1962-10-05

Mr. Bernard Dumont (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Department of Agriculture informs me that, from Ontario to Newfoundland, 91,368 farms have an income of less than $1,200 per year. On an average basis of six children per family, this means that close to a million persons find themselves in dire poverty-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Bernard Dumont: -and, back home if a farm has an income of only $1,200, it means bankruptcy.
Right now speeches are being made from all sides, but no legislation has yet been passed to alleviate the misery of one million people-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Bernard Dumont: Is this reasonable, an income of $1,200?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Bernard Dumont: I do not accept that, because I find it abnormal-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Bernard Dumont: If one million people come here to request-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Bernard Dumont: If you had an income of $1,200, Mr. Speaker-is it normal, is it logical-


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to point out to the hon. member that, according to the rules of the house and the tradition of courtesy that prevails in the house, a member must resume his seat as soon as the Speaker takes the floor. Now, 1 would remind the hon. member that I called for order several times. As a newcomer to the house, his behaviour might be excusable. However, I must urge him to study the standing orders, particularly with regard to the behaviour of the members in the house.


Bernard Dumont: The people of my riding have sent me here to ask that grain storage facilities be built and I ask that legislation be enacted in that regard-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Bernard Dumont: -that these facilities be built. That is what I want, and I speak on behalf of the farmers of my riding who wish-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have politely asked the co-operation of the hon. member and I do hope he will heed my advice in the matter. He has asked for my opinion on a question of privilege and I have told him on what grounds he could raise such a question and how he should go about it. Consequently, I hope he will follow the kind advice given him by the Chair in this instance.


Bernard Dumont: The 118 socialists who voted last night are preventing us from legislating, because they deliver speeches-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member persists in pursuing this course any longer, I shall have no alternative but to name him. Mr. Dumont it is my wish that you withdraw.


Bernard Dumont: We need grain elevators in eastern Canada, and immediate steps must be taken-


Mr. Speaker:: I ordered the hon. member to withdraw. Shall I have to ask the sergeant-at-arms-
(Text):


Mr. Scoii:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. At the moment there is a question to be put before the house. In due course I will hear the hon. member.
The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dumont) having complied with the request of the Chair by withdrawing, we will leave the matter as it stands. I will now see the hon. member for Danforth, who wished to raise a question of privilege.



MR. SCOTT    REFERENCE TO ARTICLE IN OTTAWA &quot;CITIZEN&quot;

Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, on a question of personal privilege, my attention has been drawn to an article that appeared in

Question of Privilege
the Ottawa Citizen of Thursday, October 4. The article is entitled "Liberal M.P. Angry Over P.M.'s Reply". It reads in part as follows:
Reid Scott (NDP-Toronto-Danforth) complained in the commons today about a reply by Prime Minister Diefenbaker to a civil service appeal against the current government wage freeze.
Mr. Scott asked what consideration the government is giving to a request by the civil service association of Canada, now meeting in Vancouver, for immediate rescinding of the freeze on salary increases for 50,000 clerical and semi-professional workers. Mr. Diefenbaker said that when the government is in a position to make an announcement, it would do so.
My question of personal privilege is this. I do not really mind the people of Canada being informed that the Prime Minister will not deal with this subject, but when it is at the expense of my being publicly called a Liberal M.P. it is almost too great a price to pay.



MR. BARNETT-DESIGNATION OF MEMBERS OF NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a question of privilege which has no relation to either of the previous questions. It is a matter involving what I consider to be courtesy in this house.
In view of the fact that several members in the course of their speeches yesterday referred to members in this corner of the house as N.D.P.'s I should like to suggest, if I may, that we are members of the New Democratic party or New Democrats. We do not customarily refer to S.C.'s or P.C.'s. As a matter of parliamentary courtesy I should like to request that we be referred to in the house as New Democrats or members of the New Democratic party.


Mr. Speaker:: The effectiveness of the hon. member's representations will be measured by the efficacy of his eloquence.



MANITOBA-TABLING OF AGREEMENT ON RED RIVER CONTROL PLAN

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave of the house to table the agreement respecting the greater Winnipeg floodway signed on May 28 by Premier Roblin on behalf of the government of Manitoba and by myself on behalf of the Government of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreement received by leave of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to say when the report of the royal commission on health services will be ready for consideration by the government. This question was asked of the Prime Minister the other day by the Leader of the Opposition, and the Prime Minister said he would give a reply soon.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, the question the Leader of the Opposition asked me was whether the royal commission on health appointed some two years ago would be reporting soon. In his question he was totally in error, of course, because the royal commission was set up on June 20, 1961.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Announced in December of the year before.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not very far out for the Leader of the Opposition. I have communicated with the chairman of the royal commission and he says he expects to be able to make his report by June of 1963.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister in touch with the Canadian Pacific Railway with the intention of persuading the Canadian Pacific to make the same settlement the Canadian National has made with the brotherhood of railroad trainmen, in order to avoid the necessity of a strike on October 29?


Hon. Michael Siarr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, we have been in touch and will be in touch.



DURUM WHEAT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of his interest in getting money into the hands of the farmers. In view of the much lower price being received by producers of Durum wheat, and in view of the low stocks of Durum on July 31, can the minister say whether the 1961-62 Durum account can be closed out at an early date

and final payment, which farmers expect should be close to 75 cents per bushel, made immediately?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of this question. I appreciate his statement concerning the minister's interest in raising the income of farmers. I should like to inform him that the 1961-62 Durum pool will be closed as soon as possible. I draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that of the approximately 10.5 million bushels of Durum wheat delivered during the 1961-62 crop year, 21.9 per cent of 2.3 million bushels were delivered by producers during the last month of the crop year. These late deliveries occurred notwithstanding the Canadian wheat board's efforts to encourage producers to deliver their Durum earlier to permit the board to take advantage of the active demand for this type of wheat. Every effort is being made by the board to market supplies of Durum wheat remaining in the 1961-62 pool in order that the pool can be closed as quickly as possible.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Davis (Coasi-Capilano):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the rapid deterioration of the surface on the temporary airstrip at Powell River in British Columbia, and because the municipality in that area has already gone to considerable expense to purchase land for a new airport-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Again I think that, while this airport may have been deteriorating for some time, the question of whether there is urgency in obtaining the information does arise at this time. I have some hesitation in ruling, but while the matter may be important to the hon. member's constituency I think his question would be better on the order paper.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if the government will give consideration to relaxing the present rigid regulations under the Immigration Act regarding the admission of relatives of citizens of Canada.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Richard A. Bell (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I am not prepared to concede the implication which there is in the question. The hon. gentleman and the house know of the massive improvements that have been made in the immigration regulations, and further improvements are under constant consideration.


Mr. Pickersgill:: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: A supplementary question by the hon. member for Parkdale.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is it the intention to introduce a revision of the Canadian Citizenship and Immigration Acts?


Richard Albert Bell: Well, Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend could predict the duration of the session I would be in a better position to answer his question.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. I apologize for not sending notice, but it was given to me in haste. In view of the desire of the Canadian association of consumers and many other people for the early completion of the report of the restrictive trade practices commission into the manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs in Canada, can the Prime Minister inform the house when we may expect release of that report?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe that if the hon. member consults Hansard of the last few days he will find an answer to a similar question which was addressed either to the Minister of Justice or to one of his colleagues.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschalelels (Maisonneuve-Rose-moni):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Because of the urgent problems resulting from unemployment, would the minister say whether we can expect the committee on industrial relations to be called to sit at the earliest possible date?


Michael Starr: If it is contemplated that there is a need for the sitting of this committee, of course it will be called.
236	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry



INTRODUCTION OF AMENDMENTS TO FOOD AND DRUGS ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Haidasz: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that he has announced his intention to introduce an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, does the minister intend to proceed with these amendments before he has received the report of the special committee on drugs appointed by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons and requested by himself?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, unless the report is forthcoming in the immediate future.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: I wish to put a question to the Minister of Defence Production which arises out of the story "For Tender Checkerboards (2), Chess Sets (2), Aircrew, for the use of" in the Toronto Globe and Mail of Friday, October 5, 1962. Will the minister look into the possibility of effecting a more economic purchase-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Again I think the hon. member is aware that questions at this time must seek information which is urgently needed. His question is one of detail and it would be more in keeping were it put on the order paper.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Malcolm Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour with reference to a statement of his appearing in Hansard of yesterday's date at page 194, which states:
I would simply point out that the average wage In those countries leaves a great deal to be desired by comparison with Canadian standards.
Does the minister not agree that wage rates must be related to the cost of living?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Again I would draw to the attention of the hon. member, who is newly arrived here, the remarks I just addressed to the hon. member for Leeds as to the nature of the urgency of obtaining information which could not be obtained in some other way.


(Translation):



QUEBEC ARSENALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, my question is urgent because lay-offs take place every week.
Could the Minister of Defence Production tell us if he thinks that such lay-offs in Canadian arsenals will cease in the near future?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, replying to the member for Quebec-Montmorency, I must say that in spite of every effort we made to secure sales in order to create more work in Canadian arsenals, I am pessimistic and fear that we shall not be in a position to keep all the men now employed there. I believe that there will be further lay-offs.
(Text):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the order of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of a telegram which I received a few minutes ago; therefore I was unable to inform the minister of my intention to ask the question. The telegram contains a vigorous protest from the brotherhood of railway carmen regarding a proposed lay-off of nine men, effective October 19, in their department at Fort William. Would the minister be good enough to have the situation investigated and report on it at the next sitting of the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. While the hon. member may feel that the representations he wishes to make in regard to this matter are of urgency, yet nowhere in his question did I detect anything which indicated that information was being urgently sought from the ministry.


Hubert Badanai: I have another question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is making representations to the minister to look into this matter, so far as the Chair is concerned at the moment he has made his representations. Is he seeking urgent information?


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arlhur):: Mr. Speaker, I also received the same telegram as the hon. member for Fort William, and I have had wires and letters during the last few days from Moncton, Winnipeg, Vancouver and Hornepayne in connection with the same general problem of C.N.R. lay-offs arising out of the approaching change in time cards. In order to avoid bringing up each one of these matters separately I wonder if the minister would consider giving a review of these changes and lay-offs, together with their scale and duration, as obtained from the C.N.R. If he did not present it to the house he might at least distribute it to all hon. members who have railway points in their constituencies.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: From time to time I have discussed with the president of the C.N.R. the situation of these employees whose positions are affected by changes of the system. The government is well informed on all these matters, but I shall be pleased to bring these new facts to the attention of the management, and I will report to the house accordingly.


Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Does the government have any plan in connection with these lay-offs? Does the government have any plan for assisting in the relocation of these people in suitable employment?


Léon Balcer: At practically every session of parliament when the committee on the C.N.R. sits, witnesses from the crown corporation are asked precisely these questions. On each occasion they have given details of their efforts to find employment for people who are laid off according to seniority and according to the need for the good administration of the company.
(Translation):



CLOSING OF BAGGAGE CHECKING OFFICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Aurelien Roy (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
I should like to know whether steps have been taken to contravene the decision taken by the C.N.R. to shut down their luggage checking depot for the Levis ferry passengers, which-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe the hon. member does not realize that his question is of the same kind as several others which were asked this morning and about which I had to point out to hon. members that they should not make such representations because there is no urgency.
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



TRANSFER OF UNION DUES TO U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In order to put an early end to the austerity program while increasing our Canadian currency reserves, could we not prevent union dues paid by our workers to American international unions to leave the country?


Mr. Speaker:: Again, I wish to point out to the hon. member that his question as stated calls for an expression of opinion and does not deal with urgent information.



ISSUE OF BILINGUAL CHEQUES TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauhamois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, I have yet to receive a reply from the Minister of Finance to my question of October 2 about issuance of bilingual cheques to all the members of this house. I wonder if he had time to check on that information which, in my opinion, should be very easy to obtain from his department. (Text):
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of
Finance): I have checked, and I find that over 90 per cent of the cheques being issued today by the government are bilingual. However, there is a fairly large number of cheques in the form of payments to individuals the supply of which has not yet been exhausted. That supply is being used very rapidly, however. Perforated cheques are used to pay members of parliament, but if there is any objection perhaps some change could be made. We expect that 100 per cent bilingual cheques will be used by the government in the near future.
(Translation):


Gérald Laniel: A further question, Mr. Speaker. I understand that this investigation concerning cheques would cost approximately $7 or $8. To maintain the principle, I should ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. At present, the hon. member is not putting a supplementary question: I feel he rather wants to express his opinion.
(Text):



SIGNATURE ON CANADIAN DOLLAR BILLS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I wonder if the minister has looked into the question of the dollar bill which I sent him yesterday. I am glad he returned the dollar, and I thank him for his honesty in doing so.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance):: I believe an old plate was used with a new signature, as has been done on past occasions. I am sure the hon. member will recall when that happened. That is the explanation.


Lionel Chevrier: I wondered if it was a question of falsifying history in order to further the austerity program.


George Clyde Nowlan: I think we falsified history to the same extent as the hon. gentleman did.



AUSTERITY PROGRAM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arihur Laing (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to address to the Minister of Finance, but unfortunately I have not had an opportunity to give him notice. I would ask if the authority of his department extended to Mr. Goldby who is reported by the Japanese department of trade as having told them with great assurance that the tariff surcharges in respect of our austerity program would be removed at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that while that would be an interesting bit of information, the question is not of such urgency that it should be asked on orders of the day.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. Benson (Kingston):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister care to comment on persistent reports that a defeated Conservative candidate may be appointed to the civil service commission?


