1962-10-11

Mr. Reid Scott (Danforih) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-57, to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, under the Criminal Code as it presently stands murder is divided into capital and non-capital classifications, with death being the punishment for capital murder and life imprisonment the punishment for non-capital murder. The purpose of this bill is to provide that, except in cases of treason, the punishment for murder shall be life imprisonment. In short, the purpose is to abolish capital punishment except in cases of treason.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CARRIAGE BY AIR ACT


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-58, to amend the Carriage by Air Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Léon Balcer: The purpose of this bill is to bring into legislative force the protocol to the Warsaw agreement.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PUBLIC HARBOURS


Léon Balcer: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-59, to approve an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Ontario respecting public harbours.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Léon Balcer: The purpose of this bill is to give legislative authority to an agreement between the government of Canada and the
government of the province of Ontario respecting harbours, along the lines of section 108 of the British North America Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE ACT


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act to increase from two hundred million dollars to four hundred million dollars the limit of the liability of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation under contracts of insurance entered into under section 21 of the act; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Léon Balcer: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Aeronautics Act to authorize the Minister of Transport to establish boards of inquiry to investigate aircraft accidents, to give such boards the necessary power to carry out their functions and to provide for the expenses of witnesses appearing before these boards, and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Triniiy):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to report on the accident that occurred at Bagotville yesterday, and has a board of inquiry been set up?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague the Minister of National Defence has an answer to that question.
376	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: I regret to inform the house that at approximately 7.50 p.m. yesterday, October 10, a very unfortunate accident occurred at R.C.A.F. station Bagotville, when an R.C.A.F. CF-101B Voodoo aircraft, while taking off on a routine night operation, collided with a T.C.A. Viscount as it was turning off the runway. One member of the T.C.A. crew was killed instantly and one passenger died shortly after being admitted to hospital. The crew of the Voodoo managed to control their aircraft until they could ensure that it would crash in an open field before they ejected at a dangerously low altitude, and with some injury to themselves.
Until such time as a complete and exhaustive investigation has been carried out it will be impossible to determine the exact cause of this accident. Such an investigation was instigated immediately, and the most highly qualified personnel available were flown to the scene within hours. Every facility and assistance are being provided to this team. However, it is not yet possible to forecast when the results of this investigation will be available.
The Department of Transport is co-operating in the investigation.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As a supplementary question, is the control tower at the airport operated under the Royal Canadian Air Force or the Department of Transport?


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is an R.C.A.F. station and the control tower is operated by the air force.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Will the minister give the house a complete and official report, when it is available, on this unfortunate accident?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):
[Later:)



BAGOTVILLE-AIR COLLISION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, following the fatal accident which occurred yesterday at Bagotville's military airport, could the Minister of Transport inform the house of the steps his department intends to take to avoid the repetition of such a tragedy?
Does the minister feel it would be worthwhile to consider the eventual use of St. Honore's fine airport by all civil and commercial aircraft?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague the Minister of


National Defence has just stated, a full investigation is under way.
As for the possible use of the airport in St. Honore, I do not think that will come in the near future.
( Text) '



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Since the Thanksgiving season is over and fall is upon us, could the minister give us any information as to when we may expect the report of the Gill commission that is investigating the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I said earlier in this session that we expect to have the report from that commission some time this fall.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister which is of great importance to the people of British Columbia and particularly those in southeastern British Columbia.
In view of the excellent suggestion made in the other place concerning the establishment of a Senate committee to investigate the Sons of Freedom problem, and in view of the urgent necessity of not allowing the problem to drift further, would the Prime Minister express the readiness of this government to co-operate with the provincial and local authorities to achieve a long term solution to this problem?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on the suggestion in the form of a resolution made in the other place. The matter is still under debate there, the discussion having been adjourned. However, I think I might say that throughout the years the Sons of Freedom have been problem adults, not only in Saskatchewan in my early days but also, in recent years, in British Columbia.
As far as the federal government is concerned, in so far as any portion of this problem falls within the responsibility of the federal government every consideration will be given to bringing about a settlement, though I must say, on the basis of the experience of years, one might express the hope without too much hope.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. In view *of the Prime Minister's experience in connection with this matter, may I ask him if he has had-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -may I ask him if
he has had any recent contacts?
(Translation):



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Vialeur Elhier (Glengarry-Prescoll):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Could the minister give us some explanation about the 12 cents a pound subsidy paid at present by the government on Canadian butter and tell us for what reason whey butter is not included in that category?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I feel that the hon. member should put his question on the order paper.



REQUEST FOR COMPENSATION FOR PREMIUM REDUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and it concerns the 92,000 eastern farmers with an annual income of less than $1,200.
What compensation will the Department of Agriculture offer following the reduction of hog production premium, which means a loss of a million and a half dollars for our farmers? Shall we ask them to tighten their belts during the coming winter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that the question, as put, rather aims at giving some information and expressing certain views. Moreover, and even if the question has some urgency, the information asked for is not of the kind which should be sought on the orders of the day.
Therefore, if the hon. member would have his question put on the order paper, he would no doubt receive an answer in the near future.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. How is it possible to judge whether a question is important or not,
Inquiries of the Ministry urgent or not, or whether it should be put on the order paper? I notice that about 75 per cent of all questions are referred to the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: It is true that most questions should be on the order paper and the only ones allowed on orders of the day are those asked in view of immediately obtaining information which is urgently needed.
Again, I would suggest to the hon. member to read, or perhaps re-read, the comments in Beauchesne's book on the subject. The explanations it gives are, in my opinion, complete and we might continue-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, coming back to my point of order, I would like to point out that Beauchesne's book is printed only in English. We have no French copies.


Mr. Speaker:: I am extremely sorry, but this book is a publication which, though it was accepted by parliament, has not been brought out by parliament, and the volume was only printed in English-


Bernard Dumont: Does the austerity program stop us from having it in French?


Mr. Speaker:: There is no French copy of this publication in existence.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, could one not possibly have it translated into French?


Mr. Speaker:: That is a matter which it is up to the house to decide and I do not think it possible to obtain an answer from anybody for the time being, nor that it is the responsibility of any one department in particular. However, I shall consider the hon. member's suggestion.
(Text):


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether I could comment on the point of order which has been raised and suggest that no where in the citations to which you have referred us-certainly not in English; it may come out this way in the French translation -is there any reference to the question of urgency of a reply.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllraith (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he will table the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Ontario respecting public harbours before the legislation comes up for consideration by the house.

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):	Mr. Speaker: Right away on a supple-
Yes, Mr. Speaker.	mentary the hon. member has been able to get
his point across, but it is not a real supple-CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS mentary. He is making a representation.



REQUEST FOR IMPROVEMENT IN POSITION OF RETIRED PENSIONERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will there be any action taken at this session of parliament supplementary to that taken just before the end of the last session toward improving Canadian National pensions in the case of those already on pension?


John George Diefenbaker: As the hon. gentleman knows, the proper answer in that regard is that when government policy has been determined, the house will be made aware in due course.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF TRAIN SERVICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: May I ask a
question of the Minister of Transport. On October 3 I asked the minister whether his attention had been drawn to the proposal of Canadian National Railways to discontinue trains Nos. 195 and 196 between Prince George and Prince Rupert in British Columbia later this month and, if so, what steps were being taken to prevent this proposal in order to ensure the safety and employment of the people involved and to maintain a degree of service to the communities. The minister answered on the following day, October 4, by saying that he had drawn this matter to the attention of the management of the C.N.R. and that when he had a report from them he would communicate with me again.
Because of the impending discontinuance of these lines which is coming closer day by day, I wonder whether the minister is now in a position to give the house some indication as to what is happening. Second, will he reply to the proposal with respect not only to trains Nos. 3 and 4 but to other trains of the C.N.R.?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, all I have to say is that I have not received a report yet from the management of the C.N.R.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question. Would the minister get in touch with the C.N.R. again because of the extreme urgency of this matter to the people involved?



TOBACCO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: I should like to direct to the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question of which I have sent him a copy. Have any of the trade missions dispatched by the government been advised to make a special effort to find a market for Canadian grown tobacco? If not, would the government consider instructing a mission to do so?


George Harris Hees: Most of our trade missions have been specialized industry groups, and as yet a mission representing the tobacco industry has not been arranged. However, during the past six months small missions of the Ontario flue-cured tobacco growers marketing board have visited Europe twice and Southern Rhodesia once, for the purpose of investigating export markets for Canadian tobacco in Europe and the production and marketing methods used in Southern Rhodesia. Departmental officials here and abroad facilitated the efforts of the two missions, and continuing work is being carried out as a result of these missions.
I might add that further activities will be undertaken shortly in the export promotion of Canadian tobacco, in which the department is co-operating with the tobacco marketing board.



REPRESENTATIONS AS TO CONTINUED


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Davis (Coasl-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that oil import quotas into the United States are announced prior to January 1 of each year, and because the recommendations of the United States interdepartmental committee are now in the hands of the President of the United States, what representations, if any, is the minister making to ensure that Canadian oil will continue to enjoy unlimited entry into the United States?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is in constant touch and is corresponding with its opposite numbers in the United States regarding this and other important trade matters; and the United States

government has been kept fully informed of our very definite views on this important subject.



EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. R. Berger (Vancouver-Burrard):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government been advised by the government of the United Kingdom what the new proposals are that Mr. Macmillan has said he is going to put before the common market to deal with the points raised at the commonwealth conference?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there are continuous communications between the two governments but, according to parliamentary procedure, the nature of those communications is not given to the house.


Thomas Rodney Berger: A supplementary question. I was not asking the Prime Minister what was the nature or content of the communication. I simply ask by way of a supplementary question, if I may do so, whether the new proposals have been communicated to the government of this country.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer I gave earlier applies to this question.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the report in this morning's Globe and Mail that delivery has begun of 200 Canadian CF-104 jets to No. 3 fighter wing in West Germany, and in view of statements by officials that the plane cannot carry out its role as a strike reconnaissance aircraft without nuclear armaments, can the minister advise the house if the decision to deliver these planes constitutes a decision to arm them with nuclear weapons without which they would be unusable in their intended role?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I feel the question transgresses the rules of the house in a number of ways; first, as to the urgency of obtaining this information, and second, because I seem to detect a number of opinions expressed in the question. It appears to be an argumentative type of question rather than one seeking information.
Inquiries of the Ministry



NORTH BAY, ONT.  STATEMENT ON ALERT POSITION OF BOMARC CREWS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Trinity asked if there had been a recent change in the manning of the North Bay Bomarc station. The answer is in the negative. Aside from a brief testing period earlier this year when the unit was first formed, there has been no change in the working hours of the crews on the Bomarc base at North Bay.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise the house if there is any intention of changing the state of operational readiness at that station at an early date?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Not at the present time, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Laureat Maltais (Saguenay):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Could the minister tell the house what steps his department intends to take in order to facilitate winter navigation on the St. Lawrence river between Quebec city and Seven Islands during the winter of 1962-63?


Mr. Speaker:: I must point out to the hon. member that his question should be put on the order paper.
(Text):



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: have a question for the Minister of Finance; I am sorry I have not been able to give him notice. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the allegations made before the United States tariff commission regarding the formation of a price fixing combine by British Columbia lumber mills, and has the restrictive trade practices commission recently had occasion to investigate such allegations?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the observation I made with regard to an earlier question respecting the urgency of information applies here also. Further, since the allegations appear to have been made only yesterday it would be rather

Inquiries of the Ministry difficult to have an answer as to whether the restrictive trade practices commission has had a chance to look into the matter.



REPORTS ON HEARINGS IN WHICH RETIRING COMMISSIONERS PARTICIPATED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Minister of Finance what steps he has taken, now that the services of Mr. Smith and Mr. Whiteley will no longer be available to the government, to see that any unfinished reports in connection with any hearings which may have taken place under their direction will be completed.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance):: I have not taken any steps in that respect.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the house will understand the quick reply of the Minister of Finance. One has heard so many speeches from the Minister of Justice on finance this session, it is understandable that this mistake is made.
I ask the Minister of Justice, in view of the fact the services of Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Smith are no longer going to be available, what has the government done, and the minister in particular, to assure that reports on which they were working will be completed in regard to hearings which took place under their direction.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Justice):: Everything possible, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a
supplementary question. Has the Minister of Justice, since the announcement of their retirement, had any communication whatever with Mr. Smith or with Mr. Whiteley with regard to this particular question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to interfere with any member of the restrictive trade practices commission in the discharge of his duties under the statute.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does that mean, then, that if these gentlemen do not make any reports, having in mind the fact that their services terminate at the end of the month, the hearings which took place will be allowed to lapse in so far as results are concerned; or will the minister order new hearings?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It means that the hon. gentleman does not understand the situation. If he will examine the statute he will see what the situation is in this respect.


These terms do not expire suddenly. They are ten year terms that expire at the end of this month. If the hon. member will examine the statute he will find there is no provision for extending the terms for any lesser period than ten years. The only provision the statute makes is for appointment for a ten year period. In that situation, the utmost will be done to assure that the work of the commission will proceed with a minimum-with a minimum, Mr. Speaker-of problems.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice and ask him whether it is the intention of the government at this time to introduce the bill amending the Expropriation Act, as suggested in two or three speeches from the throne.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has overlooked the fact that the bill has already been introduced.
(Translation):



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Viateur Éthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to put to the Postmaster General.
Could the Postmaster General tell us when letter carrier delivery service will start in the town of Hawkesbury?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member knows well that his question is out of order and that he will have to put it on another occasion, and not on the orders of the day.
(Text):



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monfeith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Parkdale asked me a question relating to the composition of liefcort. I am advised that the food and drug directorate was not aware that the dose of estradiol in liefcort was ten times the usually recommend dose. I should point out, however, that much higher doses than the usual dose are given in the treatment of

certain diseases. It was only after an involved chemical analysis that we found it not to be an extract of adrenal glands but a synthetic extract of hormones and hormone-like substances related to the adrenal and sex glands, including estradiol.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I should like to clarify an answer I gave in the house yesterday on our action in banning the distribution of liefcort. I told the hon. member for Essex East that the food and drug directorate of my department had stopped the distribution of this drug before action had been taken by the United States. In fact I find we acted before the United States food and drug administration let it be known that the drug could not be legally imported into the United States.
The point is that it is illegal for any drug to be imported into that country unless a United States new drug submission has been filed. The United States authorities discovered some time ago that liefcort was crossing the border, and customs officials were alerted automatically to refuse entrance to it. However, these instructions were based on the procedural question I have indicated. When Washington advised my department of the release on Tuesday, I assumed that it coincided with the issuance of instructions to border points.


Mr. H. C. Harley (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare with regard to liefcort. Dr. Liefmann has stated that he and his colleagues could continue to use liefcort. Is this in keeping with the order of the food and drug directorate?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, a clear distinction must be drawn between medical practice and the manufacture of drugs. While my department does have the right to control a drug under manufacture, it has no power to interfere with a doctor using his medical judgment to give treatment to individual patients. Dr. Liefmann is no longer manufacturing this drug for distribution under any circumstances outside his own office, and that is the only point with which we can be concerned. If there is any question as to whether his medical qualifications permit him to prescribe treatments, that could be considered only by the appropriate medical licensing body, in this case the college of physicians and surgeons of the province of Quebec.



PROTECTION OF PUBLIC AGAINST IMPAIRMENT FROM SMOKING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the urgent question by an hon. member a little while ago, asking the Minister of Trade and Commerce what steps the minister was taking to improve the tobacco industry, I should like to ask the minister what steps he is taking to protect the public from the impairment of health which results from smoking?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, the division of responsibility in the public health field is such that my department is not in a position to initiate educational programs in this respect. Each province must make its own decisions in such matters, though we are always ready to provide what assistance we can on request.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: May
I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries, notice of which has been given. In view of the answer given by the minister yesterday, as recorded in Hansard, at page 351, would the minister advise the house what steps have been taken to relieve the shortage of squid used for bait by Newfoundland fishermen?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the bait service of the Department of Fisheries has succeeded in obtaining small supplies of squid, inadequate it is true, but supplies of other types of bait have been made available and exploratory fishing in the area is being done to ascertain whether squid may be available in the near future. The whole problem is being very carefully watched.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question of the hon. member for Lincoln yesterday with regard to the Sarnia pilotage station, I should like to report that the department is aware of the work load situation at the Port Weller-Sarnia pilotage station. Pilotage in these waters is the joint concern of Canada and the United States. We initiated discussions earlier this week with the United States great lakes pilotage administration. Agreement has now been reached to register four additional pilots immediately, and others in training will be available in the near future.



M2 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry BRIDGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, I address my question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the very heavy traffic on the toll free Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges, is the government considering the possibility of eliminating the tolls on the Champlain bridge, which under present conditions is relatively unused?


Léon Balcer: My answer is no, even after my hon. friend's speech of yesterday.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. What is the reason that assurance has not yet been given that Mr. A. S. Whiteley will be returned to a civil service position when his term as a restrictive trade practices commissioner expires at the end of this month?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, neither I nor the government has any power to appoint any person to the civil service. This is a matter for the commission. Mr. Whiteley has the opportunity that is open to him, and I am sure is well known to him, to make application for whatever position he may regard as suitable, if that is the course he chooses.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Minister of Justice a brief supplementary question. Does the government's austerity program stand in the way of the civil service commission restoring Mr. Whiteley to the civil service?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The government has no austerity program. There is no such thing.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It has no program, just austerity.


Frank Howard: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether or not the government has any type of program.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It has a most comprehensive program that will, if given an opportunity, commend itself I am sure to the wisdom of this house.


Mr. Speaker:: I think on that note we may proceed with orders of the day.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, October 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gordon Chaplin for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Speaker:: I believe now the house is ready to hear the hon. member who has the floor.
(Translation):


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, this 25th parliament meets in special circumstances since Canada must face heavier responsibilities.
Personally, I am both pleased and honoured to be able to bring my modest contribution to this task as parliamentary secretary to such an important minister as that of agriculture. To my knowledge, it is the first time that a French Canadian holds such a post for that department in this house. I shall thus have the opportunity of being of greater service to the farmers of my country, to my fellow-citizens in eastern Canada as well as those of my province and of my constituency, who are already assured of my devotion. I have no greater wish than to put the knowledge I have of agronomy and my humble talents at the service of our nation's agriculture and of the development of the area which has done me the honour of re-electing me. Farmers from all across Canada, as well as eastern farmers and especially Quebec farmers, will find that I am ready to listen to their problems and to co-operate.
Although Canada is becoming an industrial power in the world, agriculture remains indeed one of the most vital factors in the Canadian economy. But it is true to say that the number of individuals directly concerned with agriculture has come down in these last few years, although farms are getting larger and production is more and more industrialized.
Agriculture remains the basis of our national economy and the yardstick of our prosperity. But in Quebec, we note with regret that of the 134,000 farms under cultivation in 1950, there were only 122,000 left in 1956 and scarcely 96,000 in 1961. Agriculture has not been too affected however, since farm production has continually gone up. Using new machinery and new methods, our farmers are

more active and our farms more productive.
It cannot be denied that it is the result of the work carried on, during the last few years, by our federal Department of Agriculture, the dedication of our county agronomists, the cooperation of numerous experts and in particular the result of the sustained efforts made by professional associations and co-operatives who lead and support the farmers.
However, in the front rank of these organizations comes our federal Department of Agriculture whose experiments and research benefit the whole country. I will be called upon to work more closely, in the future, with that department and I am proud of it because I will have an opportunity to help implement our Minister of Agriculture's great instructions regarding the marketing of agricultural products, their classification, the health of livestock, the freight subsidy for grains and finally the fine provisions of the Agricultural Stabilization Act. The last report of the stabilization board, which was received a few days ago, shows that more than $126 million were spent on agricultural prices support in Canada and that 18 products of various kinds benefited from it.
In Canada, and especially in our province, the considerable progress already seen is due to an elite of farmers who have been trained by great agronomists and true philosophers of rural thinking.
However, I worry over the fact that most of our family farms are not getting an adequate income. When one thinks that rural life rests first upon the family and then the parish, it is urgent that every endeavour be used to raise the standard of life of our rural families, so that the farming class can enjoy the same benefits and the same privileges as the other social classes.
According to the figures of the 1951 census -those from last year are not yet available- the gross income of more than 50 per cent of farms in the six eastern provinces of the country amounts to less than $2,500. This is absolutely insufficient for the owner or the producer who had to make heavy expenditures to organize his farming operations and who finds himself with a completely inadequate income which prevents him from enjoying a standard of life where he could honourably provide for his family and for the education of his children. This situation exists 27507-3-25J
The Address-Mr. Pigeon mostly in the areas which are called marginal. There might even be some at home.
I firmly intend to use my knowledge and energy to seek a solution which will raise the living standard of our farmers, especially in Quebec. In many cases, our farms are undoubtedly too small to give an adequate yield. We shall very likely have to make full use of our tillable land and industrialize reasonably our farms for the processing of western grain, in order to promote more extensive cattle farming at home.
We shall also have to strive to produce economically feed grain for the production of poultry, hogs and beef, if possible, in the eastern provinces. I am sure that the committee on feed grain will be able to consider this problem with the co-operation of the Canadian wheat board. This problem is of particular interest to me.
Other marginal areas will need additional assistance, and I believe that the legislation adopted some time ago under the name of Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, better known as ARDA, can bring a solution to this problem.
This legislation can become a vital instrument in these areas, either by promoting certain specialized crops, the development of co-operatives and local industries, the grouping of certain operations, reforestation, and the rest. The act permits use of the knowledge, energies and goodwill of all those who want to contribute to the economical improvement of the less favoured centres. Here again, I find a problem which calls for a solution and I have been working at it for some time.
I should like to point out that, as early as the first of May 1962, the Minister of Agriculture, with whom I have the honour of co-operating presently, sent out to premiers of the provinces an invitation to co-operate with the federal authorities for the implementation of this Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act. For instance, the federal Department of Agriculture is contemplating an assistance of about $10,439,000 for the province of Quebec, over a three year period, $750,000 of which would make up the first payment.
I dare hope that the government of the province of Quebec will sign an agreement on this matter with the federal Minister of Agriculture, at the earliest possible date.

The Address-Mr. Pigeon
ARDA, with the possibilities for action and adjustment it opens, has already been recognized as the legislation of the century. It is a new tool in the hands of men who pride themselves with being modern. Therefore, it is up to us to make use of it so as to give better service to the people.
May I now quote a few thoughts expressed by the minister Edgar Pisani, of France:
Since we are swept along, rivalled and buffeted by civilizations opposed to ours, it is our duty to give to all men mastery over their trade, the capacity to organize their efforts concerning their industry and to bind them to a civilization of which they are the trustees, the beneficiaries and the guardians. Each farmer must be given mastery over all that, if not, we will have failed in our task, which is to give everyone a hope, everyone a future.
We earnestly wish that the provinces will agree to implement that important piece of legislation.
Allow me to point out the benefits which have accrued to Canadian dairy producers since the support price on butter has been increased from 58 cents to 64 cents a pound, that is a supplementary increase of 6 cents a pound, from May 1958 to September 1962. Total production during that period amounted to 1,633,901,000 pounds. If we add to that amount the estimated production, from September to December 1962, that is 108 million pounds, the total amount would reach more than $98 million. That additional income is, therefore, what Canadian farmers have gained and will gain, for butter production, on account of the increase in the support price from 58 cents to 64 cents at the end of December 1962. To that might be added the fact that all Canadian producers of milk, to be processed for purposes other than for butter, have also benefited from an increase of about 25 cents per hundred pounds for their milk, either for the production of cheese, concentrated milk or other concentrated products, there again about $12 million a year.
May I emphasize that the provinces alone have the right to legislate in connection with the sale of dairy products within their respective territory. To that effect, all provinces- except Newfoundland-have a provincial milk board. These boards determine milk prices paid to the producers for the sale of non-processed milk on the public market. Minimum prices for milk producers selling their non-processed milk to the consumers have been established, and several provinces have


even established minimum prices per quart to be paid by the consumer.
Mr. Speaker, some provinces have entered into an agreement with Ottawa in order to implement our excellent federal crop insurance act. It is quite pointless for us to wait for a reply from the Quebec department of agriculture, which would allow farmers of that province, especially those who are engaged in specialized farming, to benefit from the advantages of that act. The federal government is prepared to pay 20 per cent of the cost of premiums and 50 per cent of the administrative cost of that act.
Mr. Speaker, it is probably as a result of the excellent farm policy of the present federal government, as a newspaperman from La Presse wrote on September 25, that:
Quebec farmers prefer to borrow from Ottawa.
The same newspaperman also pointed out the following:
Under the federal-provincial agreement on farm loans, the provincial government grants a 2.5 per cent refund on the 5 per cent interest claimed by Ottawa from borrowers. This means that the rate of interest on federal loans is equal to that of the provincial farm loan board, i.e. 2.5 per cent.
The Quebec government is granting that refund because the provincial farm loan board has run out of funds.
Even if the interest rates are now identical-
The La Presse journalist goes on to say:

what advantage is there for people in Quebec in appealing to the federal government rather than to the provincial government?
To those who ask the question, Ottawa answers that the maximum loan awarded by the federal farm credit corporation is $27,500,
i.e. $12,500 higher than the loan granted by the provincial farm loan board. The large farm owner who wants to modernize his facilities therefore finds it more interesting to borrow a large amount than to ask for a small loan, and that is why he turns to Ottawa.
It is, therefore, not surprising, in order to complete the figures I quoted a moment ago, to hear that the number of loans granted in Quebec this year is about 750 per cent higher than last year, having risen from 109 to more than 800. This is how the federal government helps Quebec farmers.
It should also be pointed out that, for the first time this year, the farm credit corporation published in a single volume a completely bilingual report. This is another gesture in favour of bilingualism on the national level.

