1962-01-23

Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-40, respecting the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DIVORCE


William Arnold Peters: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-41, to establish the office of parliamentary proctor and to regulate taxation of costs.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MEASURE TO MODERNIZE DISSOLUTION AND ANNULMENT

William Arnold Peters: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-43, to provide in Canada for the dissolution and annulment of marriage.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


William Arnold Peters: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-42, to provide for minimum wages for employees.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



REPRESENTATION ACT


Mr. E. L. Morris (Halifax) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-44, to amend the Representation Act (Halifax electoral district).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Edmund Leverett Morris: The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to give electoral recognition to the status of Dartmouth as a city of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT


William Arnold Peters: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-45, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act (instalment purchases).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to protect people who are being sold goods by unscrupulous companies who, immediately after arranging a contract with certain guarantees, sell the original document and the purchaser then has no safeguard under that guarantee. This has worked a very great hardship on people buying things like aluminum windows and storm doors from door to door salesmen.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TRANSPORTATION


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the house moved with such commendable celerity through the early item that I missed motions. With leave of the house I should like to revert to motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table two copies in English and in French of the second volume of the report of the royal commission on transportation. This volume completes the analysis and recommendations of the commission. The third volume, which will be printed shortly, will include a number of studies prepared for the commission and will be tabled when it is ready.
The commissioners have asked to be discharged of their responsibilities and that request has been acceded to. They have been thanked for their contributions to the public service.
I will not endeavour to summarize or comment upon the substance of the report. I think hon. members will find that the report clarifies and illuminates the issues underlying the very difficult problems confronting Canada in the field of railway transportation.

Report of Transportation Commission I feel that the report will help parliament, the government and others concerned in reaching solutions to the problems that were placed before the commission.
A very excellent summary of the main points of the report has been prepared by the staff of the royal commission and has been given to the press. That might also be tabled so that any hon. member who is interested in a short compendium of the contents of the report will have the benefit of this summary.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, it is of course impossible to comment from this side of the house on the report which the Prime Minister has just tabled. I am sure all of us who are interested in this vital matter will want to carefully study the report as well as the summary which the Prime Minister has also tabled in the house.
I should like to extend the thanks of the opposition to the members of the royal commission for the work they have done. While I do not know all of them, I have been in association with some of them previously and I am sure that in the discharge of their responsibilities they have acted in accordance with the highest traditions of commissions.
I do not know what is contained in the report by way of recommendations, but I do hope the government will not deal with them as they dealt with the recommendations contained in the first report which-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Inasmuch as there will be an opportunity to debate this matter later on, I think the hon. member should restrict himself to the comment he has made and should not bring in other debatable matters particularly as no opinions were expressed by the government in the tabling of this report.


Lionel Chevrier: I trust that the government will see fit to deal objectively with the recommendations contained in the report.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: This is one of the occasions when a spokesman on a particular subject in the House of Commons is unable to make any worth while comment because we have not had the opportunity which the Prime Minister has had of seeing the report. All I can say is that the royal commission was established to consider urgent and important problems affecting the whole transportation industry of Canada with particular reference to rail transportation.
We are looking forward to reading the report. We trust that the report will have within it helpful recommendations and that the government will act on those recommendations so that we may obtain, as far as the railways are
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
concerned, equalized freight rates in order that the rail facilities so necessary for Canada may be developed in an efficient manner and made available on a more equitable basis to freight users in all parts of Canada.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister based on an article appearing in the Globe and Mail of January 22 to the effect that the government is considering new legislation aimed at abolishing across the board freight rate increases in accordance with recommendations made by the royal commission on transportation. Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation to this effect at this session of parliament?


John George Diefenbaker: That article, of course, is purely speculative in every way. When the government is in a position to advise the house of the course to be followed, action will be taken. It will have been noticed that in addition to the items particularly mentioned in the speech from the throne there is provision, as is customary, for other matters which may arise or become necessary during the course of the session. The report will be thoroughly examined and considered and if it is felt that recommendations contained therein can be brought in during the present session, that course will be taken. At the same time I point out that the hon. gentleman has called upon us to have an election. That is not consistent with the suggestion he expresses now that we should bring in measures over and above those already covered by the speech from the throne.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: May I raise a point of order. I wonder, since we are starting a new session, if some restriction could be placed on those questions which are so phrased as to begin, "Would you care to comment on a newspaper report-?" Could the question not be framed directly to the minister with regard to something which is under his jurisdiction; otherwise we spend so much of our time commenting on what may be just a rumour appearing in a newspaper?


Hazen Robert Argue: On the
point of order that has been raised-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I cannot accept the point of order in general terms.

If any question which is asked is subject to what may be a pertinent objection which the house leader has raised, I would be very glad to entertain it in that way. Otherwise, it does not seem to be permissible to raise an objection in general.



AIR TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
C.P.A._APPROVAL OF FLIGHTS FROM WESTERN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. I wonder if the minister would care to comment on a report in this morning's press that Canada has asked for more time before opening the Anglo-Canadian air services agreement for renegotiation. Would the hon. gentleman comment on the position of the C.P.A. with regard to its bid to be designated as a carrier on the polar route to Britain?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: At the time of my discussion last November with Right Hon. Peter Thorneycroft, the British minister of aviation, it was agreed that a further exchange of views would be desirable in about two months. I have in fact recently communicated with Mr. Thomey-croft as part of a further exchange on these matters and I expect to hear from him shortly.
Meanwhile, officials are studying the problems involved with regard to the Canada-United Kingdom air agreement since I believe that arising out of my current exchange with Mr. Thorneycroft another round of talks will be arranged fairly soon during the coming weeks.


Lionel Chevrier: A supplementary question. May I ask the Minister of Transport what the position is with reference to the bilateral agreement between Canada and the United States, talks in connection with which were started between the two countries last year and interrupted abruptly? I should like to know whether there is any chance of that agreement being renegotiated.


Léon Balcer: Yes, the government hopes to be in a position to reopen those talks in the very near future.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Can the minister tell the house whether C.P.A. and T.C.A. have now worked out co-operative plans for developing the routes that will be under renegotiation?


Léon Balcer: No, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries oj the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



PERMISSION FOR FAMILIES TO JOIN SERVICE PERSONNEL ABROAD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence a question. In view of the concern in the minds of Canadian troops who were sent overseas last fall and the concern of their families at home, has any decision been reached or is any decision being contemplated so as to permit the families in Canada to join the husbands and fathers now serving in military establishments in France and Germany?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. When special reinforcements were sent over to strengthen the air division and army brigade in Europe late last summer or early last fall their dependents did not accompany them and it was stated at that time that this matter would be reviewed between January and March of this year. That is being done and there will be a decision shortly.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Is the minister now in a position to make some comment on the announcement by Dosco of a substantial reduction in the work force at their Wabana mine?


Hon. Jacques Flynn (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have an answer to the question asked me in this regard last Friday by the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Tucker). The hon. member for St. John's East has, of course, indicated an interest in this matter and has conferred with me about it.
The Wabana iron ore mine of the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation, Limited, known as Dosco, has been a traditional supplier of medium grade iron ore to Britain and western Europe since the turn of the century. In recent years the increasing availability of competitive higher grade ores, particularly from several countries in South America and Africa, has resulted in an oversupply of ore on the world market which has cut into Canadian sales abroad including those of Dosco. In addition, the European
80	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry steel industry, and particularly that of Britain, will apparently be operating in the coming year at a level below that of 1961.
I have seen no reference to a shut-down at the Wabana mine, an expression which the hon. member for Trinity-Conception used. He also used the word "lay-off" which I believe fits better the situation involved.
While no positive statement has yet been made to my knowledge by the company about the number of miners that may be laid off, it seems highly probable that a substantial cut in the work force is contemplated and it would appear inevitable in view of present-day iron ore market conditions.
Several attempts have been made by the company in recent years with the assistance of my department to mechanize the Wabana mine and to improve the recovery and quality of the ore. Not all of these have proven successful.
To establish closer relations between overseas customers and Canadian ore producers, including Dosco, I understand that my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, is considering the organization of an iron ore trade mission to Europe which would be composed of senior representatives of the iron ore industry, the Department of Trade and Commerce and my department.
May I add that Bell island has been declared a labour surplus area. The federal government therefore provides complete removal expenses for men and their families who may find employment elsewhere. May I also add that the government of Newfoundland has recently announced the construction of a trade school on the island. This school will be eligible for substantial federal government assistance under the technical-vocational training agreement which was enacted to assist in situations such as exist on Bell island.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twil-lingate):: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman a supplementary question. Does the announcement that Bell island is a surplus labour area and the people will be assisted to move out of that area mean that the government has now embarked upon a policy of moving people out of the Atlantic provinces?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: That is the Liberal-Gordon policy.


Jacques Flynn: I entirely disagree with the interpretation that the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate gives to the application of this act, which has done a lot of good.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Justice a question without any political implications that concerns some 2,000 of my constitutents. Has the minister received any request for co-operation or assistance from the attorney general of British Columbia with respect to the Sons of Freedom problem in general or to their emigration to Brazil in particular?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: No, Mr. Speaker, not as yet. However, I have received from the attorney general of British Columbia by way of a report information of his knowledge of the activities of the Doukhobors in that connection. The report has also been sent to me. As yet matters have not progressed to the point where any positive action can be taken. In other words, the attorney general has been in touch but as yet there has been no formal request.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Can
the Minister of Justice assure the house that the government will help the Sons of Freedom to move themselves from this country if they wish to do so?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not in a position to give any such blanket assurance, Mr. Speaker. Until we know precisely what move may be contemplated and under what arrangements, we shall not be in a position to deal with it. However, I can remind the hon. gentleman and the house that, on an earlier occasion when another specific move was contemplated, this government in co-operation with the government of British Columbia made a concrete offer of assistance.



TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
SPRINGHILL, N.S.-INQUIRY AS TO MAINTENANCE:

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport this question. Despite the encouraging assurances he gave last September, is the railway from Springhill to Springhill Junction now being torn up?


Léon Balcer: Does the hon. member mean torn up by the company?


John Whitney Pickersgill: By someone.


Léon Balcer: I do not know, Mr. Speaker. I have not inspected that railway recently. However, I must say that discussions are still going on between the company and the provincial government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a supplementary question. Can the minister ascertain whether or not the railway is being torn up; if so, can he say whether the government has any proposal to stop it or whether this is, in fact, a part of the national development program?


Léon Balcer: We made an offer to take over this railway if the provincial government would agree to pay for the maintenance of the said railway. Until the province accepts this proposal the railway is the property of the company.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the government given consideration to a return from a manipulated exchange rate to a true floating exchange rate as recommended by Mr. W. Earle McLaughlin, in the annual report of the Royal Bank of Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No return is necessary, Mr. Speaker, because the government has never adopted a manipulated rate policy at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister announced it in the budget speech.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not a manipulated rate.



TAXATION OF ADVERTISING ON FOREIGN TELEVISION STATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. McLennan (New Westminster):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. If advertisers in foreign magazines directed to the Canadian market are not allowed to deduct the cost of advertising for tax purposes, will the same regulation apply to those advertising on foreign radio and television stations when that advertising is directed to the Canadian market?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This subject, of course, lies outside the scope of the report of the royal commission on publications and lies outside the scope of the announcement which the Prime Minister made in the house yesterday. So far as the subject is one to be considered on its own merits, I can only say that if any action were
Inquiries of the Ministry taken in that field it would be a matter for an announcement in the house at the proper time.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What is the government's attitude on the Angola question now before the United Nations with regard to atrocities against clergymen and known Protestant Christians? Does the minister intend to enter a vigorous protest in the United Nations debate now in progress?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: The debate on the question of Angola is in progress in the United Nations. According to the last reports I have received, a resolution has not been tabled by the Afro-Asian nations. Once that resolution has been tabled, Canada will be in a position to decide what attitude to take.



MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. I regret not having sent him notice of it but I feel confident that he is quite familiar with the problem. My question has to do with a controversy regarding the reversal of a decision reached last February to change the names of certain topographical features on the northern coast line of the province of Quebec. Can the minister inform the house why federal pressure was brought to bear to change the decision as reported in Le Devoir on Tuesday, January 16, 1962?


Jacques Flynn: I did not hear the question. Would the hon. member repeat it?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question relates to something that is a fait accompli. He might well put it on the order paper or deal with it in debate.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: On Friday last the hon. member for Algoma West inquired as to when a start would be made on the construction of a permanent

Inquiries of the Ministry terminal building at the Sault Ste. Marie airport, and if it had been considered as a winter works project.
I am advised that when tenders were called for the permanent terminal building at the Sault Ste. Marie airport in the latter part of 1961, prices received were all very substantially above our estimates of cost for this project. Since a temporary terminal building is servicing the airport effectively, it was therefore decided to make an extensive investigation and review of the departmental plans and estimates. This review is now close to completion but will probably be subject to some modifications in the plan itself and to a fresh tender call later in the not too distant future.
(Translation):



SECRETARY OP STATE.-REFERENCE TO ACTIVITIES OP QUEBEC LIQUOR POLICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State, in his capacity of minister responsible for the office of the Chief Electoral Officer. Has the minister asked or does he intend to ask the Chief Electoral Officer to conduct an inquiry into the part played by Quebec liquor police officers during the 1958 election, in the constituency of Bellechasse?


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this matter comes under the jurisdiction of the Chief Electoral Officer. I believe that there is at present a case sub judice and, therefore, I do not feel that the hon. member's question should be answered.
(Text):



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister care to comment on the press report that in the United States there are plans under way to construct new locks, particularly at Sault Ste. Marie, that would make the present seaway out of date. Would the minister care to comment on that part of the report which says that seaway engineers have already agreed to specifications for these new locks?


Léon Balcer: I will take this question as notice.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, January 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Rodrigue Bourdages for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Pearson.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, at the time of the adjournment I was dealing with the section of the speech from the throne that had to do with social justice. In order to commence my remarks today, I shall read that section:
Your approval will be requested for an increase in the amount of the universal old age pension payable under the Old Age Security Act, and also for legislation to increase the amount to which the federal government will contribute under the Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons Act and the Disabled Persons Act.
When I spoke in the city of Toronto in 1957 I enunciated the new frontier policy, and so named it on behalf of the Conservative party. Following the example of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) yesterday, I will read a section of my remarks made at that time. I do not want him to have a monopoly on reading what he said on other occasions.
The Prime Minister of Ontario has just said that human betterment is of the essence of government .. .We intend to maintain all the social security measures. We intend to maintain a standard to keep pace with a rising productivity of this nation. In parliament and outside, we have condemned the meagre and niggardly assistance given to old age pensioners by the increase of 20 cents a day, which leaves them in a position where they have less purchasing power than they did in 1951. The same position applies to war pensioners and also to the retired civil servants.
At that time I felt the proper course to follow in connection with social security, particularly for older persons, was to make necessary adjustments on a cost of living basis. If that course were followed, then the amount of the increase to be given to the old age pensioners would be very, very small because one of the most remarkable contributions that has been made by this government since 1957 has been that we have been able to prevent inflation. We have been able to maintain the Canadian dollar and its purchasing power, a course which should have been adopted for several years prior to 1957 when the increase in the cost of living continued unabated to a very considerable extent.
I referred also in that speech to the war pensioners and to civil servants, and I might add by way of keeping the record clear, that this government has seen that these groups have received justice during the period we have been in office.

Now, having given the matter the very fullest consideration we have come to a conclusion, and legislation will be placed before the house. Old age pensions will be increased by $10 a month and the amount of increase we contribute to old age assistance, blind pensioners and disabled persons will be on the same basis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: While those who represent the N.D.P. will naturally speak of this as being meagre-a "pittance" is the usual expression of the hon. member for Assiniboia applied to anything done in that connection- I would like someone to examine the situation in the province of Saskatchewan regarding social security measures for which the province could give extra assistance. He would find that while the members of that party are loud in their protestations in the House of Commons, yet in the province of Saskatchewan, the amounts paid by way of old age assistance and other forms of assistance are less than in some other provinces throughout the country.
I should also add that when that party came out in favour of $75 a month the Leader of the Opposition, speaking with the restraint which he displays from time to time, stated that such an amount was ridiculous and could not be provided.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that the Prime Minister, speaking with the inaccuracy for which he is famous, has again misquoted me. I said that a sum of that magnitude applied after 65 years as well as the increase in amount, was irresponsible at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: That was before the hon. gentleman came out with his policy, which upon examination proved so nebulous. Its purpose was simply to mislead the old people of this country into believing that in one year after a change of government they would receive the full amount.


Lester Bowles Pearson: So they will.


John George Diefenbaker: Its purpose was to make them believe that in one year after a change of government they would receive $75 a month but he, in November, said it could not be provided by any responsible government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It can and it will.


John George Diefenbaker: I intend to make some further references to the literature of the Liberal party which claims that the Liberals "have the answer." That is their 1962 slogan; but I am sure all the older people in the country will remember that in 1957 too the Liberals had the answer for them, the answer
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker being an addition of $6. They are the same old group now as they were then, the same assortment that said $6 was enough in 1957.
I shall say nothing further regarding social security now but will deal with it again when the measures are before the house.
Now, due to the interruption of the hon. member for Assiniboia last night I wish to make reference at somewhat greater length than I had intended to matters which I referred to earlier. That interruption will be found at page 75 of Hansard where the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) is reported as asking a question as to whether the speech from the throne would be interrupted this week "to deal with matters referred to earlier by the Prime Minister". It reads:


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we need to look too far ahead just yet. We will continue with the speech from the throne tomorrow.


Hazen Robert Argue: Shame. Let us make the payments. Come on.
He was referring to the acreage payments, and that brought to mind something he wants to forget, because he has adopted the attitude of speaking with authority for the farmers. However, 1 well remember the reply given by him on August 30, 1958, when we introduced the system of acreage payments. It is to be found on page 4348 of Hansard in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition who said:
We are quite sure, on this side, that the grain producers, with that problem before them, will welcome this particular assistance, will welcome this particular grant though they may be disappointed in the amount. I have no doubt that when my hon. friend from Assiniboia gets up immediately after I conclude he will call it peanuts.


Hazen Robert Argue: I did that a couple of days ago. I shall call it a pittance today.
The hon. member now knows the extent to which the farmers of western Canada welcome the "pittance" of August, 1958 and that of January, 1962. They recognize this system is fair and is particularly helpful to the small farmers. It actually represents an amount equivalent to the two-price system being distributed, not on the bushel system, which would mean the larger farmers receiving a disproportionate amount, but in a manner that makes possible distribution among the small farmers in reasonable equality.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Last night when dealing with our wheat sales abroad I mentioned the tremendous increase that had taken place in export sales, not only in wheat but in other products. I think it should be placed on the record that concerning capital goods this government has encouraged long term financing of exports in order to ensure that we can
84	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker successfully compete in other parts of the world. This long term financing of exports of capital goods was made possible by an amendment to the Export Credits Insurance Act in 1961, which provided $200 million for that purpose. Under this legislation contracts involving export sales of $41 million worth of capital goods have been concluded, and cabinet approval has been given to provide an additional $100 million. The speech from the throne, states that the government proposes to raise the ceiling from the present figure of $200 million on total funds available to finance the export of Canadian capital goods. All these things have been beneficial to Canada and are today paying dividends as shown in the national economic recovery.
In connection with wheat and livestock in general, there has been a farm cash income from cattle 10 per cent above that of 1960. With regard to dairy products there is a problem with the surplus of butter, and this is being studied. Income from dairy products for the first nine months of the year are higher than for the corresponding period a year earlier.
The export of wheat and wheat flour last year reached the very high level of 354 million bushels. I remember that when the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill), then minister of trade and commerce, stated some years ago that 300 million bushels would be the aim, this was ridiculed by the opposition. Yet in the year 1961 we achieved a level of more than 50 million bushels beyond what was estimated at that time.
The strengthening of Canada's position as the largest seller of wheat in the commercial markets of the world has come about as a consequence of tremendous sales efforts made by various departments of the government, in particular the departments of agriculture and trade and commerce. Our traditional markets remained strong in 1961, with sales to Japan reaching a record level.
I should add that I visited Japan in response to a repeated invitation. I stayed there for a period of four or five days. There is in Japan an interest in Canada, a recognition of this country and a realization that Japan is going to continue to take its place with the free nations of the world to maintain freedom and the economic strength of each and every member of the free world.
Heavy European purchases virtually exhausted our stocks of Durum wheat. Besides the sales that were made to China providing so much employment in Vancouver and other coast ports, sales were made to Poland and Czechoslovakia. Along with these booming sales we have experienced substantial increases in price. Not many months ago the


price of wheat at Fort William was $1.67. It is now close to the international wheat agreement maximum price of $1.90. Contributing to this increase was the government's action in reducing the value of the Canadian dollar as compared with the United States dollar. This step brought about improvement in prices generally for agricultural products for export and increased the opportunities for Canadians to export. Further, no effort has been spared to lessen the effects of the severe drought in the west during the past year.
With regard to the payments estimated for 1961, cash farm income was $2.9 billion; realized gross income, $3.3 billion; realized net income $1.4 billion. These are all slightly above the corresponding figures for 1960 in spite of the sharply reduced output on the prairies.
I thought I ought to make reference to the agricultural situation, which was another matter to which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) did not refer. I am sure that as he travelled across Canada in his pilgrimages, he found everywhere appreciation for what this government has done to maintain agricultural prices in all parts of our country.
As I listened to the hon. gentleman yesterday I began to look back a few months. I looked back to that gathering of the seers in Kingston in September, 1960. That was a gathering to which I think more and more attention will be paid than in the past. I repeat that the slogan for the election, whenever it comes, is "The Liberals have the answer".


John Whitney Pickersgill: "Live Grits for dead Tories".


John George Diefenbaker: I like interruptions from the hon. gentleman. Whenever I want to get a laugh anywhere across Canada I just mention his name. I was dealing with that meeting.


Mr. Hellyer:: They cry when we mention yours.


An hon. Member:: That is just little boy talk.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Non-intervention.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to recall this because I know my hon. friends opposite do not want to hear about this conference. I intend to refer to it in some particular because those who were the heads of that conference, those who expressed themselves at that conference, are now the cornerstone of this hew temple, the new Liberals who allegedly have the answer. The chairman was Walter Gordon.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I thought they were the same old gang. Make up your mind.


John George Diefenbaker: Then there were the various committees:	Maurice Lamontagne,
unemployment, fiscal policy, monetary policy; Mitchell Sharp, foreign policy; C. M. Drury, vice chairman; T. W. Kent, vice chairman. This is quite an interesting gathering. All these people are now receiving more than usual attention from the leadership of the Liberal party.
They gathered together there. Hon. gentlemen opposite speak about circuses. I think of that gathering at Kingston as the circus of the bureaucrats. The gathering of those who today are in the leadership of the Liberal party includes the very same people who in the days of war and from 1945 on paralysed parliament.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Oh.


John George Diefenbaker: They paralysed parliament and interfered with the rights of the provinces. They believe that desirable economic objectives can only be attained by turning a nation into a disciplined and controlled unit. They believe that the principles they followed in the days of war and under those so-called emergency legislation enactments following the war are once more to be imposed upon the Canadian people.
I am going to refer in particular to quotations from the statements they made. We do not accept those principles. We have not lost, as they have, our belief in democracy. We believe that changes must take place; that they should be within the framework of the constitution and without invading that constitution. Some of the recommendations that were made at that conference would once more require the implementation of emergency legislation in Canada depriving the provinces of their rights and invading the jurisdiction of the provinces.
I think of these people. I am not going to name them all, but most will be able to identify those who treated parliament with patent and unconcealed contempt and deprived it of its rights, those men referred to as bureaucrats in a previous government. They were our masters. That is what we fought against year after year in this House of Commons. These are the men who want that power again and they have made it clear that they are ready to act in accordance with the statements they have made. These are the men who bypassed parliament, the men who found it easier to rule by order in council under so-called emergency legislation. These are the men represented by the statement made in the House of Commons on April 21, 1953 by the minister of trade and
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker commerce of that day, whose deputy minister was Mitchell Sharp-"If we have overstepped our powers I make no apology for doing so". These are the bright bureaucratic boys. These were the dictators who dominated Canada. I shall refer, as well, to some of those recently acquired and the views which they expressed at that particular time.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) spoke yesterday as he always does about mumble and jumble and disorganization. I notice that Mr. Drury was one of this distinguished group. He was deputy minister of defence when Mr. Currie made his report. That report was made, it will be recalled, in 1953 and this is what Mr. Currie said:
The conclusion I have come to is that while there has been a general breakdown in the system of administration, supervision and accounting-
"A general breakdown". This is one of the pilots of Liberalism of today. He said there had been a general breakdown in the system of administration, supervision and accounting in the whole department of defence. Then the report adds this:
-it was only at Petawawa that extensive irregularities over a prolonged period of time took place.
I intend to refer now-not because I do not want to see outstanding men desirous of coming into public life-to some of them.


An hon. Member:: Don't smear them.