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the fact that the reports may be altogether hypothetical, I do not think the question is in order. We could spend our mornings and afternoons asking ministers to comment on this or that article written by unspecified persons for whom the minister has no responsibility.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Yesterday the hon. member for Welland inquired regarding the twinning of the single locks on the Welland canal and the acquisition of the necessary land. I wish to say in


reply that all the necessary land was expropriated on May 22, 1962. This matter is under active study, and an announcement will be made when a decision is reached.



KINGSTON-USE OF U.S. PILOT TO MOVE FOREIGN SHIPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the Minister of Transport aware of the fact that a pilot must be summoned from the United States to move foreign ships from berth to berth in the harbour of Kingston, a Canadian port?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Again I believe that the hon. member is trying to put forward information rather than seek it, and the question is not of that urgent quality that it should be asked on orders of the day.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Yesterday the hon. member for Trinity, referring to a recent article in the Financial Post, asked if a new line of radar stations was to be constructed as a joint project by the United States air force and the Royal Canadian Air Force and, if so, what would be the cost to the Canadian taxpayer.
The radar system referred to is known as "The Oracle" and has been developed by a private firm, the Bendix Corporation, and is one of many proposals we can expect to see from industry to provide a means of space surveillance. There has been no commitment on the part of the Canadian government at the present time, and should a valid requirement develop it would be considered in the light of all existing conditions.



STATEMENT ON NAVAL AND AIR EXERCISES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I should like to take this opportunity to reply to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Leeds.
The hon. member referred to a news item appearing in the London Times of October 3, 1962, relating to a NATO naval exercise and asked what Canadian forces were participating in this exercise.
The article in question referred to an annual NATO naval exercise taking place between October 2 and 18 and involving sea and air units from Canada, Norway, Denmark, The

Netherlands and Britain. Canadian forces participating are H.M.C.S Bonaventure and its aircraft, and the destroyer escorts Nootka, Crescent, Micmac, Athabaskan and Cayuga.



REFERENCE TO POLICY STATEMENTS BY SENIOR OFFICERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, once again I ask the indulgence of the house to answer a question raised yesterday by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond resulting from statements supposedly attributed to Air Marshal Slemon. The reply given by the officers concerned, and confirmed by Air Marshal Slemon, is consistent with a statement made by General Kuter in Toronto in September last year, and approved by the Minister of National Defence. It is consistent also with a statement by the Minister of National Defence which appeared in Maclean's magazine on August 25, 1962.
The statement that Canada's non-nuclear air defence weapons would be more harmful than helpful to the population of this country in the event of an all-out nuclear attack on North America is a conclusion reached by the correspondent and not a statement by Air Marshal Slemon or the other Canadian and U.S. officers of NORAD with whom the correspondent conferred. The suggestion by the hon. member of Burnaby-Richmond that senior officers have made improper statements on policy matters is not founded on fact.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and ask him if he has any knowledge about the movements, numbers and purposes of Russian fishing boats or other craft in the area around the Aleutian islands, with specific reference to the movement of those vessels in a southerly direction toward British Columbia waters.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: I shall be pleased to take the question as notice and give the hon. member an up to date report on fishing activities by foreigners in water adjacent to western North America.



LAKE ERIE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Does the government propose any measures to assist the great
Inquiries of the Ministry lakes fishermen, particularly those of lake Erie, with their urgent marketing problems?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is referring to a difference that has arisen between certain fishermen and certain buyers. No request has been made to the Department of Fisheries for assistance of this kind.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Because of persistent reports, and comments on those reports by the mayor of Ottawa, Dr. Charlotte Whitton, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if the government proposes to deprive the capital city of our country of the services of this distinguished woman by appointing her ambassador to Ireland?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Interesting as this question may be, I think at the moment, as far as I can see, it is quite hypothetical and not of great urgency.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if it has not been done within the last forty minutes, I wonder if Your Honour would see that the necessary instructions are issued so that appropriate notice might be given that Monday is a holiday not only for hon. members but also for the staff of this house. There still seemed to be some uncertainty this morning. I am sure it is intended that the staff will have Monday as a holiday as well the house itself.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to thank the hon. member for drawing to my attention this possible gap in communications, but I understand that as of this morning the chiefs of the various sections of the staff of this house have been advised as to precisely what conditions will apply. I can assure you that the fundamental principle applied is that all those people who can possibly be spared will be granted the holiday, and those who must, by the nature of their duties, work here on Monday will have their time made up in the usual manner so that no one will be penalized in so far as is possible under the arrangements for keeping this house open on Monday for the convenience of hon. members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the holiday, of course, will be with pay?


Some hon. Members:: Order.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am asking Mr. Speaker to make it clear that the holiday will be with pay.


Mr. Speaker:: I have never known it to be otherwise.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Minister of National Revenue. It has come to my attention that there are large arrears of income tax payments by corporate bodies in Canada. In view of the financial urgency of the hour, will the Minister of National Revenue make available to the house the amount of income tax arrears which are presently owing to the Department of National Revenue?


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the hon. member, I believe the main purpose of his question is either to advance views or to get a comment on some form of letter which was circularized to all hon. members of this house. In any event, as a second reason for ruling out the hon. member's question, it seeks statistical information which is not readily available to the minister, and could not be expected to be available. Therefore, much as I regret, the question must be deferred to the order paper.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Postmaster General. Is it the intention of the minister to give consideration to the appeals from the residents of the Ladner-Delta area of British Columbia for a revision of the mail service in that area to bring it into line with the urgent needs of the situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. gentleman has accomplished his purpose in putting forward a plea on behalf of some of his constituents, but I think he would agree that we all, including the Chair, have areas where we should like a better postal service, or newer and better postal offices, and we could be here until the expiration of anno domini in putting forward our views.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, October 4, 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.
Hon. Howard C. Green (Secreiary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in opening my remarks today may I first pay a word of tribute to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They did this nerve-wracking job very well, and I wish them great success in their careers in public life. In addition I should like to pay a tribute to the new members of the house. Mind you, the political complexion is not entirely what I would have wished, but after all they do represent a cross-section of the Canadian people. I am sure they will prove to be responsible and conscientious as has been in the case in each of the other parliaments in which I have had the privilege of serving.
Today I intend to deal with three subjects; first of all the emergency program, then the commonwealth conference and finally Canada's position in the world. Before doing so, however, I think it would be fair comment on my part to say that on each of these subjects, regrettably, the Leader of the Opposition has seen fit to take an attitude which can only be described as abusive.
With regard to the emergency program, in his speech the other night the Leader of the Opposition accused the Prime Minister of this nation of fraud and misrepresentation. In the first place those charges were not true, and in the second place it was not fitting that any leader of any party in this house should make a virulent attack of that kind. May I say to the Leader of the Opposition that it was unbecoming on the part of a man who hopes one day to be the prime minister of Canada.
Then on the question of the commonwealth conference may I say this. While we were in London we had this charge made in Canada by the Leader of the Opposition:
Mr. Pearson referred to a "deplorable" ganging up by Canada and others at the Prime Minister's conference.
He was referring not only to the Prime Minister of Canada but to the other commonwealth prime ministers. In a further comment about the attitude of the Canadian Prime Minister at the conference he ascribed to Prime Minister Diefenbaker "a 'deplorable' display of diplomatic and political gaucherie". There can be different opinions as to just what

gaucherie means but in all kindness I suggest that these are not the kind of remarks that should be made by any leader in Canada.
Then on the subject of Canada's position in the world, as he closed his comments the other evening the Leader of the Opposition, himself a former secretary of state for external affairs and previously an under secretary, sneered at Canada's efforts with regard to disarmament-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Pearson:: Rubbish and nonsense.


Howard Charles Green: -the main problem facing humanity today.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Childish.


Howard Charles Green: He did it in these words:
True, there is some mention of disarmament-
Referring to the speech from the throne.
-and the Secretary of State for External Affairs keeps working away at disarmament, going up to New York and to Geneva, and then back again.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Read the rest of it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, read the rest of it.


Howard Charles Green: If that is not sneering, I do not know what it is.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Read the rest of it.


Howard Charles Green: You can read it yourself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You are afraid to read it.


Howard Charles Green: The Leader of the Opposition was sneering, Mr. Speaker. It was obvious by the way in which he spoke. This is only one example of the kind of attack that the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Essex East and other Liberals have been making.
On the question of Canada's position in the world, we have been faced with attacks of this kind for nearly the last year. I have here a statement made by the present member for Vancouver Centre, who was the chief Liberal organizer in British Columbia. Here is what he had to say in effect:
B.C. Liberal campaign manager Jack Nicholson says Canada's reputation under a Conservative government has slid from that of one of the most highly respected nations in the world to one that is internationally laughed at and disregarded.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It has gone down.


An hon. Member:: Anything to win a seat.


Howard Charles Green: Furthermore he had this to say; he referred to Canadian businessmen and tourists coming back from abroad and telling people that Canada's position in the world is so bad that you will be well advised if you go abroad not to admit that you are a Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.
The Address-Mr. Green


Lester Bowles Pearson: It has gone down and you know it.


Howard Charles Green: How low can people get? To some of us who have been very proud to wear the badge of Canada on our shoulder straps it is impossible to understand how any Canadian, least of all anyone seeking public office in Canada, could think in that way, let alone talk in that manner. It is about time the Liberal party realized that in these attacks on Canada's position in the world it is smearing our nation and hurting our prestige.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Read your own speeches in opposition.


Howard Charles Green: All these vicious attacks on these three subjects are done with a purpose, namely the purpose of getting into power.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The purpose of exposing the government.


Howard Charles Green: The purpose of getting into power, regardless of methods. I should be greatly surprised if the Canadian people have not already seen through that type of attack.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They saw through it in June.


Howard Charles Green: These attacks bear little resemblance to the traditions of the great Liberal party. It is no wonder that the Vancouver Sun which, next to the Toronto Star, is the Liberal paper with the largest circulation in Canada, had this to say less than a month ago:
Up to now Mr. Pearson has been anything but a strong man for the Liberals.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You lost 86 members. We doubled our representation.


Howard Charles Green: Then we come to the emergency program which of course, had to do with the situation of the exchange reserve fund. The necessity to do something about that exchange reserve fund arose at the week end of the election. I came back from Vancouver early on the morning after the election.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Were you there when the Minister of Agriculture spoke?


Howard Charles Green: Oh, you have cackled enough.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I ask the minister a question. I ask the minister whether he was there when the Minister of Agriculture spoke.


Howard Charles Green: I am in the habit of telling the truth, and I am telling the truth today. This is the truth. Furthermore, the Prime Minister of this country is in the habit of telling the truth and the hon. member knows it. When we found this run on the Canadian dollar-and there can be no doubt that it was in part at least caused by all the attacks by Liberals all over the country-

The Address-Mr. Green


John Whitney Pickersgill: By the Minister of Agriculture in Vancouver.


Howard Charles Green: -we came right back and when we found this situation, we moved to meet it. We brought in this program. The cabinet met practically continuously during that week until the program was announced, I think on Sunday. It took these steps knowing that they were unpopular. How could anyone expect anything else than that they would be unpopular? They were taken because that was what had to be done.
The steps that were taken have been succeeding. There is no question whatever that they will be dropped just as soon as possible.
This situation involved stopping a drain on the exchange reserve fund. The government simply had to carry on, if for no other reason than to prevent any further loss of confidence in the Canadian dollar. Any sign of wavering at that time would have been disastrous.
The same is true of any action which would have precipitated an election. This too would have been disastrous for the Canadian dollar, and I may add that the Leader of the Opposition was not very helpful in this crisis. He was told all about the situation while these steps were being prepared, but when they were taken he did not come out with a statement which meant a great deal by way of helping to retain confidence in the Canadian dollar. He was playing politics then, and he has been playing politics all through the piece.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not true.


Howard Charles Green: We are criticized for not calling the house. The house could not have been called for a matter of several weeks.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Three weeks.