With regard to French Canadians, it also seems proper to mention that two of our own people have recently been appointed members of the advisory committee of the agricultural stabilization board. I refer to Mr. Georges E. Turcotte, who has been recently appointed assistant director of the federated co-operative of Quebec, and Mr. Lionel Sorel, deputy president of the catholic farmers' union of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, another achievement of the present government could well, in the long run, become vital for the cause of peace and agriculture in the world. I refer to the development of a world food plan, called for a long time food bank. The purpose of the plan is to achieve a more equitable distribution of the food resources in the world; to put at the disposal of depressed or underdeveloped nations food that the more developed nations sometimes produce with surpluses.
Decisive action along those lines was taken early last month when delegates from some 30 countries met at the United Nations headquarters in New York. It was, as it was called, a subscription conference aimed at raising the necessary funds for the financing of this food plan. In fact, some 20 countries agreed to subscribe the equivalent of about $87 million out of an objective of $100 million. Other contributions will probably come to complete this objective during the next few months, thus getting the plan going on an experimental basis, at first.
Mr. Speaker, this recent conference in New York followed logically the meeting of the FAO held in Rome last fall. At both meetings, the leader of the Canadian group was no other than the present Minister of Agriculture. At both meetings, the minister moved the adoption of measures necessary to ensure a good operation of the plan. On behalf of Canada, the minister pledged, moreover, a financial contribution of $5 million, with a third in cash and two thirds in farm products.
During a recent speech he made in my riding of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, the present Minister of Agriculture said unequivocally that the main Canadian contribution to the plan would be in dairy products.
In that respect, I should like to point out that such a plan had been advocated for practically 20 years. The international federation of farm producers had been asking for such a scheme at everyone of its annual meetings.
The Address-Mr. Pigeon So had the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and, by the same token, the catholic farmers' union and the Quebec federated co-operative which automatically support the international federation since they are affiliates.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure all my colleagues are just as happy as I am about the fine steps taken and the important appointments made by the present government.
We can only be confident in the future because the speech from the throne pointed out that Canada's crops this year are abundant and of fine quality, and that our foreign markets for agricultural products have greatly improved.
The Department of Agriculture is headed by a very likeable and competent man who fully understands the needs of farmers as I found out.
Mr. Speaker, even though I have been immediately concerned with the affairs of the Department of Agriculture for only a few weeks, I was in a position to realize that some of the recommendations of the Glassco commission are well founded.
I appreciate the aspirations of our ethnical group within the Canadian confederation. In my opinion, the main duty of the Canadian Department of Agriculture, where I shall now be working, is to guide, direct and support the efforts of Canadian farmers. Now, in the province of Quebec and in other areas of the country, in eastern Canada mostly, there is a large group of farmers who want to progress and to bring their contribution to our economy, but who do not speak the language of the majority. Now to guide and manage properly, this department, which is now in command, must have excellent communications with French speaking farmers.
After spending a few weeks in studying the organization of this large department, I feel that improvements would be possible in this field of better communications between this department and our French centres in particular.
I wish to assure the farmers in my province and in other centres of French Canada that I shall make every effort to improve that situation. On that point, I can already count not only on the understanding but also on the full co-operation of the Minister of Agriculture as well as on the co-operation of my colleagues in parliament, especially if
386	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Teillet I can show them that everything that could raise the economic level of our people, when they understand better the instructions of our national Department of Agriculture, will help strengthen the whole Canadian economy.
Without interfering with the business of the civil service commission, we encourage by every possible means, the bilingual agronomists and agricultural technicians to take their place within the federal Department of Agriculture. After all, the role of agriculture in Canada is first of all to feed the nation, to feed it well as far as quantity and quality are concerned, and then to do its own share in order to restore the general economy through exports in every available sector.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the farmers from all over Canada that I shall be very glad to help them, to do my best to co-operate with their organizations, their officers and their families. It is a great challenge for a young agronomist from the province of Quebec to study the problems of all Canada, but it is also a great privilege to be called upon to serve under such a distinguished minister as the one who now directs the Department of Agriculture. I shall do my best to understand the problems and to look for the best solutions.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, for my part, I hope I will be of some help to Canadian farmers, especially to those of eastern Canada. Any requests or suggestions that they, their associations, their agronomists send me will be welcome since that will enable us to help Canada maintain the position of honour it occupies at present in the world's economy. Thus, we shall play a part in safeguarding our farmers' fine reputation. Anyone who gives me his cooperation will receive in return unselfish and full support from me, in the best interests always of this social class which the farmers constitute.


Mr. R. J. Teillet (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, first, let me offer you my best wishes of good health and success as well as my sincere congratulations on your election as Speaker of this house.
The honour conferred upon you is a credit not only to your electors of Edmonton West, to your city of Edmonton and to your province, but, even more important, I think, to the French speaking population of our beautiful western prairies, this population which, perhaps more than any other group in the whole of Canada, not only works and makes tremendous efforts to maintain and ensure, first, the survival of its culture and its

mother tongue, but also makes enormous sacrifices to ensure the development of the true spirit of the Canadian confederation.
I could easily dwell upon this matter for hours, and with all my heart. However, this is not the time to deal with such a subject.
I hope to have the opportunity to do so later.
(Text) :
May I also express my congratulations to the Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Chown). I am certain the hon. gentleman will do honour to his riding, where many of my family reside and where I was born. He will also do honour to his and my province. While I say these things very sincerely, I must also say with equal sincerity that I cannot give him any assurance of assistance in retaining his seat at the next election.
May I also join with other hon. members who have spoken and express my congratulations to the hon. member for Waterloo South, who so ably moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
(Translation):
I also congratulate the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) for having performed his duty so well.
Mr. Speaker, since I am making my maiden speech before this august assembly, I should have liked today to say a few words about the beautiful riding of St. Boniface, about the city of St. Boniface, which is the cradle of civilization in western Canada.
I should have liked to speak about that beautiful province so closely related to the past and to the history of my ancestors and of my family, history which is one of the glorious chapters of the history of our entire country.
Lack of time and the atmosphere prevailing in this parliament prevent me from doing so.
However, Mr. Speaker, I must call the attention of the Postmaster General (Mrs. Fairclough)-I am sorry the hon. lady is not in her seat-to a difficulty which exists within her department. A few years ago, the people of St. Boniface were given the assurance by the Post Office Department that their postal designation would not be changed. A few years later, I think it was in 1960, without any notice to anybody, that department publicly announced that in the future, St. Boniface could be designated as Winnipeg
6.	As a result of the protests coming from that city, the then authorities agreed that St. Boniface could be designated as St. Boniface or St. Boniface 6. Since that time, be-

cause of the continued publicity given to the original regulation that there was an option between Winnipeg and St. Boniface, we have been constantly receiving letters addressed to Winnipeg 6.
That city of St. Boniface, which already has to fight unceasingly in order to keep its identity, takes exception to the fact that because of a blunder made by that department, people keep using the name of Winnipeg to designate St. Boniface.
I think that the new minister should secure information on that matter and that steps should be taken to put a stop to this unfortunate habit. She should take immediately the necessary measures to make sure that any communication, especially from the federal government, is addressed correctly and that instructions are sent to the local authorities in order to put an end right away to that situation. I will no doubt have the opportunity to take that matter up again later, if the house continues to sit.
We have seen, since the opening of this parliament, the most unbelievable tactics. We have seen the leader of the government and his ministers behave in such a way that the level of debate in this house has become that of a school for badly brought-up children. If the ministers, in spite of the position they hold in this house and in the country, have been able to see their duty in such a light that their present behaviour is the result, I can understand, Mr. Speaker, the hard task that is yours in maintaining order.


Mr. Ricard:: It is your fault.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: After all, it is the ministers who set the tone of the debates and they have failed in this regard as in many other fields.
These past few days, the official opposition and its leader have made a sustained effort to check the massive propaganda put out by the Conservative party through a propaganda machine whose efficiency is perhaps unrivalled anywhere on this side of the iron curtain. Every trick is used: half truths, implications, slips of the tongue, serious accusations without any foundation, but especially a technique which was developed to a high degree during the 20 years which preceded world war II and which was perfected by the communists throughout the world. It consists in repeating false accusations loudly enough and often enough so that not only the public but even those who spread them come to believe them.
We have seen the government become so smug and conceited that they think themselves infallible. And if any one has the courage to criticize them and show them their mistakes, they cry out that they are attacked
The Address-Mr. Teillet personally, because, after all, since they are infallible, any criticism becomes a personal attack. We heard the leader of that party and of the present government complain that he was attacked from all sides-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It is true.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: -but when he is requested to show evidence in support of his statements, he keeps silent, absolutely silent.
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear. (Translation):


Roger-Joseph Teillet: We are aware that the propaganda machine is preparing another offensive in order to have the chief of the government look like a martyr-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Just drop in my office, and I will show you some.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Just a minute, give me a chance to make my speech.
But, for that purpose, it needs some standing ground. Since those statements are baseless the leaders of the present government are supplying such a ground with their remarks here, in order to enable their propaganda machine to quote Hansard and make the voters believe that there is some truth in those statements.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Just pay me a visit in my office, and I will show you some.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: There is also that other
technique which consists in accusing the opponents of using the tactics one is preparing to use.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: We have seen such tactics used by the Conservative party, when they accused the Leader of the Opposition of making personal attacks on the head of the government, while knowing such charges were baseless and without any substantiation; they were in fact false statements, and they knew it. On the other hand, what were they doing themselves? The Prime Minister himself was attacking the Leader of the Opposition, charging him with the responsibility for the financial stress of our country and moreover accusing him also of sympathizing with the communists. An accusation of incredible baseness, when it is recalled that the present Leader of the Opposition, with his predecessor, were among the main architects of the sole organization that could finally stop the inroads of communism in Europe.
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
(Translation):


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I refer to NATO. Attempts were made to deny the Leader of the Opposition credit for this, because it would have

The Address-Mr. Teillet proved the baselessness of too many statements made by the Conservatives. Therefore, attempts were made to destroy him by accusing him of sympathizing with the greatest threat against today's world. This manoeuvre at the disposal of their propaganda machine succeeded in deceiving many people. Finally in order to pit himself against the great talents of the Leader of the Opposition, the head of the government tried fraudulently to monopolize for himself the credit for the famous incident of the communist shoe in the united nations assembly. Falsehoods.
Here are further examples:
(Text):
You will have noted, Mr. Speaker, the method by which the Conservatives have avoided the problem of unemployment. Every time the question comes up they tell us that there are more people working in Canada today than ever before. That is correct; I do not deny it. That is their method of answering criticism of their policies to maintain full employment. I call this tactic the tactic of the half truth. By telling this half truth they hope people will believe, as many did during the last election, that there are no problems, that everything is well in the best of worlds because the fact of a Tory government being in power is enough to chase all these problems away.
Let us look at the declarations of these people in the field of agriculture. They have claimed that the farmers have never had it so good. They have claimed that their policies have vastly increased our exports of grain. They have claimed that "cash income from farm operations reached an all time high." That is a quotation from a speech of the Prime Minister in the house the other day, and it appears on page 98 of Hansard.
These same statements were made in all areas of Canada during the election campaign; half truths, all of them. In each case they have told only half the story. In each case when the full story is told the picture becomes altogether different. Each case is a good example of the work of that party's propaganda machine, and in each case such a good job has been done that I almost think the Minister of Agriculture himself believed he was telling the truth-almost, but not quite.
Let us look at the facts. It is important that these facts be known. This distorted picture has caused such an impression on the people of our urban areas both in western Canada and in eastern Canada that it may become difficult to obtain the assistance that western farmers need. The picture painted will make it look ridiculous when we come to claim needed and justifiable assistance for

western farm communities. With such a rosy picture in the minds of the public generally, how will this government or the Liberal one to follow justify itself when expenditures are required to assist western farm communities?
There are still many things that need doing, and some of these things are referred to in the Liberal policy declaration which was laughed at the other day by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture when he took a document supposedly to be placed on record in Hansard and then proceeded to place on that record only a very small part, and that small part distorted. We may have more to say about that later on.
First let us look at the export record. Here, if the government and the minister concerned had told the whole truth, no one would have been able to criticize too severely. The record for the period of Tory government from 1957 to date is good. In fact it is almost as good as it was in the corresponding period of Liberal administration. That, for a Tory government, is quite an accomplishment. During the years from 1957 to 1962, total exports of grain and grain products amounted to 2,029,560,000 bushels, or an average of 405,900,000 bushels a year for that period of five years. In the corresponding period of five years, 1952-57, the total exports of grain and grain products were, 2,199,503,000 bushels, or an average of
439.900.000	bushels per year. In other words, the Tory record was only 169,932,000 bushels during the period under review, or 33,986,000 bushels average per year less than the previous corresponding Liberal period.
But in all fairness there may have been a good reason for this. Production dropped considerably during the latter half of the period which I am reviewing, and these figures are most interesting. During the previous five years farmers produced in wheat alone
2.760.212.000	bushels, while during the latter period wheat production was 1,922,061,000 bushels. In other words, if the production record had been maintained during the Tory period of this review, we would find an additional 837,151,000 bushels of wheat on hand at the end of the 1961-62 crop year. That, Mr. Speaker, is the complete picture; and incidentally, the figures I have quoted here are from the Canadian wheat board.
Now let us look at the claim "You have never had it so good", and "Farm cash income from farm operations reached an all time high". Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the other day I attempted to have the Prime Minister define what he meant by "cash income" and his attitude to me was "Sit down, little boy. You are new here. Talk when your elders will permit you". And he refused to

answer the question. He said, as reported on page 98 of Hansard:
All I can say is that I think it defines itself for most hon. members.
Well, Mr. Speaker, does it define itself for most hon. members? There is one here to whom it obviously does not. The term "cash income" as used by the wheat board and by the grain trade means "cash received from all farm operations", and is the equivalent of the term "gross income". The Prime Minister's statement is almost correct. The cash income from farm operations in 1961 has been exceeded only twice, and that was in the early fifties. But that is not the point I wish to make. The real point is that that figure of the highest cash income in 1961, according to the Prime Minister, points up the real difficulty of our western farmers. If we add the last half of this story to the first half stated, we then have the whole picture and the whole truth, which is this. During the year when the Prime Minister says that the cash farm income from farm operations was at an all time high, the net income for the farmer-that is, the amount left to him after deducting his costs-was the lowest in ten years. That is the complete story.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I will give the hon. member the same privilege the Prime Minister gave me; if I have time later, perhaps.
At this point I want to appeal to all hon. members of this house to understand that this is the real plight of our farmers in Canada. The cost price squeeze is equalled in importance only by the need for markets when judging the problems of our farm community. I trust that when a government comes before this house to legislate for assistance for our farmers in our western country, hon. members will overlook the glowing reports given by the Minister of Agriculture and the Conservative party. I trust that hon. members will tell their constituents that our western people are not crying wolf while they are rich and have "never had it so good".
I wonder if the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who I do not see in his seat, has heard the story going the rounds in Manitoba about the statement by the Minister of Agriculture that the people in the constituency of Brandon-Souris, the constituency of the minister of northern affairs, were so rich that it was impossible to buy an automobile in Brandon, and that they were taken as quickly as they came in. Someone took the trouble to check that, and that story is in the same category as the rest 27507-3-26
The Address-Mr. Teillet of the Conservatives' statements. There are ample automobiles available in Brandon.
Mr. Speaker, there is on this question a most interesting editorial in the Manitoba Co-Operator of September 6 of this year, which I should like to quote at length. The heading of the editorial is "Mr. Hamilton's Prophesies", and the editorial describes the present crop situation as it appeared to the writer. It goes on to say this:
It is true that farmers delivering wheat will benefit initially from the higher prices received at the time of delivery, but this only applies to wheat, and to suggest that farmers will have the opportunity to deliver grain to country elevators in large volume prior to Christmas would be foolish. This means that the grain farmers' income from the sale of cereals will be well distributed over the crop year and controlled by quota regulations. It is possible that there may not be room in country and terminal elevators for all of the anticipated deliverable grain in this crop year. This, however, will be determined by the volume of export business.
The farm organizations, the management of their elevator facilities and the private companies are realistic on this issue and understand it thoroughly. They are not pumping propaganda to incite the layman. In their modesty they refrain completely from predicting big prices that may not be realized. They are well aware that this year's crop may well produce a great variety of grades, and when the final returns are in at the end of the crop year, No. 3 Northern is likely to be the average wheat grade and the average price. The initial price for this grade is $1.42 per bushel basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver, but less than $1.25 per bushel at the average western Canada country elevator point after handling and elevation charges are deducted. Oats will probably average No. 1 Feed or 44 cents per bushel at the average shipping point. Barley will probably average No. 1 Feed and this will fetch a price of 72 cents per bushel at the time of delivery at the average shipping point. There is no responsible grain spokesman in the west, outside of the political field, suggesting that wheat this crop year will approximate $2.00 or oats 90 cents or barley $1.20 a bushel.
Agriculture Minister Hamilton has been enthusiastic enough to do this. To reach the prices he suggests, No. 3 Northern will have to fetch at least another 75 cents a bushel over and above all charges. No. 1 Feed oats will have to realize at least another 46 cents, and No. 1 Feed barley another 48 cents per bushel average for western Canada. Mr. Hamilton is not only doing the west, and the grain farmers in particular, a disfavor by his inappropriate statements, but is giving eastern Canada and the western layman a greatly distorted impression of what is to come out of the west. True, the prospects are optimistic and thoroughly better than a year ago, but Mr. Hamilton's exuberance puts him in the category of being excessively adventurous in his prophesies.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word about crop insurance. The problem of crop insurance, as we see it now in Manitoba, is a relatively simple one. Enough research and experience has been acquired to reach certain conclusions or, to be more accurate, to confirm the conclusions reached when the scheme was first examined. No one today will deny the necessity of a sound crop insurance

The Address-Mr. Teillet scheme. It has become a vital necessity if the farm community is to survive and avoid becoming wards of governments. I have not time to develop this, but I recommend an examination of the crop insurance scheme report in Manitoba, which in effect said that it was not practicable for a province to carry out an insurance scheme on its own.
Then, Mr. Speaker, a crop insurance scheme was set up under a federal act and some test areas, I believe five in number, were set up in Manitoba. So far, of course, less than 10 per cent of our farmers have participated. There seems to be some doubt about things in their minds, and that, of course, is understandable. When the act was put into effect, the basic requirements for the success of such a scheme were overlooked. Federal participation in premium cost was too low, and it left to the province the larger share of the risk.
I believe that the parliamentary assistant made a statement that confirmed this just a moment ago. This is the very area where the resources of the province are too weak to ensure success. In fact the present scheme, if established over the wide area required for full participation, would risk becoming an open end liability for the provinces which would cause them to become bankrupt.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from a speech by the minister of agriculture for Manitoba, which he made to the agricultural bureau of the Winnipeg chamber of commerce and which is reported upon in the Winnipeg Tribune of December 13, 1961, as follows:
Provincial agriculture minister George Hutton has ruled out any expansion in the Manitoba crop insurance program unless the federal government comes up with a better method of backing it.
Tuesday he told the agricultural bureau of the Winnipeg chamber of commerce that crop insurance couldn't be expanded to cover the whole province with the present system of federal guarantees for losses in the scheme.
Unless the federal government makes changes in its crop insurance act all the western provinces, not just Manitoba, could not provide sound crop insurance, the minister said.
In Manitoba another bad crop year could bring losses as high as $30 million In the Insurance scheme, because there could be a large number of applications following this year's drought. This would be a "tidy sum" to dump on the provincial treasury, said Mr. Hutton.
Under the existing agreement with Ottawa, the province pays the first $200,000 in crop insurance liabilities after the premiums collected and the previous year's reserve have been paid out. Then the province can borrow 75 per cent of extra money needed to cover losses from Ottawa. The province floats its own loan for the remaining 25 per cent. "This in effect means that the province has to borrow all the money In the losses", Mr. Hutton said.
The Manitoba government has proposed a new guarantee for the plan under which the federal government would pay for a large part of losses incurred in years when the crop insurance scheme

goes in the red. The federal payment in bad years would be made in exchange for an annual premium paid to Ottawa in both good and bad years.
It is evident, Mr. Speaker, that these people have yet to understand fully the problem with regard to insurance in farm areas. This scheme is not only important in western Canada; it is needed in all parts of the country. The other evening the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Drouin) made quite a point of this, and I suggest to the members of the government that they take a serious look at the matter and make sure that they come up with an adequate scheme.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, during the debate of these last few days, we heard the leaders and members of the opposition in masterly speeches make crushing charges against the Conservative party which formed this government.
The replies we heard were only a repetition of the same old stories which are quite inconsistent and might make us believe that, like the old Bourbons, the Conservatives never forgot anything, though they also never learned anything. I can hardly believe that some hon. members opposite would not be disappointed with their leader's attitude.
After such a disappointment, after having built up the thesis that the Conservative party and its leaders are above criticism and also above the average human being, some among them must agree with me that those leaders only deserve to be sent back before the people to receive at last the final verdict.
(Text):


Mr. Malcolm Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: The Address-Mr. Maclnnis other maritime provinces in 1867 expressed their concern at this union with Upper Canada. If I may be so bold I should like to quote a statement which appeared in the morning Chronicle in our province on December 18, 1865. I think this very neatly sums up our economic situation at that point in our history:
Our province is prosperous beyond example .. . We are in the full tide of prosperity under the lowest tariff in America.
Consider for a few moments, Mr. Speaker, if you will the problems that face the people of my own constituency of Cape Breton South. We have been plagued now for years with a declining coal industry. Granted, we have closed dozens of mines, but when this government came to power they told us they were going to do something about the problems facing our coal industry. We had a royal commission under Mr. Justice Ivan Rand appointed to investigate the situation. Not only have this government failed to come up with a long term policy to deal with the problems of the coal industry in Nova Scotia, but they have even refused to accept the minimum recommendations of this particular commissioner. He suggested, for example, to the people of Canada that it might be necessary to close three mines in Cape Breton over a five year period and a fourth mine over an additional five year period, for a total of four mine closures in ten years.
What has been the result? With the most recent closure of No. 16 colliery at New Waterford under this Conservative government that promised us a national fuel policy, we have closed three mines in a little over one year. We are threatened with an end of the steel industry on which we depend to a great extent in the province of Nova Scotia. Last winter our people experienced unemployment at the rate of 25 per cent. We will be the first to admit that we have received assistance from this and other federal governments, but the assistance has always been of a temporary, of a stopgap, of an emergency, of a meet each crisis as it comes along, nature. There has been no progress under this Conservative government since 1957 toward a permanent solution of the economic problems of the coal industry in Nova Scotia or the Atlantic provinces in general.
The Minister of Finance, at the time of the closing of No. 16 colliery in New Waterford, in a press release stated that in the opinion of the government it was in the best interests of the Nova Scotia coal industry to close No. 16 colliery. Well, Mr. Speaker, surely this is a fantastic statement. We ask simply, how can a responsible minister of the crown tell
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
us what is in our best interest when he does not have any kind of policy to deal with this particular problem?
It is regrettable, but I think it is also necessary, that we remind members of this house that the right hon. Prime Minister came to our constituency during the last election campaign and he told responsible representatives of the miners, the district executive of the united mine workers of America, that he was not going to turn his back on the miners. The mine eventually closed, and the Prime Minister not only turned his back on the miners but he refused to meet them to discuss the repercussions of this closure. Under no circumstances, should No. 16 colliery have been allowed to close until a definite policy had been established for the coal industry in Nova Scotia and for the Atlantic provinces' economy in general. There has been evidence, and it is unfortunate, of a disturbing lack of planning and decision making, as well as a complete lack of the application of any kind of social philosophy in the present federal government's handling of this situation.
A few moments ago I said that our region was the most retarded in Canada. Thirteen of the 36 surplus manpower areas in Canada are to be found in the Atlantic provinces. We have 10.4 per cent of the population of Canada but only 7.2 per cent of her income. Our average per capita personal income for 1961 was $1,066 as opposed to $1,593 for all Canada. We have experienced consistently higher unemployment than has Canada as a whole. The present situation is further aggravated, though somewhat disguised, as a result of the considerable underemployment in our primary industries. In other words, if I might sum up the situation in the Atlantic provinces, the only prosperity that we have had in that region of Canada since confederation was witnessed during the railroad construction boom prior to the first world war and during both world wars. Certainly these are events to which we cannot look forward in the future with a great deal of anticipation.
(Translation) :
May I now say a few words in French, Mr. Speaker, for there are quite a number of French speaking citizens not only in my riding, but throughout the maritime provinces. Moreover, the claims of eastern Canadians are rather similar to those of the people in Quebec. We too find that our confederation is still far from perfect.
In the past, the Atlantic provinces received temporary federal aid. It was a stopgap policy, a policy of emergency measures. What we want today is planned economic rehabilitation.

