whether the minister has the information now.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I have advised the hon. member and his colleague from the lakehead on previous occasions, changes in the requirements in this connection have delayed the completion of plans, but the preparation of specifications for a tender call has been going forward steadily for some time now. I could not suggest the exact date we will call tenders, but we should be ready for this by late winter or early spring.
(Translation):



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to get some information today on a press report published in Le Soleil last August and in which Mr. Noel Drouin, ex-member for Dorchester, was asking the Prime Minister to cancel work projects for an amount of $4.5 million in the riding of Dorchester.
Would it please the Prime Minister to tell the house what projects were to be carried out in the Dorchester riding for an amount of $4.5 million?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is asking for statistical information which the Prime Minister would not have with him
Inquiries of the Ministry at this moment. I think the question should be put on the order paper and it would be answered in due course.
(Text):



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CAUSEWAY-INQUIRY AS TO CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works and ask him whether construction has yet begun on the Prince Edward Island causeway.
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Public
Works): I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether the minister is supposed to answer a question the answer to which is evident, or self-evident, but if Your Honour does not rule the question out of order, the answer is no.
[Later:)


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that you allowed the question by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate concerning the Prince Edward Island causeway, surely my question is just as important. In fact I think it is more important. It is true that I have not sent the minister notice of it. However, I think he must know something about subjects of great magnitude like this one.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say this. Notwithstanding the fact that perhaps the question asked by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate slipped across and was not noticed by the Chair, if it was of the kind that I rather felt the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria was asking, it too was out of order; and I do not think that two wrongs make a right. I am not going to say that all questions this morning have been right or that all have been wrong. However, a certain latitude has been allowed and I hope I have been reasonably fair in allowing that latitude. I recognize the Minister of Agriculture.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, affecting the reference which Your Honour saw fit to make to me and a question I addressed to a minister, which question was allowed at the time and which is now retrospectively found by Your Honour to have been out of order. I submit that this kind of question has always been permitted in this house, as was the question by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely I have a right to speak on a question of privilege.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The point I am making now is this. The hon. member had the floor on a question of privilege. What he was arguing was the merit of a question or a matter of order. If he has a question of privilege I am prepared to hear it. However, it must be a question of privilege which I hope he will state succinctly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I submit it is a question of privilege for any hon. member who has asked a question of a kind which has traditionally been asked in this house ever since I have been a member and, from my scrutiny, for a long time previously. When His Honour the Speaker subsequently reflects upon the hon. member who asked that question in the way in which that was done by Your Honour, I submit there is raised a question of privilege which affects not only myself but every other hon. member, and more particularly, of course, the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria who, I submit with respect, was improperly prevented from asking a question of interest to two provinces and not a matter of merely local interest.


Mr. Speaker:: Notwithstanding the observations of the hon. member, I do not feel the hon. member has a true question of privilege.



ASSOCIATION OF MEMBERS' NAMES WITH WORKS PROJECTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is based on the premise that the availability of jobs is not only a matter of importance but of some urgency. I direct my question to the Minister of Public Works.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope the hon. member has not based his question on whether the matter he is going to inquire about is important, but on whether the information is urgently required.


John Richard Garland: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; you will see in practice that I am referring to that.
Will the Minister of Public Works confirm or deny that since becoming minister of that department he has revived the practice of associating names of Conservative members of parliament with announcements of public works projects, more particularly with respect to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation project announcements?


Mr. Speaker:: That is hardly urgently required information at the present time.

(Translation):



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake Si. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Does the minister intend to grant subsidies to Quebec truckers for the transportation of feed grain such as those he authorized in the province of Ontario?
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I am a little at a loss to understand the hon. member's reference to trucking in connection with this subject, because I have no knowledge of it. I shall look into the matter and try to give the hon. member an answer.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I would not normally raise this as a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, but on behalf of the members of this party I would ask that you cast your eye down this way occasionally.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: We are all equal here. Now that the asininity has calmed down, perhaps I could ask my question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Notwithstanding certain difficulties which may be involved in the Speaker recognizing a fairly large number of members and endeavouring, according to the list here, to introduce some form of rotation among members of parties as equitably as I can, perhaps since the hon. member has made certain comments and drawn certain observations from the house I could say that I do not think it is incumbent upon him to qualify members in the terms he has. I think we should come back to business, and I will now hear the hon. member.


Frank Howard: I agree completely with the statement you have made, Mr. Speaker.
May I ask the Minister of Labour, in view of the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Justice to the effect that one member of the restrictive trade practices commission, namely the chairman Mr. C. Rhodes Smith, will not be reappointed to that position, what will be Mr. C. Rhodes Smith's position in respect of the chairmanship of the labour relations board?


Hon. Michael Slarr (Minister of Labour):: That will have to be decided.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Munro (Hamilton East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is the minister aware that the united glassworkers union of Hamilton has requested Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to grant relief from the payment of rent by certain of its strikers to the Hamilton housing authority? If so, is it the intention of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to force the eviction of these strikers in the event of nonpayment of rent?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the Roxborough housing development referred to is a federal-provincial low rental housing project in Hamilton, the cost of which was shared 75 per cent by the federal government and 25 per cent by the province and municipality. It is managed by a local housing authority composed of local citizens who serve on a voluntary basis.
I am aware that representations have been made to the housing authority on the matter of rental payments by members of the united glassworkers union. The policy followed by housing authorities where strikes occur is not to waive rents on a wholesale basis. The circumstances of each case are considered on an individual basis. The housing authority tries to make reasonable and satisfactory arrangements so that the situation is protected.
I might add that the Hamilton housing authority has advised the partnership that the four strikers who were in arrears have now paid their rent in full and their leases have been reinstated.
(Translation):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. P. Antoine Belanger (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question. Is it the government's intention to ask the C.N.R. authorities to resume passenger service between Quebec city and St. Joachim de Montmorency? That service was discontinued following purchase of the Quebec Railways Company by the C.N.R.-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I really think the hon. member is transgressing the standing order relative to urgent matters. He may make representations to the minister, but, at this stage, I feel that only urgent matters should be raised.



PROPOSED ENTRY INTO PRINTING FIELD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Could he tell us, whether, as reported yesterday in La Presse, it is true that the C.N.R. is considering the possibility of entering the printing field?


Léon Balcer: I have heard nothing of the sort, Mr. Speaker.
(Text):


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It is related to the question asked by the hon. member for Megantic regarding reports that the Canadian National Railways might go into the printing business. The minister's reply was that he was not aware of this. My question is, will he check his correspondence and see if he does not have copies of letters about this matter, particularly from Winnipeg, and will he interest himself in this matter so that employment in the printing industry in many parts of this country will not be interrupted?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I take a very keen interest in everything being done by the C.N.R. I have received tremendous correspondence on these matters and I might have received some representations to that effect. The hon. member for Megantic did send me a copy of this article, and I will certainly bring the matter to the attention of the management of the C.N.R. and follow the matter very closely.



SPANIARD'S BAY, NFLD.  INQUIRY AS TO STATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Concepiion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport which I think is urgent. Would the minister please use his good offices to see that the Canadian National Railways station at Spaniard's Bay, Newfoundland-

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not seeking information; he is proffering information and making an exhortation.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday that I would supplement the answer I gave to the hon. member for Skeena to his question concerning the train service between Prince George and Prince Rupert. As the hon. member knows, he wrote to me regarding the reported reduction in this service, and in my answer I told him that I was referring his representations to the management of the C.N.R. I have now drawn this question to the attention of the management and shall be glad to communicate with him again as soon as I receive a report.



FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. A. Webster (Vancouver-Kingsway):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister inform the house whether the $5 million authorized to encourage national fitness and amateur sport has been reduced to approximately $1 million as reported and, if so, why?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: In view of the fact that 1962-63 is the fitness program's first full year of operation, and as we are still in the process of building up this program in cooperation with the provinces, it was felt that $1 million was a more realistic estimate of the amount that would actually be spent in the current year. I have no doubt that, as the program develops, expenditures will rise.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to put a supplementary question in order to clarify the answer. Does this mean that the Trail Smoke Eaters, who have been expecting a substantial grant as the result of a speech made by the Minister of Public Works in Trail during the election campaign, will not receive that grant now?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am not aware at the moment of any such grants having been considered, promised, or anything else.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or anything else.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet might I supplement my answer


to the question raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West a few months ago by informing him that the Minister of Public Works has corresponded with my department asking that consideration be given to the request of the Trail Smoke Eaters.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to clarify the matter further. Does the minister know that the Minister of Public Works told this meeting that he was sure that the board would take the hint from the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I feel that the supplementary question is more in the guise of proferring certain information by the hon. member more than anything else.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the order of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Has the minister or her department received representations respecting the reopening of the post office at Nordegg, Alberta, and if so what decision has been reached?


Mr. Speaker:: I beg the indulgence of the hon. member for Red Deer, but that question is definitely out of order at this time.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY AS TO CONFERENCE ON REPATRIATION OF CONSTITUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. A. Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, which possibly falls within the province of the Minister of Justice. Does the government propose to call a further conference of the attorneys general of the provinces to seek the concurrence of the provinces before submitting to the house the resolution promised in the speech from the throne for the repatriation of the constitution of Canada?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Justice):: Perhaps I might be able to answer that question. No steps have yet been taken to reconvene a conference of that type. I think the hon. member will permit me to call to his attention that with regard to the other constitutional amendment indicated in the speech from the throne, contact has already been made with the provinces and eight of them have signified their concurrence by letter.
In the case of the other two, no answer at all has been received from the premier of

Inquiries of the Ministry
Newfoundland, and with respect to the prov- office, or major extension of a public build-ince of Quebec the premier of that province ing is of equal importance within their par-indicated that he did not expect to be in a ticular constituencies. We could spend a whole position to answer this question until after hour and a half here trying to elicit that type the conclusion of the election campaign in of information. I would submit to the hon. that province, so I am not greatly encouraged member for Bonavista-Twillingate, and I think by that fact in considering whether a con- he would be in agreement with me, that such ference of attorneys general of the provinces questions do not come forward on orders of could usefully be called at this moment. the day.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member asking a supplementary question?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Yes, I am. Will the minister please answer the question as to whether he contemplates calling a conference of the attorneys general before presenting a resolution to this house?


Mr. Speaker:: It may be that the hon. gentleman did not feel that the reply answered his precise question, but may I point out to him that his further question is not in the nature of a supplementary. He could ask his question subsequently if he is not fully satisfied.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister advise the house what progress has been made, or is being made, on the proposed ferry service between North Sydney and Argentia.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I think the hon. member's question is in the same category as many others this morning and should be placed on the order paper.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria is an urgent matter of great importance to the people of two provinces of this country. It refers to one of the promises, made in an endeavour to get votes, by His Excellency's advisers, and surely we are entitled to ask what they are going to do about it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Normally I do not doubt that these particular projects are of importance to the people concerned, but the same thing can be said by practically every hon. member of the house; that a bridge, park, trans-Canada highway, harbour works, post


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether the government has yet reached a definite decision to establish a ferry service between North Sydney and eastern Newfoundland?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, this decision was reached some time ago.



WELLAND CANAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In connection with the government's announced intention of early twinning of the single locks on the Welland canal, when does the government intend to proceed with this project, and has all the necessary land been purchased or acquired?


Léon Balcer: I will take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



SUGGESTED IMPROPRIETY OF QUESTION ON ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for you. I think it is a question of privilege and relates to question No. 77, part 3, on the order paper. I want to draw it to the attention of the house because I believe it contains an improper assertion of opinion and states it as a fact. I ask for your ruling on it, Mr. Speaker; whether you consider this is a proper question, and should it be left on the order paper or removed.


Mr. Churchill:: There is no question 77.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The number is 73, part 3, standing in the name of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette).


Mr. Speaker:: At the moment my view in this regard is that the hon. member who places the question on the order paper takes the responsibility for the terminology he

Inquiries of the Ministry has used, and that unless the terms in the question are obviously offensive-and I am not of the opinion at the moment that the term "socialist" is obviously offensive-I cannot see how the question could be deleted from the order paper.
What the answer may be I cannot foresee, but with all due respect to the hon. member I do not feel that this term is offensive to the point at which action should be taken by the house to have the question removed.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I think, with deference, you have missed my point. I do not think there is anything wrong with the word "socialist", and I am proud to be one. What I wish to draw to Your Honour's attention is the phrasing of this question, "to remove the socialists and like-minded persons from the control of the government owned radio and television service." This is an assertion, I would argue, that these government services are under the control of people having a certain point of view. That is not in the Canadian political tradition. It is the McCarthy tradition. I do not want to argue about the truth of the assertion. I say it is an opinion, an improper opinion and not an impartial opinion. (Translation):


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, regarding the point of order raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is the Speaker who has the floor.
(Text):
Here I might say that I would wish to reserve my opinion as to just what action could be taken to remove a question. Certainly I am not of the opinion at the moment that the Speaker could order the alteration of a question or its removal from the order paper. I shall have to take under advisement the point raised by the hon. member as to what procedure might be followed should the case arise.
(Translation):



BILINGUAL MENU FOR PARLIAMENTARY CAFETERIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have quite an urgent question to put to the Prime Minister, since it has to do with lunch. Does the austerity program prevent the government from purchasing a board for the cafeteria, in order that the menu may be shown in French also.


An hon. Member:: It has always been bilingual.


Mr. Speaker:: The restaurant management comes under the joint restaurant committee,

and they are the ones to whom the hon. member should submit his request.


Bernard Dumont: I have already submitted my request to the cafeteria personnel but, apparently, it was rejected because three days have now passed and no change has been made. Can anything be done about this?


Mr. Speaker:: I have informed-


An hon. Member:: Eat in English.


Mr. Speaker:: -the hon. member that he could contact the joint restaurant committee. (Text):



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. James E. Walker (York Centre):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence and I bear in mind the admonition I received yesterday about the urgency of questions. Can the minister assure this house that cargo en route to Cuba in Russian aircraft for which Canada supplies courtesy R.C.A.F. crews over part of the flight do not contain material which could constitute a danger to the security of Canada and her NATO allies?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: This question has been answered frequently. The hon. member should know that the defence department takes all necessary precautions to ensure the security of Canadian citizens.


James Edgar Walker: A supplementary question. When a different version of this question was asked previously, the answer was that the Canadian government had no authority to investigate the cargoes. My question was, is the Minister of National Defence in a position to say that the material in those cargoes does not constitute a danger?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: This is rather splitting hairs-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: My only answer is that the Department of National Defence, in the fields it has to cover, takes all necessary measures to ensure the security of Canadians.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I ask the minister if he would advise the house what those necessary measures are?



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice and ask whether he can give the house any indication about the fate of the study by the

restrictive trade practices commission relating to the manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs after October 31 of this year, when the chairman, Mr. C. Rhodes Smith, and one of the members, Mr. Whiteley, will retire from the commission.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I gave the hon. member a rather comprehensive answer to a similar question within the last two days and I think there is nothing I can usefully add to that answer now.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has his department access to the reports of the European poliomyelitis conference which has just concluded in Prague?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I would suspect that we have, but I have not seen the reports as yet.
(Translation):



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State if the government intends to have the C.B.C. undertake in the near future the necessary work which would allow the people of Baie St. Paul and the surrounding region to enjoy live television service?


Mr. Speaker:: There is no doubt the information sought is of great interest to the member on this side of the house, but I do not think that his question is in order at this time.
(Text):



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Malcolm Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. In view of a recent statistical report indicating that 13 of the 36 areas of Canada classified as major depressed areas are located in the Atlantic provinces, would the minister indicate what steps his
Inquiries of the Ministry department is contemplating to speed up public works in this area, thus providing needed employment opportunities?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would in reply suggest to the hon. member that he re-read the speech from the throne, where he will find, amongst other indications of aggressive government policy, the proposal to establish an Atlantic region development board.


Malcolm MacInnis: As a result of the reply of the Minister of Public Works to my question I have a supplementary one which I should like to address to him now. For the clarification of the house will the minister distinguish between the Atlantic provinces development board as outlined in the throne speech and the Atlantic provinces development board as promised in the Conservative party's campaign speeches of 1957 and 1958?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad now or at any appropriate time to enlighten the hon. member with regard to the constructive policy of the Conservative party or the Conservative government. However, I should imagine that Your Honour would hold that this is not an appropriate time, although my own personal view is that almost any time is an appropriate one to discuss Conservative government policy.



LABOUR REPRESENTATION AT REGIONAL EXPANSION CONFERENCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has he invited representatives of labour to the regional industrial expansion conferences to which he referred yesterday?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, because of the fact that this conference dealt with matters primarily under the jurisdiction of heads of businesses, and because of the restriction with regard to the numbers which could be handled at a conference of this kind, those who represented industry at that conference were the heads of businesses solely. There will be considerable labour representation at each of the subsequent conferences which will be held all over the country.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I have for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources

The Address-Mr. Gordon a question which I submit to you is urgent and important. Can the minister advise the house whether there is to be a winter works program in Cape Breton Highlands national park this year in order to alleviate unemployment?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That has already been announced.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter for policy decision, and I shall be informing the house when the decision is made.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, October 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gordon Chaplin 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. Walter L. Gordon (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, just before the house rose at six o'clock last evening-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member might wait for half a minute, although he has the floor, in order to give the house a chance to settle down. Then we shall all be able to hear him.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, last evening just before six o'clock I said I was not impressed with the proposals included in the throne speech for dealing with unemployment in this country. The speech had a tired and musty smell about it. It contained no new ideas. We were not given even a bare outline of the kind of long term measures that are needed to resolve our country's basic problems. In listening to it one might have thought that the government, decimated and discredited though it has been, is still complacent and content with things as they are. Well, they are the minority in this as well as in other things.
When the emergency program to deal with the exchange crisis was announced on June 24 we were told it would be replaced by long term measures of a positive, constructive nature. A month after that emergency austerity program was introduced the Financial Post had this to say about it:
Ottawa, by raising interest rates and cutting down spending, particularly on construction, is demonstrating to the world its intention to revert to policies which governments considered appropriate for the difficulties of the thirties.
Does this help unemployment? Of course not. If there is slower business ahead, as many signs indicate, the present policy of pushing down the brakes instead of the accelerator is clearly one which will need very prompt review.

Some people presumed that the delay in calling parliament was because the government was working out a long term program of a positive kind. Now we find this was not the case. Instead we have been informed in the throne speech that the emergency austerity program will be continued. This is bad news for Canada.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that high tariffs, even when described as tariff surcharges, are not the answer to this country's ills. Cutting back on public works will mean more unemployment this winter. A policy of tight money-high interest rates and restrictive credit-is an abomination that already is causing hardship to many thousands of small businessmen from one end of Canada to the other. This policy also will mean more unemployment this winter than was necessary.
In the short time available to me this morning I shall confine most of my remarks to the harmful effects the tight money policy of this minority government is having and will have in the months ahead. If a complicated piece of machinery is to run well and smoothly, the engineer in charge must see that it is properly lubricated. We know what happens to our own automobiles, even when they are not stolen, if they run short of oil or even if we forget to change to a lighter oil in winter. Similarly, if the Canadian economic machine is to run well there must be an adequate supply of credit. This is the kind of lubrication the Canadian economy needs. If we have a policy of restrictive credit our economic machine will run sluggishly and its gears will grate. It is our fault or rather the fault of the government when this happens.
Despite some of the things the Minister of Trade and Commerce said yesterday, most economists seem to agree that we are at about the peak of the current business cycle, that a downturn in business can be expected some time this fall or in the early months of 1963. Therefore this is the very worst time to be pursuing a policy of tight money. Such a policy is bound to slow the rate of economic growth and to hurry on the next recession.
What we need in Canada these days is an expansionist policy and not restriction. We need ample credit and lower rates of interest. We cannot expect to have lower interest rates in Canada than in the United States. If we did there would be a further flight of capital and more devaluation. But if our rates are high in relation to rates in the United States, and if this is done in an endeavour to entice otherwise reluctant investment funds to Canada, the result in times like these when our own resources are not being used to full capacity will be inadequate economic growth and higher rates of unemployment.