Howard Charles Green: There was also the commonwealth conference to be considered, which was to begin on September 10. It had been called at the request of Canada, and it would have been impossible for Canada to function properly at that conference if this nation had been involved in an election.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It did not function properly anyway.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest that any reasonable Canadian will admit that the government took the proper course in all the circumstances.
Then a few words about the commonwealth conference. It was called, of course, to consider the implications of the United Kingdom joining the European community. It should be remembered at all times that negotiations between Great Britain and the community


were not completed and are not completed yet. That was the situation in which the conference met.
It was impressive and inspiring, Mr. Speaker, to sit at that table around which were gathered the representatives of the 15 free and equal members of the commonwealth as well as the prime minister of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and the prime minister of Uganda, who did not speak but was sitting there at the table. His country will be free before the end of the present month, and has asked to join the commonwealth. That request was granted at the conference.
The prime minister of British Guiana was sitting in the room as well and the representative of Kenya, the prime minister of Singapore, the prime minister of Malta and the representative of Mauritius. These men were there although they did not participate in the proceedings, but in a very short time their countries will be free and full fledged members of the commonwealth. This is something that would have inspired anyone in this chamber today if he had had the privilege of attending such a conference.
In Canada it is almost forgotten that there are two features of the implications of Great Britain joining the European community. First and foremost are the political implications and, second, there are the trade implications. I believe that the political implications are more important, and to my surprise that was the position taken by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom at the conference.
The political implications, what follows if the United Kingdom goes into Europe after 300 years of refusing to take that step, are of prime importance. Of course a good deal will depend on the extent to which Europe becomes a united states of Europe, with a common parliament and a common foreign policy, or perhaps becomes simply a loose alliance. There will be a difference in effects depending upon the type of European community that develops. But in the conference there was a general concern on the part of every prime minister because of the possible effect on the commonwealth. That is very clearly set out in paragraph 15 of the communique, which was in these words:
At the same time the representatives of various commonwealth governments expressed anxieties about the possible effects of Britain's entry into the European economic community. They trusted that, should there be closer association between Britain and Europe, it would not be allowed, as it developed, to weaken the cohesion of the commonwealth or its influence for peace and progress in the world.
Great value was placed on the commonwealth by every prime minister there, from the one representing the oldest former colony,

our own Prime Minister, to the representative of the newest, Trinidad and Tobago. Such value was properly placed on the commonwealth because today it is the finest association of nations in the world. It embraces representatives of all races and creeds, and I do not believe there has ever been anything quite like it in the history of the world.
There are great traditions behind it. Twenty one or twenty two years ago the commonwealth stood alone in saving civilization. While we were in London we attended a memorial service for the young airmen who lost their lives in the battle of Britain, including Canadian airmen. These associations really go much too deep in Canada for words, and they mean so much also to all the other members of the commonwealth.
If the commonwealth should be weakened or brought to an end, think of what would result as far as Canada is concerned. Think of the increased difficulty we would have in preventing our country from being drawn completely into the American orbit. Canadians from coast to coast must keep this fact in mind, just as our ancestors have had to. The Asiatic countries of the commonwealth do not want to be simply cast aside, and they fear that might be the result. With regard to the African countries of the commonwealth, in the negotiations at Brussels Britain obtained the right for them to become associate members of the European community, which would be of great benefit to them economically. But these African countries, Nigeria, the greatest country in Africa with the largest population, Tanganyika, and Ghana, refused to accept associate status because they were afraid it would make them economic colonies of Europe and would interfere with their development as sovereign nations. At the conference they turned down that offer.
Our Prime Minister has always been a commonwealth man. At the conference he made a most statesmanlike address which received from all the other prime ministers far greater applause than that accorded to the remarks of any other prime minister. The opposition talks about Canada's standing being ruined. One had only to sit at that conference table to see the standing that Canada has among the commonwealth nations. That is partially as a result of the stand our Prime Minister took a year ago on the question of South Africa, but today Canada stands in the very front rank so far as admiration and friendship are concerned on the part of the other members of the commonwealth.
The Leader of the Opposition showed no concern in his speech about what happens to the commonwealth. He whined about strengthening Europe, and said that Britain should
The Address-Mr. Green get into Europe to strengthen it. Europe is not such a weak little sister today. The NATO organization is probably the strongest military alliance there has ever been in peacetime. Europe does not need strengthening in that sense. She is just as strong as she would be if the British were to go into the common market.
Then he charged that our Prime Minister had told the British "You have to decide on whether you keep the commonwealth or whether you go into Europe". There was no such position taken by the Canadian Prime Minister. He made it clear from the start the decision was a decision for the British themselves. You know, the hon. member for Davenport seems to think he has all the answers. He always comes running along with a slick solution for everything. Speaking in January, here is what he said about Canada's attitude toward Britain and the European community:
.. . the government should have been urging and supporting Britain's application.
In other words we should have been shoving the British into the European community in the same way he wanted to shove a lot of maritimers up into Ontario.
Then there are the trade implications, and they are very far reaching for every member of the commonwealth. The Prime Minister of Canada spoke for Canada, which was his duty. I have not the time to quote from paragraph 16 in the communique, but it contains reference to the items in which Canada was interested. The other night the Leader of the Opposition said our Prime Minister should have been approving what the British government put into the communique. Paragraph 12 was the British case. We were criticized because our Prime Minister did not come down in complete support of the British representations. He was there to represent Canada.
Our main concern in the trade field today is foodstuffs. There is to be a procedure set up in the community under which there will be a tariff against many of Canada's foodstuffs, imposed by way of a levy. This levy will be put on by the community's civil servants, not by the British government. The money they get will be paid out by those same civil servants. As the prime minister of Australia pointed out, this is a strange sort of arrangement. This is the type of operation planned in regard to these tariffs to maintain artificial prices on foodstuffs produced in the countries of the European community. Make no mistake about it; as yet the community is inward looking. Let Canadians not expect the approach of the community, certainly on agricultural questions, to be in the direction of cutting down on the restrictions.
244	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Green
Canada is vitally interested in raw materials. Negotiations on these items have not yet been completed. We are hoping for a nil tariff on many of our materials such as aluminum, lead and zinc. In so far as processed goods are concerned, the negotiations have not even started in connection with many of them. For example canned salmon, one of the items which come under this heading, has not been considered. In so far as manufactured goods are concerned, there have been tentative arrangements but we are hoping there will be some more favourable conditions worked out.
There has been a great deal of work done here in Ottawa, in Brussels, in London and in the committees of the commonwealth conference by Canadians. We have pointed out ways in which the position could be improved from the point of view of Canada. For one thing, we believe a great deal of help could follow from the United States trade plan. We would like to see negotiations under the United States trade plan take place with the community and with other nations as much as possible simultaneously with negotiations between Great Britain and the European community. We believe if that could be done the result would be very much more beneficial all around, and it would be much more possible to get lower tariffs.
The Prime Minister's trade proposal had that same objective in mind. He suggested that commonwealth countries should call for a trade conference and invite all the members of the commonwealth, the members of the community, the members of the European free trade area, the United States, Japan, and other like minded countries. This proposal received quite extensive support, for example from the president of Pakistan, the prime minister of Tanganyika, the prime minister of India, and qualified support from others. It was applicable whether or not Great Britain went into the community. I believe that eventually this plan of having a wider conference will be the one which will be followed. I also believe it will be in the best interests of Canada.
The United Kingdom now goes back to resume negotiations in Brussels, and arrangements have been made for a continuation of the consultations with commonwealth, countries. In so far as Canada is concerned, Canada will co-operate regardless of what happens. Canada will also do her best to maintain and strengthen the commonwealth. I have here a very significant paragraph from the speech from the throne which reads:
... the government will spare no effort to safeguard the interests of Canada while preserving the unity and strength of the commonwealth as a whole.

Then, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word or two about Canada's position in world affairs. During the discussions in London we had quite a wide ranging talk on world affairs. There the Prime Minister and I suggested that the commonwealth should back up the United Nations in its efforts to settle the Congo problem, and that there should be a statement issued by the conference on the question of disarmament. Both of these suggestions were accepted. If hon. members will refer to the communique they will find that both these subjects have been dealt with. It is a great help in trying to get some disarmament plan worked out to have the unanimous endorsation of these 15 members of the commonwealth.
I really do not believe it is necessary for me to answer those charges that Canada's position in world affairs have been ruined by the present government. I know they were just cheap political talk. Now that the election is over I hope these attacks will cease and that once again the opposition will get in and try to help maintain Canada's position in the world.
I mentioned our position in the commonwealth and in the field of disarmament. Today Canada stands as one of the leaders, perhaps the leading nation of the world, in efforts to bring about disarmament, to bring about a cessation of nuclear tests and to deal with the question of radiation and the horrible effects on humanity which this radiation may bring about.


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


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend permit me to ask him a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The house will have to give unanimous consent, as the minister's time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hear some dissenting voices.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, according to parliamentary tradition, I take pleasure in tendering my warmest congratulations to the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Chaplin) and to the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent), who have made excellent speeches in this house in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I commend them particularly, not only because of the contents of their speeches, but for their way of expressing them in the House of Commons. I think that both hon. members deserve our praise.

1 have no intention, Mr. Speaker, to criticize the Conservative government lengthily today, as it has discredited itself permanently in the province of Quebec during the last election. But, what was a surprise in the province of Quebec at that time, was the rise of the Social Credit party. Its success was mainly due to Quebec's discontent with the Conservative party-


An hon. Member:: And the Liberal party.


Lionel Chevrier: -and to the campaign
launched by the Social Credit leaders who momentarily succeeded in deceiving the good faith of a number of voters. The reasons for Quebec's dissatisfaction with the Conservatives are well known.


An hon. Member:: And with the Liberals too.


Lionel Chevrier: The paradox in our political situation resides in the fact that a great number of Quebecers, by voting for Social Credit, as a protest against the Conservatives, only succeeded in keeping them temporarily in power. That, and also to a great extent the campaign of make-believe and deceit of the Social Credit leaders in the province of Quebec explains the paradox.
The first illusion which the Social Credit leaders tried to create in Quebec was that Alberta and British Columbia had each become a paradise on earth and that Social Credit was still very popular there and that moreover their party would succeed in having a great number of members elected outside the province of Quebec.
Such frequent allegations had their effect on June 18 last, but they were refuted that very same day, because, as we all know by now, Social Credit came in fourth place in British Columbia, far behind the other parties, with only 14 per cent of the votes, in comparison to 24 per cent in 1957 and 27 per cent in 1953.
In Alberta, Social Credit obtained only 29 per cent of the votes in 1962, whereas it had 38 per cent in 1957 and 41 per cent in 1953, when it came first among the parties.


An hon. Member:: How much for the Liberals?


Lionel Chevrier: On the morrow of the election, those who had believed in the trickery of Social Credit had to realize that they were alone and isolated in the province of Quebec, like our friends on the left, and that they had simply contributed to the election and maintenance in power of the Conservative party. Thus they had lost everything, even their votes.
Mr. Speaker, turning now to other matters, I should like to discuss the Social Credit doctrine as explained during the election cam-
The Address-Mr. Chevrier paign, as set forth in the book entitled "Real Caouette vous parle" and as put forward in this house by the member for Villeneuve.
According to the latter and his colleagues, all our economic problems arise from an only cause: under the present system, there is a chronic and permanent lack of purchasing power; in other words, incomes are lower than the amount of goods produced, with the result that those goods cannot be entirely consumed. This is what he says at page 83 of his book:
-total salaries amount to $25 billion. Now, with a national revenue of $25 billion, how can people buy for $38 billion. Such is the current problem today.
In my opinion, this is a gross mistake on the part of Socred leaders, because we actually buy every year our total national production. If the member for Villeneuve would only examine a little more closely the statistics pertaining to our national accounting, he would soon realize his elementary mistake. In fact, he compares the disposable personal income with the total income or with the national production. In 1961, for instance, this disposable income on the part of the general public amounted, as he said, to about $25 billion, but personal income accounts for only a part of the total income of the nation. The government and the commercial concerns also have incomes which they spend, in turn, for services or investments. In this perspective, the disposable personal income can only be compared with the consumers' expenses, which amounted to slightly more than $24 billion in 1961.
On the other hand, had the hon. member for Villeneuve examined more carefully the national accounts, he would have realized that if personal income came to some $25 billion in 1961, the total income, or the national product, was close to $37 billion, and the total national expenses also amounted to almost $37 billion. Therefore, it is clear that we buy each year all that we produce, and that the mistake made by the Social Credit leaders simply consists in comparing a part with the whole and in being surprised at finding that this part is less than the whole.
Besides, if the explanation given by the Socred leaders was of any value, it would follow every country would be continuously facing mass unemployment and economic crises, since disposable personal income is always lower than the national product by a several billion dollars margin. How is it then-and I am putting the question to the Social Credit members-that Canada has known periods of intensive prosperity and of

The Address-Mr. Chevrier rapid expansion from 1896 to 1911, from 1921 to 1930 and from 1946 to 1956, under Liberal governments, without applying the Social Credit doctrine? How is it that these last few years, the countries of western Europe have been enjoying considerable prosperity and an accelerated development without resorting to Social Credit? How can the hon. member for Villeneuve explain these facts when in ours as in other countries, during periods of prosperity as well as of recession, the national income is always less than the national product?
Convinced that they have explained the cause of our economical problems by the difference between the national product and the national income, the Social Credit leaders claim that they can easily solve our difficulties. How? Simply by increasing the money supply and the credit so as to fill up the difference between the national product and the national income. Or again as the hon. member for Villeneuve states on page 61 of his book:
Social Credit consists in making the amount of money represent exactly the facts of production, and it is nothing else. No more and no less money than there are goods manufactured by Canadians. That is all we want.
And again, as he puts it in page 92:
For each dollar of products, there must be a dollar of purchasing power.
As I have just said, the cure put forward by the Social Credit members rests on a basic accounting error. But to this basic mistake, the hon. member adds another one just as glaring: he does not take into account the monetary turnover. It is an undeniable fact that money and credit are used several times, by changing hands, during a given year.
It is estimated that money has an average turnover of three times a year, which means that a given amount of money may serve during a year to buy three times as much products.
In 1961, for instance, the quantity of money in circulation remained at an average level of more than $14 billion, while our national production was valued at nearly $37 billion. How could we buy $37 billion worth of products with an average sum of money of about $14 billion? Simply by using that same money several times. So, the unbalance that Social Credit leaders believe to have found between the quantity of money in circulation and national production vanishes, once we take into account the monetary turnover.
Moreover, the inefficiency and failure of the Social Credit remedy has been clearly shown by the Conservative government these last