In order to succeed, such a program should be quite exceptional and more far reaching than ever before.
There is no other way of solving the basic economic problems which the Atlantic provinces have been facing for quite a few generations.
I trust that the Canadian people would be ready to support, morally as well as financially, any development program for the economy of the Atlantic provinces, because they would understand that this is the only way of solving a problem as old as confederation.
I want to stress that the time has come to develop and fully use the valuable human and natural resources of our eastern provinces. Such a program is of national as well as of local interest.
(Text):
In such an environment as this comprehensive program of economic development would bring about, existing industries could be induced to expand and new industries would be attracted into our area. On the basis of the many research projects carried out in relation to the economy of the Atlantic provinces it is generally agreed that resource development, although a basis for future economic development of that economy, will not really be able to relieve the twin problems of unemployment and underemployment. Therefore consideration needs to be given to that combination of capital, transportation and taxation incentive required to bring about new secondary industrial growth in the Atlantic provinces.
We do not need an Atlantic provinces development board to make suggestions as to what should be done. We have the research behind us. We have had enough study; now we want action. There are all kinds of proposals and suggestions backed up by research.
1. First we suggest that the basic development of our iron, coal and steel industries should be protected. In this regard the federal government should co-operate with the province of Nova Scotia in providing a crash program of retraining, and other special educational programs, for displaced miners and unemployed people. It should also consider the extension of unemployment insurance benefits, or the payment of some realistic allowances, to enable our unemployed people to take advantage of these courses and at the same time look after the commitments they have to their dependents. We suggest that the existing markets for our coal in the provinces of Nova Scotia and Ontario must continue to be protected from imported oil and American coal.
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
2.	In co-operation with the provincial and municipal governments we suggest that a major program of capital construction be undertaken, including such socially desirable and useful projects as schools, hospitals, mental institutions, senior citizens' housing and so on, and that it be undertaken immediately in order at least to bring the level of unemployment in the Atlantic provinces down to the national level.
3.	In the long view we look for a single and particular department in the federal government whose sole responsibility, so long as the need exists, will be to look after and direct action in regard to the economic problems facing us in the Atlantic provinces. We suggest that such a department could speed up more comprehensive research into the future of our coal industry, and also could consider the development of a national fuel policy.
4.	We require special income tax concessions and special depreciation allowances from the federal government for industries presently operating and new industries desiring to locate in our area, which industries necessarily depend on the central, major Canadian markets for the sale of their products.
5.	We require a major revision of the national freight rate structure to end the present pattern and reduce the wide differences now prevailing between charges for the movement of high value, processed and semi-processed commodities, and the charges for low value primary products.
6.	We require low rate capital loans for the expansion of industries now operating in the Atlantic provinces and for the establishment of new industries desiring to locate in those provinces.
7.	We ask for a greater regional allocation of defence and public works contracts for publicly financed undertakings.
8.	We ask for increased attention to be paid by the federal government in future tariff negotiations with regard to the problems of the retarded regions of Canada.
9.	We ask for the establishment of a social fund and an investment bank to help industries and areas adjust to the changes that will necessarily follow from what I hope will be our more liberal trade policies.
These are not radical or new suggestions. They are already in practice in the nations forming the European economic community and have recently been adopted by the President of the United States in his new tariff legislation.
394	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
10.	We ask for an expanded and intensive program of technical and trades retraining for our adult workers, with a view to developing a more highly skilled labour force in the Atlantic provinces.
11.	We ask for more flexible monetary and fiscal policies on the part of the central government.
12.	We ask the co-operation of those responsible for the development of new manufacturing centres, and the co-operation of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the provision of living accommodation in areas specified for development.
13.	We ask for a return to the system of federal-provincial fiscal arrangements that had been established for the greater rationalization and equalization of the Canadian fiscal system, based as it was on the average per capita yield in the two richest provinces.
14.	Finally we ask that university grants be based on need rather than on population figures, as they are presently allocated.
There are those who would question these particular suggestions. There are those who would say, "Don't you understand these are uneconomic proposals you are making?" In reply, Mr. Speaker, I would say that it is not a question of immutable, irrefutable economic principles. We defied the laws of economics when we built this nation, when we decided to enter into confederation, and surely there is sufficient argument for overlooking some economic principles in view of the particular difficulties of this part of Canada.
There are those who will argue that this policy we advocate is far too protective, but in reply we can point to the protection we are already giving to major industries in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. For example, we can ask hon. members to consider what would be the attitude of the United States government if it were faced with a declining industry, such as our coal industry, when 98 per cent of the market for bituminous coal in the province of Ontario is supplied by the United States.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, prior to the noon recess I was dealing with the various arguments or charges that might be laid against or put forward in opposition to the comprehensive and specific measures which I had introduced to the house and in which

we believe, in the Atlantic provinces, in so far as the economic problems of this region of Canada are concerned. Specifically I was dealing with the second such possible objection, namely that the policies which we propose are perhaps too protective in this day and age.
In addition to what I have already said with regard to this particular criticism, I would simply like to point out that it is essential, in relation to the coal industry of Nova Scotia, that this government or any other federal government provide our coal industry with sufficient financial assistance to make coal competitive with foreign oil in the province of Nova Scotia, to assure that coal will be used as the basic fuel in generating thermal power in that province. If this is not done, then surely we cannot expect the Ontario market to use coal from Nova Scotia, if we are not successful in ensuring that our own local industries do the same.
Third, Mr. Speaker, it might be suggested that these proposals would all be very well and would probably help our situation substantially, but they cost too much money. We say, first of all, that in measuring the cost of the proposals that are necessary in order to deal firmly and finally with the economic rehabilitation of the Atlantic provinces, we must consider the eventual and ultimate social costs involved in the Atlantic provinces if action is not taken today.
Then, Mr. Speaker, we would point to the fact that Canada has already, spent huge sums of money to build her canals and transcontinental railway system, to provide wheat storage for the western farmers, acreage payments, and so on. We would further point out that the tariff system presently operating in Canada, protecting and insuring the life of our central Canadian industries, costs the Canadian taxpayer indirectly, it is estimated, something in the vicinity of $1 billion a year. These same tariff policies have a doubly depressing effect on the producers and consumers in the Atlantic provinces, because they mean our people must buy their products from the high cost, non-competitive industries of central Ontario while these same protected industries are enabled to turn around and buy their raw materials across the border because they can obtain them there more cheaply. This represents double protection for a large part of our Canadian industry.
Fourth, Mr. Speaker, it might be suggested that we are perhaps somewhat naive down in the eastern part of Canada. It might be said, for example, "Well, after all, you decided in 1867 to participate in confederation, and this is the economic price you have to pay for it". We say, no. We say that

the fathers of confederation recognized the economic implications for that part of Canada when confederation took place, and they wisely and justly attempted to provide for the dislocations that were bound to take place as a result of the national development policies adopted in this House of Commons.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are those who would say, "well, your program sounds very good; we would like to help you, but this represents state planning". In other words we come back to the old bogeyman that the Tories raised in the last campaign; it is a question of free enterprise versus socialism. This is nonsense, Mr. Speaker. These are the word fighters; these are the labellers who try to criticize and discredit a new idea by labelling it with a name that is unacceptable to the Canadian people. It is not a question of free enterprise versus socialism. It is a question of the old way versus the new way. It is a question of the principles which at one time apparently were successful in Canada, to some extent, as opposed to the new procedures and methods that we must adopt for the future.


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


Mr. H. E. Smith (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, upon rising to take part in this debate it is with genuine pleasure that I give you, and through you to Mr. Speaker, my best wishes. It is indeed a pleasure to see two old friends filling such high offices so capably. At this time I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for Waterloo South and the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska on the capable way in which they moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Last Friday night in that sometimes dramatic C.B.C. television show "Viewpoint" the star of the night said that too many of the speeches in the debates on the speech from the throne were nothing but dreary recitations of the virtues of some backwoods constituency. I think it is well that those who spend a great deal of their time in Ottawa-perhaps too much of their time-should hear from time to time of the virtues, the problems and the wishes of these constituencies. I say this because the strength of Canada is nothing more than the aggregate of the strength of those 265 constituencies. A visit to my riding last week end supported and confirmed the wisdom of the course the official opposition are taking to make sure they do not win any of those non-confidence votes they have been bringing with such regularity.
To preface my remarks in this debate, and in order only to demonstrate the interests of my constituents, I should like to discuss briefly the economy of my riding of Simcoe
The Address-Mr. H. E. Smith North. I think every hon. member who sat in the last parliament is well aware that Collingwood is the largest and most important shipbuilding centre on the great lakes. The policies of the Conservative government in the last five years have brought Collingwood to the highest level of activity in its history even higher than during wartime, because shipbuilding is an industry highly productive of jobs. There are few things which the Canadian government could have done to provide more jobs for Canadians than to introduce the system of subsidies for shipyards, and in case anyone should think that only the larger centres have benefited from this policy, let me tell them that is not so. Shipyards large and small across Canada have benefited from our shipbuilding policies.
Along with the shipbuilders and sailors of my riding I look forward to the realization of the promise in the speech from the throne of added protection for Canadian shipping on the great lakes. If we permit foreign ships to carry our cargoes it constitutes just as large a drain on our foreign exchange fund as, for example, the purchase of imported electrical appliances.
I am sorry the hon. member for Davenport is not here in his place, because harsh things have been said by him and to him during this debate. I should like to thank him for the assistance he gave me during my election campaign, when he made something of an issue of the fact that the devaluation policies of the Conservative government were causing an increase in the price of imported electrical appliances. Now in the city of Barrie, in my riding, there is to be found the largest manufacturer of small household appliances in Canada. There are many other factories there making a wide range of household and consumer goods from tires and plastics to tape measures and cosmetics. I can assure this house that the message of the hon. member for Davenport was not lost on those people when election day came around.
It is interesting to see, now, that the hon. member has finally and firmly come down on the side of the angels, and on the side of the Conservatives; because in the last issue of that journal of Liberal opinion the Fundy Fisherman he says that devaluation is a good and necessary thing. I should also like to note that though the majority of our factories are Canadian subsidiaries of United States companies, almost without exception the local management is completely Canadian in viewpoint and directed to the best interests of Canada.
The farmlands of Simcoe county are rich and productive. Indeed, they too might be said to be secondary manufacturers, because much of their products find their way directly
396	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. H. E. Smith to the consumer. Pork is processed through Canada's first and largest farmer owned packing plant, with its famous Copaco brand products; finished beef is sent to the Toronto stockyards; tobacco is sold in reasonable quantities on the home market; milk goes to Toronto consumers and cream to the many county creameries; fruit and vegetables go directly to the consumer or else to Colling-wood to be packed for domestic or export use.
At this point I should like also to extend my thanks to the Leader of the Opposition for the help he gave me in my election campaign. The hon. gentleman appeared on a Toronto television station cradling a Georgia watermelon and deploring in solicitous terms the fact that as a result of devaluation the price of Georgia watermelons had increased. This brought vividly home to the growers of the famous Georgian bay apples the benefits of the Conservative devaluation policy to the sale of their product.
Many people in my riding earn their livelihood in service businesses as railroaders, truckers, civil servants working in Camp Borden, caterers to the various branches of the tourist industry and so on. In short, they are engaged in all the multitude of services which make up our complex and prosperous society. The number of unemployed is low and is confined mostly to the unskilled, the unadaptable and, at certain times, to some categories of workers in the construction trades. In the factories generally there is a shortage of skilled operators, and in some factories production is being hampered as a result. The government is to be commended on its technical school building program, and I am sure that proper use is made of the schools, two of which are now under construction at Collingwood and Barrie. In Sim-coe North, the graduates of those schools will contribute greatly to the productivity of Canadian industry.
I do not propose at this time to deal with service businesses, because their prosperity and level of activity depend entirely on the prosperity of the productive parts of our economy, our farms, factories and shipyards. However, I should like to point out in passing that a gratifying number of small businesses have been able to take advantage of the small business loans made available through Conservative legislation a year or two ago. Conservative policies have been good for the economy of Simcoe North. The farm credit corporation, as far as our farmers are concerned, represents the finest piece of credit legislation ever passed in Canada. In the course of the past year, or a little longer, over 100 farmers have taken advantage of these loans in our area. Their farms are now
[Mr. Smith (Simcoe North) .1

efficient and competitive. They are making money. Farm credit corporation loans are keeping farmers' sons on the farms, and for the first time in many years are even bringing some back from the cities. Conservative tariff policies protect our fruit and vegetable growers. No longer are producers in Simcoe county at the mercy of United States dumping as was the case so often, particularly with cherries, asparagus and potatoes.
Conservative policies have contributed to the stability of beef and hog markets. Conservative policies have assisted in the orderly marketing of tobacco. Indeed, I wonder if the tobacco farmers in other parts of Ontario realize that the true worth of the guarantees made available to them at the end of the 1961-62 tobacco market was far in excess of the actual value of the guarantee. I am sure it is unnecessary to remind the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Roxburgh), who this morning was asking a question about export sales of tobacco, that Canada's tobacco farming industry, an industry highly productive of jobs and requiring many man hours of labour, developed under the protection of a substantial tariff. It is an industry whose export future might well be adversely affected by Britain's entry into the common market, or by the United States trade bill.
Sometimes one hears criticism of the government consumer subsidy on butter. I would just make this observation. Many of our smaller farms are still very marginal operations. It would not take too much to drive these farmers from their land, and very often at an age when they are not adaptable to an industrial society. Surely the butter subsidy, when looked at in this light, is not such an ogre as it is sometimes made to appear.
But the greatest boon to Canadian agriculture and to factory productivity has been the reduction in the external value of the Canadian dollar to 92J cents U.S. Its value to the farmers, factories and factory workers cannot be exaggerated. Beef and pork are finding new markets and are more competitive in the U.S. Our fruit and vegetables are given additional protection in Canada, and our canned fruits and vegetables are finding foreign markets. Cherry pie filling, for example, grown and canned in my riding is now being sold in Germany. For those who worry about the infinitely small increase in the price of imported grapefruit, I suggest that they try Georgian bay apple juice. If the beef you buy costs you just a little more, then think of the jobs and spending power which is being provided for Canadians by the increased exports of beef and pork.
Conservative government policies have been good for the factories and the factory workers in Simcoe county. Yesterday the hon. member

The Address-Mr. H. E. Smith
for Vancouver South quoted some export statistics, and the hon. member who has just finished speaking had some statistics concerning the cost of protection to Canada and the Canadian consumer. 1 do not think it is correct to use statistics in this way, because exports and imports must be considered not only in their dollar value, but must be considered in relation to the production of jobs for Canadians. Because I think that is the aim of all policies; it is not the ultimate dollar sales value or the dollars that we import, but the jobs we provide. Also, I feel that the primary and extractive industries no longer provide the best or the most jobs. These are found, in my opinion, in the secondary and service industries; and of course, as I said before, the service industries depend entirely on the productive industries.
A recitation of the policies applied by our government through the industrial development bank would exhaust my time. Factories employing from two to 200 in my riding have benefited. The aggressive sales policies of the Minister of Trade and Commerce have been used to the fullest. Our factories take every opportunity given to them to explore and get into foreign markets. Indeed, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Transport have the stature of heroes in Sim-coe county. Devaluation has provided incentive, protection and job opportunities for the workers. I am sure the hon. member for Davenport, who is so interested in imported electrical appliances, could find all his needs satisfied from the catalogues of Barrie's appliance industries.
Mr. Speaker, the competitive need to find Canadian material resulting from devaluation has been a challenge that our factories are meeting with zest and initiative. New machines are being installed as fast as people can be found to operate them. I will just mention one example. Hardwood flour is a product which I understand is very little else than hardwood sawdust ground very fine and very dry. It is used extensively in the manufacture of certain plastic products, and until now it has been imported into Ontario from Buffalo. Very shortly it will be manufactured and sold in Barrie.
The factories and factory workers in Simcoe county look forward to the tax incentives now proposed for increased production and export, and they will use these incentives to the fullest to increase production and to provide more jobs. They look forward to the change in our export credit legislation as an essential aid to the products which Canada must export if it is to continue to grow.
In the modern world changes in political, economic and trade alignments are inevitable and continuous. In Simcoe North we have
watched the evolution of the European free trade area, called the European common market. Britain's application to join it and its possible effect upon the commonwealth, upon Canada, and upon Simcoe county we have watched with interest. It may be that the European free trade area is best for Europe, and it may be that it is best for Britain. I think that is for the Europeans and the British to decide. I do not think, though, that it is being parochial or narrow to say that our consideration should be directed to what is good for Canada; because it is only by being prosperous that Canada can make an effective contribution to the free world and to the vast underdeveloped and under privileged areas of the world. If the European common market develops on its present lines-and I think at this time it would be only wishful tn inking to suggest that its world outlook will be toward freer world trade-Canada, a country of 18 million people, will lie between two great western trading blocs, the United States with 180 million or more and western Europe with 175 million. It is now that we must speak out and bargain for our essential needs.
Much of Canada's secondary industry was established by the United States to avoid the tariff differential between the British preferential tariff and the most favoured nation tariff, the most favoured nation tariff generally being higher than the British preferential. Many of the Canadian branches of United States factories have been built in Canada to fill, in addition to Canada's domestic requirements, the import needs of Britain, the commonwealth and other countries. It would now appear that the British preferential tariff must disappear if Britain is to enter the E.C.M. United States manufactures would then enter Canada at the same duty rates as British.
Canada's labour costs have gradually grown closer and closer to those of the United States. We in Canada have a high level of social security which is translated into high taxes and directly into production costs. The smaller Canadian market makes other costs higher. Many United States plants near our borders, with subsidiaries presently in Canada, could satisfy the entire Canadian market for some products with only a few extra shifts in their home factories. If the British preferential tariff disappears, is the devaluation of the dollar by itself going to be enough to keep our secondary industry healthy? What incentives will be left for such Canadian development? Are these companies now going to build their factories in Europe and elsewhere? Must we not now look more and more to other parts of the world for markets for the products of our factories? Will the European common

The Address-Mr. Haidasz market leave us as hewers of wood and diggers of ore? These are some of my reservations concerning these new trade developments. I think they are important, because it is only in the secondary and the service industries that we can supply the needs of our new job seekers and maintain our high material standard of living.
Mr. Speaker, there is much else in the speech from the throne that commends itself to me and to my constituents, but I have limited myself today to those matters of most immediate interest to Simcoe county.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to take part in this debate in reply to the speech from the throne in the first session of the twenty fifth parliament and begin to apply myself to the discharge of my duties, I should like to express my congratulations to you for having been chosen by the members of this house to be their Speaker. I should also like to congratulate Mr. Deputy Speaker for the confidence that this house has shown in his ability to assist Mr. Speaker. I should like in addition to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I am aware that on this occasion it is the custom for members to reveal some of the interesting features of their constituencies and the needs of their constituents. In the case of my constituency, Parkdale, which is in the western sector of Toronto, I believe these are well known to the older members of the house through the efforts of the illustrious members for that constituency who have preceded me.
To the new members I should like to say that Parkdale is a fair cross section of Canada. In addition to the Anglo Saxons, virtually all nationalities and colours are represented. In the same way as many of our forefathers, some emigrated to this country seeking a better life; some sought adventure, and some came to this country to enjoy our freedom. Having come to this country in large numbers, for the most part under the wise immigration policies of past Liberal administrations, these people have found freedom and a better life. Today they cling very closely to this freedom and better life, and burn with an abiding desire to assist the enslaved peoples in their homelands during their present adversity. It is this devotion to self government and to freedom, exemplified by so many people in my constituency, which in my opinion is the foundation upon which our future hopes for a greater Canada can be built.
Since it is the duty of members of the loyal opposition to oppose, I cannot see how one can have effective opposition without constructive criticism. Yet we have read in the


press and heard from many members of the government that political criticism is an ugly word. In that regard I refer to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who recently made the appalling statement that it is unpatriotic to criticize the government. Before we realize it, Mr. Speaker, political criticism may unfortunately be regarded as an un-Canadian activity instead of democracy's greatest safeguard. Nowhere in the world more ardently than in communist Russia and her subjugated countries is the critic considered unpatriotic, a conspirator and one even deserving of death, but in western civilization the traditional attitude is that criticism is an attempt to test whether what is might not be better. Personally I believe that no reform can be achieved and no survival is possible without the freedom of honest and vigorous criticism.
No manipulation of words, Mr. Speaker, no twisted ideas or faulty memories on the part of hon. members opposite can alter the historic fact that when the present Conservative government took office in June, 1957 it did so as the government of a country whose prosperity was never higher, whose prospects were never brighter and whose prestige among the nations of the world was never so great. In the past five years increased taxes, economic stagnation, high levels of unemployment and loss of international prestige have plagued this country. No one with a sense of fairness, therefore, can honestly argue that the present government through its incompetence and ill-timed policies is not responsible for the chaotic condition of the affairs of this country. In view of the present serious and emergency conditions in Canada, it is the right and the duty of all members of the house effectively to criticize the present government so that alternative and remedial measures will be proposed, the remedial measures so eloquently and wisely proposed by the Leader of the Opposition in this house.
I regret to say that the speech from the throne was a complete disappointment to the people of this country. This has been stated many times by the majority of the speakers who have preceded me. As already described, it is filled with many pious platitudes and is not much more than a rehash of things mentioned in previous speeches from the throne. This government had five years and the largest majority in the history of the House of Commons to bring those measures into being, but still the government continues to fail to put forth clear reasons for the cause of the present economic difficulties, and to reveal definite major policies which are aimed to cure this sick economy.

The seriousness of the situation was cleverly played down in the speech from the throne. Burning matters concerning which the government still owes our country an immediate and detailed explanation are absent from the speech from the throne. To solve the problems of chronic unemployment, slow economic growth and the imbalance of international payments the government has nothing substantial to offer.
In my leader's masterful exposition of the failures of the Conservative government the country has learned about the present administration's damaging mismanagement. This house and the country had the right to hear the Leader of the Opposition condemn the deliberate concealment by the government of the perilous financial state in which Canada found itself last spring. Moreover, all responsible members in the opposition appreciated learning in our leader's clear reply the full facts proving the unfair political manoeuvre committed by the Prime Minister and the former minister of finance last June. In his speech the Leader of the Opposition rebuked the thirteenth Prime Minister of Canada, and rightfully so, for contempt of parliament because it was not allowed to convene after the government failed to get a clear mandate from the people. Still worse, the people of Canada and their elected representatives continued to be shamefully ignored when the Prime Minister dared to attend the commonwealth prime ministers' conference in London, and to present his views and ignore ours. The Prime Minister's disgraceful exhibition of bellyaching in London demonstrated his ignorance of the importance of the European common market.
After all the gloom and doom and crying by the Prime Minister at the commonwealth conference, it was refreshing to hear Mr. J. A. Roberts, deputy minister of trade and commerce, tell the members of a Canadian organization in Vancouver last month that Britain's entry into the common market will be far from a disaster for Canada. He predicted that it would provide potential markets for Canadian goods. What a sharp contrast, Mr. Speaker, to the remarks of the spokesmen of this government who have failed to understand the long term implications for this country of the new overseas trade developments. The other major issue-


Mr. Sevigny:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I will allow the minister to ask me a question after I have finished my speech. The other major issue which we must deal with in this debate is the government's austerity program brought
The Address-Mr. Haidasz in without the consent of parliament. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we are dismayed to learn from the speech from the throne that apparently these emergency austerity measures will continue to exist. We in the Liberal party condemn these austere policies and consider them to be a danger to Canadian growth.
The tariff surcharges are hampering trade and throwing men out of work. The cuts in many national public works are reducing construction jobs and throwing more people out of work. No wonder the unemployment figure this summer of 300,000 jobless Canadians is double that of June of 1957. The unemployment insurance fund, which in June, 1957 stood at $853 million, had fallen to $28 million last June. This is more evidence, Mr. Speaker, of the misery and suffering that the people of Canada must endure as a result of the mismanagement of the Conservative government.
Furthermore, the high interest rates allowed by this government brought in tight money. Tight money slows the expansion of Canadian industries and makes it very difficult for provincial and municipal governments to pay for projects of social improvement, throwing still more people out of work and increasing local taxes. The taxpayers of Parkdale, indeed across the country, burdened with continuously increasing taxes, including provincial sales taxes, are very hard pressed. The costs of education, the support of the indigent, caring for the sick, the clearing of slums, the building of roads and railway overpasses, I believe should be the sole responsibility of the federal government.
The home owner, in my opinion, has to carry the great load of the unjust burden of the present overtaxation. Repeatedly since early 1957 the Prime Minister of this country has stated that the Canadian people were overtaxed by $500 million, and promised to reduce taxes by $120 per family. In fact, Mr. Speaker, taxes have been increased by at least $36 per family since the Conservative government took office.


Mr. Churchill:: Will the hon. member identify the quotation he gave? What newspaper was it in, or where?


Stanley Haidasz: In the impending tax reforms in this country I believe primary consideration should be given to easing the tax burden of the common working man.
I should also like to make a few remarks about the small businessmen, who are the backbone of our national business. Many small businessmen are hard pressed and headed for bankruptcy as a result of unfair competition from giant corporations, tight money and high

The Address-Mr. Haidasz taxes. It is disquieting to learn that the number of commercial failures in Canada from June, 1957 to June, 1962, reached the enormous figure of 11,712. Furthermore, according to dominion bureau of statistics reports, for the first six months of this year there were 1,562 commercial failures, which is 7.8 per cent more than during the same period last year. This is another reason small businessmen urgently need in Canada not only tax relief but also more liberal consideration from the industrial development bank.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government's devaluation of the dollar has caused much hardship to the people of Canada, not only in rural but also in urban areas. The devalued dollar resulted in a higher cost of imports and, therefore, higher domestic prices. The savings of thrifty Canadians already lost will probably never be recovered. In June, 1957 the cost of living index was 121.6, which the Conservatives complained was high and which they promised to keep from rising. However, the cost of living index kept on rising and in August, 1962 reached the high figure of 131.4.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: It is down.