A policy of tight money is, of course, much less onerous for the larger corporations which are usually well financed, and unfortunately far too many of these larger corporations are controlled by non-residents of Canada. There can be no question that a tight money policy tends to accentuate the trend under which so much of Canadian industry has been falling into foreign hands. When credit is restricted our Canadian owned companies find it difficult, if not impossible, to finance and to expand their operations. Frequently the only way out is to sell to some large foreign corporation or to its well financed Canadian subsidiary. I believe we can stop this sell-out of our natural resources and our Canadian companies. We can buy back in the years to come many of the resources and many of the Canadian companies that are now in foreign hands. We can remain an independent country if we want to, but we shall not accomplish these objectives with our present policies.
We cannot get anywhere with a policy of tight money. It is a disastrous policy for Canada. The policy of tight money that is a central part of the government's emergency austerity program is bad for Canada. It is hard on small businessmen and farmers. It will mean more unemployment this winter. It is a policy that will bring misery and unhappiness to thousands of our people. It seems to me that a vote of confidence for this government means a vote for tight money, a vote for high interest rates. I respectfully suggest that members of all parties should think carefully before they cast their votes for such a policy. I submit that a government that favours a policy of this kind should be defeated, and as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, in his speech on Tuesday the Prime Minister seemed to suggest that he was somehow or other against the policy put forward by the Leader of the Opposition on the grounds that it would cost too much. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the government does not realize that the larger part of the program put forward by the Leader of the Opposition will be self-liquidating. I wonder if the government does not realize that the cost in terms of human suffering, when thousands of people are unemployed, is something this country cannot afford.
In his speech on Tuesday the Prime Minister attempted to defend himself against the charges of political fraud. According to him the full facts of the exchange crisis were not concealed from the public; the whole thing blew up after the election. Well, Mr. Speaker, what are the facts? In the first four months of 1962 almost $600 million were poured out of the exchange fund in a desperate attempt to defend the Canadian dollar from falling
The Address-Mr. Lewis below 95 cents. This failed. Then, on May 2, the then minister of finance was forced to appeal to the international monetary fund for help for the first time. The terms were stiff. Canada was forced to abandon the floating rate of exchange, something the minister had always refused to do. The rate was fixed at 92.5 cents. In financial circles there were serious doubts that this rate could be held unless we put our financial house in order.
These doubts increased when a senior member of the government announced that he and other members of the cabinet felt the rate should have been put even lower. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether ministers realize how sensitive the money markets are to remarks of that kind. Certainly this had a very serious effect on confidence in financial circles. In May the records of the exchange fund were juggled, despite which it became evident that further borrowings had been made from foreign banks. Then in the first two weeks of June there were widespread rumours in financial circles of an impending financial crisis. It is inconceivable, Mr. Speaker, that government officials did not know this. It is inconceivable that the minister of finance and the Prime Minister were not informed. If they were not, who was in charge of the government of Canada at that time?
The Prime Minister's defence seems to boil down to this: "please do not find the government guilty of deceit; instead let us change the charge to gross negligence and incompetence". The defence put forward by the Minister of Justice in his Toronto speech on Monday was slightly different. He seemed to imply some knowledge of the impending financial crisis prior to June 18, but apparently he did not think it was bad enough to justify the unwise course of informing the public, at least until after the election. Mr. Speaker, I find both these defences unconvincing. (Translation):


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit me to ask him a question? He referred a while ago to American lending companies. Does he believe that those companies came to Canada during the last five years or rather during the 22 years that the Liberals were in power? (Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I was not referring to finance companies. I do not think I mentioned finance companies.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, as one who believes in our parliamentary institution I stand in such awe of parliament that, although I made my first public speech some 35 years ago, I cannot help but feel hesitation as I begin my maiden speech in this house. But I must say immediately, sir,

The Address-Mr. Lewis that my awe was somewhat tarnished as I listened to the speeches made on leaders' day in this debate.
I listened to the Leader of the Opposition and I listened to the right hon. leader of the government, and I felt sad for my country.
I thought of the problems which beset our Canadian people, problems internal and external, problems of human insecurity at home and abroad, problems created by automation which throws men off their jobs at the same time that it promises unprecedented progress, problems arising from a changing pattern of world trade and changing patterns of political and economic power, problems concerning our national unity and the strains put on it by the times in which we live, problems touching the integrity and development of the spiritual and cultural life of Canada, threatened by the onslaught of distorted values sent over the airways by the studios to the south, problems of nuclear destruction, of peace and war, of simple human survival. I thought of all these problems, sir, and I felt desperately sad because the speeches of the leaders in this house overwhelmed and drowned those problems of life and death in a flood of irrelevant banalities and petty political prattle.
I hasten to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that I do not suggest that with regard to human welfare my party is superior to other parties; still less do I claim any personal superiority. No one feels more keenly the immensity of the problems which face us in a world ever on the brink of disaster. What I do take the liberty of saying in this, my first speech in parliament, is that we political spokesmen and our leaders, by the way in which we attack our duties, are ourselves responsible for the cynicism and scepticism of our people about politics, and their feelings of hopeless and helpless desperation. I suggest to you, sir, this is surely the cause of the political apathy about which we all complain. It is the result of the failure of political leadership to show a sense of urgency, or even a sense of purpose, in these overpowering and perilous times.
(Translation):
It is precisely this national purpose which is lacking at this time, Mr. Speaker.
I would be remiss in not saying a few words in the tongue of my French speaking fellow citizens.
As everybody knows, Canada was founded to a great extent by two distinct nations, and our country will come to its fullest expression only if the equality of the French and English languages and cultures is recognized in fact as well as in law throughout the country. It is not always easy to reconcile the two cultures: sometimes they seem to be in conflict.


In the past we were not always successful, far from it, in clearly dividing the purposes of our two main ethnical groups. That lack of success became a threat for the unity and the future of Canada.
In order to correct that situation, our party, at its founding convention, did not hesitate to proclaim its faith in co-operative federalism- the only system that can ensure the harmonious development of Canada as a whole.
With this purpose in mind, we have to seek the means of co-ordinating our economic objectives, as well as our economic resources throughout Canada, without resorting to centralization, and so as to ensure for each province, as well as for the federal government, full respect of their particular rights.
Until now, I think that governments have but rarely taken the trouble to do anything about human distress. Each time they agreed to adopt some social security legislation, they did so because of waning prestige and the realization that it was time to lull the people to sleep again because they were about to wake up.
The people which believed that its needs were being attended to at last, the people which believed in the great Conservative vision, finally realized that visions belong to the realm of dreams.
Therefore, Canadians in all parts of the country have been trying for a number of years to replace by a responsible party the old ones which have both so often and so regularly betrayed the real interests of Canada.
In considering recent developments, I come to the conclusion that no one more than the people of the province of Quebec has so desperately endeavoured to find a new solution. However, such a desperate search should not give rise to false theories or dangerous policies only because they are repeated with a stubbornness akin to demagogy.


Mr. Dupuis:: Why don't you applaud?


David Lewis: The useful theory is the one which claims that modern society cannot really have true economic expansion and security without state intervention, without public investments and democratic planning. To reach such an objective, we must do away with outmoded principles whose application allows the strong to become stronger and tends to make the poor poorer.
The economic planning we are proposing is the only remedy to the persistent evil of unemployment. It will give work to all Canadians and will permit everyone without any exception to enjoy the immense wealth of Canada.

(Text):
In our view, Mr. Speaker, we must have a plan and a national purpose. Much has already been said about the speech from the throne, but I suggest the most appalling thing about it is not merely that it is empty of serious policy but that it shows a smugness and complacency which is as dangerous as it is unjustified. I could respect an administration which admitted frankly that we are in trouble, which outlined frankly the steps it was taking to correct the trouble, and which challenged the opposition to show a better way. But I cannot respect an administration which insists on arguing that everything is well when it is in the very midst of an unemployment crisis, a foreign exchange crisis, an international trade crisis and an economic growth crisis. How many crises does this government have to collect around it before it will admit that things are not quite the ultimate in perfection?
In reality, all the problems and all the difficulties now facing Canada really converge upon one fact, namely that our economy has been proceeding at a snail's pace for some years. It is of course true, and the ministers have pointed this out to the house, that there have been continuing increases in the labour force and, therefore, an increasing number at work. However, this does not answer the problem; it is the cause of it. Our employment difficulties arise precisely because there is a constant increase in the labour force resulting from immigration, resulting from the natural increase in the population and resulting, above all, from the displacement of human hands by increasingly automated machines. Thus the very core of our problem lies in the fact of a growing labour force; it flows from our failure to provide work for all the eager hands looking for jobs.
Similarly, government spokesmen are able to point, and do point, to the fact, that there has been a steady increase in the value of our gross national product in real as well as in current dollars. However, the figure that is much more significant is the one that shows that our per capita gross national product in real terms was less in 1961 than it had been five or six years ago. This is the significant figure, because a nation's wealth must always be related to the number of people enjoying it, or not enjoying it, and in order for a comparison to be meaningful you must eliminate price changes in the calculation of the gross national product.
It is a fact, and no amount of defence can possibly obscure it, that even in the months of June, July and August of this year, even in the last month which was somewhat better than the first two, our unemployed represented more than 4 per cent of the current
The Address-Mr. Lewis work force, and if you adjust the figure for seasonal fluctuations it was more than 6 per cent and almost 7 per cent, at an annual rate. This is serious unemployment by any definition. We accept it now with some complacency because we have become accustomed to average unemployment rates of about 7 per cent and to winter unemployment rates of 10 per cent and 11 per cent.
Our house leader has already drawn to the attention of hon. members a report prepared by a committee appointed by the United States president dealing with the question of unemployment, where they came to the conclusion that Canada had the highest rate in the western world and the United States the second highest.
A precisely similar story is told in terms of our economic growth. The 32nd annual report of the bank for international settlements gives the growth rates of a number of industrial countries; the figures are based on increases in the real product. They show that Canada trailed in 1961 with a growth rate of a measly 1.8 per cent while countries such as Germany, Italy, Norway, Sweden and Finland had growth rates of 6 per cent, 7 per cent, and 8 per cent. Countries such as Austria, France and Denmark showed growth rates of between 4 per cent and 5 per cent. The same thing was true in 1960 and in the preceding three or four years, when the increase in our real gross national product was only about 2 per cent per year. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that these figures cry for an end to smugness and for prompt, energetic and imaginative action.
The astounding fact about all this is that despite the clear outlines of the picture, the government embarked last June, after the election, on a program which is bound to make the situation worse, as has already been pointed out by other speakers. Obviously what our economy requires now is an expansionist program to provide-and I give this as a precise target-an annual rate growth of between 5 per cent and 6 per cent in real dollars. Only in this way shall we be able to provide the 250,000 to 300,000 new jobs which we shall require each year. To do this requires easier money; it requires lower interest rates; it requires increased government investment; it requires increased useful government expenditure and increased activity on all fronts. What our economy requires, in short, if I may summarize our proposals, are:
1.	An imaginative, large scale economic plan developed by the government in consultation with labour and industry and in consultation with the provinces.
2.	A careful but effective direction of investment, private as well as public, into the most productive and most useful channels.



The Address-Mr. Lewis
3.	A massive attack on the problems thrown up by automation to provide for the retraining and reallocation of workers thrown out of work by technological progress.
4.	A generous location of industry program to meet the special needs of the Atlantic provinces and similar areas, and
5.	An easier monetary and fiscal policy which would provide the necessary money, credit and incentives for economic expansion.
This, and this alone, is the program which this country requires.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the Liberal
party's program.


David Lewis: This, and this alone, is what could save Canada at this moment. An hon. member over there keeps on saying "good". If he persists, I may conclude there is something wrong with it.
Instead, the government persists in continuing a policy of tight money, of reduced expenditures, of chasing the will-o'-the-wisp of a balanced budget while keeping their political fingers crossed. I say, without too much presumption, I hope: what outdated nonsense. A first year economics student could have told them that the more they attempt to curtail expenditures for the meaningless purpose of chasing a balanced budget the more they will slow down the economy, the smaller consequently will be the revenue they collect and the greater will be their deficit. Their policy is therefore inevitably self-defeating. There will be deficits, but they will be deficits by mistake accompanied by a depressed rather than an advancing economy. But I learned long ago that there have always been men in our land who, like the Bourbons, learn nothing and forget nothing.
Demagogues and unimaginative banking interests always confuse government with personal housekeeping, and look upon government deficits as they would on their own personal debts. This, of course, is sheer, elementary nonsense which is exploited demagogically in the jargon of Social Credit and preached puritanically by the high priests of finance who, like so many others, do not themselves practise what they preach. The fact is that planned deficit financing is as essential as it is indispensable in lifting a declining economy to new heights, and in starting a stagnant economy moving. Let me not attempt any theoretical analysis of this statement; let me simply point to some current historical facts.
All of us have been for some years astounded at the economic progress made in various countries in western Europe. We have

had reports about their rate of growth, surprising figures, particularly when we remember that many of these countries had their industries and their economies seriously damaged in the last war and had to rebuild them from scratch, although, of course, with a great deal of assistance, from the United States in particular.
What has been the budgetary situation in these western European countries? France had budget deficits every single year throughout the 1950's; Britain had deficits every year from 1951 to 1961; West Germany had budget deficits in four of the last five years; Italy, from 1950 through 1961 except for one year; Sweden, every year since 1950 except one; Austria throughout the 1950's. The difference between their deficits and ours is that their deficits were planned deficits, deliberately incurred as part of an expansionist economic policy. The result, instead of being ruin, has been a rapid rate of growth, a steady and rapid increase in wages and living standards, and full employment in most of the countries I have named. In fact some of them have actually had a labour shortage, something that Canada has not experienced since the end of the last war.
In short, striving for a balanced budget is sheer madness at a time of heavy unemployment when machinery and plants are standing idle and when our economic growth is almost stationary. Surely it must be obvious that more and not less production is what this country needs at the present time. But the disease has spread. I have noticed in recent speeches by spokesmen for the Liberal party that they too say their goal is a balanced budget. I urge this house to reject this outmoded and harmful proposition at this time.
Thus it is clear that we cannot have much use for the present government. Nor do we. In our view it has persistently shown itself to be incompetent, inefficient, indecisive and fumbling. But let me make clear that we in this corner have equally no use for the Liberal opposition. In our view it has proven itself since its defeat in 1957 to be completely unrepentant. Just before that defeat it had sold an important public utility to American interests and ignored the rights of parliament. There has not been a single suggestion of repentance or of turning away from the arrogance which that party then showed.
We have seen in the last few years, also, that the Liberals have revealed themselves to be thoroughly unreliable. I listened to the leader of the official opposition and to the hon. member for Davenport, who preceded me, refer ecstatically to the need for a health plan

in Canada. The struggle for a health plan in Canada has been carried on by the C.C.F.-New Democratic government in Saskatchewan, and by it alone. It has won that battle in Saskatchewan despite the most cowardly and vicious opposition of the Liberal party, led by Ross Thatcher and supported by one member of this house who sits very close to the hon. member for Davenport.
I remind this house also, Mr. Speaker, of the health program which the Liberal party duly unfolded during the last election campaign. I called it during that campaign, as I call it now, a thorough-going sham and a shameful surrender to vested medical interests. Because what does that health plan offer? It offers free health services for the aged, the pensioners. If I remember the words correctly, and I am sure I do, the plan said they were for some of the aged. It never explained what the word "some" meant. I have always assumed that it meant some kind of means test. It also offers free medical services to young people under the age of 16. The rest of the community between 16 years of age and the old age pensioners, if I remember the words correctly, are to pay substantially less than half of the cost of the medical services; presumably the government would pay substantially more than half. For the worker who earns $3,000 or $4,000 a year, whose family may be the victim of serious illness and who has to pay a medical bill of $1,500 or $2,000, will he really be helped by this program when he is called upon to pay half of that cost?
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, we are driven to the conclusion that the indecent hunger for power shown by the Liberal party in its announcement of a no confidence motion, even before parliament met, was and is thoroughly irresponsible. Indeed, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if one was unhappy at the barrenness of the throne speech, one was equally unhappy at the absence of any positive proposals in the speech of the leader of the official opposition. In a speech of more than three hours-some of us timed him-he spent some 18 minutes on positive proposals.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Get on with your positive proposals; you have not much time left.


David Lewis: I did not hear the remark of the hon. member, but perhaps it is just as well. Before one o'clock is reached, Mr. Speaker, I want to inform you that it is my intention to move, and I now so move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) an amendment to the amendment before the house. I move:
That the amendment be amended by inserting therein immediately after the word "advisers" the words "having failed to propose a program of economic planning, designed to bring about economic growth and full employment".
The Address-Mr. Lewis
The amendment as thus amended would read as follows:
We respectfully affirm to Your Excellency that Your Excellency's advisers, having failed to propose a program of economic planning, designed to bring about economic growth and full employment, do not possess the confidence of this house.
Mr. Speaker, I have said many times in the past few months, and I say again today, to the hon. members of the Liberal party that, when one listens to them speaking nowadays one would think they had been out of office 50 years instead of only five years. I say to you that there is hardly a policy in Canada, either domestic or foreign, pursued by the present government the origin of which is not to be found in the actions of preceding Liberal governments.
Indeed, sir, our present economic and financial difficulties were really born, as I am sure every student of economic history will attest, in the womb of the unregulated and unplanned investment boom of 1955-1957. That boom, unplanned and unregulated, created a situation of tight money at that time. High interest rates, let me remind the leader of the official opposition, are not the creation of the Conservatives. Indeed, high interest rates were created by the government of which he was a member-I know of many electors in Canada who in 1957 voted for the Conservatives-I was not then myself a candidate-precisely because they blamed the Liberals for unemployment or lack of business caused by high interest rates.


Michael Starr: And tight money.


David Lewis: Yes, that is true. The unplanned
boom of those years created a condition where a recession was bound to result, as anyone who followed economic development could have foretold. Much of our production was concentrated on consumer durables which glutted the market. Huge inventories were piled up across the country. The usual cyclical recession was as inevitable as night follows day. It is true that the present government compounded the mistakes made by its predecessors, but I say in all earnestness, Mr. Speaker, that the brave Liberal speeches of today stand in distressing contrast to their dismal acts of yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, since I have reached the end of a thought perhaps I may call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned I was referring to the fact that the unplanned boom of 1955, 1956, and 1957 was bound to

The Address-Mr. Lewis be followed by a recession. There was one other thing that happened in those two or three years, and that was that the price of the Canadian dollar went up. For some years our currency was at a premium, with disastrous consequences on our exports. Then finally, as every member of the house and students out of it know, some 18 months ago the government started manipulating the dollar in order to bring its price down; and the more it manipulated, the more it became possible for the speculators to step in and a period of crisis was reached last spring.
I wish to say that the devaluation of the dollar was probably necessary and unavoidable in all the surrounding circumstances. However, in my view there is everything wrong with pegging the rate of the dollar. The most objectionable feature of the pegged or fixed exchange rate is, of course, the fact that the government is forced to pursue a restrictionist domestic policy for the sole purpose of hanging on to a rate; and even that, of course, is becoming increasingly more difficult.
Again I do not wish to go into any theoretical exposition. That is not to say that I understand all about it, but I think I do understand something about it. However, it will be sufficient for me to remind hon. members that the fixed exchange rate today is very much like the old gold standard used to be. Precisely as it was necessary for the countries around the world to get rid of the gold standard because it was restrictive and cribbed and confined them, so it is necessary for Canada today to get rid of the fixed exchange rate. Therefore, to the outline of policies I suggested earlier I add this one, that we must free our exchange rate so that it may itself find the best rate consonant with economic growth and full employment.
A part of the program, of course, must always be concerned with the expansion of our exports; because basically that is the best way in which to meet any of balance of payments and imbalance of trade problems. I have neither the time nor is it for me in our group to deal in detail with the export problem. However, I wish to indicate, as I am about to conclude, some lines I believe Canada should follow. First, I remind the house that there are almost limitless and promising markets in Africa and in Asia, in the new, developing nations of the world. If we had the imagination necessary we would take advantage of those markets through the extension of credits at minimum interest rates for long periods of time. We must apply our minds and our imaginations to the instrument of export subsidies, particularly in the case of our secondary manufacturing industries. We should also apply a great deal of energy and some considerable funds to

research work in order to see whether we cannot find new goods that Canada could produce; I refer to goods which because of their quality production or for some other reason would be suitable to produce for a small market like Canada and would be capable of being sold outside of Canada because of their uniqueness.
Finally, and most important of all, Mr. Speaker, we ought immediately, without any loss of time, start planning for negotiations with the United Kingdom, the United States, the European common market and other members of the commonwealth looking toward free trade between the continents concerned in order to start an expansion of our exports.
All of these things-and this is the basic point of the proposition I have been trying to put to the house, Mr. Speaker-must be part of one co-ordinated and integrated plan. They must be part of one co-ordinated and integrated attack on all our economic problems. Without such co-ordination, one step can easily negative the other. For this reason planning is the essential ingredient of an effective policy.
As the hon. member for Kootenay West, our parliamentary leader, said the other day, "planning" used to be regarded as a disreputable word, a disreputable idea, but now it has become a popular one. In fact it has become so popular that the government and the official opposition vie with each other as to which one of them made a planning proposal first, forgetting to look at history and see where these planning ideas really came from. However, that consideration is unimportant. What is important is that all over the world and in every part of the world economic and social planning has become an idea which people grasp as essential to our modern complex and interdependent society. Reference has already been made in this house to the report of a mission from the national productivity council to six countries in Europe. According to the report, the members came back convinced of the necessity of planning here at home.
I say that only those blinded by outworn prejudices and those who glory in ignorance can any longer suggest that a modern economy can proceed healthily without active and direct intervention, investment and leadership by the government.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that we in the west have very little time to lose. As we sit here debating, crucial events are taking place all across the world. Things have happened in recent days on this continent which make or should make all of us sick at heart, particularly the fact that young students at a

university should act so viciously and should express and show such contempt for the basic moral principles of human dignity and human equality. Events are taking place in Europe, in Africa, in Asia, in America which affect the very future of humanity itself. I suggest to you that so far the battle between communist totalitarianism and our western democracies has not gone entirely well for us. I furthermore suggest to you that the reason it has not gone entirely well for us is that we are too frequently bound and governed by outworn ideas, by inadequate institutions, by agglomerations of greedy power and by outdated policies.
I say to this house, Mr. Speaker, that we must free our western world of these shackles. We must throw them out and we must make democracy a dynamic weapon in the war against poverty, prejudice and ignorance. We must fearlessly and quickly respond to the needs of our own nation and to the anxious demands of a world in revolt against oppression of man by man. Our country, sir, must play a part in this; it should play an important part.
This, as I see it, is the challenge. In my first speech to parliament I hope and pray that we shall have the wisdom and the courage to meet that challenge before it is too late.
(Translation):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret very much to tell the hon. members who should like to put questions to the hon. member who just finished his speech that they cannot do so because his time expired at the same time he concluded his speech.
(Text):


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join others who have participated in this debate in extending my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. May I say they acquitted themselves nobly, in my judgment, as I am sure all hon. members will agree, and we wish them well in their parliamentary life.
I should like to say a few words about the subamendment. When hon. gentlemen to the right of me talk about economic planning or planning of any sort they are talking about planning in the socialistic sense of the word, an entirely different planning from what a free democracy believes in. Planning in a socialistic sense, Mr. Speaker, means regimentation and nothing else. Whether you call it rotation or regimentation or anything that you want, it means that the government tells you what to do and you do it or else.
27507-3-13J
The Address-Mr. Starr


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Michael Starr: When they talk about planning which will affect the operations of industry and labour all over this country they are surely not talking about plans which they will not have the power to enforce. I simply bring this matter to the attention of the house at this time, Mr. Speaker, and especially to the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite who applauded so vociferously earlier today when the subamendment was introduced, so they will know exactly what it was they were applauding.
I should like to dwell for a few moments on something that has been noticed by me and the people of this country since 1957, namely that the prime objective of the Liberal party in this house has been to destroy the Prime Minister in order to get back into power. This they cannot deny.