John George Diefenbaker: Everyone wants to see the best come into public life, but it is a strange, strange thing, this agglomeration, this grouping. You can see it forming every day. They had the answers in 1945-1957. It is the same old bunch. When I read that the Leader of the Opposition describes his party as the new Liberal party I look over and see the same old faces that were there in the old party. In the advertising, or in the resolutions, they are referred to now as the new Liberal party. Why is that? I suppose it is the sting of conscience. I ordinarily would refer here to those who constitute the philosophical wing were it not for the fact that the philosophical wing appears now to be in control.
I should refer first to Mr. Lamontagne. He is also a candidate. He made a speech at Kingston, and I intend to give the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity again to say whether or not he agrees with the views of his advisers-views which have been revealed so clearly at that conference and since. Mr. Lamontagne made a certain statement, and I have the quotation here. He advocated rigid state controls to achieve the triple objective of the Liberal party. Controls, and it could be done. That was the Lamontagne

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker thesis. The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, a paper which has certainly never been one of our major supporters, said of this:
A government sworn to all three objectives would need to rule with whips and scorpions.
So this is the new philosophy. The Hamilton Spectator said this was "back door socialism". That may be the reason why the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) is reported as having ambitions to join with some of the hon. gentlemen who are now sitting opposite me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


John George Diefenbaker: After all-and the hon. member for Assiniboia is always most congenial-when his own party will not use the word "socialism" any more he is bound to go to some who hold that view.
Then the Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph said of those remarks of Mr. Lamontagne:
That lecture would have been worth its weight in gold to Fidel Castro.
These are the views which are broadcast across Canada. I intend to quote the references because these are the men who were in the background before. Now they are in the foreground. These are the philosophers, and we want to know the extent to which advisers who hold these views are listened to when they give advice. The Ottawa Journal had this to say about it:
The refrain which ran all through the Kingston conclave was the refrain of the state as a shepherd.
Among other things I have a list here of what is proposed. There is the price board. I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he believes in this price control board, this so-called conciliation board. Is this the way in which the Liberals are going to control the economy of Canada?
The determination of monetary policy and the management of the public debt should be divorced.
A special and permanent price conciliation board could be set up or this task could be assigned to an enlarged and stronger restrictive trade practices commission. It is desirable that those who enjoy special monopolistic controls within our so-called free and competitive system be submitted to a scheme of public supervision. Moreover, such a scheme appears necessary if we really want to prevent market power inflation and the unfair distribution of the national income which it creates.
I ask the Leader of the Opposition: are these the views of Mr. Lamontagne, an adviser today of the first rank? Do they represent the kind of Canada that the Liberal party would bring into being if it should obtain power; or are these just statements that were made for the information of the assembled conclave, not intended to be carried into effect? What are some of the views? The Victoria daily Times is not a
[Mr. Diefenbaker.!
paper that is regularly antipathetic to the Liberal party, and in an editorial it has this to say with reference to this speech:
-his speech at a recent unofficial conference of liberally-minded Canadians . . . does not represent Liberal party policy.
Then it goes on to say:
It seems unlikely that the Liberal party is ready to embrace what can only be considered a repudiation of its basic philosophy and its policy in office.
. . . The board's ruling would not be final, a price increase could be effected even over the board's objection, but the intention of the device is to concentrate the power of the state and of public opinion against the increase. This is state control of prices by indirection and inevitably would lead in the end to direct control.
The Winnipeg Tribune points out the same situation. I am not going into detail but it says that this is a serious matter. Even the Winnipeg Free Press could not swallow this doctrine. It had this to say:
The power to legislate with regard to prices has a history which is of general interest in view of the proposal by Mr. Maurice Lamontagne at the recent conference of Liberals at Queen's University.
Then it says this:
Price fixing by governments must inevitably lead to confusion, uncertainty and inefficiency.
The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix says: Disagreement continues to mount over certain policies and proposals advocated at the conference of liberally-minded individuals ... A proposal made by Professor Maurice Lamontagne, economic adviser to Liberal leader L. B. Pearson, has evoked strong opposition. Mr. Lamontagne's proposal included the establishment of a federal board which would approve or oppose price increases by monopolies.
Then it says:
Apart from the fact that Mr. Lamontagne's proposal contravenes long-established Liberal policy-
That may be the reason for calling themselves the new Liberal party now.
-it points up the way in which the so-called "ginger group" . . . would dictate Liberal policy.
That is the dream of Mr. Lamontagne. The Winnipeg Free Press said: this proposal means an attempt by the federal government to regulate so-called monopolies with regard to prices. The Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph takes the same view and says that this is a policy that is contrary to the principles of free enterprise and a denial of the principles of old Liberalism. Well, that is not all. Mr. Lamontagne occupies a central position and no doubt will be able to expound these doctrines in the days ahead.
Recently, however, there was another acquisition, Mr. Tom Kent, a very fine gentleman. He is a special assistant. I wonder whether he has the answers. I know that when the Leader of the Opposition appointed him he said, "he will serve in an anonymous and inarticulate capacity". Mr. Lamontagne

was not in that position. Mr. Kent has the answers, 67 pages of them, which he placed before this conference. If his doctrine is not acceptable, why is it that he is taken into the family as an adviser? I do not have to make any observations about it. The Regina Leader-Post said this:
. . . the inarticulate Mr. Kent has already acquired considerable prominence for his radical views and for his advocacy of planning and restrictions imposed on business by government. In his silent service behind the Liberal throne, the assumption is Mr. Kent will attempt to mould Liberal policies to conform with his personal views. This cannot be other than disturbing to many faithful followers of the Liberal party.
I understand that. That is why it is new. The new Liberal party has the answers.
Their Liberalism has moved a long way from outmoded laissez faire concepts. They acknowledge the state has a role to play in safeguarding the public from abuses in our private enterprise economy. But their thinking has not reached the extreme position held by Mr. Kent that private business and the corporations are speeding to their doom and desperately need rescuing through government intervention.
I am going to give the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to clarify this matter so that we will understand exactly the degree to which these views constitute the reason for the program, "The Liberals Have the Answer", which is being distributed across Canada.
Mr. Kent pointed to expenditures "on advertising and merchandising generally" for immediate government scrutiny.
He is going to get all the papers in Canada under his control.
While not enlarging on what "merchandizing generally" covered-
I am still quoting from the Regina Leader-Post which is often quoted as a model of correctness.
-he singled out advertising, proposing that by stages expenditures in this category become nondeductible for income tax purposes. Later, he hedged somewhat in declaring he did not pretend to complete certainty that "this is the right thing to do." But he added he was "quite sure that it would yield great benefits" in averting the present alleged waste of money and talents in the stimulation of "unimportant wants."
Is that the Liberal party concept?
Mr. Kent evidently is among those who would save the people from their own follies in spending their money as they desire. He suggested that with less spent on "unimportant wants"-
That is, advertising, merchandising.
-there would be more money "for schools and the rest." This, in turn, suggests the tax collector will gather the money the people cease to spend foolishly for use "for schools and the rest."
Mr. Kent expressed the somewhat arresting view that since advertising expenses are deductible before profits are determined, the government in effect is subsidizing advertising.
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
I want to give the Leader of the Opposition this chance. Are the views of Mr. Lamon-tagne and Mr. Kent the views of the new Liberal party? Does he accept them? I am going to be very reasonable. He can pick whichever horn of the dilemma he wants. He can pick the most comfortable of these two horns. Let me read on.
To one holding Mr. Kent's views, it would be but a short hop into a socialized state.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I see a smile on the face of the house leader of the N.D.P., and there is reason for that smile. Listen to the next sentence.
It seems that Mr. Kent would be more at home as a consultant to a party other than the Liberal party.
I am going to read some excerpts from this philosophy, for this was a gathering of the erstwhile bureaucrats of the war period and the period immediately thereafter and others variously gathered together. These are some of the ideas. Would there be any increase in social security if Mr. Kent had anything to do with it? I refer to page 39, and this is a long statement, Mr. Speaker. This is what he says:
The measures I have suggested do not include any increase in general social payments such as family allowances and pensions. If we are to maintain that exclusion, as I believe we should, because other measures are far more urgent-we must recognize that there are many welfare problems hardly touched.
Then he comes out with his views about taxes. The Leader of the Opposition says that taxes are too high. May I say that there are 75,000 Canadians paying less income tax today than they were paying when we came into office.


An hon. Member:: Seventy five per cent.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Get the facts straight.


John George Diefenbaker: I am grateful for the assistance of hon. gentlemen opposite. Seventy five per cent of Canadian income taxpayers are paying less today than they were paying when this government came into office. I speak to the Leader of the Opposition through you, Mr. Speaker, and remind him of the words-the wise words, as I think they were once referred to by the Leader of the Opposition-of Mr. Kent. Let me read what he has to say about taxation:
I am not, of course, arguing that we owe all this to high taxes . . . But the fact is that high taxes have not prevented an economic performance that is, by all previous standards, good.
That was in September, 1960.
The burden of proof is on those who claim that taxes at the present level do economic damage, compared with what would happen if governments

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker spent less and individuals were able to spend more ... It follows that, while a sharp rise in tax rates certainly has some "disincentive" effect at first, it will weaken, not strengthen, as people grow accustomed to the new tax levels.
This is the philosophy of the new Liberal party, the Liberal party that, it is said, has the answer.
It is hard, in other words, to see that taxation at the levels to which we are now accustomed exercises any large restraining influence on economic activities.
I simply quote these observations by way of answer to some of the statements that were made by the hon. gentleman. The quotation continues:
In short, the conventional arguments about the anti-productive effects of taxation are unacceptable.
Then he goes on to say this:
We have, in other words, to ensure that our economy does in fact work successfully-fairly, efficiently, inventively-while sustaining a bigger tax burden.
Is that the new Liberal party policy? Is that the answer they have? Then he comes out with this idea. The people across Canada will be interested to learn that the chief adviser to the Leader of the Opposition who has now been taken unto his bosom in an even closer relationship, said this:
The major step to greater equality lies, however, in steeper taxation of inheritances.
Is that the new Liberal answer? Is that what is meant when it is said that the Liberal party has the answer? Then he explains the statement:
There is no justification for such large inequalities of opportunity as survive our present succession duties and gift taxes.
Is that one of the answers they have? He continues:
The proper basis of taxation is, I suggest, the individual's total receipts, in inheritance and gifts, from one source or several; and beyond some modest total, they should be taxed on a considerably steeper scale than now operates.
I again give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity of saying whether this is the philosophy of the new Liberal party. If not, I cannot understand the appointment of advisers who hold to doctrines that are so economically difficult to accept.
Then we come to advertising:
The only solution-
Everything is swept away there.
-therefore lies through public policy. It is the proper role of government to step in and alter the incentives-not to interfere and lay down detailed instructions about what should be done or not done, but simply to make advertising less attractive.
What is this doctrine enunciated by a man who has occupied such positions as the editorship of the Free Press'? Is this the doctrine that we are to have placed before the people

of Canada or is it going to be kept in the background? I think one can guess the answer to that question. He states further:
In principle, there is no reason why advertising should not be taxed, like liquor or gasoline or thousands of other useful things . . . the better first approach probably is to refuse to allow advertising, and perhaps other merchandising expenditures, for tax purposes.
Here in my hand I hold material bearing the slogan "The Liberals have the answer". I hope the Leader of the Opposition will tell us the degree to which he, Mr. Kent, and Mr. Lamontagne diverge. This is strange doctrine. We continue on from there. If we get away from allowing advertising as a deduction, these are the great results that will follow:
If, for example, we did reduce advertising, it would thereby become easier also to raise existing taxes on consumption-liquor revenues, gas tax, vehicle licences, real property taxes, and general sales tax.
Do you see the unveiling of this remarkable economic charter of Canada's Liberalism? If we did this we would be able to increase liquor revenue, gas taxes and finally the sales tax. Then he continues:
Our provincial premiers could better have their day.
Then he goes on to say this:
Having mentioned property taxes, which so closely affect the most poverty stricken of our three levels of government, I would say that here increases seem very reasonable.
Then he finally sums it all up in this way:
While a general capital gains tax has many undesirable features, and certainly is not to be preferred to increased taxation of inheritance, there is a very great deal to be said for a specific tax on increments in property values.
Is that the new financial direction of the new Liberal party? I could give a number of quotations with regard to this matter but I do not think it is necessary. I have simply placed before you, Mr. Speaker, the basic doctrine and the basic supports that stand behind the Leader of the Opposition and his advisers who daily or regularly place these views before him. Speaking of circuses, may I say that I wish to see the Leader of the Opposition perform. Does he accept the views of Mr. Lamontagne and of Mr. Kent? Again I give him a choice. He can say yes or he can say no. That will be a performance compared with which the acrobatics exhibition one could see in any circus would appear most modest. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will reply at the earliest opportunity.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Will the Prime Minister turn around? We cannot hear him.


John George Diefenbaker: These views are economic nonsense. That is all they are.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has, in his somewhat agitated and personal attack on certain persons who cannot defend themselves in this house, asked me a question. I am asking him if he would like an answer to the question now?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was asked certain questions about statements expressed by individuals at a conference at Queen's University some years ago. The Prime Minister, being the head of the Tory government, will have a very difficult time understanding, but this congress-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not an answer to the question. Do you approve of these statements or do you not?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I want to answer the question. I said the Prime Minister may have difficulty in understanding this, but at this conference it was made clear that there would be a free, open and full discussion and the people would be speaking there in their individual, personal capacities. Therefore-sit down, Mr. Prime Minister, sit down -it would be just as foolish for the Prime Minister to assume that those who made statements at that conference were speaking -be calm, sir-that those who were speaking at that time were laying down policies for the Liberal party as it would be for me to assume that Mr. John Fisher, in his statements in earlier years, was reflecting the views of the Tory government today.


John George Diefenbaker: I have been waiting for an answer. He would not answer the question. How could he answer it and not accept people with doctrines which he does not uphold, because he is afraid to say he agrees with them. These people have become the philosophic segment of the Liberal party and the advisers to the Leader of the Opposition. They were appointed, at least Mr. Kent was, since they expounded these views. The answer of the Leader of the Opposition makes it clear what the situation is. In spite of the views that they hold and held and declared, he says they do not necessarily represent his views but he appoints them as advisers. About what are they advising him? Why get advice on matters which you are not going to accept? I leave it to the common sense of the house and the country to answer that question. Now, we begin to see something of the meaning of the new Liberal party.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Before the Prime Minister leaves this, I wonder if he would accept a question?
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I made way for the hon.
gentleman, but instead of answering he blustered.
Now then, Mr. Speaker, I come to one other matter and that is the prophecies the Leader of the Opposition has made. You know, he is a man of tremendous defiance. In 1958, he said "Bring on the election; the sooner the better". Then, when we brought it on he said, "Well, I did not expect you to do that."


Lester Bowles Pearson: Why are you always looking back? Look ahead.


John George Diefenbaker: It is easy to be defiant when it is vocal defiance. I want to go back over the predictions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You are always going back look ahead.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to read some of the predictions in 1958-"by their words you shall judge them". Speaking in Vancouver in February, 1958, he said:
The Liberal party is going to make gains in every province.
If they come as close next time as after these prophecies that were being made, we will be quite satisfied. On February 22, 1958, at Cobourg, the Leader of the Opposition was asked to forecast the next federal cabinet. He said, "All I can tell you is it will be Liberal." Then, on March 26, we find this quotation in the Toronto Globe and Mail:
In the past two weeks there has been a great change in public opinion in favour of the Liberals.
A little later he said:
I have found a great revival in the party, a new spirit of energy and enthusiasm ... we have a future.
They also have a past. At another point, he
said:
I have been stimulated and encouraged by what can only be called a revival of Liberalism.
On November 6, 1957, he said:
The Liberal party has nothing to worry about in facing the voters in the next dominion election.
Then, when they are talking about the situation in one province, Quebec, it is well to go back to see what they were saying. I am not going to mention the prophecies of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) with regard to Saskatchewan. I have them here.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am being overlooked.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to mention the prophecies with regard to Quebec because the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) makes prophecies regularly. About two weeks

The Address-Mr. Diefenhaker before the election the hon. member for Essex East was at Westmount. I do not know whether or not he had any of the frontbenchers with him at that time. However, he charged that rumours started by the Tories that the Liberal party had been weakening in Quebec province were sheer propaganda and not substantiated by facts. He said:
Actually, we not only expect to get all our seats back but expect to gain two additional ones.
I read this simply for the purpose of keeping the record clear as to the kind of prophecy that was made then. Finally, at Chambly, Quebec, the hon. member for Essex East went on to say this:
Not only will we hold all our seats In Quebec but we will take two more.
He was at least consistent at that time. I have before me, but I am not going to use it, an article that appeared in the Windsor daily Star. If the hon. member were here I might use it because it deals with that matter, too.
My colleagues, Mr. Speaker, will deal with the various matters with which I have not dealt.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What is to be dealt with?


John George Diefenbaker: I have not too greatly exceeded the length of time taken by the Leader of the Opposition.


Lionel Chevrier: But you got lost several times.


John George Diefenbaker: We have our problems, and they are joint problems. We have tried to meet those problems honestly and fairly. Yes, I will quote from the Windsor daily Star:
We don't know what the outcome of the next election will be. We do know that the majority of the campaign promises made by the Tories have been carried out.
If one looks around the world, one sees the situation in the United Kingdom today. There, with the opening of parliament, strong men having strong views expressed them. In the United States, in Australia and in other countries they have gone through similar difficulties.
The party in power has made blunders-they all do. But so far, there has been no pipe line "closure", no horses on the army payroll and-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Your horses are in the
Senate.


John George Diefenbaker: -no contempt for the people shown by many Liberals who held power for more than 20 years and now brand as stupid those Canadians who sincerely felt it was time for a change. In this man's opinion, the major weakness of the opposition, has been its willingness to be cry-babies, destructive critics but weak on solutions.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have had the opportunity on former occasions, Mr. Speaker, to follow the Prime Minister in the throne speech debate and have often wondered what hour I might get in. On this occasion I almost wondered which day I was going to get in. The hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) has just said I was lucky to get in at all, that the Prime Minister might have taken up the whole of the eight days in view of the reduction in the length of time allowed for the debate. Well, in any event, we have had the longest speech that the Prime Minister has yet delivered in the House of Commons.


Léon Balcer: And the best.


Hazen Robert Argue: But, so far as setting forth an economic program for the full development of Canadian resources, it has been the most barren. Our country has stagnated under the Conservative government in the last few years, and there has been more unemployment in this post-war period than in any similar period since the end of the war. We have already had statistics placed on the record showing by way of real per capita income how our country has been standing still, and in some years slipping backwards.
If one relates the loss of any increase in real incomes in Canada, then I would suggest that on a per capita basis Canadians have been losing at least $40 to $50 per year in incomes each and every year that this government has been in office. In 1957 real per capita purchasing power in Canada, based on constant 1949 dollars was $1,437. In the next year, 1958, this had dropped to $1,414, a decrease of $23. The year 1959 was almost the same, with more stagnation, more marking down, more indecision and ineffectiveness on the part of the government. Per capita income then was just $1,426, a meagre increase of $12, and in 1960 it was $1,425, a drop of $1 per person in real per capita purchasing power. The figures for 1961 are not available but the change in the gross national product, which would indicate an increase of some 1.3 per cent in real incomes, is still inadequate and is a very small increase in the real standards of living.
Before the Conservative government took office one heard criticism from time to time by working people that they were paying too much into the unemployment insurance fund, and they were objecting to paying into a fund that seemed to be getting larger and larger and larger. They asked why they should contribute to it since it always seemed to be growing; but now that criticism has ended. When this government came into office the fund began to wither away. So much unemployment created such a tremendous drain on the fund

that a surplus of $926 million on December 31, 1956, is apparently in imminent danger of being wiped out altogether.
What does the government say about this. In the throne speech it is stated:
My government will also ask you to appropriate monies required in the unemployment insurance fund to safeguard the rights of workers until the report of the special committee inquiring into the unemployment insurance program has been received and can be acted upon.
That is an indication of a further $1 billion cost by this government to the people of Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has followed a regular procedure since taking office in allowing the Governor General the most meagre latitude in presenting the speech from the throne, after which the Prime Minister comes into the house and, day after day, speech after speech, does his best to garner the greatest possible amount of publicity. This year has been no exception. The Prime Minister has been doing it in stages. He was able to get in his prepared text last night before six o'clock and thus was able to scoop the news. He was able to get in more announcements in the evening and also some announcements this morning, but what he did not tell us is by what means the Canadian economy will be called upon to meet the many worth-while expenditures which he has announced.
He has given us one side of the financial ledger. He has said these are some of the expenditures his government is recommending. I am not objecting to the expenditures; I am in favour of them, but he has not been candid with the Canadian people when he has not told us how these expenditures in general would be met. One would expect the Minister of Finance to do so in a budget, and I suggest this government owes it to the Canadian people to present a budget in this parliament before an election is announced.
We are in favour of the legislation that the Prime Minister has announced and which is designed to bring about certain improvements which we have advocated for many years, and we are prepared today, tomorrow, and for the balance of the eight-day throne speech debate to set aside the regular business of the house so that we can go ahead with some of the measures that have been announced.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) decides when the election will be held. We suggest that the legislation that has been forecast should be presented to parliament immediately so that the Canadian people will be assured that these measures are on the statute books.
We suggest further that the government should present its budget. When it has
The Address-Mr. Argue presented the legislation forecast and the budget, we shall then welcome an election or as soon thereafter as the government may care to call it. But we do not want any repetition of promises. We feel the Canadian public have a right to know how the moneys will be raised to meet the many important expenditures that are being announced.
Much has been said in this debate about Canada's position in external trade and the handling of the discussions with the United Kingdom surrounding the United Kingdom's proposal to join the European common market. Two different approaches have been taken. One thing is certain, the United Kingdom's plan to join the European common market does bring into very serious question the ability of Canada to hold the United Kingdom market for important products in the years ahead.
I have a publication here credited to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) and circulated through his department. It points out that the European common market will have very high tariffs against many Canadian products-a tariff against Canadian wheat of 20 per cent; against flour of 30 per cent; against tobacco of 30 per cent; against plywood of 15 per cent; against maple flooring of 10 per cent, and so on, right through many products that are most important to Canada's welfare.
This is the context in which the government is negotiating with the United Kingdom with regard to its entry into the European common market. We do not know what the outcome of these negotiations will be. We feel that it does in fact threaten the economic future of the Canadian nation. We feel there has to be some association of Canada with the European common market so that this huge market, this market of western nations, this market where standards of living are increasing, will be available to Canadian products.
We point out strongly that Canada had an opportunity in October, 1957 to do something about this question of our success in holding the United Kingdom market, when the free trade offer to Canada was made by the United Kingdom. We had a chance then to get into a common market between the United Kingdom and Canada. We had a chance then to secure the market in the United Kingdom for Canadian products. This government muffed the chance. This government failed. This government was too shortsighted to enunciate a policy. Following this, Britain has come to the conclusion that it has no choice but to join the European common market. Whatever serious repercussions may follow for Canadian trade, much of the blame can be laid at the doorstep of this administration which

The Address-Mr. Argue failed to take appropriate action when the far reaching proposal of a free trade area between the United Kingdom and Canada was made.
There are many things in the speech from the throne with which we agree. There are many things that need further clarification. There is one statement which reads as follows:
My government will ask you to take steps to ensure that the forthcoming redistribution of electoral districts is made in an equitable manner upon an objective basis.
We have heard a great deal about independent bodies. I take it the Prime Minister is suggesting that the method for the redistribution of seats in the House of Commons will be taken out of the hands of the House of Commons and given, at least in the first stages, to a so-called independent body. Let us hope it is independent. Let us hope it is not loaded with a bunch of Tory politicians. It is fine to say we are going to have an independent body. We shall look at the personnel of the independent body when it is appointed and if we think it is independent, we shall be pleased.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that if he wants an independent body he should have consultation with the other political parties in this country to try to work out an approved board or commission which will not be merely a plaything or in danger of being a plaything of the government, but will in fact have the confidence of the members of all parties in the house.


An hon. Member:: Put Lamontagne on it.


Hazen Robert Argue: We suggest also that in making this proposal the Prime Minister has failed to say what will happen in Saskatchewan. We read that Saskatchewan is likely to lose four seats.


An hon. Member:: A poor government out there.


Hazen Robert Argue: Somebody says, "A poor government out there". Will any measure be taken by this government or will any proposal be put before parliament that will reduce the loss to Saskatchewan in any redistribution that will take place? That is important. That question has not been answered. A former administration did something to reduce the loss of seats in that province. One would expect nothing less from the Prime Minister, who comes from Saskatchewan, than was given to that province by way of protection by a former administration.
We hear a great deal about national unity and it behoves all of us in the House of Commons to do everything we can to bring about

a sense of national unity and of national purpose in this country. We would be blind if we did not realize that in the province of Quebec there are important sections which feel they should go the whole way by becoming a separate nation and withdrawing from confederation, which in my judgment has proven so successful in most respects over the years.
What is this government doing to suggest to the people of Quebec, to those whose mother tongue is French, that they have equal rights in our nation? I cannot say whether there is anything in the press reports that there was a paragraph in the speech from the throne that was to make the announcement that legislation would be brought in to provide bilingual cheques. It is said by the people in Quebec who take rather extreme views on certain of these questions that this will do very little to bring about their renewed confidence in confederation. That may be right. But why hesitate on a small matter-if this is a relatively small matter-with regard to the things necessary to bring about greater unity in our country? Parliament passed a bill on second reading on January 31, 1958 to provide for this, with only nine members opposing it. Is it significant that every single one was a Conservative? Why has not action been taken to bring about this very simple step forward of bilingual cheques?
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose for the luncheon recess I was saying that the government had not moved forward in such a way as to give proper recognition of the bicultural nature of this country. The journey of the cabinet to Quebec city has already been highlighted in this debate. Very little came of that journey. One of the things that Canadians looked for was a recognition by the Prime Minister that members of the cabinet from the province of Quebec should take a more leading role. Consider the representation from the province of Quebec in this cabinet. We find one cabinet minister in the front row and five in the second. With the possible exception of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer), who is not known to be particularly close to the Prime Minister, the people of the province of Quebec see their ministers in possession of very junior portfolios. I suggest this is one of the ways in which the Prime Minister has failed to give

proper recognition to the people of Quebec and to the bicultural and bilingual nature of our country.
The Prime Minister announced this morning that we are to see some increase in the old age pensions-an increase of $10 a month. That is welcome. It is long overdue. The policy of this party in this regard is clear. We say the minimum pension should be $75 a month and that on the basis of this minimum should be built up an adequate pension system. We thought this was perhaps what the government had in mind but it appears from the letter addressed to the premier of Ontario, which was tabled, that the government does not have in mind a general, comprehensive old age retirement plan but rather a plan in which a further means test will be used-a plan which will not embrace in any way those who are now covered by private pensions. We shall have some further remarks to make on this subject if and when the government gives us the advantage of seeing this legislation. As we see it now from the details contained in the letter, it would appear to be inadequate in many respects.
We regret that at this session the government has failed to move forward in the field of health insurance. I have an amendment which I wish to move at the conclusion of my remarks and this will make it clear that we feel the government should be moving forward to provide a prepaid medical care program for Canadians.
The Prime Minister spent some time dealing with the government's program for agriculture. He repeated time and time again in his presentation that the government program for agriculture was designed to assist the small farmer. I suggest that the general, overall program for agriculture is inadequate. It is hesitant and it does nothing to help farmers even small farmers in any particular fashion. I ask the Prime Minister: where are the deficiency payments for hogs? These were promised. We even had legislation. Where are the deficiency payments for eggs? The last was made in the fall of 1960. Egg prices have been scandalously low and still are scandalously low. Many farmers have marketed hogs and obtained prices less than the government's stated prices. What the government has done, through the Agricultural Prices Support Act, is to place these products on the open market and let the prices go as low as the market will allow. Where is the support price for poultry? There is no effective support price for hogs, eggs or poultry yet these are the products which many small farmers produce and in respect of which they desire support by way of price stabilization.
How does the government's program to take feed grain away from the wheat board 26207-1-7
The Address-Mr. Argue help small farmers? It has, in fact, worked to the detriment of small farmers by making it impossible for the wheat board to control the sale of feed grains. As far as all farmers are concerned, this government is following the same course as it has in so many other fields-a lot of legislation, a lot of words, a lot of window dressing but very little by way of real benefit.
The Prime Minister says we are going to get some acreage payments. The day parliament opened he said he wanted the debate on the speech from the throne set aside at an early date. Then he talked for two days. We could have dealt with this matter yesterday, but he was talking. We could have taken it today, but he was still talking. He has not even said he would act tomorrow. Apparently he has changed his mind; he thinks there is no hurry now. The speech from the throne says that these payments are to be made because there was a drought. The matter is put in these words:
The drought in the prairie provinces during 1961 has resulted in severe losses, however, and you will he asked to provide assistance by means of acreage payments to the farmers who have been affected.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) comes into the house and in the light of the statement in the speech from the throne says that the acreage payments are to be in compensation for a two price system. Which is it? Or should I venture to suggest that there are going to be two acreage payments? There should be, one because there has been a drought-that is what the speech from the throne says-and the other because there should be compensation for the low price of wheat going into the domestic market.
The drought did not happen this winter; it happened last summer. The Prime Minister went out to check on the crop situation. He flew out and landed somewhere in northern Saskatchewan. He apparently looked at one or two crops of wheat and he issued a statement. He said that he was very pleased that crop conditions were not nearly as bad as he had expected. He landed where there was a crop but he did not go to the southern part the province where, throughout many areas, the yield was zero. There was no crop at all.
He sent the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) out a little later to check on the crop. Where did he go? He landed at Riceton and the television cameras were there, these press and television people who never look after the Minister of Agriculture according to the minister. They were right with him. They went to the farm of Gordon Brown of Riceton and the minister had his picture taken, in a dry area where many farmers had no crop, in front of a 20,000 bushel pile of wheat.