Stanley Haidasz: It is up ten points since June, 1957. Most disturbing is the fact that the greatest rise is in the essential category of food. This brings more hardship for all Canadians, especially to the jobless, to the people with low incomes and to the people who are subsisting on meagre pensions.
There are a few more burning issues which I should like to bring to the attention of the government during this debate. Last summer this government announced the deferment of pay increases for 50,000 civil servants, explaining that an increase in wages would be inconsistent with the government's austerity program. By this explanation the Conservative government unloaded some of its problems on the backs of a relatively small group of civil servants unable to fight hack strongly. Our country, one of the richest lands on earth, should be able, with a competent government, to easily afford to pay its civil servants decent salaries.
Other categories of citizens who have been neglected by this government are those thrown out of jobs through automation, the sick, and our senior citizens. We on this side of the house welcome the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition to provide an improved retraining program for workers before, not after, losing their jobs. We are proud also that the Liberal party recognizes the urgency of extending family allowances from age 16 to age 21 for all boys and girls attending school.

We welcome too the other points in the Liberal program of social reform which, though it will cost money, will actually be an investment in this country. As explained by the Leader of the Opposition, under conditions of an expanding economy a Liberal government will provide for health care and adequate pensions, which are repeatedly being refused by the present government. In my varied experience as a practitioner of medicine amongst the working people and senior citizens of Toronto, I learned intimately of their needs. I am deeply concerned with the present inadequate health care and social welfare programs.
In order to refresh the memories of hon. members opposite I should like to state that every piece of social legislation on the statute books of Canada today was enacted by a Liberal government. After the economic depression of the 1930's and the crippling war expenditures of the early 1940's, the Liberal government was financially able to embark on a sound, progressive program of health legislation. Beginning in 1948 the national health program provided for hospital construction, medical technicians and public health research, as well as anti-tuberculosis drugs free of charge to patients in sanatoria, and many other items related to general health.
The second phase of the Liberal health plan, from 1955 to 1956, made available to the people of Canada more hospital additions, medical rehabilitation services, radiological services and free Salk vaccine. In April, 1957 the Liberal minister of health and welfare, now the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), steered through parliament the National Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. This government is to be condemned for failing to implement all the sections of that act, especially the one relating to the cost of diagnostic tests performed on an out-patient basis, the most costly part of health care today. The blame rests mainly on the present minister of health for failing, in his negotiations with the provinces, to insist that the people of Canada receive the benefit of free diagnostic tests when referred to a hospital laboratory by their doctor.
I am proud, Mr. Speaker, of the fact that my party has always been, and still is, in the forefront in dealing with matters of health care. The Liberal health plan for the future will include progressive coverage of doctors' fees, dental care, nursing services, drug bills and sickness insurance, after full consultation with the provinces and with cooperation from the medical profession. This plan is more comprehensive and more realistic than the plan of any other party in this country.

While speaking on matters of health, Mr. Speaker, I must express my disappointment that the government has failed to explain why it discontinued the free mass immunization program against poliomyelitis with existing safe vaccines. Furthermore, we on this side of the house are still waiting for the government's explanation of the delay of three months in taking the drug thalidomide off the market. We sincerely hope that the government will take early action to improve its control not only over drugs but also over food additives and pesticides, for the greater protection of the Canadian people.
Advanced countries like Canada are facing a great challenge in the field of water and air pollution. Disease causing viruses and chemicals are finding their way into the water supplies of our cities. Many new chemical compounds, including pesticides and detergents, used by industry, farmers and housewives contain inert chemicals which cannot be destroyed by germs in the soil or by present sewage disposal techniques, but chemical engineers tell us it is possible to make a detergent that can be broken down by bacterial action. I would like to bring to the attention of the government the fact that west Germany has already passed a law compelling all manufacturers to abandon the use of hard detergents by 1965.
We also need more government assistance to aid municipalities in improving the purity of water; because disease causing viruses, including that of hepatitis, can pass through in water in present sewage treatment plants. These problems are both medical and political, and should be acted upon without delay by a responsible federal government.
In view of the remarks of the hon. members who have preceded me in this debate, and of the remarks I have added, I believe it is clear that in the speech from the throne the real and urgent needs of the Canadian people have been forgotten and the true condition of Canada's economy has not been revealed. Therefore the Conservative administration stands condemned.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: May I ask the hon. member who has just resumed his seat to answer the following questions. Is he not aware that the gross national product is higher than it has ever been in the history of the country? Is he not aware that more people are employed today than ever before in the history of the nation?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Is he not aware-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Badanai:: This is a speech.
The Address-Mr. McGrath


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I put it to the minister that any questions which may be put to an hon. member who has the floor, or to one who has finished his speech, should be entirely for the purpose of seeking information and not engaging in a debate in a disguised form. I would also like to add it is the hon. member's privilege to answer or not.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, with great respect for what you have just said, may I point out that while you were not occupying the chair I got up and asked the hon. member, when he was telling the house something which I believed to be rather inaccurate-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Habel:: You spoke in the debate already.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: May I speak to the point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not disputing the minister's right to ask a question, but what I am referring to is the nature of the question which he was putting.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I think it was made very clear in my speech, and in the speeches of hon. members who preceded me, that even though the gross national product has gone up it has not gone up at the same rate as it did when the Liberal government was in office.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In real terms.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It went up at a faster rate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, it did not, in real terms.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the fact that the question was in an argumentative form, that it has not brought forward information, and is now merely continuing a debate after the hon. member had resumed his seat, I think we shall leave it at that.


Mr. J. A. McGrath (Si. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my first duty is to join with the other hon. members who have participated in this debate in extending traditional words of congratulation to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to His Excellency's speech, the hon. member for Waterloo South and the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska. I would also like to join the hon. members who have preceded me in expressing to you, sir, our great pleasure at your elevation and appointment to the highest office of parliament, and to wish you well in the discharge of your very onerous responsibilities as Speaker of this house.
I would be remiss if I did not refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Park-dale (Mr. Haidasz), who has just taken his seat after making his maiden speech. All I want to say is that he must have leaned quite

The Address-Mr. McGrath heavily upon that fund of questionable knowledge of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), for some of his facts. His speech contained erroneous statements and inaccuracies, but I am sure they were not deliberate.
He referred to the implementation of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act by the previous Liberal administration in 1957. However, he forgot to say that this followed over four decades of Liberal promises. He further forgot to add that it took a Conservative government, as in so many other areas, to implement that legislation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Wholly inaccurate.


James Aloysius McGrath: I would commend to the hon. member for Parkdale the speeches made in this house and in other parts of the country by his illustrious predecessor. I refer to that distinguished Canadian Mr. Arthur Maloney, Q.C., whose reputation is known the length and breadth of this country. It is a reputation for honesty, fairness and, above all, accuracy.
I should like to refer to the maiden speech made by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin), who regrettably is not in the house today. I would like to deal at length with some of the remarks he made, but I shall let that wait for another occasion as I understand the hon. gentleman had to return to his home due to an illness in his family. But, Mr. Speaker, what can be said of that speech is that one could mark it quite highly for eloquence, but I am afraid it would get a zero for content. It contained practically nothing, and I suspect the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) had a hand in it. In any event I would also commend to the hon. gentleman who occupies the seat for St. John's West the brilliant speeches of his predecessor in this house, Hon. W. J. Browne.
I would also say to that hon. gentleman, were he here, that if I were in his place I would weigh my words very carefully, because he may not hold that seat for much longer; and, Mr. Speaker, I am referring to events that are taking place in another part of Canada at the present time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question? Does my hon. friend think-


Some hon. Members:: No.


James Aloysius McGrath: No. The hon. member for Essex East-


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order-


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is no question of a point of order; you know that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Essex East is raising a point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure my hon. friend would not want to discuss something that is now before the courts, and I greatly suspect that the observation thus far made is one that traverses that well known and established practice.


Mr. Speaker:: While I recognize the fact that the hon. member has raised a point of order, he himself has put a title to certain events. He is the one who selected certain events. From what the hon. member for St. John's East was saying, there are many events taking place in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On the point of order-


James Aloysius McGrath: Of course, Mr. Speaker-


Paul Joseph James Martin: On the point of order, Your Honour could not have been listening to what the hon. member said, referring to certain proceedings in Newfoundland.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I had used the word "event"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If I may-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Essex East is now engaging in what he heard and what the Speaker heard. I feel that under the circumstances the hon. member for St. John's East was not deliberately making reference to any court proceedings or to any other proceedings to which it would be improper for this house to refer. I think the hon. member made a general statement. The only particularized statement I heard was one made by the hon. member for Essex East. I think we will leave it at that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Your Honour was not listening.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I say this -and I accept your ruling, of course-that the hon. gentleman, the distinguished member for Essex East is obviously as eminent in law as he is in statistics.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Too bad for his clients.


James Aloysius McGrath: I was referring to the former member for St. John's West, that distinguished gentleman the Hon. W. J. Browne, a man whose career in the public service of this country stretches over 40 years; a man who

has served in this house in three parliaments, 1949 to 1953; 1957 and 1958; 1958 to 1962; who also served with distinction in the legislature of the province of Newfoundland. Hon. gentlemen in this house who are familiar with the great speeches this man made, hon. gentlemen in this house who are familiar with his record, will no doubt be pleased to hear what some of the peddlers of slander, libel and calumny, some of the colleagues of the hon. gentlemen opposite, had to say about this man in the last election campaign.
I have in my hand a tabloid. I think you could refer to it as the essence of yellow journalism. It is entitled "The Liberal". It was put out by the Liberal party in Newfoundland during the last election campaign and a copy was sent to every voter in the province, and even the hon. gentleman for Essex East would not want to have himself associated with some of the things contained in this paper.


Thomas Miller Bell: Even him?


Paul Joseph James Martin: "Even he", you mean.


James Aloysius McGrath: On the last page, Mr. Speaker, there is a very familiar looking picture. I leave it to hon. gentlemen to identify it, because even at a distance it is obviously identifiable. Next to that picture is a story entitled "The communists' friend", and with the indulgence of the Chair I would like to quote a small part of that article. It says:
All his life Mr. W. J. Browne was thought to be an enemy of communism and communists. He was always preaching against them-
And so on:
What did he do when his government, headed by Mr. Diefenbaker, made business deals with those two communist countries?
Did he resign from the government?
No, he did not-
Mr. Speaker, the story then goes on to refer to Mr. Browne as a friend of the communists.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


James Aloysius McGrath: I ask you sir, has there ever been a greater example of libel or calumny in this house?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


James Aloysius McGrath: This is a man who has always stood up inside and outside this house against communism and everything that atheistic communism stands for. Mr. Speaker-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Typical Liberal tactics.


James Aloysius McGrath: -I commend this piece of pseudo journalism to hon. gentlemen who have not read it-yes, to the hon. member for Essex East-because all you find in it are words such as "lies", "slander" and all
The Address-Mr. McGrath sorts of other adjectives that hon. gentlemen opposite are only capable of at election time, and they are capable of some dandies.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why go after the member for Essex East all the time?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: What about 1957?


James Aloysius McGrath: The Hon. W. J. Browne will not be long out of this house, and I would commend that to the new member for St. John's West.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Order. Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I hope Your Honour heard the remark that has just been made, which I say is absolutely improper in the light of the proceedings that are now under way in Newfoundland before the courts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have been following what the hon. member for St. John's East has been saying. I think that in the light of all we know about what is happening in Newfoundland, perhaps he should steer a careful course in his references to those proceedings. A passing reference may have been made on a previous occasion, and I think the hon. member would be wise to leave it at that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of the nature of my remarks, bearing in mind that this matter could possibly be sub judice. For that very reason I was very careful in what I had to say. I did not refer to any specific event taking place in Canada today.
I would also like to say, before you, sir, pass this point of order, that I hope the Chair will take due note of the many interruptions of the hon. gentleman from Essex East and that I will be allowed additional time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh; put yourself in order; that is all you have to do.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, during the campaign leading up to the general election on June 18 we saw at work in the province of Newfoundland a political machine unequalled on the continent of North America, a machine corrupt in every respect-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Aloysius McGrath: -corrupt in every respect; and I commend these words to the hon. gentlemen who interrupt me right now, because there are certain hon. gentlemen on that side of the house who owe their seats to the machinations of this corrupt political machine that has imposed on the province of Newfoundland a totalitarian regime of a type never seen in Canada before.

The Address-Mr. McGrath


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Essex East is raising a point of order.


Peter Francis Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has made a very serious charge. He has said that certain hon. members in this house owe their position in this house and their tenure in this house to corrupt practices on the part of individuals outside of this house with whom they are associated.


An hon. Member:: He said, a political machine.


Peter Francis Martin: I suggest to Your Honour that is an improper remark and it should be withdrawn, because the hon. gentleman, under our rules, has no right, as he knows well, to reflect upon the character, the integrity or the honour of any member of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret that owing to my momentary preoccupation with a request from an hon. member of this house which was being made to me directly, I did not get the exact words the hon. member for St. John's East used on that occasion. However, I will say that if his words were as indicated by the hon. member for Essex East, namely, that a member of this house owes his election or his tenure of office to corrupt practices by other persons, then I feel the hon. member did not mean to go that far and he would have to withdraw those remarks, if they were made-if they were made.


James Aloysius McGrath: For your benefit, Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said. If I can remember the words correctly, I said there are certain hon. gentlemen opposite who owe their seats to the corrupt machinations of a corrupt political machine in Newfoundland. Those were my words and they obviously offended the sensibilities of certain hon. members opposite. Now I should like to continue my remarks.


Peter Francis Martin: The hon. gentleman will be allowed-


Mr. Speaker:: If those are the words the hon. gentlemen used, I do not feel they reflect directly on any individual member. We have heard allegations of this or that already in this debate-that members of one party, for example, deliberately misled the public. They have not been challenged. Such remarks have been made on both sides of the house and I take it they were made in this instance in

the same spirit. I would ask the hon. member to continue his speech, bearing in mind the injunctions which have been made so far.


Peter Francis Martin: On the point of order which I have not yet been able to argue: Your Honour now takes the position that the words as amended by the hon. gentleman still do not offend the rule to which I directed your attention. I suggest with confidence that any hon. member who says of another that he owes his place in this house to corrupt practices, directly or indirectly, is defaming that person and that it is contrary to our rules for one hon. member to impugn the character of another, directly or vicariously. I suggest to you that the words even as amended by the hon. member should be withdrawn at this time. I submit this especially because the hon. gentleman was speaking at a time when certain of the hon. members concerned are not present in this house and cannot now rise and take issue.
I am doing so on their behalf.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Who are they? Name them.


Peter Francis Martin: Members from Newfoundland to whom the hon. member directed attention.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I speak to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Essex East? I did not mean to infer that certain hon. members opposite had indulged in corrupt practices. It must have been evident to anyone who was listening that what I was inferring was: the corrupt practices of a corrupt political machine.


Mr. Robichaud:: Are you talking about the Union Nationale?


James Aloysius McGrath: No, I am talking about the Liberal party in Newfoundland.


Mr. Speaker:: 
Paul Joseph James Martin: On the point of order, may I suggest with great respect that Your Honour has not correctly interpreted standing order No. 30, which reads:
If anything shall come in question touching the conduct of any member-
Now I point out these words:
-or his election-
That is the point. What has been stated is that hon. members in this house owe their election to corrupt practices. That clearly affects an hon. member's election.
-he may make a statement and shall withdraw during the time the matter is in debate.
That is what the standing order says. No one has the right to go beyond the meaning of that order. The hon. gentleman has violated the order and he should be called to attention forthwith by Your Honour.


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I say a word on this point of order as read by the hon. member for Essex East? I submit that no hon. member from Newfoundland, which is what the hon. gentleman put into question, has risen and made any complaint in connection with the matter of his election.


An hon. Member:: There is one on his feet now.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Therefore, the point which the hon. member for Essex East has made does not arise. If one of the hon. members from Newfoundland wishes to rise and protest against the statement which has been made, then there is a different situation.


Mr. Carter:: I was on my feet, Your Honour, but you chose to recognize the Minister of National Defence. The hon. member for St. John's East did not specifically mention Newfoundland but it was clear his imputation was that there were certain members from Newfoundland in this house who owe their seats- these are his words-to the corrupt practices of a political machine in Newfoundland.
I am one of those members and I am here in the house now.


An hon. Member:: You are one of them?


Chesley William Carter: I ask the hon. member for St. John's East to specify the members he had in mind, because I challenge him to prove that I owe my seat to any corrupt practice of any political machine anywhere.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo speaking on the point of order although I think he went altogether beyond the point of order and engaged in something else. I do feel, however, that the rule which has been cited by the hon. member for Essex East-and I thank him for his
The Address-Mr. McGrath observations-goes to a particular instance and I think the interpretation I have placed on the general principle of this matter, together with the injunction I gave to the hon. member for St. John's East, would correct the situation. I hope the hon. member will govern himself accordingly, that is, if he would make the statement that he did not believe any of the hon. members from Newfoundland-we understand them to be those whose cases are before us-willingly or otherwise participated in any of these activities, or that it was done without their knowledge.


Mr. Batten:: On the point of order, I am a member from Newfoundland. I do not hold my seat in this chamber as a result of any corrupt practice. I deplore the remarks which have been made by the hon. member for St. John's East and I hope he will retract those remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the remarks made by the hon. member but I must say they are not really on the point of order as such. When we are discussing a point of order, we are discussing the interpretation of a standing order. We are not discussing the merits of the position of an hon. member. Unless there are any contributions toward the interpretation of the standing order, I think we shall proceed with the hon. member for St. John's East. But I would ask him to make the necessary correction.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order and for the sake of the record, and also for the sake of hon. gentlemen who have raised points of order arising out of my remarks, may I say this: that at no time did I mean to cast any reflections upon the honour and integrity of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter), whose reputation in that regard is well known; or the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten), who I respect and admire very much, whose reputation in that regard is also well known, and I look forward to a continuation of our friendship; and equally my hon. friend from Trinity-Conception (Mr. Tucker), whose honour and integrity are also well known outside this house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about the others?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, if I may continue with my-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that the hon. member has narrowed the field. We know who are the hon. members from Newfoundland and I do not think that I can now let his remarks stand.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.

The Address-Mr. McGrath


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, were I permitted to finish I would have continued to refer to the hon. gentlemen from Newfoundland who are not present. Because, Mr. Speaker, it is evident that what I was trying to deal with was a political machine in a province. I did not mean to infer that the hon. members were part of that machine. For the sake of the record, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I do not intend to cast any reflection upon the honour and integrity of any hon. members of this house, and that includes the three hon. members I have just mentioned and also the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate (Mr. Pickersgill), were he here to hear me, and the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Granger)- and even the hon. member for Essex East, if he wants me to say so.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if I may continue, I would relate to the house certain events which took place in June of this year. Hon. members are well aware of the fact that the then minister of finance, the hon. member for Eglinton, was invited to speak at a luncheon of the Botary club of St. John's, Newfoundland, on June 7 of this year. I was present at that luncheon, Mr. Speaker, and I witnessed an ungracious attack upon the freedom of speech in this country that is unexcelled in the history of the British Empire. I saw the Queen's first minister of the province of Newfoundland use the authority of the Queen's government to suppress freedom of speech in the province of Newfoundland on June 7 of this year. I was at the table at the time. I happened to know of the events leading up to the invitation by the Rotary club to the then minister of finance to address them. The Rotary club of St. John's chose the subject they wanted the minister to speak on at the then minister's insistence.
During the course of the luncheon, Mr. Speaker, as the minister was arranging his notes in preparation for the speech that was about to follow, a messenger made known the presence in the next room, of the premier of the sovereign province of Newfoundland, and he had words to say to the president of that service club. Here is a letter which was written in his own hand to the president of the club:
Dear Sir:	As Rotary club, by permitting a
politician in the midst of an election to speak on a political subject, became a partisan body I have to inform you that the invitation of the government of Newfoundland to a group of Rotarians to be the guests of the government at dinner next week is hereby withdrawn.
Mr. Speaker, what I did not add was that on the following week the Rotary club were to be host to a regional convention of their particular service clubs taking in the Atlantic

provinces, and it was to be quite a large assembly. And the premier was to speak. The fact remains that there are no facilities in Newfoundland big enough to host such a convention other than the facilities owned by the government of Newfoundland. So it was obvious that what the premier was saying was: "If you allow that Tory politician to speak, I, as Her Majesty's first minister, will not let you have the people's facilities for your convention next week, and I will withdraw the invitation of the government of Newfoundland to be host at a banquet for that convention".
Mr. Speaker, this was quite a state of affairs. I submit that this has never happened before in the history of this service club, whose distinguished record of providing a platform to speakers on various subjects is well known across the length and breadth of the country. The then minister of finance, realizing the predicament of his host, the president of the Rotary club, and the other officers who were present, offered to acquiesce to this unreasonable demand. Yes, I say unreasonable because he was still Her Majesty's minister of finance for Canada, and not a "Tory politician" from Toronto. The premier of Newfoundland forgot that fact, just like he forgot that he also was still the first minister of Her Majesty's government in Newfoundland. What a pity he forgets that fact too often. As I say, realizing the predicament of his host, the minister decided it would be the better part of valour to acquiesce to this unreasonable demand, and so another messenger was sent to the little adjoining room to tell the premier, who was shaking with rage, that the minister of finance would speak, but not on the subject of the pegging of the dollar which the Rotary club wanted him to speak on. The minister asked whether it would be all right if he got to his feet and brought greetings to the club. And back came the reply. The reply was: "If that man so much as gets to his feet, I will consider it a partisan act on the part of the Rotary club and I will withdraw the invitation of the government of Newfoundland to host the convention next week".


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


James Aloysius McGrath: What kind of a political machine is that, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Liberal.


James Aloysius McGrath: I ask, what kind of political activity is that?


Some hon. Members:: Liberal.


An hon. Member:: What about the bill of rights?


James Aloysius McGrath: I commend the bill of rights to hon. gentlemen opposite, and I wish they

would commend it to the premier of Newfoundland. I commend the bill of rights brought into this house by the champion of free speech in this country, the right hon. Prime Minister, a man who has always steadfastly stood against oppression in this country wherever it existed and against whomever it was directed. I commend the bill of rights to hon. gentlemen opposite and to their partisan colleagues in Newfoundland in view of the shameful tactics which they used in the last election campaign.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No wonder you are calling time; you do not want to hear the truth.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Gloucester is raising a point of order.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: My point of order is this, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member who presently has the floor started his speech at 3.27 p.m., 33 minutes ago. I think he is allowed 30 minutes under the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair and its officers are arbiters of the time. In view of the protracted point of order, I have made a minor adjustment in the hon. member's time with regard to when he finishes, and that will be at 4.02 p.m. The time taken up with the point of order was eleven minutes, and therefore, in view of the fact that the hon. member speaking may have brought some of the problems upon his own head by his language, although we heard a lot of other matters which were not truly points of order, the adjustment was made on that basis.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I was just about to conclude that portion of my remarks by commending to hon. gentlemen opposite an editorial by one of the great Liberal pundits in Newfoundland, Mr. Albert Perlin, the man who, next to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, is perhaps closest to the premier of Newfoundland. I was about to commend to the house, Mr. Speaker, an editorial that appeared in the daily News of St. John's on June 8 in which that great Liberal journal deplored the action of the premier of Newfoundland in preventing the former minister of finance from speaking to the Rotary club of St. John's. If the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate were here, I would tell him that during the course of his remarks not once did he refer to the Atlantic provinces development council mentioned in the speech from the throne.
The Address-Mr. Bechard


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The time allotted to the hon. member has now expired. (Translation):


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, you will understand my apprehension and emotion in this solemn moment when I am rising for my maiden speech in this chamber where so many great men of our history have performed with far greater oratory than I can muster.
Like my distinguished colleagues, Mr. Speaker, may I offer you my most sincere congratulations, on behalf of the people I have the honour of representing in this house and myself, for your election to the office of Speaker of this august assembly. Being a newcomer, I have not had the good fortune of knowing you before this session, but the list of your great talents and qualities mentioned here, when you acceded to your high position, together with the military discipline you acquired during the last world war, will certainly be most valuable assets in overseeing our proceedings, which is actually the highly responsible task you have just been called upon to perform. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the best of success to you in the discharge of your exalted duties which are mainly concerned with protecting our parliamentary freedom and our democracy.
Although I disagree with the hon. members for Waterloo South and Nicolet-Yamaska (Messrs. Chaplin and Vincent), the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, about everything they said here, I wish to congratulate both of them for the elegance and the eloquence they showed in the discharge of their task.
It is in our tradition, I believe, that the debate on the address should give an opportunity to the members to speak of their counties and to briefly expose their needs.
Being the representative of a remote region, perhaps more or less known-I might even say, unknown to several of my hon. colleagues-I shall take this opportunity to speak of Bonaventure county.
First I thank my fellow citizens of Bonaventure for the honour they bestowed upon me in choosing me as their spokesman and I thank the honourable leader of the official opposition in the house as well as my colleagues from Quebec, for having thought of the Gaspe peninsula at the very beginning of this session.
Bounded in part by the Matapedia river, in part by the Restigouche river and for the greater part by the Chaleur bay, the constituency of Bonaventure extends from Routhier-ville, in the west, to Gascons, in the east, over a distance of about 150 miles.