Lionel Chevrier: Nonsense.


Michael Starr: It has been evident right through the last five years that in order to attain office again their main objective has been to destroy the image of this great man who has done more in the space of time he has been Prime Minister than any other prime minister in the history of this country. These attacks have not diminished. Regardless of the state of the economy and the damage that might be done to the economy and to the Prime Minister himself, as long as they can get back into office they will employ every tactic that can possibly be employed.
With regard to the foreign exchange situation, they say that the Prime Minister has deceived the people of Canada and has committed a fraud.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So he has.


Michael Starr: The Prime Minister set the record straight in this respect when he spoke the other day. Today the hon. member for Davenport got to his feet and we have been reading his books, we who have looked upon him as the economic planner of the Liberal party, expected something more than he gave us today. His purpose in making his maiden speech today was to try to offset the true facts that the Prune Minister set before the House of Commons and the people of Canada the other day. These tactics, these attacks, these charges of deceit and fraud and of undermining the Canadian economy, are the most degrading in the political life of the Liberal party in recent years, and have never before been experienced in the history of this house.
What is the position of the Liberal party at the present time? The Leader of the Opposition, after spending three and a half
192	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Starr hours on his feet, only put forward two rotten old planks out of their platform. He resurrected a national health plan, something they have been promising the people of the country since 1919 without ever intending to bring it about. They do not intend to bring it about now. We have set up a royal commission to review the pros and cons of such a plan, and to do it in a democratic way.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Postponement of decision.


Michael Starr: Then they bring in a new one that they have stolen from the Social Credit party. As an afterthought they are going to extend the payment of family allowances from age 16 to age 21. That is the whole essence of their platform. The Leader of the Opposition had a duty as leader to expound their whole platform in the three and a half hours he spoke, not leave it to some backbencher to do it. We have not heard anything yet, because the hon. member for Davenport had an opportunity and he did not reveal anything new that this government is not doing now and has not been doing for a number of years.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I was surprised at the speech made by the hon. member for Davenport, because for some years, as I mentioned earlier, his economic thinking and policies have been before the people of this country, first in the report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects and more recently in the speeches he made during the election campaign, as well as in a newer and perhaps more authoritative work entitled "Troubled Canada". I have a copy of this book and I note that it is tastefully bound in black which, in my opinion, conveys the type of thinking in the Liberal party.
I understand also that this book is based upon second thoughts following the earlier work he has done. It is called "Troubled Canada". In my view a more appropriate title might be "Troubled Liberals". It is my purpose at this time to deal with the opinions expressed in that work, some of which seem to be of a political rather than an economic nature. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that in the chapter devoted to what the author calls a positive program for expansion, one of the major items in that positive program is increased capital expenditures in the public sector.
In 1956 the total federal government expenditure came to $5,034 million or 16.5 per cent of the gross national product. In the first quarter of 1962 the total was $7,476 million, seasonally adjusted to an annual rate of 19.4 per cent of the gross national product. The hon. member for York South in his speech

this morning stated that there has been a decrease in the gross national product per capita since 1957. The actual fact is-and I am surprised that these people get up and say these things that cannot be substantiated-that it has increased by $65 per capita. In 1957 it was $1,913 per capita and in the second quarter of 1962 it was $1,978.


An hon. Member:: In real dollars?


Michael Starr: In real dollars.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is not in real dollars.


Michael Starr: I have only half an hour. I welcome interjections if hon. members will allow me extra time in order that I might continue and complete what I have to say. If that is agreed upon I shall be glad to entertain any interjections or questions.
This certainly indicates an increase in the level of capital expenditures by the federal government which the hon. member, in this book, calls a major step toward relieving unemployment. He suggests this is the way social capital is also brought about, as though this were something new. This government has been more active than any government in history in the field of housing, slum clearance, urban renewal, aid to municipalities, sewage disposal, building schools, aid to universities and so on. They look at the throne speech and say there is nothing in it. There is everything in it that they had in their platform, and that is why they have only two rotten planks left now.
We have had massive expenditures on a scale never before undertaken in this field. This is part of the reason for the deficits we have incurred. I notice also that the hon. member for Davenport is not suggesting we cut down on these expenditures. He is suggesting new ones. Let me tell him that we will get around to those in time, as we have been doing right along.
In this great book, "Troubled Canada", in which he corrects many of the thoughts he expressed in his original work, he talks about providing 100,000 new jobs through municipal winter works. We have been doing this for four years, Mr. Speaker. I say to him that when he made the statement that it was necessary to provide 100,000 jobs, he was being a piker. Last winter we provided jobs for 150,000 Canadians in that one winter alone. Since this program was inaugurated more than $800 million has been spent on municipal works, and some 360,000 jobs have been provided for Canadians.
In this book "Troubled Canada" he talks about stimulating industry. Those who listened to my colleague the Minister of Trade and

Commerce when he spoke in this house yesterday will realize that here again this government has led the way. It is also interesting to note what the hon. member for Davenport said in this book about deficit financing. He said:
Deficits are justifiable and may be necessary in periods of heavy unemployment and recession. But positive measures should be taken to overcome such conditions as quickly as possible and when this has been done, budgets should be balanced. Not to do this would be an invitation to inflation which no responsible government could contemplate.
This is exactly what we are doing, Mr. Speaker, but it is in contrast to what he said today. He will have to write another book now. There is another interesting paragraph in this book "Troubled Canada" which I should like to quote:
Some idea of the magnitude of the problem is given by the fact that over the past decade, employment has increased on the average by about 100,000 per year or just about one half the number for whom jobs must be found in each of the next five years.
The decade he was talking about, Mr. Speaker, when employment increased by only 100,000 jobs per year, must have been the golden decade about which the Liberals are always talking and to which the leader of the official opposition referred so feelingly when he spoke. Let me inform you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of this house that at the moment, as a result of policies brought about by this government, we have doubled that rate of expansion in the creation of new jobs. Currently we are producing 200,000 new jobs annually. This is what they say they are going to do when they get into office. We are doing this now; it is happening now, not two or three years from now. This rate of expansion will be further increased by the measures forecast in the throne speech and to be brought before this parliament at this session.
The speech from the throne placed before parliament a series of measures having as their objective the promotion of this country's economic growth and the creation of new employment for Canadians. This is what we are all after. These are the steps we are taking to bring this about, to accelerate our present efforts. The measures are complementary to the measures already brought forward in a previous parliament and which have been effective to the extent that employment in 1962 has been, on the average, consistently higher than in both 1960 and 1961.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about unemployment?


Michael Starr: At the same time the gross national product, the measure of economic growth, is currently running at better than 8 per cent above last year; and it, as the hon.
The Address-Mr. Starr member for Davenport will agree, is a very important measure of economic growth. We used to hear a lot about it from the Leader of the Opposition, but since it has increased to 8 per cent over last year we do not hear so much about it.
On page 327 of the very interesting report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, prepared under the authority of the hon. member for Davenport, we find forecast a gross national product in the neighbourhood of $39.5 billion for 1965. It is now running at $39.4 billion, not in 1965 but in the second quarter of 1962.
I have only half an hour in which to speak. I asked for permission to speak longer, but the opposition would not grant it. We are three years ahead of this forecast as a result of the measures taken by the government in what the Leader of the Opposition calls "the wasted years". He must be thinking of the years when he was in office. I would also point out that consumer expenditure is running at about $25.4 billion compared with $14.3 billion in 1955, and that personal income in the second quarter of 1962 reached the figure of $30.4 million.
Let us now look at employment. Since the first quarter of 1961 employment has been rising both steadily and sharply. A record 6,049,000 persons were employed last year, and there has been a further substantial improvement this year. Total employment in 1961 averaged 94,000 higher than in 1960, and in the first eight months of 1962 employment was 197,000 higher, on the average, than in the corresponding period of 1961.
During the summer months some 268,000 young people entered the labour market, a record number for this time of year. Never before did such a large number come on the market but, in spite of this, total unemployment in August was estimated at 280,000, some 43,000 lower than a year earlier.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Still too high.


Michael Starr: Virtually all the drop was among unemployed men. As hon. members who have read the dominion bureau of statistics report know, the unemployment rate in August was 4.1 per cent compared with 4.8 per cent a year earlier; but encouraging as this improvement is, none of us will be satisfied until unemployed men. As hon. members who have possible level.
There has been some discussion as to what constitutes full employment in the economy, and once again I would like to refer to the report published under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Davenport. This is what that report states:
In a free and dynamic economy in which people are entitled to change their occupations as they

The Address-Mr. Starr choose and to move from place to place and in which there are continually changing products, methods and consumer demands, there will always be those who are out of work at any given time. This cannot be avoided.
It helps to keep the economy flexible and it enables people to seek better opportunities in other occupations or in different places. This we shall refer to as "frictional unemployment".
If there were no "frictional unemployment", if 100 per cent of the working force were fully occupied all the time, which of course is theoretical and not a practical proposition, the inflationary pressures which would be created would be uncontrollable. ..
It goes on to say:
Many people will think that we shall continue to be threatened with serious inflation if on the average only 3 per cent of the total working force are frictionally unemployed; especially so as this average figure includes "seasonal unemployment", which because of our climate is bound to be higher in Canada than in some other countries. It is possible that such fears may be justified.
Professor Neil H. Jacoby, a former member of President Eisenhower's council of economic advisers, has stated that the consensus of American economists is that the United States economy has full employment in a practical sense when 96 per cent of the working force has jobs and about 4 per cent are in process of changing jobs. (Many believe that the ratios are closer to 95 per cent and 5 per cent.)
I bring this to the attention of hon. members and, as I say, it was written under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Davenport.
Farm employment was lower by 107,000 since 1957, continuing a trend which has been in evidence for the whole post-war period. The government is giving serious attention to this long term situation. My colleague the Minister of Agriculture will be dealing with this matter but I would point out, as announced in the speech from the throne, that steps are being taken to work out and establish a program for agricultural training right across Canada, with the co-operation of the provinces, and a meeting will be held for this purpose on October 17.
Employment in the service industries has continued to increase. In those industries employment averaged 428,000 higher than five years earlier. I stress that this is an average, and not the high point. These significant improvements in the unemployment picture come at a time when general output is up to a greater degree than at any time in the past five years.
What is the situation on a regional basis? This is an interesting question. Although in August unemployment for Canada as a whole was 4.1 per cent of the labour force, the rate in the prairie and Ontario regions was considerably lower. The rate for the month of August in the prairies showed unemployment as 1.8 per cent of the labour force.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: This means that in the three prairie provinces there was only 1.8 per cent of the labour force out of work and seeking work. In Ontario, which contains a third of the population of the country and is a highly industrialized province, the percentage of the labour force unemployed was 3.6 per cent. In the maritimes the rate stood highest at 6.4 per cent.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: And 14 per cent in winter.


Michael Starr: In Quebec it was 5.1 per cent and in British Columbia 5 per cent. I am bringing these figures to the attention of the house because many people do not bother to learn the facts.


Murdo William Martin: What was the rate last winter? That is the point.


Michael Starr: References have been made by a number of speakers, including the Leader of the Opposition, to a report by the committee to appraise employment and unemployment statistics, which was appointed by President Kennedy; and attention has been drawn to the fact that, according to estimates prepared by this committee, Canada's average rate of unemployment in 1960 was the highest of any industrial nation. Among the countries referred to were France, Italy, West Germany, Sweden and Japan. I would simply point out that the average wage in those countries leaves a great deal to be desired by comparison with Canadian standards. Having heard the hon. members to my right say this was the kind of economy we should have in Canada-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: You see, they agree. Let me point out that the average wage in Canada was $1.78 per hour at that time. In West Germany it was 63 cents an hour; in France, 44 cents; in Sweden, $1.03; and in Japan, 31 cents. Is this how the opposition want us to obtain full employment in Canada? Is it on those terms? That is what they have been applauding.
Finally I wish to remind the house that the report of the Senate committee on manpower says, among other things, that with the possible exception of the United States, unemployment statistics published by countries abroad do not lend themselves to comparison with our own because they have been compiled on a different basis using a different yardstick of measurement.
As hon. members are aware, the speech from the throne foreshadows legislation to deal with the result of technical changes in industry. It has been said by opposition speakers that there is nothing in the speech

from the throne, but surely even the socialist members must agree that something has to be done for those workers who are being displaced by reason of changes due to automation. This is the first effort of any government in the world to do anything about this problem, yet our opponents say there is nothing in the speech from the throne. They talk about the need for a training program. Well that, of course, is our program. It is because we have recognized the need for technical education in this country that we are building 400 new schools and additions to other schools in this country. They have lost sight of the fact that we are spending $267 million as a federal contribution to those schools in order that technical education may be given to over 130,000 old and young Canadians. They say we are not doing anything about it-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Only because we prodded you into it.


Michael Starr: There was nothing left for them to do in this field. That is why they took the plank out of the platform.
In closing may I say we have been listening to forecasts of doom and gloom for five years. Owing to the measures taken by this government, the forecasts have not been realized. I suppose people would wonder if members of the opposition did not criticize the proposals contained in the speech from the throne because, after all, they are the opposition. They would not recognize anything good in it even though it might be loaded. However, regardless of what hon. members opposite and to my right may say about them, the measures outlined in that speech make those gloomy forecasts even less likely of realization. Let us, then, declare a moratorium on disaster, and for the rest of this parliament address ourselves to the people's business in a positive and constructive way.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I address a question to the minister, as he suggested we might at the end of his very interesting speech?


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that as in the case of the hon. member for York South, the minister and the clock finished in a dead heat as far as the time allotment is concerned, and unless the house were to give its unanimous consent to an extension of time to the minister I am afraid we cannot hear the question which the hon. member seeks to put.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: Next speaker. (Translation):


Paul Joseph James Martin: I tried at least.
The Address-Mr. Drouin


Mr. Vincent Drouin (Argenleuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, allow me first to congratulate you for the confidence hon. members have shown you in asking you to preside over their proceedings.
I also congratulate the member who just took the chair in your place and who, in spite of his youth, was entrusted with the high office of Acting Speaker.
May I also be permitted to commend the mover (Mr. Chaplin) and the seconder (Mr. Vincent) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They deserve our admiration for having succeeded in delivering very interesting speeches, while taking their inspiration in a speech from the throne as laconic as the one we heard last Thursday.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) blamed the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) for not having taken the opportunity offered to him last Monday to speak on agriculture. If it is true he did not speak about it, it is not because the opposition takes no interest in agriculture. Quite the contrary.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, just a glance at the Liberal program will show that agriculture is one of the main concerns of the Liberal party.
If the chief of the Liberal party did not deal himself with that question, it is because he can rely on the members of his party and is confident that even his younger associates can be entrusted to deal, in this house, with a matter as important as agriculture. I wish to thank him for his faith in me. It is a great honour that is reflected on all the people, mostly farmers, of the beautiful riding of Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes, and my constituents will be all the more grateful for this show of confidence since they have been represented in the past by a Conservative member and a silent one at that, like many others.
Yesterday the house heard an impressive speech on farming conditions in western Canada from the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). As for me, I shall endeavour to set forth some of the problems facing our eastern farmers. I shall point out the unconcern of the present government as regards any farming policy, and then I shall mention the solutions, or at least some of the solutions advocated by the Liberal party to meet those problems.
The government will no doubt realize that some of those solutions were already part of our previous programs, but whatever the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) may think, we will not give them up until they have been incorporated in enactments of this house,

The Address-Mr. Drouin which will come about much sooner than the minister may wish.
Mr. Speaker, mine is a constituency which has deeply suffered from the government's unconcern since 1957 as regards agricultural policy. Most farmers back home are dairy producers, and they are facing an unprecedented crisis.
They must invest large amounts of money, first of all to acquire a piece of land, and the equipment they need for the operation of their farms, and to buy the herds which they must improve constantly. Installing adequate cold plants is extremely costly, and today, in order to conform to the requirements of the companies which control milk distribution, they must replace all their former equipment with refrigerated storage facilities referred to as "bulk tanks".
Mr. Speaker, what is in store for the dairy producers as regards marketing?
Our farmers lie at the mercy of the trust shamefully constituted to exploit them to the fullest.
As a matter of fact, the farmers from the economical area of Montreal cannot reach the consumers' market of the metropolis without going through some big dairies, which subject our dairy producers to a sort of unilateral contract called "quota". I say it is a unilateral contract for, according to this agreement, the commitments lie only on the dairy producer's side. He undertakes to supply regularly a certain quantity of first class milk without any interruption or decline, the year round.
On the other hand, the dairy can accept whatever quantity of milk it deems convenient and send the surplus to skimming stations where the producer is paid at the most $2 per hundredweight for milk of the same quality as that which is being sold for whole milk consumption and for which the producer is paid about $5 per hundredweight. This milk is then resold to the consumer at more than $10 per hundredweight, without taking into account the watering down operation to which the dairies-and, as you can imagine, with great pleasure-submit our milk.
You may argue, Mr. Speaker, that the farmer should simply adjust his production in relation to the whole milk consumption market. But, mind you, it is not all that
[Mr. Drouin.l
simple. If the farmer who produces daily 20 milk-churns, half of which goes to the powder milk processing, decides to bring down his quota to 10 churns a day, he will simply see 5 churns accepted as good milk and 5 continue to be sent to the skimming station.
It is obvious that the dairies value the skimming stations, and I do not believe that this is without interest.
It is therefore of pressing necessity that the government inquires into this trust and that it takes the required steps to put an end to this shameful exploitation of our dairy producers.


Mr. Bourbonnais:: Ask that of Mr. Lemoyne.


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be interrupted. Like my hon. friends opposite, I only have half an hour at my disposal to deal with such an important subject.


An hon. Member:: In any case, we are not interested.


Mr. Pigeon:: The problem comes under the province of Quebec, the "Commission de l'in-dustrie laitiere".


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I think I would be right in saying that this is the hon. member's maiden address in this house, and I hope all hon. members will extend the traditional courtesy and let him proceed uninterrupted.
(Translation):


Vincent Drouin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The federation of dairy farmers was justified in raising cries of alarm during its convention held in Montreal in January 1962.
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm will get an answer to his inquiry- even though I will not oblige him voluntarily-through an editorial published in the January 24, 1962 issue of Terre de Chez Nous which reads as follows:
Dairy farming is in a state of stagnation. It is even faced with disaster.
A little further on, when the writer allots responsibilities, this is what he has to say about the federal government's responsibility:
What is to be expected from the government in Ottawa? A contribution equal at least to its share of responsibility in the matter. And this share is quite important. Ottawa is to be blamed mostly for its inaction. The federal government must have a very guilty conscience for having shown such neglect in that connection.

And I go on quoting another passage from this editorial:
Around 1957, when the consumer used to pay a somewhat more reasonable price than today for his butter, the consumption kept up and it was even necessary to contemplate the need for a certain importation following a decrease in production. Ottawa should have remembered that lesson. They did not. Afterwards dairy policies were adopted according to their electoral advantages rather than with a view to the future of that important industry.
That is what Terre de Chez Nous, the medium of expression of eastern farmers, states concerning the policy of the government in Ottawa.


An hon. Member:: Shame, shame.


Vincent Drouin: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton), whose absence I notice, will tell us that he has since settled the problem of agriculture.
1 am not jealous of the advantages western farmers may have received; quite the contrary, I am sincerely pleased with them.
However, the farmers in my riding, like all those of eastern Canada, are now facing the most serious of crises, one which they will not come through without the federal government's assistance.
I am ready to concede that ignorance, rather than ill will, is the reason why the minister will not consider our farmers' problems. In fact, one should not be too surprised at the government's unconcern when one realizes that it put the fate of agriculture into the hands of a colonel who dreamt of Bomarcs and then into that of a professor who seems much more interested in the dollar devaluation than in the devaluation of agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, it is time our eastern farmers had someone to represent them and look after their interests in the cabinet.
We, the Liberals, are conscious of this need and intend to appoint a minister of agriculture for eastern Canada, as soon as the next Liberal government is formed-which should not take long, despite the shameful about-turn of our Social Credit friends who this evening will no doubt vote with the government-


An hon. Member:: More election promises.
Another hon. Member: It will not be long.


An hon. Member:: The same old refrain.