few years. From the beginning of 1957 to the end of 1961, the quantity of money increased by 32 per cent in Canada. During the same period, the national product, in constant dollars per capita, has gone down by 4 per cent. Therefore, this government had already done better than is asked for by Social Credit leaders, and yet, during that period of time, unemployment remained at 7 per cent.
All those facts show that the remedy suggested by Social Crediters is not any better than the explanation they give about our economic problems. They show also why Social Credit has never been applied in other countries. Major Douglas introduced the Social Credit theory about 40 years ago. The hon. member for Villeneuve would like us to believe that such a theory could save the world and easily solve all economic problems plaguing mankind; on the other hand, he is opposed to any planning system and to any nationalization project. But then, if the solution of our problems were as simple as Major Douglas seemed to indicate 40 years ago, how can one explain that he has not more followers in the world?
How can one explain that there is no government in the world nor a serious economist to accept the Social Credit philosophy?
How can one explain that most democratic governments, in France, in England and elsewhere in Europe, and more and more in the United States, are taking up planning, that Pope John XXIII is inviting statesmen to choose that direction and that no one in those quarters is interested in Social Credit? Are government leaders and all the most renowned economists of the whole world so ignorant or is it because they are in the service of commercial banks? Would Major Douglas and the hon. member for Villeneuve be the only ones to see the light and possess the truth? Or is it not simply that the hon. member is having visions, is being mistaken and is thus misleading the others?
In fact, the only concrete proposal which subsists in the Social Credit reform, is the fact that we should create as much money and credit as necessary to bridge the gap between national production and personal income, which would have corresponded, in 1961, to about $12 billion. Social Credit leaders would then have practically doubled the quantity of money and credit in circulation.
Such an experience would have been similar to the experience Germany went through following the first world war. We

all recall the disaster brought about by inflation in Germany. It ruined the middle class people and plunged the poor people in the depth of misery leading finally to the rise of Hitler, whom the hon. member for Ville-neuve seems to admire.
I should like now to say a word on the question of confidence in this government. During a television interview after the election, the hon. member for Villeneuve made the following promise to the whole Frenchspeaking population of Canada, and I quote:
If anyone comes up with a non-confidence motion, you may be sure that I will vote against the government whoever they are.
That was a definite and clear pledge. What has happened since? It is clear that the government has no intention of ending its austerity program and that it puts forward no efficient proposal to get the economy rolling again and check unemployment. On the other hand, the leader of the Liberal party has put forward a comprehensive program to improve the situation for all Canadians. He has further more moved a non-confidence motion against the government. The motion is simple and does not carry any principle unacceptable to the hon. member for Villeneuve.
Now, his colleagues rose one after the other, last night, to vote against the proposal, against the non-confidence motion, and no doubt I may assume that, if he had been in this house at that time, the hon. member for Villeneuve would have voted against the motion. The Crediter's vote clearly shows that either they are the allies of the Conservatives or they fear another appeal to the electorate; both explanations could be equally true. The implication then is that the hour of truth has come for the hon. member for Villeneuve and his colleagues. I am sure that those who voted for them because they were against a Conservative government have already passed judgment on them after their vote of yesterday.
I come now, Mr. Speaker, to a series of fallacious, mendacious and untrue statements which I find in the book entitled "Real Caouette vous parle."
Here is what he says at page 17:
Tell me what the Liberals have given you over a period of 22 years, besides a war and a depression?
When the hon. member for Villeneuve asks such a question, he is falsifying the truth.
To begin with, it was not the Liberals who were responsible for the war, but Hitler, whom the hon. member for Villeneuve admires so much.
The Address-Mr. Chevrier
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that one of Hitler's slogans, from 1929 to 1932, was:
Sie haben nichts zu verlieren
"You have nothing to lose." They borrowed not only this individual's philosophy, but also his slogan.
Furthermore, it was not the Liberals who were responsible for the depression. The depression began in Europe and in the United States, and by the time it was felt in Canada, a Conservative government, under Mr. Bennett, was in power. It was not until 1935, under Mr. King's administration, that the Canadian economy picked up strength and, following the war, got started on the most rapid expansion period in its history.
Such is the kind of respect the hon. member shows for the truth when he speaks.
Again on page 27, he asks another question:
We have had the Liberals in Ottawa for 22 years; did they provide us with a steadily growing economy?
Further on, on page 35 he replies to that question:
You have tried the Liberals for years, and you have already tried the Conservatives for four years, but the results have been the same.
How can the hon. member for Villeneuve dare to deceive his fellow citizens in such a way? Either he is not aware that he is distorting the truth, and that is unforgivable for a party leader; if he is aware of it, then, he is not worthy of the trust he is seeking.
Let us consider the facts.
First, the economic field. We have experienced a constant economic growth over the 22 years of Liberal administration. Over that period, our country enjoyed the highest development rate in the world. Our national product, which was estimated at $5.6 billion in 1939, rose to $11.8 billion in 1945 and $30.5 billion in 1956. How can the hon. member for Villeneuve state that under the Liberals Canada experienced prosperity only during the war years?
But that is not all. The national product, in constant dollars and per capita, increased by 22 per cent between 1949 and 1956 but decreased by 4 per cent under the Conservative administration.
From 1949 to 1956, unemployment averaged 3 per cent of the labour force while under the Conservative administration, it averaged 6.5 per cent.
Since 1957, of all industrialized countries, Canada is the one whose economy experienced

The Address-Mr. Chevrier the slowest rate of growth. How can the hon. member for Villeneuve state that the Liberal and Conservative governments produced the same results?
But there is also the social legislation. Until 1957, the Liberals elaborated our whole system of social security: unemployment insurance, family allowances, old age pensions, pensions for the blind and the disabled, unemployment assistance, hospital insurance, housing aid, support prices for the farmers.
And you talk about respect for the dignity of man? Are there anywhere laws which have respected man and his dignity more than those?
It is true that in 1957 the Conservatives increased some pensions, but they did not introduce any new legislation in that field.
Here is another series of erroneous statements made by the 'hon. member for Villeneuve, at page 37 of his book. Listen to this:
Mr. Pearson was a member of a Liberal government in Ottawa from 1939 to 1945, a period of six years. During those six years, Mr. Pearson and the former federal ministers as well as the Liberal prime ministers of that time, went into debt, increased the national debt of Canada by $17 billion.
And a little further on, on page 38, the hon. member for Villeneuve continues:
-as for the national debt, an increase of $17 billion under the Liberals, an increase of $3 billion under the Conservatives.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how a member can so garble the facts and distort the truth as does the hon. member for Villeneuve in making such a statement?
First, I wish to remind him that, from 1939 to 1945, the leader of the present Liberal opposition was not a member of the government. He became a member of it in 1948 and from that date up to 1957, our national debt, far from increasing, decreased by almost $2.5 billion. Why did the member for Villeneuve fail to mention this essential fact? Indeed most other countries were getting deeper into debt during that same period while in this country our debt was decreasing. And why did he fail to compare that reduction of $2.5 billion with the $3 billion increase that occurred under the Conservative administration?
But even during the war, the net debt of our country increased from $3.2 billion in 1939 to $11.3 billion in 1945, which makes for an increase of $8 billion instead of $17 billion as stated by the hon. member for Villeneuve.


On page 20 of his book, the hon. member continues:
As a matter of fact, there are only two Canadian provinces where there is no provincial direct tax. And Alberta is one of them-
That is another lie, another falsehood. Indeed, I cannot believe that the hon. member is unaware of the fact that all provinces levy direct taxes and that Alberta, for one, collects income tax on corporations and private citizens, in addition to succession duties.
On page 91, I find this other quotation which the hon. member for Villeneuve repeated in his speech the other evening:
Mackenzie King said in 1935: As long as a country has no control over its money, it makes no difference who enacts the laws, because he controls nothing.
The hon. member went on as follows:
Unfortunately, Mackenzie King never did anything about it when he was in power in Ottawa.
That again is false. The hon. member for Villeneuve knows I hope, that the Bank of Canada controls credit and money in our country, and that it became the exclusive property of the state after 1935, thanks to Mr. King, and started to operate as such in 1937.
I could thus continue quoting indefinitely the numerous falsehoods which were repeated not only by the hon. member for Villeneuve but by several Social Credit leaders.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: All of them.


Lionel Chevrier: Having forgotten the numerous benefits given to them by Liberal governments, after five years of Conservative mismanagement, the electorate believed the Social Credit's deceitful propaganda. They imagined that the Liberals had been just as bad as the Conservatives and they mistook the Socred leaders for men of good faith.
This kind of propaganda reminds me of the one used by the Conservatives, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, when they claimed before and during the electoral campaign, that everything was going well in Canada.


Mr. Bourbonnais:: It is true.


Lionel Chevrier: Besides the unjustified pretention that the Social Credit would have elected a great many members outside Quebec, and beside falsehoods he spread concerning the Liberal party in an effort to assimilate it with the Conservative party, the hon. member for Villeneuve also tried to convince

the people that the Social Credit doctrine was the only solution to their troubles. I trust I have refuted the arguments of that simple doctrine at the beginning of my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention another contradiction equally flagrant of which the hon. member for Villeneuve made himself guilty. At page 92 of his book, we find:
Under the present system-


An hon. Member:: It is not his book.


Lionel Chevrier: Under the present system, the chartered banks create money and credit according to their whim and fancy. They create much of it in times of war and make it scarce in times of peace.
That quotation calls for several explanations. First of all, it is true that the commercial banks seek to make profits. But what is so disgraceful about that? It is precisely what private enterprise is looking for, this private enterprise which the member for Villeneuve and his Social Credit chiefs want to preserve and protect. Is the desire for gain a bad thing for commercial banks and a desirable one for other enterprises? Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely false that banks may "create money and credit according to their whim and fancy".
That statement might have been true when Major Douglas was writing, just after world war I, at a time when there was no central bank in Canada, but since 1937, in this country, it is the central bank that creates money and credit and determines the amount of currency, while commercial banks are reduced to the role of retailers.
Yet, in spite of this statement, Social Crediters continue and will continue to say that it is the commercial banks that "create money and credit in our country according to their whim" whereas the situation is completely altered since the Bank of Canada was established.
Besides, the member for Villeneuve contradicts himself on this vital question when he says, as can be seen on page 26 of his book:
Ladies and gentlemen, it is parliament which has entrusted to the Bank of Canada-and note this-the task of regulating credit and money. The bank is authorized by law to issue credit by the purchase of bonds from the government of Canada, the provincial governments . .. etc.
But then, if it is the Bank of Canada which is in charge of controlling credit and money, the chartered banks thus cannot create money and credit to their whim and fancy, as was claimed by the Social Credit leaders. We find there, right from the start in the Social Credit reform, a glaring inconsistency.
The Address-Mr. Chevrier
When the Social Credit leaders say that they would take away from the chartered banks the privilege of creating money and credit, on their own admission they intend to break through an open door because this has been the exclusive privilege of the Bank of Canada ever since 1937. All the chartered banks do at present, is to divide among their customers the credit created by the Bank of Canada, just as the automobile dealer allots to his customers, if any, the cars which have been sent to him by the manufacturer.
Like the hon. member, I should like-
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to inform the hon. member that his time has expired. The house would have to give unanimous consent, as the hon. member's time has expired. Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hear a dissenting voice. I recognize the hon. member for Waterloo South.


Mr. Byrne:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member for Kootenay East on a point of order.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I should like to ask the Chair at this time how the house proposes to deal with the naming of the hon. member for Bellechasse, since it should have been dealt with at the time the hon. member was named, according to citation 134 of Beauchesne's fourth edition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question raised by the hon. member for Kootenay East should have been raised at the time the incident occurred. In my view it is now too late to put the matter to the house.


An hon. Member:: Call in the Speaker.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It will be a question of whether the member is to return to the house. This is a question of privilege for all members. When they are named they may not know whether they are named for a period of time, such as for the day, or whether they shall be expelled from the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As I said earlier, this is a matter that should have been raised at the time the incident occurred. We are on the throne speech debate, and I now call on the hon. member for Waterloo North.



The Address-Mr. Weichel


Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a privilege to congratulate you and your deputy and chairman of committees, on your appointment to the important positions you hold in this house.
I should also like to express my sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Waterloo South, my next door neighbour and a very close friend of mine, and to the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska for their excellent speeches in moving and seconding the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Mr. Speaker, as the representative of a constituency which is a perfect blend of industry and agriculture, I am pleased and indeed elated at the proposals put forward to assist these two facets of our commercial and business life. As a member of parliament who has worked and fought for his country, I am also happy to hear of the plans to eradicate the major problems facing Canada. I am sure that our government has met these problems head-on with a view to improving the lot of each and every one of the 18 million Canadians and to making this country an even better place in which to live.
To my constituency the encouragement our expanding export program will receive means much. The bustling, thriving metropolitan area of Kitchener-Waterloo, as well as the surrounding smaller municipalities, cannot help but benefit from such things as the production incentives planned, the enlarging of the scope of the Export Credits Insurance Act and the industrial development bank. These agencies should be able to give valuable assistance to business, particularly in the essential task of expanding sales in foreign markets.
Plans for the establishment of a national economic development board I feel will be welcomed by my constituents, as well as by everyone in Canada who has the economic interests of our nation at heart. I am sure this board can serve a useful purpose in guiding private and public development.
While further budget measures are planned to meet our problems, the fiscal plans announced will, I am confident, create better employment opportunities for Canadian people, promote economic growth, strengthen Canada's balance of international payments and help maintain price stability. The farsightedness of our government is evident in the proposals to create new jobs over the coming years and to assist employers and workers in meeting the impact of automation. Such a broad attack on unemployment, one of our major problems for the past several