The Address-Mr. Bechard
The population of my constituency earns its living with agriculture, fisheries, forestry and the tourist industry which, incidentally, does not seem to have benefited to a great extent from that healthy devaluation of the Canadian dollar, mentioned in the speech from the throne and about which much fuss was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) last Tuesday, in an earnest effort to explain that urgent measure-a pre-election measure in this case-because never, in the touristic lifetime of the Gaspe peninsula, has there been such a decrease in the number of American tourists than during the summer of 1962.
My constituency is in one of those areas of the country that can be considered as being economically underdeveloped, on account of its remoteness from the larger centres and the prohibitive cost of electricity, an essential factor in the establishment of the manufacturing industries in our area. The result is, and more than elsewhere I think, a frightful and continuous increase in unemployment.
Agriculture being one of the main sources of income in the constituency of Bonaventure and since-
The prosperity of agriculture remains essential to the well-being of the entire Canadian economy.
-as can be read in the speech from the throne, I should like to draw the attention of the house to the outstanding importance which must be given to agriculture in the province of Quebec, and in the Gaspe peninsula in particular, to that sector which I consider as the basis of Canadian economy, if we want to save it.
The high-sounding words uttered and the sensational tricks performed in this house will not make us forget, in Quebec, in the Gaspe peninsula, that the famous post-elec-tional austerity program (so-called urgency measure) in the field of agriculture seems to have been invented, created and brought into the world by the government to "austerize", ostracize and penalize the farmers of the province of Quebec. I shall come back to that in a moment.
Our Gaspe farmers and, I might say, most of our eastern Quebec farmers are complaining that they cannot live on their farms, on account of the lack of development of the land, the lack of marketing organization for the sale of our farm products, which would allow us to sell and consume in this country our own products; in other words, on account of the lack of a farm policy really conceived in the interest of the farmer. Why in the world could we not produce in this country what we can consume in the matter of farm products? According to experts, we have in the Gaspe peninsula the best climate perhaps in Canada for general farming.

However, in view of the prohibitive price of manure and fertilizers, the distance between us and our sources of supply, which increases even more the cost of those products essential to the economical development of our lands, our farmers cannot see when their lot will improve.
Most of those who are still interested in farming, are crushed, overcome, burdened by an enormous debt incurred in buying farm machinery, and which they cannot pay back because the land, insufficiently prepared, will not yield enough to enable them to meet their numerous responsibilities. The result is an abnormal situation, where our farmers are obliged to look for work, in the bush or elsewhere, in order to earn the extra money, if not all the money, they need to pay for their machinery. In my opinion, that does not make sense. A man is a farmer or a lumberjack. He cannot and must not be both at the same time, if he wants to succeed in one field or the other. Not to mention the fact that the farmers who are thus compelled to join the labour force add to the number of unemployed by taking the jobs of available workers. We are making the same mistake again in the field of agriculture, we are putting the cart before the horse. Allow me to explain. The Canadian government is much more favourable to the granting of loans when they are used for the purchase of machinery and equipment than when they are used to improve the land.
To support this statement, I should like at this time to refer to the speech delivered here this morning by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) when he stated that when Quebec farmers want to improve their farms by buying machinery and want to pay off debts they have incurred through such purchases and which can amount to $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000, they address themselves to the central government. On the other hand, the provincial government is more concerned with land than with machinery; land comes first, equipment after. And it is the land which should be tackled first, so that it may produce. Then-and only then-shall we think of farm market organizations and farm mechanization. Our local market, if well organized, is able to absorb all that our farmers can produce, and even more.
Without a domestic market, it is useless to think of a progressive development in agriculture. To promote marketing, our farmers must be sure to have, during the off-season, a stock of those products which are most in demand. To this end they must have storage

facilities here and there, grouping various neighbouring communities. There is, in this case, a federal-provincial arrangement to help the farmers build such storage facilities which is, at least, accepted in the province of Quebec. Already, in my county, localities where the establishment of such facilities would be appropriate have been approached, and construction should begin during the summer.
Unfortunately, austerity on the part of this government-the austerity program decreed after the election without any previous consultation of this parliament-a procedure I heartily disapprove, because it is contrary to the most elementary observance of constitutional principles-this austerity program came into being, as I say, to paralyse at home, in Bonaventure, and all over the province of Quebec, the introduction of the policy advocated by the government of Quebec.
It could really be said, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister conceived that emergency program especially to counteract the plans of Quebec farmers.
On the other hand I am told that farmers in the province of Quebec will, because of this austerity program (this so-called emergency measure) be deprived of approximately $1,200,000, which were to be paid out to those who use lime on their farms. Statistics reveal that Quebec farmers use more lime than the farmers of all other Canadian provinces together, and the disappearance of that subsidy is therefore causing to the Quebec farmers considerable injury.
The farmer is furthermore the victim of that same austerity program in that the premium for grade A hogs was lowered from $3 previously to $1, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) having, in addition blotted out the grade B. I was unofficially told that changes have recently been made or will shortly be made to the scheme for grain transportation from western Canada to eastern Canada, which will again bring about a loss of $10 million to the farmers of the province of Quebec.
As far as my constituency of Bonaventure in particular is concerned, I must say that we have there, at Caplan, an experimental farm which gave valuable help to farmers of the Gaspe peninsula.
However, according to a rumour that started going round last winter and is getting stronger all the time, the experimental farm established in my riding by the Liberal government which preceded the present government, is likely to disappear. Therefore, I strongly urge the government, the Minister of Agriculture, to prevent such a disaster from happening in our province, to stop such an injustice while there is still time. It is all very well to say that everybody must tighten
The Address-Mr. Bechard their belts and do their share in these times of austerity; but for goodness sake, do not always take it out on the same people.
I bear no grudge against our western friends. On the contrary, I am delighted to see how much was done for them, even though it was not enough to answer all their problems; but you must admit, Mr. Speaker, that they were far better treated in that respect than eastern farmers.
As the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes mentioned the other day, the province of Quebec suffered during certain years much more than the western provinces from the loss of crops through drought, excessive rain, etc.
What did the federal government do for the farmers of the province of Quebec? Nothing. The Liberal party will make the present crop-insurance legislation more flexible and less costly for the provinces, so that farmers' fear of such disasters at the first whim of the weather may be alleviated.


Bernard Dumont: Will the hon. member allow me a question?


Albert Béchard: After I have finished my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, the farm labourer of my region should also be entitled to the benefits of unemployment insurance, which is denied him by paragraph I, section 154 of the act.
In such a climate of indecision and insecurity, how do you expect our rural youth to take an interest in the farm?
Concerning fisheries, the least we can ask the Canadian government is to improve the fishing harbours which have been shamefully neglected since 1957. At certain places, they will have to be completely rebuilt; at others, extensive repairs and improvements will have to be made.
Since the establishment, in my riding, more particularly in the last two years, of large sawmills, especially in Carleton, New Richmond and Bonaventure, as well as the setting up of shipyards at Paspebiac, and above all, the definite prospect of having a very important plant at New Richmond-the population of the Gaspe peninsula begins to feel some relief-thanks to the co-operation and determination to decentralize industry, of the dynamic Quebec government, which, whether my hon. fellow members from Longueuil (Mr. Sevigny), Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Bourbon-nais), Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, and St. Mary (Mr. Valade) like it or not, will come back to power with a crushing majority for the greater benefit of the province of Quebec.

The Address-Mr. Bechard
However, the coming of those industries, which means an economic revival in the Gaspe peninsula, calls for the building of new docks, as well as for the extension and a considerable improvement of existing facilities.
For instance, in order to answer the needs of the New Richmond plant, a deep sea wharf will have to be built on a site where there is already a beginning-that is, more precisely at Cap Noir-to facilitate the shipping of wood and wood products to the domestic and foreign markets. And if we want to be ready in time, I shall ask the Minister of Public Works to look immediately into the problem with the greatest of care.
For the same reasons, the wharf at Carleton must be extended by a few hundred feet, and that seaport which is the most beautiful natural haven in Canada, after Gaspe, must be improved. A wharf should be built at Maria, and some urgent improvements made on all other wharfs, some of which are in rather bad condition. Some protective work is also needed in various localities, like Saint Godefroi, Port Daniel, Shigawake, Bonaven-ture, Caplan, New Richmond, Maria, Carleton, St. Omer and Matapedia, and more particularly at that spot where the waters of the rivers Restigouche and Matapedia are causing considerable damage each spring. In those cases, as in many others, we are only asking that projects started by the former government be continued and we shall be satisfied.
Numerous public works could be carried out, without too much of a strain on the imagination, which would greatly help the economic development of our area. A post office in New Carlisle, chief town of the constituency of Bonaventure, must be built at once, as well as a public building in Carleton to a house a post office, a customs office and the R.C.M.P. headquarters.	,
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that in this 20th century the telephone may be considered as a luxury. If I told you that in my constituency, in 1962, there are places which are still deprived of that essential public service, which do not even have the hand-operated telephone, my hon. Conservative colleagues would no doubt be surprised. Well, that is a fact, Mr. Speaker. Yet, under the previous administration, telephone lines were built in several remote places in the constituency of Bonaventure. St. Fidele, St. Etienne de Restigouche and St. Conrad in the constituency of


Bonaventure-and I probably have forgotten some-are still deprived of that service, while they are more than 15 miles from the nearest telephone. Is that not a shame, in this second part of the 20th century? There is another parish, St. Edgar, which, having been promised a substantial grant from the Department of Transport, did build a telephone line, more than a year ago, and yet, according to the latest news, it had not obtained the grant it had asked through the medium of my predecessor in this house, and is thus faced with serious difficulties.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Albert Béchard: That community, which does not have enough income to afford such an expense, must not only suffer from the present austerity program, but also tighten its belt to make its monthly payments for the construction of that line.
The most tragic evil in this country, Mr. Speaker, is still unemployment. And yet, no one was to suffer from that evil under the leadership of the present Prime Minister. After having carried out completely the public works I have just recommended and after having built the public buildings which the Gaspe peninsula needs, the government will have to seriously consider helping small industries, if we want to do something tangible to ensure some development in our region, create jobs and thus alleviate unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, what is being done at present to promote the small industry in the Gaspe peninsula, apart from levying somewhat too heavy taxes? Our soil contains abundant natural resources only waiting for imagination, capital and leadership to play the part they are expected to play in our national economy.
As for the Liberal party, it advocates the following assistance in order to promote the small industries in the remote areas, in the areas that are economically less favoured: tax abatements for corporations; special depreciation rates for new machinery, and deficiency grants during a limited period to economically sound projects, with priority being given to industries in the areas where employment will be most urgently needed and to industries that will increase their exportations. Here is, at last, something concrete and likely to bring our people to improve their businesses, or to take the initiative of setting up the new industries which are needed by our country and which the Gaspe peninsula is anxiously awaiting.

Mr. Speaker, it is only fair that the federal government, which levies too many taxes in the province of Quebec, according to my way of thinking, which controls all possible taxation fields, including estate duties that belong exclusively to the provinces, it is only fair that the federal government distribute in a somewhat more equitable manner the yield of those taxes by improving the lot of our people who are claiming, not bread and games, but their daily bread.
We, from the Gaspe peninsula, have been too long forgotten. This tragedy has been with us ever since 1534, when Cartier took possession of our country by setting up a cross in Gaspe. Mr. Speaker, are you not of the opinion that this has been going on long enough? Are you not of the opinion that we have had our share of neglect?
The Liberal party has spoken of crop insurance and of the organization of farm marketing in order to compete with foreign markets. It has mentioned the building of storage facilities, of extending support prices to all farm products, in order to help the farmers, and of offering incentives to the small industry. But what we have heard and seen on the other side of the house? Laughs, jeers, dramatics, in short, a comedy.
The Gaspe peninsula has always been unrecognized, forgotten. It is time to put an end to such a situation. The Gaspe peninsula people, the farmers, the fishermen and the workers, and especially in my riding, do not want to depend on the charity of the state, on pensions, on dividends; they do not want to sponge on society. The people from the Gaspe peninsula are too proud to stoop to doing such a thing. Those people are only asking for work enabling them to earn a decent living for their families and thus contribute to the development of our economy.
In these difficult times our country is going through, when attempts at infiltration are being made by subversive movements and ideas by every means possible, what worries me most for Canada's future and the security of its citizens, is the appearance on the Canadian political scene of certain revolutionary zealots who rouse the people faced with all kinds of problems, and teach them to hate those who are a little more successful in society, stirring up the class struggle by their demagogic talk and their no less demagogic statements of policy, drawn solely from their visionary imagination. Where will this lead us, Mr. Speaker, if the people let themselves be taken in?
The Address-Mr. Cote Here is the answer: to what certain totalitarian countries have known and are still experiencing.
Is it not the member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) who, addressing workers in a political speech around 1945, after parliament had approved an increase in the parliamentary indemnity of the people's representatives, said something which amounted to this:
You see, those gentlemen have just voted an increase in salary for themselves, but they forgot to think of the workers.
Words worthy of a revolutionary, but we do not have to go very far to find people better off than members of parliament, even among the working class.
The situation is serious and it is time more than ever for all men of good will, for all members conscious of their responsibilities, to join and work together, uniting all their knowledge and their efforts in order to find an answer to the problems facing us, in agreement, security and peace.
This is no time for rebellion, but it is time for joint work centred on one purpose: the greatness, security and prosperity of our country in unity and peace.
In concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my fellow citizens of the constituency of Bonaventure, of Quebec, and all Canadians, that as long as I shall be allowed to sit in this house, I shall be the keen defender of the rights they prize the most and of their just claims, all in an increasingly greater and stronger Canada within the community of nations.


Bernard Dumont: How many millions?


Mr. Denis:: He wants to be thrown out.


Mr. Valade:: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


An hon. Member:: That is not written.


An hon. Member:: No, it is too late, his time is up.


Maurice Côté: Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to be able to congratulate you on having acceded to the honourable position you now occupy. I also want to congratulate the two hon. members who proposed and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I am very proud to speak in this parliamentary house, in the nation's capital, this city of Ottawa, formerly called Bytown, and of which my maternal grandfather was one of the pioneers.

The Address-Mr. Cote As the representative of the magnificent constituency of Chicoutimi, I have the honour of being one of the seven members of the Social Credit party whose ridings are linked with the great Saguenay area-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Coie:: -the total population of which is over 350,000 people. May I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Saguenay region was so named in 1535 by Jacques Cartier, discoverer of Canada, that is 427 years ago, and that the limits of that splendid region were established by the king of France in 1732 and confirmed by a document from the British privy council in 1926. No region in Quebec and Canada has a name and boundaries so genuinely established by seniority and official recognition. Chicoutimi is the capital of that area as well as the center of elegance, refinement and French culture. That area covers 150,000 square miles, which is equivalent to five provinces of the size of New Brunswick.
May I say, now, to the hon. members of the old Liberal and Conservative parties which have taken turns in office for 95 years, that I do not have to blame them too much for all the efforts made in order to increase the national production, because it seems that they have been successful in this field if we are to judge on the basis of the surpluses which have been a source of worry for governments for so many years. However, the Canadian people do not have the money to purchase $37 billion in production when, according to eminent economists, they might be able to consume normally $50 billion in production to meet their basic needs.
Neither do I dare cast too much doubt on the sincerity of their violent outbursts and the abuse they throw at one another. However, I shall say that the most painful discovery I have made is that they have all been prisoners of an obsolete and outdated debt-money financial system which squeezes and strangles them until they can no longer breathe. They will not succeed in freeing themselves from this stranglehold unless they decide to get off the beaten paths, which I doubt very much when I think of their party funds.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Desmond Morton Code: As for our hon. friends the socialists, so well-intentioned, they would rather turn everything upside down in our country, through government planning, and strive for the implementation of state capitalism, instead of fixing the basic flaw in our economic

machinery, that is, our monetary system, which, whatever may be said, has been conceived by men and must be rectified according to the needs of the times.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Maurice Côté: It has been approximately 50 years since our country entered the era of mechanization and automation, and despite all the technical and scientific progress made, we still have the same old capitalistic debt-money financial system which was the fashion when ox-drawn wagons roamed down the main street of Bytown, which is the limit of irrelevance and1 absurdity.
If all the Liberal and Conservative governments which have administered our country during that period had realized that their first duty was to respect and protect the citizens and families of this nation, their financial policy would have been set up differently.
But, did they really have a financial policy? Is it not a fact that, until now, the whole financial system of Canada has been left to some people's discretion and to chance? These old Liberal and Conservative parties, instead of rectifying our shady debt-money system, are leading us gradually towards state capitalism, this vicious system which every right-minded Canadian rejects in his heart, because we all agree that the system which prevails in Russia has no place here. Indeed, the Canadian government owns and manages nearly 30 Canadian companies, to which you must add 36 companies involved in the national railways network.
Besides, which parties have been in power in our country for the last 50 years which have given us a funny money, constantly depreciated, and which have pushed us over from inflation to deflation, from recession to stagnation and from depression to financial bankruptcy? Was it the Social Credit party, or the Liberals and the Conservatives? That is what Canadians must know and remember. The time of camouflage is over and we will state the facts in broad daylight. Since June 18, the chips are down, hon. colleagues, because Social Credit has now entered parliament in triumph through the front door and from now on, this rise to power will only stop at the top, according to the will of the Canadian people.
After the votes recently cast in this house, there are only Social Crediters and socialists left, because the Liberals voted for the socialists. So they put down their masks of

disguised socialists. As far as the Conservatives are concerned, having introduced the monetary reform in 1934 by the establishment of the Bank of Canada, they indicated that they always had an inclination towards Social Credit and they must be commended for it.


An hon. Member:: We knew it.
Another hon. Member: It did become obvious.


Maurice Côté: It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that to several members of this house, the mechanism of the Bank of Canada and of our monetary system is something very mysterious. Many think that money grows in the field like mushrooms and that it is a sacred thing not to be touched. That is an indication of a lack of elementary knowledge of public men.
What we need is the socialization of credit or money. That is the main problem facing our country.
According to the economist Paul Del'Anielo, professor at the school of higher commercial studies in Montreal:
Canada's banking system is very different from that of its neighbours, the Americans. In the United States, there are practically 14,000 various banking institutions, whereas Canada has only eight commercial or chartered banks. Our banks having the tendency of amalgamating, especially since the turn of the century, one can truly wonder if, twenty five years from now, banking operations in Canada will not be controlled by only three or four financial giants.
On the other hand, Mr. Pierre Harvey, an economist, writes the following:
For banks, credit is just another merchandise. We must remember that chartered banks, being private enterprises, are interested in making as much money as possible by selling credit because, in their eyes, credit is just another merchandise.
Mr. Harvey then goes on to explain the mechanism of credit:
If, for instance, deposits total $110, the bank will be able to extend credit up to $900 and still keep a reserve fund of 10 per cent. In other words, banks can lend ten times as much as the amount of deposits they hold.
And then:
When bank managers claim that chartered banks cannot extend credit because of the high rate of interest charged by the Bank of Canada, they are speaking nonsense because even if the central bank were charging 10 per cent interest and a chartered bank only 6 per cent on a loan of $110, for instance, the latter would have to pay $10 but it would extend $1,000 worth of credit at 6 per cent which would net $60 in profits.
Indeed, as Mr. Harvey, who teaches at the school of higher commercial studies, states: Except in cases of great emergency, the chartered banks never borrow from the Bank of Canada. 27507-3-27
The Address-Mr. Cote Mr. Speaker, I could quote fifty other well-known economists to prove the creation of bank credit. That is what led a great Liberal senator, the late Hon. Gerry McGeer, of Vancouver, to say to the financial editor of the Toronto daily Star, Mr. Boland Honderich, on May 1, 1947:
Where do the banks get the money they loan to the government? They do not use the funds depositors have left with them, although they have tried to make people believe it. It is rather money they create by making entries in their books.
And he added:
The creation of credit is a power that should be wielded by the government of the country, through Bank of Canada, to meet the justifiable financial needs of the federal, provincial and municipal governments. As long as the power to create credit remains in the hands of private bankshe added,
-the country will remain under the economic domination of the banks.
And the Liberal Senator McGeer concluded by saying:
1.	It is not necessary to go outside Canada to borrow money to meet the needs of Canadians-we can create all the credit we need.
2.	We do not need gold reserves to guarantee our money.
3 Our prosperity does not rest on the export trade.
Those are the words of a Liberal senator.
Mr. Speaker, one of the great problems facing the present government is the international balance of payments. That is not surprising because when the international monetary fund was created in 1944 through the Bretton Woods agreement, the old capitalist formula prevailed. Three great countries, alone, held a majority of shares. Instead of creating an institution "controlled" by a few countries only, the same contribution should have been set for each country or all the members should have had an equal vote.
On July 9, 1956, Mr. Solon Low, then member for Peace River and the Social Credit leader, said this:
The Bretton Woods agreement favoured mainly the creditor countries like the United States without putting them under the obligation to balance their trade by accepting goods from othei countries.
However, they imposed that obligation upon the debtor nations. They set up the international gold standard and gave the creditor nations the right to wait and demand gold or American dollars.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the root of the problem of the balance of international payments. But, unfortunately, those arrangements were approved in 1944 by the Liberals

The Address-Mr. Cote who were then in power and by the Conservatives and the socialists in the opposition. Only the Social Credit party, under the leadership of Mr. Solon Low, was definitely against those obnoxious agreements. Events have shown that only the crediters had proved to be competent financial administrators;
Those who now state, in this house and elsewhere, that Canadians do not lack purchasing power and that our monetary system is perfectly balanced are good people who are terribly unaware and blind, or men who knowingly distort the facts.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Maurice Côté: Because if we add up the number of officially and unofficially unemployed persons in the nation, we come up with a figure of over 600,000 unemployed, with more than 2,500,000 dependents. Officially unemployed persons are those who collect unemployment benefits, while the unofficially unemployed come under public assistance. Those family heads collect approximately $35 a week, which is definitely insufficient in view of the cost of living at the present time. Those fellow citizens are in most difficult circumstances. They are undernourished and lack the essentials of life. In the face of such suffering, the government must place the resources of the Bank of Canada in the service of the nation.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Maurice Côté: We must do away with any austerity program and launch large public works in the most affected areas in the country, without levying any extra taxes and without borrowing, that is, by issuing new money. To this end, let us set up without delay a bank for social financing or for social investment, directly responsible to the Bank of Canada, but endowed with the same powers for creating credit as those available to the chartered banks. Such a bank for social financing would make loans at a rate of interest which would only cover the costs of administration, amounting to about one half of one per cent.
Then, Mr. Speaker, it would be possible to undertake urgent projects which are simply a must all over Canada. And if you want examples of urgent works which would absorb all the available working force in the Chicoutimi or Saguenay areas, I give you a list of them: three bridges across the Saguenay; 20 maritime shipping relays; erection of a modern hospital in Ha Ha Bay; construction
of a university, ten post offices, a direct route to the north shore, which has been requested for 25 years; rebuilding of the Chicoutimi-Quebec city-Montreal railway line; repair, improvement and construction of sea wharves; replacement of old railway cars that are falling apart; relocation of the St. Honore airfield to service commercial and private aircraft and to prevent air tragedies such as the one that occurred last night at the Bagotville R.C.A.F. airfield, in my constituency.
The development of the airport at St. Honore by the Department of Transport is a matter of national emergency. This country cannot afford loss of human lives and millions of dollars because of stupid accidents when there is a $5 million airport ten minutes from Chicoutimi, which could accommodate all private and commercial flights.
Mr. Speaker, that list represents only part of our requirements in the Saguenay district. Those are only examples of the social capital expenditures mentioned by the American economist J. K. Galbraith, and many others like him. Those public works projects would increase employment and allow Canadians to live a decent life in their own country.
The dean of commerce at McGill University in Montreal, Mr. Donald E. Armstrong, said not so long ago:
Only drastic measures can put a stop to unemployment. The remedy is simple and painless. It is necessary to spend more. What is particularly necessary is an increase of expenses in what is known as the public sector; expenses for public education, health, amusements and a variety of other services and installations of which Canada is badly in need.
Besides the necessity of creating one million new jobs in Canada during the next five years, on account of the population increase, it is necessary to think over the words of Mr. Frank Capon, a director of the Du Pont de Nemours Company:
Three years hence, 15 per cent of the workers will be displaced through automation and in 5 years, at least 25 per cent of the workers will be dismissed on account of mechanization and automation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to state in this chamber, that those choruses that were loudly sung on every occasion in favour of national unity must henceforth be replaced by a definite program of national understanding. National unity means a melting pot, which is absolutely inadmissible and intolerable, while national understanding means the progress of two nations side by side in mutual respect of each other's rights and privileges.

Everything coming from the federal government must be written and presented in the two official languages of this country. Everywhere in Canada as well as in federal services in foreign lands, federal civil servants must be perfectly bilingual and government buildings must carry bilingual inscriptions. Briefly, French and English must be treated on the same footing, because if it is not, before we celebrate the centennial of confederation, the dream of Cartier and Macdonald will be carried away by the wind of separatism which rumbles with an increasing strength due to the unfair treatment meted out for so long to the French Canadians in every part of this country.
The federal government must control again the issue and volume of money and credit. Production in our country must not be measured in terms of money but money must be issued on a scientific basis of accounting through a practically automatic process, in order to maintain a permanent balance between our purchasing power and the goods and services available.
We must get rid of the silly money-debt system which is responsible for all the financial ups and downs and replace it by a monetary system based entirely on mathematical logic. This very system of money-debt, false and silly, that we use at present, is supported only by people who would rather live in freezing steadfastness rather than to take care of the welfare of their fellow citizens.
The current royal inquiry on money and credit should give us full details about all the credit money which has been created by the chartered banks ever since 1934, that is since the establishment of the Bank of Canada until today. To achieve prosperity in Canada, we must transform our old obsolete money system. Today, the Social Credit theories and philosophy are accepted by millions of people throughout the world. It is the most powerful weapon we have against creeping communism.


Mr. Caouette:: Hear, hear.


Maurice Côté: We no longer have to look for a solution; let us not look for difficulties where there are none. Social Credit is not based on faith or confidence; it is a scientific system adapted to the economic needs of our country and of the whole world.
At this time, I should like to remind the Conservative government that there is a very striking difference between our two parties and that because of the philosophy, principles and theories of Social Credit it will never be
27507-3-274
The Address-Mr. Rynard possible for us to make any alliances as some people seem to expect.