Vincent Drouin: The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska pointed out last Friday that the 12 cents subsidy per pound of butter would 27507-3-14
The Address-Mr. Drouin permit the disposal of butter surpluses by bringing about a 20 per cent increase in consumption.
Well, supposing the hon. member is right, the consumption of butter per person in Canada would still be below what it was under the Liberal administration.
I shall refer to a report published by the economics division of the Department of Agriculture of Canada. Our friends opposite could not repudiate a publication of their Minister of Agriculture. It is, "Agricultural conditions in Canada", January 1962 issue, to which I have added recent statistics obtained from the department.
For instance, during the period 1951-57, we see there that the consumption of butter per head has never been less than 19 pounds. On the other hand, margarine consumption per head has never been in excess of 7.8 pounds per head. Yet, when our friends opposite took over, margarine consumption increased rapidly while butter consumption decreased in proportion.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Vincent Drouin: And I shall give you some figures to prove it: 1957, consumption per head, 19.4 pounds; 1958, 18.3 pounds; 1959, 17.4 pounds; 1960, 16.2 pounds; 1961, 15.8 pounds. Even with the forecast increase of 20 per cent, it still remains well below what the Liberals were able to offer our farmers.


An hon. Member:: Did you notice the difference in 1959 and 1960?
Another hon. Member: May I ask the hon.
member a question?


Vincent Drouin: We, the Liberals, also propose to change the Crop Insurance Act so as to make it really available to the farmers.
It is not only in the west that crops are subject to weather conditions.
We, in the east, in the province of Quebec, and more particularly in the economic area of Montreal, have to face devastation by hail, drought, grasshoppers as well as floods, and our farmers cannot count on the benefits of crop insurance, because under that legislation provincial governments have to assume too heavy financial risks.
I shall not linger on a matter which my fellow member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) has so competently explained in this house, but I should like to point out some farm legislation introduced by this government.
I have here, in my hands, a sort of election folder published by the Queen's printer, extolling the merits of what is generally known as the ARDA Act, that is the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act. Some

The Address-Mr. Drouin $50 million were ear-marked for the administration of that act though, as the hon. member for Assiniboia pointed out, it seems that no final arrangement has as yet been made with the provinces. I said "it seems", because the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) is not very wordy when it comes to informing the house of his department's activities. To all intents and purposes, two years later the benefits which one might have expected from that legislation have not yet been felt.
Indeed, I think that act will never be applied as such for the very good reason that it does not take into consideration the context of economic planning.
I shall not make a full analysis of that legislation. We will have the opportunity of coming back to it.
May I, at this point, expound another measure put forward in the Liberal party platform in order to help our farmers.
You are no doubt aware, of the value of publicity. Constant repetitions on the radio, the television and in the newspapers, to the effect that some product is the best, unconsciously leads one to believe it in the long run. Do you think that our wives use the green crystal Oxydol because it is the best detergent? I doubt it. The reason is rather that this detergent is much advertised.
Well, if this kind of publicity is so good for soap, why would it not be good in the case of milk and its by-products?
We can, through an exhaustive publicity program, create a demand equal to production. We will also succeed in securing new markets for our dairy products by financing, after an agreement with the school boards and through the provincial governments, free distribution of milk in all the Canadian schools.
It is unthinkable that our children should lack a food essential to their physical development, when our farmers are selling a good part of their dairy production at $2 per hundredweight.
However, the fact remains that a working man getting $60 a week cannot very well afford to pay 23 or 24 cents a bottle to buy the 8 or 10 pints of milk which his children absolutely need.
Even our Social Credit friends will surely admit that such a plan for free distribution of milk in the schools would be morally good, physically and financially feasible.
I was quite surprised to hear last Friday the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska give credit to his government for the Farm Credit Act.
I believe that this legislation goes back to the 1920's, and that it is due to the Liberal government. On the other hand, it is true that the present government has changed the name of the act and has somewhat altered the lending conditions in 1959.
But if that legislation now finds a certain favour with the farmers of the province of Quebec it is not due to the Conservatives, but rather because the Lesage Liberal government in Quebec enacted a legislation providing for partial reimbursement of the interests charged on those loans by the federal government.
Besides, our friends opposite use that legislation for publicity purposes much more than to really help the farmers.
The fact is that the guarantees asked for in practice are such that most applications are rejected.
The corporation grants loans only to those who need them the least and it asks more in the way of guarantees than any bank would, and that is saying a good deal.
The act becomes too often, with the complicity of certain officials of the Department of Agriculture, a fallacious publicity instrument in favour of our friends opposite.
Let me give you a good example: in the spring of 1962, that is before the June 18 election, a farmer in my constituency approached the then Conservative member concerning a federal loan. The member filled in the necessary application forms and later on sent an inspector to look over the applicant's farm.
Having collected all necessary information, the inspector led the farmer to believe that his chances to get a loan were excellent and that anyway he would hear very soon from the department.
Of course, in the meantime we had the election. In early September our farmer, tired of waiting and wanting to meet his obligations, went to the office of the new Liberal member for his riding to find out about his application. I then wrote to the district inspector and asked him about that application for a loan, and what was the file number.
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what that inspector answered me? Simply that he remembered that application, for which, however, there was no file number, for the excellent reason that it had not even been considered.

That application, it seems, did not meet with the requirements of the Farm Credit Corporation.
I do not wish to discuss here the merits of that application, nor whether it was proper to give it consideration, but I should like to point out the fact that an honest farmer was seriously wronged through the bad faith of a Conservative member who, in co-operation with a federal official, resorted to the Farm Credit Corporation for election purposes.
I would not like to give the hon. members the impression that I question the competence and honesty of federal officials. Quite the contrary, I consider that almost all of them are the perfect example of integrity; besides, most of them have been appointed under a Liberal administration.
But I cannot help noting that, in the last five years, some Conservative members have tried to saddle upon the civil service a patronage system which once flourished in the province of Quebec, under the Union Nationale party. But we must not forget that this patronage system was severely reproved by Quebec electors in 1960 and will get, with all due deference to the hon. member for Joliette-l'Assomption-Montcalm and the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pierre Sevigny), its finishing stroke on November 14 next.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That's what we call petty politics.


An hon. Member:: That's one thing you know.
(Text):


Mr. R. M. T. McDonald (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I should like to congratulate the Speaker and Deputy Speaker on their elevation to high office. I should also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne for the excellent job they did. I had the opportunity of speaking at the convention of the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Chaplin) and I know he will make a great contribution to the House of Commons.
In the past few days we have been discussing the speech from the throne. It was very enlightening to see the alignment of the Liberal party with the socialist element in the house. When the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) moved an amendment to the amendment today, which clearly means nationalization of industries and control of the lending institutions of the country, the Liberal members applauded. It is very interesting to see just how far they are going in this House of Commons and in the country as 27507-3-141
The Address-Mr. R. M. T. McDonald a whole. I do not think it is in the national interest for the Liberal party to be moving closer and closer to socialism.
With regard to planning, I wonder just what planning was done by the Liberals between 1954 and 1957 with regard to slum clearance, vocational schools and vocational training. The trade deficit between Canada and the United States soared and soared in a period when the Liberals said this country was going through a great expansion. They did not even give any consideration to the influx in population as a result of war babies that was going to take place between 1957 and 1960.
The Liberals talk about the great things they have done. What about expansion of trade? The old, doctrinaire concept is that the Conservative party is the protectionist party and the Liberals are free traders. Just what happened from 1945 to 1957? They did nothing. The tariff structure of this country has not been changed almost from the beginning of Canadian history.
Then they talk about social security, how benevolent they are and what they are going to do. I remember coming here in 1957 and listening to them crying, and saying they were sorry, but that they could give the old people of this country only a $6 increase. Then they went out on the hustings in 1962 and talked about portable pensions and medical and health insurance at the ridiculous cost which they described in my riding. The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), who is a great advocate of free trade only when it does not apply to the automobile industry, did nothing to commend this government for the reduction of the excise tax on automobiles. Indeed, the Prime Minister in his speech proved that the government is doing a great deal to help industry and especially the automobile industry.
In the speech from the throne there are many good proposals that should be given consideration by the house, but the Leader of the Opposition did not want to hear them. Oh, no, he wanted to grab power. The Liberal party was not elected to be the government of Canada. If they had been they would be sitting over here. Therefore it is up to them to look at all the proposals of the government and give them proper consideration. It is very apparent that they are going to support the socialist amendment this evening. I believe this is a great mistake on the part of the Liberal party and I think that the people will judge them on that mistake.
The speech from the throne forecasts expansion, new jobs, increasing trade, a taxation review, increased development through the industrial development bank and portable pensions. Portable pensions are very dear to

The Address-Mr. R. M. T. McDonald my heart as one who comes from an industrial constituency. I have advocated such a move before but I remember that when this was announced in the House of Commons the coleader of the Liberal party, the hon. member for Essex East, questioned the then minister of justice as to why the provinces must give their permission for portable pensions to come into effect. He said we could do it ourselves. Yet the Leader of the Opposition admitted in his speech that the permission of the provinces must be secured for survivor benefits. You can see how the Liberals are repenting all the way down the line for the things they have done in the past.
I should like to refer to the three point program of the Liberal party which really does not contain very much that has not already been started. They talk about urban renewal and providing 75 per cent of the cost. I have been a member of an urban renewal committee in Hamilton for the last two years and it is not a matter of the federal government simply throwing out the money and telling the city of Hamilton or Toronto to rip down houses and throw people out of their homes. There must be a lot of things done before urban renewal can take place. There must be consultation with public and separate school boards and with downtown associations. It is not the prerogative of the Leader of the Opposition to say that the problem will be solved simply by increasing the grants.
He also talked about the industrial development bank and said that the Liberals would do very much more than we have done. By 1956 there had been 349 loans made amounting to $39 million. By the end of 1961, after the Conservative administration had been in power for five years, there were 1,364 loans totalling $71 million. This is proof that the Conservative party has been putting forward these proposals steadily.
He also indicated in his remarks that new nousing for the production of jobs should be promoted by the government. This government put $2 billion into the direct lending market of the country. If his figures are correct that 100,000 jobs are created by $500 million going into the economy, this is proof that the government has provided 400,000 jobs in the housing industry over the period of the last five years.
In the field of education the government has made vocational training grants to municipalities to build vocational training schools, as well as university grants, loans to universities for residences and all the way down the line.
I should like to point out one thing to which I feel the government should give consideration at this time. I believe the time limit in

connection with the sewage disposal legislation and the vocational grants should be extended beyond March 31, 1962 for loans that are presently in effect, so the projects can be completed. Many of the school boards in this country were perhaps a little hesitant about taking up this plan; but most of them, as the Minister of Labour has indicated, have taken advantage of it and some $267 million have been allocated. I feel we should go ahead and permit people to receive contracts in September and complete their contracts beyond March 31, 1962.
I did note that when this vocational program was announced in the House of Commons the C.C.F.-N.D.P. party and some Liberals laughed at it. They said that this was too little, too late. I do not believe $267 million is too little too late. The municipalities, who are very hard pressed in securing real estate taxes to finance school construction, are very happy with the program. Hamilton has a commitment for $8 million and they are very grateful for the government's interest in this proposal.
I listened with interest to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) expound his proposal for a utopian economy. At the beginning of his speech, he talked about the problems facing this nation. I am sure we are all conscious of these, except the Leader of the Opposition who did not want to discuss them. He just wanted to get the government out without even talking about them. I may point out that the approach of the socialist party is a very sympathetic and easy-going approach. They talk about a system of medical insurance. I do not want to have happen in this country what happened in Saskatchewan. For obvious reasons, I think that there should be a medical plan in this country. However, the royal commission on health services must report. I do not want politicians in this country trying to secure votes merely by saying, "We are going to have a hospital or doctors insurance plan". I do not want them trying to do this merely because they are uncertain about their political future. We must have all the information so that as a responsible government we can do what is best for this country.
The hon. member for York South talked at great length about planning, looking into the crystal ball to see what is going to happen. This was reminiscent of the call of a premier of Saskatchewan in 1944 and 1945. There was talk about abolishing the 2 per cent Liberal sales tax, a free medical insurance plan and government in industry. All the way down the line, everything was going to be great in Saskatchewan. This was the first socialist experiment in Canada and we have found it has failed. Mr. Douglas packed his

bag and left them in a mess. From 1945 to 1962 public debt increased from $120 million to $450 million and in the same period 250,000 people left that province. You look at government in business, nationalization, and competition with free enterprise. You hear Mr. Douglas, in some of his speeches, talk about going into the cement business, the plastic business, the alcohol business and so on. We know this party has gone into a few businesses and every one failed. He did go into the tanning business, the boot business, woollen blankets, and so on, and they lost a million dollars. Then, he went into the printing business, paint business, housing corporations, box factories, brick plant, and so on, and lost another few million dollars. If those in the socialist party who want to plan the whole economy of Canada cannot do this for a little province like Saskatchewan, I think they should be laughed out of this House of Commons.
I can see what is happening to the Liberal party. A man crossed the floor last session. I remember him sitting in this corner over here and telling us about the nationalization of the steel industry, or rather going into competition with the private sector of our economy. It appears as though he has had a great deal of influence on the Liberal party when they applaud so loudly the great socialist plan of this New Democratic party.
During the election and several years before, Mr. Douglas talked a great deal about putting people to work. This is a very important problem in Canada, and we must face up to it seriously. There must be no fooling about it. All during the campaign he talked about getting sticks and stones, picks and shovels and putting these men to work building roads or other things. At the same time, the power commission in Saskatchewan was buying electrical supplies from Switzerland and Italy. I am not saying the Saskatchewan power commission should not go into the competitive market for electrical materials. However, I am saying it is hypocrisy for a man to go across this country and talk about putting people to work with shovels and picks, while at the same time his power commission is buying electrical fixtures abroad that could be produced in my constituency.
Efficiency in government is, I think, a good thing, since it is the biggest business in the country. We have received the report of a study by the Glassco commission and I hope that the government will, without delay, implement some of those proposals. We have spent a lot of money in securing these proposals and I think we should put some of them into effect. At the same time, however, I believe we should set up some machinery for
The Address-Mr. R. M. T. McDonald arbitration with the civil service commission. I do not mean arbitration in perhaps the provincial sense, the way labour relations are set up in the provinces, but some type of committee should be brought into effect so that civil servants across the country can talk to the government and reach a mutually acceptable settlement of their problems.
The next point I would like to mention in my brief speech is the matter of transportation in Canada. This problem has been with us for a long time because of our country's size. There was an item in the throne speech concerning transportation which I think every hon. member should read. It is a worry to me, as a member of parliament, every time the Canadian National estimates come before us and I see the great deficits that we seem to be loading on this country. I have no bone to pick with Mr. Gordon because, in a way, he is a good businessman. However, I feel he is trying to take over the whole transportation industry in Canada. The keynote of the report of the royal commission on transportation is that competition makes good freight rates. From time to time Mr. Gordon has come before the federal committee on railways, air lines and shipping and told us of the many things that company is doing in the country.
I was particularly interested when, in 1959, Mr. Gordon talked about a $5 million item in his estimates for truck operations. These truck operations were to take care of the movement of freight to the railhead in areas where lines had been abandoned. It seems to me, however, that Mr. Gordon is going beyond this type of operation for now he controls running rights from Halifax through to Vancouver by means of long haul truck companies. I do not believe that was intended by this parliament. The royal commission talked about competitive rates being the basis of a free enterprise system. I now feel that Mr. Gordon is going against what he said in the committee. I hope the Minister of Transport will convene this committee as soon as possible so that we may seek clarification of what the president of the C.N.R. is trying to do with transportation in this country. He mentioned a merchandising plan in 1960, under which he could buy trucks to bring loose cargo into the railheads and then transport it across the country by rail. Now we find that with his large trucking firms he is shipping cargo by trucks in direct competition with private trucking firms who, at this time, cannot apply to a royal commission or to the board of transport commissioners for relief, even though the C.N.R. and C.P.R. may cut rates by using the finance subsidy given by the federal government.
202	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. R. M. T. McDonald
I believe the House of Commons should give serious consideration to this matter and, through the Minister of Transport, we should seek to bring the president of the C.N.R. before a special committee so that we can look into all the ramifications of the problem. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees), has talked about the denationalization of the trucking industry in Britain after the Conservative government came back into power, and said it brought about a great improvement in transportation. Before we give a bureaucrat, or president of a crown corporation, unlimited possibilities to take over rail and truck transportation in Canada, we should thoroughly investigate the matter so that we shall not wake up some morning and find ourselves faced with a greater transportation problem.
The government, under the circumstances it encountered when it came into office in 1957, has done a good job. Of course one can go across the country and point to particular problems. There are always problems, but this is the age of the responsibility of the individual. If people want the government to supply them with jobs and welfare, somebody must pay for that. We must all work together so that we can achieve these things. I do not say the Liberal party did nothing when they were in office, but now they say that under the Conservative party nothing has happened during the past five years. They are very unfair, but I can see what is happening to them. They are moving in with the socialist parties into this new planned economy and the nationalization of industry. That is a most improper thing for a Liberal party which professes to believe in the free enterprise system.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) moving his amendment, and he is a doctrinaire socialist, mentioned that the New Democratic party would direct social capital in Canada; but how can they direct social capital, which in effect means the trust and insurance companies, without controlling them? As a result of what happened with the so-called compulsory medical care insurance plan in Saskatchewan I really do not see how the Liberals, for political expediency, can side with the people who caused that. It was no benevolent thought on the part of the socialist party to advocate free hospitalization and medical care, because it is not free. During the election a medical doctor who opposed me on behalf of the socialist party told the people he could give them hospitalization and medical care for $24 a year. This is hypocrisy. This is bribing the electorate with their own money because the electorate comprise the people who must pay for these services.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with those who have spoken before me in complimenting both the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They did a fine job, a wonderful job, particularly in view of what the speech from the throne did not contain, and more particularly with the thought in mind that much of what is in the speech, if the record of the government is any indication, will not be carried out.
I am a new member of the house. I speak with some trepidation; yet representing the second most populous constituency in British Columbia, a riding of which I am very proud, I hope I shall represent it to the best of my ability. It is a riding which encompasses the north shore of north and west Vancouver and runs up the west coast. It includes many industries, mines, pulp mills and factories, and it is the dormitory of many people of varied vocations and high skills who work in Vancouver. They are particularly concerned with trade-overseas trade and trade with the United States-and they want to work with our neighbours as well as to argue with them.
It is an honour, too, to attempt to follow in the footsteps of the Hon. James Sinclair, the former minister of fisheries who represented Coast-Capilano with great distinction for many years in this house. It is a great inspiration for me to be here in a house which has seen many great Canadians do their best for this country, men with a sense of history, a grasp of world affairs and, more important even than that, a confident outward-looking attitude toward the affairs of this nation. It has been a cause of some distress to me to hear the bickering and petty exchanges which have gone on in this house in recent days. More particularly I have become fatigued by the
The Address-Mr. Davis continuing political orations which put party doctrine-words, generally, which are virtually meaningless-before tangible things.
I am responding to the speech from the throne. I want to talk about energy, about power and, more particularly, about the Columbia river treaty. We Canadians have a problem. We live in a changing world. Perhaps that is a cliche. But with respect to energy we now have many choices before us. Fuel oil has become a luxury. Coal is usable in only a few areas. Oil is giving way in many applications to natural gas and hydro power is having to face the challenge of other means of generation. Beyond all this there is the great promise of power from nuclear energy. As I say, people have more choice. Energy is more transportable.
Surely, we should not be concerned about running out of energy. Surely our attitude should not be one of concern about the eventual recovery of electric power. Part of the speech from the throne says that this government will give consideration to the longer term export of electric power. I think this shows a confident attitude which befits Canadians. It is realistic. It is too late in coming, but it is true also of members on this side of the house that they have not yet realized the realities of the technological changes made in our time. We have to be positive and we have to be realistic at the same time. We need safeguards, of course. We must not export something we shall need in the foreseeable future, and we must not give price concessions to people in other countries which are not available to ourselves. However, we shall look after that. We have an energy board to look after it. The setting up of such a board was recommended by the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects. It was recommended also by the Borden commission set up by the present government. It was a good idea. The board will safeguard our interests through public hearings at which there will be a full disclosure of all the facts.
We have in this country $6 billion worth of investment in power generation plants and equipment, and the latest information to be published by the dominion bureau of statistics tells us that nearly 25 per cent of that plant is idle the whole year round. Our peak requirements are less than 80 per cent of our plant capacity. We have $1,500 million worth of idle plant. What is the answer of the planners? I am an engineer. I have done some planning. I have even worked for a power utility. The power companies say: if you can get some revenue for your surplus capacity until you can use it yourselves, sell it for what you can get. This is a practical problem faced by utilities not only on this continent