The Address-Mr. Argue This tremendous publicity was spread across Canada. I am sure a lot of people in eastern Canada thought that the farmers of western Canada were simply crying once again and said to themselves, "Look at the great crop". Because the weather was hot the Minister of Agriculture had his picture taken with his shirt off. He may lose more than his shirt in the weeks ahead, but all this was very misleading propaganda.
The Minister of Agriculture then said and the Prime Minister agreed that the reason for not making acreage payments then was that the wheat board machinery was so busy turning out cheques for the farmers. If you want a laugh, that is all you have to tell the farmers. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture did not say as they should have that the wheat board could not print the cheques because there was no money. Surely it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary control of the purse that parliament has to vote the money first whether or not the machinery to print the cheques is working. Parliament was not asked last fall to provide the money. The Minister of Agriculture says that the machinery has broken down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The whole government has.


Mr, Argue:: The machinery might have worked overtime. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that here we have more misleading statements and further lack of action. Belatedly the Prime Minister now says, "We will do it; we will set aside the business of the house". The opposition say, "fine, let us do it immediately", but last night the leader of the house said, "Well, there is time; we will do it later".
We want action in this field and we want it now. I suggest that there should be a further and substantial increase in prairie farm assistance payments to compensate for crop failure, as well as the acreage payments to which the Prime Minister has referred.
The government takes credit for selling a lot of wheat and a lot of wheat has been sold. But other countries are doing fairly well too. Australia has been selling wheat to China. From December 1, 1960, to October 28, 1961, Australia sold 71 million bushels of wheat to China. In a much longer period, Canada sold 51 million bushels of wheat to China. Australia has done better. In the case of India, Australia sold 14 million bushels of wheat within that period of time while in the last crop year Canada sold less than 4 million bushels.
In the face of this kind of record the Minister of Agriculture was in Rome and he was going to go to the iron curtain countries. It has already been placed on the record by


Victor Mackie of the Winnipeg Free Press that the Minister of Agriculture said he did not have time to sell any wheat because the Prime Minister wanted him to come home and go out on the hustings to make political campaign speeches across the country.
China has not bought any flour under the agreement. When some of us suggested that this was not a firm contract the government said, "Certainly it is a firm contract; China will take it". But China has not taken any flour. Mr. Mackie quotes the Minister of Agriculture as using these words:
It is our attitude that there is no breach of contract by the Chinese if they do not take flour.
In other words, there would be no breach of contract if they did not take anything, because there was no contract. It was merely an exchange of letters which would result in a sale of wheat if the price is right, if we have the wheat, and if China wants it. There is a great job to be done in continuing to sell our wheat and I suggest that the Prime Minister would have been much better advised if he had allowed the Minister of Agriculture to go behind the iron curtain to continue to try to sell more wheat even to iron curtain countries, even to countries to which this government provides no diplomatic recognition.
What is the government doing for the small farmers? They said they were going to do a great deal. So far we have had no acreage payments. So far the debate on the speech from the throne has not been set aside to provide such payments. They say they have protected the farmers by their crop insurance scheme. In 1961 because of the drought net income from agriculture in the province of Saskatchewan fell to $122 million from $354 million, a drop of two thirds in one year because of the crop failure.
Where is the crop insurance plan? Oh, it is on the statute books. You can read it. It is there. It sounds good but very few farmers are able to afford it. The rates are too high. In the province of Manitoba about 25 per cent of the farmers are under the scheme. In Saskatchewan only 197 farmers out of
100,000	felt last year that they could afford the premiums under the act. There is little possibility of this legislation being used in any comprehensive way unless further and substantial amendments are made by the government so that the premiums may be reduced and so that there will be a reinsurance feature in order that in a time of widespread crop failure the costs may be borne not merely by provincial governments but also in some measure by the federal

government. We have had a lot of window dressing and a lot of things are being said, but not much is being done.
We had a controversy in the house last year, Mr. Speaker, about a certain pamphlet printed by the Department of Agriculture entitled "ARDA". It was distributed before the legislation was passed by the house. It was such a wonderful program that they distributed the literature on it early. The resolution was presented in the house on December 15, 1960. The minister was going to act. He was in a hurry. On May 22, 1961, he said, as found on page 5195 of Hansard:
-I hope in this year 1961, a minimum of at least one tentative agreement in each province for at least one pilot area and, I hope, several in each province.
My information is that not one agreement has been signed, not one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Too busy on the hustings.


Hazen Robert Argue: But the literature is printed and propaganda is spread across the country. Apparently the government is more interested in propaganda in respect of their legislation than they are in actually doing anything. ARDA was introduced in the house in December, 1960, and up to now, January 1962, not one single tentative agreement has been signed. The government just appointed the director a few weeks ago. You see, Mr. Speaker, as long as the propaganda is in the offices of the agricultural representatives across the country and the government can spread their propaganda before the election, the small farmers about whom the Prime Minister waxes so eloquently can go without any of the benefits that might otherwise be available to them under the Agriculture Rehabilitation and Development Act. We are looking for action. There has been a profuse amount of window dressing but in many respects that I have detailed this afternoon this government has failed the small farmers, to say nothing of intermediate or larger farmers. We shall await further statements from the government. But if the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) wishes these payments to be made, they can be put through this house without any further delay.
In the face of all the failings of the government that I have enumerated, Mr. Speaker, I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge):
That the amendment be amended by inserting the following words after the word 'country':
"including the failure to promote the planned development of our resources, sound monetary, fiscal, investment and trade policies which will develop our economy so as to provide:
1.	expanding export markets for agricultural and industrial production;
26207-1-7i
The Address-Mr. Hees
2.	full employment;
3.	and, in co-operation with the provinces, a prepaid medical care program for all Canadians; and for these reasons"
The amendment as amended will therefore read as follows:
We respectfully affirm that Your Excellency's advisers, because of their continuing failure to bring forward policies to deal with the real problems confronting this country, including the failure to promote the planned development of our resources, sound monetary, fiscal, investment and trade policies which will develop our economy so as to provide:
1.	expanding export markets for agricultural and industrial production;
2.	full employment;
3.	and, in co-operation with the provinces a prepaid medical care program for all Canadians; and for these reasons do not deserve the confidence of the House of Commons.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) in congratulating the mover (Mr. Bour-dages) and the seconder (Mr. Browne, Van-couver-Kingsway), of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I feel sure that all hon. members of the house will agree that they did an excellent job. They spoke clearly, concisely and objectively. I am sure that the people in their constituencies will feel as proud of them as we who are members of the same party felt of them on Friday afternoon.
Judging by the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the C.C.F. party, there is a distinct lack of knowledge on the part of the opposition with regard to the soundness of the Canadian economy today, and of our economic prospects for this year which we are just entering. Hence I thought that I should like to take a few minutes of the time of the house, Mr. Speaker, in order to speak about economic matters under five headings, namely
(1) economic indicators which show the progress which our economy has made during the past year; (2) what the government has done, and is doing, to assist our producers; (3) Britain's negotiations for entering the common market; (4) the progress which our economy has made since we formed the government in 1957; and (5) the economic outlook for 1962.
First of all, then, I should like to speak about the economic indicators which show where our economy has been going during the past year. The figures I shall quote are from the dominion bureau of statistics, and in every case are the latest figures available from the bureau.
1.	Gross National Product: In the third quarter of 1961, the gross national product

The Address-Mr. Hees reached a high of $37.4 billion on a seasonally adjusted basis. This was an increase of nearly $1 billion from its second quarter level, and represents a gain of 4 per cent over the same period a year earlier.
2.	Consumer Spending: Consumer spending continued upward during the past year, and in the third quarter, was 4 per cent higher than in the third quarter a year ago.
3.	Exports: Exports of goods and services advanced at an accelerated pace during the past year, rising by 2 per cent from the first to the second quarter, and by 6 per cent from the second to the third quarter. As the Prime Minister pointed out in his very eloquent and able presentation to the house, merchandise exports for the first ten months of the year showed an increase of 7.2 per cent from the same period a year earlier. In the latest three months comparison, the increase was twice as great, namely 14 per cent.
4.	Industrial Production:	A substantial
advance has taken place in industrial production since March of 1961, and during the last three months for which figures are available- August, September and October-the index of industrial production was 6 per cent higher than a year earlier.
5.	Personal Incomes: The trend in total personal income gathered strength as the pace of business quickened during the year. Following a moderate increase in the second quarter, personal income moved up strongly in the third quarter and reached a level 4 per cent higher than in the third quarter a year ago.
6.	Labour Income: A principal factor in the stronger income trend has been the rapid increase in labour income. Labour earnings increased 4 per cent during the 12 months between October 1960 and October 1961, and in the latest three months were 5 per cent higher.
7.	Corporate Profits:	Corporate profits,
which are particularly sensitive to changes in business conditions, have shown a rapid acceleration in 1961, and in the third quarter, were 10 per cent higher than a year earlier.
8.	Employment: The total of those with jobs rose 1.6 per cent in 1961 in comparison with 1960. In the October-December period there was an increase of more than 2 per cent, and in December alone an increase of 3 per cent. These increases have been accounted for principally by the upsurge in manufacturing, and in the latest three months manufacturing employment showed a 6 per cent increase.
9.	Unemployment: The trend in unemployment has been gradually downward since the beginning of 1961. By August, the number of unemployed persons had fallen below the level of a year earlier, and in December, was

18 per cent lower than in December a year ago. People who were unemployed in December were 115,000 fewer in number than in December a year ago.
10.	Cost of Living: It is well known that in periods of rapid economic expansion heavy upward pressure is exerted on the level of prices and hence on the cost of living. For example, between 1949 and 1961 the index of consumer prices rose by 29 per cent, or an average of 2.4 per cent per year. It is most gratifying to note, therefore, that during the first 11 months of 1961 while the government's program of national economic development was building up, the consumer price index rose by only .8 per cent or one third of the average yearly increase during the previous 12 years.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to outline the steps which the government has taken to help our producers achieve the very satisfactory results I have just mentioned.
1.	We have lowered the exchange rate to a more realistic ratio with other world currencies which has had the effect of making Canadian exports more competitive in world markets, has discouraged excessive imports and has provided needed impetus to our tourist industry. The full benefits of this step should be felt increasingly during the year.
2.	We have held trade and industrial conferences in Ottawa and the provinces to bring the services of the Department of Trade and Commerce directly to businessmen in all parts of Canada. By so doing we have stimulated their interest in export trade and helped them to produce more efficiently.
3.	We have greatly expanded our trade mission and trade fair programs to show businessmen the opportunities which exist in foreign markets and help them display their products in these markets. These programs will be pushed forward and expanded during the present year. Businessmen have co-operated enthusiastically in the development of our trade mission program.
4.	We have introduced export credit facilities to provide long term financing for capital goods exports. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) said while he was speaking, sales to date for which contracts have been signed and which were made possible by use of export credits amount to approximately $41 million; credits which have been authorized by the government but for which sales are still being negotiated by the companies concerned, amount to approximately $100 million. Thus, $141 million in all has already been committed of the $200 million made available for long term export financing.

To provide further assistance to Canadian manufacturers of capital equipment and thus expand Canada's foreign trade and increase employment, the government proposes to ask for further legislation to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act, as has been announced in the speech from the throne. I shall, of course, be giving hon. members complete details when the proposed legislation is introduced later this session.
5.	We have greatly expanded the functions of the industrial development bank to provide small and medium sized firms with a larger source of working capital.
6.	We have made available loans to small businesses to release working capital for these small but very important industries which obviously had no alternative source of funds for growth.
7.	We have introduced accelerated depreciation to encourage production of new products and the establishment of new industries in labour surplus areas. Since March of last year the department has approved applications for double depreciation on assets valued at close to $100 million. Sixty per cent of the approved assets relate to firms located in surplus manpower areas and a wide variety of new products will be manufactured with the approved assets. They include new types of steel, chemicals, electronics, plastics, foods, paper, textiles and many other products. At the present time applications for an additional $55 million are being considered by my department.
8.	We have set up the national productivity council to help industry become more competitive and thereby increase sales and provide more jobs.
9.	We have established a national design council and a national design branch within my department to assist Canadian industries with their design problems and by encouraging improved designs make possible more sales and more jobs.
10.	We have introduced a domestic commercial service which is a completely new arm of the department and has been created to help new industry become established and to expand.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak about Britain's application to enter the common market. In recent weeks few subjects have been more in the public mind than the British negotiations with the six member governments of the European economic community with a view to membership. The interest and concern of the Canadian business community regarding this important question is very natural indeed.
The Address-Mr. Hees
Early this month my cabinet colleagues and I enjoyed full and frank dicussions with Mr. Edward Heath, Lord Privy Seal of the British government, who is the minister responsible for Britain's current negotiations with the six. These useful and constructive talks were carried out in a most cordial atmosphere. Mr. Heath informed us of the current developments in the negotiations and stressed the efforts being made by Britain to safeguard the essential trade interests of Canada and other commonwealth countries.
For our part, we welcomed his statement and emphasized the extent and importance of Canadian interests in the British market. We were reassured as a result of this meeting that Great Britain has very much in mind the importance of Canadian trade interests in the United Kingdom and the need to do everything possible to safeguard those interests. We are co-operating closely with the British by providing full and complete information about Canadian interests in the British market in order that their negotiators may be in the best possible position to safeguard our trade interests.
They have asked for relevant data and this we are providing for the whole range of our exports to the United Kingdom. Today we have a group of senior and qualified officials on the spot for this purpose and to reinforce the officials who are already in Brussels and London. The officials concerned include the assistant deputy minister of trade and commerce, responsible for trade policy, and the head of the department's international trade relations branch. As the negotiations evolve we will be ensuring that the right men are in Brussels at the right time to meet the needs as they arise. Our concern is to make sure that the interests of all Canadian producers across the length and breadth of Canada are fully understood by the British. There will be, during the period of the negotiations, the closest co-operation between the British and Canadian governments.
I should like now, Mr. Speaker, to take a few moments to give a comparison of key indicators which show how the Canadian economy has progressed since 1956, the last year that a Liberal government held office. I will mention ten specific indicators. The first is total employment. In 1956 the total number of jobs amounted to 5,703,000; in November, 1961, 6,115,000, an increase of
452.000	jobs or an average of approximately
100.000	new jobs each year since this government took office. This represents an increase of 8 per cent in employment. Second, there is the gross national product. In 1956
98	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Hees the gross national product amounted to $30.6 billion; in 1961, the annual rate in the third quarter was $37.4 billion, an increase of $6.8 billion or 22 per cent. Dealing with exports, merchandise only, in 1956 the total was $4.8 billion and in 1961, taking the latest 12 months as October, 1960, to October 1961, they were $5.7 billion, an increase of $900 million, or 19 per cent.
For imports, merchandise only, the figure in 1956 was $5.5 billion, and in 1961-the latest 12 months-$5.7 billion, an increase of $200 million. Those figures show how this government during the past four and a half years has achieved the first positive trade balance since 1952.
Total personal income in 1956 was $21.9 billion, and in 1961 the annual rate, third quarter, was $28.7 billion, an increase of $6.8 billion, which is an increase of 30 per cent.
Labour income in 1960 was $14.9 billion and in 1961 the annual rate, third quarter, was $19.5, an increase of $4.6 billion, or an increase of 30 per cent.
Corporation profits in 1956 were $2.91 billion and in 1961 the annual rate, third quarter, $3.55 billion, an increase of $640 million, or 22 per cent.
With regard to the industrial production index, October, 1949 is taken as 100. The index in 1956 was 155 and in 1961 it had risen to 177, a gain of 22 points, or an increase of 14 per cent in industrial production.
Consumer spending in 1956 was $18.8 billion and in 1961 the annual rate, third quarter, was $24.6 billion, an increase of $5.8 billion, or 30 per cent.
Total personal savings in 1956 amounted to $1.3 billion while in 1961 the annual rate, third quarter, was $1.7 billion, an increase of $400 million, or 30 per cent. These figures, Mr. Speaker, I believe make it clear how the economy has fared under this government and show how it has grown steadily and at the present time is in a very strong and satisfactory condition.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Are you satisfied? I
wonder would the minister permit me to ask him a question?


George Harris Hees: I will after I finish speaking, as I have only a limited time. I would be pleased to answer any questions afterwards.
Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition quoted certain newspapers when trying to run down Canada and prove in some way that our economy is not sound, trying as I take it to discourage investment in our country-because that is the effect of what


he did. We know the reason why he says these things is to try to convince the electorate that the economy is not in good shape, which is not the case. The Leader of the Opposition quoted certain foreign newspapers. I, however, would like to quote not from an English newspaper or others published outside Canada, but from newspapers which are published in our own country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The servile press.


George Harris Hees: I quote from the Financial Post of January 20, the latest issue, and this I believe is an objective newspaper which certainly has never done anything to bolster the fortunes of the Conservative party and has never been opposed, as I know it, to the Liberal party. On its front page it carries the heading:
The OUTLOOK-Weekly roundup of the latest facts and expert opinion on the economic weather ahead . . .
In this article Mr. Dalton Robertson says the following:
Three recent developments in the Canadian economy-in goods, in men, in money-reflect the burgeoning expansion of business and hold out the prospect of good times through 1962.
Canada's unemployment situation is sharply healthier than it was six months ago or a year ago.
At mid-December, seasonal factors discounted, only 6.1 per cent of the work force was unemployed. This compares with 7.4 per cent as recently as last July and a record high of 7.9 per cent a year earlier.
With the underlying trend in unemployment downward throughout 1961-in contrast to upward through 1960-it is clear that the business recovery is broadening and strengthening in the places where it counts most.
The forcefulness of the upturn in business activity shows in these bright facts:
Unemployments increase between November and December-or between September and December for that matter-is the smallest in any of the past five years. At the same time, the seasonal decline in employment between November and December is one of the smallest on record.
The 180,000 increase in employment over the past year is proportionally equal for both men and women-distinct contrast with the year-to-year increase in 1960 when almost all of the advance was in female workers getting relatively low-paid jobs.
Employment in manufacturing is up by 80,000 to 90,000 in the year-whereas in 1960, jobs in manufacturing, where the pay is highest, were on the decline.
These increases in manufacturing and, to a lesser extent, in construction employment have led to a reduction in unemployment among men. By contrast: A year ago, the increases in total employment were due to the flow of new women workers into the labour force-while slackness in manufacturing was causing lay-offs among men workers.
These trends suggest a number of good things are in store for Canada. With more family breadwinners back at the better-paying jobs, retail sales stand to make substantial gains in 1962. With a rise in total consumer spending, the whole economy will get an extra forward push.

That, Mr. Speaker, is a very objective opinion on our economy, a very thoughtful opinion indeed.
Finally, I would like to speak about the economic outlook for the year we are just beginning. The Canadian economy is entering a new period of sound expansion and in my recent travels across the country I have found that our producers are approaching the new year with confidence and optimism. I believe that the program of national economic development which was initiated by the government more than a year ago has made a substantial contribution to our fortunes. However, it is our businessmen, our industrial workers, our farmers, our fishermen, our lumbermen, our miners, and other primary producers with their enterprise, ingenuity and skill who have made our economy move steadily forward. They have our gratitude and admiration and we look forward to working with them in the year ahead, as we have worked together in the year that has just ended.
If we can achieve that essential co-operation between management and labour, which is so necessary to make our products competitive in an increasingly competitive world, there are no heights of economic progress which we cannot reach. With government, labour and management working together as a team we can, and I believe we will, make 1962 the most prosperous year this country has ever known.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I wish to congratulate the mover and seconder of the motion in reply to the speech from the throne. They did well; they made a very worth-while contribution to this debate. They told us something about their own constituencies, for which we are all grateful. They also made valiant efforts to defend the inadequacies of this government. In this they did very well, but I think the government will need all the defence they can muster in order to present themselves in a good light to the people.
I listened to the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees). There were several fallacies in his arguments. He talked about the increase in production. He did not say anything about the increase in the total Canadian per capita production. He did not compare like with like, because on one occasion he referred to the production for three months and compared the increase in those three months to the production for the whole of a previous year.


George Harris Hees: No, you are a little wrong. You will learn when you read Hansard.
The Address-Mr. McMillan


William Hector McMillan: In the last two or three months the members of the government have shown that they have an uneasy feeling that they are not selling themselves well to the people. I notice the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) said that the people have not been told of the great accomplishments of this government. They have had four and a half years in which to bring about these great accomplishments. There have been accomplishments of a kind and in the two months before Christmas members of this government fanned out across the country and tried to resell themselves to the people on these accomplishments.
Any group of salesmen can easily sell products with exaggerated promises of high performance, but the second or third time around, they will find the going a little rough. So, too, with the members on the treasury benches opposite. As salesmen they are finding the going tougher and tougher because the results that they have given to the Canadian people have been so poor.
In Windsor, Nova Scotia, the Minister of Public Works had this to say:
The Liberals were in power for 22 years and it seems that a strong Liberal bias has been built up in most of the press, and broadcasting, as you must all realize daily.
Then I saw a reference to something the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) had said after his historic visit to the Citadel in Quebec. He referred to the press as a servile press. During and after the pipe line debate I do not know of any other government in Canadian history that was rolled around more by the press, radio and television than the St. Laurent government. Mr. St. Laurent defended his government. That was natural. But he never uttered a word of resentment because his government was being criticized. Certainly I never saw anything published in the press to the effect that he resented this criticism.
If democracy is to survive we must have freedom of the press; we must have freedom of dissemination of news among our people and we must have this whether or not we like it at the time.
We have come to a new year and the government is now embarking upon a set of new proposals to help us cure our ills. Before giving consideration to these proposals as contained in the speech from the throne I thought it might be well to go back to 1961 in retrospect because events and measures that were taken in that year were harbingers of things to come in this year.
100	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. McMillan
According to the press, the Prime Minister said in Ottawa on December 20:
It has been a wonderful year for me. I look back on the year with a good deal of pleasure, both personally and politically.
I am glad the Prime Minister had a wonderful year personally, but I think that many people in Canada and many of his followers would be much more satisfied if he had had a better year politically.
The year 1961 began and ended on a rather comic opera note, with a great deal of tragedy thrown in between for the Canadian people. I have tabulated month by month a few items of political significance that caused dismay and suffering among our people. They also caused a loss of prestige to our government both at home and abroad. In January, for instance, the Prime Minister went down to Washington to sign the Columbia river treaty during the dying days of the Eisenhower administration. He did not at that time have a signed agreement with the government of British Columbia, the government most vitally interested. In a similar situation, when the St. Lawrence seaway project was developed, Ontario and the state of New York joined to develop this power and before signing any international agreement with the United States Mr. St. Laurent had an agreement signed with the province of Ontario.
The failure of the government to do this has brought about all kinds of complicated negotiations between them and the government of British Columbia. These negotiations have had a comic aspect although they should be of grave concern to all Canadians and especially the people of British Columbia.
We have had the spectacle of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) and the premier of British Columbia playing hide and seek with one another in Vancouver and Victoria. Also, the Minister of Justice, in a speech in his native province of British Columbia, denounced Premier Bennett and caused an international incident by denouncing Mr. Udall, secretary of the interior of the United States, at the same time.
On another occasion, to assure us that there was some harmony at least between the two governments and that they were not completely on a war footing, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) came into this house and said that the premier of British Columbia had gretted him with the words, "Hello, Columbia". The Columbia river is carried forward as unfinished business into 1962.
February of last year has a record for that month. At mid-month we had 719,000 people unemployed, 12,000 more than February of the previous year. The Prime Minister and the ministers on the treasury benches did not


consider that unemployment was a problem at all in Canada until parliament was called into session the previous November. What is worse the measures taken to stimulate the economy at that time in order to increase employment were inadequate.
In March another record was established and this record was not a pleasant one for the taxpayers of Canada. In that month the Minister of Finance tabled the estimates and we learned for the first time that our budgetary spending would be over $6 billion despite the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) had told the House of Commons that our expenditures would be cut by the elimination of waste and extravagance.
In April another record was set. Canadian National Railways posted the highest deficit in its history, a deficit of $67,500,000. Car-loadings have always been considered an indication of the state of our economy. Ever since this government came to power car-loadings have been down. They have been down every month compared with the corresponding month of 1956, the last year when the previous administration was in office. Not only have they been down as compared with corresponding months in the year 1956 but they are, generally, down as compared with corresponding months during worsening years of Tory rule, though there have been only one or two monthly exceptions.
In May this government put the wheels in motion to fire governor Coyne from the Bank of Canada. They did this contrary to all those high ideals of justice expressed in the immortal words of the bill of rights. I think nothing has done more harm to our prestige abroad than this particular action taken by the government at that time.
In June the Minister of Finance brought in his budget. It was a record budget with a record deficit of $650 million. I know the Minister of Finance allowed himself about $50 million leeway each way but the hon. gentleman is always modest about naming the amount of the expected deficit so I think the deficit will, in fact, be higher than this.
In July the Prime Minister talked about an election "sooner or later". He promised we should have one and issued a challenge to the Senate. Unless the Senate would withdraw its amendment to a certain bill which this house had sent to it he would go to the country over the issue of Senate reform.
In August we learned that the Minister of Finance had taken a personal interest in the unemployment insurance fund. He was taking

the hypothecated and depreciated bonds in that fund under protective wing. Now he has nothing to protect. According to the speech from the throne the taxpayers of Canada are to be allowed to make up the loss in that fund arising from mishandling and poor investment.
In this month also the people were becoming aware that we were buying United States interceptor planes. They could recall the closing down of our plant at Malton. They could recall also that at that time the completed planes were cut up into little pieces with a blow torch so as to conceal the evidence of the ingenuity, the high degree of workmanship and the productivity of Canadian workmen. The end result was a loss to Canada of valuable skilled workmen and a loss of many jobs in Canadian industry.
In September there was the Accra commonwealth conference when the government took exception to Britain joining the common market. We heard all about the published and the unpublished documents. We heard both the official and the unofficial statements made by our two ministers at that conference. After so much criticism the Minister of Finance came up with what I thought was a most novel idea. He said he was using these tactics in order to help Britain at the Brussels conference. This contention is certainly not borne out by the press in Britain. The London Times said the Canadian government was playing politics. The London Spectator said the Canadian government had no business telling Britain how to run her economy when they had made such a mess of their own.
In October the news stressed the division in the cabinet concerning the use of nuclear warheads in air defence and particularly concerning the warheads proposed to be used in the Bomarc bases. The Bomarc bases are nearing completion and some decision on this question should be reached by the government. At the present time should an occasion arise for the use of these bases we have nothing on hand as warheads except some sawdust and sand. I realize there is a difference of opinion in Canada as to whether we should have nuclear warheads or not but I think our government should take a stand. In my opinion it is irresponsible for the government to do otherwise; refusal to reach a decision is in my opinion indefensible.
In November, the dominion bureau of statistics reported that immigration was down by one third. We have since learned that during the full year 1961 more people left Canada than entered it. Many of those who left Canada were young, well trained Canadians who went elsewhere because they found 26207-1-8
The Address-Mr. McMillan better opportunities were available. Many others who left had come to this country only recently as immigrants. I knew some of them. They could not get jobs and they went back to their home countries. We are, in effect, exporting some of our unemployed. In the same month the Manchester Guardian contended in an editorial that Canada was bringing discredit upon itself as a result of a decision to make public issue of the secret speech by Mr. Heath to the common market in Brussels.
December is the comic opera month, because in that month we heard about the proposed firing of the Minister of Finance. We heard about the great shuffle in the cabinet that never came off. We heard about the great journey of the cabinet to Quebec. Then there was the aftermath. We heard the reference of the Prime Minister to the servile press and then there was the mutual glorification meeting in Toronto when the Prime Minister referring to the Minister of Finance said that no man could be more loyal or devoted. The Minister of Finance, of course, had to reply in turn that the Prime Minister was one of the greatest men of our time.
Then the Minister of Finance went to Montreal and he called all this big Liberal lies.