years as well as a giant-sized headache for our neighbours south of the border, will surely be hailed by industry and workers across the nation.
Our government, which has done more for the farmer than any previous government, has not forgotten him in this speech. The plan to convene a national conference on agricultural training this fall is a further step in improving the lot of the farm population.
While many people may have thought the issue of a national flag has been dropped, the speech shows that this is certainly not the case. As one who has spoken in this house on a distinctive flag, I am happy to see that moves are being made toward this end.
As everyone can see, the speech from the throne is extremely comprehensive and makes a determined effort to face the problems confronting Canada, whether they be economic or nationalistic. Our leader, Prime Minister Diefenbaker, could have played safe by keeping his legislative program as non-controversial as possible. Instead he has taken a bolder and more constructive course with a view to eliminating our difficulties. He has announced his intention of balancing the budget, a course which will improve our reputation among the nations and investors throughout the world. He has attacked the unemployment problem and aimed at strengthening the economy and boosting our export volume. He has outlined a variety of plans for improving the health of the country as well as that of the individual. He has also said he plans a budget which will attack even more of our problems.
Mr. Speaker, a little more than a year ago a bill was passed in the House of Commons and the other place to provide $5 million for physical fitness and amateur sport. This announcement caused a great deal of interest among the youth of our country and others. Our government was given high marks for bringing about this legislation.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Oscar William Weichel: Mr. Speaker, just before one o'clock I had mentioned that a little over a year ago a bill was passed by the House of Commons and the other place to provide $5 million for physical fitness and amateur sport. This announcement, as we all know, caused a great deal of excitement and interest among the youth of our country and others. Our government was given high marks for bringing about this legislation. Some time later 30 distinguished men and women

from across Canada were appointed to serve on the national advisory council on physical fitness and amateur sport to carry out the duties of such an important council. I mention this, as much good work has been done by this council up to the present time.
Perhaps one of the most important grants has been the one extended to the Royal Canadian Legion, dominion command, which provided funds for their program of expanding track and field activities through the facilities of a school for coaches representing every province in our country. I had the privilege of attending this school at Guelph, Ontario, which was under the supervision of Mr. Dyson of England, one of the greatest coaches in the world. In interviewing this fine gentleman I was deeply impressed with the set-up of such a program, and in talking to some of the athletes and coaches attending the school I found that in their view the benefits of training under this great coach were much greater than they had expected. They felt that with such coaching they could go back to their various training centres and teach these methods to the advantage of all sportsminded youth. I understand that the Royal Canadian Legion, the sponsors of the coaching school, are endeavouring to secure the services of Mr. Dyson on a permanent basis. If this effort is successful it will be a real step in the right direction.
From the grant that the Royal Canadian Legion received they provided some funds for the eastern track and field meet held last August in Waterloo, Ontario, and sponsored by the Legion branch of that city. This money helped to defray some of the expenses of bringing many athletes from every part of Canada. With nearly 500 of our youth participating in these events, this competition proved to be one of the best ever held in Canada, with many records equalled or broken. The Royal Canadian Legion branch at Waterloo in my riding deserves a great deal of credit for their wonderful efforts, and if some financial assistance can be forthcoming from year to year great strides will be made in track and field in Canada, with the important result that such efforts will help to build healthier bodies and healthier minds.
Before long Canada will again be sending a hockey team to compete with other countries for the world's hockey championship. I understand that with this in mind Father David Bauer of the University of British Columbia has brought forward a proposal to some of the members of the national advisory council and to the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association that such a team could be organized by the university where these players would have an opportunity of playing together for a longer period, something that has not
The Address-Mr. Weichel been done previously. Such a proposal should receive consideration by the council and the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association. The efforts of our government regarding this program, supervised by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith), along with the good work of the members of the national advisory council on fitness and amateur sport, are very commendable.
Some hon. members have mentioned the importance of education. May I say that most of my life I have been very interested in the three great assets of our youth, Christian training, education and recreation. For that reason I was pleased to receive the booklet "Youth Appreciation Week", an event to be held from November 12 to 18 and sponsored by the Optimist clubs. I believe the objectives in this booklet are worth repeating. They are:
To recognize the accomplishments of youth in the home, school, church and community.
To promote more active participation by families in family affairs.
To encourage groups and organizations to publicly show their respect for youth.
To encourage newspapers to devote more space to news of the 95 per cent of youth who are good citizens.
To encourage radio and television stations to recognize youth through special as well as regular programs.
To encourage national magazines to recognize the accomplishments and contributions of youth.
To provide the proper environment, recreation and social activities for youth.
To encourage parents to rededicate themselves to the responsibilities of parenthood.
To illustrate the great influence religion has on the lives of youth and to encourage their active participation in religious activities.
To encourage a greater interchange of ideas between adult and youth, leading to a broader understanding of the problems of each.
May we continue our advice and assistance to our fine youth in Canada, in the full realization that the youth of today will be the citizens of tomorrow.
In closing, I should like to say one word on another subject, Mr. Speaker. As one of the few retired civil servants sitting in the House of Commons, and one who gave nearly 36 years to the civil service commission under different governments, I am still very interested in the welfare of my former associates in this service. For many years the salaries of the members of this service could not be classified as extravagant. I can well remember when my salary was not as great as that of a foreman working in most industries. However, some improvements have been made by our government during the last four years, and I am pleased to see this. We pride ourselves upon having the best public service in the world. This is the result of the conscientious effort of most of these men and women in the performance of their daily duties. Thousands of such servants reside in my riding of
252	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Dube Waterloo North and are making a fine contribution to this work. Many qualifications and obligations are expected from these civil servants. Perhaps one of the most important of these would be their loyalty to the civil service commission and the government. Disloyalty could well mean the loss of their position, as we all know.
The recent recommendations made for the federal public service outlined proposals for negotiation, conciliation and arbitration. I hope our government will give consideration to these recommendations at an early date.
I could mention the expansion and development of our industries and agriculture, as well as the universities in my riding. However, 1 know there are plenty of new members who would like to speak so I will cut my speech short. As noted previously, I am happy at the proposals in the speech from the throne. I am sure millions of my fellow Canadians feel similarly and will take part at the plans our government has outlined for the betterment of our great nation.
(Translation):


Mr. Jean Eudes Dube (Resiigouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, my first words in this august assembly will be to congratulate you. Allow me to join with the distinguished and experienced members who preceded me in supporting also the unanimous decision of the house to appoint you to your present office.
I believe you are the first French-speaking Speaker to come from a province other than Quebec.
Since I come myself from New Brunswick, I especially rejoice in this great honour which reflects not only on you, Mr. Speaker, but also on all minorities in the other provinces of our country.
I should also like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Chaplin) and the seconder (Mr. Vincent) of the address. They performed very well their task which was difficult indeed. Needless to say that I do not necessarily share their views, but if I may recall a word by Voltaire:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
My first duty, Mr. Speaker, is a very pleasant one; I wish to express my thanks to all my constituents. The people of Restigouche-Madawaska put their faith in me and I will always try to be equal to the task they have set me.
Mr. Speaker, while looking through the official reports for previous years and listening to the speeches of the members who spoke
[Mr. Weichel.l

before me during this debate, I realized that quite often, in their first speech, the members praise their riding's natural beauties.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that former members for Restigouche-Madawaska often had the opportunity of describing to you the enchanting decor of the Restigouche valley and of the magnificent republic of Madawaska which is situated along the fabulous Saint John river.
My immediate predecessors did not sit on this side of the house, but I am sure that, in the near future, I will be sitting on your right since that is the wish not only of my constituents but of all the Canadian people.
(Text):
However, Mr. Speaker, if I do not indulge today in a poetical description of the scenic beauties of my riding, I do wish to bring before this house the needs of my people. There is perhaps more unemployment in Restigouche-Madawaska than in any other part of this land. Last March the unemployment figures reached fantastic proportions and over 51 per cent of our major force was unemployed. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I still hear a voice saying-we cannot help but remember these words-"As long as I am Prime Minister of Canada no one, not one single fellow Canadian will suffer from unemployment." However, there are thousands of fellow Canadians in my riding who do suffer from unemployment and with this austerity program I am afraid that many, many more will be suffering great hardships. If the Canadian economy is booming, as we were told by many speakers from the opposite side, why not have some of it boom our way?
During the speech from the throne mention was made of the fact that the economy was booming indeed. I quote:
Economic activity in Canada has moved ahead sharply. This strong advance has resulted in more than 200,000 new jobs during the past 12 months. The objective of my government is to accelerate this pace of advance.
In order to accelerate this pace of advance in Restigouche-Madawaska, Mr. Speaker, there are a few local projects that should be proceeded with immediately, and I will deal with those projects very briefly:
1. A complete study of the fishing facilities in the Jacquet river area with a view to constructing additional wharves where needed. At the present time, local fishermen have to put up with a disgraceful situation.

2.	Crib walls at Charlo and Richardsville to keep what is left of the coast.
3.	A federal building with post office and R.C.M.P. tenements at Eel River.
4.	Wharf fill and storage shed for the Dal-housie federal wharf.
5.	Development of the Sugarloaf mountain in the Campbellton area or other suitable site for scenic and recreational facilities as a federal park.
6.	Immediate dredging of the Restigouche river off the Campbellton federal wharf as recommended by federal engineers.
7.	An airport in the lower end of Mada-waska county.
8.	Immediate start on the federal building in Edmundston for which land has already been purchased.
These are but a few of the federal projects which are vital to my riding and I strongly urge that they be proceeded with as soon as possible in order to provide work for the people now and possibly throughout the winter. Indeed I fear for the hardship and suffering which many of the people in Restigouche-Madawaska may have to endure this winter.
These are critical times and I expect the government to rise to the occasion and offer solutions for our national problems. But there was little in the speech from the throne to indicate that the administration intends to show initiative and positive leadership. That speech reminded me of an old ditty which is best applied in reverse-something old, nothing new; something borrowed, everything blue.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I was particularly surprised to read in the speech from the throne that we would be called upon to abolish the closure rule and to reinstate the special committee on procedure, because I believed that closure had been abolished some five years ago by the present administration. Was not the closure issue one of the main factors behind the victory of this administration following the pipeline debate? I was under the impression, Mr. Speaker, that the first move of the Prime Minister, after achieving victory, would have been to abolish closure. But to our great dismay, we find that nothing has been done in that connection, and that the rule of closure is still in force.
On the other hand, I was both happy and surprised to learn that the speech from the throne provided for:
-the establishment of an Atlantic development board to advise on measures and projects that will 27507-3-17
The Address-Mr. Dube
promote the economic development of the Atlantic region of Canada.
I was pleased because at long last the government acknowledged our needs, but I was surprised because no definite measure, nothing concrete was suggested, no definite project was proposed.
The speech did not mention the causeway between Prince Edward Island and our province. This was, however, the last very solemn promise made by the Prime Minister on the eve of the prorogation of parliament. Has the Prime Minister changed his mind, now that the people of the island gave him their four seats in the house? Does he imagine, by chance, that these fine people will fall again into such a trap?
The speech did not mention the Chignecto canal. It is, however, one of the projects that interest most of the population of our eastern provinces.
Will this development board, which is mentioned in the speech from the throne, be only another one of the numerous royal commissions set up by the government which travel throughout the country to look into problems and publish books which gather dust in the Prime Minister's office?
If it is this government's sincere intention to help the maritime provinces, there will be no need to set up a complex machinery which usually leads nowhere. If this government sincerely intends to help the maritime provinces, all that it needs to do is to start living up to the promises it has made to the people of those provinces over the past five years.
Let the government make an immediate start on the island causeway. Let the Chignecto project be put under way. Let it give more substantial aid to our provincial governments. Let it grant tax rebates to industries which locate there. Let local public works projects such as those I have just mentioned be put under way immediately.
Our people do not want more promises from the government; they do not want any more royal commissions to study problems. They are asking for some bread on the table and for the right and the opportunity for the head of the family to earn a living. What we want is to be on the same level, economically, as the other provinces in the nation. We simply want a place in the sun, as first class citizens. (Text):
The great majority of the Canadian people, 63 per cent of them, showed on June 18 that

The Address-Mr. Dube they had no confidence in the present administration. In New Brunswick we doubled the number of our Liberal seats, and now that we know the truth we shall do even better in the next election, which I hope will come soon.
During the election campaign the government succeeded in hiding the financial crisis Canada was in, and government spokesmen were telling the people, as I said before, that the economy was booming. On June 14 the Prime Minister stated this on television:
We have bared the record. We have concealed nothing. We have shaded nothing.
Those of us who held the opposite view were called prophets of doom and gloom. Yet, on June 24, six short days after the election, the Prime Minister was forced to go back before that same television screen and finally tell the people the truth, disclosing the financial crisis which he had been hiding and announcing his austerity program thereby creating, for the first time in modern Canadian history, as I believe was said yesterday, extra taxation and legislation by television. On that ground alone, on the ground of having concealed the truth, the Prime Minister has lost the confidence of the nation.
Duly elected members of this house, whatever their political affiliations may be, have a moral duty not to support what is contrary to our Canadian principles. Last night we all saw what took place, a strange and fantastic alliance coming together, the Social Credit members to my left and the social debit members to my front. If those two go on sleeping together too often they will lose what is left of their respective reputations.
Another breach of our most sacred parliamentary rights was the refusal to call parliament into session as soon as feasible after the election. This should have been done, first to seek a vote of confidence from the house and, second, to advise the house as to what position this government intended to take at the commonwealth conference.
I submit that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) took the narrow view at the commonwealth prime ministers' conference. He failed to adapt his mind to a changing world. He took the old line Conservative approach when the world was crying for broad, modern Liberal thinking.
The free nations of Europe for the first time in modern history are trying to unite themselves for their common good. They are succeeding. The common market is the first step in the ultimate goal which is one free Europe united in peace and prosperity. Who are we, or who does the Prime Minister think [Mr. Dube.l