The Address-Mr. Davis but everywhere. Let us spread out our overhead-this tremendous investment. Let us be more efficient by interconnecting with the United States as well as across our provinces. This is the way to become more productive and, incidentally, the way to earn United States dollars. Even if we sell only a fraction of our excess capacity we shall earn tens of millions of dollars of foreign exchange for this country. That is one practical way I see of improving our balance of payments position over the next few years at least.
We are not unique on this continent. We had a little problem some years ago with regard to getting some power back, but conditions were different then; hydro power was the only really efficient low cost way of developing electrical energy. We are reluctantly going to engage in this trade. But what is happening in Europe? There is a cable now in the channel between the United Kingdom and France. The Norwegians, who even more than Canadians are dependent on hydroelectric resources, have taken loans from the government of Sweden to build projects earlier than they would otherwise have been built to produce electric power for export to Sweden. In these developing nations of Europe we find electric power being exchanged relatively freely. We even find an over-all energy program for western Europe. Nevertheless, we on this continent by and large are holding back. We are afraid to trade in power. I say we must trade, we shall trade, and we shall trade intelligently.
I should like to concentrate now on the Columbia river treaty. As a Canadian I regard this treaty with mixed feelings. As a legal document it is superb. Phrased in straightforward language, it takes a complex subject and reduces it to terms most, if not all, of which are understandable to the layman. The engineering data upon which the draft treaty is based is less laudable. New information has been collected since the treaty was negotiated nearly three years ago. Construction cost estimates have been revised and interest rates have risen sharply. Still, it is the over-all economics of the Columbia river treaty about which I am most concerned. As interpreted publicly by the present government it must be characterized as nothing short of a fiasco. It is inconceivable that the government of this country should enter into any agreement, let alone a comprehensive treaty with another country to last at least 50 years, which failed to procure any demonstrable advantage for the people of Canada. It is, unfortunately, another awesome example of this government's continual reign of errors. Had the present government been in contact with the competent utility authorities on the west coast it would have been aware of at least two

things: first, we in British Columbia have many sources of electric power. They are immense and varied. Second, they would have known that energy from various other sources, including coal, oil and gas based power, can be produced at costs comparable to or less than those which can be achieved by repatriating Canada's share of downstream electricity benefits generated as a result of the Columbia river treaty. I am personally satisfied, and this is confirmed by calculations made both by the engineering staff of the B.C. hydro and power authority and by economists for the well known United States agency, Resources for the Future Inc. of Washington, that a combination of fuel burning stations in British Columbia could produce energy at prices competitive with the energy which this government would bring back from the United States.
Most certainly there are combinations of hydro resources and thermal plants which can produce power even more cheaply; hence there is no immediate advantage, in bringing this power back to Canada, certainly in carrying out a program such as that envisaged by this government.
That we have not made a provident deal economically with the United States can be demonstrated in various other ways. In order to build our three treaty storage projects-we are obligated to do this under the treaty-we must put up no less than $350 million. These three dams will cost us at least three times as much as the Americans will have to put up in order to take advantage of that storage. We put up three times as much money as the Americans.
This is no bargain, Mr. Speaker. But there is a complication: we characteristically pay higher interest rates in this country, and under the present austerity program we are paying a good deal more in terms of interest than is normally paid in the United States. As a result of the fact that the projects that we must build cost three times as much in capital investment, and because the interest rates are higher, the power cost to Canada will be between five to six times as much as the cost of the power that the United States will obtain under this treaty. Perhaps our share of his downstream benefit energy will cost us something of the order of 4 mills per kilowatt hour, while the United States will get its share for considerably less than one mill per kilowatt hour. This has all been given in evidence before the congressional committees of the United States. It is public information, but it simply is not information which is known by the majority of the people of this country. No man, no government, no party can be proud of this achievement. If it is not selling Canada down the river, it is

The Address-Mr. Davis selling Canada short. We will never get rich in this way. We will never be able to strike rates in this country which are attractive to industry and which will bring industry here. In effect we are helping our neighbours too much. We are not looking after our own interests in a businesslike way.
This in capsule form is the greatest single indictment I can think of concerning the bureaucratic bungling, lack of liaison in industry, and the high-handed, opinionated action of the government in respect to matters of this kind. We are in a mess, but we have a dire need in this country to put people to work. We must build projects and we certainly need better rates and lower costs in our industries. How do we achieve these and become positive about it? I submit that the only conceivable way in which we Canadians can rescue this treaty in anything like its present form is to sell our share of the downstream benefit energy to the United States. We must sell it or forget the treaty, and we must sell it for a much higher price than the United States is having to put up for its own share of the power. More than that, I believe it should be sufficient to yield us some sort of profit on this public investment in Canada. What we have to do essentially in our sales to the United States, is to earn something of the order of $24 million or $25 million a year. This is equivalent to more than four mills per kilowatt hour. This is the price we have to get in order to break even on those dams, if we are to be forced to build under the treaty. The sum of $30 million a year, if we were to get it from the Americans, would yield us something like five mills per kilowatt hour. I do not know what the right figure is, but it is certainly a substantial one. We must get a price like that if we are to set in train a substantial development in British Columbia which is useful to the people in that part of Canada.
In view of the high interest rates now prevailing in this country, and in view of the objectives of the government's austerity program, it would be a master stroke, I suggest, if we could get the United States authorities to put up all the cash in advance, not just $30 million a year, year after year for several decades, but a lump sum. We have been prepared under the treaty to accept something of the order of $64 million as an all time settlement for flood control. I submit that we should be going to the United States and asking for a lump sum settlement for the delivery of our share of the power over a long term of years. Something in the order of $500 million might be the figure. This figure would give us a profit. It would give us a capital sum over and above the $350 million or $400 million which we have to
put up in order to build these three immense dams. This would be in Canada's interests, would provide us with jobs in building the dams, and would certainly help us to strike rates elsewhere or build projects elsewhere to attract industry. The United States might raise these funds more cheaply than we. By that I mean by lower rates of interest. It would give us a profit in the order of $100 million to $150 million, and we could do great things with this project.
I recommend some such arrangement not only to hon. members in this house, but to those who, I hope, in the not too distant future, will be attempting to negotiate some such arrangement in Washington. This is a crucial negotiation and it is one which must be completed before the Columbia treaty is brought into this house. To ratify the treaty before we know what we can get for our surplus power would be to tie our hands and commit us to hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in terms of controlled water flow out of Canada. Without knowing what price we would get we would be over a barrel, so to speak; we might have to accept perhaps a lower price if we were to ratify the treaty before the actual price was known.
The appropriate procedure as I see it is to get on right away with the negotiation of a price. The term, furthermore, in my opinion should be long enough to give us a good price. Then having a contract for the sale of this energy in our hands, we should promptly bring the treaty before the house. It could then be reviewed at length by our house committee on external affairs with a view to hearing expert opinion and to tidying up some of the details which have been bothering many Canadians for so long. Most notable, in my opinion, is the need to give Canadians the same latitude in respect to the completion of the major treaty projects. At this moment, under the treaty in its present form, we are pinned down as to the precise years in which we complete these three immense projects. The United States can start this project at any time within five years. I suggest that we enjoy similar freedom in respect to our commitments of construction. This is the sort of improvement which I think might well be acceptable to the United States which could conceivably be made in the treaty and made expeditiously. I am optimistic. I believe that it is possible to complete our price and other negotiations in a matter of weeks, at most months. By next spring construction should get under way. But first of all we must rescue the treaty from the hands of those who have been against the export of electric power, and this is why I pressed a question early today with regard to the export of power under the

The Address-Mr. Davis Columbia treaty. I think that this is an intimate relationship, and I do not think, as the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fulton) said, that there is no connection between them. The present government has made its own restriction as to interpretations of how we can trade in energy. They suspect the Americans and even suspect sometimes, I believe, their own colleagues. This is no way to go about getting things done. Certainly it will not put people to work.
The question before this house is one of confidence. Do we have confidence in this government and in its ability to carry out its intentions as outlined in the speech from the throne? It has suddenly, very suddenly, changed its mind about the export of power. This comes as a surprise after all that the Minister of Public Works and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) have been saying about the evils of selling electricity to our neighbours in the United States. The government has negotiated a treaty which, unless we can rescue it by the sale of power at a very high price, will place Canada and Canadians at a serious disadvantage for many years to come. And it has clearly lacked the ability to co-operate with the province of British Columbia and the government of the United States in this connection. How can we be sure that this government has suddenly been transformed, that it is now in a co-operative mood and that it can now reverse the awful economics of the Columbia river treaty, and that it is really prepared to set the stage for a confident, outward looking policy on power. We need action, ability and imagination. This government has made a few gestures. I hope this is more than a gesture from the speech from the throne. However, in view of the government's record, I doubt whether it can follow through. At times I even doubt whether they really wish to follow through. In other words, Mr. Speaker, I have no confidence in this government.
There are two other quite separate matters which I should like to mention. One was raised by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) in his recent speech. He said that during the five years since the present government had been in power the per capita income-that is the income per person-in this country has risen by $65. This is roughly equivalent to $13 a year. May I say that 13 is not a very lucky number. May I also say that $13 should be seen as against an average income in this country of close to $2,000. Therefore, people of Canada, your increase in the last five years has been $13 a year, or about one half of one per cent. Just consider what the reputation would be of the management of a firm which was offering its employees year after year
[Mr. Davis.)
one half of one per cent. This is not a very remarkable performance. It is niggardly in relation to the performance of many other countries. May I say that 2 per cent has been the North American average over the long term and 2 per cent, 3 per cent, 4 per cent and 5 per cent have been typical with most countries in the western world since the end of world war II. This is an accomplishment, but it is not one to boast about. May I say that 13 may be a number that will plague this government for years to come.
I now wish to touch on another topic. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), who is a very well read gentleman, I believe unintentionally misinterpreted a statement which he attributed to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon). It is an objective of this party-I refer to the Liberal party-to achieve a balanced budget. However, it is not the prime objective. The prime objective, as even I as an engineer can understand, is full employment, and with full employment, the maximum possible rate of economic growth. If we do not have unemployment, then a balanced budget is a reasonable thing to achieve; and over the long run let us hope that with good management and, I suggest-with quotation marks around the word "planning"-with good planning, we can some years have surpluses and in other years deficits but in the long run the idea is a balanced budget. I think this is a more correct interpretation of what the hon. member for Davenport had in mind.


Mr. Challerion:: Will the hon. member permit a question at this time?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am looking to the hon. member to reply by giving his consent. Actually, there is time for him to answer the question.


John (Jack) Davis: Yes.


George Louis Chatterton: The hon. member referred to the cost of power and said that our Canadian share of the downstream benefits would be four mills. Does that take into consideration the cost of power from Mica, fully machined? I am just asking for information.


John (Jack) Davis: Yes. As it happens the power from the treaty projects coming out of the United States as our share is of the order of four mills. With a fully machined Mica Creek development, complete transmission is of the order of four mills per kilowatt hour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this house being composed as it is, I suppose it was inevitable that it would reflect the atmosphere of the recent election campaign. Even so, I find this tragic.

During the election campaign that concluded on June 18, the people of this country faced real and serious issues including those of unemployment, matters concerning security, health, trade, maintaining the peace of the world, issues vital to the continuance of our civilization and of life itself. Yet I think it is fair to characterize the recent election campaign as one in which, for the most part, these real issues were drowned in the sound and fury, the fuss and bother, of a campaign in which the two main leaders seemed to be concerned most of all about their personal electoral success or about their position in Canadian history.
Here in this house the situation is exactly the same. Real issues still confront the Canadian people. Some of the crises that were with us have deepened in the months since the election was held. That fact makes this session of the parliament of Canada one of the most important to be held in the 95 years of our history since confederation. But how did this session get started? First of all, of course, there were the formalities and the ceremonial parts of it. However, when we reach serious debate, what do we get? We get a six hour or seven hour duel, a shocking display, with the two gentlemen who are supposedly the topmost political leaders in this country quarrelling with each other as to which one was telling the truth, as to which one was using the right statistics and as to which one should be in office. You can search the pages of Hansard, Mr. Speaker, for those six hours or seven hours and it is with great difficulty that you will find anything constructive or anything suggesting the seriousness of the times in which we are living. That pattern, I regret to say, is to a large extent continuing. In all fairness, I must say that I think better speeches have been made since leaders' day than were made on that day. However, the pattern continues. We have had it today between the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr). We have the same political partisan fight that is carried on in complete disregard of the fact that these real issues face the people of Canada.
This might not be so bad, Mr. Speaker, if it were only incidental. However, it has been going on for some time. Certainly for the past few years we have had a government that has been directed, so it has seemed to some of us, with an eye to the leader of that government finding his personal place in history. The same pattern has shown itself in parliament to the point where many people wonder whether this institution will serve the purpose for which it was established.
Mr. Speaker, we in this parliament have a tremendous responsibility. This institution,
The Address-Mr. Knowles democracy, freedom, civilization, may well depend upon whether groups of parliamentarians like us, whether we the ordinary members of this house, can take command of the situation and compel the giving of attention to our real problems.
I have already indicated by brief reference what I regard as some of those real problems, and I am free to admit that just about every one that I have mentioned and every one that I have in mind has been referred to time and again by previous speakers. For example, the health or ill health of our economy and the crisis that we face in terms of unemployment have been mentioned repeatedly; but for the most part these subjects become battles of statistics, as the government now in power and the representatives of the last one that was in power each try to prove that one was a little better or a little worse than the other.
I know of no problem facing us, no area where it should be more evident than it is in the case of our economy and unemployment that what we need in our time is a massive attack, a breakthrough, an all-out determination not just slightly to improve the situation but to lick once and for all the problem of unemployment. The Prime Minister the other day drew attention to the statement in the speech from the throne that the government now in power hopes, if it stays there, to provide a million new jobs in the next five years. The Leader of the Opposition in his speech thought he was going one better. I wondered what was coming, only to hear him say that if the Liberals were in power they would provide a million new jobs in the next four years.
We need something a great deal better than that, Mr. Speaker. We need a million new jobs this winter. As a matter of fact, we need something more than just a statistical improvement. We need to order and organize our economy so that the first thing it does, so that its principal aim, is to provide for our people full employment. It is not good enough for governments to put balanced budgets or exchange rates or loyalty to certain doctrines or sacred cows first in the picture. Things like budgets and exchange rates and methods of financing are tools to achieve a more important end. The end is full employment; and I suggest that some day people will read the debates of this house, in fact, the debates of this day, and think it was very sad that hon. members rejected on the floor of the House of Commons the idea of economic planning. They will resent some of the language that was used when they realize that it was by the means of economic planning that economic health was achieved and full employment was provided.

The Address-Mr. Knowles
The plea I make, Mr. Speaker, is that we look at this problem not in terms of just a slight statistical improvement but that we look at it in terms of really conquering it. We are in an age when the word "breakthrough" has meaning for us. We are breaking through in the conquest of space. We are even achieving some breakthroughs on earth itself. We are building super highways, freeways and throughways to try to get the increased number of vehicles on our roads moving. We are, as I say, breaking through in some areas; but here, in the most important area of our life, namely, providing full employment, we are prepared to stop short of it because, first of all, there must be a balanced budget or there must be a fixed exchange rate or there must be no departure from loyalty to the principle of free private enterprise.
What we need in our time, Mr. Speaker, is a massive attack, an all-out program of planning, of spending money on the things that our society needs to increase our social capital, to provide jobs, to provide goods and services for our people. We need to recognize this as the No. 1 job of our society, and if it is the No. 1 job of our society it becomes the No. 1 job of the parliament of Canada.
I say that it is our function as private members in this House of Commons to compel attention to this problem. I welcome the speeches of some private members in all parties who have dealt with it, but in particular we must compel the attention of the leaders of the two major parties in the house to the importance of this problem.
What I have said with regard to a breakthrough being needed in the matter of our economic health and employment is also true with respect to other problems and difficulties that face us. Housing has been mentioned a few times since this debate started, and let us admit that progress has been made in building homes in Canada. But it is still true that there are far too many slums, far too many Canadians of all ages living in conditions which should not be true for human beings. Why? Because of the same adherence to outworn principles that holds us back in providing full employment. Housing is a right. Housing is a social asset that our people should have, that they are entitled to; and if our society, our democracy, is worth its salt we should find ways and means in this parliament to achieve a breakthrough so that within a reasonable period of time all people in this country will be living in good homes.
The same is true in the whole field of social security. I rejoice in the progress that has been made in this field. I rejoice in the progress that has been made since I first came to the house some 20 years ago. In some of those

wartime sessions we used to have difficulty getting the right to speak on the necessity of doing something about raising the old age pension which was then $20 a month payable at age 70 on a means test basis. We have made progress since those days and I congratulate all those who have participated in the making of that progress. But surely the time has come when old age pensions and other forms of security should be predicated, not just on the idea of providing people with enough to keep them alive. Surely the time has come when a country like ours, which can produce a tremendous quantity of goods and services, could provide for people when their working days are over or under any other circumstances a standard of life just as good as they had during their working days.
It is going to take just as much of a breakthrough in the minds of parliamentarians, in the minds of some people around here, to achieve that idea as it took to break through the means test with respect to the old age pension. But this is the sort of thing that is needed, and I plead that we do not take too much time getting amendments to the British North America Act or referring the matter to royal commissions and so on, but that we really go all out to use the resources that are ours for a social security program that gives dignity to the lives of all our people.
In that same vein I mention the matter of health care which was referred to by my colleague, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), in that tremendous speech he made this morning. This is something that our people are entitled to, not just in terms of what they can afford to pay for or what they can afford by mortgaging their entire future, but something they are entitled to as much as they are to elementary education, something that they are entitled to as much as they are to any of the rights, benefits and privileges of living in this great land. But we will not get it so long as there is this constant adherence to worn out cliches and worn out principles that surround the practice of medicine. Surely, it is time for those who practise the great science of medicine, and for those who organize society as a whole, to realize that between them there should be co-operation, so that the full benefits of medical science get through to all our people. I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but the clock is doing the same.
I want to say a word about the international situation. In our time, we must, to repeat the word that I have been using, work for a breakthrough. I agree with those who say if we are going to achieve the peace of the world we have got to exercise the wisest diplomacy we possibly can; we have got to

take a strong stand for general disarmament. But on top of all these things that seem directly related to the questions of war and peace, let us face it: if we are really going to save the peace of the world we have got to raise the living standard of mankind the world around. This, Mr. Speaker, will not wait until the year 2,000. This must come now.
At a time when two thirds of our people in the world are hungry, ill fed, ill clothed, lacking in education and all the things that go to make the dignity of life, we have unemployment in our country and unemployment in the rest of the western world. We have trade problems, and all that. How ridiculous it is, in the face of a world of nearly 2 billion people requiring decent homes, clothing, food, education, medical attention and all the things that we could help to give them if we did a real, all-out job of organizing our economy. This would not only raise the standard of living of our own people but it would operate to raise the living standard of people throughout the world.
It must be obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the key to all of this, the key to our getting started in achieving a breakthrough, is contained in the words of the amendment that this party has placed before the house. Our amendment calls for economic planning, designed to achieve economic growth and to provide full employment. If we do those things we can achieve dignity and a place in the sun for our people. If we do those things we can provide housing, health and security. If we do those things we can play our part in helping to bring about a better world. However, we have to get started on them and not allow ourselves to be held back by these lectures about planning being regimentation, planning being something that is ridiculous, something we do not want. Anyone with any common sense knows that anything that is being achieved in the world today is on the basis of large-scale planning. How did that astronaut get around the world six times yesterday except by the planning of a tremendous number of people? All the things of which we are proud in this day have come about in this way. Yet, we do not seem to have the common sense to apply this concept to the thing that affects us all, namely the organization of the society in which we live. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, we have placed before this house our reasons for expressing our nonconfidence in the government of the day.
We hope, Mr. Speaker, that the members of this house will look at that subamendment, look at the words, and cast their vote on the basis of what those words say. If hon. members are living in the sixties, if hon. members are aware of the problems that face us, if hon.
The Address-Mr. Knowles members are aware of what the future expects of us all, they will realize that they cannot, in conscience, say no to the things we are asking for from this corner of the house.
After the vote on our subamendment is over, we shall come to the vote on the main amendment. As this house knows, that amendment is something that is now in the possession of the house. We will cast our vote on it, not on the basis of the speech that was made introducing it. You can imagine what that would prompt us to do. We will cast our vote, not on the basis of the party introducing it. Their record is too much like that of the party now in power. No, we will cast our vote on that amendment on the basis of what it says.
I believe it is fairly clear from what we have said in our own subamendment, what has been said in the three speeches that have thus far been made from this corner of the house, how much confidence we have in either the government of the day or the party immediately opposite. We think that the time must soon come for the Canadian people to be given a chance once again to make their choice for a program designed to achieve a breakthrough for all our people.
In the few minutes that remain to me, Mr. Speaker, there is perhaps one other thing I should like to say. If we are going to do our job in this parliament we not only have to get down to business and deal with the real problems that face us, but we have to keep this parliament on the rails. I recognize the difficult time you are having, sir, particularly in the first hour of each day, and perhaps I add to your difficulties once in a while. But we will discuss that matter on an appropriate occasion. I agree with you that you, from the chair, have a responsibility to guard the dignity of this house and that we, as private members, have a responsibility to respect the dignity of this parliament, to take advantage of the opportunities that are raised to press our points, but to see to it that the rules are followed.
However, Mr. Speaker, I insist that that responsibility rests in a particular way upon those who sit on the treasury benches, upon the government of the day. On the appropriate occasion I shall have something more extensive to say, and it will be documented and as pointed as I can make it, about a government which in my view, from time to time, flouts the rights of this parliament. In my view the most recent and most serious example of the government ingnoring the rights of parliament was the order in council that was passed on June 24 imposing taxation without due process of law. We have been told in this house that this was done by order in council based on legislative authority and