An hon. Member:: Why do you vote with them, then?


Maurice Côté: However, Mr. Speaker, we shall not make any systematic opposition to questions as futile as those which have been put forth by the Liberals-


An hon. Member:: Election fear.


Maurice Côté: -to make a display of false courage, but we shall support all measures in keeping with the program we have advocated for the welfare of our people.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I have only a few minutes left, I wish to add that the strongest means to create peace and happiness in Canadian families would be to make provision for loans, through the Central Mortage and Housing Corporation, at a rate not exceeding 1 per cent, and to grant a refund to make up for the difference in rate, to Canadian heads of families who bought or built themselves a home in these last five years.
(Text):


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate you on your appointment to that lofty seat where you will preside over this house. I am sure all hon. members of this house wish you the very best in an office which will require a great deal of sagacity and wisdom at all times. I should also be remiss if 1 did not congratulate the mover and seconder of the speech from the throne. I thought that they made excellent speeches. As I have looked around and seen so many speakers making their speeches without reading them, I must offer the comment that at no time have I noticed in this house so many speeches given off the cuff and with as few references and as little reading as on this debate in reply to the speech from the throne.
I think that by now it has been proven beyond peradventure that the period of economic crises in this country developed in the few short weeks before the election. Again, I do not want to belabour this point, but I think I should draw attention to the fact that the dominion bureau of statistics issued a report on the flow of capital from this country in the period April 1, 1962 to June 30, 1962. Dissolution of parliament was on April 21 and election day was on June 18.

The Address-Mr. Rynard The report shows very definitely that during this period $300 million went out of this country as interest on investments in Canada. There was a net outflow of short term capital totalling $168 million. But $242 million was invested abroad by Canadians in foreign banks and short term securities, be it noted, and $77 million was spent on travel abroad by Canadians, foreign shipping, and other intangibles. In all, the sum total was $1 billion. That, Mr. Speaker, represents $10 million every day for that 100-day period. What were the causes of this? Various causes have been ascribed but I think the first thing we must look at is the lack of capital coming from the United States. The United States was looking across the ocean to Great Britain's entrance into the common market. The United States was looking for investment there where labour is cheaper and where investment would yield bigger returns. The second point was the $242 million which was invested outside of Canada by Canadians. In my view full credit for that should go to the Liberal party and I think they must accept that.
I want to speak for a minute or two on the devaluation of the dollar. I think the pegging of the dollar was a most courageous step. It was something that had been asked for over a period of years because businessmen knew what the situation would be if we were tied to a dollar that was stable and not fluctuating. They welcomed it. It allowed them to do business and know the price. I could go on and say more about the history of what France and other countries did in that regard but I do not think that is necessary.
I wish to dwell for a minute or two on the effect on my riding of devaluation of the dollar. I represent the riding of Simcoe East which has water on three sides. It is one of the greatest tourist areas in Canada and those in that industry have all experienced a great boom. Practically all of the hotels and summer places were filled at the beginning of the third quarter of the year, the season when the industry experiences a big boost. I want to give all credit to the government in that regard because income from the tourist industry is going to be up $150 million or $160 million. The industry has shown a deficit for years but this year Canada will likely break even. This is due to the courageous action of the government in pegging the dollar.
But I want to go a little further and point out how farsighted the government has been with respect to the tourist industry. Government support of the tourist industry has increased by 75 per cent since 1957 when the Conservative government came into power. Let us compare this with the situation formerly. In the five years from 1952 to 1957


the tourist budget increased by less than 30 per cent but now we see a great increase in the tourist industry in my riding and all across Canada. The Canadian economy has benefited from the increase in income from tourists brought about as a result of aggressive tourist promotion. From 1957 to 1961 income from the tourist industry increased by 30 per cent, or $110 million, while from 1952 to 1956 the growth was 22 per cent or $62 million. Federal programs that have been carried out have laid the foundation for this increase and the pegging of the dollar gave the industry a shot in the arm in every province in Canada. People engaged in the tourist business realize this and they appreciate what this government has done.
I should like to speak for a moment on medical care. Important and all as medical care is, perhaps we in this house would have to agree that food is more essential. Yet food is still bought and sold in the market place. But medical care seems to have something magnetic about it for the politicians. I wonder how much of this is deep concern for the people's welfare and how much of it is concern for the politicians' welfare? I am not going to answer that question. I am going to leave it alone and let hon. members answer it according to their own consciences. Suffice it to say that Liberal policy over the years has been to advocate medical care and forget it as the seasons change. I well remember when they first advocated it away back in 1919. Now, however, since they appear to be swinging far out into left field, they trot it out again in spite of the fact-I wonder sometimes how short their memories are-that very recently they opposed it in the province of Saskatchewan.
One would think that the socialists here would heed the warning to go slow after the medical crisis they precipitated in the province of Saskatchewan. There is no crisis in medical care in Canada. No one is being denied medical care. As a matter of fact, the Ontario hospital commission report indicates that less than 10 per cent need help in this province. They include the indigents and those with marginally low incomes. No one denies that this group needs coverage by insurance or some other plan. As for the remaining 90 per cent, an increasing majority are becoming insured under P.S.I., Associated Medical Services, Windsor Medical Services and other insurance coverage. So I state that this government is taking a very sensible position in having a royal commission bring in a report on medical care.
Canada is a big country. From the Atlantic to the Pacific conditions vary immensely. They vary immensely in Ontario from the

city ol Toronto to the northern part of the province. No physician objects to insurance against sickness. Most of us practise under it now, but we want no interference with freedom of action according to our consciences in treating the patient. That is the way most doctors want things and, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that is the way most patients want them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what the Liberal party will guarantee.


Philip Bernard Rynard: In this way the patient will receive as good treatment as is obtainable anywhere in the world. Furthermore, under this plan it is my firm conviction that no insurance company or group should have a monopoly so far as insurance is concerned.
In my opinion there are a couple of factors that are urgent. I want to bring it to the attention of the house that these are urgent needs. We urgently need more hospital beds, active, convalescent and chronic, in the province of Ontario and throughout Canada. Once we get more chronic beds we can relieve the convalescent, and more convalescent beds will result in relieving the active. But we are in dire need today of active hospital beds, convalescent beds and chronic beds before medical services can be improved. Staffs are urgently needed to man these hospitals. Nurses and other help are required. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that if we did not have married nurses giving of their time and effort we could not operate the hospitals that are operating in Canada today, and may I say that to do so I know some of these nurses have made a great sacrifice so far as their homes are concerned.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I want to draw your attention to the fact that we urgently need more doctors in Canada. The situation is bad, indeed; but it will be worse because the United Kingdom is getting short of doctors today, and that source will dry up. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that a new medical school is needed in this province to provide 100 doctors more per year. It is estimated that the basic science buildings, the hospital and technical buildings for such a school will cost well over $40 million. The need for doctors is urgent because without them no plan of medical care can be carried out. There is urgent need for more hospitals, more staffs and more doctors. These are the urgent medical problems before the people of Canada today. When I say "staffs" I refer to the technicians, radiologists and personnel staff.
Then, I wanted to dwell for a moment or two on the question of welfare payments. I noticed a reference in the speech from the throne to the fact that a welfare council would
The Address-Mr. Rynard be set up to review welfare and social payments. This, in my opinion, is an excellent idea. This matter should be taken out of the hands of the politicians entirely, in my opinion, and these payments should be tied to the economic factors operating in our country. For far too long, the politicians have gone across this country, if not entirely misleading the people, at least attempting to bribe them with their own money.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Shades of 1957.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Shades of 1962.
I should like to discuss briefly the common market situation. First of all, as a Canadian, I regretted reading the comments that were being reported from the Leader of the Opposition. It is my feeling that when the Prime Minister of this country is engaged outside of this country, whether he is a Liberal or a Conservative, his position should not be weakened by irresponsible comments. He is there representing all Canadians and, in my opinion, he is entitled to the support of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. He should not be hampered and hamstrung or belittled at home and reported at home as doing the wrong thing.
The Prime Minister of Canada, the senior member of the commonwealth, occupied a place of respect and dignity in the commonwealth meetings. Of course, he was the first speaker. Not one country questioned the right of the United Kingdom to go into the common market. The United Kingdom negotiations up to this point had been meagre. Only the African nations had been promised associate membership. No arrangements had been considered for Canada's wheat or the other goods that were traditionally sold to England. Little or no discussion had taken place regarding Australia's goods or those of New Zealand, and New Zealand has been the farm basket of the United Kingdom for years. We recall that Mr. Duncan Sandys assured the Australian cabinet less than a year ago that the United Kingdom would never go into Europe unless satisfactory arrangements could be made for Australia. The chancellor of the exchequer had said that the signing of the treaty of Rome would mean having common external tariffs which, in turn, would mean the end of the commonwealth free entry, and he could not conceive of any government of his country putting forward a proposition which would involve the abandonment of commonwealth free entry. However, little or nothing had been done regarding Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India or Pakistan.
There were traditions in that room where these meetings were held. Twenty two years ago the commonwealth stood alone for civilization. Many of these countries had been through two world wars. The question arose,

The Address-Mr. Rynard would the United Kingdom become greater as the leader of a quarter of the world's people, five sixths of whom are coloured, with different religions and different ideals than we have but with great supplies of raw materials and few skills strengthened by over 100 million of the white group. We have Canada coming to the rescue of the United Kingdom in the war and post-war years with $2 billion of help. Canada has supplied the finest wheat in the world to the United Kingdom over the years. Canada buys $2 worth of supplies for every $1 worth the United Kingdom buys in Canada. Ten Canadians visit the United Kingdom for every person who comes to Canada from the United Kingdom. Canada has more than upheld her end in so far as trade is concerned.
To reiterate, perhaps the United Kingdom, with over 100 million whites in the commonwealth, could be a power that would greatly enrich the free world. The Prime Minister's proposal that there be a meeting of all commonwealth members, the common market countries, the United States, Japan and like-minded countries, was a good one. He graciously offered to play host for this meeting. I should like now to quote the following from Canadian Saturday Night:
It was Diefenbaker's finest hour.
To say that his address was deplorable, as Lester Pearson did, shows a complete lack of understanding of the situation which exists in Britain today. Opposition to the common market is growing rapidly, and it appears extremely unlikely that Macmillan will be able to push through his plans. The representatives of the dominions were wheedled back into line by Macmillan, Sandys and Heath, but their endorsement of the vaguely worded memorandum supporting Britain's stand could not be construed as giving the British government carte blanche. The dominions have not had their final say. Nor have the British people.
Now I want to say a few words about the growing viciousness in public life. It is my opinion that a political conscience must be developed if democracy is to function or continue to function in Canada. Downgrading personal attacks and vilification of the Prime Minister of this country, regardless of his political stripe, are wholly unwarranted and unjustified. They create, in my opinion, a lack of respect for the recognized authority of government and debase the character of Canada. They also tend to dilute the political fervour and love of one's country, an atmosphere that is so necessary to developing young Canadians if we ever want them to reach their potential, whatever their avocation may be.
If these scurrilous, unjustified and untrue attacks keep on developing in the trend indicated, then very few men of high calibre will be seeking public office. I am not saying that leaders in public life should be above criticism. They must accept criticism, which

is the essence of politics and political life. However, let us make it constructive. There is no place for destructive criticism or vilification in a country so dependent on exporting 30 per cent of its goods and on the importation of foreign capital to develop its resources fully. Note of this was made by the daily newspaper in my hometown of Orillia.
This paper was founded by Mr. C. H. Hale, who still lives in the city, and who is recognized as a great citizen and newspaper publisher. In fact his contribution to newspaper publication was recognized by the University of Toronto in conferring a doctor of laws degree upon him. His newspaper was finally purchased by the Thomson interests. Mr. Farmer Tissington, now in the press gallery took over. He was already on the staff and he carried on the newspaper with the same high sense of responsibility that was characteristic of Mr. Hale. Then Mr. Tissington went to the Thomson chain at Prince Albert and Mr. James Lamb became publisher, with Mr. Peters as editor. The newspaper's high sense of responsibility to its readers has continued, and I would be most remiss if I did not mention one of the very fine columns contributed to it by Mr. Patrick Nicholson from the parliamentary press gallery. It is from this same newspaper, the Orillia Packet and Times, that I wish to quote an editorial in its issue of September 22:
In the magazine and radio-T.V. field, the grounds are somewhat different. Most of the so-called political commentators who give magazines like Macleans, Saturday Night and Canadian Commentator, and all C.B.C. public forum and political comment programs such a decided leftish slant, are drawn from the same handful of left-wingers whose views range from parlor pink to the sort of fuzzy idealism which is almost a Canadian trademark. To such men Mr. Diefenbaker, with his forthright views, portentous manner and authoritarian leanings is anathema; it is impossible for such men to write objectively of him.
The editorial goes on to state:
Whatever his limitations, and they are not nearly so many or so marked as his critics would have us believe, history will show Mr. Diefenbaker to have been one of this young nation's ablest leaders. He took office at a time when the Liberals openly admitted they were pleased to get out from under, at a time of apparent economic crisis. His government has introduced a host of measures which have improved the condition of most Canadians, and when the economy was again threatened, he did not hesitate to adopt measures which are proving themselves completely successful.
On his record he merits the respect of Canadians of all political persuasions. The bitter and unwarranted campaign of hatred and ridicule to which he is currently being subjected does not reflect credit on many of Canada's political commentators.
While attending the commonwealth prime ministers' conference Mr. Diefenbaker spoke to the Canadian club in London. I wish, Mr. Speaker, you could have been there. It is one

of the biggest halls I have ever been in, and he delivered a great speech there. He made no reference to the scurrilous attacks being made on him back home, but he built up Canada. Had you been there, Mr. Speaker, you would have been proud to be a Canadian. He stood and spoke to that vast audience on an ankle which could not help but be giving him misery. It was his task to build Canada up, and he did.


Mr. J. C. Munro (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate you on the honour done you in your appointment to the responsible position of Speaker of the House of Commons. I should also like to congratulate the Deputy Speaker on his appointment, and I would be remiss if I did not compliment the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. As a new member I can truly appreciate what an honour it must have been to the two gentlemen concerned and the satisfaction they must feel in having discharged their duty admirably.
The particular aspects of the speeches which followed the speech from the throne which I desire to discuss are those dealing with the unemployment situation generally, the social welfare program of my party, and observations I have to make with respect to the position taken by the other minority parties, particularly that taken by our friends of the New Democratic party.
On the question of unemployment a brief descriptive background of the character of my riding would shed some enlightenment on my primary concern with this question. It is a riding comprising the industrial heart of Hamilton and also, though to a somewhat lesser degree, the industrial heart of Canada. Undeniably it constitutes the steel hub of Canada. Within its boundaries are situated many major industries such as the Steel Company of Canada, Dominion Foundries and Steel, the International Harvester Corporation, Studebaker Corporation, Westinghouse and Dominion Glass, to mention only a few. Thus it can be readily seen it is an industrial riding comprising to a great extent constituents who earn their livelihood through industrial labour.
The continuity of work undertaken by these firms is of vital concern, not only to their employees but to all the people. A slowdown of production or the closing of a particular phase of a productive process reflects on the success of all those whose earnings are of a derivative nature. The small businessman, the man who provides a service, be it professional or otherwise, is deeply concerned with the degree of success enjoyed by these plants.
The Address-Mr. Munro
If one or more of these concerns experience difficulty, whether it be a shortage of work resulting in lay-offs, or whether it be strikes, the ill effects which result reverberate throughout the riding, and indeed throughout the whole city.
One cannot enjoy the confidence of the constituents of such a riding without being in deep sympathy with any policy, policies or party which espouses and embraces this primary premise, namely the betterment of those groups of our citizens who earn their living through physical labour of one form or another. One must realize that the security afforded by continuity of earning power can never be taken for granted by such men. That security is of a far more tenuous nature than one would imagine.
For example, look at the industrial worker. A change in government policy or a change in company policy such as the relocation of one particular phase of its operation, or a slowdown in demand for the company's products, or automation, may result in sudden unemployment with truly grievous consequences not only to the confidence such men have in their country and in our way of life, but even more grievously in the resulting effects of loss of confidence in themselves, irreparable damage to their pride, and damage to the so important and essential belief of Canadians in their own independence and self-reliance, to say nothing of the accompanying hardship which results to the family of an industrial worker when he experiences sudden unemployment. His is a family who do not deserve to suffer, a family who deserve, in a country such as ours, all the essential benefits like proper shelter, nourishment and education. That such essential benefits should be so completely predicated on the constant employment of the breadwinner is a thing which should give us all cause to reflect. Unemployment insurance is but small alleviation for such a devastating toll.
This picture is further aggravated by the fact that an industrial centre such as Hamilton is a focal point in the settlement of many recent arrivals to this country, and without adequacy of employment opportunities these people become disillusioned with the capabilities of this, their new country. This initial disillusionment is hardly a healthy initiation into what we regard as our Canadian way of life.
Unemployment is a serious situation in the country. It is reflected in the city of Hamilton today and can be readily ascertained by an examination of the following facts. First, in the month of July, 1961 there were over 7,000 on the relief rolls of the city of Hamilton; this in the supposed peak of our employment

The Address-Mr. Munro period. This does not even take into account all those unemployed persons receiving unemployment insurance benefits. The bill for providing this very necessary relief was over $3 million for the year 1961, over $1 million of which had to be borne by the city.
Second, home construction is presently grinding to a stop, with the resulting unemployment of contractors, labourers and tradesmen of all manner and kind. Third, lay-offs have occurred and are occurring in our principal industries. The monumental failure of this government to take any constructive measures since it first obtained office in 1957 has been amply dealt with since the opening of this session. Needless to say, the lack of any co-ordinated plan for future economic development, the tight money policy of the present government, with its accompanying high interest rates and the abandonment of many public works, are retrograde steps and ones which will only have a tendency to increase this unemployment which plagues our country. Yet this is the party that held out such radiant hope to the people of this country that the plague of unemployment would no longer visit our land.
The inadequacies of the Conservative government have been so thoroughly dealt with in this house that I think this would be an opportune time to look at the position of the New Democratic party in relation to government policy. May I say now that I share the respect of hon. members for the many distinguished and able men of that group, many of whom have proved themselves, in every type of forum, able and articulate debaters.
Their repeated utterances in this house, however, would lead one to believe that only they, fully and sincerely, reflect the aspirations of the Canadian people; that only they embrace the social ideals so necessary for those Canadians who do not share to a sufficient degree the wealth of this country. Their somewhat sanctimonious attitude would seem to pre-empt all the political virtues unto themselves, to the exclusion of all others. This attitude can, and does, become tiresome. It would lead one to believe that they and they alone are solely fit to carry the torch on behalf of those people who do not adequately share in our abundance, that they and they alone are the sole proprietors of political morality. So jealous do they appear at times that one might even suspect that they resent the fact that any adherent of any other organization or group, be it political or otherwise, might desire to champion the cause or causes which they, our friends, have appropriated unto themselves.
The record of my party in the field of social welfare has been a constructive and

tangible one over the years, and one of which I, as a Liberal, am justly proud. To name only a few: veterans allowance legislation, family allowance legislation, allowances for the blind legislation, old age pensions legislation, phase
1	of the hospitalization plan and in 1956 phase
2	of the hospitalization plan. This only mentions a few. The Liberal party, over the objections of some in this house, were the party that actually implemented this social welfare legislation which is so integral a part of our everyday life today.
Yet were one to read the text entitled "The New Party", the author of which is the hon. member from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and were one to be unfamiliar with Canadian history, I am sure he would come to no other conclusion than that the C.C.F. party formed a government in this Canada of ours during the years in which this social legislation was implemented.
Mr. Speaker, I would quote a paragraph from page 12 of that text as a leading example of a tendency toward plagiarism indulged in by the hon. member from Winnipeg North Centre. It is as follows:
It is generally known that old age pensions were first enacted in Canada in 1926 and that this important social advance was achieved then only because J. S. Woodsworth and a few colleagues held the balance of power in the House of Commons. It is also generally known that the promise to bring in old age pensions had been made by the Liberal party at its convention of 1919.
That last sentence, Mr. Speaker, would seem to be a half-hearted endeavour by the hon. member from Winnipeg North Centre to be objective. Yet to involve oneself in a dispute as to who was the initial author and as to who first implemented such legislation that is so widely accepted today is a childlike discussion. It would then appear that both parties are grappling for the handle of the torch of social change. It would leave one with the distasteful thought that the two parties are more concerned as to who is to acquire the most progressive public image than in a true implementation of the policies necessary to bring about a greater degree of social justice in this country.
I have heard with interest the comments made by the hon. member from York South (Mr. Lewis) and others of his party in their addresses following the speech from the throne. The comments I am referring to are those dealing with the Liberal party, many of which I consider of questionable accuracy. A few examples would be the following. The hon. member from York South stated:
I have noticed in recent speeches by spokesmen for the Liberal party that they too say their goal is a balanced budget. I urge this house to reject this outmoded and harmful proposition at this time.

Mr. Speaker, the actual position of the Liberal party, if my friends in the far corner would care to examine it, is that, yes, the Liberal party is for a balanced budget in prosperous times and in times of full employment. The same hon. member, after condemning the Conservative government, went on to say this about the Liberals. Referring to our health plan, he said:
I call it now a thorough-going sham and a shameful surrender to vested medical interest, because what does that health plan offer? It offers free health services for the aged, the pensioners. If I remember the words correctly, and I am sure I do, the plan said for some of the aged, and never explained what the word "some" meant. I've always assumed that it meant some kind of means test. It offers free medical service to young people under the age of 16. The rest of the community between 16 years of age and the old age pensioners, if I remember the words correctly, are to pay substantially less than half the cost of the medical services; presumably the government would pay substantially more than half.
The hon. member went on to state the hardship involved in such a plan for a worker who earned $3,000 or $4,000 a year. This statement, again, is of questionable accuracy and it is fortunate that the hon. member qualified his remarks with the words "if I remember the words correctly".
An examination by our friends in the far corner of the brochure put out on health care by the Liberal party would reveal these words. The quotation I am now going to give is referring to all Canadians who are not retired, who are not under the age of 16 and who are not unemployed, who will unquestionably receive the benefits of medicare without any contribution:
For all other Canadians, the plan will cover all doctors' bills above a low annual cost. There will be no charge to anyone who does not go to a doctor. Liberal action will take fear out of health costs. The maximum amount of doctors' bills that anyone will be required to pay will be small; but it will be a safeguard against unreasonable demands for attention.
There, I suggest, is the fundamental principle involved, that the payment contributed by employed persons between the age of 16 and retirement age will be small for the purpose of providing a safeguard only.
The brochure went on to explain how the government would bear the cost and underwrite the expenses of such a program. It is one thing for a party to promote a social welfare program and it is another thing for the party to undertake the responsibility of showing the people how it shall be paid. This latter undertaking by the Liberal party it was, and is, with responsibility and courage, prepared to meet.