he is, to sail across the seas and to wave the red flag of the past in an effort to stop the traffic of the future?
This is the second half of the twentieth century, yet our present Canadian government would have us chained and shackled to trade patterns which were obsolete even before they were born.
To be sure, we want to keep the commonwealth alive; but we want a progressive and prosperous Great Britain, and Great Britain cannot, in my humble opinion, become progressive and prosperous outside the common market. It is obvious to any mind-that is, to any mind which can accept and digest reform-that once the common market walls go up around free Europe, the "tight little island" will be left behind and miss her opportunity to soar into the future with her prosperous neighbours. It is our duty to help Great Britain join the new club. We don t want to be tied to her apron strings, yet we don't want to be her ball and chain. Great Britain's entry into the twentieth century club will ensure her prosperity and at the same time will provide us with a prosperous market for our exports.
Above all, Great Britain's entry would satisfy us that the British experience in democracy can become a cornerstone in the new building. The free nations of Europe could use some of the stability and political maturity of English statesmen who were born in the shade of Westminster and brought up by the mother of parliaments.
To help Great Britain into the common market should be our first aim. Our second purpose should be to secure for us, for Canada, closer economic ties with the European economic community.
We already have NATO, thanks to the broad approach of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, a real man of vision. Why does not the present administration wake up and sponsor a new form of North Atlantic Treaty Organization to deal with the present challenge? Why not organize all the nations of the Atlantic area, not into a market but into a super market? Perhaps the present antiquated Conservative administration is not aware that over the past few years the supermarket has replaced the corner grocery store. The corner grocery store is still handy after hours, and perhaps on Sundays, but the price is better and the price is more varied at the supermarkets. In the days of the Right Hon. Mackenzie King and in the days of the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent, when our present leader, (Mr. Pearson) was secretary of state for external affairs, Canada had a strong and persuasive voice in the councils of the world. Canada was not only the link between Great Britain and the United States; she was also

the leader of all the small powers of the world. Our then secretary of state for external affairs was accepted as one of the world leaders whose advice and good common sense was sought by all. If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, as I look across to the opposite side of this house I see no further material for the Nobel peace prize.
In the speech from the throne I saw nothing which could add even an idea to the international field. From the point of view of foreign affairs, as well as from the point of view of national affairs, it was an empty speech.
The world around us is changing and changing fast. The United States of America have elected a new, young, dynamic president. The modern nations of Europe have united to form a common market and are forging ahead, but our present leaders are standing still! They have nothing to offer; their sole ambition is to hang on to their seats.
The plane is flying in all directions and they fasten their safety belts while asking the taxpayers to tighten their austerity belts. So we are all belting in a state of fantastic confusion.
_ I submit that the speech from the throne is nothing but a makeshift arrangement, a loose gimmick in order that the Social Crediters may support the government and still save their faces. So these 30 printed money boys who were lions on the hustings during the campaign have become story tellers talking about rabbits, monkeys, worms and little dogs who have lost their way. They have two leaders-a leader and a co-leader. Now they have found a third leader, an old social debit fox who also lost his way and who soon will lose his power as well.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, if all the members of the group I mentioned earlier are satisfied with the austerity program, I, for one, prefer much more such prosperity as has been described by our leader, Mr. Pearson, in the splendid speech he made last Monday.
The positive program of Liberal prosperity can alleviate unemployment. The hazy austerity program of the Conservative can only aggravate the situation.
On behalf of the large families in my riding, I mention with joy the intention of the leader of the Liberal party, when he is prime minister, to extend until the age of 21 the family allowances to the children still in school.
As far as I am concerned, I should also advocate an increase in family allowances proportionate to the pace of the national economic development.
27507-3-17J
The Address-Mr. Gregoire Mr. Gregoire: Where are you going to get the money? You did not have any in 1957.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, before concluding my remarks, may I repeat how grateful I am to the voters of my constituency and assure them that I shall work without respite in this house to defend their interests, for the benefit of the country.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be to wish you a good deal of patience and courage in front of the group of members in this house.
I should also like to extend my heartiest congratulations to the mover (Mr. Chaplin) and the seconder (Mr. Vincent) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, who managed to call forth a rather extraordinary eloquence and enthusiasm in spite of a meaningless speech from the throne. They certainly showed great virtuosity in their performance.
Mr. Speaker, I also wish to congratulate the two Social Credit leaders of Canada, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) and the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), because they gave the house a lesson in practical solutions. After hearing all those speeches, I am still convinced that they are the only ones who have brought us concrete and positive answers to the problems that face us today. Once again, I extend to them my sincere congratulations.
Mr. Speaker, I also wish you to know that since I have been here, both in this house and elsewhere in Ottawa, I have been able to notice that all those I have met, from all sides of the house, have been extremely kind and considerate towards us. We thank them and wish to tell them beforehand that the battle we shall fight here will not be against men as individual persons, it will be a struggle for certain principles, for certain ideas which we shall uphold in this parliament the same way as we upheld them before the voters in the last election campaign.
Mr. Speaker, I have been in this house only a few days and I strongly feel that the old parties, and the socialists as well, are so wrapped up in the dust of routine and political manoeuvring that I am more and more convinced that it is not from them that we may expect the solution to our problems and the cure for the economic crisis we are now going through.
After the defeat of the Liberal party, in 1957, the ex-prime minister, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, imputed it on the fact that

The Address-Mr. Gregoire they had kept away from the people. Looking at the way the house is made up today, I must say that things have not changed. The Liberal party has not gone nearer the people.
When I see today the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), the leader of the Liberal party, in this very House of Commons of the federal parliament, sitting right next to the director of a chartered bank, before the whole nation, I can only suggest that the Liberal party, not only has not drawn nearer to the people, but has gone nearer to the financial world, which is the best way to go further away from the people.
To be near the people, one must start by drawing away from the financial interests which have always exploited the people, for the people never get but their crumbs.
Oh, I have heard the famous plea made by the director of a chartered bank, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), who has very ably protected the interests of his masters in this house. Besides, I am convinced that he has nothing to lose, for when his constituents find out that he is betraying them for the benfit of the financiers, the financiers will give him the reward he will have earned.
Mr. Speaker, reference was made to the trickery of the Social Credit leaders, and the voice putting forward that view in this house is that of the member for Laurier, who, when he blames the Social Credit members for being deceitful and claims to base his views on serious economists, is in direct contradiction of the economists of the country and even of those of the Liberal party. For while the hon. member for Laurier claims that the chartered banks do not create money and credit in the country, the economists of the Liberal party themselves state quite the opposite. And to quote only a few, I will mention first of all the ex-provincial secretary of the Liberal federation of Quebec, Mr. Rene Tremblay, who has squarely and categorically admitted in front of the people, on television, that money and credit are created by chartered banks in our country.
The hon. member for Laurier will still have something to learn from the economists of his party, unless he prefers to grovel before those who control finance, his colleagues.
The Liberals, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Shawinigan.


Gilles Grégoire: The Liberals-Shawinigan. It is nevertheless the Liberal party which enabled private industries to set up in the province of Quebec.

The Liberals, with their 56 fine promises, who during 22 years had the chance to fulfil them-


An hon. Member:: That's it.


Gilles Grégoire: -what have they done? They wore the seat of their pants threadbare on parliament's benches.
The people threw them out in 1957. But over a period of 22 years, they never agreed to give us a national flag. Since they have been sitting in the opposition-


An hon. Member:: Six.


Gilles Grégoire: To top it all, they promise two flags. Please note: two.
When the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Liberal party, came into my constituency during the last election campaign to make speeches, which changed nothing, I myself had the opportunity of hearing him promise "distinct" flags and not "distinctive" flags.
Gentlemen, will you try to explain to us what that means "distinct and not distinctive".
These people, who never promised any flags now promise two. And they talk about hypocrisy. But where are the hypocrites?
They call us-as the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Dube) did a moment ago-story tellers. But who told tales to the people for 22 years, if not the Liberals?
They are responsible for the economic crisis we are currently going through, even though the Conservatives have shown their utter incapacity to remedy it.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party is not the only one in the wrong, both old parties are. You can put them both in the same pot, stir a little and you will never be able to say which is which when they come out.
Besides, for two years it has been said that the Liberals and the socialists look much alike. I noticed that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), while he sits among the Liberals, can still support the same creed he was supporting when he was in the socialist group. Therefore, I feel that the only difference is in the seating arrangements; on all other points there are no differences.


An hon. Member:: May I ask a question of the hon. member?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I am not afraid of questions, I will use the last five minutes of my time to reply to hon. members.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to find that the present government, the administration which is still temporarily in office-one must admit it-is so blind that it is not aware that the

present restrictive measures constitute a policy of austerity. It is sufficient to notice what is going on in this country, that is the stoppage of work and expansion of our country, to become convinced that we are fully in a period of austerity.
The best advice I can give the government is to open its eyes wide before it is too late and to apply advices and suggestions willingly given him by the Social Crediters, not to get notoriety but in the interest of the population, since we are all here to serve and not to play politics.
Perhaps in creating so many royal commissions, the Prime Minister hopes that some day he may need enough commissioners to give work to all the unemployed. However I doubt it very much.
When one stops to think of the numerous committees, royal commissions, statistics bureaus, investigation committees which have been set up across the country, one would think that the members were sent here by their constituents in order to study on school benches as children do.
That is not what the people want, Mr. Speaker. What the people expect of us, of all of those who are gathered in this house, is not consideration but action. They want definite steps to be taken in order to halt the present crisis and solve our problems. That is what our constituents expect of us.
If the government in power has nothing to offer, they should accept our proposals. Some will say that those are simple-minded answers, but then, some people get lost in problems, such as the member for Laurier did this morning when he attempted to explain the workings of Social Credit.
Indeed, had I not known my way around in politics I would have wondered, after hearing him explain Social Credit as he did, what the Social Credit thinking actually is.
He fashioned his own; it is easier to knock down. What is the reason for that? Because he never even took the trouble to study what is Social Credit.
He would rather have his own opinion of it because his objective is not a healthy administration but the destruction of the other political parties and the pushing forward of his own instead of welcoming the suggestions of others. At such time he chooses to run down instead of welcoming real solutions.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition himself-and on that account we must believe that Social Credit is not all bad-the Leader of the Opposition himself, in his three and a half hour speech so lengthy and so dull,
The Address-Mr. Gregoire managed to be interesting for five minutes while dealing with some aspects of Social Credit.


An hon. Member:: Who established family allowances?


Gilles Grégoire: I will deal with that during the last five minutes of my speech. At any rate, family allowances should have been raised, but it is the taxes which go up instead. You take money from one individual to give it to another. You may give $6 in family allowances but you take back $10 in taxes. Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Who instituted family allowances?


Gilles Grégoire: -the Leader of the Opposition has seen fit to refer to several points of the Social Credit platform, amongst others family allowances to Canadians, from the ages of 16 to 21, who continue their studies.


An hon. Member:: It was a Liberal government which established family allowances.


Gilles Grégoire: However, it has been part of our platform for a long while.
We have been recommending the establishment of a municipal loans agency for 20 years. When they were in power, the Liberals did nothing about that. But, have you noticed, Mr. Speaker, that when the Liberals make promises like that, nobody gets up to say: "Where are you going to get the money?" No, no one bothers. Do you know why? Because everybody knows perfectly well that the Liberals will never keep their promises; they have never kept any promise.


An hon. Member:: We have always kept our promises.


Gilles Grégoire: There is a member, Mr. Speaker, to whom we shall soon send a cork so that he may plug his jug.


An hon. Member:: I have one for you.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, it is the same thing for all the promises made to the people during the electoral campaign.


An hon. Member:: Hail Hitler-


Gilles Grégoire: -but we are not going to deprive the people of what little they have and to take their earnings away from them by means of taxes. Now the people are not much better off. The government makes paupers out of them, and then gives them a little more, but in the long run, it amounts to about the same. Social Credit would instead bring the Bank of Canada to reason.
258	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Gregoire
I know that this will not please too much those who, in this house, speak in defence of the chartered banks. But, in so doing, the Bank of Canada will have control of money and credit in our country instead of the chartered banks, which will be unable then to set the purchasing power according to their whims, because from then on it will be set according to logic, according to the production, according to the work of the people. In that way, when our people will have worked hard to produce, they will be able to buy what they have produced.
Mr. Speaker, I went around the beautiful riding of Lapointe, last June 18, to meet my constituents. To all of them, I asked this question "What do you expect from us in parliament?" What do you want us to do for you? And the reply was unanimous. Besides, I am convinced that if each one of us visited his constituency, he would get the same answer: what we want is work; what we want is a solution to the unemployment problem; what we want is work for our people so that they may earn their living honourably in Canada, a country which is overloaded with wealth and which is able to provide a living for everyone.
Mr. Speaker, for those reasons, and since it is the people's wish, we, the Social Credit members, are asking without any political partisanship that the government introduce in Canada a vast public works program, a program which, from coast to coast, will serve to attune this country to the rhythm that twentieth century progress can allow.
There are hospitals, colleges, universities, bridges, roads and several other things that should be built. And yet, even if we have the necessary materials to build all those things, even if we have the steel, the labour and the engineers, even if we have the asphalt, the bricks, the plaster etc. for all that, our government seems to prefer to leave our people unemployed.
Mr. Speaker, we suggest there is a way of carrying out those projects while leaving at the same time the provinces free to act in their own areas. But the government should then see to it that the Bank of Canada becomes, not only the bank of the central government, but also the bank of the provinces and of the municipalities, in other words, the bank of the whole people, so that the provinces may secure from the Bank of Canada interest-free loans to carry out those projects


which are essential to our country; this not only will enrich our people, but will also contribute the development of their security and their freedom.
Mr. Speaker, there are many projects which should be carried out at the federal, provincial, municipal and school board levels. But strange as it seems, the governments nearer to the people, those with the most urgent works to carry out, are precisely those with the least income, while the central government, which is farther away from the people, grabs the largest share of the taxes. The municipal government, the most important one as far as the private individual is concerned, the one closest to him, the one which has to build streets, waterworks, maintain fire and police departments, carry out maintenance work, is the one with the fewest sources of income.
The federal government's responsibilities towards the private citizen are much smaller, less important. And, what matters even more, the government which is closest to the private citizen, while it has many projects to carry out, does not have the money to perform the work. Why not let him go to the Bank of Canada, or to the municipal development bank, to try and secure an interest-free loan so that it may build the things it needs.
When you see a municipal council holding a meeting and ratepayers asking the mayor, the aldermen, for a road, a street to be paved, a sewer to be built, a water system to be installed, not a single alderman raises his hand to ask where the asphalt, the machinery, the engineers are to come from. None of them puts that question. All raise their hands to ask where to get money to build this road or these waterworks.
The same thing happens at the provincial level. There are delegations coming to meet the minister of health to request the building of a hospital which is needed so that sick people can be cared for locally. What is the government's answer? We have no money. Always the same answer. If, instead of being asked to build a hospital, these people were asked to build a bank to pile up dollars in it; would it be different? That is the whole thing: no funds.
Mr. Speaker, upon careful reflection, we wonder why, if we have men smart enough to ensure the progress that we witness today and to invent the machines used to develop our country as it is nowadays, why those

very men are completely unable to attune our monetary system to the present realities, to changing conditions.
That is important today, Mr. Speaker. We know that our engineers have discovered amazing production techniques. Our people have courage and are willing to work, but something is lacking: this token, this little note which will allow them to achieve economically what is physically possible.