The Address-Mr. Knowles that legal opinion was obtained that the government had power to do this. This legal opinion was obtained from the Department of Justice. We all know what the Department of Justice is doing when it gives a legal opinion. The Department of Justice is under the government, and too often it gives the government the opinion it wants.
I can get an opinion, too. Lawyers with whom I discussed this matter agree with me that that order in council, to say the best one can for it, is a case of a subterfuge. It is a case of achieving indirectly what cannot be achieved directly. There is in the Customs Tariff Act a section that gives the governor in council the right to transfer goods coming from certain countries from categories having more favourable rates of tariff to those having less favourable rates. But it can be done only by transferring them completely from one category to another, and when transferred to the other category the rate in that other category shall apply. This is what the statute says.
There is another statute, the Financial Administration Act, which gives the government the authority to remit or give back any tax or penalty to individuals where, for various reasons, it is obvious that a tax already paid should be remitted. When one reads that statute, the Financial Administration Act, and the sections I have in mind, it is clear that these are repayments that are allowed. It is a perfectly proper provision, but this government has seen fit to put these two things together and to pass an order in council transferring certain goods to a less favourable rate of duty and then, under the other act, to forgive all of the higher duty that came about in that way, that is, in excess of 5 per cent, 10 per cent or 15 per cent as the case may be.
What has happened here? The government, the executive, legislated an increase in taxation without recourse to parliament, and it does not even have the decency, courtesy or respect for the rights of parliament to bring it before the house for approval.
I did not approve of the taxation by radio that Mr. Abbott gave us in 1947 or 1948, but at least those people later gave the house a chance to enact legislation making it retroactive, and the government of that day had a majority to ensure that it was done. But here a government without a majority proposes to exact taxation without due process of law, and does not give parliament a chance to look at it at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will you wait until I have finished my time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then I will not be able to put it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can you do it quickly?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can do it very quickly. Does the hon. gentleman really think they figured all this out between June 18 and June 24?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We might find that out if we got a chance to debate it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We can remember that
Charles I lost his head and George III lost the American colonies by such practices, and this is all being done by a government leader who, perhaps more than any we have ever had, has prated for years about the rights of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion may I just say, in the vein in which I was speaking when I spoke of the need to break through and tackle our economic problems, that this is a tremendous decade in which we live. It is a decade in which time is giving us a magnificent chance. If we throw it away, it could be our last; but if we in this decade, with determination, do the job we can do, we could build a society worthy of the dreams of centuries. This is a world wide task, Mr. Speaker, but we in Canada have a part in it. Our part is to set our own house in order, to establish security, justice and freedom, human dignity and values worth living for, here in Canada. We must do the job now, while there is yet time.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, like the previous participants in this debate I want to offer you my sincere congratulations. As I am the first Conservative member to speak for the province of Alberta I am sure hon. members will not mind my taking this opportunity to say, speaking on behalf of all the people in the province of Alberta, that they feel highly honoured at the honour you have achieved in becoming Speaker of the House of Commons.
The ancestors of many western Canadians came either from Ontario, the province of Quebec or Europe. Your own ancestors were French Canadians from the province of Quebec, and I am sure your relatives back in that province join in the pride of Alberta that you have been given this high honour.
I would also like to congratulate the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Waterloo South and the seconder, the hon. member for

Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent). I only trust that when I made my maiden speech in the house I did as well as they, and I hope my speech tonight will come up to their standard.
Although I am sorry to see he is not in the house at the present time, I also wish to congratulate another Albertan, the leader of the Social Credit party, who represents the constituency adjoining mine. I recall reading in the Globe and Mail at the time he achieved that office as national leader of that party that he mentioned, or at least he was reported as saying, that he was one of the true Conservatives from Alberta. When he speaks as a Conservative, then I commend his remarks to you, sir.
The last speaker, from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), said he was discouraged because the leaders of the two major parties had hurled reproaches and recriminations at one another. One must look to see where these commenced. I have in my hand the Globe and Mail for Tuesday, October 2, 1962, in which the leader of the Liberal party is quoted under a heading "Pearson Accuses PM of Political Fraud". That has been answered by other Conservative members, in particular by the hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. McDonald); but when we talk about misrepresentation and fraud I cannot help thinking of the speeches the Liberals made during the election campaign in reference to the devaluation of the dollar. They must know, and we know as Canadians, that when the dollar reached the value it did reach it meant economic welfare for every major industry in the country. When I say that I am thinking of the primary producers, the western farmers, the farmers of Ontario and the manufacturers of dozens of products throughout the country. But when this misrepresentation and fraud was attempted, unfortunately in some cases people had not time to consider it well and they were left with the impression that the government devalued the dollar. The government pegged the price of the dollar. It did not devalue it; and it was complete fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the Liberals when they suggested what it would do to the primary producers of the country.
I am sure that when those same people have an opportunity to reconsider the position, in the next election, they will know where to mark their ballot papers. I am one of those Conservatives who believe there is an old Liberal trick which has been used against Mr. Meighen, Mr. Drew, Mr. Bracken and all other Conservative leaders, with Mr. Diefenbaker being no exception. It is one of their tricks in trade, when in their references
The Address-Mr. Woolliams to the matter of the exchange problem they try to leave the impression that there was fraud.
Now they are launching a new attack on the Prime Minister for his stand at the commonwealth conference and his position so far as Great Britain and the commonwealth are concerned.
Sometimes when we are talking factually it is interesting to go to the authorities on a subject, and in this regard I want to refer to a book, "The Commonwealth and Europe", published by The Economist Intelligence Unit, sponsored by Britain in Europe Limited. It is a book prepared by The Economist with the assistance of over 100 leading companies and economists, not only in the commonwealth but in the United States. It refers to what they have to say so far as the position of the Conservative party is concerned, when they deal with the commonwealth, either economically or politically. But before I quote it I wish to say that, listening to Liberal speakers, it seems to me they have underestimated the problems so far as Great Britain joining the European common market is concerned.
Lord Salter has this to say in the foreword:
Britain's relationship with Western Europe is one of the great political issues of our time. Problems arising from its economic aspects have been given an especial urgency by the formation of the European economic community of the Six and now, in a more acute form, by its decision to accelerate the process of its integration. A new element in the situation was recently introduced by the formation of the European free trade association of the Seven, including Britain. A basis of agreement has not so far been found for a single market covering the whole of Western Europe. Major decisions of policy are involved on both sides, both of a political and an economic nature.
What has been the stand of this party? Why am I a Conservative so far as the commonwealth is concerned? Let us look in this same book to see what these leading economists have to say. Who was responsible for the preference on certain products that come from the commonwealth and are shipped to Britain and vice versa in our trade relations?
I quote again, this time, from page 10:
The origins of the system date back to the beginning of this century when some commonwealth countries began to give preferential tariff treatment to British goods.
So the preference pattern first comes into play in the early 1900's.


An hon. Member:: 1897.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In 1919 Britain in turn gave preference to goods imported from the commonwealth and liable to revenue duties, while during the twenties further preferences were granted.

The Address-Mr. Woolliams
But this is what I wish to emphasize:
It was in 1932, with the passing of the import duties act and the negotiation of reciprocal preferences at Ottawa between overseas commonwealth countries as well as between the U.K. and the rest of the commonwealth that the system reached its fullest development.
And who brought about that conference of 1932? None other than the Conservative party of Canada. The Liberals attacked the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) for his part in the London conference of prime ministers. They attacked him for the stand he took in those negotiations. But, surely, when he went to that conference he was speaking for the farmers of western Canada, and for the farmers of eastern Canada in an effort to preserve these preferences which have been built up from their foundation through the efforts of this Conservative party.
It may yet be possible for Britain to join the common market while retaining the system of preferences which this party took so large a part in developing. As a western Canadian I know that we have other industries besides grain. There is, for example, the oil industry, the production of oil and natural gas which has brought prosperity to Alberta, particularly. Nevertheless our primary industry on the prairies is agriculture. This is what I want the Liberals to answer -and I am sorry the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue) is not in his place: what effect would Britain's entry have on the sale of western wheat to the United Kingdom in the absence of the preferences which were built up by this party and this government?
This is what the Economist Intelligence Unit has to say about this on page 95-I would prefer to quote from people who have studied this question, in this case the compilers of this book called "The Commonwealth and Europe".
Three grains, wheat, barley and maize, account for the bulk of world trade in cereals and of two out of the three the commonwealth is a major supplier providing almost two fifths of world exports of wheat and barley . . .
The two leading wheat exporters produce different kinds of grain. Most of Canada's exports, whether grain or flour, are based on high quality high protein wheat which is often combined with domestically produced grain of inferior quality in importing countries to satisfy consumer preference for particular types of bread. So long as this preference persists, Canada has a fairly secure hold on world grain markets.
That is why the Prime Minister spoke up at that conference in London on behalf of Canada. Of course, there is a chain effect attached to this. If the farmers do well, the businessmen in the urban centres and in the cities do well. I know hon. members from the east of Canada appreciate that among the best customers for manufactured goods are the western farmers who buy farm machines.

Combines today cost between $11,000 and $12,000. No one spends his money better than the western farmer when prices are correct and when he receives the proper value of his production. Thus I say that when the Prime Minister spoke out in London in this regard he was speaking for Canada. He was presenting the facts of Canada's case. On a future occasion the right hon. gentleman will be dealing with this subject again, as he himself said. I want merely to place the facts before the house in proper perspective. Again I am sorry that the hon. member for Assini-boia is not in his place. It may be the reason why the Liberals have had to borrow a socialist to explain their policy in western Canada is because of the position they have taken on this and other matters.
What do the people in the grain business have to say about this? What do the elevator companies or the pool operators have to say? They draw attention to the same problem as is pointed out by the authors of the book from which I have been quoting. This is from the Searle Grain Company's report dated September 26, 1962:
With all this, one does get apprehensive that French wheat will flood into the United Kingdom in a volume which, conceivably, could embarrass millers as well as farmers. British millers are not averse to picking up this wheat at a price but we can have too much of it.. .The point is, of course, that had we already joined the common market we would be expected to absorb the French wheat surplus-
This would mean that our exports of grain to Britain would be largely cut off unless we could find other markets.
This is not a new problem. I have heard hon. members from the eastern parts of Canada say: "Not wheat again!" Before my time in this house there were debates on the question of wheat which lasted three or four weeks. The trade in wheat and the disposal of wheat has always presented a problem to every government. If we did not negotiate properly at the table we could lose the largest purchaser of our grain, namely Great Britain. That is what the wheat pools point out.
I listened to what the hon. member for Assiniboia had to say. I shall have to borrow a phrase used by the Prime Minister and describe the speech he made yesterday as a warmed-over version of the speech he used to make when he was with the socialists. I checked, in fact, and found it was almost identical with the one he made in 1957 against the Liberals. Let us take a glance at the agricultural picture when this government took office. We had a surplus of 700 million bushels of wheat, more or less. Wheat was piled up on the farms all over western Canada, in temporary sheds made up of straw, in barns or old houses or even right in the open. Quotas

were at one or two bushels and farmers could not even sell their grain to meet operating expenses. They were even denied cash advances. That was the state of the wheat producers at that time and, of course, when the wheat farmer cannot sell his grain he gets into the production of other commodities such as cattle and hogs. Thus he begins to compete against the rancher. The whole process, as I say, has a chain effect.
Credit can be given to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness), the former minister of agriculture, and in particular to the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton), for their work in disposing of this vast surplus which was built up during the administration of the Liberals. Let us see what some of the newspapers have to say about this.


An hon. Member:: Choose a good one.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It will be a good one, no doubt about that. I always choose the best evidence. This is what the Western Producer had to say on April 5: "Wheat board makes record final payment". Again, on April 12, the same paper printed an article with the headline: "Increase in wheat exports seen helping entire nation". The Manitoba Co-Operator printed an article on April 5 saying: "February wheat exports largest since early 20's". Yet despite all this the hon. member for Assiniboia said the export of grain has not been as great over a period of years as it was when the Liberals were in power.
The hon. member for Assiniboia said that the export of grain was not as great over a given period of years as it was during the same period under the Liberals, but he did not say that when he sat in the socialist ranks over in the corner. Mr. Speaker, let us get the facts as far as exports of wheat are concerned. I do not think that the Liberals, especially the hon. member for Assiniboia, would challenge the budget report of the Alberta wheat pool. These figures are taken from the board of grain commissioners. I do not know whether the hon. member for Assiniboia has seen them; he may have got his figures from the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). They seem to have their own dominion bureau of statistics. According to the wheat pool budget-
-Canadian exports of wheat, including flour and bagged seed wheat, totalled 357.8 million bushels in the 1961-62 crop season, according to preliminary figures released by the board of grain commissioners. This represents a gain of about 3.5 million bushels over the previous year.
Wheat exports, excluding flour, amounted to 322.7 million-second highest in history, and 11.7 million better than in the 1960-61 season.
So I say without reservation that the exports for 1961-62, due to the efforts of the
The Address

Mr. Woolliams present Minister of Agriculture, were the highest except for one other year in the history of Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in view of the allegations of misrepresentation and fraud which have been made I want to deal with one other matter. I think that the biggest joke of the campaign was the promise which was made by the leader of the Liberals. After he embraced the hon. member for Assiniboia on the plains of Assiniboia, he must have whispered to him: "Tell the western farmers $2 a bushel for No. 1 northern wheat". The biggest part of the joke is, very briefly, this: that at that time wheat was $1.98 a bushel at the lakehead and $2.19 or $2.06 at Vancouver. So that he actually promised the farmers less than what they were getting for their wheat when the law of supply and demand was in operation.


Mr. Argue:: That is not true.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, my good friend says that that is not true, but the misrepresentation goes even further than that, because he did not tell his leader all the facts about wheat. They promised the western farmers $2 for No. 1 wheat. Mr. Speaker, as you know-


Hazen Robert Argue: For No. 1 northern.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, I know; I have been raised on a farm too. But he had promised the farmers $2 for No. 1 northern wheat. In fact only 5 or 10 per cent of the wheat produced on the prairies today happens to be No. 1 northern. Now, if that is not a half-truth on his part, then there never was one in western Canada. If the hon. member says that is not correct, I should like him to read from the Searle grain report of May 30, 1962. This is what they say and, of course, they are independent.
A promise of $2 wheat for the next three years, held out to prairie farmers recently (referring, of course, to the price of No. 1 Northern basis Fort William-Port Arthur) -
That was another misrepresentation; they did not say whether it was $2 in the bins, $2 in the elevators, or $2 at the lakehead, and there is certainly a big difference. The report goes on:
None the less there are some who feel that the promise could return to haunt those who made it unless the government in power would be prepared, if necessary, to make up the difference, through subsidy, between world prices and the $2 level. This is not to say, however, that such a price level could not be achieved.
Then the same article goes on to say:
Most of the recent increase in the price of wheat was attributable to successive changes in the value of the Canadian dollar.


Hazen Robert Argue: They used all that during the campaign. They even paid to put it in the newspapers.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes that is true, and I know the kind of campaign on the part of the hon.

member of Assiniboia. I am glad that he interrupted me. Hon. members heard him last night when he talked about hogs. He told us what the government had done to the hog producers. At that very moment hogs hit a new peak in Calgary; they are $32.10 a hundredweight.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I know my time is limited and I want to embark upon another subject for a few moments, so I will leave agriculture. As I have only got a few moments to deal with it I will forget about my notes. We have heard a lot about deficit spending, and we have heard the promises of the Liberals that it will cost another $1 billion plus. But the fact is that I am one of those Canadians who believes that one of the problems of unemployment is that personal income tax and corporation taxes are so high that they cut the wages the wage earner earns and reduce the profits of small business corporations, so that the productivity of this country is reduced. I think-this is my own feeling-that before we embark upon another program of social welfare we should make certain first that business is protected, that the farmers are protected, and that the wage earners are protected. Because as one hon. member has already said, we people do not want handouts. I am one of those who believe that there is really no difference. The process may be different. Communism believes in the expropriation of property without compensation. Socialists may believe in expropriation with compensation. And with people who believe that you must have a complete welfare state; the end result is almost identical. Under that process the government runs your business. If they take 50 per cent of your profits, they are the biggest partner in that business. Not only are taxes too high in this country, but there are abuses in this regard. May I say that I am happy that, as the Prime Minister mentioned, there is a royal commission looking into this matter of taxation and investigating it, as it needs investigation. If a person is challenged by the Department of National Revenue under the process of law- and there are a great many cases in Canada- his books are seized, his records are seized and then he is asked to prove himself innocent. His bank account is tied up. In many instances he is not even in a position to hire an accountant, a lawyer or an expert to help him to arrange his affairs to show his net worth and show that it is commensurate with his income. We all realize that the collection of taxes is a difficult problem but in the tax structure these abuses exist.
There is one other abuse which I should like to mention before I sit down. I should prefer to see a capital gains tax than to see

the matter in the flux in which it is today. Businessmen who sell their investments or change their business never know, when they make that move, whether it is income under the Income Tax Act or capital gain. Sometimes, unknown to them, new rulings are made, and as a result, what they thought was capital gain is taxable. In many cases they are not able to go to the Department of National Revenue and say. "If I make this move in business, is it income or is it capital gain"? Before I take my seat I wish to make a recommendation, namely that we have a board set up so that the businessman, the farmer and others may go to the Department of National Revenue and say, "If I may move A, B, or C is this income or is it capital gain"? We cannot play ducks and drakes with the taxpayer.


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


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have just one brief sentence more if I may be allowed to complete my statement. I seriously believe that reform in the tax structure of this country is long overdue. As I said, it reduces the productivity of this country. That is my answer to the socialist planners in this regard. That is the real reason for unemployment. How can you expand your business when the profits from that business are going to the government to run their business?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am afraid the hon. member has overrun his time and that I cannot permit a question by the hon. member unless the house gives unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does not the hon. member who has just taken his seat know that the Social Credit government of British Columbia believes in expropriation at a price determined by government without due process of law, a policy that has never been advocated by this party?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My answer to the hon. member is that I do not know. I never did understand Social Credit so I therefore leave it to him to come to a proper decision in the matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, in joining in the traditional congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, as I do warmly, I hope neither hon. gentlemen will think that, because I am not able to agree with most of what they said, I intend any personal reflection upon them. It has never been my custom
The Address-Mr. Pickersgill to make personal reflections. It has always been my view that a politician who cannot stand tough criticism ought not to be in public office. Although I have had a few hard knocks in public life, I may say that I have never done any whining about them.
I may say that I listened with great interest to the maiden speech made this afternoon by a very old personal friend, namely the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). I congratulate him on a speech which was no better than I expected it to be but quite as good. I also listened a moment or two ago to the hon member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Whether or not one agrees with him, one recognizes him as a great parliamentarian, though perhaps not often a very constructive one. However, I was appalled by something that was common to both their speeches. They talked in a high minded way about all kinds of things this parliament ought to do. Except for one or two things that I thought were neither historical nor just about my own party, there were very few things they said with which I do not agree. However, what I was struck by was the fact that these hon. gentlemen seem to be totally unaware of the fact that when a clear decision has not been made by the electorate-and a clear decision certainly was not made on June 18-if we are to have selfgovernment, parliamentary government and ultimately government by the people, the first and fundamental business of this parliament is to decide, if it can do so, who the government should be; and if it cannot do so, it should remit the question to the people and let them decide. It is not for us in this house, to whatever party we belong, to say we do not think it is the right time for an election.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member interrupts. However, I am not going to waste my time by replying. It has been said by a great many people that this is not the right time for an election. That is not at all for us to say. It is our business either for the majority of us to give confidence to the government so that it can carry on and do so for a reasonable length of time with some assurance of continuity or, if we cannot do that, it is our business to let the people decide this matter for themselves. We should not try, by some process of superiority, to arrogate to ourselves a function which belongs to the people. That matter is more fundamental than is anything else. We shall never have full employment in this country unless we have a government that can plan-yes, plan-and manage; and

The Address-Mr. Pickersgill I may say that management is just as important as planning-we have had very little of it in these last five years-and manage the affairs of this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Another planner; good.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was agreeing with the hon. gentleman. If he does not wish me to agree with him, that is all right. However, I think he wishes me to do so. I was glad that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre at the conclusion of his speech came back really to fundamentals-he saved me a certain amount in my own speech-by making part of one of the points I wished to make.
The other thing that really shocked me in the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was his cynical-and I did not expect it from him-suggestion that it really did not matter whether public men told the truth or not, that it really did not matter whether you could depend upon the integrity of a government. I do not agree with that view at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member wishes to disagree with me-he knows the rules- he can do so at the end of my speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member knows that a question of privilege must be taken immediately. I indulged in no cynicism by word or implication-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not a question of privilege at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is argument.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -regarding truth being important or not. My cynicism was with respect to those two individuals, as to their particular place in history. The truth, yes; let us have it.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us have it from the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As the hon. gentleman has been permitted to smuggle in a speech under the guise of a question of privilege, I hope I will not lose that time because I have some things to say. The hon. member can read his speech and he will see there very well what I was referring to. I was referring to the question of veracity, which the hon. gentleman did not seem to regard as very important. I am going to take an example that in itself is not important at all. Intrinsically it is of no consequence but it is such a neat example of what I am referring to that I cannot forbear referring to it. On the 1st of October, as found at page 75 of Hansard, the Prime Minister had this to say:


I saw the Leader of the Opposition on election night, Mr. Speaker, when he believed he was going to be occupying this seat. That is before the western farmer came in.
It just so happens that I spent the whole of that evening in the company of the Leader of the Opposition and he was not on television until after the western results were in. The Prime Minister was either having another vision or that is just another example of the accuracy of the statements he makes in the House of Commons. I might say, sir, that if anyone wants to see how the Prime Minister looked that day himself it is recorded on page 38 of Newsweek, the issue of July 2, and I commend it to the hon. gentlemen opposite.
Why are we moving this vote of want of confidence in the government? We are moving it because 65 per cent of the voters did so on the 18th of June.


An hon. Member:: It is going up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Sixty three or 64 or 65.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Veracity?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Approximately two thirds of the voters of this country, two voters out of every three in this country, had had enough and they said that they had had enough of hon. gentlemen opposite. That, sir, would in itself be sufficient justification-the proportion was higher in my constituency-for any hon. member elected by voters that way inclined to vote want of confidence in the government.
But under our system, of course, when a situation like this arises the Queen's government must go on, and it was the Prime Minister's duty as well as his right to remain in office because he had more members than anyone else. No one questioned that at all. He would have had the right to remain in office, I believe, even if he had not had the largest number of supporters. Even if he had not he would have had the right to remain in office until the elected representatives of the people could decide the question.
But he had no right to stay in office one day longer than was necessary for parliament to make that decision. Anyone with the faintest regard for the constitutional rights of parliament or the rights of the people would have been only too anxious to get to parliament as quickly as possible, above all, the right hon. gentleman temporarily presiding over the government of this country who has talked about his love of parliament over the years. But the fact was that the Prime Minister was determined not to see this parliament until the last possible moment and to hang on to the fruits of office.