An hon. Member:: How?
The Address-Mr. Munro


John Carr Munro: It is all in the pamphlet, if you care to read it accurately.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, this is considerably more than can be said for the program advanced by our friends in the far corner, who never quite seem able to meet the added onus of explaining how their programs are to be financed. This same hon. member, presumably referring to the Liberal brochure to which I have just referred, must have been referring to this statement in his comments. I quote from the pamphlet:
They-
"They" is referring to the payments made by individuals for the Liberal health scheme:
They will be designed to cover rather less than a half of the total cost of medical care.
The hon. member for York South did not see fit to quote the sentence immediately preceding that. That statement reads as follows:
How these payments-
Again referring to payments by individuals
-are made will be arranged in agreement with the provinces.
The brochure went on to say that the federal government will pay the rest of the costs from general revenue. For the hon. member to suggest on the basis of such wording that the plan means that a worker earning $3,000 or $4,000 a year would be required to pay half the cost of medical services is a completely unwarranted interpretation. The pamphlet clearly states that with respect to the amount of less than half the cost not incurred by the federal government arrangements will be made with the provinces. How the wording of the brochure could possibly lend itself to the interpretation given by the hon. member for York South is beyond any powers of objective reasoning.
Again, though the hon. member referred to the program as a thorough-going sham and called it a surrender to vested medical interests, it is worth while noting that he did not care to go into the reasoning establishing such a sweeping generalization. By going into these matters, Mr. Speaker, I hope in some degree to have explained with accuracy the program of the Liberal party and, to an extent, to have defended it against baseless attacks.
Some of the comments made by our friends in the far corner-I have referred to several of them earlier, and I shall refer later to others- lead one to wonder whether that group has forgotten that the Liberal party has not been in power for the last five years. At any rate, sweeping generalizations of a condemning nature, together with name-calling depreciations, are always looked upon, fortunately, by the public with a degree of suspicion and

The Address-Mr. Macquarrie on the basis that the program of the government failed to further or enhance the worthy principles which they advocate, but solely on the basis of the political manoeuvring of our Social Credit friends?
Mr. Speaker, it has been enlightening indeed to observe the political gyrations of the N.P.D. up to and after the time of the fateful decision of the Social Credit party. That this house could receive such a lesson in the art of base practical and political manipulation from such a band of idealists would lead one almost to believe that they had feet of clay. Perhaps now that the hem of the white robes of purity of our friends in the far corner is besmirched by the stain of base politics, they can join fully in the deliberations of this "house of sinners".
Mr. Speaker, what I hope my comments have been directed to-and perhaps now our friends in this house, and especially in the far corner, can look constructively and with a long range view at the program of this Liberal party-is to the end of ridding this country of diverse and multitudinous minority groups which, aside from contributing to political and economic instability, are a sign of political narrowness of thought.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret that the time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in the three minutes before the hour of six I have the rare privilege of congratulating you upon your installation in this most important office in our chamber. We have been impressed in the last few days with the fine impartiality of your judgment and the incisive clarity of your rulings as we have carried on our deliberations. I would express the hope that you, sir, will remain in this lofty position for a long time.
I should like to say too, Mr. Speaker, how very pleased and proud I was of my new colleagues, the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They spoke well. They expressed sound views. They delivered themselves in a most splendid way. I thought that the mover was indeed a good and worthy successor to his father, whom many members may recollect. I also thought that he was a worthy successor to a man who was a friend of us all, the late Bill Anderson.
To the seconder I extend a particular congratulation because of his felicity in both languages. I have studied French for a great many years and every so often in this chamber I decide that perhaps I will essay forth
[Mr. Munro.l
and speak a few words in French. Then I think how well I regard the French-speaking people and how much I believe in bilingualism. I decide that these feelings could not stand such an assault and I revert again to English. But the seconder set a fine example. I was very pleased, and I wish for him and for the mover a most successful and long tenure in this House of Commons.
Now, Mr. Speaker, to retain my popularity with my colleagues may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, he would be insensitive indeed who did not regard this present parliament at this stage in our country's history as a most significant and momentous assemblage of our nation's representatives. There have been time as I have sat here that I have been filled with feelings of disquiet and I have noted similar feelings have been expressed by some other hon. members. I quite agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Smith) this afternoon when he repudiated the suggestion that a "dreary recital of the needs and interests of one's constituency" was not what should be taking place in parliament. Parliament is a place certainly where the cut and thrust of vital debate is exhilarating and appealing and we all enjoy those moments of drama when this intensity takes over.
Parliament is certainly a place for argumentation; but it is much more. It is a chamber for legislation, for deliberation, for that sober and serious reflection and expression of the views and thoughts of the people of the nation. It is not designed for the entertainment of the press gallery. It is designed to express the will of those who have sent us here. If parliament should ever lose its vital ingredient, its representative character, or if that role should fall into disuse, then we can believe that the fundamentals of our democracy are thereby undermined.
I am always interested to hear what the people in the various constituencies have on their minds. We were all enlightened and perhaps a bit horrified by what the hon. member of St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) told us this afternoon. I regret that such a recital had to be made yet I think it was in the interest of strengthening of this parliament that it was made. It is not for me to make

any partisan comparisons but I should like to say that the Leader of the Opposition might well remember the kindly, courteous and generous treatment tat he received at the hands of Premier Shaw of Prince Edward Island. It was a different story there and it always will be a different story because in a free country where political action is free and untrammeled those who seek political office are welcome. We are glad to have people of all parties come to Prince Edward Island. We do not want our people to vote too heavily for some of them but they are welcome and they will be given all the courtesies of free speech. Also, it is not the same in Newfoundland.
While I am disquieted by some of the things which might take place and which might seem to be taking place here, I am sometimes concerned about my own judgment. I thought at one time that the major opposition party was determined to have an election as soon as possible, but when I heard their spokesmen strike out in this direction and then in that direction to castigate their potential allies in any vote in this house, I wondered if I was right in assuming that their intentions were as they are sometimes expressed.
But if there are reasons for disquiet, there are reasons for satisfaction and comfort because I believe that the very closeness of this house is going to save the country. The Canadian people, having seen that the once great Liberal party has come so close to office, are watching as never before its performance in opposition. I think they will look carefully at that apparent lust for power, that desire for immediate possession of office which surely must be the motivation of many of the utterances which we have heard during the election and since the assembling of this parliament.
I thought that in 1958 the decisiveness of the election was caused by the fact that the people were able to compare clearly and vividly the records of the two parties because they could remember the former administration after such a short space of time. Now, happily, this same opportunity for clarity of view has come forward and this is a reason, I think, for comfort to all Canadians. I agree heartily with the last speaker for the Liberal party who spoke about the name calling. I think he is quite right and the Canadian people will depreciate and view with suspicion such tactics. As he is an able speaker, I would suggest that he might perhaps repeat those remarks in his own caucus.
I have noted and Canadians have noted that this intense yearning for office does not express ffself only in the denigration of the
The Address-Mr. Macquarrie Leaders of this country. It will allow itself to go so far as to make expressions and repeated expressions which cannot but diminish their country itself. It pains me that a man of the international repute and prestige of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) should have his ceaseless efforts in all parts of the world so castigated and criticized for mere partisan gain. I have seen that man in international conferences. I have heard times without number expressions of the high regard of representatives of other countries. There is much I could say on that matter but I will rest my case very simply on an editorial in one of the great newspapers of the maritime provinces, the Fredericton Gleaner. In referring to his splendid speech at the United Nations general assembly about ten days ago it declared that "the Secretary of State for External Affairs truly represented the Canadian people in his remarks and spoke for us all, as always."
There is another thing that concerns me. I have the honour to represent the cradle of confederation, the city of Charlottetown where in 1864 this nation began. I look upon the development of Canada as a prototype of the development of the commonwealth and I am amazed, a little bit shocked and perhaps a bit amused to discover that, in the tremendous desire to discredit, someone has even picked upon the commonwealth as a part of a strategy to weaken the prestige of the present government and to enhance the fortunes of another political party. It seems to me that the gains which the main opposition party made in the election of June 18-they were significant I must admit, and I would have been happier had they been less-are being overborne by a faulty and unwise strategy. They are going to limit the electoral advances of this party.
Who would have fastened upon the commonwealth as a weapon to belabour the Conservative party? I am not one of those who is a narrow or bitter partisan. I do not believe that any one political party, not even this one away to the right-geographically to the right-has in its bosom all that is good, perfect, wise and profound. But the Conservatives, throughout this nation's history, have been in the very forefront of the development and extension of the commonwealth. It was Sir John A. Macdonald, and I will admit that it was not he alone, who was the founder of this great nation, this assembling of diverse and separated colonies. It was Sir John Thompson who in 1894 brought to this city the intercolonial conference. It was Sir Robert Borden who, though his dogged determination and high sense of Cana-dianism, brought us from the status of a

The Address-Mr. Macquarrie colony to that of a nation and truly earned for himself the appellation of the architect of Canadian nationhood. It was Arthur Meighen who spoke wisely and realistically in 1932 at another imperial conference. I must say to my friends that he was treated as the head of a government should be treated when he was abroad, of course, when he came back he was accused of being a mouthpiece for Washington by the same people who once spoke of him as the lackey of Britain.
It was in 1931, under the government of R. B. Bennett, that the Statute of Westminster became recognized as the charter of our independence. It was in 1932, in this very place, that a great economic conference was held, the fruits of which have a profound effect on our trade pattern to this very day. In 1961, after the commonwealth had grown to include Asia and Africa, after the question of the equality of nations in that commonwealth had long since been disposed of in a large measure through the vigour and wisdom of Conservatives, who gave leadership on that new and important question of the equality of peoples within those nations? It was the Prime Minister of Canada. I would commend to those who seek to advance themselves by denouncing the head of this government, the attitude of the Vancouver Sun, a newspaper which I do not often read and which I do not think is one of ours. They said, speaking of the conference, when it came time for men of courage to stand up and be counted the Prime Minister of Canada was the first man on his feet.
Then, at the commonwealth prime ministers' conference this year, that unique gathering of statesmen of the modern world, who gave leadership? Ask the commonwealth statesmen who were there, or read the communique. Yet, he is criticized, and for what? He was criticized because, sensing the essential nature of the commonwealth, he spoke freely; and as a Canadian he spoke wisely. The commonwealth is an assembly of free nations. It was Borden, many years ago, who stood up and said, "I am always for the British Empire," as it was called then, "but within the empire I am for Canada first. Is that the kind of attitude for which a Canadian statesman should be criticized? I think it would ill-behoove any leader of any party to go abroad and adopt any other attitude. It has amazed me how, in recent months, the Liberal party can be so sure it has all the answers on the question of the European common market, that most difficult, delicate and complex economic assembly. The people of Britain themselves and their leaders are sorely torn as they ponder the proper steps to take at this time. Yet, there are those here who know exactly what Great Britain should do.

I look, too, with pride upon something more that took place at that conference. There was a further extension, as I see it, of this commonwealth ideal, so well nourished and nurtured by Conservative statesmen throughout the years. I refer to the development of a more broadly based trade relationship, centred on the commonwealth but not confined to the commonwealth. This again was a Canadian inspiration by the present head of the government of this country.
I should like to say much more about these things, but there is a question that I have been asked since I have come back to this house. The question is: how is it that in the face of the events of June 18 your province clung so vigorously to the Conservative party? This is a question I am proud to answer. There are many answers, but the overriding one, of course, is that this government has met our needs, has enacted policies for which we have long cried out and which were so long denied. As a former Liberal premier of my province used to say, they never gave the maritimes more than half a deal. I will not weight Hansard with statistics, but I will point out one which is eloquent. In 1956-57 our little province received from Ottawa in conditional and unconditional grants, $5,048,000. Do you know what the figure was in 1960-61? It was $12,491,000. The people of my province are as shrewd and canny, if I may use that island word, today as they were in 1867 when they refused to join confederation until they found it solidly in their interests to do so. When they remembered what was done by some parties, and more significantly what was not done by some parties, they cast their vote as we saw on June 18. This was but one phase of the new measures. I will not call it generosity, I will call it justice, I will call it Canadianism.
We have the same situation in connection with our transportation. Hon. members here know that no Prince Edward Island member could make even a short speech without mentioning transportation. We have now more ferries making more trips and carrying more people than ever before in our history. We are very proud of the fact that we never had such service. We never had so many people coming to our province as we have had lately. Our province has 100,000 people, but this past summer we had a million tourists. A new boat, provided by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) after some nagging by my colleagues and myself, but not too much,-he was very co-operative-moves across the strait from New Brunswick to Prince Edward Island in less than 40 minutes. This is the fastest service on record.

Then someone has mentioned the causeway. I mentioned that causeway a good many times. But we have our commitment in that connection. We were told at the time, as the house records will show, how long it will require for the studies which must precede the eventual construction. I hope that all hon. members in this house will come across that causeway before too long. Just the other day we had the announcement about the Wood island ferry which will tighten the links between my hon. friend from Pictou and myself. It will ply between the two provinces and will be another milestone in the vital field of transportation.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, we were delighted with the ARDA program which will bring some $1,359,000 to Prince Edward Island to develop, expand and improve our basic and oldest industry in our fertile garden province. But one of the things we do not do is dwell in the past, and that is the best of being both a progressive and a Conservative. We are looking forward. The throne speech is filled with forecasts of much sane, sound and sober legislation, but I must say that thing which appeals to me most is the announcement of the establishment of the Atlantic provinces development board. This is something we have sought for a long time.
The government has given attention to our immediate needs through the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants, and through increased subsidies; but, as I said in my very first speech in this chamber in 1957, we want an opportunity to help ourselves in the Atlantic region, and this new board will enable us to do that.
A great man in our region, Dr. Wardell, in his convocation address at the University of New Brunswick the other day, centred his remarks on this very item in the throne speech. He said:
We are then, at a turning point in the history of the maritimes. We are about to take a new course which will lead to a fair sharing of Canada's heritage.
I agree with that and I believe the premiers of all the provinces in the Atlantic region agree with it, although I was not quite sure what the premier of Newfoundland meant when he commented on it. The development board is something which we spoke about and sought during our Atlantic province candidates meeting in Charlottetown last spring, and we now applaud the government for its initiative in this regard.
We in Prince Edward Island welcomed the devaluation of the dollar. The hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Smith) has said that the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon) helped him during his election campaign by some of the things he has said or written. He
The Address-Mr. Macquarrie helped me also, because when I was trying to convince the electorate that the devaluation was what we needed I could quote from the hon. member for Davenport, and I may say I did. The devaluation of the dollar has had one direct consequence in bringing us the finest tourist season in our history, and it has also helped our two basic industries, agriculture and fisheries. The devaluation of the dollar was a splendid, spirited move which has been economically beneficial to our people. In this connection I was happy to note in today's Toronto Telegram that an outstanding financier, the president of the Toronto-Dominion bank says:
The Canadian dollar crisis is over and while some problems remain to be solved they are not insurmountable.
He went on to say that confidence in the Canadian dollar would continue to grow since the recovery of the nation's foreign exchange reserves.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not what the Minister of Finance says.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: The people I have the honour to represent have expressed their confidence in the financial and other policies of the government and, as the days lengthen and as time passes in this parliament, I am convinced they will re-ensure themselves in the confidence they have expressed. Like those in many other parts of Canada they will look again at the two great national parties. They will look at the party of which I am a member, which is still the only party with representation from all provinces. They will look at the discharge of its duties in difficult times 

of course we have difficult times in a coum try like this-and I am confident as to the party in which they will place their trust.
Public life is not easy. Indeed it is onerous. Sometimes I suppose we all entertain the thought that it is a little too burdensome. But the thing which prompts me to continue, and comforts me, is that one can see that that part of the country which one represents and loves has had something done for it and its people through the policies of the party he supports.
We in the Atlantic provinces have had qur difficulties. We have had our grievances. The whole subject of maritime plans is pretty hoary now, but never since the far off days of the nineteenth century have we had a government which looked at our difficulties straight in the eye and moved quickly, courageously and effectively to deal with them. It is because of that, and not because of any fondness for the party label, that the Atlantic region has placed its confidence in this government. It is because it has done well for us and by us.

The Address-Mr. Walker


Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre):: Mr. Deputy Speaker, at the outset I want to congratulate the house on its choice of Speaker when it called upon the man who usually sits in your chair to serve further the interests of our country by acting as our arbiter and as guardian of the moral and spiritual principles upon which our parliamentary democracy rests. I believe I may be forgiven if I make reference to my political ties with Mr. Speaker's constituency of Edmonton West, which he so ably represents.
My interest and participation in politics started in that wonderful and friendly city of Edmonton back in the early thirties when, fresh out of school, I took an active part in the campaign of the Hon. Charlie Stewart, who some hon. members present may well remember. As a boy in Edmonton I earned my pocket money by delivering what has turned out to be a most politically enlightened newspaper, the Edmonton Journal', and not too many months ago I would have willingly distributed that paper without charge.
I also want to thank the Prime Minister for the personal interest he took in my efforts, as far back as July 29 of this year, to have the people of Canada, through the government share the burden and tragedy of the thalidomide babies. There has been some considerable correspondence between the Prime Minister and myself, and it was on his suggestion that I delivered a brief to the deputy minister of health and welfare for consideration when he convened the national meeting of health officials to study the problem.
In these cases the machinery of government never moves fast enough to satisfy a a member who has become personally involved in a human tragedy of the scope and intensity of the thalidomide disaster, and I impatiently wait for the good intentions expressed at the conference of provincial and federal health officials to provide concrete and specific proposals which will relieve the anxiety and heartache of the parents of thalidomide babies. I will not be satisfied, and in this I am supported in a non-partisan way by the three Toronto daily papers, until the federal government assumes the full, final and ultimate responsibility of organizing and putting into effect a comprehensive plan of present care, future rehabilitation and financial assistance for the victims of the drug thalidomide, with or without the participation of all the provincial governments. In this way the Canadian people may be given the opportunity of becoming, as it were, the godparents of the victims of a dominion wide tragedy. This whole affair is too personal a grief for thalidomide families for any party

in this house to attempt to use it in any manner as a weapon with which to pound the government, and I suggest that anyone who would endeavour to do so will bring on himself the disgust of all decent people.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure these remarks will be concurred in by a particular member on the government side of this house and by my colleague from York West (Mr. Kelly), who were ready to accompany me to Ottawa at their own expense in a bipartisan effort to see the Prime Minister and lay before him all the facts. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I believe the drug companies involved have escaped all too lightly the share of responsibility that may be theirs. As my brief pointed out, in the year ending June 30,	1962 the net profit of
Richardson-Merrell, Incorporated Drug Company rose to $17,250,000 from the previous year's profit of $17,025,000. A substantial annual contribution to assist in relieving the disastrous effects of one of their products, thalidomide, could very easily be set aside from such profits or from their massive advertising budget.
For those in this house who may not be acquainted with the large and vital riding of York Centre which I have the honour to represent, I will simply say that it is the second or third largest by population in the whole of Canada. As well as being part of that lusty giant of a township, North York, which is the largest of metropolitan Toronto's 13 municipalities, York Centre has the good fortune to contain within its borders the historic settlement of Woodbridge, part of the charming village of Thornhill and a large rural area of Vaughan township. So we have a variety of people with diverse interests and backgrounds, and a wealth of human talent which is placed at the service of the community through our many service clubs, church groups and ratepayers organizations.
We are a sports-minded people, and because of the inspiration and splendid example which a certain red-headed member of the Toronto Maple Leafs has provided to the thousands of young people in our minor hockey leagues in York Centre, we are able to completely understand the devotion and loyalty of our Quebec brothers toward that other great Canadian sportsman, Maurice (Rocket) Richard.
Of great assistance to those of us who have lived there longer has been the decisive contribution of vitality to the development and growth of York Centre provided by the thousands of Canadians born abroad, most of them coming to Canada in those good Liberal years. These people have now moved into York Centre and brought with them their great skills and abilities. We need more of them and one can only fervently pray that

one day soon Canada will have an economic policy and an immigration policy that makes it possible for us to welcome many thousands more to this land of freedom.
The particular genius of York Centre's substantial and older Jewish population for scholarship, the arts, professional life and philanthropy has led them to contribute in a measure far beyond their numbers to the cultural life of my constituency. So we are a heterogeneous group, but somehow held together by our common desire to build a better community in our corner of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it is not only this minority Conservative government's reputation that is at stake at this time-and believe me, it is at stake-but there is something of much greater importance about which I want to speak, although the government's reputation has a direct bearing on this other matter, and that is the question of the confidence of Canadians in the ability of our free parliamentary democracy to supply the answers and chart the course for the great social changes that are now under way in Canada.
We have not been untouched by the world wide currents of change. Country after country has been caught up in the gruesome side effects of leaderless social revolution, and my major criticism of the government is their failure to recognize and accept the responsibility of providing the courageous and inspired leadership we need if we are to escape the consequences of leaderless change.
It is trite to say we are living in a revolutionary age, but I am not sure that everyone on the government benches, including-especially including-the front benches, realizes what this means in Canada in 1962 and what it will mean in the immediate years ahead. Canada's revolution is still contained inside people; but it is in there, and it is bubbling away and slowly raising the temperature. People are becoming sore and disgruntled, fearful and insecure; the unemployed, the small businessman, the importer, the debt ridden worker, the worried parents of sick children and the pensioner who cannot make ends meet. They want a change and they are determined to get it at any cost. If our parliamentary democracy, Mr. Speaker, will not provide the answers-and I have become convinced it never will, under a Tory government-then our Canadian people may well try some other form of political system in their despair and frustration; and if they do, the failure will be ours.
Mr. Speaker, I would not be sitting in these Liberal benches under the leadership of the next prime minister of Canada if I did not believe that true liberalism is the only political philosophy capable of understanding and leading the social changes that
The Address-Mr. Walker face Canada. My deep conviction is that liberalism, with its concern for the free individual in a free society, is the only safe yet dynamic political ideology for Canada at a time when the unity of Canada is so essential.
Since the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) took over the leadership of our party, I believe, and I sincerely believe that the greatest thing he has done for all of us and for Canada has been to demonstrate and point the way to the new liberalism adequate to meet the social and economic needs of people in this twentieth century. These are broad new concepts, but on the same bed rock base of principle. We change or we perish. We are a party of change and reform, not chained to doctrine and rigid limitations of nineteenth century policy but ever looking ahead to the solutions of the great social and human problems of our people and mankind.
This man with the incredible courage that only a statesman of his long years of experience could demonstrate has given us all once again a sense of urgency and understanding of the real issues facing us and the hope of an answer. Mr. Speaker, this is why the younger people flock to his side. They can believe him; they can trust him, and they instinctively know this. Our leader will never desert his principles and the principles of twentieth century Liberal democracy in order to win an election or evade an issue. How many times, Mr. Speaker, have you heard people say: "He is too honest to be a good politician"? I tell you this-I would rather lose an election by being associated with an honest statesman whom I can trust to tell me the whole truth than win one by aligning myself with people who constantly deal in half truths, language manipulation and high power propaganda in an effort to confuse and fool the people.
It is no contribution to national unity to hear political leaders in and out of this house publicly intimate that those who disagree with them are either fascists or communists. I can think of no greater tragedy for Canada than that slogans and labels, designed to incite and divide, should be used in place of reasoned argument and enlightened proposals. From personal experience on a municipal council, I know just how hard it is to discipline the tongue but I for one will make an honest attempt in this House of Commons to work at producing unity in the interest of a greater national unity. Surely at this crucial time in Canada's short history when subversive elements of corruption, irreligion and organized disunity are seeping into the lifeblood of our nation, we cannot afford the luxury of

The Address-Mr. Walker irresponsible name calling which contributes nothing to curing the causes of communism and fascism or any other kind of dictatorship.
Our conduct in the interests of a united Canada could give Canadians greater confidence in the ability of free men in a free society to govern themselves. I feel this responsibility deeply, and if I fail at times to adhere to this line it will not be a premeditated political manoeuver but a human failing for which I am sure my friends and especially my opponents will chasten me. These convictions which I have just expressed will in no way deter me from attacking what I think is wrong and fighting for what I know is right.
The proposals put forward in the speech from the throne provide a totally inadequate solution to the urgent immediate problems facing the people of my constituency of York Centre in this year 1962. These 110,000 voters of York Centre voiced their lack of confidence in the ability of the Conservative government to manage the affairs of the country on June 18 last when a previous Conservative majority over the Liberals of 11,000 votes was turned into a Liberal majority of 9,000. I should have thought that this great reversal of public opinion which took place in riding after riding across the country would have jarred the most insensitive government into realizing something had gone wrong. However, instead of applying the lesson to the one place where it would do the most good, namely, to themselves, they decided, through the weird and wonderful process of Tory thinking, that they had received a mandate from a 37.31 percentage of the popular vote to go over to England and in the most shameful way make things as embarrassing as possible for that country in her efforts at economic salvation. The time might better have been spent in the Canadian House of Commons formulating Canadian policies of action designed to produce Canadian economic salvation.
This minority Conservative government stands condemned for its failure to call parliament into session many weeks ago while there was still time to legislate a plan of action adequate to correct the serious crisis of cash and confidence that faces Canada and her people, and while there was still time to legislate a constructive program for those presently unemployed and those about to become unemployed before the dismal months of desolate winter are upon us. My constituents in York Centre do not want to live on unemployment insurance; they want steady work, they want steady jobs, they want to go home at night to their families with the satisfaction of a job well done and a full pay

envelope at the end of the week. The Conservative government cannot much longer withhold from them the opportunity of helping to develop this nation.
This minority Conservative government stands condemned by the manner of their ruthless destruction of that superb, distinctive Canadian achievement of our labour forces, the Avro Arrow. I stood with my wife and little family one Sunday afternoon out in Malton airport watching the test pilot fly the Arrow. That beautiful aircraft was climbing up into the blue skies-


An hon. Member:: Get out your crying towel.


James Edgar Walker: I do not need one. The workers were out there and I heard a little boy who had been put on the top of a car so that he could see better say: "Mummy, is that the aircraft that daddy helped to build?" And she said: "Yes, son, that is our Arrow." They were all so proud of belonging to the Arrow team. The only thing that is left of this, the finest aircraft of its kind in the world, are the bitter memories and sorry disillusionment of the remnant of a once proud team of skilled craftsmen, many of whom lived in York Centre. Fourteen thousand workers were fired on an hour's notice. Their morale was shattered. The planes have been demolished, killed by the acetylene torch, the patterns destroyed, and a team of highly skilled craftsmen lost to Canada forever. Mr. Speaker, is this the way to build a nation?
This Tory government stands condemned for withholding from those who had the right to know-the Canadian people-the honest facts of our deep financial crisis in the weeks before the election.
By its own actions this minority Conservative government stands condemned for the inequitable share of austerity it has loaded on the civil servants who have no redress from the government's arbitrary decision because they have no bargaining rights.
This government stands condemned for allowing the erosion of our publicly owned Canadian institutions, the C.B.C., the T.C.A. and the C.N.R.
This government stands condemned for its failure to take whatever measures are necessary for Canada to regain control of her financial and political independence so we can stand on our own two feet and speak with a confident and independent voice in the family of nations.
This minority Conservative government stands condemned for its reactionary attitude to any thought of a possible necessity of monetary reform. Of equal importance to the saving of the dollar is the saving of Canada and her people.