An hon. Member:: I am going to cry.


Gilles Grégoire: I heard a member say he is on the verge of crying. If I were he, I would weep at the thought of the foolishness and stupidity of the system under which this country is carrying on at present. Unemployment and poverty are rampant while means to ensure its prosperity lie dormant.
I remember very well the election campaign of 1957 when the Liberals travelled throughout the country kissing babies and saying that Canada was a rich country.
If the country is rich, why are the Canadian people poor? Where is the country's prosperity to be found?
Pay a visit to the homes of your constituents. Go and see them. Maybe you would find it embarrassing to do so. That may be the reason why you do not know what is going on. Go and see your constituents. Do not give previous notice of your visit through the papers that the hon. member for Laurier or a member for some other riding will be paying a visit to his constituents, because they will hasten to spread out the silverware, dress the children in their Sunday best, and wash the dishes. But if you go unannounced, you will see that the prosperity the Liberal leader was talking about in 1957 is not to be found in Canadian homes.
When boasting about the system we have to bear, Mr. Speaker, they tell us that there are engineers, scientists, and citizens who try to produce in quantity. But it may be recalled that five, 10 or 15 years ago, subsidies were paid to cut down pork production. Two dollars were awarded for stopping each little pig from being born. I advise you, who are going to lose out in the next appeal to the people, to set yourself up in that trade. With $2 for each little pig which is not bred, if you have some ambition, and refrain from breeding 20,000 a year, you may retire from business.
Those are stories about little pigs to add to the tales about monkeys and dogs. That means that inspiration is sought in that area.
The Address-Mr. Gregoire
Mr. Speaker, when, in spite of a huge production, and in spite of stocking up commodities our people are still in distress, some people keep telling us yet that there is no lack of buying power, but only of the capacity to buy. The proof, it is said, is that people are buying. But we are not told about it, and the hon. member for Laurier also forgot to tell us this morning, because it fits into his pattern that things would go that way, that people would buy on instalment plans, and be exploited by finance companies jointly with the chartered banks. People keep on buying furniture and other similar items and paying twice the price, because they are forced to resort to instalment buying, which is an exploitation of the public with the co-operation of the chartered banks.
We shall also be told-and I was surprised to see how many there are in this house who always have pressing and urgent questions to ask as soon as the house meets and begin to speak about foreign markets, and the necessity to find some outlets here and there. Mr. Speaker, here is a good piece of advice, a good suggestion for the government: if they only turned to the Canadian market, to the Canadian consumers, I am convinced that if they tried as hard to develop the Canadian market as they did to find foreign markets, is is not only one, two or three billion dollars that would be added to our sales revenues, but $20 and $25 billion. That increase in our sales on the Canadian market would be possible if the citizens of Canada were given the necessary purchasing power to buy our Canadian products.
Mr. Speaker, during those few minutes, there may have been a few brief humorous digressions, but let us analyse the following point which summarizes almost everything: We are not here merely to talk, we are here to take action.
But what action? In the interests of the people. We are 265 who have been elected from all over Canada to come here and safeguard the interests of the people. For once, let us think of the people. Let us think of the worker, of the farmer, of the small businessman, of the small contractor, of our population as a whole. Let us ask ourselves what the people want: is it a healthy regime where Canadians will be able to benefit from the richness of the country, which God has given us in His bounty and which Canadian citizens, have, by their intelligence, abundantly developed.
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time having expired, I call on the hon. parliamentary secretary.

The Address-Mr. Jorgenson


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to all of the forceful eloquence of the past few days I almost hesitate to rise at this time, but I do wish to make a few observations particularly with respect to the omissions of the Leader of the Opposition in outlining the policies of the Grit party. Before doing this, however, I should like to follow the time honoured tradition of this house in offering my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Their speeches reflected a great deal of credit to themselves and honour to their constituencies. At this time, sir, I should like also, on behalf of hon. members from my province, to offer our congratulations to you on the position you now hold in this house. You, too, sir, have brought honour to our province.
During the course of this debate we have noticed the omissions from policy statements expressed by those who oppose us. I was particularly interested in the wild appeal by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), who displayed rather a lack of caution in making the remarks he made. One thing that did disturb me, and I think this came from at least two corners of the Liberal party, was the statement that it was incredible that 50 members could obstruct the work of a government which had a majority or a membership of 200. I would remind them that the only way 200 members could impose their will upon 50 members would be by imposing closure and by restricting debate. If what they have said means that they are going to impose their will on the house, then we know what to expect in the unlikely event the Liberals are re-elected.
I do want to deal with this matter that has been omitted by the Leader of the Opposition, and that is the question of agriculture. I should like to put on the record, since the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) failed to do so, the policy of the Grit party. It was a rather interesting experience to watch the hon. member for Assiniboia. I recall the time he joined in marriage with the Liberals earlier this year, a blushing bride expecting to live in the lap of luxury. Since that time, however, the honeymoon has been long over. We find that, much to the dismay of the hon. member I am sure, he is being called upon to wash the dirty laundry. This was what he was called upon to do the other day. The Leader of the Opposition failed to make any mention of agriculture for the plain and simple reason that hon. members opposite have no agricultural policy.


An hon. Member:: Wrong again.
[Mr. Deputy Speaker.)


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: The hon. member was thrown into the breach during the election campaign because the Liberals had failed to come up with anything resembling an agricultural policy. They felt that by simply bringing in the hon. member for Assiniboia, they could win the west. However, this did not prove to be the case. The hon. member was pretty well restricted to the boundaries of his own constituency and barely succeeded in returning to this house. However, we welcome him and are looking forward to his participation in the debates in the days to come.
This afternoon, I should like to outline, not the policy of this party because the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) is going to do that, but to correct the omissions of hon. members opposite and reveal, in their true form, the policies that were enunciated by the Liberal party in their agriculture pamphlet. I am reading here from the Winnipeg Free Press and I am sure this is an accurate report of the Liberal party platform. I did not get a copy of their policy statement but I am sure it is correctly revealed in this item. One of the first statements that is made in outlining the agricultural policy is that they are going to expand Canada's efforts to expand farm products. I wonder precisely what this means?
What has been the reaction of the Liberal party to the efforts that have been made by this government to export farm products? What was their attitude on the China grain sale, and particularly the attitude of the hon. member for Assiniboia? What has been the reaction to the efforts of this Minister of Agriculture to find markets for Canadian agriculture products? One would have thought, from listening to these people in this debate and on the hustings throughout the years we have been the government party, that nothing had been achieved in the field of agriculture. They choose to ignore completely the things that have been done. Indeed, they have even prevented their own members from learning the true facts of agriculture policy. Just a few days ago this was illustrated when one hon. member of the Liberal party asked when his government was going to extend crop insurance to the eastern farmers.


Hazen Robert Argue: When are you going to do it in
the west? You have not done it either place.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Now, the hon. member interrupts as is his nature. He knows quite well that the Leader of the Opposition stated when they implement their policy they are going to do so in co-operation with the provinces; yet the hon. member sits in his seat, does not rise, and says, when are you going to do it? He would wish us to impose a system of crop insurance on the provinces when he knows

full well the details of this crop insurance policy. If the hon. member will just contain himself for just a moment-


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would the hon. member say when the federal government is going to sign the crop insurance agreement which Manitoba signed last May?


Michael Starr: Watch that you do not lose
your seat next time.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: I think he is getting all agitated because he fears that the policies of the party he represents are going to be revealed. I do not blame him for getting that way.


Hazen Robert Argue: Manitoba signed an agreement in May. You have not signed it yet.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: You had an opportunity to make your own speech.


Hazen Robert Argue: What about the Manitoba crop insurance agreement signed by that province last May?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Robinson:: Take your medicine.


Michael Starr: You will not be here next time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: He interjects because he knows well what the policy is, what the agreement is.


Hazen Robert Argue: But you will not sign it.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Manitoba has a program of crop insurance based on the provisions of the federal agricultural policy in the federal crop insurance program, and he knows full well it is up to the individual provinces to develop this program.


Hazen Robert Argue: This is the re-insurance agreement.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: I am glad the hon. member has mentioned the re-insurance program because over there is a group of people who refused to do anything about crop insurance. It is this government which put crop insurance on the statute books, and this government is going to expand and develop that program. They talk as though that program was not in existence. Indeed this was reflected in one of the hon. members opposite asking if there was such a program and. if there was, were we going to extend it to the eastern provinces.


Michael Starr: They never heard of it.
The Address-Mr. Jorgenson


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: That is typical of the way in which they have completely refused to take into consideration the things that have been done. The world stopped for them on June 10, 1957.
As the second item in their policy they say they are going to provide farmers with information on markets. Well, it was just a short while ago that the Minister of Agriculture outlined the program he was contemplating in doing this precise thing; but when it came up in the estimates the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate, who was then their spokesman for agriculture, criticized the minister's efforts in expanding the work of the information division to provide information on markets, to provide the precise thing that the hon. member opposite now seeks.


An hon. Member:: That was political information he was talking about.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Political information? I
wonder what type of information hon. members opposite would distribute.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yours is mainly about the birds and the bees.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: The hon. member for
Bonavista-Twillingate opposed that effort and criticized the expenditures that were going to be involved in providing this information. I just wonder who is the official spokesman for hon. members opposite.
The third point in their policy is that they are going to establish an independent research council to improve consultation between federal and provincial agricultural departments and all farm organizations. I would like them to tell me how, in heaven's name, this council would be independent if they are going to set it up. They have completely forgotten the fact that such a council was set up and is now in operation. Yes, indeed, the world stopped for them in 1957. The council that has been set up was as a result of the initiative taken by the minister of agriculture from Manitoba. All organizations and levels of government are involved in it. One of the greatest problems confronting the council was to ensure that it retained its independence, and I can assure you that had hon. members opposite been given the responsibility for setting it up it would certainly be anything but independent.
Their platform, or what passes for a platform, reminds me of the first step on a streetcar. It is not meant to stand on; just to get in on. Certainly what we have seen of Liberal agricultural policies as outlined in this pamphlet would indicate the hollowness of their proposals.
They have said they would expand Canada's efforts to improve water conservation

The Address-Mr. Jorgenson and encourage the growth of industries in local communities. What do they suppose was the purpose for which the ARDA legislation was passed? One would think they had never heard of it.


Hazen Robert Argue: How many water development projects have been undertaken under ARDA to date? None.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: The Leader of the Opposition said that the policies they would implement would be in co-operation with the provinces, but he knows full well that the provinces are currently working on their programs.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes, but you are not. That is the whole trouble.


Michael Starr: You never heard of ARDA until it was introduced.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: The speech made by the hon. member for Assiniboia was dealt with very well by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) last night, and I do not intend to deal with it in much detail. The speech of the hon. member for Assiniboia contained absolutely nothing about the agricultural pjoposals of his party.


Hazen Robert Argue: You are wrong, all wrong.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: If he mentioned one thing that could be construed as a constructive proposal, then I would like to hear it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Do you want to hear it now?


An hon. Member:: You had your chance.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: He mentioned something about the Grit party providing $2 a bushel for No. 1 wheat based at Fort William.


Hazen Robert Argue: A floor.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: The farmers would be guaranteed $2 a bushel.


Hazen Robert Argue: A floor.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: This is not what they said during the election campaign.


Hazen Robert Argue: You are wrong again.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: ".. .$2 a bushel for No. 1 northern wheat, Fort William." Read it in Hansard.


Hazen Robert Argue: A floor.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: He guaranteed $2 a bushel for No. 1 northern wheat for three years. He said it a second time.


Hazen Robert Argue: I rise on a point of order. The parliamentary secretary is deliberately misinterpreting my remarks. I said that this policy was a $2 floor and there would be a parity price for domestic wheat above the floor.


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: I know it is not a point of order but I am glad the hon. member has raised it because it gives me a chance to quote from Hansard. At page 166 of Hansard for October 3, the hon. member is reported as saying:
The policy of the Liberal party to guarantee $2 a bushel for No. 1 northern for three years is a good policy and a necessary policy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a floor.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: There is nothing in Hansard about a floor.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then you will not accept the word of an hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What is a guarantee if it is not a floor?


Hazen Robert Argue: You guaranteed $1.50 as an initial price. That is 50 cents less. That is what you guaranteed.