What did he do with the fruits of office which he had no right to have and for which he was a temporary trustee? He distributed them widespread among defeated candidates of the Tory party in a fashion that has never been done before even by a government with a majority. That, sir, is just one of the many things that surely make it incumbent upon us to treat a government that treats parliament this way the way it ought to be treated when there is an opportunity to do so.
There is only one parallel. The parallel, of course, as everybody knows, is the parallel of 1925 and 1926. One could go into that at great length and I would be very glad to on some occasion, but I simply want to say now that in 1925 Mr. Mackenzie King, whatever the reason may have been, did nothing but the routine business of the country until parliament had had an opportunity to pass a verdict on his government, and his lieutenant, Mr. Lapointe, sought that verdict at the first possible moment. That is precisely what hon. gentlemen opposite, if they had had any genuine regard for our British system of self-government, should have done.
That is not all. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised a point this afternoon that is almost more fundamental. The government did not keep parliament from meeting, did not hang on and push parliament aside. This government presumed to impose taxes without parliamentary sanction on June 24. They draw a parallel with what happened in 1947, a parallel which is most extraordinary in some respects. Here is what the Prime Minister said on October 2, as recorded on page 100 of Hansard, with regard to what was done in 1947:
... Mr. Abbott, the then minister of finance ... imposed by order in council, for which there was no legal authority, the most drastic measures that had ever been used in connection with the economy of the country. It was the only time a law was ever made in this country by radio.
Of course, the Prime Minister ought to have known that that was not true. After all, he is a lawyer and he ought to have known that no order in council could have any force unless it did have legal authority. I cannot believe that he did not know that. I do not think he is quite that bad a lawyer.
But to give you an idea that he knew differently at another time, let me read what he said about this same legislation at the time it was before parliament in December, 1947. As found on page 189 of Hansard he said:
Having regard to the fact that extraordinary powers are being asked for, I think we should have an opportunity of having brought before parliament some of the invisible incognitos who today dominate this government, who give it advice.


Mr. McCleave:: That was you.
The Address-Mr. Pickersgill


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just wait. I would advise the hon. member for Halifax to keep quiet. I continue:
They were wrong in July, 1946. Is there any reason to believe that they were right in November, 1947? I suggest to the Minister of Justice that in order to bring back to the House of Commons its powers we have brought before a committee of this house Dr. Clark, Mr. Towers. Mr. Rasminsky, and other members of that group.


Mr. Adamson:: Mr. Bryce also.


John George Diefenbaker: They should be brought before parliament and examined to ascertain whether they made the recommendation to the government on November 17 or prior thereto or whether it was the government that suggested to them the means whereby they could utilize the Foreign Exchange Control Act for the purposes they had in view.
In other words, he knew there was a Foreign Exchange Control Act in 1947. He told this house the other day there was no legal authority. Does that show any respect for the truth? It does not. How can you depend on any statement by a man who would say that? You know, the Prime Minister talks about invisible incognitos. Of course, they were public servants. We know what the Prime Minister thinks about public servants. They belong to that same group of public servants as a certain gentleman who is incognito in this house. I refer to that recent addition to the ministry, the barefoot boy from Bay street. He is one of the people who, according to the Prime Minister, were trampling the liberties of this country under the late C. D. Howe during the war years; that is the incognito who is running the government of Canada today. He is not in this house. He is not facing the elected representatives of the people. I say that we will want the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fleming) to bring him before the banking and commerce committee. We will want him to bring officials of the Department of Finance, as the Prime Minister said we should in 1947. We will want him to bring them all here. We will want to find out when they started to prepare this austerity program.
We know one thing. We know that the day parliament was dissolved or the following day, the Minister of Finance told the departments to cut $50 million out of the estimates while this government was pretending that they were going to spend that money in order to buy votes by the pretense of works that they never intended to carry out.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not true.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister knows perfectly well that is true; that process was started. There are too many people in Ottawa who knew about it, and in other places than Ottawa. I have not the faintest doubt but that on the day the government put a rubber

The Address-Mr. Pickersgill peg on the dollar, May 3, they started to prepare this austerity program. Perhaps the then minister of finance did not tell the Prime Minister. Perhaps the officials were smart enough not even to tell the then minister of finance in order to save him from embarrassment. I was a public servant for a very long time. I know something about how long it takes to do these things. I know quite well that this order in council and the policy based thereon could not possibly have been prepared between the 20th or 21st, was it, when the distinguished Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) said there was no crisis, and the date of the order. He was a member of the cabinet. In those four days we are asked by these truth tellers to believe, that that order was prepared. The minister knows quite well that the preparation of this whole program began at least as early as the pegging of the dollar, probably earlier.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is false; that is a false statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister can get up and say it is false. He can get up and make a speech in this debate if he dares. He has been repudiated and cast aside by the Prime Minister. He has served his purpose and now he is on the rubbish heap. Moreover, I say that there is every reason to believe the election was brought on when it was, every reason to believe we were denied a budget debate, every reason to believe the government did not proceed with the budget resolutions because the minister knew full well that a financial crisis was coming and hoped to get the election over before the crisis and fool the people.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Every word of that is false.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This government had many supporters. There was no urgency for an election at that particular moment. This budgetary program was left suspended in mid air; there was extraordinary haste. What was the reason for it? The reason was that they could see, they had been warned, a crisis was coming. We know some of these officials. We know what competent people they are.
Of course, you know, we heard the Prime Minister on January 20, 1958, say "They hid it; they concealed it." This is exactly what they did. They knew full well when the budget was brought down that there was a critical situation in foreign exchange. As a matter of fact, I took the trouble to read the section of the minister's budget speech relating to exchange just before I undertook to make this speech today. It is quite clear from a reading of that budget speech that the minister already had an inkling of the crisis.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is untrue.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is another thing that is clear. At that time, there was not the faintest intention of pegging the dollar. The situation was quite the reverse. The minister made a strong defence of the floating rate and gave very strong and compelling arguments as to why there should not be any pegging. Then, the government have the effrontery to tell us that, when the crisis came on May 3 and they had to do something; that it was planned all the time. If it was planned all the time, why was it not in the budget? Why were we not allowed to debate it? Why was it not done properly in parliament? Why did this suddenly blow up in the middle of an election?
The plain fact is, sir, that one does not have to go into any kind of detail. Ask our constituents. You do not have to ask them, they tell us. I am sure every hon. member, including a lot of backbenchers over there and perhaps a lot of frontbenchers too, have heard the same thing from their electors. How can they possibly expect anybody to vote for them after the way the government fooled us? That is what the people of this country believe because it is a fact; it is palpable and obvious.
May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
John Whitney Pickersgill: 
Michael Starr: You were getting your money from the United States at that time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And what did they do about it? They finally made this great discovery after the election. They imposed taxes by order in council under statutes which were never intended for the purpose and, unlike Mr. Abbott, who promptly brought his measures to parliament and gave parliament every opportunity to approve it, there was no mention of it in the speech from the throne-no suggestion that parliament should approve this taxation. We just have taxation by television and order in council. This great champion of parliament imposes taxation by television and order in council, and when parliament meets there is no suggestion that we should have any right to approve it. This is the government that the hon. member for Peace River is going to support-the most dismal failure, he said, in the history of Canada-a government which he said will give us 20 per cent unemployment this winter. The hon. member for Peace River is going to vote for a government which he said will give us 20 per cent unemployment.


Robert Norman Thompson: There is just one question. I think the hon. member should study his geography a little better.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. If I made-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
gentleman ran over his allotted time and accordingly there will have to be unanimous consent by the house if he is to continue.

The Address-Hon. D. M. Fleming


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was a question of privilege.


Robert Norman Thompson: I will say no more.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will ask the house for unanimous consent if the hon. gentleman will take his seat.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think I have the floor when I am on my feet, and I would ask hon. members to co-operate. If the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is rising on a question of privilege I will hear him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I merely wanted to apologize to the hon. member for Red Deer. I meant the hon. member for Red Deer, and I inadvertently said "Peace River".


Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Come on, senator.


Frank Charles McGee: I see the pipe line boys are back again, are they?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down, senator.


Frank Charles McGee: If the pipe line boys would sit down for the moment-


Mr. Habel:: Give way to your minister.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. member for York-Scarborough should have the same attention as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Frank Charles McGee: I am rising to speak on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. Bearing in mind the hon. member's concern for the rules of parliament, I wonder if he would apologize to the Chair for turning his back on the Speaker?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am delighted to do so, sir.
(Translation):


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks tonight, I should like to congratulate you most sincerely on your appointment to this exalted position. We are all convinced that you are worthy of this great honour.
I should also like to extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Chaplin) and the seconder (Mr. Vincent) of the address. Every member of this house will recognize that they performed their duties with distinction. (Text):
The votes to which the house is proceeding tonight at the conclusion of this debate are far more serious than those which normally await the verdict of the house. A grave charge

has been made by hon. members opposite that a major political fraud has been perpetrated accompanied by concealment and deceit.
Mr. Speaker, I will offer you incontestable evidence that this charge has been supported only by false statements, false accusations and base innuendoes. There has been on the part of hon. members opposite, with their continued obstructive behaviour just now evidenced, a further descent to the lowest kind of tactics that I am sure any of us have seen in this house, even those who have been here longest.


An hon. Member:: Except you and the flag.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am asking this honourable house not merely to express its confidence in the government but at the same time to give effective expression to the vindication of an hon. member of this house from these base charges and accusations.
These attacks on the Prime Minister are not new. They have been going on for a long time. The member who just took his seat after that wretched performance of his, here, was one of the first to initiate this kind of personal attack. We had it in my riding during the campaign. The Liberal candidate there made this statement-"Members of the present administration may be prepared to set aside their Christian ethics in the power struggle"-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Again, he said: "The Prime Minister's treatment of the hidden report issue was basically dishonest". Note v that word as applied to a Christian gentleman who has always maintained in his public and private life the highest standards. This same Liberal candidate also said that the government-here are his words-was "willing to do anything, however sordid, to attain its political ends." It is to that kind of abuse that we ask the house tonight to offer an effective and telling reply.
We have witnessed a descent to a tactic of character assassination and if there is any tactic which is more quickly guaranteed to create political scepticism in the minds of the Canadian public, I should be greatly surprised. There is nothing baser in that category.
We are going to see a vote on the New Democratic party amendment. The hon. members who have moved it will be the first to say that it contemplates socialist planning for Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we shall see how hon. members opposite stand by their principles when they come to a vote on an expression of favour for socialist standing in Canada. I predict that such is the appetite for power

of hon. members opposite in the official opposition that they will swallow that amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind this raucous noise opposite, but I hope to have fair value on my time, which is limited.
I propose tonight, for those who want the truth and the evidence, to review the circumstances leading up to the exchange emergency that we faced in June. The charge that has been made-and I will not flinch from any feature of it, I shall go right down the line- is that there was a crisis before the end of the election campaign and that the government knew or ought to have known about it; that the government ought to have proclaimed the existence of that crisis; and that the government is responsible for the crisis and for the concealment of it. I hope, Mr. Speaker, I have not omitted any portion of those charges.
Now, what is the background? Let me start with 1947. There was over a period of 11 months a deterioration of Canada's exchange reserves position. The reserves at that time dropped $750 million until there was only something like $480 million left before the government of that day recognized the existence of an emergency. Now, we were told, and have been told again this afternoon by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, that the minister of finance of that time got up in parliament-these were the words of the Leader of the Opposition-told them all the facts, and said what he would do. There were three weeks that intervened before the minister of finance did that. What the minister of finance did was to go on the radio and announce a budget by radio, including the imposition of taxes, and those imposts were applied from midnight that same night at the border. The whole measure was illegal and parliament had to validate those measures months afterwards. That is what they did.
Mr. Speaker, these are the men opposite who claim to be the champions of parliament. They say that parliament should have been called earlier. Parliament has been called. What do they want to do? They say: "Off with the head of parliament at once". They wanted to have parliament dissolved after the vote last Tuesday night. They will be the happiest people in the world if parliament is dissolved tonight through an adverse vote. These are the men who pretend to be the champions of parliament. These Liberals are no more champions of parliament than the Liberal party in some of their expressions have been champions of truth in recent times.
The Address-Hon. D. M. Fleming
That was the record in 1947, Mr. Speaker. The measures which were applied by the government at that time were much more severe than the measures which we took in June, and they lasted for a very long time. Indeed, they lasted for the better part of two years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They were approved by parliament.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, in the end, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the beginning.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The majority of those days was whipped into line months afterwards, but in the meantime the impositions had been illegally applied.
Now I move on to 1950. In 1950 the Canadian government, having up to that time endeavoured twice to peg the dollar at a fixed value, first at par in terms of the U.S. dollar and later at a 10 per cent discount, found itself, as it thought, unable in the light of the exchange crisis to maintain a pegged rate, and so the dollar was allowed to float free. From October, 1950 until May, 1962 the external value of the Canadian dollar was established in the exchange markets by the interaction of the forces of supply and demand. The decision in 1950 to permit the rate to fluctuate in response to market forces was accepted by the international monetary fund in recognition of Canada's unique circumstances. It was, however, announced that Canada would return to a fixed exchange rate when the circumstances were right. From time to time in the period since 1950 the fund authorities expressed the hope that Canada might find it practicable to rejoin the ranks of those member countries who were in full conformity with Article IV of the fund agreement.
So, Mr. Speaker, we now move on to 1961. In June of that year I announced in my budget that the government considered it appropriate that the external value of the dollar should be reduced to a discount, and if necessary was prepared to use purchases of exchange for the purpose in order to move the Canadian dollar to a significant discount. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian dollar did move to a significant discount. It moved in an orderly manner, in a satisfactory way, and the results accomplished were highly beneficial to Canada.
It is said that there was manipulation on the part of the government of the value of the dollar. It was said in this debate that the minister of finance began to manipulate the dollar by buying U.S. dollars. Mr. Speaker, there was no manipulation. Those charges are false. They have always been false. They were false in the last session as they are false in

This is an example of the way in which hon.
The Address-Hon. D. M. Fleming this one. Mr. Speaker, I said that the exchange fund would, if necessary, be used to purchase foreign exchange and thus influence the exchange rate. As it turned out, this was not-and I repeat not-necessary. For most of the period between June 1961 and May 1962 the Canadian dollar moved within a range of 3 to 5 per cent discount on the U.S. dollar, and the exchange fund interventions continued to be directed towards moderating movements in the rate, not towards initiating such movements.


Mr. Benidickson:: It was manipulated the other way.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There was no manipulation at all. It was the use of the fund reserves in the way that they had been used for years.
Now we move forward to the budget speech of April 10, 1962. I made reference there to this problem of the external rate because already there had been intimations from the international monetary fund that they wished us to peg the rate to bring ourselves into conformity with Article IV of the fund agreement. Mr. Speaker, let me say in the light of the utterly irresponsible statements made in this house today by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that there was no exchange crisis before dissolution of parliament on April 18. That is what he was saying this afternoon. The fact is that when I delivered that budget speech on April 10 we were well aware that the fund wanted us to conform to Article IV, and when I spoke in that budget debate I was saying to the fund as well as to this house that we did not want the fund to press us into any hasty action. We well remembered the ill-starred attempt of the former government to maintain fixed rates during the period from 1946 to 1950. We did not want the fund to force us to take an immature decision. Well, Mr. Speaker, there was no pressure on the dollar before the dissolution of this house came on April 18.
Mr. Speaker, the operations of the exchange fund were not extensive in the early part of April. It was at the end of April that pressure began to develop. Here I must begin a series of contradictions of things which have been said in this house by hon. members opposite in quite irresponsible statements we have heard from them during the course of this debate.
First of all, it was said that Mr. Rasminsky, the governor of the Bank of Canada-this was said by the Leader of the Opposition-was advising investment dealers to borrow in the United States at that time. Mr. Kasminsky did not say that. What he said was that the Bank of Canada was no longer asking them to refrain from borrowing in the United States.

members opposite have been skating around the truth and twisting it just enough to serve their unworthy purposes.
The next thing that has been said by hon. members opposite, in their irresponsible way, is that after dissolution I ordered a $50 million cut in the expenditures contemplated in the book of estimates. Mr. Speaker, on April 10 I presented to parliament in the budget speech a complete record that took account of all the expenditures that we had at that time decided we would ask parliament to vote. That decision was taken before the budget speech. The budget speech reflected in every particular every cent the government had decided to take off that book of estimates in asking parliament to deal with it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You slipped up.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We now come to the end of April and the beginning of May.
I am not going to pay much attention to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. It will take a while for his frenzy to subside.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course that is not a personal attack.


Donald Methuen Fleming: 
Paul Joseph James Martin: Before May 23.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In assessing these matters it is well to remember that the Leader of the Opposition has engaged in a good deal of special pleading. Under the hammer blows of irresponsible Liberal campaign tactics bent on destroying confidence coupled with the statement of Mr. Winters in Truro at the end of the first week of June that Canada was on the verge of bankruptcy, and having regard to the fact that there had been a major break on the New York stock exchange, perhaps it is a wonder that the drain on the Canadian exchange reserves did not begin sooner. Mr. Speaker, Canada was not on the verge of bankruptcy. That statement by Mr. Winters was false.


George Harris Hees: Like all the rest.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Our government finances were in good condition.


William Moore Benidickson: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We had a surplus of Canadian dollars. We were more flush with cash than we had ever been in the five years during which I was minister of finance. We were in a position to forgo borrowing that had been planned. The emergency that arose was confined completely to our exchange reserves. The Canadian economy was healthy and sound. Canada was enjoying one of the greatest periods of expansion in all her history. It was against that background that the Prime Minister spoke to the people of
27507-3-15}
The Address-Hon. D. M. Fleming Canada on June 14 to answer the lies that were being blatantly repeated up and down Canada by Liberal campaign orators. Our reserves at that time were still several times as large as they were in 1947 before the King government recognized the existence of any emergency or took one step or turned a finger to meet it.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has given the house full information on the subject, on the way in which, following I am sure almost inevitably on the things that Liberals were saying up and down the country, heavy sales developed over that last week end of this campaign. Sales were heavy on election day and that night, June 18, Canadians and the world were confronted with a picture that was deeply disturbing to market confidence. The government had lost its majority. Four parties divided the seats in this house. No one of them had a majority. The balance of power appeared to pass to minority groups in the house.
As everyone knows, an election campaign is always disturbing to business. It creates uncertainty. One has only to look at what happens in a general election campaign in the United States. This result on June 18 was infinitely more disturbing to confidence than a mere election campaign. There was no prospect of stability, as the market assessed the election results. On the contrary, I should say there was the prospect of political instability. The government had promised to hold the value of the Canadian dollar firm at 92} cents U.S. It was no longer in the position, so the market felt, to assure that it could carry out that undertaking. A run set in which, day by day, that week reached enormous proportions and led the government to take extraordinary action to meet it. Had the government been elected with a clear majority it was still possible and not unlikely that confidence would have been restored and the run would have ended without need to resort to severe emergency measures.
The next statement by the Leader of the Opposition is that it was impossible to put together what he calls an austerity program in four days. Mr. Speaker, there was no austerity program put together. This is not austerity. Does anybody seriously pretend that this is austerity? Does anybody but the Leader of the Opposition think there is any justification for saying what he said, namely that the government was asking the Canadian people to tighten their belts? Mr. Speaker, that is just plain fanciful soaring on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. It is nonsense.
I therefore say that the program to meet the exchange emergency was put together in

The Address-Hon. D. M. Fleming that week following the election. The first and preliminary announcement was made on Friday morning, June 22 in the face of very heavy pressures on the Canadian dollar. The program then was not quite complete. It was completed then and announced on Sunday afternoon, June 24. Here I should like to pay a tribute to Mr. Rasminsky, the governor of the Bank of Canada and the officials of the various departments involved for their herculean labours in that week. It is evident that civil servants work harder and faster nowadays than they did when the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was a civil servant.
The hon. member for Davenport very unctuously said today that he finds the government's defence unconvincing. Isn't that too bad. If he does not choose to believe the truth, then presumably he will pursue his own erroneous beliefs and propagate these myths that he has been creating in recent months. He should, however, abandon the pretence of being a judge any longer. The mind which found the truth unconvincing is now manifestly a partisan mind.
A word about the program, Mr. Speaker, and I must be very brief. The details are well known. The recovery of our reserves has been remarkable. Indeed, Mr. Per Jacobsson, executive director of the international monetary fund, speaking at the annual meeting of the governors of the fund in Washington a fortnight ago, spoke of the recovery of Canada's exchange reserves as impressive.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: What else did he say?


Donald Methuen Fleming: He is a man who tells the truth. Maybe you do not understand that.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: May I ask a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The question may be asked, how long will this exchange emergency continue?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Will the hon. gentleman accept a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, I have no time. If the house wants to give me time afterwards I will be pleased to take any questions the house wishes on the subject. The question asked by many persons in Canada and abroad is, how long will the exchange program continue? That will depend, Mr. Speaker, upon the continuance of improvement. It will certainly be in effect a much shorter time than was the program initiated by the King government in 1947. But we need confidence, Mr. Speaker. We need confidence based on stability. If the government were to be defeated and another election precipitated, with


the same irresponsible charges being hurled by the Liberals as in the last campaign, believe me-


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -I would not wish to see our reserve position exposed without further strengthening beyond its present position. The more utterly irresponsible talk we hear, such as that which emanated from the lips of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate this afternoon, the greater will be the need of strengthening our exchange reserves against the possibility of attacks.
For that same reason these two votes tonight are very important, Mr. Speaker, as well as the course of events in this parliament in the days and weeks to come. The government will not maintain the program any longer than is strictly necessary, but long enough to ensure that there will be no repetition of what happened in June. We did not like to impose any such program any more than anybody else but it was necessary in Canada's interest, and we did not lack the courage to apply it.