This government stands condemned tor its refusal to assume the responsibility of seeing that steady work is available through private or public works for all our people.
This minority Conservative government stands condemned for running the country into the hole, financially, to the point where they apparently cannot produce a co-operative medical care plan for our people.
But mainly, Mr. Speaker, I think this Tory government stands condemned for its failure to have done the long range planning necessary for the successful operation of any efficient business or any prosperous country. What the Tories have been unable to bring themselves to do, we Liberals will do. That is why they are Tories and why we are Liberals. This is a time for decision. This is a time for greatness. The Conservatives have refused to supply it; the Liberals will supply it. The Canadian people have always responded to a call for greatness from an inspired and trustworthy leadership, and they will do it again when given the chance. A call to the hearts and minds of all of us to live for our country, to work for our country, and to sacrifice for our country, would unleash such a response of devotion and true patriotism that Canada would indeed become "the true north strong and free''.
The Liberal party, the revitalized and dynamic Liberal party-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Edgar Walker: Mr. Speaker, I must comment that one would think this is not my maiden speech, but that I had been here as long as these gentlemen. The revitalized and dynamic Liberal party, with the know-how based on decades of solid and successful Liberal achievement, have a program of specific clear-cut policies which will lead this country to recovery and the rate of growth necessary for her to achieve her destined place in the family of nations. Mr. Speaker, may we soon have the opportunity of performing this service for our beloved country.
Mr. Speaker, at 9.45 tonight we face what I believe is a matter of conscience. I believe we face a moral decision. For my part I will be true to the best that is in me and to those who have sent me here. This is the challenge that faces us tonight. If we do not stand for something, we will fall for anything. Mr. Speaker, I am diffident about closing my speech with the words I intended, but I will. They are these:
Once to every man and nation
Comes the moment to decide
In the strife of truth with falsehood.
For the good or evil side.
Some great cause, God's New Messiah, Offering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever,
Twixt the darkness and the light.
The Address-Mr. Fisher


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, in offering congratulations to the mover of the address I wanted to say to him that he should forget any embarrassment he felt for the kafuffle in reaching for the motion. I remember my first speech in this house was a situation somewhat parallel to that of the last speaker. I had notes littered all over my desk. There were some fairly sharp people in that house, including the Right Hon. James Gardiner down on the front benches. As I got towards the end of my speech I had my notes all mixed up. So I paused and was reaching and looking for them, which took a fair amount of time, and suddenly out of the chamber came his darting voice: "What are you looking for, boy?-the Regina manifesto?" I can only say that I think I have recovered from that, although it was pretty rough at the time, and I hope the same recovery has already taken place with him.
In offering congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, and to Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make one observation upon something which has already developed since the day when we met, and that is with regard to the question period. I have always realized, as have most hon. members, that this is very much an informal and unique occasion in parliamentary government. It is really a daily skirmish between the government and the opposition. I think it fulfils the purpose of a commentary on both major and regional problems, and lets the house and the country get some measure of the ministers of the crown. But instead it seems to me that what we may be developing in our question period is a contest between the opposition and Mr. Speaker, and I would only hope that, in the long run, this will disappear and that we will not have a decline in what I think is one of the most important features of our institution. I thought, Mr. Speaker, putting it in colloquial terms, that the last parliament was a lousy parliament in terms of quality, and here I must offer congratulations to all the new members who have come here. I point out especially the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis), who by the quality of their technique at the very least-if they do not mind my saying this-have certainly heightened and improved this parliament over the last one.
One of the things which is really noticeable in this house, Mr. Speaker, in the debate on the speech from the throne is that the major emphasis has been on economic matters. The paradox that I have found in this, and the major concern that I have encountered among Canadians, is that while economic matters do

The Address-Mr. Fisher concern them, the majority of their concerns are really much wider than that. There is a major frustration. I get it when I talk with businessmen, with housewives, with trade unionists, or with anybody who is within the spectrum encountered by a member of parliament. It usually winds up with this sentence after you have heard their varied complaints: "Why doesn't the government do something about it?" This is not quite as stupid a question as it may seem in our Canadian context, and I should like to illustrate it by giving an example from my own riding and my own region. Our basic wealth producers are pulp and paper, mining, and the transportation industry. Each of these is at the present time fairly sound, relatively efficient, and doing relatively well; but the improvements in these industries over the past decade have given much more productive capacity with either no increase or a drop in the number of jobs provided.
In a nutshell, we are producing more with fewer men. Our service industries have expanded greatly and we have had a fair provision of social capital investment in such things as hospitals, highways and schools. But a relatively small population such as we have can only support so many bowling alleys, motels, curling rinks, drive-in theatres, community television systems and hamburger shops. Our young people are finding it harder to get jobs. The annual incidence of unemployment is creeping up. This is all happening at a time when we have a certain type of affluence. More people have summer camps. There are more winter trips to Florida, more boating, more fishing, much more spending and leisure activities. Thus, at the same time as we have the affluence, we are getting an increasing strain amongst the young people who cannot find a job, and the middle aged ones whose jobs have disappeared or are disappearing. With it all there is a spirit of insecurity and doubt about our own future, and that has tended to permeate our whole region. I think it is just not incidental to my particular region of northwest Ontario.
Several years ago a representative delegation from our part of the country met the minister of labour here to ask for government assistance, specifically regarding winter unemployment, but generally with regard to the rather pessimistic future that seems to face our area. The minister challenged us. He said: "Don't tell me things are bad. I want you to come and tell me why they are bad and what can be done about them." So we took the minister at his word, went home and set up a commission to study the situation and to make recommendations. Last January, after about 18 months work, the commission made


its report and recommendations. These were constructive, limited and realistic. We told the minister why things were bad and we suggested what could be done about them.
Since then we have been on a lovely merry-go-round. Just two weeks ago I finally got a response to the recommendations from the federal Department of Labour. In effect there is not much that the federal Department of Labour can do to help us. In the interim the provincial government has been canvassed and in effect it cannot do very much to help us. The Hon. Robert Macaulay is zooming around Ontario with a zeal not unlike that of his running mate, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees), exhorting us all to buy Canadian, promising drives here and committees there; but in effect he is not accepting very much responsibility for the provincial government for the malaise of our region. We are really back where we started from two years ago. Everyone is concerned but no one is really doing anything effective about it because the lines of responsibility for economic direction in Canada and in our region as a microcosm of Canada are completely blurred.
I should like to point to two federal programs of joint co-operation with the provinces to which I am very partial and our party has been very strong for them. They are the ARDA program and the vocational training program. The acts exist, the money is there but the implementation in a good, sound way always gets fouled up in the question of initiative, jurisdiction and prime responsibility. In brief, we have tentatively crept toward a solution of our goals but we have never climbed over the main barrier to effective co-operation, that is, our divided sovereignties and the fundamental weaknesses of an economy which is plagued with ten different jurisdictions and a host of municipalities and regions complaining and competing with regard to their future and their duties and where they are going.
It is my contention that all our genuflections toward economic planning or a planned economy must be prefaced on securing a recognition of responsibility. We require either constitutional changes or a new flexibility in co-operative programs or goals. As I remarked earlier, the real problems are larger than the economic ones. True, the economy may be the core but the whole apple of problems, it seems to me, is made up of our Canadian nationality, the tremendous interest in education at all its levels, the unease over the inadequacies of our social security, the frenetic dilemma of all our municipalities as they face taxation and financial burdens, the parallel and difficult problem of the family

farm and the family business-has either one any real future?-and the mystery of our defence and foreign policies. All these along with economic problems have created the crisis in confidence that exists in my region, and I would argue in the nation as a whole. In effect, the voters turned us all down last June. Nowhere is this crisis of confidence more apparent, to my mind, than with our political parties.
Before I express my opinions as to our failures as politicians and as political partisans, I should like to underline that our great mistake as a parliament will be that of assuming that the unrest and malaise of our time in Canada are merely economic. We need a coherent series of goals for the nation. These predicate choices that we must make. We must spend a great deal more, not only in money but in thought, on education. We must spend a great deal less on other things by choice. We must do much more to preserve and extend the Canadian identity. Our choice is either that or absorption into the American milieu, both economically and culturally. We must improve our social services by portable pensions, national health insurance and a completely new concept of resolving unemployment through the emphasis and financial support of mobility, retraining and job guidance and testing.
We must strengthen, not weaken, the national institutions which communicate or interpret or develop our culture, such as the C.B.C. and our national press, both daily and periodical. It is really an ultimatum so far as I can see. Either we do this or we are assimilated by a friendly and powerful national consciousness that surges at us from the south. There are so many things I like about the United States that I keep asking myself the question and I want my party to ask the question: Why bother with this damnably indefinite thing, Canadianism? Why not join them? Or if you want to put it in another way, "Is it too late?"
In this kind of dilemma it always seems to me that we have to decide to go for Canadianism. The evangelists, including the previous speaker, are always exhorting us that now is the time for decision. My feeling so far as our national identity is concerned is that this is the time of decision. If we wait much longer we will not have any identity left to preserve. Either we strive much more boldly to develop our institutions in distinction from the Americans or effective assimilation is only a matter of time. We face a choice of whether we are going to be a big country or a small one. The most obvious way for us to become a big nation is to augment our population quickly. This means to me the
The Address-Mr. Fisher choice of a bold immigration policy that will bring millions of people into this country on a staged basis or else we will have a relative decline in the face of both competitors and allies.
Nowhere, Mr. Speaker, can I find a more encouraging approach to our problems from the point of view of total comprehension than in the "Mater et Magistra" document by Pope John XXIII published last year. The quotation I give is concerned with the values and methods of the modern approach to our problems, and it reads as follows:
One of the typical aspects which characterize our epoch is socialization, understood as the progressive multiplication of relations in society, with different forms of life and activity, and juridical institutionalization-
Socialization is, at one and the same time, an effect and a cause of the growing intervention of the public authorities in even the most crucial matters, such as those concerning the care of health, the instruction and education of the younger generation, the controlling of professional careers and the methods of care and rehabilitation of those variously handicapped. But it is also the fruit and expression of a natural tendency almost irrepressible in human beings, the tendency to join together to attain objectives which are beyond the capacity and means at the disposal of single individuals. A tendency of this sort has given life, especially in these last decades, to a wide range of groups, movements, associations and institutions with economic, cultural, social, sporting, recreational, professional and political ends, both within single national communities and on an international level.
It is clear that socialization, so understood, brings many advantages. It makes possible, in fact, the satisfaction of many personal rights especially those called economic-social, such as, for example, the right to the indispensable means of human maintenance, to health services, to instruction at a higher level, to a more thorough professional formation, to housing, to work, to suitable leisure and to recreation.
In this encyclical Pope John raises the question that apparently is overriding my friends directly across the way. The encyclical says:
At the same time, however, socialization multiplies the forms of organization and makes the juridical control of relations between men of every walk of life ever more detailed. As a consequence, it restricts the range of the individual as regards his liberty of action. It uses means, follows methods and creates an atmosphere which makes it difficult for each one to think independently of outside influences, to work of his own initiative, to exercise his responsibility and to affirm and enrich his personality. Ought it to be concluded, then, that socialization, growing in extent and depth, necessarily reduces men to automatons? This is a question which must be answered negatively.
He goes on in this document to point out that there is no need to fear this limitation of the individual, provided we are all aware. I should like to recommend this document to all members of the house, particularly the gentlemen of the Social Credit party who

The Address-Mr. Fisher seem to have a tremendous feeling that the liberty of the individual is going to be interfered with as socialization proceeds.
Another concern I would like to touch upon in this speech is that of parliamentary government. I have expressed the point of view that I thought the last parliament was a poor one. I may say to those members who have asked me whether or not I was going to renew my campaign for improved pay for members of parliament, that I am not. Most of you made me so proud in the last house with the bravery with which you supported me on the floor in connection with that particular matter, that I am going to let the matter drop on the assumption that our need is not as great as that of other people.
The parliamentary system in recent years, Mr. Speaker, has seen the growing power of the executive. I tend to be one of those who believe that this power has become dangerously great. I think there has been a gradual shifting of gravity from parliament towards the professional services of the state. In effect, ministerial responsibility has become a cloak for the lack of effective responsibility of the civil service. The huge increase in administration has not been paralleled by an increase in parliament's capacity to examine and criticize the bureaucracy. There is only time in parliament to air a small fraction of the problems which bureaucracy is involved in, and there is a growing disparity between the knowledge of a parliamentarian and the bureaucracy which has the facts. One commentator has put it this way, a man by the name of R. L. Strauss who has written a book called "The Ruling Servants":
The greatest institutional weakness of parliament as a means of controlling the administration is the fundamental conception of the parliamentary system as the scene of a continuous contest between defenders and attackers of the government. This conception identifies the civil service, as the assumed tool and servant of the political government, with the political self-interest of the majority and compels the minority to formulate every issue in party political terms. Criticism and justification of administrative actions alike thus inevitably assume a political character, and all too frequently cancel each other out without penetrating to the administrative reality behind the parliamentary contest. This deep-seated feature of British par-liamentarianism may also be the ultimate reason for the absence of a specialized committee system which is mistrusted alike by the parliamentary opposition, by the government and, of course, by its official advisers as an encroachment on the rights of the executive.
It seems to me that in Canada this particular refusal of parliamentarians to examine what I think is this problem of parliamentary health is nowhere more apparent than in the first volume of the Glassco commission report which has just come out. This

huge report contains a plethora of recommendations, major and minor, stemming from specific analysis of departments and areas of responsibility; but nowhere is there even a word about parliament's role in the administration, its control or efficiency. You would think the administration was in one limbo and we were in another. I know the excuse is probably that the terms of reference did not allow for this. All I can say is, how can you make a searching examination and effective recommendations on government administration if you do not look closely at the organization that is supposed to be the master of it all? Surely, that is parliament.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me turn to something more avowedly, crassly and enjoy ably political. The other night our rather whimsical Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan), in drawing somewhat sweet conclusions about the high-minded support given the government by the Social Credit, highlighted the bedding together of the socialists and the pseudo-socialists. He read something into this, much as some of us may read something into his gentle wooing of the creditists.
This is a subject worth examination. Just last week one of the authors of the Regina manifesto, Professor Frank Underhill, told me that he felt there were marvellous opportunities in this parliament for the development of a new alignment of the progressive, radical forces in Canada with the Liberals and the New Democrats together-the liberally minded left as he called it. Just before this suggestion was made, I had learned that he had been driven to vote Liberal for the first time in a generation because he thought the present administration so bad.
From another point of view, in my constituency I meet continually Liberals and others who suggest that basically we have so much in common that a means should be found for a constructive co-operation. In order to answer such suggestions and arguments, I find myself at a game one might call pick-apart-the-Liberals. It is a delightfully easy game to play. In my own riding, the Liberals put up a typical new frontiersman. He was handsome, photogenic, desperately anxious to get Canada going again, with lots of money and the very best connections. However, when one examined his political ideas, the new Liberal frontier seemed very much like an old nineteenth century political frontier. This young man affirmed repeatedly that there was no use electing anyone to sit in opposition. It was very clear that the Gallup poll showed the Liberals were going to win. You must have a government member or all was lost. Therefore, you voted Liberal. Now, a lot of people in the riding did vote

Liberal and if they did so, as I believe, because they were taken with this argument, I am taken to the conclusion that the Liberal party is still without a conception of parliament that is democratic and modern. This was one of their bright young frontiersman and this was their line of approach to parliamentary democracy.
Then, there is another aspect of the Liberal party today that needs analysis. My opponent was a young scion of one of Canada's wealthiest families. The other night the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate referred to the government's acquisition of that barefoot boy from Bay street, Mr. McCutcheon. Despite the virtues of noblesse oblige and all that, I wonder what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate thinks about these other people from Bay street or its near environs, such as the impecunious members from Toronto-Davenport (Mr. Gordon), St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner) and Vancouver Centre (Mr. Nicholson). Which party came up with the most money to throw around during the last election? Which party do you find the favourite amongst the big businessmen you met? Which party has taken over the Madison avenue type mastery of the slick guff and reiterated banalities, such as the boys of the team jumping off the bus? The answer is rather obvious.
Of course, the Liberal party is riddled with senior administrators, senior civil servants.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Is the hon. gentleman talking about the new senator?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: What are you looking for this time?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am not looking for the Regina manifesto. I am reminded, Mr. Speaker, of an incident that occurred during the last election campaign. There was a big rally held in a city not far from here which the leader of the Liberal party was to address. A friend of mine who was there said they had a tremendous crowd and before Mr. Pearson's performance the candidate was speaking. He was reading from a text and he reached the stage where he said, "Mr. Chairman, there is one thing I have found as I go around knocking on doors and meeting people in this riding, there is one thing that you need above all"-then he lost his page-"there is one thing you need above all",-and finally he found the page and he said, "patience". This was the best introduction the Leader of the Opposition had during the whole campaign.
The point I wanted to deal with in connection with the Liberal party, one which bothers me, is the outstanding argument that is put forward here by its ablest debaters and which I term the Pickersgill dogma of Liberal administrative genius.
The Address-Mr. Fisher


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is sadly in eclipse.


Douglas Mason Fisher: This is paradoxical-well, it is just damn queer, that is what it is, that the Liberal party should be proud of its administrative genius. This statement, "We know how to govern", is Conservativism; it is blimpism. This talk of administrative genius-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: No. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and I once took part in a debate on liberalism before a university audience, and we agreed with the people organizing it that we would not talk about the Liberal party but that we would talk about the philosophy of liberalism. Who was the first speaker? It was the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and he never got off the Liberal party. As the professor in charge said afterwards, "We excuse him. He knows not what he does; he is just a Liberal."


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The Liberals have contempt for the new boys, the shaggy fellows on the other periphery of politics. Things were not what they used to be when good old Bud and good old Mitch were deputy ministers. They say to themselves that these new people cannot possibly know the arcana which are revealed only slowly, through imperceptible drops and over long periods, to those who are truly on the inside-the inside with the Liberal party. The senior civil service caste, or the mandarin caste if you prefer, has been allowed to set the tone of the party, and this means worship for the administrative expertise of Mike and Pick and Bud and Walter.
In the abstract sense, essentially liberalism is a creed which preserves permanent values by destructive means. By this I mean that the liberal is always striving to uphold the individual's rights and enlarge the scope of individuality, while striving at the same time to relate these goods to the broader good of society as a whole, and he must suspect anything which does not contribute to these goods automatically. He has not the time for veneration of this or that time-honoured administrative liberal practice. He is or he ought to be right in step with the whole movement of life. He accepts change. He even accepts his ousting from government with a little bit of grace. He tries to guide change or even to anticipate it, and he does this through programs, through legislation and through positive action.
Now if I might skim through the Liberal program.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Put it on the record.

The Address-Mr. Valade


Douglas Mason Fisher: I repeat that this is nothing more than an argument of administrative genius, but if the Liberal party has this administrative genius and at the same time draws the support of superb fellows like Joey Smallwood, with his economic blackmail to mute rivals, or Ross Thatcher kicking down the doors of empty chambers, surely that is some reason why we hesitate to see this Liberal party as the means for Canada's salvation, as a chance for us to join a party of the democratic left.
Today the fact is that genuine liberalism is called for, but the bitter conclusion I have to reach is that genuine liberalism has been all but stifled in the very party which nurtured it in this country, or claims to nurture it, and which considers itself to have a chance of forming the next government. I cannot give a better example than the dull, uninspiring history of the Liberal party by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and then contrast its dullness and hypocrisy with the wonderful job he did on Mackenzie King and his diaries. In his story of the Liberal party you can see the limitations that are put on a liberal within the Liberal party.
There is no doubt in my mind that, despite the wonderful plea we had this day from the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro), there is not much appearance of genuine liberalism in the Liberal party, and I can say to the Minister of Finance, that funny whimsical fellow who loves these boys across the way, "do not worry too much about this diagonal love affair between the Liberals and the New Democratic party because I have the feeling that they will have to reveal, in this parliament and in their program, much more than just the dogma of administrative genius, or should I call it the dogma of Pick-ersgill's infallibility?
(Translation):


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join my colleagues in offering you my warmest congratulations on your appointment as Speaker of the house. Having been chosen to All this post is a great honour for you and we know that you deserve it because of the work you did here in the past.
I also wish to join the members of this house to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Mr. Speaker, I wish in particular to greet the many young members who, like myself five years ago, made their maiden speech in the house during the last few days. I have noticed also, in the last federal election, that in the Montreal area, at least 19 Liberal mem-

bers were needed to replace one good Conservative member.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the arguments being advanced a few moments ago and I was surprised to notice that these people from the left side of politics, these socialist inclined people, have forgotten their responsibility in this house, the responsibility which was given to them by a colleague of theirs who had courage enough to resign his seat as member of parliament for Burnaby-Coquit-lam. In his direction to the party that former member said he believed a minority government could be a good thing for the people of this country because he believed that a minority government can do more for the people than a majority government.
We have now seen these people turning around and rejecting this sensible policy from one of their former colleagues, and trying to overthrow this government not, as it was said, in the interests of the people but to serve their own political purposes.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, the last federal election has shown that the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) is not the man the Liberal party needs to win in Canada. He has met defeat twice in a row and even if the Liberals show him some consideration by treating him with respect, it is obvious that they have entirely lost confidence in a man who has led them to two consecutive defeats. Dissatisfaction is growing in the ranks of younger Liberals and we would not be surprised if the Leader of the Opposition suddenly took ill and if that pretext were used to replace the present leader of the federal Liberal party by the future leader of the provincial Liberal opposition, Mr. Lesage.
Besides, the Liberals are highly competent as far as Liberal prophecies are concerned. In La Presse of June 13, 1962 there was an article saying:
Lesage predicts Pearson victory.
That is all the competence, the foresight, the accurateness of our friends opposite.
Well, if the Liberals have suffered three defeats since their leader has been in office, they owe it to unreasonable politics, false causes and double dealings.
The Liberal promises during this campaign, Mr. Speaker, we can find in the small textbook, in the bible of the Liberal party published by their own officials and advisers.
This program contains dazzling promises. It mentions an increase of old age pension up to $75; it mentions assistance to widows

and single women as they reach 60 years of age. It contains, as a matter of fact, a whole gamut of electoral promises.
Then there is the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) a new convert to the Liberal cause. I would point out to my friends opposite that when I said the word "convert" I had in mind-let it be said without being disrespectful to the member for Assiniboia- the word "turncoat" that the Liberals change into "convert". According to Hansard of January 23, 1962, the member said:
Canadians have the right to know from what sources will come the amount needed to pay for the numerous and considerable expenses which are announced.
Thus spoke the hon. member for Assiniboia during the debate on the speech from the throne, in 1962.
Well, my Liberal friends, if you want to be logical with your new convert, you had better find out who is going to pay before you make any promises to the electorate. That, Mr. Speaker, is one of the reasons why the leader of the Liberal party was so badly defeated for the third time.
The Liberal vade mecum contains statements which can only bring a smile to the lips of those who are familiar with their platform.
Here is a quotation from page 4 of the Liberal manifesto for 1962:
The Liberal party of Canada favours dynamic good citizenship which will give every citizen the opportunity of fully developing his personality.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I enjoy Liberal applause a great deal. However, if they read the newspapers, they would find out what people think of their civism, the way they put it into practice and not the way it is written in the Liberal program.


An hon. Member:: Conservative civism.


Georges-J. Valade: In the Ottawa Journal of September 25, 1962, one can read the following about the civism of the Leader of the Opposition:
(Text):
Small wonder that this week we had the leaders of our Social Credit and other parties rejecting Mr. Pearson for "playing politics''. For he is not only playing politics; he is playing the most unworthy and un-Canadian sort of politics.
Does this mean, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, "communist politics"? There is no surprise that there is a blockade now on the Liberal side, because they are afraid of the truth.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: I rise on a point of order. Let us see the newspaper.
The Address-Mr. Valade


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


Azellus Denis: My point of order is that the house should be informed of the source of the quotation and of the date of the newspaper.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member had followed the speech, he would know to what publication his colleague was referring.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, that is a striking example of the fact that, in certain parts of Quebec, it is not because of their competence that Liberal members were elected.
Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to hear the host of members who were to talk to us about a new sense of political responsibility, in the Liberal manner, which calls obviously for the destruction of the efforts so eloquently made by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he was in London, at the beginning of September, to fight for the interests of Canada's business men and workers.
I have not yet heard a single Liberal member talk seriously about a matter which, today, is considered of vital importance to our business men: the common market. I would have liked to know why, after 22, 20 or 15 years in power, they did not manage to find the time to study such an important matter as the common market, to tell the house what they think of it.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Georges-J. Valade: I think that the non-commitment of the Liberals in this respect lead us to suspect a shade of dishonesty in their policy. They know very well that the stand taken by the Prime Minister in London was in the interests of Canada and the Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I propose to deal tonight with the common market issue because it is a question which concerns not only the members but also all Canadians, the businessmen as well as the workers.
The Conservative convention, which opened today in London will provide for a stormy debate regarding Great Britain's entry into the free trade area of the common market.
Due to the consequences of that issue on the economic future of our country and the subjective stand taken by the Leader of the Opposition in this respect, I believe it is my duty to express my opinion on this matter.
The implications of Great Britain's entry into the E.E.C. are such, for Canada, that it is necessary to consider their results.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 9.45 o'clock p.m. it is my duty pursuant to section 5 of standing order 38 to interrupt the proceedings and put the motion now before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.

Appointment of Supply Committee


Mr. Macnaughion:: I was paired with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fulton). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


John George Diefenbaker: That the address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this house as are of the honourable the privy council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right	Hon.	J.	G.	Diefenbaker	(Prime
Minister) moved:
That this house at the next sitting will resolve itself into a committee to consider of the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right	Hon.	J.	G.	Diefenbaker	(Prime
Minister) moved:
That this house will at the next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chevrier:: May I inquire from the house leader what the business of the house will be for tomorrow, and can the house leader give a projection for next week and tell us what we will be doing then?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think we will be here next week and for some considerable time. Tomorrow we will consider first the resolution in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, which was introduced today, dealing with amendments to the Export Credits Insurance Act. The second item of business will be the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Agriculture dealing with amendments to the Farm Credit Act. You will find that is No. 14 on today's order paper. The third item will be second reading of Bill No. C-3, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. This is No. 2 on today's order paper. This will be the business for tomorrow and perhaps it will carry over on Monday. It will be possible on Friday, perhaps, to forecast some of the other business for next week.


[Stage Direction]
It being eighteen minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, October 12, 1962