An hon. Member:: So they are.


William Hector McMillan: It is all Gilbert and Sullivan type opera without the music. This government has given us little leadership. It has made few definite decisions and it has played politics to the full. They think more about getting votes than they think about the welfare of the country. Surely this is a government that acts on impulse. We have government by impulse.
As 1962 rolled in the printing presses were busy printing new money, and I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is the most serious domestic problem of all at the present time. Our fiscal and monetary policy is basic to the welfare of all Canadians. We will have more to say about monetary policy shortly.
I have often criticised the government. At the time of the conversion loan I predicted that among its effects would be the following: it would tend to stagnate trade and cause unemployment, it would increase taxes at all levels of government for a generation, it would raise the cost of production and every new home buyer would be saddled with a mortgage at a high interest rate which he would be paying for most of his working years. I also said that it would increase the cost of living. All these things have come about.
102	HOUSE OF
The Address

Mr. McMillan
I said at the same time that the government would always be a prisoner of its mistake at the time of the conversion loan. It is. It has not bothered the government that it has had to increase the gross debt by over $3 billion and our net debt by about $2 billion. They just print new money to cover the debt. It has not bothered the government that they have depleted the unemployment insurance fund completely. They hand the bill to the taxpayers. They think little of going into debt at the rate of $2 million a day every day since the government has been in power. They have shown little concern about loading the head of each family in Canada with an extra $500 in debt. They do not mind paying high interest on interest.
But this all pales into insignificance if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) surrenders completely, and if he continues to do what he is now doing in the Department of Finance with the monetary policy. Since last June the minister has been using the printing presses to debase our currency at the rate of $5i million to $6 million a day, about three times the rate that we are plunging into debt. Debasing or watering down our dollar is something akin to a milkman watering milk. You would be fooled because the dollar and the milk would look the same afterwards but their value would be less.
I realize that where you have economic growth you must have some increase in the money supply. In the early 1950's there were four years when the money supply was increased at an average rate of $400 million a year. Now it increases that much in about as many months or three or four times faster and we have no boom such as we had to finance in those years.
The mechanics of creating new money are simple. The banks buy bonds and they can issue many times the price of those bonds in new credit. The Minister of Finance has resorted to this type of financing because he cannot get the public to buy bonds in the volume that he requires. New money is being created to buy government bonds and the public pays the interest. All economists say that it is a dangerous thing to issue a lot of new money to cover overspending, and this is exactly what we are doing at the present time. We are in a period of inflation. In 1960 even the minister himself had this to say about inflation:
Let us give no quarter to such a defeatist doctrine. Inflation acts like a drug on the economic system. Even small doses breed a craving for more.
I fear that the minister has now become an inflation addict. If the rate of inflation now


current is allowed to go on unabated, I predict dire consequences for the Canadian people. By the minister's own words, he has adopted a defeatist doctrine. The savings of citizens, whether in the banks, insurance, pensions or what not, will rapidly decrease in value if we go on this way. I say that a government that has adopted this defeatist doctrine is a menace to the welfare and future of every man, woman and child in Canada.
I read the correspondence between the minister and the new governor of the Bank of Canada and certainly the new governor does not take any responsibility in connection with the issuing of new money. That is within the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. The new governor stated that his responsibility would be the day to day operation of the bank. When the new governor presents his annual report I think he should be brought before the banking and commerce committee to tell us where we are going. When the Minister of Finance was asked at the time of the Coyne debate last summer why the governor of the Bank of Canada had not been brought before that committee, his reply was to the effect that so far the appeal had only been halfhearted. I think the governor should be brought before the committee this year.
I want to say a few words about the stabilization fund and the price of the Canadian dollar. I read an article in the press in which the Minister of Finance took a good deal of satisfaction from the fact that so little money was required from this fund to hold the Canadian dollar at a discount. After the Coyne affair I never thought it would take very much money to hold our dollar at a discount because of the loss of confidence created by that incident. In fact, lately the minister has had to pour money into the market to prevent our dollar from going too low and already the Canadian taxpayer has been handed a bill of $127 million for the operation of that fund.
The point is that Canada is not now considered by many as a favourable country in which to invest money. In my limited acquaintance I know people in Buffalo, Cleveland and Toledo who used to buy Canadian securities and who now say they would not invest another dollar in Canada. When the Prime Minister went to London in the fall of 1957 he spoke in Albert Hall and there was considerable criticism of him at that time in the British House of Commons. I put some of that criticism on Hansard at that time. Ever since then our prestige in Britain has fallen. This fallen prestige has been caused by the action of this government at the Montreal

conference and at the Accra conference, and because they increased the duty on British woollens and because of the latest row over the secret speech-


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


William Hector McMillan: I have just a little left.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the will of the house that the hon. member should carry on?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: For five minutes.


William Hector McMillan: I wish to thank the house for the courtesy extended to me in allowing me to carry on. I just wished to say something about our prestige abroad. Certainly Canadians in England have a feeling that they are not so welcome in London. You hear taxi drivers and other people talking about our fiscal problems and our other troubles here in Canada. The little people in Europe have become aware of the fact that Canada is in trouble. I found that to be the case in travel agencies and in hotels. I just wish to give two or three instances. While I was in Rome I was in the coliseum and was talking to a man who was selling postcards. When he found out that I was a Canadian he asked me what was wrong with the Canadian government and what was wrong with the Canadian money.


Mr. Ricard:: What did you say?


William Hector McMillan: The same thing happened in Naples. It was necessary for me to stop in Lisbon for two hours while waiting for a plane. I went into a restaurant in order to buy some lunch and as I had no European money, I told the restaurant owner of the situation and he said that it did not matter, that he took any money in the world. However, when I presented him with a Canadian $5 bill he said, "I take any money in the world except Canadian money". While I was there he took British money, French money, Italian lire, United States money and also money from one of the African countries. However, he would not take money from Canada. I think the reason for his refusal to do so is that he "got stuck" with some Canadian money when it fell last year. I know that this does not indicate the value of our money but it indicates that the little people in Europe are getting wise to what we are doing here-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That applies to what the Liberals are doing.
26207-1-8i
The Address-Mr. MacRae


William Hector McMillan: -or rather what this government is doing in Canada. In conclusion may I say that I hope the Minister of Finance does not carry on as he has been doing in the past. I hope he has not sold out, for some members of the financial community look to him to hold the line. However, if he has sold out completely and if he goes on as he has been going and keeps on printing money as he has been doing in the last six months I say "God help Canada and God help the Canadian people".


Mr. J. C. MacRae (York-Sunbury):: My first words, Mr. Speaker, must be to congratulate the mover (Mr. Bourdages) and the seconder (Mr. Browne, Vancouver-Kingsway) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I should also like to congratulate the new Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Flynn), the newly appointed Deputy Speaker-yourself, sir-and the parliamentary secretaries. I would be very remiss also if I did not express to the Speaker of this house what I am sure is the feeling of all of us, namely that we are glad to see him back again in good health presiding over our deliberations with fairness and, it seems to me most important of all, with unfailing good humour.
A few years ago when I first entered this house after the 1957 election, a much wiser and slightly older member of the House of Commons gave to me, as a new member, a piece of advice which I think was extremely sound. He said this: "In your parliamentary life you will find many things in which you could be vitally interested. I would suggest to you that you select three or four of those in which you are most deeply concerned and prosecute those in parliament on every logical and possible occasion. In other words do not spread yourself too thin." Following that advice, I determined that my three major projects as a member of parliament would be- to attempt to raise, if I could in some way, the economic standards of the maritime provinces of Canada; second, to concern myself with legislation concerning education, especially vocational and technical education of our youth; and third, the field of veterans legislation.
In the few minutes that I have at my disposal this afternoon I should like to talk about the first of these matters, namely our maritime economy, its problems and solutions for them.
In 1957, before the election of June 10, those of us who were selected to carry the Conservative banner in Atlantic Canada came together for a momentous meeting under four

The Address-Mr. MacRae extremely able members of our party. Those gentlemen are now the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean), the Solicitor General (Mr. Browne, St. John's West) and the hon. gentleman who is now the senator from Royal but who was formerly the minister of veterans affairs. There we drew up a platform of those things for which we would stand. Over the next few years that particular platform became known popularly as the Atlantic resolutions.
I wish to discuss these resolutions this afternoon because in that election and the next one the right hon. gentleman who is now the Prime Minister of this country promised in my constituency and in others- in fact in all of the maritime constituencies in which he appeared-that these promises would be kept. May I say that those promises have been kept in full measure. I should like to discuss each one of them in turn. The first resolution or the first plank upon which we stood in 1957 stated that there would be:
A national development program of federal assistance for developing the resources of the Atlantic provinces having regard to their different needs and varying financial capabilities.
As a tangible example of action that has been taken under this resolution, our Conservative government and those who supported it can point with pride to the roads to resources which have been built especially in our four maritime provinces. The federal government has provided over $30 million to the Atlantic provinces in this connection. It should be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that roads as such are normally a provincial responsibility. This was something that was done entirely at the expense of the federal government. These roads have opened up formerly inaccessible areas of Atlantic Canada. New airports have been built at St. John's, Gander and Halifax. Just a few days ago I was advised by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) that there was to be constructed at Fredericton a new airport building which, with its related works, will cost almost $1 million. A few years ago, one of the most contentious issues in my own province was the Beechwood power project. The federal government made a loan of $30 million at a low interest rate to New Brunswick for this vital power project. Here is something that I should like to stress, Mr. Speaker. This was a loan which had been consistently denied by the former federal Liberal government.
One of the most vital factors in the Atlantic development is the provision of cheap electrical power. This will attract industry and will put in a competitive position the products

that we are able to manufacture. This is something that was long recognized by the able gentleman who was premier of our province between the years 1952 and 1960 and who is now the genial Minister of Forestry (Mr. Flemming). As a result of his vision and his dynamic leadership, our province is now beginning to feel the full effects of the programs which he instituted and in which, after 1957, he was so generously aided by the Conservative government here in Ottawa.
I notice that the order paper contains a resolution in connection with a national power grid. The governments of the Hon. Hugh John Flemming and the Hon. Robert Stanfield in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were able to show what could be done in this regard when they instituted the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia power grid just a few years ago.
Resolution No. 2 is as follows, and I quote:
Industrial decentralization; by placing a more equitable share of defence contract expenditures within the Atlantic provinces; by the establishment of crown corporations; by encouraging private enterprises to locate in the area; and by encouraging the processing here of our natural resources as a result of special fiscal considerations.
Our able Conservative government has established a small business branch within the Department of Trade and Commerce and this branch is assisting small businesses to participate more fully in defence contracts expenditures. A regional office of the Department of Trade and Commerce has been opened at Halifax and this office assists businessmen in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. A similar office has been maintained for some time in St. John's, Newfoundland. This office will place the entire resources of the Department of Trade and Commerce at the disposal of the maritime business community. We know, too, that the resources of the industrial development bank have been increased from $160 million to $400 million. Many more categories of business are eligible to borrow from this source. Double depreciation allowances are permitted businesses which locate in surplus manpower areas. This has had a very beneficial effect on some areas of the maritimes. The federal government subsidy to the shipbuilding industry is providing many more employment opportunities in the maritimes.
Now, what has been happening more specifically in New Brunswick as a province, and in my constituency in particular? Only recently an electronics plant located in Camp-bellton and it will eventually employ from 1,000 to 1,500 people, thus providing a tremendous boost to the economy of that area. I

know that the industries we have established should be based on the natural resources of our area. The greatest natural resource that we have is our forests. In Grand Falls a plant has been established which will manufacture shoe lasts; a veneer plant has been established in my constituency and a chipboard plant in Milltown, Charlotte county. There are many others.
I should like to quote from the Telegraph Journal of January 9, 1962, and in so doing I am quoting the premier of New Brunswick, a Liberal premier:
New Brunswick experiencing $100 million industrial expansion.
Projects costing $100 million and seen as likely to create at least 7,000 jobs are in definite or tentative planning stages for New Brunswick, mostly in the north and in the Saint John area.
"The future looks very bright," Liberal premier Louis J. Robichaud said in an interview. "I am confident that with co-operation of government and industry we will provide year-round jobs in New Brunswick, proportionately as many as they have in wealthier provinces."
The present Liberal administration in New Brunswick attempts to take some credit for this situation. I want to be fair and I will say they have assisted to some extent within the last year and a half. However, the great bulk of the credit for the establishment of these industries and what is happening in our province today must go to the farsighted policies of Hugh John Flemming and his Conservative government. They were aided nobly after 1957 by the farsighted policies of the Prime Minister of Canada and his able government.
Personally, in so far as public works are concerned, I would rather see a factory started in Fredericton that would give year-round employment to 200 men than all the public buildings that have been built there since confederation. I can well remember sitting in this chamber during the bitter debates after 1957 and I recall when things got too hot for the Liberals they would shout, "Twenty cents a day". Well, I should like to say that 20 cents a day is just four times the amount Mackenzie King said he would never give to any Conservative province in 1935.
You know, in Fredericton we make some of the best shoes in the world. There is the Hartt Shoe Company and the Palmer-McLel-lan Shoe Company. The first major defence contract that has come to the Palmer-McLel-lan Shoe Company in 17 years was awarded this past year, a contract for 42,000 pairs of shoes. During the past year one of the finest agricultural research stations in the whole of Canada has been built in Fredericton at a cost of about $2 million. Camp Gagetown, one of the largest and finest military camps in the
The Address-Mr. MacRae British commonwealth of nations, continues to grow. During 1957 it was said that if the Conservatives were elected this camp would be closed. However, as I have said, it has continued to grow and it is one of the finest camps in the whole of the British commonwealth.
Item No. 3 reads:
Atlantic provinces power development by means of financial assistance for the development of low-cost electric power which would fully preserve the rights of the provinces to build and operate both thermal and hydro installations and transmission lines and by immediate subvention on coal produced in the region and used for generating electric power therein.
I have mentioned the Beechwood power development and the power grids that were established. The government, in a tangible way, provided loans for 40 years at a low rate of interest for the establishment of the power grid between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Mr. Arthur Johnson, the past president of the Atlantic economic council-a most worthy organization-has said that this grid has saved the two provinces the incredible sum of $60 million annually.
In the past four years, coal assistance in the form of subventions has been more than doubled. To be specific, in 1956-57 federal payments for coal subventions were just under $7 million and in 1960-61 they amounted to over $15 million.
Item No. 4 reads:
Adjustment of freight rates and provision of transportation facilities to allow our producers reasonable access to the markets of Canada.
Transportation is one of the keys to our whole economic well-being in Atlantic Canada. We know, of course, that the federal government pays subventions on freight rates every year amounting to about $14 million. All of us have been anticipating with deep interest the second volume of the report of the royal commission on transportation which was tabled today. I have not had an opportunity of reading it but it is my hope, and the hope of all of us, that it will contain many recommendations which will go some distance toward solving this difficult problem. We need a national policy on transportation. We do not accept the recommendation of the Gordon commission that we leave the mari-times, nor are we going to be second-class citizens in that part of Canada. I have every faith that the McPherson report will suggest some solution which will correct the injustice under which the maritime provinces now suffer.
Item No. 5 reads:
Capital projects program to provide federal capital assistance for provincial projects designed to enlarge the basic economy of the area.

The Address

Mr. MacRae
I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that in my discussion of the first item, a national development program, I have shown that this plan has been implemented in good measure. There are other projects about which we feel rather strongly, some more strongly than others, and for which I would urge continuing government consideration. There is the causeway to Prince Edward Island and the corridor road through Maine as well as the integrated development of Saint John river power. I would urge the power development of the huge Passama-quoddy project, and I should like to mention the Chignecto canal project. I was disappointed last fall when it was shown that, as a transportation project, the Chignecto was not feasible. I was delighted, however, when the Prime Minister said the government of Canada would take another look at this project to see whether, from a power angle, it would be feasible. I hope something will be worked out as a result of that.
Another item or promise in 1957 was the establishment of the Canadian coast guard. This was of vital importance to our fishermen and others who follow the sea. This has been done as promised.
Finally, in 1957 there was the special adjustment grant for all provinces with a per capita income substantially below the national average. In 1958 the government undertook to provide an additional $100 million in the Atlantic provinces grants over a four year period; effective in 1962 this grant will be raised.
There has been considerable discussion this past year in my native province about federal contributions to New Brunswick and a completely unfounded statement that contributions have decreased. A political football was made of this in the past year but the true facts are that in 1956 the total of unconditional and conditional grants and payments to New Brunswick was $29.5 million and in 1961-62 these grants will amount to $60.5 million, or more than double.
What about social justice payments? In the year 1956-57 the Liberal administration made payments in New Brunswick of approximately $46 million. In 1960-61 that figure had increased by almost 60 per cent to $75.5 million. Figures do not lie, Mr. Speaker. They are there on the record.
When Liberal party spokesmen talk of discrimination against New Brunswick, as they have done in the past year and a half, let us remember that the per capita amount received by New Brunswick from tax rental in 1956-57, when the Liberal party was in


office, was $32.11 per person. In 1961-62 it amounts, with the addition of Atlantic provinces adjustment grants, to $56.24 per person, and in 1962-63 it will amount to $58.12. It is worthy of note that the national average is $48.64 per capita, and therefore I do not feel we have any complaint there.
I have discussed the part that the federal Conservative government is playing in the resurgence of our maritime provinces at present, but even though they are the most important member of the team bringing this about, we must never forget there are other players on the team as well. The provincial governments must carry their share of the load. Far too often our provincial governments have wasted their energy and their efforts in petty jealousy and quarrels. Also, the management of our industries must be willing not only to co-operate but give their full support. They must remember that the well-being of those who work for them will reflect in their prosperity.
Finally, labour must use common sense. Far too often the working man has been misled by unscrupulous labour leaders. I do not say that is so true of Canada, but we have only to look at the Hoffas and Becks in the United States to see what I mean. Labour must be made to realize that we cannot price ourselves out of our own and foreign markets by demanding more for our labour, services and products than others can or will pay.
We in the maritimes, and as a matter of fact Canadians in all parts of the country, will have to realize that there is nothing free. A year and a half ago, in June, 1960, the majority of the people of New Brunswick temporarily accepted the premise that they could receive free hospitalization, and in so believing they turned out the most able premier and government that they had had for decades.
There is a cartoonist whose work I admire greatly, Collins of the Gazette. He draws that familiar figure of the little man in the barrel, with the derby hat and bristling mustache, usually labelled "You know who". A few months ago he drew a cartoon and, the saying has it that a picture is worth more than a thousand words. It seemed to me this cartoon was worth even more than that. It shows our little man in a supermarket, having the most wonderful time in the world filling up his shopper's cart with all the packages that are marked "free". There is free government this and free government that, and he goes along until his cart becomes so piled up that he can hardly see over it. Then the final drawing shows him reaching the cash register, with a long cash register tape and a woebegone

look. The caption underneath says "You have to reach the check-out counter sometime". We all have to reach the check-out counter sometime in our spending as well as everything else.
There is a new spirit in Atlantic Canada today, a resurgence of pride and a spirit of well being that was not there before 1957. For a century it was said that the maritimes greatest export was brains, but today educated men and women are staying in the maritime provinces, as well as those who have not the advantage of the education they might like to have, because there is more opportunity there than ever before. I feel, too, that under this government and its dynamic policy of national development in all areas of Canada, our part of this great nation will continue to grow and prosper as it rightly should.
(Translation):


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all join with those who have congratulated the mover (Mr. Bourdages) and the seconder (Mr. Browne, Vancouver-Kings-way) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. If I do so, it is not because I agreed with their views when they praised the present government, but theirs was a commendable effort and I congratulate them for it.
I should also like to extend my congratulations to the new Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Flynn). I hope that he will be able to survive all that fuss made about his appointment. I wish him every success in his new office, and I trust that the Canadian people will benefit by it.
As for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whom I had the privilege of knowing for a long time as a painstaking and hard worker, I am convinced that you will carry out efficiently the new duties entrusted to you. You have been elected by the house with an overwhelming majority to replace the member called to the cabinet. You will only have to study the work accomplished by the Speaker of this house and to follow the example set by him since his appointment to this high office in 1957, and I am sure that you will find only friends on both sides of the house.
(Text):
Before dealing further with the speech from the throne I should point out that I have read the amendment which was presented by the hon. member for Assiniboia. Having studied it closely I can see that it is a compliment which states openly what is understood in the amendment proposed by the leader of the official opposition. If we take the amendment and the amendment to the amendment we can read them this way:
The Address-Mr. Caron
We respectfully affirm that Your Excellency's advisors, because of their continuing failure to bring forward policies to deal with the real problems confronting this country, including the failure to promote the planned development of our resources, sound monetary, fiscal, investment and trade policies which will develop our economy so as to provide:
1.	expanding export markets for agricultural and industrial production;
2.	full employment;
3.	and, in co-operation with the provinces a prepaid medical care program for all Canadians; and for these reasons do not deserve the confidence of the House of Commons.
Having discussed the matter with our leader before he had to leave the house I can state that we are ready to support the amendment to the amendment.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to touch upon every subject mentioned in the speech from the throne nor do I propose to point out the numerous omissions which characterize that speech more than its contents.
The leader of the Liberal party, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) has done that tremendously well in his speech yesterday, and I believe a certain number of my colleagues will take up a few points in particular. That is why I will limit myself today to one point only, that is the amendments to the constitution.
I must say first of all that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) made an honest effort in his suggestions to the provinces. He would have been the first one to admit, I am sure, that his proposals could not all be accepted and that they would even be the subject of lengthy discussions. Indeed, I could not understand how a sensible man would expect his first proposals to be accepted immediately since it is most dangerous to amend the constitution.
We will soon be celebrating the centennial of confederation. We should not pass premature amendments, amendments where caution would be thrown to the winds and which would only make it worse for Canada. And besides, if you read what Father Ares, Jesuit, has written about these amendments, you can see that nowadays you cannot be too cautious before touching them.
It is best to wait in order to make sure that mutual understanding will persist, complete mutual understanding in all fields of endeavour of the Canadian people, in order to build up mutual confidence and mutual respect throughout Canada, before tackling the ticklish matter of amending the constitution.
108	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Caron
It would be best to wait a year or two, even three, before bringing our constitution back home.
It has been in England now for nearly a century, and we have always managed to survive and even to improve our lot, despite what is being said in some circles.
That is why I am asking the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) not to speed things up. I am asking his leader, the Prime Minister, not to be too much in a hurry to link his name to the repatriation of the constitution. When the constitution does come back, it should be such that we should not have to blame ourselves for acting too hastily.
Speaking of the repatriation of the constitution brings to mind an exceedingly delicate matter, a topic on which many words and much breath have been wasted. I refer to separatism, a movement which sprang up some time ago in the province of Quebec.
Of course, as opposed to some Quebec Conservative members, I have no connection with that movement, quite the contrary, and the fact is rather well known.
Is that movement really serious? I do not think it is, not for the moment at least. You only have scattered efforts by various groups without a leader in the true sense of the word. If they had men like Hitler, Mussolini, Bourguiba, Castro or even Camilien Houde, great demagogues, we might have reasons to fear an early split within confederation. As it is, the movement is already divided among capitalists, socialists, to mention only those two. No wonder, because with our Latin temperament, it is extremely difficult for us to work together. We are so individualistic.
Would it be beneficial to turn the province of Quebec into a French Canadian republic? I would be inclined to answer yes, in certain respects. It would certainly promote the development of French culture completely freed from English influence which taints our language with anglicisms. But the separatist movement, which is not new, will have the great advantage of awakening English speaking Canadians and prompt them to a careful self-examination. For, let us not forget that if there is a separatist movement in Quebec, the majority group is chiefly responsible for its existence.
In 1867, when confederation was born, we were in theory equal partners. But unfortunately things were different in practice. What fuss, what inconsistencies, had to be put up with. The provinces with English speaking majorities saw as one of the greatest advantages of confederation a means of anglicizing more easily the French Canadian nation.