An hon. Member:: After the election.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When the time comes when we can begin to reduce the program I can say that we shall first remove the import surcharges and then cancel the suspension of civil service salary increases.
One question remains, Mr. Speaker. Is the pegging of the Canadian dollar at 92i cents good for Canada? We on this side of the house say yes, a thundering yes. It has brought great benefits to Canada, to Canadian producers, to the tourist trade-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Ask the Minister of Agriculture.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -to our balance of payments position. I ask this question and in doing so I challenge all hon. members opposite. Would the Liberals if they had the chance set aside the pegging of the Canadian dollar? They mercilessly misled the voters on this subject. They pretended that it was bad for Canada. I dare them now to deny to Canadians the benefits of the pegging of the dollar. Why, sir, did they say in the campaign the very opposite things to what they had said before? Why did the hon. member for Davenport and the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), who had urged the pegging of the Canadian dollar, say the very opposite?


An hon. Member:: When?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I never did that in my life.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Sir, I must move now to my conclusion. We are a minority government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, we know that, but we will not be a hesitant or weak government. In the speech from the throne is the greatest program of legislation put before the Canadian House of Commons at least in the last generation. Given an opportunity to proceed with this program, I venture to say that few members of the house will dare to oppose the measures that we will introduce. I think most of them will vie with each other to demonstrate their support. It is an outline, not a whole budget speech. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon) will learn that yet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister's time having expired-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do not ask for extra time-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was not given extra time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do not ask-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -for extra time; I simply ask-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -one sentence. Give us your confidence and we shall accept it as a high trust.


Miss Judy V. LaMarsh (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to speak in this session and it is almost the anniversary of some two years that I have sat in the house opposite the last speaker and those who now surround him, formerly many more. In that two years from the date of my arrival I had come to expect that the emergency which was deepening within the country would be faced and would be met with action by the last speaker and other members on the treasury benches.
The last speaker has again told us that the emergency which was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) following the election was an emergency which had not existed before the 18th of June. Yet he told the Canadian club of Toronto on Monday of this week that this was not the case. At that time he said:
It has been said that at some unspecified date, but somehow prior to June 18, we should have made a public statement of the foreign exchange situation in full detail. Let me speak plainly. To do so would have been a most irresponsible act.
By his own words he indicates that the situation was in fact known to the government
The Address-Miss LaMarsh but says that it would have been irresponsible to let the people of Canada know about it before the election. If the words of the last speaker mean as much now as they did in the past, it is time again for the people of Canada to have the opportunity to say whether they believe his words. They will remember that this man, who charges the party of which I am proud to be a member with partial responsibility for our financial emergency and with smears against his leader, was himself responsible in that same election campaign for the most irresponsible smear ever made in public by a representative of the treasury benches. I refer to a report in the Toronto Star of June 16 last in which we find that at a meeting in Toronto the then minister of finance intimated that because a note had been delivered from the premier of the U.S.S.R. Russia wanted the Leader of the Opposition to be elected to power.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Talk about personal attacks.


An hon. Member:: How low can you get?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The then minister of finance indicated that this was a "flagrant attempt" to influence the Canadian election and went on to say, "you can see what party the Russians want elected". This is nothing but Mc-Carthyism raising its head in this country. It sits on no human shoulders to use that type of smear, and less on the shoulders of one of those who sit on the front benches of the government.
But, Mr. Speaker, there was one thing at least said by the last speaker with which I can agree. It is to that, principally, I wish to address myself. He said at the commencement of his speech and throughout it, that the votes which face this house within the hour are far more serious than most which face it. How true those words are, for what faces this house is what faces this country. On June 18, Mr. Speaker, despite the jubilation in my own riding, I watched with sorrow what happened to my country. Regardless of where any man or woman sits in this house tonight, no one could have been happy about the result. Now, at a time when there are many major issues confronting our country, singly and in concert with other western nations, now when so many decisions which have been swept under the rug for too many years must be faced, Canada is paralysed by minority government. Tonight there is an opportunity to do something about this. Tonight there will be two motions before the house to express what every member of every opposition group in this house has at

The Address-Miss LaMarsh some time or another said since June 18, that the people of Canada have no confidence in that side of the house.
There is a group in this house which was not represented in the last parliament, a group that has had much to say since June 18 outside of this chamber. They speak mostly with one voice, but frequently with two. Since June 25 one of their leaders or coleaders, who styles himself at least as leader in Quebec, has said such things as that the austerity program announced by this government following the election was a national shame. In a report in the Toronto Star appearing on June 25 of this year from an interview at Rouyn, Quebec, that man was quoted as saying:
As co-leader of the party in the new House of Commons, I will fight those borrowings and fight those tight money policies that would put our people in more misery amidst plenty.
On June 27 in the Toronto Star appears a quotation, "Caouette favours election right off the bat." This is a report of a national television program in which the hon. member from Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) was interviewed and in which he said:
I am not going to go along with that line of austerity program. .. with probably new credit restrictions, probably a million and a half more unemployed next winter .. .
... if it was up to me there would be an election right off the bat...
On June 25 in an interview with the Canadian Press, the Ottawa Citizen quotes the same man as having said:
.. . the Prime Minister of Canada should find a satisfactory solution to Canada's financial problems or resign.
In an interview at Timmins on August 2 as reported in the daily press of that city, this quotation appeared also from the hon. member for Villeneuve:
I have fought against Diefenbaker outside parliament. I will not fight for him inside it.
He was reported to have indicated that he and his party would vote for any non-confidence motion moved once parliament assembled. Although he is not at the moment present, I would ask all members of the opposition to listen to the next words with which I at least can agree.
The country needs a stable government. The quicker we have a new election, the quicker we will have such a government.
In speech after speech throughout the summer the hon. member for Villeneuve said that he would not support the programs of this government. On August 8, he was quoted in the Ottawa Citizen as having made a speech in Vancouver in which he said this:
If the Liberals come with a non-confidence motion that is only playing politics, we will not

support it. But if they come with a non-confidence motion on tight money, we will fight that tight money policy with all our strength.
Throughout the month of August the same repetitious speech was made from one end of Canada to the other. The leader of the Quebec delegation, the co-leader of the national party, repeatedly said that he could not and would not support this government in office. On August 27 he was quoted in the Ottawa Journal as having said:
If Mr. Diefenbaker offers us an austerity program on September 27, I will precipitate the worst crisis ever seen in the House of Commons.
Well, we have had produced to us now the throne speech, the program of this minority government. What has the co-leader of that same group had to say? On August 27 in the Montreal Star the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) was quoted as saying:
It would be wrong for us to support the Conservatives who have lost the confidence of the people, but since we are a responsible people we will not precipitate things.
It appears at that time at least they were in agreement. All of these clippings, and there are many, indicate that at least at that time there was a sense of responsibility in the far left corner of this house. September 27 has come and gone. There has been an amendment and a subamendment before this house, a subamendment in which all hon. members were greatly interested. The subamendment was proposed and it included words which, it must have been known, would preclude the support of other opposition parties.
Because it is a rule of our house, Mr. Speaker, that no one would attribute to any hon. member a dishonourable motion, it did not appear that, in good honour, that group had proposed a subamendment which was only a mockery of the parliamentary process. We had listened to words from the new member for Red Deer which rang in the house. He told us that Social Credit was determined to follow the role of statesmanship. This is what the hon. member said, as reported at page 120 of Hansard:
We will use this opportunity to give leadership and a practical demonstration of statesmanship as against the jockeying for partisan advantages-
Those words which came from a man revealing himself for the first time in the House of Commons must be set against those that appear on the front page of tonight's Ottawa Journal. This is the report of the interview.
"Do you meanasked the Journal
-that you so drafted your own no-confidence subamendment as to compel the Liberals to support the government?"
"Yes," he replied, "that is so."

He is quoted as saying this would "make it a lot easier, a lot more comfortable for us now to support the government on the more important issues which will be coming before the house".


An hon. Member:: Ten thousand a year.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: In my two years in the house, and longer years in politics, I have never, and I wager neither has anyone else in this chamber, heard of such a lack of good will, a lack of honour, a lack of understanding of one's responsibilities in this house.
All members of the opposition were elected for one purpose, and that was in opposition to the government.


An hon. Member:: A negative approach.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It was negative. No group is here with a majority and, gentlemen, our country bleeds over it. It bleeds because now we need strong government. I watched for two years, and many here watched for longer, when it was necessary to have strong policies, when it was necessary to have boldness and imagination.


Arnold Alexander Webster: For 22 years.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: And this administration, backed by the largest majority in history, more than 200 strong, dared not show that boldness and imagination.


An hon. Member:: Why are you not still the government?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: How can anyone in this chamber, or in the country, expect with reason to see boldness and imagination now when that same government hovers between life and death in every hour of this parliament? This is not a matter of amusement. We were not sent here to collect our indemnities, to live in leisure while the people of the country bleed.


Robert Norman Thompson: Oh, come off it Judy.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: We are not here-at least those of us on this side-are not here for that; but in all fairness I would include all members. We are not here without personal sacrifice to ourselves. We have asked the country for confidence in each one of us, and each of us carried a partisan banner during the election. No group has obtained sufficient members to provide a strong government and now it would appear that members of the government and some other minorities are afraid to go back to the people, are afraid of the people's next vote. Indeed it appears as if one opposition party and the government are afraid that the Liberals will form the next government. Well, Mr. Speaker, I happen to believe that would be the case, but I am
The Address-Miss LaMarsh astonished that those in the far corner of this house have so little faith in their own philosophy that they do not believe they can come back here with the support of the people.


Robert Norman Thompson: Don't kid yourself.


An hon. Member:: Then prove it.


Robert Norman Thompson: We will prove it.


Mr. Caron:: Prove it tonight.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The hon. member for Ville-neuve (Mr. Caouette) has said, according to these clippings, and he appears to have confidence, that the next time the people are called upon to vote, Social Credit will have 140 members. If that is the case what fear can there be if they are prepared tonight to support the amendment?
There was every opportunity for my party's leader, when moving this first amendment, to dress it in all sorts of Liberal phrases to take a small partisan advantage, as did the hon. member for Red Deer to ensure that no one else but the Liberals would support it; and so he might have if he was afraid of dissolution. But we seek dissolution, and why not? We seek it for the obvious reason that the people, since June 24, have not had an opportunity to say what they believe in the words of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Finance. Do those on the treasury benches seek to have us believe them? Is that important? We are but the representatives of the people in our own constituencies.


An hon. Member:: So are we.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Then take it to the people.


Mr. McGrath:: Don't forget '58.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Those in the far corner of the chamber have said they will never support austerity. They have said they will never support this government; yet by the cheapest political trick seen in this house, perhaps since confederation, they have eaten their words and shown that they do not mean what they say.


Robert Norman Thompson: Frustration on frustration.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: But this evening they have an opportunity to redeem themselves, an opportunity to show to the people who sent them here that what they said up to June 18 they meant, or else how will the member for Red Deer and the other members behind him, go back and explain to their constituents why they are supporting this government. The very thing they went out on the hustings and sought to destroy they are now responsible for upholding.
Mr. Speaker, we ask those members to consider, as we did on Tuesday night of this

The Address-Miss LaMarsh week, the effect of what they will be doing if they do not support this amendment. On Tuesday night they were asked to remove five political words from their amendment. They did not do it. We are asking them tonight to support an amendment which says simply that those who represent almost two-thirds of the people in Canada, having been sent here to express our lack of confidence, do now fulfil our trust and express it by our votes.
If Social Credit seeks to be believed in those constituencies from which it sent members, or in those constituencies from which it hopes to send members, and if it does not show its lack of confidence in the government, then it can never explain its breach of trust with the people who gave it their support on June 18.
We also ask, Mr. Speaker, for the support of those at your far right. We ask for their support and we are prepared to give them ours.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: They have avoided the cheap trick of Social Credit in that they have not included words of pure socialist meaning.


Robert Norman Thompson: Political planning.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The words they have included deal only with a matter of planning. Well, there are many who might laugh at planning, but no man or woman can plan to marry, plan a family, plan a business, or plan a government without economic planning. It is a part of nature.
This afternoon when the words of the New Democratic party amendment were given to us by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) it was apparent that at least at this time they, like this group, sought to express their want of confidence and did not seek by devious measures to avoid doing that. It surely can be no surprise that those of us on this side of the house are prepared to accept and follow a subamendment which contains the word "planning".
My leader, on January 20, 1961, as he did frequently before that and has done since, as appears on page 1271 of Hansard spoke as follows:
Mr. Speaker, at the luncheon recess, in outlining our own approach as a party to the economic, financial and fiscal problems with which I was dealing, I had emphasized the necessity for planning and for co-operation and consultation between government and other elements in our society. As a central agency for this forward planning and for the consultation which is required in the circumstances of today, instead of the limited and inadequate productivity council which the government proposes to set up, we would set up a national planning commission. We have made this proposal

more than once in this house. Indeed in the last few years it has been put forward in every session from this side of the house, although I think in earlier days we called it a national commission on employment and automation. A commission of this kind would have members drawn from government, labour, management, agriculture and consumers. It would have an expert staff and it would have adequate resources.
This is only one instance of the way in which Liberals in this house in prior sessions have indicated that they feel the need of planning in our national economy. Some members of the Social Credit group have said they would never go along with planning because they do not believe in it. I would ask these members to consider a report which appeared in Le Droit of August 31 last, a declaration of the Roman Catholic bishop of Quebec in which appears these words:
(Translation):
It is socialization that gives a human character to planning required by industrial society.
(Text):
It is obvious that those who lead the church at least believe in planning. All the elements of our society have indicated that there is a belief in planning, and nowhere in this subamendment appears the phrase "socialist planning" as used by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fleming).
I listened with great interest this afternoon to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). I found myself in agreement with at least one part of his speech. He believes, as I do, that in order to get our economy moving we should not have austerity but we require, to use his words, easier money, lower interest rates, increased government investment, increased expenditure and activity on all fronts. This is the crux of the matter. This is the one thing on which all the opposition parties have indicated they are in agreement and it is the one thing this government has indicated it will not do.
It is apparent that the hon. member who spoke from the New Democratic party benches was in considerable confusion with respect to the Liberal medical care plan. It is clear from reading a transcript of his remarks that he has not yet read the plan and I would undertake, if he wishes, to send a copy to him at this time. This appears to be the greatest road block in the way of acceptance of the motion which has been proposed by the Leader of the Opposition and I say to the hon. member that if he would read that pamphlet before the vote is taken he would find this road block removed.
I have limited time but I should like to make a last appeal. Perhaps I appeal to those whose minds are already closed-to people who have already made up their minds, false to their trust. But I cannot believe that any man who sits in this chamber has so decided.

I entreat those who have said on every opportunity in the past that they would not support this government to give credence to their words by action and to join this party in voting want of confidence.
(Translation):


Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, my opening remarks in this house will be to congratulate you for the unanimous vote which carried you to the exalted post you are now occupying. I also tender my congratulations to the mover of the address in reply, the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Chaplin) and to the seconder, the hon. member of Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent).
I noticed, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh) did not pay much attention to us in the past, but as she has taken 30 minutes to call attention to the Social Credit party, I may infer that we are forming a rather important group in our corner of this house.
When, last Tuesday, we introduced a subamendment asking for a balanced economy based on Social Credit principles-which was the reason for which we were elected on June 18 last-the Liberals had a chance of supporting a non-confidence motion against the government, but they did not do so. I really think that the hon. member for Niagara Falls sits in the wrong seat in this house.
(Text):


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: May I inquire to what the hon. member is referring when he said I am in a bad position in this house?
(Translation):


Jean Robert Beaulé: She should sit opposite to me.
In the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, I did recognize the familiar style of the Liberal candidate from whom I won the election in the riding of Quebec East. Indeed, that candidate was and still is known as the personal advisor of the Liberal party.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that our people do not want to return to the Liberal party.
The riding I represent in this house was the stronghold of the Liberal party for many years. It was even represented by two prime ministers, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, as well as by another great Liberal, the Hon. Ernest Lapointe.
And if I am so proud to speak to the house, this evening, it is because the voters of my county gave me their confidence. It is indeed the victory number one in Canada to have been able to break through that Liberal wall in Quebec East.
The Address-Mr. Beaule
(Text):
Mention has been made of the subamendment moved earlier by the New Democratic party. I cannot say we agree with that. We agree that economic growth is essential to progress. To this end planning is essential. But this does not mean the state planning of the socialists.
Legitimate planning comes directly from the people with guidance from government in the role of referee rather than through government regimentation superimposed from the top. The former is true democratic planning; the latter is socialism. Proper planning encourages freedom and enterprise. State domination restricts freedom, destroys initiative and is maddeningly inefficient. New Democratic party economic planning is synonymous with New Democratic party socialism. That, to us, has been made abundantly clear. We are opposed to socialism and therefore we are opposed to New Democratic party sponsored economic planning.
I might say to our hon. friends on the other side of the house that after their health planification scheme has been forced into the socialist province of Saskatchewan, not a single socialist member was elected in the last election, not even the one who will never occupy the empty seat across. That proves without any doubt that when one has tested planification, one wants to get rid of it.
Socialistic full employment cannot be accomplished without regimentation. We call to witness Dr. Eugene Forsey, Canadian Labour Congress research director and former New Democratic party card holder. Dr. Forsey made this very clear. Support of the New Democratic party full employment plan by Social Credit would imply endorsement of state socialism. We are opposed and shall so vote. Liberal support of the amendment as amended would confirm Liberal inability to frame an amendment indicating their own peculiar brand of socialism. It would constitute an endorsement of former Liberal prime minister King's declaration that socialists were nothing more than Liberals in a hurry and it would, no doubt, reflect the thinking of the present Liberal leader, who was reported as having said in Hamilton that the people should vote Liberal rather than New Democratic party because, as he said, the Liberals could give them anything that the New Democratic party could provide.
(Translation):
And now, Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in submitting to the house another very important issue. If we refer to section 2A of the Canadian Bill of Rights, we read the following: Bill guaranteeing to the Canadian citizens the right to the security of the person which is not endangered today in Canada.
230	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Beaule
On the other hand, it contains no effective provision for guaranteeing work in the agreements between employers and employees.
The right, for a citizen, to seek a job, the assurance of being able to keep such a job without the assistance or the intervention of a third party, shall also have to be an inalienable right in a free democracy.
We owe Canada a great loyalty, that of the labourer. I believe the time has come when the federal government should take steps to amend the labour code. We do not want to impose constitutions to the labourers, but I feel it is necessary to add provisions to the bill of rights so as to protect the Canadian workers, the men who want to work.
Mr. Speaker, I long for the day when our workers will enjoy the basic freedom of electing themselves their leaders and of seeing to it that they have leaders where leaders are needed. In this regard, I should like to refer to the constitution of the brotherhood of railroad trainmen, where I find, in page 10, the following statement:
(Text):
A non-insurance member is not eligible to serve in any office in the brotherhood which requires membership in the insurance department as a qualification, and further should not be liable for tuberclosis assessments or entitled to benefit in a tuberclosis division.
(Translation):
I wonder whether this is not an indirect means of selling insurance.
At this stage of my comments, Mr. Speaker, I could summarize hundreds of letters from railroad employees in which they criticize their own union.
A railway employee writes me:
As a fellow worker. I should like to draw your attention to the dictatorial trend of the brotherhood, the American union which represents the railway employees and whose only purpose is to get our money by whatever means possible, and especially through compulsory dues.
Here is another letter:
You know that the brotherhood is nothing but an insurance company operating under the guise of a labour union.
Another letter:
We do not enjoy now the same labour conditions as other industries.
And this one:
The time has come for railway employees to take over the control of their organization.
Still another letter:
Needless to describe the control exercised on us all by those labour leaders. When the Liberal party passed the compulsory dues system, it sold us to the American dictators; the Conservative party did not have the courage to repeal that legislation.


That is why I bring all those facts before this house. I sincerely believe that when the time comes for the C.N.R. to sign labour contracts with their employees, they should first choose a really Canadian union.
I also wish to speak on behalf of the many federal employees who have been asking for many years the right to organize and to be recognized as a union by the government.
It is about time the federal government grant federal employees the right to organize and to obtain justice in their demands to the government.
I also wish to tell this house how our youth and our Canadian athletes who represented us at the Empire games have been treated in the past. In previous years, when our Canadian athletes had to represent Canada abroad, it was a real shame to see them begging all over the country the money needed to represent Canada at Empire games and Olympic games. And when those athletes came back home with bronze or silver medals, everybody hastened to congratulate them here in this house.
I know that last year the house voted a substantial amount for the establishment of a permanent commission for amateur sports, but with the austerity program I think the project will be postponed to a later date. However, it is time more than ever for the federal government to appoint a commissioner of amateur sports in this country, but this commissioner should have the knowledge required and be absolutely free from any political link.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that now, in 1962, Canada should at long last belong to Canadians, and the government, following the Social Credit principles, should give our people a balanced economy in order to assure each citizen the standard of living to which he is entitled.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being 9.30 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 4 of standing order 38, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the amendments before the house.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost. The question is on the amendment. Is it agreed that all hon. members are in for the vote?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. (Translation):


Mr. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagoi):: Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock? (Text):


[Stage Direction]
It being eleven minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, October 5, 1362