Immediately after confederation, have we not seen the New Brunswick government forbid the teaching of French and religion in the schools, ostensibly because that teaching was only tolerated before confederation. It had, nevertheless, been specified under the Confederation Act that any legislation prior to confederation should be maintained. But so-called tolerance then disappeared. Fortunately, the situation has since improved.
When Manitoba entered into confederation, towards 1870-the union was completed in 1871-Sir Georges-Etienne Cartier, recalling what had happened in New Brunswick, was cautious enough to include clause 22 to protect the minority of that province.
Despite the laws, around 1890 the English speaking majority in Manitoba managed to persecute the French speaking minority and their schools. The law had been disregarded. Slowly things got better.
In 1911, it was the turn of Ontario, when that province passed the notorious regulation 17 outlawing French schools.
Then it was Saskatchewan, around 1928, under the leadership of Mr. Anderson, and bitter criticism against the Gardiner government because it tolerated religious habits and the crucifix in Catholic schools. He knew how to excite the passions of the Anglo-Canadian majority in that province and overthrew the Gardiner government to set up his own persecuting laws.
Even British Columbia, to a lesser degree, however, proved extremely narrow-minded.
But let us rejoice, persecutions began on the Atlantic coast and reached British Columbia; let's hope they have been drowned in the Pacific.
Outside the province of Quebec, French Canadians have been treated as poor relatives, even within the federal service. How many senior positions have we held in the civil service? Did we not have the necessary qualifications? That was not the reason because in proportion to the number, we were just as qualified, if not more. Most of our candidates to senior positions had the advantage of being bilingual.
Such an attitude was equivalent to giving French Canadians a certificate of incompetence that they did not deserve.
During the last session, I recommended during the debate on the Civil Service Act that an additional 5 per cent be paid to anyone who could prove that he was bilingual, not only for new positions but also for promotions. There was practically no discussion on that issue; there was no serious examination and the majority in the house,

except for two or three Conservative members voted for refusing that right to intellectual superiority. I am happy to see that the Liberals and the C.C.F. have unanimously supported my motion.
What is one to think of that decision of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) who, in his proposed building program for the next few years (about 15 projects) and in spite of the advantage found in the fact that Hull is close to the centre block of parliament did not give any thought about locating a single building on the Quebec side, in Hull or vicinity.
A short while ago, the Post Office Department requested the appointment of a superintendent for district No. 2. This district covers the ridings of Pontiac, Gatineau, Hull, Papineau, Argenteuil, part of Labelle, Glen-garry-Prescott, Russell, Ottawa East, Ottawa West, part of Carleton, Stormont and a few others where the French speaking population is at least equal to the English speaking population if not in majority. I asked that the civil service commission be urged to select a bilingual candidate for that position. At that time the Postmaster General replied that the decision was up to the civil service commission, which is not entirely true because the civil service commission accepts the qualifications required by the department. Generally, it is the deputy minister who makes a decision (sometimes after consultation, sometimes on his own). The civil service commission could not require a bilingual candidate for that position because the department made no such request.
And what about the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Flemming) who did not appoint a single French Canadian to any important position? It could be that the minister did not try too hard.
Were we too shy to claim vigorously what belonged to us by rights? We have perhaps a certain responsibility in that regard, but could the majority not be a little more generous? Could the English Canadian majority not behave like true Anglo-Saxons? Before the situation deteriorates, as Great Britain did for several of its colonies to which it granted independence before it was too late to keep them as friends and customers, could the majority not prevent such difficulties?
What meanness was shown when the French Canadians started asking for a distinctive national flag, without any symbol of interdependence. There were cries of indignation from various English sections of Canada, from the Daughters of the British Empire, the Veterans Association, the Orange
The Address-Mr. Caron Sentinel and many more. We even heard Mr. Smallwood, after having supported the entry of Newfoundland into confederation, say that as far as he was concerned, there would be only one flag, the union jack.
He became a Canadian, but his soul still belongs to England, because the union jack is a combination of three crosses: St. Andrew's cross, St. Patrick's cross and St. George's cross, representing the three countries which joined together to form the United Kingdom: Scotland, Ireland and England.
As for the Veterans Association, do those who live outside of Quebec not remember that, during the 1914 and 1939 wars, the heroic deeds of our troops could seem to be those of English soldiers, since there was only the union jack?
Talking about the veterans, on November 11, 1961, a remembrance ceremony had been organized at Lansdowne park before the football game. In the parade could be seen six or seven union jacks, one American flag and only one Canadian flag, the Red Ensign. The band played only "God save the Queen" and did not bother at all with "O Canada". Is this not ridiculous? Everyone claims to be a Canadian but such actions show the contrary.
How about the constant opposition to the request for bilingual cheques made year after year. Was it really necessary to introduce motions to request bilingual cheques when, according to the B.N.A. Act, all official documents of the federal government can be bilingual. My cheque is an official document. It was just as easy to make it bilingual as it was for Mr. Veniot to introduce bilingual stamps in the Post Office Department. It would have been as easy to introduce bilingual cheques as it was for the Liberal party to repair the sorry situation of two currencies one English and the other French, when they introduced bilingual currency.
One Mr. Jacques Gagnon, of 127 Ste. Marie street in Hull, told me about his experience with the federal police patrolling the parkways. Referring to the famous expression "I don't speak French" here is what he says:
Besides, that does not surprise me any more. Again, I had received that answer from an officer of the Royal Mounted Police, on December 12 last, when I was arrested on the Gatineau Parkway, not far from Gamelin boulevard. I had been ordered to check with Ottawa, on Wellington street, where nobody spoke my language, absolutely no one out of 15 police officers who were in that office.
Now, don't tell me that the federal police is so totally deprived of bilingual employees that a French Canadian who does not speak English has to go around with a pocket
110	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Caron dictionary in order to make himself understood by the federal mounted police in Ottawa.
I am not blaming the policeman on duty, but the officers who are so ill-advised as to place him in such a false position.
Another thing which has often displeased visitors to the parliament buildings is the fact that, with certain members of the House of Commons police, it was almost impossible to make themselves understood if they spoke French. It would have been so easy to show the real character of the federal government in requiring that all those employees be bilingual. All French Canadians are bilingual; some English Canadians are, but they are not the majority.
The same applies to the R.C.M.P. on duty around the parliament buildings. The odd officer speaks French, but the great majority do not understand a single word of French. When I brought up the matter, I was told that efforts were being made to place, as much as possible, bilingual officers on duty on parliament hill. I can assure you that the efforts were not very successful.
There should also be on duty, at any time of the day, a bilingual official at each Canadian port, but it is not so.
In our diplomatic corps also, there should not be a single unilingual diplomat because a country is often characterized abroad by its diplomats. It should not be more difficult for an English speaking Canadian, especially for a scholar, to learn French than it is for a French Canadian to learn English.
I remember once going to Paris as a delegate to attend a meeting of NATO parliamentarians and what surprised me most was the fact that the delegates from all other countries were bilingual or trilingual, including those from England. The only unilingual delegates were the English Canadian and American delegates.
I know that in some places I will be accused of fanaticism. Am I a fanatic when I ask that the French and Catholic minority groups be treated at least according to the spirit if not the letter of the law?
Am I a fanatic when I ask that French Canadians in the provinces with an English majority be given the same treatment as the English minority in the province of Quebec as far as schools are concerned.
Am I a fanatic when I claim for my compatriots a chance to accede to the higher positions in the civil service of my country?
Am I a fanatic when I ask that my fellow French Canadians be served in French in the custom ports of this country?


Am I a fanatic when I insist that our representatives abroad be in a position to show a true picture of Canada where two races and two cultures live side by side? And I could go on forever quoting examples but this would not add strength to my argument.
I do not care, Mr. Speaker, if English speaking or French speaking Canadians learn English or French. What I want is recognition of the superiority of those who took the trouble to learn both languages and I want them to obtain preference from the civil service commission. This would be an incentive to others.
I hope that the majority which is directly responsible for this separatist outburst in the province of Quebec will make a serious selfexamination and act, for once, like true Anglo-Saxons. The majority would then realize that French Canadians have shown themselves truly anxious to comply with all the provisions of the Confederation Act.
Quebec has never treated the English minority of that province like a poor relative. Why should the other provinces not follow that example, so that after a hundred years in the confederative pact, it could be truly said that we have really become equal partners.
All those grievances do not mean that I am in favour of separatism; I feel that that movement is too risky and has too many disadvantages for the province of Quebec and for French Canadians in the other provinces.
If such a movement were to succeed, what would be the lot of French Canadian minorities in the other provinces except in New Brunswick where the minority represents about 47 per cent of the population. Left to themselves, those minorities would be easy prey for those who would anglicize us, and our fine French culture would be limited to the province of Quebec; Canada would thus become poorer not wealthier.
Considering the plight of our brothers who live in other provinces, I feel that separatism is an attitude of unspeakable selfishness towards more than a million of our compatriots.
It will be objected that the sacrifices we have to make to maintain a mixed culture impair the quality of spoken French because numerous English expressions continuously find their way into our conversation. I ask the question: Is that really true?
We know that all modem languages have developed from the corruption of two or more foreign languages. French is a smooth blend of Latin, Greek and Frankish. Many words were added to the English language by the Normans. You will note that all words ended

in "al" and "ion" are French words. The same holds true in respect of Spanish and Portuguese. Is it really so bad that the French language in Canada, by adding certain English words to its wealth, be somewhat different from the French language spoken nowadays in France?
How many words and phrases did we not retain here, in this country, old French words and phrases which have completely disappeared from the stock of words used in France. For goodness' sake, let us not make a tragedy of the fact that our French is in a constant state of flux. Even in the various parts of France, there are great differences, and no one thinks it is a crime. For goodness' sake, just as no one should be a better Catholic than the Pope, so we should not be more French than the French themselves.
Another danger may come up in the economic field. Is it believable that a country with a population of five, six, or seven million people could successfully compete on the world markets? We find that the European countries have formed the common market and the free trade area to compensate for the deficiencies of a too small population. Could the province of Quebec do better than those countries? No.
Moreover, the separation of Quebec would mean almost insuperable difficulties for the maritime provinces if they did not get outside assistance from the United Kingdom or the United States. What would be the position of Ontario, which would have to support the west alone, and more particularly the prairie provinces in their lean years. The difficulties would be almost insuperable. The resulting upset would make the whole of Canada powerless with regard to its domestic problems and insignificant on the international level.
We can always improve our economic position and, in this respect, must commend the premier of the province of Quebec for finding out that all our eggs unfortunately seemed to be put in one basket. He therefore went to Italy and France trying to find new investment capital in order to diversify existing industries and create new ones in Quebec. In so doing, he served not only the province of Quebec but the whole of Canada.
The separatist movement has no chance of succeeding at this time. But I warn English Canadians to hurry and revert to the spirit of confederation, which aimed at the integration-not the assimilation-of French Canadians. If not, though you may celebrate the centenary of that memorable pact, your efforts to appease the separatist feeling will not succeed, and it will only need an able leader to upset everything. Nothing but the
The Address-Mr. Pigeon good faith of the majority, which has everything to gain by showing some magnanimity, can save confederation.
The English speaking provinces should consider the Quebec school laws and rectify the discrimination against minorities in other provinces, where they are overtaxed for the maintenance of their schools, whereas, in Quebec, the minority looks after its own business.
In spite of all our difficulties and all the deficiencies we may find among our English fellow citizens, we have to admit that things are constantly improving for us, even though this improvement is very slow.
Let us always keep in mind that a people which does not want to die always asserts itself in the end.
Let us be French Canadians, fundamentally attached to our language and customs, but let us also be Canadians for the greater benefit of our country as a whole.
Let us see, for instance, what has happened in Switzerland over the last 600 years. That country is made up of Germans, French and Italians, and its leaders have succeeded in having the three languages taught in the schools and in creating a nation that is truly Swiss. It is different from all other nations and it has its own characteristics that are recognized throughout the world. It has made up a people that gets along almost anywhere. In fact, I have met Swiss people recently who have made their homes in Ontario and in Quebec. It is thanks to that triple culture that they were able to find a place for themselves almost anywhere in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, in closing-


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


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolietie-L'Assomption-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne Messrs. Bourdages (Laval) and Browne (Van-couver-Kingsway) for the able manner in which they performed their tasks.
The competence, integrity and dignity which are typical of the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) will make him an accomplished Deputy Speaker.
I also wish to pay tribute to the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion), on his appointment as chairman of the privy council, and to the member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn), our new Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.
The selection of the member for St. Hy-acinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard), to fill the post of
112	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Pigeon parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, was a most happy one. His work and attendance record in the house have set him up as an example.
We all rejoice, I am sure, at the good tidings which Her Majesty the Queen's worthy representative brought us in the speech from the throne. All the provinces rightly rejoice over the measures announced by the government. As for Quebec, the people realize that the present government will soon give them a railroad in the Gaspe peninsula which will develop an important area too long neglected by the former Liberal administration. The Gaspe Copper Mines were waiting for that news to invest several additional millions of dollars in the district which will soon be the scene of an extraordinary economic growth.
Recently, I was reading in a magazine all the economic advantages which will result from the construction of that railroad.
The people of that district have long been requesting the construction of a railroad on the north side of the Gaspe peninsula. As far back in 1881, La Minerve, a newspaper which was most popular in its days, published an article to the effect that the construction of a railroad was essential to the economic development of the Gaspe peninsula.
Since this railroad will bring its products to the market, the Federal Metal Company, a metal refining plant at Ste. Anne des Monts, will be able to start producing from 800 to 1,000 tons daily.
Gaspe Copper Mines, of Murdochville, will cut down its shipping costs by sending its ore to Ste. Anne des Monts instead of Gaspe. The distance is the same-69 miles-but the incline will be in favour of Ste. Anne.
Two important saw mills, those of James Richardson, at Cap Chat, and of J. A. Couturier, at Marsoui, will be able to undertake the production of wood chips, a material which cannot be shipped otherwise than by rail and which has an extremely good rating on the market.
Farmers who own wood lots will be in a position to sell their non-marketable timber for the production of chips.
The Ungava Transport Company was only waiting for that link before building and putting into operation between the north and south shores a ferry boat capable of carrying trucks and vans. The steamship La Gaspe-sienne which operates at present between Ste. Anne des Monts and Sept lies, is not readily apt for that kind of transportation.


These, Mr. Speaker, are briefly, some of the economic advantages which will be brought about by the construction of a railroad in that area.
I should be remiss if I did not point out the hard work of the hon. member for that riding, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. English) who, with the co-operation of his colleagues from Quebec, worked without rest to obtain the construction of that railroad which is essential not only to the economy of the Gaspe peninsula but also to the general economy of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the elimination of tolls on certain bridges of the Montreal district, by arrangement with all parties concerned, will help develop business, industry and tourism on the south shore.
The announcement some time ago by the right hon. Prime Minister that the border waters commission was considering the Richelieu waterway indicates that this government intends to give the province of Quebec legislation which was indiscriminately withheld by the former minister of transport, who is today the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). When the hon. member for Laurier was member for Stormont and minister of transport, he used to receive delegations in a rather off-handed manner. Moreover, he ignored the briefs presented to him when meeting county councils and chambers of commerce, seeking the abolition of tolls on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges-


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: -the study of the Richelieu waterway, as well as the construction of a railroad in the Gaspe peninsula.
Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to quote from an article published at the time in Le Devoir of Montreal, that is on Thursday, May 20, 1954. I am quoting the words of Mr. Pierre Vigeant, a journalist who, incidentally, has also striven to obtain the construction of a greater number of railroads, at the time, in the province of Quebec. Here is what Mr. Vigeant wrote:
Anti-Quebec speech by Mr. Chevrier.
In connection with the impending retirement of the Minister of Transport, Mr. Lionel Chevrier, and of the Minister of Finance, Mr. Douglas Abbott, we put forward the opinion, a few days ago, that we could hardly expect our interests to be defended by English speaking Quebec ministers or by French speaking Ontario ministers. And we expressed the hope that the next change would make it possible for us to have all the influence we are entitled to within the federal cabinet. After Mr. Abbott, Mr. Lionel Chevrier has just undertaken to show the soundness of our argument.

While defending the bill providing for the setting up of a railway between Beattyville-Chibougamau and St. Felicien, he delivered a speech against Quebec. Not only did he turn down the claims voiced by the members of the Saguenay district and the members who supported them.
"Adding insult to injury", as he would say, he strongly admonished them and sermonized Quebecers who dare to claim their autonomy or complain that they are not getting their share from the federal government.
And Mr. Pierre Vigeant goes on to say:
Mr. Chevrier was quite energetic in his reply. He accused Mr. Gagnon of working against national unity and he added that his arguments were both false and insignificant. He stated that Mr. Balcer's speech indicated that the member had not examined the question before he spoke. He accused Messrs. Gagnon and Balcer of indulging in petty politics, whereas his own speech was steeped in such partisanship as we seldom see in the house.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make those remarks before coming to the heart of the matter.
There have always been numerous reasons for French Canadian dissatisfaction with the federal government. Some were well-founded and others were merely based on prejudice. However, one of the most serious causes of discontent of French Canadians throughout Canada, and not only in Quebec, was undoubtedly the offhand and indifferent attitude of the previous government not only towards the French Canadian minority, but towards all minorities in Canada. And minorities then included everything that was not Liberal, not Grit.


Mr. Martel:: Quite true.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I seriously think that the previous government which could have done so much during the 22 years it was in power, is greatly responsible for the discontent of certain groups of Canadians. Some people were driven to despair by the lack of understanding of the government of the time.
Need I illustrate the point? In 1942, there was only one member from Quebec in the Canadian cabinet.
Mr. Speaker, after 90 years of confederation, it has been found that contacts and lines of communications have been established from north to south and from south to north. It has also been realized that two great racial groups could live side by side indefinitely, respect and help one another, with no love lost between them. Love is a feeling which cannot be imposed; either you love or you do not love. But I will not have anybody ever questioning the French Canadian's dedication, nor his patriotism. It seems to me that the contributions of French Canadians to public affairs, the co-operation they have given the authorities, their graves which are scattered
The Address-Mr. Pigeon all over the military cemeteries of Europe and Asia, are sufficient proof of the patriotism and sacrifices of my fellow French Canadians.
Despite the best intentions in the world, no matter how perfect the judicial and constitutional framework, it may be that the 1867 confederation is no longer suited to the needs of 1962. Perhaps we, the representatives and mandatories of the whole Canadian nation, should examine our conscience and ask ourselves if we have really discharged all our public and official duties.
Let us ask ourselves whether major amendments should not be brought to confederation, or whether it should not be reconsidered in the light of present circumstances and of rightful aspirations of the various ethnic groups which constitute the Canadian nation. And once we have noted the shortcomings and virtues of our present constitutional system, perhaps there will no longer be any reason to talk about secession but simply of complete and genuine Canadianism.
In a few years, Mr. Speaker, our great country will be a hundred years old. Already, in many places, people think of the most adequate and noble way to celebrate that century of Canadian existence. Does it not seem, Mr. Speaker, that the best approach, in such circumstances, would be to give birth to a true Canadian way of life, commensurate with our history and our responsibilities.
An event of such significance occurs but once in a man's life and it is not without great emotion that we Canadians will witness the first centennial of the country where it is most agreeable to live in these troubled times. We are the privileged children of an improved civilization, entirely devoted to the service of man. The symbol of the evolution this country is undergoing is found in this house itself where, today, members can express themselves freely in their own language, knowing in advance that they will be heard and understood by their colleagues of another origin.


An hon. Member:: It has always been like that.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It has taken 90 years to come to the system of simultaneous interpretation, first because science at that time did not make it possible for us to dream of such a complicated device and also because statesmen did not keep pace with scientific progress.
National unity is the end product of moral and spiritual components which are found in the chairs of our universities, in our trade unions, in our armed forces, in the Sunday sermon and, above all, in the heart of each
114	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Pigeon of us. We have inherited a long and glorious tradition after hard and often needless fights. Not that our forbears were mistaken about the value of the things they fought for, but actually because the mental attitude of some of their contemporaries made these fights possible although they were not necessary.
This national unity so often praised on the hustings and in this house is our own heritage for which we are in some way responsible. Perhaps not the members of this parliament personally but the members of parliament for the whole of Canada who, since 1840 and after 1867, have edified the structure of the great Canadian way of life which has fostered the development of our nation.
The great interplay of historic circumstances made possible the blending of Canadian sentiments and the communion of our minds and hearts in the pursuits of a common ideal. However, we have no right to delude ourselves nor to let our imagination summon empty dreams. This national unity, which we welcome, must be pursued from day to day and is each and everyone's business.
I even wonder whether the expression "national unity" has not been made out-ofdate by events and whether we should not rather say "national awareness". Indeed, "national unity" has been for a long time a fact in our schools, at our public meetings, in our churches, before being confirmed and sealed on the battlefields all over the world.
The problem we are facing now is one of strengthening within the Canadian state this spirit of national unity based on centuries of tradition and fashioned in the Canadian mind by British institutions adapted to North American conditions in the 19th and 20th centuries. This awareness may be found in the numerous aspects of our literature, of our newspapers, of our radio and television which, most of the time, present the true image of our life in Canada, the life which is familiar to Canadians. Nevertheless, we still lack a most important symbol of our "national awareness", a symbol around which school children gather to sing the national anthem in the morning, and which is the rallying point of our soldiers on the battlefield or the last sight of the sinking ship. That symbol, as you have recognized it, is the flag. And we still have no flag. Or rather, we have too many flags, but not a single one which would identify our soldiers abroad or our athletes taking part in international competitions. A flag is not only the symbol of an adult nation: it is also the result of that nationality itself, its official confirmation by way of enactment from the responsible authorities. Is there anything 

more depressing for the Canadian delegates to international conferences than to realize the importance of having one's own flag?
We not only need a flag; we also need a national anthem. Is it not disappointing for our official representatives, when they visit other countries, not to find the spot of native land that a flag and a national anthem would symbolize? Canada is an adult nation. Our men and our women have left their marks in many fields. We have achieved the stature of a major country, but there is nothing to prove it to the face of the world. Until the Canadian government has discharged the sacred responsibility, as bestowed upon it by its terms of reference, of selecting a national flag and a national anthem, we will always look like poor relatives in a world searching for true friends. The time has come for this house to assume before history the great responsibility of deciding what will be our national flag and what will be our national anthem. As things are going now, our country will be one hundred years old and we shall have no flag to hoist on the 1st of July, 1967, and our young Canadians will have nothing to sing on this memorable day which will mark our first centenary. It is our duty to assume our responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, I have introduced a motion in this house asking for the setting up of a committee of both houses before which official organizations representing the authorities would express their views so that our hope of having a national flag may be fulfilled. I would be very glad if this motion were agreed to. We could then invite the premiers of the ten provinces to appear before this committee and know what are the views of Messrs. Smallwood and Bennett concerning a distinctive Canadian flag.
Mr. Speaker, it is commonplace in the foreign countries to point out the good feelings between the main ethnical groups in our country. Would it not be possible to transpose this wonderful lesson of national co-operation on a higher level, thus inspiring the concert of nations.
Even at the time of the league of nations, our delegates were showing poise and selfassurance. It is a known fact that Canada has no territoral ambitions, that it does conceal any covetousness, and that, having realized at home harmony and co-operation, it can share its recipes for friendship and co-operation with the other countries of the world.
It is probably not by mere chance that the original form of the British commonwealth of nations should have been developed by a Canadian. It was quite understandable that one of our most brilliant statesmen at the time should bring into the solution of our relations

with other countries of the British empire the same pattern followed in the Canadian parliament in the light of our tradition. This British family of nations, which progressively emerged in the world between 1896 and 1931, including the glorious and decisive periods of 1919 and 1927, introduced into international law a formula both revolutionary and simple which was confirmed by the treaty of Westminster, on December 11, 1931. British statesmen-and in this regard some of our great Canadian parliamentarians are in no way inferior to them-have always kept pace with developments. The commonwealth was no more a laboratory product or an artificial creation in 1931 than the new commonwealth is now after weathering the Suez crisis in 1956. I believe together with many of my colleagues, that when the interest of the nation is at stake, there should be no party barriers. Besides, we in this house should all have enough patriotism and common sense to forget the strict discipline of political parties to join with the leader in whom the Canadian people has put its confidence in order to support him wholeheartedly and assure him of our most enlightened co-operation.
Mr. Speaker, the student of politics knows that British politics, and therefore Canadian politics until 1931, have always consisted in adapting formulas to facts while giving principles the best possible direction. When the Canadian parliament got its sovereignty, it had inherited that way of thinking and the ways of Cromwell, Curzon and Lloyd George had set a fashion here. It is therefore in no way surprising that the same flexible and fearless attitude which made it possible for this country to remain faithful to the throne while unobtrusively establishing a separation could be found in men like Lafontaine and Baldwin, Macdonald and Cartier, Borden and Diefenbaker. It was a Conservative government who appointed our first diplomatic agent in London. It was also a Conservative government who established Canadian troops as a distinctive unit in the first world war. It was the Hon. Mr. Borden who valiantly fought to have Canada sign the treaty of Versailles on its own behalf, and not as a junior partner nor in the shadow of the British flag, but as the first overseas country freely linked to its British sovereign. It also was a Conservative government which succeeded in obtaining the statute of Westminster.
It was under a Conservative government that simultaneous translation of debates was introduced in this house, as well as in the parliamentary committees. Furthermore, it is now the task of a Conservative government to reaffirm before the world the dignified and special position of this country in the world, in the economic field.
The Address-Mr. Pigeon
We belonged to the league of nations, we now belong to the United Nations. We are a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, we contribute to the Colombo plan and we have saved the new commonwealth formula in 1956. Is there another country in the world which can boast of so many positive actions in favour of world peace? Is there, even within the commonwealth, another country which has contributed more to international stability and to the rational economy which we need so much. There remains for us to make an historical and rational gesture, and I have no doubt that once again it will be made by a Conservative government. I refer to our full participation in the inter-American system, which we can achieve by becoming a full member of the organization of American states. It would seem that, in this respect, our predecessors had unjustified and no doubt unjustifiable fears.
This means that, not only are we not split between two poles, but that, on the contrary, we are the link between two great systems, two great schools of thought and, especially, two great historical realities: Europe, with its heritage of nobility and greatness; America, with its wealth and its future.
In such circumstances, it is therefore imperative that Canada, while maintaining its links with the British commonwealth of nations, for as long a time as its interests will require, should not however neglect its obligations towards the American continent. Now, there already exists that marvelous organization of American states, which superseded in 1948 the pan-American union, and which includes all countries of the American continent except Canada. Evolving from the prophetic dream of Simon Bolivar in 1826, the organization is today the finest expression of the yearning of those who wish to live in peace. It is also a legal monument where are engraved, in the flesh and blood of patriots, the great realities of our times and the fine achievements of a group of men who want to give the world an example of sincere and active co-operation.
It is regrettable that Canada is not yet a member of the organization of American states. Already, invitations to become a member would have been possible; more recently, the trip of the ex-minister for external affairs again placed in the limelight the whole problem of our relations with the inter-American system, and the late Hon. Smith had stated at Rio de Janeiro and at Ottawa that the government would reconsider the case of the OAS and of Canada.
I earnestly wish that Canada will soon occupy the seat left vacant in the pan-American union because, in doing so, it would
116	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Herridge wholeheartedly play its due role, that of an intermediary between the old and the new world.
By belonging to the OAS, Canada would be in a much better position to explain to its neighbours of the other Americas and often to the United States, the role of the commonwealth in the world, as an instrument of peace and prosperity.
Our role in the OAS would be not only to protect Canadian interests, but also to achieve once again the co-ordination of those two great forces which are the commonwealth and the OAS. Also, in conferences grouping ministers of the British community, our country could explain and better bring home the power and value of the interAmerican system which, since 1889 has brought to our continent a policy of progress.
For too long, below the 45th parallel, has remained unnoticed the important work done by those great countries which are our friends to the south. And it is up to Canada to enshrine in history that conjunction of two great regional forces: the organization of American states and the commonwealth of nations. No other country possesses that double American and British nationality; no other country has, in such unique circumstances, the great advantage of having only friends in those two vast regional organizations. But in order to succeed in this delicate and important mission, Canada must belong fully and without second thoughts to those two organizations which it wants to bring together. This is a great mission, but Canada is certainly equal to the task.
(Text):


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia, and to say we believe the structure of social justice can only be built upon the foundation of planned development of our resources, upon sound monetary, fiscal, investment and trade policies, upon co-operation between all levels of government and upon co-operation between these governments and the people.
We believe there has to be a much greater participation on the part of the people in the development of policies necessary to give us a sound economic structure in the future. We support wholeheartedly the limited response on the part of this government to the needs of the Canadian people at this time, but we are of the opinion that we cannot, shall I say, promote the sound improvement of our economic situation by this piecemeal, debt-creating approach.


We are referred to as socialists, I am quite proud to be known as a democratic socialist, but that does not mean to say we do not believe in sound economics. We believe two and two make four, and the way to provide all the necessary welfare benefits for the Canadian people, and the services they need, is to put people to work and have them producing goods and services rather than having them idle under present circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, I have limited time. I should like to speak at greater length on several aspects of the government's proposals at this time but I shall limit my remarks to practically one subject. We were all very interested in the mention made in the throne speech of a proposal for building a national power grid. Indeed, we were very pleased to see it mentioned in the speech because members of our group stressed the necessity for it some years ago. Trade unions have written to the Prime Minister and other cabinet ministers suggesting such a course of action and we are pleased to see at the least this mention of a proposal to build a national power grid because it offers an opportunity for the beginning of a well planned, long term development program. When I say "well planned" I mean something not entered into in a hurry but something planned over a period of years so that the investment to bring the project to completion can be undertaken without too great a burden on the Canadian economy.
At this stage I shall refer to the Columbia river situation, a subject which has been of great national, provincial and local interest. In my opinion, and that of the members of this group, the government made a mistake in signing the Columbia treaty prior to having an agreement in writing with the government of British Columbia. That, I think, goes without saying. It showed a lack of foresight. There was too great haste in signing it, and a lack of sufficient planning and acquisition of the facts required upon which to base a sound judgment at the time. Since then too there has been a lack of co-operation between the federal and provincial government, and between the provincial government and the persons directly or indirectly concerned.
I intended to have a lot to say about this, aspect Mr. Speaker, but I shall have to leave it and go on to deal with a particular angle of the whole matter. However, I cannot help just mentioning that the hearings held in Rev-elstoke, Nakusp, Kaslo and Castlegar attracted an attendance of some 1,000 supporters of the Columbia conservation confederation.

There were many supporters of the Conservative government amongst them. They belong to all parties. Regardless of political opinions we marched shoulder to shoulder on that occasion and some 300 people made verbal or written representations to the controller of water rights and expressed their objection to the building of the High Arrow dam. Objections were raised by the city of Revelstoke, and by the Arrow lakes water resources committee, by the women's institutes and farmers' institutes and by the chambers of commerce in southeastern British Columbia.
Objection has also been raised by the B.C. federation of labour, the mine, mill and smelter workers union-in fact, nearly all the unions in British Columbia-the British Columbia fish and game clubs and the resort operators' associations.
In addition to that, four professional engineers of well-known reputation gave testimony expressing their opposition to the building of this dam. Also, excellent briefs were presented that were designed to show the effect on the lives of some 2,000 people, on 18 communities, on the natural resources, recreational facilities, fish and game, and wildlife in general. Two excellent briefs were presented on the moral aspects of the present procedures and proposals, which I will deal with at a later date. One of these was by Dr. C. S. Fowler of Castlegar, and the other, I am very glad to say, was presented on behalf of the Anglican Lord Bishop of Kootenay, who expressed in strong language his attitude toward the undemocratic procedures and proposals in connection with this development. However, I must leave the details of that important matter until a later time.
I now come to this stalemate between the federal and provincial governments with respect to the Columbia river. Before I deal with some aspects of this question I wish to place on the record the position of this party.
We held a convention of the New Democratic party quite recently in British Columbia. At that convention the following resolution was adopted unanimously:
Power. Our cheapest source of power must be developed first. Available statistics suggest that this can be developed on the Columbia river. The New Democratic party favours the McNaughton plan which would eliminate the High Arrow dam project and the flooding of thousands of acres of valuable B. C. land. This low cost power must be used in British Columbia to create new industries and the thousands of new jobs which are required to expand our industrial production rapidly and to end mass unemployment in our province.
No firm or long term contracts should be made for the export of power or sale of downstream benefits from British Columbia.
The Address-Mr. Herridge
That resolution was adopted unanimously by the founding convention of the New Democratic party in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1961. The B.C. federation of labour met a few days previously. They have a research director for natural resources who understands the subject. He has a better knowledge of the subject of the conservation of natural resources and the natural resource problem in general than any official of the trade union movement I have met to date.
He studied this question and presented his views before the convention. As a result the B.C. federation of labour adopted unanimously a most interesting brochure on power and politics. If anybody wants to read it I am quite sure I can get copies for them. This is a responsible, thoughtful policy entitled "Power Resources Belong to the People". I do not have time to read it fully but I wish to deal very briefly with some of the conclusions. Among other suggestions are these three:
3.	Stop any plans which will mean the export of cheap Columbia power to the United States to the detriment of British Columbia's economic development.
4.	Development of the Columbia river project as soon as possible. Labour favours the McNaughton plan which would eliminate the High Arrow dam project and the flooding of thousands of acres of valuable B.C. land.
6. There must be full federal-provincial co-operation and planning in developing B.C.'s long term power needs. A national power grid system would guarantee cheap and plentiful electricity to provide for future domestic and industrial needs in an expanding economy.
Since that date the B.C. federation of labour have been so concerned about this matter that they sent a telegram to the Minister of Justice, dated November 24, 1961. This is what the telegram says:
The B.C. federation of labour opposes the export of power from British Columbia. Such a policy, we believe, will only lead to the further industrial development of the United States Pacific northwest and is tantamount to exporting jobs and industrial opportunities which under normal and proper development of the Columbia project would be provided for Canadians. We strongly urge the Canadian government under no circumstances to succumb to the pressures now being exerted by the Canadian chamber of commerce, the British Columbia Social Credit government and United States politicians for a reversal of the federal government's long standing policy on the question of power export.
That telegram is signed by Mr. R. R. Smeal, president, and Mr. E. P. O'Neal, secretary treasurer of the B.C. federation of labour.
In addition to that, quite recently Mr. Strachan, the leader of the New Democratic party in British Columbia who has been very concerned about this problem, issued a press

The Address-Mr. Herridge release. I am going to quote from it because we want to show where we stand on this important question. This is dated November 24, 1961, and reads as follows:
Power-Columbia river. For the second time in seven years the Social Credit government of B.C. is openly conspiring with U.S. interests to sell out the future development of this province for the immediate gain of a fast buck and to satisfy its political ambition.
The only justification for the Socred attitude is the hollow desire to humiliate both the present federal government and the previous Liberal federal government which had the courage to halt the Kaiser dam giveaway.
The present High Arrow dam scheme is nothing more than the old Kaiser dam deal in disguise. The Kaiser aluminum company's letter of April 2, 1958, written to a committee of the U.S. Senate (attached hereto), proves beyond doubt that Premier Bennett has always been obsessed with forcing on B.C. a type of Columbia development which is only second best. To get his way he has openly invited U.S. intervention into purely Canadian affairs.
The Social Credit government set out from the start of the present treaty negotiations to deliberately sabotage full economic development of the Columbia to provide the maximum possible benefit to Canada via the McNaughton plan.
The point has now been reached where the federal government must act to take all and any necessary steps to halt the present Social Credit plans, to propose alteration of the treaty to eliminate High Arrow, and to develop the Columbia for the benefit of Canadians, if necessary entirely under federal auspices.
I do not consider this an infringement of provincial rights. In fact I submit it is the right and indeed the duty of the federal government to protect the people of B.C. against this Social Credit government which has proved that it cannot be trusted to place the interests of its country before its own personal political ambition.
If the federal government fails to take this action they too will be guilty of betraying Canada's interests.
That is the position of the New Democratic party and of organized labour in British Columbia, whether they are unions affiliated with the Canadian Congress of Labour or independent unions. In order to bring into focus the attitude of the powers behind the scenes in British Columbia we should look at the attitude of Dr. Gordon Shrum who, as is known to anyone who knows what happens in British Columbia behind the scenes, is the real power behind power policy in British Columbia.
This gentleman has an excellent war record. He was decorated for bravery; he was awarded the O.B.E. He has an excellent record as an administrator and as a professor at the University of British Columbia. This is what he has to say, according to Bill Fletcher of the Vancouver Sun in an article appearing in that newspaper on Friday, August 25, 1961:
said Dr. Gordon Shrum, "couldn't care less about the Columbia".

Dr. Shrum, the approachable, outspoken chairman of the B.C. Electric Company and the B.C. energy board, meant simply this: The government and the big utility company it now owns are committed to development of the Peace river.
They are satisfied with the economics of generating power on the north central B.C. river and transmitting it 600 miles to the lower mainland.
They are content that they have out-foxed both Ottawa and Washington. And, if nothing is ever done to unsnarl the complications on the Columbia it won't matter a ruddy kilowatt to the people of this province.
A confident Dr. Shrum outlined his views on the future power picture for me this week.
That statement has not been denied to date. I emphasize again that these are the words of Dr. Shrum. If hon. members know who Dr. Shrum is in British Columbia they will realize that there is a lot behind these words.
I wish to make some comments about a speech by Dr. Keenleyside who is a member of the energy board of British Columbia and chairman of the B.C. power commission. I might say that some members of the press gallery and some persons who have been associated with Dr. Keenleyside in the United Nations and in various government departments tell me he operates the best personal publicity bureau of any civil servant in Canada. I know something of his very effective publicity through the public relations division of the B.C. hydro commission. Anyway, he has made a speech and distributed it widely across Canada. Moreover he is available, I understand, according to information given to me to Canadian clubs and other groups. He is quite willing to address them on this question and to place his views before them.
First of all, I wish to say that I am one who takes strong exception to employees of the public in the civil service or those who are heads of bodies such as the hydro commission making public statements on highly controversial issues. Those are matters which should be dealt with by the elected representatives of the people and by the people themselves. I have read Dr. Shrum's views. Dr. Keenleyside takes a different view and as I have said before he has been voicing his opinions by making speeches to any appropriate group which has been willing to listen.
Now I should like to make a few comments on the text of the speech which was made by Dr. Keenleyside on December 15, 1961. This speech was made in Nanaimo. I quote:
To the extent that our power problems are political in character I shall have no comment to make although, in present circumstances, any discussion of these problems may have political implications. But any such implications will be

incidental to my argument. Like everyone else, I have views on public matters, but I have taken no part in past political controversies and I have no intention of doing so now.
That is the understatement of the year. In fact, in my opinion, Dr. Keenleyside as a public employee and servant of the people is improperly engaged in one of the sharpest political controversies between governments in recent years.
Further on, as reported at page 5 of his speech, Dr. Keenleyside had this to say:
Nevertheless, low costs of large quantities of firm power are still important factors in deciding on the location of industry and the growth of population. Thus it is of the very first importance that British Columbia should have available quantities of power adequate to meet every foreseeable demand and at a price that will stimulate that demand.
Every industrial enterprise and every prospective settler should be aware that the cost of power in B.C. is at least as low as it is anywhere else on the continent. This has never been true in the past; it can and should be made true in the very near future. Any development program that does not aim directly at this target should be discarded.
Dr. Keenleyside, according to his speech, proposes to reach this target by selling Canadian power in the United States over a long period of years. I just mention this in order to show the contradiction in his argument. He continues, as appears on page 6:
The energy board indicated that the Peace could meet incremental loads of about 1,750 mw up to about 1975-78 and Columbia could meet incremental loads of about 2,500 mw up to about 1978-83. Thus well before 1985 the initial plans for these two rivers will have to be expanded or other sources developed to meet our domestic needs alone.
In that statement he puts the Peace ahead of the Columbia. He goes on to say as appears on pages 6 and 7:
It is appreciated that the cost of coal in Alberta is relatively low and so long as thermal plants can be constructed at the load centres there may not be large markets for the export of power from British Columbia. Nevertheless, the Alberta authorities are already showing an interest in Columbia power, and if, as was pointed out earlier, the costs of thermal power increase, our hydro generation, in spite of transmission costs, may soon become competitive in Alberta . . . But an interprovincial tie might well prove to be mutually advantageous. This will be particularly true if the present experimentation in high voltage, long distance, low cost transmission techniques proves successful, as Russian, Swedish and New Zealand tests seem to suggest.
The dream of a national network may be much nearer than was anticipated even three years ago. It is a dream that we all should seek to turn into reality.
However, although Dr. Keenleyside talks of Alberta showing an interest in Columbia power, he would prevent this development occurring for many years by selling surplus power in the United States on a firm basis over a long period of years. He continues:
This does not, of course, apply to the sale of downstream benefits which are not exports and
The Address-Mr. Herridge
the sale of which is permitted under the terms of the Columbia treaty signed by Ottawa and Washington.
Article 5 of the treaty provides that Canada is entitled to one half the downstream power benefits and that the United States shall deliver to Canada at the boundary this amount, less a transmission loss and amounts disposed of under Article 8, which provides that by exchange of notes a portion of this power can be sold in the United States.
However, without a doubt, the basic purpose of the treaty is to provide large quantities of cheap power and, in so doing, benefit the people of British Columbia as a whole through industrial development and the increased employment which will result. Undoubtedly, this purpose would be defeated and Canadians placed at a competitive disadvantage if the bulk of low cost downstream power were committed to the United States on a firm basis for a lengthy period as suggested by Dr. Keenleyside.
To continue, he goes on to say as reported on page 8:
Informal discussions have been held over the past year with agencies and organizations in the United States and we now know that a solid market exists for firm power at an attractive price.
This statement has never been proved to date and no one can say that it is a fact at this time. To continue the quotation:
If the Peace river power is not at first completely utilized in Canada some part of it could be offered to the United States at Blaine for about 5 mills.
Dr. Keenleyside here is suggesting that the Peace river is to have the whole Vancouver market with the intention of selling the downstream benefits to the United States over a long period of years. Then he continues, as appears on pages 10 and 11:
The terms of our agreements will not be 80 years but from 15 to 25 years, and the agreements will provide specific assurances that the power can be repatriated at the end of the contract term. This has already been publicly accepted by the U.S. authorities.
Well, anyone knows that if we sell firm power over a period of 15 to 25 years to the United States experience has proved that they build industries, they build communities based on that power, and it will never be recaptured by Canada.
Further on he says on page 11:
During the ten years, 1950-1960, there have been deliveries of firm power to the United States from Canada of about 150,000 kilowatts to 176,000 kilowatts each year.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Will the hon. member permit a question? I understood him to say, and I have understood it to be the fact, that if we export power for lengthy periods communities

The Address-Mr. Herridge are built up which are based on that power and that in spite of all the treaties in the world you would not get the power back. Notwithstanding that, have the United States authorities recently been ready to agree that this should happen? In other words, is what I have considered to be a fact invalidated at all by recent action of the United States?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The latest I have read is that in the first instance they would not sign a contract for power unless it is over a very lengthy period and on a firm basis, and I suggest that experience proves that when you sell power over a lengthy period you cannot recapture it. There is discussion in United States newspapers about the industries that can be established on the basis of this power. Dr. Keenleyside goes on to say on page 11:
During the ten years, 1950-1960, there have been deliveries of firm power to the United States from Canada of about 150,000 kilowatts to 176,000 kilowatts each year. These figures represent a little over half of one per cent of the total net generating capability of Canada today.
My comment in that respect is that Dr. Keenleyside fails completely to mention that all of these deliveries are on a short term basis and in some cases on an interruptable basis. I quote from page 13:
Sometimes it is a temptation to believe that there is some proof in the stories that one hears from time to time about the determination of influential interests in Ontario and Quebec to protect certain schemes or plans of their own by preventing the federal government from allowing British Columbia to use its power resources to maximum value.
By "maximum value" he means sales to the United States. Maximum use for British Columbia power resources is to sell the surplus power to Canadians. This seems to be an attempt on his part, in my opinion, to raise the old east versus west bogey, which I think is a most unfortunate approach. On the same page he says further:
Among our own people the fear has been expressed that a sale in the United States of our downstream benefits, as provided in the treaty, will mean that we would be selling cheap power to the Americans instead of bringing it home to use ourselves. If this were true I should certainly be among the first to oppose it. But, except in a very limited and temporary sense, it is not true.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this again is a complete distortion of the facts. Dr. Keenleyside knows it is true. He participated in all discussions that were held here in Ottawa during which there was never a hint of such a policy with respect to the sale of downstream benefits. Then, on page 14 of his speech he says:
The United States would get about 1 million kilowatts by making new expenditures which would be the equivalent of one mill per kilowatt hour.

I have discussed this with engineers, Mr. Speaker, and, of course, Dr. Keenleyside does not know this. I turn to page 15 where he
says:
B.C. could provide for its own needs by developing the Peace and paying a little over 4 mills for Peace power.
Without a doubt 4 mills is low. This is the key to the situation. It is in my opinion, to force Peace river power on British Columbia and keep out Columbia power and sell it in the United States. On page 16 Dr. Keenleyside says:
It was, of necessity, a compromise document and, on the whole, it gives Canada a return which a few years ago would have been discarded as a quite Utopian fantasy.
Here is my comment on that. This return was not to be on the basis of the sale of power in the United States. It was to be on the basis of cheap power delivered to the Canadian border. Then, I turn to page 18 where he says:
And who can say with complete assurance that the federal government will continue to refuse to give Victoria the same kind of assistance that it is giving Regina in the case of the South Saskatchewan dam?
Talk about not entering into political controversy, Mr. Speaker. In the first instance, the projects are not comparable, in my opinion, and in the second instance, this is a highly political statement on the part of Dr. Keenleyside and I think an improper statement coming from an employee of the people of British Columbia. He is our servant and he needs to remember that. I quote from page 19:
We should ... as soon as sale contracts can be negotiated in the United States proceed to the immediate development of the Columbia river treaty projects with a view to obtaining the first financial returns from the sale of the downstream benefits at the earliest possible moment-hopefully 1965.
In my opinion and in the opinion of a good many persons with whom I have discussed this matter, this policy is a complete sell-out of our power resources to the United States.


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


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like the indulgence of the house for two or three minutes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Five minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: May the hon. member have a few minutes to finish his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am sorry to have taken the time of the house but I am very concerned and feel very deeply about this

matter, and I represent the views of a lot of my constituents and many other Canadians.
While the United States will appreciate this additional power and the flood control that this treaty will provide, no mention has been made to date of the even greater value of this enormous quantity of water for irrigation and other purposes. Friends of mine in the United States came to see me and informed me that already a number of pipes of huge diameter are being installed above Grand Coulee dam and plans are being made for the irrigation of hundreds of thousands of acres. We can use this water to irrigate hundreds of thousands of acres in the Okanagan in British Columbia.
In the future power can be obtained from a number of sources, but with the increase of population water will become an ever scarcer and more valuable commodity. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to take advantage of the present situation to:
1.	Renegotiate the treaty and in so doing make the Mica Creek dam the heart of the development on the Columbia and eliminate the High Arrow dam with its unnecessary destruction of natural resources, communities and a large amount of public and private investment. We can at the same time provide our friends in the United States with ample stored water, flood control and so on.
2.	Preserve this million acre park intact with its abundance of recreational, fish and game resources.
3.	Establish a river basin agency which should represent the various interests in the basin. The primary impact of a water resources development and management program is on the people of the region affected. To date they have simply been told what is going to happen to them by their servants. The influence of water development is widely felt on agriculture, on forestry, on industry, on recreation and on fish and game resources. Such a development has a pronounced effect on the physical characteristics of the area in which all the residents have rights and important interests. Therefore, it is essential that the basin agency should represent the populace generally in the same manner as a legislator would represent them in other fields.
4.	Proceed immediately to promote the development of a national power grid in order that surplus power from the Columbia would be used to develop Canadian industry and promote employment.
5.	Promote an appreciation and understanding on the part of the public generally of this vast project and so enlist the co-operation of the people and their organizations.
The Address-Mr. Nielsen
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say this. Let our motto be: Use Canadian power to develop Canadian industry and, second, use Canadian water to develop Canadian agriculture. I urge the government to seize the opportunity presented by this stalemate to promote the planned development of our resources to the advantage of all Canadians. I thank hon. members for their consideration.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I should like to add my congratulations to those extended to the mover (Mr. Bourdages) and the seconder (Mr. Browne, Vancouver-Kingsway) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne as well as to those extended to the newly appointed Deputy Speaker and the new Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Flynn).
I intend to answer some of the charges made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and others who have spoken from the other side of the chamber, by dealing with two departments with which I have endeavoured to make myself familiar while I have been here, namely the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and, just as important, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.
When I first arrived here it was a surprise and a source of wonderment to me that the federal government could go along for so many years without recognizing the necessity for creating a department of forestry inasmuch as the activities of such a department would undoubtedly increase the economic stature of Canada. The second matter that surprised me was the fact that such little attention was being paid to the activities of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys having regard to the fact that the mineral industry in Canada latterly has been responsible for some 40 per cent to 42 per cent of our total exports. In the time during which I have been here it has been the practice of hon. members opposite to adopt the attitude of scorning the expressed policy of the government of developing Canada as a whole rather than as a group of ten provinces. I refer particularly to the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) who I am sorry to note is not in his seat but who cannot go without mention, as well as another absent member, namely the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets). These members and many more like them on the opposite side of the chamber tend to look upon Canada as it is often described, namely as a narrow ribbon of population stretching from the Atlantic across to the Pacific. They forget completely that well over 40 per cent of the nation's resources lie above the boundary line of the sixtieth parallel.

The Address-Mr. Nielsen
The resources of the north have always been a challenge. They have always constituted a potential which, if attacked with vigour, imagination and vision, would produce for Canada an economic impetus which would be felt in a corresponding rate of growth in our national economy. It seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition and those who support him look not to national development in terms of the development of natural resources in a national sense but rather to the development of measures which are calculated to impress those more highly populated areas of Canada in which of course, a greater number of votes are to be reached. In this consideration perhaps lies the secret of 22 years of Liberal tenure when the north, in the language of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), stagnated. In those years, Mr. Speaker, little was done in the way of vigorous, imaginative and aggressive development of the resources heritage which belongs to all Canadians and which lies within the confines of this vast part of Canada. However, one needs only to make comparison.
It is all very well for hon. gentlemen opposite to attack the policies of the party of the north. That is indeed what this party is, but not in the sense that it expects to gain votes for developing the north; for in that area constituting 40 per cent of Canada there are only two seats, namely the one for Yukon and the one for Mackenzie River. Hence one cannot confront the government with the accusation that they are attempting to garner votes by putting national funds into the development of northern resources. The common sense conclusion must be that the government is making a sincere endeavour to develop these resources for the benefit of the whole of the nation.
It is easy for the Leader of the Opposition to say that what is required are wise and farsighted plans and policies-I believe those were his words-with leadership which puts national interest above party advantage. Surely the Leader of the Opposition cannot accuse the government of putting party advantage above the national interest when the professed intention of the government is to develop the resources of the northern areas which are represented, in terms of seats in the House of Commons, by two out of 265. I ask hon. members opposite, Mr. Speaker, if they really believe the words of their leader when they accuse this government of putting party advantage before national interest when they follow the aggressive, enlightened and vigorous policy of developing the north and when the intention must be that of promoting the national interest and only that?


There are two parts of the speech from the throne upon which I should like to comment before dealing with the activities of the two important departments I have mentioned. One is that portion which deals with-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps this will be a convenient place for the hon. member to interrupt his address.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourned I had mentioned that there were two points in the speech from the throne to which I wished to refer as they are of particular interest to me. One is the provision which parliament will be asked to make for an expanded program of encouragement of scientific research in Canada, a provision which I should like to believe is the result of the work of the special committee on research which was established last year. It is, I believe, the responsibility of government to expend moneys in partnership with private industry particularly in the field of applied research so that the facilities of governmental agencies, especially those of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, are made available to fundamental research.
The other provision in the speech from the throne to which I wish to refer is the subject of a bill which I have introduced this session concerning representation in the Senate, and I will simply refer to that by expressing the hope that the measure concerned will make provision for representation in the Senate for the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
Before the dinner adjournment I was drawing comparisons, and I should like to refer very briefly to the fact that I put on record in Hansard last session a table of comparative statistics as to the amount expended on investment in northern development in the five years prior to 1957 and the amount expended in the four or four and a half years subsequent to 1957. In most cases the investment was multiplied five times and in many cases it was tenfold.
In answer to those who are critical of the progress which is being made in the northern development program, I have some figures here from the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. For the fiscal year 1956-57 federal expenditures on road

construction and maintenance in both the Yukon and Northwest Territories amounted to $2,655,000. In the current fiscal year the estimates provide for $9,278,000. I should explain that the final figure for expenditures is not available since all the accounts are not in, but the program is proceeding according to schedule. To me this increase in federal investment in Canada's northern areas is indicative of those wise and planned policies to which the Leader of the Opposition was referring yesterday in his remarks, expenditures which I think I should say were completely overlooked when he and his colleagues formed the government.
In total the votes for work in the north administered by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources have grown from $11,318,000 in 1956-57 to $36,536,000 in 1961-62. The resultant stimulation of prospecting which will undoubtedly bring about a greater and more rapid exploitation of the nation's mineral wealth in the northern areas of our country cannot, in my view at any rate, be overemphasized.
A more startling comparison, however, exists with regard to oil and gas exploration activity in the areas north of the sixtieth parallel. The total number of leases, permits and reservations in good standing in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon is 2,133 covering 106,680,022 acres. Compare this with the January, 1957, total of 12 million acres under permit in addition to about 6 million acres in the two reservations in the Yukon territory and the small proven field at Norman Wells.
Since major oil and gas exploration got under way in 1957, about $56 million has been spent. Between now and 1970 indications are that a further $300 million will be spent and the total may well go far beyond this. Information at the present time about plans for the coming year indicates that expenditures of the order of $15 million will be made over the next 12 months. I will not bore the house by including the breakdown of the permits, leases and reservations which are now in good standing in the territories. Suffice it to say that it is as a direct result of the oil and gas policies of the government that such a large expansion in the stimulation of oil and gas exploration in the northern areas of Canada has come about.
Passing to the activities of the mines and technical surveys department, again I refer to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition when he said that what is required is wise and planned policies, farsighted plans and policies with leadership which puts national interest above party advantage. Again I em-
The Address-Mr. Nielsen phasize the point that the policies that the government is following in the development of these northern areas of our nation cannot be held to be anything less than in the national interest, particularly in view of the remarks that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues have made time and time again criticizing the government for making these large investments in Canada's north rather than making them in the more populated, vote-catching areas of the south. I submit it is in the national interest of those opposite that this nation be developed as a whole and not region by region.
A brief glance at the economic situation relative to the mineral industry in the country provides, I think, some very startling comparisons. Canadian mineral production in 1957 was valued at $2.1 billion, with metallic minerals accounting for $1.1 billion and industrial minerals accounting for $442 million and mineral fuels $555 million. Per capita value of mineral output was $128.64. The seasonally adjusted index of physical volume of the mineral industry was 235.8, with the index set in 1949 at 100, and the index for the industry as a whole in 1957 was 148.6.
Canadian mineral production in 1960 is valued at $2.5 billion, with metallic minerals accounting for $1.45 billion, industrial minerals $480 million and mineral fuels $570 million. Per capita value of mineral output is estimated at $140. The seasonally adjusted index of physical volume of the mineral industry is estimated at 257, and the index for the industry as a whole in 1960 is estimated at 169.
In the three year period from 1957 to 1960, the total value of mineral production increased $400,000, or 19 per cent, averaging a little more than 6 per cent per year. The index of physical volume for the industry in that period increased from 235.8 to an estimated 257.0, or 8.5 per cent.
At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that the value of our mineral exports was 40 to 42 per cent of the total value of the nation's export trade. Exports of minerals and products based on the mineral industry in 1950 were valued at $812 million. The value of the total exports in that year was $3,118 million.
Exports of minerals and mineral-based products, for the first nine months of 1957 and 1960 were valued at $1,521.5 million and $1,718.9 million respectively. Total Canadian exports in 1957 and 1960 were valued at $3,570 million and $3,899.6 million respectively, and on this, Mr. Speaker, the conclusion can be made that minerals and mineral-based products accounted for approximately

The Address-Mr. Nielsen 44 per cent of total exports in the first nine months of 1960, up from 42 per cent in the like period of 1957, and 26 per cent for the 1950 calendar year. The importance of the mineral industry to the nation's economy, I submit, cannot be overemphasized.
The sum total of mineral products on a comparison basis will be illustrated when I say that iron and its products exported in 1957 accounted for $392.8 million, or 11 per cent of the total, while in 1960 they accounted for $464.9, or 12 per cent of the total. Nonferrous metals and their products brought in $742.8 million in 1957, which was 20.8 per cent of our total exports, and in 1960 they brought in $920.6 million or 23.6 of the total. In fact, exports of mineral products increased all along the line from 1957 to 1960, and I believe that the increase is in a large measure attributable to expanded activity in the development of natural resources brought about by the policies of this government.
We have been criticized by the opposition for not taking any action. We have been criticized by the hon. member for Assiniboia for stagnation in the development of the nation's natural resources, but let us have a look at the facts in so far as the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys is concerned.
Action taken relative to the development of the north started in 1958 with a $6 million photographic project of the Arctic. Second, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys has recognized a definite need to secure additional information about the resources potential of the Queen Elizabeth islands area of Canada. This region may be a valuable future potential source of oil and minerals. The department has therefore organized and dispatched a research team of 60 professional and sub-professional personnel to the area, and this group has produced valuable practical information which will be essential to the ultimate development of the resources of the Arctic islands.
Third, shoran geodetic control work was completed in 1958 for the Arctic islands and fourth, a program of accurate topographic mapping of the Arctic islands, which will continue for four or five years, was commenced.
The fifth point is that in co-operation with the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources a survey is proceeding of localities in northern Canada which may serve as sites for new communities. Sixth, preliminary surveys for power facilities on the Yukon river have recently started.
The seventh point in the program is that geological work in the north has been greatly increased since 1957 in accordance with the

expressed government policy of developing Canada's northland. The eighth step was the launching of geographical surveys in northern Canada, which are now under way in cooperation with the department of northern affairs, to help develop the economy of surveyed areas and assist local Indian or Eskimo populations.
Surveys are proceeding towards new locations or relocations of settlements in northern Canada, and the tenth point is that an intensified program has been undertaken of recording the earth's magnetism and magnetic storms, particularly in northern Canada to assist navigation, surveying and geophysical prospecting. Is that indicative of a lack of wise planning and policies? Things that should have been done long ago are now being undertaken by this government to develop a part of Canada which for years and years was forgotten and which, in the words of the hon. member for Assiniboia "stagnated" under the rule of the Liberal regime.
What about the roads to resources program?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: What about the bridge at Prince Albert-an improper use of the funds?


Erik Nielsen: Would the hon. member repeat that?


George James McIlraith: They built a bridge at Prince Albert which was an improper use of the funds as voted by parliament.


Erik Nielsen: My friend the hon. member for Ottawa West, interjects from his seat, as his colleagues are wont to do from time to time, and if I had not asked him to repeat his question I would not have heard it. That, Mr. Speaker, is the way he gets it in Hansard. He sneaks it into Hansard, as so many of his colleagues do, and it is not until next day that we get an opportunity to read what they have said, and then we do not always have an opportunity to reply. Well, there have been more bridges built than the bridge at Prince Albert and remember, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals were speaking for years and years about the Saskatchewan river dam project. The Liberals have been speaking about roads and bridges all across the country but there had to be a different government come in to do what the Liberals were only talking about.
Sound action has been taken by the mines and technical surveys department in relation to the roads to resources program. A very significant contribution to the roads to resources program is being made by the geological survey of Canada in connection with surveys over 60,000 square miles of potential

mineral territory in northwestern Ontario. Commercial aircraft are being employed to assist in the aerial work. This type of program provides the opportunity of working with the provinces in developing new techniques in prospecting on a regional scale. The geochemical work, in particular, may have broad applications to mineral exploration in Canada. Already, prospecting has been stimulated in northwestern Ontario as a result of this activity in mineral exploration. The aeromagnetic maps prepared by the geological survey of Canada and the Ontario department of mines are being distributed and are aiding considerably in encouraging mineral industry activity.
The geological survey is actively continuing its program of aeromagnetic survey work through Canada and makes maps quickly available to assist in the search for new mineral deposits.
Officers of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys have been responsible for mineral resource appraisals in connection with all proposed road programs across Canada since the establishment of the roads to resources program, a program which was initiated by this government and talked about for many years by those opposite.
Before my time expires I wish to deal very quickly with the federal contribution made in respect of the development of social services in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, that part of Canada which I again say constitutes 40 per cent of the nation's wealth and resources-perhaps even more than that.
In the Yukon territory federal contributions were made to schools in the following amounts: to the Destruction bay school $45,500; to the Takhini school, $214,500. This is still under negotiation. The Watson lake school, $72,865; to the Selkirk street school, $149,370; to the new high school, $367,188 of $1J million. Negotiations are still going on there. The federal government is contributing 75 per cent of the estimated total cost of the new vocational school in the amount of $743,000. To the separate schools program there were grants of $162,000 and $40,000 in those years.
The federal contribution to education in the Northwest Territories was $5,036,987 in 1957-58; $5,059,486 in 1958-59; $3,910,314 in 1959-60, and $2,240,514 in 1960-61, with a gross expenditure of $16,247,301 since this government took office. There is a forecast for 1962 of well over $2 million.
The same story can be told throughout federal department after federal department having anything to do with the north. Where 26207-1-9
The Address-Mr. Matheson before you had a complete absence of attention to the north-indeed, a complete neglect-you have now a sincere and a very well meaning intention to develop Canada's northland to the benefit of the nation.
I can point out several small indications, such as the Prime Minister's visit to the Yukon territory and the Northwest Territories, which areas for the first time in Canada's history were visited by a Canadian prime minister. The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) said during the last session that he visited Canada's northland. I said then, and I say again,-and I challenge him now that I see him in his seat-to tell us when he did visit the northland. If he indeed did travel above the sixtieth parallel he certainly did not look around him to see what potential this area of Canada had to offer to the economic development of the whole nation.
What action has the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys taken relative to applied research in the mineral resource development of this nation? In the first place, the practice followed over the years of assisting the mineral industry by laboratory research projects carried out in the mines branch laboratories has been accelerated during the past two or three years. Projects are carried on at the specific request of companies and also in line with fundamental research plans of the department directed toward greater development and utilization of Canada's mineral resources. In particular, stress is being laid on techniques which will lead to further processing of minerals in Canada, something which I submit was entirely overlooked for many, many years by those opposite.


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


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address myself to one of the most urgent and certainly most ignored problems in Canada, the plight of the dairy farmer. Before doing so I wish to join in the congratulations to both the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
(Translation):
I should like to offer my congratulations to the new Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Flynn) on his recent appointment. I have been closely acquainted with the other distinguished member for the constituency of Quebec South, Hon. C. G. Power, who is a great Canadian and who successively held four portfolios. Although the present Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys does not belong to the same party as Mr. Power, I suggest that he take him as his model.

The Address-Mr. Matheson
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, the seconder of the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) concluded his remarks with these words:
By any analysis of our economy and its future prospects there is no cause for pessimism. By any analysis whatever there is every reason for all Canadians to move forward to a greater and brighter future under the brilliant leadership of the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, one of the world's outstanding leaders.
I should like to refer to the language used by the Prime Minister in the opening campaign speech at Massey hall on April 25, 1957, which is very much in the minds and memories of us all. He said:
We will assure the farmer of his fair share of the national income by maintaining a flexible .. . price support program to ensure an adequate parity for agricultural producers based on a fair price-cost relationship... It represents in general the viewpoint of organized agriculture across Canada. It represents the experience of every other country with free economy in agriculture. It represents the need at this time if agriculture is to take its proper place in this nation.
I will now read from the Ontario Union Farmer of January, 1962, page 1, an article entitled "Promises of the Government":
These are the written words of the Conservative government and we quote further-"Canada now has a Prime Minister and a government who are not only greatly concerned about the farmer's position in our national economy but are determined that everything possible will be done to place agriculture in its proper position in that economy".
Then the editor says:
Lately there has been a considerable selling campaign in action to promote the idea that the present government has fulfilled all their promises to agriculture and to the farmers concerned.
Thank goodness we have a few people in farm union ranks, at least, to challenge these statements.
Then the article continues:
In view of the fact that inflation was not checked, the dollar value remains near the half way mark, and there is certainly no justification to say that farm people enjoy the degree of equality promised and advocated for years by our present Prime Minister.
I should like to refer this house to a few figures, the latest that I have been able to obtain from the Ontario department of agriculture. These figures refer to total standard fluid and special fluid milk bought and they are for Leeds county: $4.86 a cwt. for special fluid milk and $2.51 for secondary milk, or an average of $4.23. If we look at the figures for the years 1960 and 1961 we see prices dropping substantially. There was a drop from $2.60 to $2.53 in 1960-61, or a decrease in the average from $4.59 to $4.52.
What about the cost of products? I am referring to the latest figures available to us for products delivered, via Ottawa, November 1960-1961. For oats delivered, Ottawa, the price was $62 per ton. A year later it was $67.80. With respect to barley the price
[Mr. Matheson.)
was $54.25 in 1960 and it went up to $62.50 in 1961. For bran the price was $50.25 in 1960 and it went up to $54 in 1961. For shorts the price was $52.35 in 1960 and it went up to $57 in 1961. For dry and freshening feeds the price was $73.25 in 1960 and it went up to $77.25 in 1961.
I read from the Toronto Globe and Mail of April 20, 1957:
For the farmers Mr. Diefenbaker pledged a fair share of the national economy through a flexible support price program to ensure parity between farm prices and costs.
At St. Patrice de Beaurivage at the beginning of his campaign the Prime Minister spoke on the same subject.
(Translation) :
Speaking on the same subject, Mr. Diefenbaker added: "We recognize that the farmers' prosperity is the basic condition for the general prosperity of this country. The reforms we advocate can be summed up as follows: reasonable prices by means of price support, and substantial markets for your products."
(Text):
Let me refer to some of the figures I was able to get just today about the price index. I think we heard the Prime Minister tell us he was maintaining the value of the Canadian dollar. If this is so it certainly does not prevail with respect to some of our people in farming constituencies. These figures refer to commodities used by farmers and I am taking first the figure in August, 1957, which was 241. In 1962 the latest figure available was 262.4, an increase of 10 per cent. If we take out the living component we find that in August, 1957 the figure was 257.6 whereas now it is 287.8.
If we turn now to the consumer price index we find that in November 1956 it was 120.3. The figure in 1961, the latest figure available, was 129.7.
One of the last things which Mr. Grant Dexter wrote before he died was a series of articles which he called "Fountain Pen Money" as a result of the fiscal and monetary policies adopted by this government. These are matters we can fairly bring to the attention of the house and of the public. An article which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail on September 11, 1961 was headed "Costs in Canada, U.S., Higher, Rising Faster Than Elsewhere: Study". The Montreal Gazette on December 7 carried an article headed "Living Cost Index up Half-Point to Record". On October 6, 1961 the Ottawa Citizen carried a story pointing out the cost of living in Canada was rising higher and higher.
Leeds is a typical dairy county with 30,000 milk cows and an annual production of 180 million pounds of milk. I would say that between three-fifths and nine-tenths of all the land stretching from Leeds to the Quebec border in Glengarry is used for dairy farming.

These are old settlements-the oldest and proudest U.E.L. settlements in Canada-and it will not do to tell these people to move off the land or to grow trees.
But all Canada is interested in this dairy problem. Ontario is by no means the only province which is interested in this solution. I recall to the house that in Ontario important fluid milk shippers are established at Halton, Ontario, Lincoln, Essex, Haldimand and Sim-coe. Processed milk shippers are established in Oxford, Elgin, Perth, Huron, Hastings and Prince Edward. I invite representatives of dairy constituencies to stand up and be counted now, in their speeches in this house as well as in caucus, because the dairy industry is in trouble and it is about time parliament recognized some of the facts.
I stress the lead that Ontario must give, because 37 per cent of all fluid sales in Canada come from the province of Ontario. This is not a small business. This is a billion dollar business with 350,000 farm families and as many in the other branches of the industry, such as processing and marketing, dependent upon it. I may say we have 50,000 fewer dairy farmers today than we had ten years ago so it is not a case of this constituency growing; it is a case of this constituency now being in serious trouble.
May I refer now to some figures prepared by the economics department, Ontario Agricultural College. First, dairy specialty farms. This refers to a particular group of people, the producers of fluid milk. After making allowances for expenses and the interest on capital the net income from labour amounts to $3,027. There were 156 farms included in the survey made of that grade. Fifteen low labour income farms which were also surveyed showed an annual loss under this labour income item of $2,035. I ask any fair minded person in parliament: how would you like to have $30,000 tied up in a farm in order to earn an income from labour of $3,000? The Prime Minister spoke to an audience on May 16, 1957 and said that the farmer was the forgotten man in Canada's boom. I say now that the dairy farmer is the forgotten man in Canada's recession.
I turn now to refer to the report entitled "Dairy General". This deals with the people who sell to the processing plants. Here we see yet another picture. One hundred and twenty eight farmers stated their receipts, their expenses and the money left as operators' income. The final figure, net labour income, amounted to $1,212 a year. That amounts to 30 cents an hour for his labour for a man supplying milk to a manufacturing milk plant. I remind the house of the Prime Minister's promise that something would be 26207-1-91
The Address-Mr. Matheson done to assist the Canadian farmer who, he said, had been relentlessly squeezed between declining prices for his products and rising living costs. Well, never has the situation been as serious as that which affects the dairy farmer today.
Without a sound and healthy dairy industry there cannot be a sound rural economy in a great many sections of Canada. This is the most widespread industry in the country and it affects the livelihood of many people in every province. Any policy we adopt must be national in its scope. This is a complicated problem and it is one whose solution calls for the most careful study and analysis because conditions which prevail in one part of the country do not prevail in another.
For example, 50 per cent of prairie milk goes into butter and skim milk powder. Ninety per cent of the cheese is made from Ontario and Quebec milk. British Columbia is the only province where 50 per cent of the milk produced is used as whole milk. This situation makes a national policy difficult to formulate. Some of the figures I intend to read now will, however, make the situation clearer to hon. members. First, I think it is important to note where the milk produced in Canada goes. The amounts of milk going into various outlets are approximately as follows:
Butter and skim milk powder		42 per cent
Whole milk and cream	 31 per cent
Condensed products and ice cream 9 per cent
Cheese	 7 percent
Farm butter and milk used on farms 11 per cent
100 per cent
This means that 73 per cent of production goes into two outlets which return over 80 per cent of the total cash income for the whole industry. Our policy, as a national policy, should, surely, be directed toward expanding these two largest sources of income, but this is not the case.
Our problem is that the consumption of butter is declining at a rate which is creating a serious situation, one which is frightening well informed people in the agricultural industry today.
A second serious point is that whole milk consumption is not keeping pace with our increase in population; for some years we have seen a regular decline in consumption per capita. What is going to happen very shortly is that this basic industry will collapse. A national policy must reverse both the trends I have mentioned. We must consume far more dairy products, particularly butter and whole milk. It is essential that this should be done and it should be tackled on a national basis because nothing else will be sufficient.

The Address-Mr. Matheson
One might say that there is another solution, namely, to cut production. However, this is not a solution which we on this side of the house would favour. We may leave it to the wisdom of some of these agricultural people who have done a lot of research on this question and who have suggested for example the introduction of a reduced lactation period, unified marketing plans within provinces, etc., all designed to control overproduction. But a national policy should be directed to increasing consumption immediately.
The promised land, the supreme gift of God, was, according to the book of Joshua, a land flowing with milk and honey. The fact is that we are a severely depressed land stockpiled with butter, and what is flowing is not milk. I was reading an article in the Rural Co-Operator of January 10 which indicated that beer consumption in the Toronto area increased by 12 per cent last year. I will read hon. members later an account of what happened to milk consumption in the same period.
Before getting to the heart of this problem may I offer the house some general facts that we should consider before enunciating a solution to the difficulties of this industry. Canada total milk production is estimated at 19.2 billion pounds, 4 per cent higher than in 1960. There has been a build-up in cow numbers since 1960 and this will possibly last through 1964. The numbers of milk cows on farms has increased in the five year period from 1957 to 1961 by 6.2 per cent in Ontario and by 5.6 per cent in Quebec, for a national average of 3.8 per cent.
Along with this increase in the cow population a great tendency has been noted to increase the size of commercial farms. There has certainly been an increase in efficiency, in technique, in ability to provide better pasturage. From 1948 to 1957 the number of cows on factory milk farms increased from 17 to 20 and on fluid milk farms from 23 to 30. The capital required for a factory milk farm now averages about $22,000 and for a fluid milk farm about $38,000.
One of our problems is the fact that the production per unit has increased substantially. The average last year was approximately 5,900 pounds per cow. One very large herd in Ontario had a production rate of over 10,000 pounds per cow right throughout the herd.
Now, is there a solution to this problem of current over-production? This over-production problem may only be with us for a few years. There is a solution. We have to deal with this butter situation. We have to face it now. We cannot put it off. I remind the house that the government had ample notice of this

problem. The dairy farmers and the Canadian federation of agriculture have made representations to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton). I recall reading an address which was delivered in the other place by a former provincial minister of agriculture, on January 24, 1961. This address was reprinted in a great many farm journals and a good many editorials. Nothing has been done. No attention has been paid to the problem. The present butter surplus is the direct result, Mr. Speaker, of this government succumbing to the temptation of promising before the last election that there would be a 64 cent floor price on butter, I say that with authority.
For three and a half years the government has watched the surplus build up until it is now a great depressant to the dairy industry. In this connection, I would tell the house that between 1949 and 1958, when there was a 58 cent price on butter, the domestic disappearance of butter increased year by year. The disappearance was 261 million pounds in 1949 and 322 million pounds in 1958 at the 58 cent floor price. In 1958, we had this pre-election offer of 64 cents, without any deficiency plan whatever, although many experts requested a deficiency plan in order to put butter on the market on the basis that would ensure its immediate use. Butter consumption started down in 1958 and has dropped every year since. We now have the situation of a very serious build-up of stocks, one that is worrying a great many experts.
I remind the house that Mr. Pierre Cote, who was president of the national dairy council, has, on several occasions, given addresses on this subject. He gave one on January 16, 1962, and I notice that he gave an important address on December 1, 1960, which was directed to the government. He has spoken on this subject repeatedly, asking that the government immediately take steps to get rid of this surplus which is actually depressing the value of all dairy products.
We on this side ask for an immediate consumer subsidy of 14 cents a pound so that butter can be put on the market at 50 cents per pound. Then it will be consumed before it is spoiled. There might be a little variation of this policy. There may be other ways by which this can be done, but we have to get that butter to the public at a price that will ensure its sale. I suggest that the government give consideration to the 50 cent figure. It might be that we could do this in other ways by means of deficiency payment, but we have to get rid of this butter. We have to get people back into the habit of consuming butter.
Our national goal should be the consumption of 20 pounds of butter per person per year. With 18 million people in this country,

this consumption rate would restore the balance. We are now consuming approximately 15.1 pounds per person. I might tell you that for many years we had a much larger rate of consumption of butter than this. I will refer, if I may a little later in my remarks, to some of the actual consumption rates by Canadians. There has been some popular chatter about cholesterol and heart disease. This question was handled by the former minister of agriculture to whom I have referred. He indicated that studies had been made in the United States which indicated the extent to which Canadians suffered from heart disease in comparison with the people of the United States who consumed far less butter. We know that the people of northern Ireland, Finland and New Zealand consume over 30 pounds per capita with a very slight incidence of heart disease. The United States has the highest incidence of heart disease in the world with a butter consumption of something over 6 pounds per person. There was a time when we, in Canada, consumed about 34 pounds of butter per person. I ask the house, therefore, to consider very seriously the question of whether or not the Department of Agriculture should give some thought to reversing this adverse publicity which is debasing our industry.
The next thing we have to consider is the problem of the consumption of fluid milk. There has been a steady downward trend in the consumption of fluid milk since 1956 when consumption was 314 pints per person per year. In 1961, the consumption per capita was around 302 pints. A comparison of the decline in fluid milk and cream since 1955 is even more startling. Canada must rapidly become milk conscious for the sake of national health as well as for the sake of the dairy industry. We do not dare compare this trend with the consumption of alcoholic beverages in the same period.
In our world of the dairy industry, a permanent cloud rests in the lowering of consumption of our milk products per capita. This consumption, which was 1,150 pounds per capita in 1950, has lowered to 940 pounds in 1960 whereas production remains at a base of 1,035 pounds. Our future markets will be established by the solution to the equation formed by a growing population but meanwhile progressively consuming less of our products. I say to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) that one of the ways we could do this would be to make milk available to our soldiers and to people in service hospitals. We should give them all the milk they can drink. I am sure those of you who were soldiers can remember how
The Address-Mr. Matheson much you would have liked to drink milk in large quantities. Then, what about the penitentiaries? What about making milk available to those people in some volume?
What about a school program? In the United States and in almost all parts of western Europe a school milk program is doing a great deal to alleviate this problem. Could we reverse the trend in this country with a school milk program? I say we could.
I was noticing again an article published in one of the newspapers showing what had been done in the Windsor area. The milk producers league increased the use of fluid milk by 6 per cent in one year through the institution of a school milk program. In England we have a situation where they are getting rid of milk in volume by the use of vending machines. The government is taking an active interest in this program and they have increased milk consumption by 10 per cent by this technique. It would not be difficult to adopt this program in Canada. We must make milk available to our armed forces, our hospitals, our penitentiaries and particularly our school children. We could do this and it would be the best thing we could do for the nation. In the United States, about 4 per cent of the fluid milk being used is being used by school children. In Canada, the figure is less than 1 per cent. There is nothing that will improve this rate of consumption like a consumer subsidy for the fluid product.
Then, what about strontium 90? We have heard a lot about strontium 90 in recent days because people are so conscious of what has been happening as a result of these tests in the atmosphere. There has been much adverse publicity lately about milk as a carrier of strontium 90. Although it is in all foods, greater publicity has been given to milk because of its purity and because milk samples are available at all times of the year in all parts of the country for purposes of tests. I think it is time the Canadian government took a special interest in making it clear to the people that the cow screens as much as seven eighths of the strontium 90 from her diet. We do not know how much strontium 90 is carried in wheat, cabbages, lettuce and other things because these tests are not easy to do. They are easy to do in connection with milk. Even the one eighth of the strontium 90 which remains in milk can be removed. Dr. B. B. Migicovsky, of the research branch of the Department of Agriculture has developed a technique whereby this can be done. Another important thing is this. If the human body has a choice between calcium and strontium 90, the tendency is for the body to discriminate against strontium 90 and to take

The Address-Mr. Matheson calcium. Our greatest source of supply for calcium is milk. In other words, in order to be safe from the hazards of strontium 90 a person should drink milk.
It is urgent that we build up our consumption of milk products, particularly, as I say, of butter and fluid milk. Gilbert MacMillan says that one of the most important means to this end is to have a federal standard for whole milk. I refer to the many submissions that have been put forward by him and other dairy experts who say that it is about time that we had a federal .standard for whole milk which would clearly define the fat and Splids-not-fat content of milk. Mr. MacMillan is well known to the Department of Agriculture. He was president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada and served on the National Dairy Council. He was president of the Canadian Ayrshire Breeders' Association. His opinions are studied all over the world and, I think it is about time that we studied them in Canada.
I wish to refer only briefly to the problems of our powdered skim milk people. I am referring to a few comments by Mr. Philippe Pariseault that he made a few days ago. He says this:
We have seen then from September to November, a movement without equal In export sales and the give away prices varying from 5 cents to 52 cents at port of embarking for spray process powdered milk and 4 cents to 4i cents for roller process milk powder. How can one cover costs at these prices?
These prices do not even cover the drying expenses. Consequently the producers have suffered very seriously.
One of our greatest products in the dairy industry is cheese. This is a matter in which we: are interested in Leeds county. I know that in years past you have heard George Fulford and Hayden Stanton speak about Leeds cheese. At the turn of the century we had 85 or 90 cheese factories in Leeds county. Today we have eight. Yet this is a product which the British would like on a premium basis if we could produce the kind of cheese they want in their market. All our experts tell us that there is a great market for mature quality Cheddar in the United States. They say there is there a potential market of tremendous importance.
* i One of the problems arises from the fact that modern techniques seem to go against getting the kind of flavour for which the farmers were famous years ago. Although I do not know this, maybe they were not quite as sanitary then, but at least they produced a product that was known all over the world. Today we have a great many tests. Refrigeration seems to do something to cheese as also does pasteurization. However, it is necessary for us to be much more interested m our
IMr. Matheson.]

cheese community. Hector Arnold who, I believe, has Conservative sympathies, has protested the regrading regulations. He says that exports have been held up. There is available an article to which the Minister of Agriculture might care to refer. It is to be found in the Rural Co-operator of January 16, 1962. He mentions the grading requirements at the moment which are doing a great deal to spoil our export sales to Britain.
I know that some thought is being given to the matter, particularly by new Canadians. In Leeds we have many Dutch people who are highly skilled in dairy matters. They have been able to teach us a great deal about techniques of their own. They are splendid farmers and some of these people are going to start to produce a Dutch cheese that we hope to put on the domestic market and thereby perhaps help in fighting this 13 million pounds of import of foreign type cheese that is coming into Canada because of people's taste preference.
I have not addressed myself to some of the other basic problems of this industry such as the matters discussed by Dr. David Mac-Farlane and other people who mention the disparity in price between fluid milk and manufactured milk. I think many of these problems are within the purview of the province or even of the industry itself. It is a responsible, wise and shrewd industry which has given a great deal of thoughtful advice to the Department of Agriculture. What we must do is rapidly build up demand. Today in Leeds, when a farmer needs to buy a coat for his wife or a tire for his truck, it is necessary for him to sell cattle because he cannot pay for these things out of his milk cheque; nor indeed in many cases can he pay his taxes or the interest on his mortgage. Some of our townships are falling very seriously behind in past due tax payments.


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


Hon. W. J. Browne (Solicitor General):: At
the present time, Mr. Speaker, we are debating the subamendment. If I read the subamendment in conjunction with the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), the two joined together would read somewhat in this way:
We respectfully affirm that Your Excellency's advisers, because of their continuing failure to bring forward policies to deal with the real problems confronting this country, including the failure-
Here I am quoting from the subamendment of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue).

-to promote the planned development of our resources, sound monetary, fiscal, Investment and trade policies which will develop our economy so as to provide:
1.	expanding export markets for agricultural and industrial production;
2.	full employment;
3.	and, in co-operation with the provinces, a prepaid medical care program for all Canadians; and for these reasons do not deserve the confidence of the House of Commons.
It does not read correctly, Mr. Speaker, but I think what the hon. member meant was quite clear. It has always seemed to me that the serious speeches that have emanated from the northeast corner of this building have never been given the attention which they deserve. I know that the hon. gentlemen over there in that corner are serious minded men who study the writings of learned men who have thought out a way in which the world should be governed. They have thought this matter out and from time to time they have placed their ideas before us. Unfortunately most people do not take them very seriously. However, tonight I think I shall be justified in trying to analyse what the hon. member for Assiniboia meant. I do not think he gave the explanation in his speech or by the words which he has put into this subamendment.
I think that the key words in the subamendment-and these should be carefully noted by everyone-are "failure to promote the planned development of our resources". What is meant by "the planned development of our resources"? If you were speaking to a grade 8 child and you asked him what a plan meant, he would probably say, "Well, mother plans to take us to the movies on Saturday afternoon". But when you speak about a plan to the hon. member for Assiniboia or to his revered leader who led the C.C.F. party in Saskatchewan to victory for so many years, to them it means an entirely different thing. It means something that will affect the lives of everybody who comes under their sway or power.
Let us therefore look at this planned development of our resources and let us see what could be involved if we were to adopt this suggestion as a move towards settling the real problems confronting the country. The Leader of the Opposition had the good sense to say nothing in detail as to what should be done to improve things. He knows full well that this government has been doing a great many things which all hon. members in the opposition in both parties have supported. They have supported nearly every measure we brought in which has resulted in benefit to this country and has improved the trade of this country.
The Address-Hon. W. J. Browne
I remember reading a long time ago a statement by a writer who lived in a socialist country. He started out his book by saying, "Have nothing to do with planners". That left a great impression upon my mind and I should like to repeat what he said: "Have nothing to do with planners". What does that mean? These people are not going to be satisfied just with planning to bring about the right sort of climate in which industry can thrive and people can prosper. No, they want to plan everything. They want to plan not only the development of our resources but sound monetary, fiscal investment and trade policies.
Let us deal with monetary policies. Does it mean that they are going to take control of the banks and nationalize them, as the labour party wanted to do in Great Britain, nationalize both railways and do away with all sorts of private enterprise as the labour party did in Great Britain? The labour party of Great Britain went down to defeat ten years ago and it is very doubtful whether the British people will ever go back to the labour party again after the experience they had with them.
With respect to planned development, I suppose there was never a man in the history of Canada who had as good an opportunity to carry out a planned development of resources as did the premier of the province from which I come. In 1949 the present premier of Newfoundland was asked to form a government and he was a socialist. He was always a socialist as long as I knew him although he called himself a Liberal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: The Liberals may like that but we certainly do not.


William Joseph Browne: The former leader of the C.C.F. party once told me that this man was more of a socialist than Mr. Douglas.
Mr Argue: Who said that?


William Joseph Browne: The former leader, Mr. Coldwell, told me that. We know the definition of Mr. St. Laurent that socialists are only Liberals in a hurry, so when I say that the premier of Newfoundland was a socialist he could probably be described as a Liberal in a hurry.
When he came into office in 1949 he had the greatest opportunity that any man ever had to build up a sound and prosperous province because the public debt of the province of Newfoundland at that time was only $5 million. As a result of arrangements which had been made with the government of Canada, the public debt which was roughly about $70 million was reduced to about $5 million. In addition, there was a cash balance of about $42 million and assets which were
132	HOUSE OF
The Address-Hon. W. J. Browne afterwards realized amounting to another $8 million, so there were really financial assets of $50 million. I cannot remember the verse from Omar Khayyam but I do remember the principle that he had in mind when he said he would like to destroy the present state of things and remould it nearer to the heart's desire. That was the opportunity which the premier of Newfoundland had in 1949.


Mr. Howard:: You even misinterpret Khayyam.


William Joseph Browne: In the first election that took place in Newfoundland in May, 1949, the premier was elected with 22 or 23 members to about 3 or 4 in the opposition. Here was a socialist with $50 million and he started to plan.


William Arnold Peters: A socialist never had that kind of money.


William Joseph Browne: I am very sorry but I cannot understand what hon. gentlemen over there are saying because three or four of them speak at the same time. However, I think they should listen to this because I am quite sure that the premier of Newfoundland has read all the books they have but long before they did, before some of them were born, including the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Pitman). They should listen to the lesson that is to be learned as to what a planned economy means. This man started out and was going to build up industries. He was going to plan the development of our resources, and he started off with the hardwood industry.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Is there any charge for this lesson?


William Joseph Browne: No, but I
should like the hon. member to listen to it. If he does not want to hear it he can go out of the chamber but if he is going to stay here I should like him to listen.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I can stay here and I will still not hear anything.


William Joseph Browne: This is no Horatio Alger story. This is the story of a socialist and it is an example of what could happen to this country if we ever listened to the men in the northeast corner of this house. The premier of Newfoundland started out to build a birch plant and he made an agreement with a very experienced lumberman. The premier was in a hurry to get the plant going and he was convinced that Newfoundland had lots of birch trees that were suitable for the sort of plant that he had in mind because he had seen birch trees growing in the forest and, after all, if a person who is not a lumberman sees these beautiful birch 

trees growing he thinks there is a great deal of good wood there though he does not know what is inside the trees. He had to find that out. He had to find out what a difficult thing it is to have a birch plant.
However, the premier made this agreement with this lumberman who, before the document was signed, changed it from a personal agreement to a company agreement. He had the right to assign to a company and immediately formed a company and did so.
Let me tell you about the next step that took place in the construction of this birch plant, the first of 15 or 20 industries which our socialist premier in Newfoundland undertook.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Joseph Browne: Hon. gentlemen do not want to hear this. It is not pleasant news for them. This is not a story of success but rather a story of failure, failure that would be present in greater measure if we were ever to adopt the silly ideas contained in the subamendment.


William Arnold Peters: We will be campaigning on them in the next election.


William Joseph Browne: I am afraid my hon. friends do not want to hear the truth. I have said a hundred times that they have these wild and woolly ideas in their minds but I should like to tell them what actually happened when a socialist had charge of a government. They do not want to hear the story but I am going to try to get it across.
When this plant was started some property was acquired which was cleared and they built a plant. There was no supervision. There was no one appointed to see that the goods that were to be there were the goods that were needed, that they were of good quality or what quality or what quantity they were. The man with whom the contract was made to build the plant had his own plant right next door, just as near as the summer residence of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) is to the national park. He sold $365,000 of his own goods to this new industry that was being established.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I deny that I ever sold any goods to this industry.


William Joseph Browne: Not the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was the last person mentioned by the hon. member.


William Joseph Browne: I know the hon. member does not make that amount of money even if he has a best seller. The lumberman sold $365,000 worth of materials

from his own private company to put into this plant and there was no one to inspect anything. There was no one to certify that the bills were correct and the minister of national resources was therefore unable to pay the bills. There were millions of dollars of unpaid bills lying on his desk and he resigned his position for he could not sleep at nights. He was sleepless because of worrying about the condition of things.
The hon. member for Assiniboia is very much amused, but I shall not take too long to tell the story. It is only just started, but after all the premier of Newfoundland did not have much experience of government and it is easy to understand how he could make mistakes. The minister of natural resources resigned. He could not take it any longer, and I had it from the mouth of the auditor general himself that there was nobody to sign the vouchers. The bills were still unpaid; hundreds of thousands of dollars were still unpaid. The deputy minister of economic development and the deputy minister of natural resources would not sign them. Neither would the deputy minister of finance, and the auditor general had to collect the lot of them and bring them down to the premier for signature, a man who never saw one of them presented, and he signed them all "Joseph R. Smallwood". That is an example of socialism.
That plant cost $6 million. I could go into great detail about it. How much money did it give back in profits? The smallest coin I have in my pocket is a one cent piece, but the plant did not give back even that much profit. I would ask the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), or any of his colleagues who so frequently like to come to the assistance of the premier of Newfoundland, to deny the statement I have made. That was the premier's first attempt before he met with Dr. Valdmanis who was employed here by the Liberal government, I believe at one time in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. At least he advised on the immigrants coming into the country and he was also in the Department of Trade and Commerce, although I do not say he had a big job. He was employed too at Carleton University, and later he wanted a job and went to Nova Scotia to look for one. From there he went on to Newfoundland where he met the premier, and when he entered the presence of the socialist minded premier the latter thought he was an angel come from heaven. He called in the press and Mr. Don Jamieson of CJOXN to listen to the brilliant man who at one time had been minister of finance in Latvia before the war, who had worked under Dr. Schacht in Germany in the cement and 26207-1-10
The Address-Hon. W. J. Browne gypsum industry, and said this was the man who would help build up industry in Newfoundland.


An hon. Member:: What about the statue?


William Joseph Browne: That came later but this was the first introduction of Dr. Valdmanis to Newfoundland.


Hazen Robert Argue: Why not talk about the mess over there.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will hon. members who do not have the floor refrain from making remarks?


William Joseph Browne: The hon. member has said why do I not talk about the men over here.


Hazen Robert Argue: The mess.


William Joseph Browne: I do not know about any mess here. When the hon. member wishes, he can get an opportunity to talk about a mess. The hon. member does not want to hear about the mess that took place under socialism.


Hazen Robert Argue: I submit that the subject of Joseph Smallwood is irrelevant at this time.


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) agrees with the hon. member for Assiniboia that the subject is irrelevant because the hon. member for Laurier does not want to hear what a so-called Liberal premier did in a province as a socialist, and the hon. member for Assiniboia does not want to hear the true story.


Lionel Chevrier: I wish to raise a point of order. During the debate on the speech from the throne the Speaker has repeatedly interrupted the debate when matters under discussion are matters coming under provincial jurisdiction. For the last five minutes the hon. minister has been dealing with matters which fall to a large extent under provincial jurisdiction and I submit that if he is going to be allowed to do that then surely others on this side of the house ought to be given the same treatment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. minister was using that subject as an illustration, but I would ask him to continue.


William Joseph Browne: I am also going to make certain references to socialist enterprises that took place in Saskatchewan. I seem to remember something about a box factory out there.


An hon. Member:: And a shoe factory too.


John Ferguson Browne: However, I shall go on to outline the socialist enterprises

The Address-Hon. W. J. Browne undertaken by the government of Newfoundland after 1949. First of all there was this $6 million plant. Then there was the cement plant at Corner Brook.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Which is now making money.


William Joseph Browne: I almost forgot about the steel plant, and it is not often hon. members hear a story of this sort. It is a fascinating story and it is seldom the house hears one like it. This steel plant was going to be 20 times as big as the first one. They were putting in one big plant but in two or three years there were going to be 20 buildings. A big plan was drawn up by Dr. Valdmanis, and I have a book at home which contains pictures showing the layout of all the buildings along the lake. The people of Newfoundland were told that so great a debt was owned to Dr. Valdmanis, this great genius from Latvia, that the premier said one day the people of Newfoundland would erect a monument to his memory. He further said he would not like to be premier for one hour after Dr. Valdmanis left, that he would rather lose his right arm than Dr. Valdmanis, and the premier was a right handed man.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this a point of order?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I was-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: What is the hon. member rising on?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member is rising to ask leave of the minister to ask him a question.


William Joseph Browne: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the reason the minister is outlining these tremendous efforts made by the premier of Newfoundland to do something for Newfoundland because there is nothing he can say his government has done for Canada?


An hon. Member:: That is one of your poorer efforts.


William Joseph Browne: The hon. member is asking if the reason I am referring to the efforts made by the premier of Newfoundland to get industry going in that province is because our government has done nothing for Canada. If my hon. friend wants me to talk about what our government has done for Canada I would not have enough time tonight to do that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what we want to hear.


William Joseph Browne: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate does not like what I am saying because he owes his seat there, and also his seat when he was over here and held office as minister of the crown, to the premier of Newfoundland, about whom I am speaking tonight. He could not possibly get elected in Newfoundland, or any other part of Canada, if he did not have the support of the premier of Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising now on a question of privilege, a question of personal privilege. I owe my seat to the electorate of Bonavista-Twillingate who voted freely in an election, just as freely as they do in any other part of Canada, and I got a larger majority in the election of 1958 than I did in the election of 1957.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is misleading to say-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Do not defy the Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member having stated his point of privilege should take his place.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have taken my seat, sir.


William Joseph Browne: No one
knows better than the hon. member the debt which he owes to the premier of Newfoundland, and I cannot say a word against him for showing gratitude to the premier for the kindly interest the premier took in him when he took him out of the position of secretary to the privy council and put him in the seats of the mighty, in the front benches of the House of Commons. He was an ambitious man. But he had worked close to Mackenzie King, a great Liberal prime minister who ruled this country longer than any other Canadian prime minister, so he could not help but be saturated with similar ambition. He is a brainy man.


An hon. Member:: I'll say he is.


William Joseph Browne: He is a great speaker. I do not think there is a more fluent speaker in the house. The only trouble with him is that he cannot stop the fluency. He is an explosively fluent man. I know the hon. gentleman is really trying to draw a red herring across this matter.
He asked me two questions. I was not going to spend much more time dealing with the socialist activities of the premier of Newfoundland, but I think I can draw this conclusion for the benefit of my hon.

friends over there in the northeast corner, as well as my hon. friend who comes from the northeast corner of Newfoundland, that if a man tries 15 or 20 industries surely he ought to have one success.
I defy the hon. member to state one of the successes. I will name the industries, as far as I can remember them. I am likely to forget some of them. There was the birch plant, the steel plant, the cement plant, the gypsum plant. In those last two there was graft to the amount of $500,000. There was the battery plant and the rubber plant. By the way, the rubber plant cost $2 million. That was $2 million right down the drain. The rubber was so bad that after people bought the rubbers produced they brought them back to the stores and said, "These are rotten; we cannot keep them together". Twenty thousand pairs were sold in Montreal for $1 a pair. When the premier was reproached about it he said, "Don't you think I was smart to sell them to the French Canadians?" Twenty thousand pairs that cost, I suppose, about $5 a pair. There was $2 million lost on that. And who do you think is renting that building in which the plant was established? It is now rented by the Department of National Defence. That is the first return for the provincial government of Newfoundland from the 20 industries they started, the rent they are getting from the Department of National Defence.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman asked me a question. I do not want to intrude in this-


William Joseph Browne: No, you
asked me a question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman challenged me to name one industry. I was accepting his challenge.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman does not want to hear it-


William Joseph Browne: The hon. gentleman asked me a question. He asked me what was my reason for criticizing the premier for the efforts he made. Thirty million dollars went into these industries and not one cent has been returned except the rent obtained from the Department of National Defence. The rent they are going to get for the next couple of years will be a good investment for them. There was no profit in those industries. There were other industries. There was the glove factory, the tannery and the candy plant. I cannot remember the rest. However, I think one can conclude from what I have already said that the results of these ventures of the 26207-1-10i
The Address-Hon. W. J. Browne government into business is justification for the statement that socialism is unsound.
We can readily believe that sometimes you can get a very clever man, like the hon. member for Assiniboia or one of his colleagues over there, who might think he could do better if he were premier. In fact, he would go much further. I will deal with that in just one moment when I have fully answered the question of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
He asked, what did we do for the people of Canada? Let me start with that. The first thing we did was to increase the benefits for old age pensioners. We raised the old age pension from $46 to $55 in the first year we were in office, and we made a similar arrangement with the provinces for these people to receive old age assistance at the rate of $55. Does the hon. member say that was not to the benefit of the people of Canada?


Mr. Drysdale:: He is inarticulate now.


William Joseph Browne: In the last
session, we raised the pension for soldiers and the war veterans allowances. Does the hon. member say that was not to the benefit of the people of Canada?


John Andrew W. Drysdale: He is still inarticulate.


William Joseph Browne: Yes, he makes no reply to that. When Newfoundland came into confederation in 1949 the government of that province received $15 million from the federal government in the year 1949-50. In 1956-57, the year before we came into office, the government received the sum of $24 million, from the federal government-$17 million as unconditional grants and $6i million as conditional grants. In the present year they will be receiving $62 million in grants, $38 million in unconditional grants and $24 million in conditional grants. That is an increase from $24 million to $62 million, or an increase of 150 per cent in the grants made to Newfoundland.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to inform the minister that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I may be allowed to ask the minister one question about the figures he just gave.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member asks a question, as the minister's time has expired the unanimous consent of the house is required.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hazen Robert Argue: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is a custom in this house that

The Address-Miss LaMarsh immediately an hon. member sits down another hon. member may ask, "May I ask a question?" We have done that hundreds of times under the rules.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would remind the hon. member that the minister's time has expired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a rule of this house that one may rise and make a correction of a factual statement. The minister gave the figure for the year 1956-57 as the last year-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I ask the minister, is it not true that in the year 1957-58 the payments were under Liberal legislation exclusively?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Miss Judy V. LaMarsh (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity, as a freshman member, to participate in a throne speech debate. It is a double pleasure to speak in this debate just after you, sir, have taken the chair for the first time. I wish to extend to you and to the new Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Flynn) my felicitations upon your appointments. Of course, Mr. Speaker, it is a double pleasure because it is likely that this will be the last such speech prepared by the set of advisers now sitting to your right.


An hon. Member:: Wishful thinking.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: A year ago, it may be recalled, we on this side of the house, in our anxiety to see what the government proposed to do to alleviate the dreadful unemployment then at large in the country, gave up the right to participate in this debate. We left open to the government sufficient time so that they might, in lieu of the time taken on the debate on the speech from the throne, bring forward whatever massive program they had in order to assist the people of Canada.
Even those feeble assists given to the economy by this government in 1961 have borne some stunted fruit, but the Canadian people stand today, more than a year later, not much closer to the gates of economic heaven than they did at the time I first came into this house.
While it is true that unemployment is somewhat reduced and employment in Canada is higher, what of those thousands who remain without employment, so many of them out of work and out of benefits now for more than months, some for years? Is the government to


be content with the winter works program and its temporary survival training courses, these projects of little note and narrow impact? Are we in this country expected to be satisfied with these measures, in light of today's unemployment figures, in the same sense as the man who keeps beating himself over the head with a bat and who answers, when he is asked why, "Because it feels so good when I stop"?
What an indictment was given yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) of this past year of government by impulse. One would anticipate, with such major issues as our trade position, our long term employment policies, the ills of transportation, of immigration and the like left undecided after the longest session of our parliamentary history, that such a searching criticism as that levelled by the Leader of the Opposition would for once be met by a statesmanlike, carefully detailed answer of defence, if defence there be, of government policy.
Instead, we were treated once again to that far from unfamiliar action of the right hon. gentleman who now leads this government, a niggardly personal attack upon those in this party and its policies. Instead of attacking the problems of Canada the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) once again indicated that he is not equal to doing more than attack the Liberals of Canada. Once again he showed his contempt for parliament and the people. The people called for the solid bread of a clear, consistent policy of growth and expansion, for the impetus which can be given to a national economy by wise and steady leadership. In place of the bread for which they call they receive a crumbling cake demonstrating a cynical belief that once again the Canadian people can be bought off.
Where, in the debate which took place yesterday and this morning, did the Prime Minister show those great qualities of heart and mind demanded by people in these swiftly changing times? Instead, the right hon. gentleman lurched from point to point, once calling us the new Liberal party and then complaining that the same old people were within the party. And every now and then, with a glint in his eye for what he has shockingly called a servile press, he tossed out a piece of his crummy cake designed to take the country's eyes off his otherwise tasteless display.
To top it all off he had the temerity to say, as did the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) in yesterday's debate to be found at page 57 of Hansard, that the Leader of the Opposition was smearing this country. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition

attempted to state the facts as we on this side see them and as, indeed, it is our responsibility as members of the opposition to state them. He sought to bring these facts to the attention of the country and to the house. As for the accusation that he was smearing the country, I should like, with great respect, to read some of the things which the right hon. gentleman himself said in a debate which took place on March 15, 1955. I refer, first of all, to his words as reported at page 2035 of Hansard:
No one here wants to speak of depression. We on this side of the house hope the government will act, because there is no depression in other countries of the world. In Britain there is no such thing as serious unemployment today, the unemployment in Britain being less than half of our unemployment with a population several times greater than ours. The same condition prevails in West Germany and in other private enterprise countries.
Remember that this talk of a depression in 1955, this criticism of a government for its unemployment figures came from a man who now guides Canada's destiny and who has guided it into, but not out of, the greatest unemployment in our history. Then again, also as reported at page 2035, we find this passage:
We do not believe in preaching pessimism; we do not want to see the condition of affairs brought about which will create panic; but we are asking the government to act now.
That is what we on this side are doing. We are asking the government to act now. We are not smearing the Canadian people; we are not preaching doom and gloom. Our words amount to little more or less than those used by the right hon. gentleman who now calls them almost subversive.
There is a further quotation which I think hon. gentlemen should hear and it is to be found at page 2037. I ask hon. members to listen to it with great care bearing in mind that in the speech from the throne in 1960 there was a singular word which did not appear. That word was "unemployment". It does occur in the speech from the throne which was presented to us only a few days ago. But listen to what the then private hon. member for Prince Albert had to say as reported in Hansard:
The government does not even recognize that there is serious unemployment. Unless they do recognize that fact they cannot achieve in their minds any actuality for the solution of the problem.
This is from a man whose spokesman in the government later said: unemployment is not a serious condition in this country; it will go away with the snow. There is one further quotation to be found on the same page and these words were spoken by the same hon. gentleman:
The Address-Miss LaMarsh
That is the position of affairs here in Canada, which is an island of unemployment, as it were, in the midst of other private enterprise countries which are going ahead and which have kept unemployment down to basic levels. Surely that fact alone and the loss of our trade from month to month and from year to year, accelerating as it has in the last few years, should cause this government to decide to lift itself from its supine attitude, not of indifference but of apathy coupled with hope, and actually do something to meet the situation of the unemployed who are today asking parliament to act.
I take it that to talk about unemployment and trade losses was not smearing the government of that day and the people of that day. Those who now sit in the seats of the mighty and who are responsible for such purple passages in the Hansard of that year are the same individuals who have been at the helm while unemployment has mounted and trade has slipped.
There is one final passage I should like to quote in which the hon. member for Prince Albert, as he then was, summed up the burden of his thinking. I, at this time, will make the same appeal as he did then:
Will the Prime Minister not assure the Canadian people that he believes action is necessary and that... one of the first things to which this conference will give consideration is the problem of unemployment? Will he not state that he realizes that if we continue to deliberately delude ourselves concerning the unemployment situation we shall bring about a fear complex in this country which will have serious results in the future?
So went the gloom of that day. This was from a man who at that time said he was speaking out for the benefit of Canada. Well, we on this side of the house speak out for the benefit of Canada. We on this side ask the government to recognize this problem, not to sit back in contentment because a few thousand more people are at work than were at work a year ago. We ask them to remember the hundreds of thousands of families in this country who tonight are still without an adequate income.
We have been subjected in this country to a series of numbing shocks-shocks so severe that our foes gloat, and our friends agonize over our future. First was the shock of that tidal wave of unemployment which rose and rose to subside only when seasonal workers might find spring employment. Three quarters of a million Canadians and their friends and relatives shivered without incomes, and others feared the deluge might catch them as well. Then, when all Canada began to draw a tentative breath and hope that unemployment might be easing, came the shock of the Coyne fiasco, as unholy a row as has ever been seen in this country and caused entirely by the refusal of this government, led by a self-styled defender of the rights of the individual, to permit one particular individual his day in court.

The Address-Miss LaMarsh
Then, we had the long delayed budget wherein the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) swallowed his tail without blinking. I have forgotten exactly what reptile this trick imitates. Surely, no minister has ever before so completely reversed himself, maintaining all along that his 1960 speeches respecting devaluating the Canadian dollar and his 1961 speeches say the same thing and that he was right both times.
Then, this strong right arm of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Diefenbaker) went off on a trade jaunt to Ghana where, by careful leaks, he and his breezy cohort proceeded in a working conference to discuss the imminent entry of Britain into negotiations to join the common market. There, Mr. Speaker, we were treated to a neat switch on the old adage and these ministers conducted themselves there as though perhaps they were of the view, "If you can't join them, beat them." These two ministers who bear the responsibility for finance and trade and commerce have, by speeches from one part of the country to another, in all of their public utterances over a period of months, made clear that Canada by whining, wheedling, kicking or screaming or any show of petulance or anger, would make it clear that the British government might not, although duly elected to look after its own people, enter into such negotiations.
Well, we have lost now, Mr. Speaker, more than a year. We have lost now the original favoured position for discussing our entry into the Six. We have lost this impetus and we have gained nothing but world wide condemnation in this loss. We, in this country, but a few short years ago were thought of as being ably and well governed, but now we receive letters from those in and out of financial institutions, people from all parts of the world and particularly from England and the United States, asking us what it is that Canada proposes to do. What has happened to Canada? Why is it that she proceeds no longer in a calm and studied way? Why is it that she appears governed by impulse?
Then, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the chief cause of complaint, the complaint of all Canadians against this evil genius, as he has been called, this man who sits in the highest seat in this country, this man who must have-


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. lady should withdraw that statement.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


David James Walker: I think the phrase should be withdrawn.


Some hon. Members:: Order; sit down.


David James Walker: The opposition sounds like a bunch of noisy lambs.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion has been made, and I think it not without substance, that the application of the term "evil genius" to a member of parliament is contrary to the practice and the rules. I suggest to the hon. lady that she might very well reconsider that expression.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, Your Honour; I was merely quoting what I had read elsewhere.


An hon. Member:: Whom were you quoting?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. lady probably appreciates that to adopt a quotation of others is to adopt the words themselves. I would not think that that modified the position.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I do not know that my personal knowledge of the term is completely correct. I will bow to Your Honour's superior judgment in this regard and will desist from the use of the phrase.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: I have indicated my position fairly clearly. I think the proper course for the hon. lady to follow is to withdraw an expression which is unparliamentary.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I so withdraw, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it being 9:45 o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 38 as provisionally amended, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question on any subamendment now before the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the house leader what we will do tomorrow and whether he has decided yet when the interruption of debate will come for the discussion of the matters which were referred to by the Prime Minister?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We will continue this debate tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. At the conclusion of the sitting tomorrow I shall be able to inform the house with regard to the question asked by the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
It being eleven minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
			
			
			
			
			
			
-			
			
			
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, January 24, 1962