An hon. Member:: Ask the farmers what they are getting.


Hazen Robert Argue: That was your guarantee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. gentleman take his seat please? The exchange has become so audible that it is hard to tell whether the hon. member for Assiniboia is making the speech, or the hon. parliamentary secretary. I think opportunities will arise in the ordinary course of debates during the session to go further into these matters. That should be the philosophy applied by the hon. member for Assiniboia and I would ask his co-operation.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now for the records. I am going to point out -and I am sure the farmers will be interested in knowing-what this $2 a bushel for No. 1 northern, based at Fort William, means to them in dollars and cents. From the records of the Canadian wheat board's annual report I shall give certain information which I am sure is also available to the hon. member for Assiniboia. First of all, the final price given to producers in the year 1956-57 was $1.58. That leaves a difference of 42 cents. There were 230,854 permit holders that year and there was a total production of 1,565,907 bushels of No. 1 wheat which represent .43 per cent of the total volume of wheat. If hon. members figure this out they will find that as a result of this policy each farmer would have received $2.84. This is the policy which' the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) now advances as a member of the Liberal party. At the time the farmers marched down here the same hon. member wanted to give them $1,500. A little while

later when he was sitting over in the corner, he called a payment of $2 peanuts. Today, $2.84 is enough. In 1957-58, the total amount received by each farmer would have been $1.38. In 1958-59 it would have been $6.73, and in 1959-60, $3.90. In 1960-61 it would have been $7.02, making a total in five years of $21.87 per farmer or an average of $4.37. This is the policy which is being advocated by the Liberal party in support of wheat prices for the western farmer.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is a completely false statement.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Well, all the hon. member has to do is to consult the wheat board records and figure it out for himself. It surely cannot be beyond his capacity.


An hon. Member:: Diefenbaker mathematics.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: They are my own. This is the figure-$4.37.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Are those ninety cent dollars?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: There speaks the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) who, every time he rises, tries to convince the house that he is a wit. He has only half convinced me.
Well, the opposition has a policy. Its policy is to have the Liberal candidates in the west try to convince farmers out there that this government is doing everything for the east and nothing for them. Then the Liberal candidates in eastern Canada try to tell the voters that everything is being done by this government for the western farmers at the expense of the east. It is the old policy of divide and rule-the old trick used by the Liberals over the years. They have chosen to ignore or belittle what has been done by this government in the field of agriculture. In addition, they carry on a program of vituperation and vilification against members of the cabinet and, in particular, against the Prime Minister. By behaviour of this kind they hope to convince the people of Canada that they are worthy-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Cry baby boys.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, as is his custom, makes most of his comments from the seat of his pants. One would think from their quality that that is precisely whence they emanate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I suppose that is not dealing with personalities-that is statesmanlike.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: In the course of this debate the hon. member for Assiniboia has been defending policies, I presume on behalf of the Liberal party, which would have the result of assisting those who least need assistance.
27507-3-184
The Address-Mr. MacEachen The deficiency payment proposal so strongly advocated by the hon. member would have had the effect of helping the farmers who at least need assistance. We recall that when the hon. member belonged to the old C.C.F. group which used to sit over in that corner of the house he expressed great concern for the family farm and for the small farmer.


Hazen Robert Argue: I still do.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Nevertheless, he sits now and associates himself with those opposite. He has deserted the farmer who needs help- the small farmer and the man who is attempting to establish himself-by advocating and supporting policies which would have the net result of assisting the large farmers who need help least. Mr. Speaker, have you ever seen a greater manifestation of sanctimonious hypocrisy than that exhibited by hon. members opposite?


Hazen Robert Argue: Let us not forget the coalition.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: During the course of this debate, the Minister of Agriculture will have an opportunity of dealing with some of the points raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia. I wanted merely to put on record the essence of what constitutes Liberal policy since hon. members opposite are ashamed to do so themselves, and for a very good reason. They have never been concerned with the problems of agriculture and they have demonstrated this time and time again. They have followed the tactics of running around poking farmers in the ribs and saying: "You look well fed." Instead of making vigorous efforts to sell grain their attitude has been: "If they want it, they know where they can come and get it." They have not changed. They are the same old bunch. As long as they remain over there they can do no harm. The people of western Canada know this, and are prepared to keep them precisely over there on the benches opposite.


Mr. Allan J. MacEachen (Inverness-Rich-mond):: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be words of sincere congratulation to yourself on the high position you occupy. I wish you well as you cultivate those heroic virtues which are required in that high office. I wish also to associate myself with the remarks made by other hon. members in congratulating the mover and seconder of the address in reply. I think they set a standard that many of us wish to emulate.
This is the third parliament which I have attended as the representative of the electors of the constituency of Inverness-Richmond and I wish to acknowledge with gratitude the confidence they have shown in sending me to the House of Commons. No man is more

The Address-Mr. MacEachen responsible for my return to the House of Commons than the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) who, as leader of the Liberal party, has striven mightily and successfully to put the Liberal party in a position to provide an alternative to the present truncated ministry.
The Leader of the Opposition has served his country in war and peace with nobility of spirit and great distinction and it is surprising to me that this morning the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) should have developed the line he did. Is the Leader of the Opposition or any other member of the House of Commons to keep silent when the mistakes and follies of this government lower Canada's reputation and tarnish her good name?
Is the Leader of the Opposition to remain silent when the relations of Canada with other friendly countries are worsened because of the conduct of ministers? Are these men who identify themselves, even as a minority government, with Canada to be immune from criticism? How vain and thinskinned can you get? This morning the Secretary of State for External Affairs complained of smearing; and this from a gentleman who, in a speech in Vancouver, suggested, or hinted or implied, that Premier Khrushchev was working for the Liberals in the last election, from one who, with his colleagues, dared to attack our party and its leader by saying that we wished to ruin our country if we could not rule it. A man who has said that should step silently and softly when he talks about defamation.
Mr. Speaker, I want to bring the house back for a moment to the night of June 18. On that night the people of Canada rendered their verdict on the conduct of the present government. The issues had been presented to the people of Canada in a long and vigorous election campaign. The results are evident: the government was defeated at the polls, it lost the confidence of the majority of Canadians, and it suffered the greatest haemorrhage of government supporters in the history of Canada. Even though the government was demoralized, even though it had lost the confidence of the people of Canada, the government had to carry on. The Queen's government must go on. The very first thing, so we are told, that the government had to face was a crisis in foreign exchange of major proportions. We believe, Mr. Speaker, that the actions of the government on previous occasions and its wrong policies were responsible for that exchange crisis. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fleming) told us last night that it was a minority government that caused the run on the dollar. Well, that is a new theory which will be added to the theory

on international exchanges; a theory on the same level of sophistication as the view that sun spots cause depressions.
The government was faced with this exchange crisis and it took action. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in a statement to the people of Canada stated that action was necessary to save the dollar. Action was taken and embodied in an order in council which the Prime Minister said was within limits approved by parliament; that he was acting with authority given to him by parliament. The order in council that put into effect sweeping emergency measures rests on two statutes: the Customs Tariff and the Financial Administration Act. One part of the order in council removes the application of the British preferential and intermediate tariffs and accordingly raises the level of tariffs to the general tariff. The second part of the order in council utilizes the Financial Administration Act to relieve individuals in the country from the operation of the first part of the order in council.
Does anybody, Mr. Speaker, in his right mind believe that the statutes on which this order in council is founded were intended to allow a government to take extraordinary and sweeping action to avert a further depletion of Canada's reserves? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) very properly questioned yesterday the legality of this order in council. I am not a lawyer and I certainly do not intend to argue the legality or the illegality of the order in council. But I will say that the government was certainly straining very hard when it chose these two statutes upon which to base this particular sweeping measure. We have had very impressive legal advice suggesting that this order in council is indeed illegal, and that all the regulations and activities carried on under the order in council are consequently illegal. We have had that opinion. The Minister of Justice said that it is completely legal. I do not want to argue that point, but I do want to say this, Mr. Speaker, that once the government had taken this emergency action embodied in an order in council, its first constitutional obligation was to bring parliament together, to bring the elected representatives of the people together, so that they could exercise their traditional and cherished rights of dealing with the taxation that is imposed upon them. Mr. Speaker, the government were obliged to call parliament together. We say that they should have called parliament at the earliest possible moment, even without a crisis, even without emergency and sweeping measures being taken. We say that surely, in the midst of a national emergency, the first obligation of a ministry that had lost the confidence

of the Canadian people, that did not command a majority of the House of Commons, was to call parliament together and give the elected representatives of the people a chance to exercise their constitutional rights.
Mr. Speaker, in this country for over 100 years we have enjoyed the benefits of responsible government. We know that responsible government is not prescribed by any specific statute; rather it is a principle of the constitution that sustains and supports the statutes. In Great Britain, for example, since 1688 the responsibility of the ministers to parliament has been enforced by certain various specific legal requirements. The legal requirement or the constitutional requirement that concerns us now is the requirement that the ministers shall neither collect nor expend moneys without the expressed authorization of parliament. This requirement is of absolutely first rate importance to our democratic system, and that requirement was not fulfilled or lived up to by the present government. During the 17th century when the system under which we live was worked out in England there were doubts about parliament's absolute right in the field of taxation but all these were settled conclusively by a provision of the bill of rights of 1689 which declares as follows:
Levying money for or to the use of the crown by pretence of prerogative without consent of parliament for longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted is illegal.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this order in council which is now the basis for these sweeping measures has been put into effect by the government presuming to itself the pretence of a prerogative. We know that later on in the United Kingdom great deference to this principle is illustrated by a decision of the House of Lords in the case of the Attorney General v. Wilts United Dairies. In this case it was decided that the crown could not collect taxes under a statute which did not clearly and expressly confer on the crown that right. I ask hon. gentlemen if they will point to a single part of the statutes under which they are operating which clearly and expressly confers on the crown the authority which they presume in the order in council.
Professor Hood Phillips of Gray's Inn, in his standard work on "The Constitutional Law of Great Britain and the Commonwealth" has written as follows:
It has been settled law since the early seventeenth century that the King in Council has no power to make laws for the realm except as a delegate of parliament. Perhaps the most significant application of this principle lies in the rule that no person or body other than parliament... can raise taxes or spend public money, for it was round that issue of taxation that the earlier struggles between King and Parliament mostly raged.
The Address-Mr. MacEachen
Sir Erskine May, an authority frequently quoted in this house, makes the same point:
The crown demands money, the Commons grant it, and the Lords assent to the grant: but the Commons do not vote money unless it be required by the crown; nor do they impose or augment taxes, unless such taxation be necessary for the public service, as declared by the crown through its constitutional advisers.
Another authority, namely Eric Taylor in his work "The House of Commons at Work", states as follows:
Underlying all the financial procedure of the house are certain ancient maxims or rules, some of them the prize of centuries of struggle with the crown.
He then goes on to enumerate these maxims, and the first of them is as follows:
(1) the granting of public money, and the imposing of taxation, is the function of parliament, not of the the Queen or the government.
This order in council which has not come before parliament-and we have no indication that it will come before parliament- collects and imposes taxation. May I end this reference to authorities by referring to a quotation from Edmund Burke on this point, referring to this struggle to establish this very principle, namely the right of parliament to impose taxation:
They took infinite pains to inculcate as a fundamental principle, that in all monarchies, the people must in effect themselves, mediately or immediately, possess the power of granting their own money, or no shadow of liberty could subsist.
I suggest that the action taken by the cabinet through the sweeping measures in imposing taxation violates this fundamental constitutional principle as parliament has not been given any indication that it will have an opportunity to approve this action taken by the government.
If I may, I should like to refer to a Canadian illustration in order to indicate how jealous the House of Commons is of its right to collect money and impose taxation. In 1914, to deal with the emergencies of a great war, parliament enacted the War Measures Act. That act is still on the statute books of this country as our chief statutory provision for wars and insurrections. It permits the governor in council to do almost everything that the governor in council may deem necessary. Yet in 1939 an interdepartmental committee established to examine the effects of this War Measures Act found that under this act no government could impose taxation without the authorization of parliament.
This principle is very important because even under the War Measures Act the government cannot arrogate to itself the authority which it arrogated to itself under the order in council to which I have already referred. Yet the great defence of the procedure followed in this instance was to go
266	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. MacEachen back to 1947 and to say that the Liberal government of that day was obliged to impose sweeping measures as it did, that it imposed these measures under an order in council and that "We are doing the same thing; what is wrong with it?"
I wish to tell hon. members what my investigation has revealed concerning the procedure followed in 1947. It is true that Mr. Abbott on the radio made an announcement about these extraordinary measures. But in his speech, a copy of which I have before me, he has this to say:
Now that the government's proposals have been announced, we propose to follow the usual budgetary practice of asking parliament-
I emphasize the words "of asking parliament".
-to make them effective from the time of announcement, and taxes at the new rates will therefore be collected on all sales by manufacturers and on imports, beginning tomorrow morning.
In that announcement Mr. Abbott advised the Canadian people that he would be laying these measures before parliament at the earliest possible opportunity. Parliament met at the earliest possible opportunity, namely on December 5, 1947, and what do we find from the speech from the throne? We find these words:
Provision of a temporary character has been made to conserve and supplement Canada's reserves of United States dollars.
The measures recently announced to deal with the various aspects of the immediate foreign exchange difficulty will be submitted for your approval.
To parliament. That was in the speech from the throne. When parliament met the then prime minister, Mr. King, asked permission to interrupt the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne to bring in these measures. The leaders of the other parties wanted to exercise their right to make speeches on the address in reply. This was on a Friday, I think, and Mr. King told the house that on the following Thursday Mr. Abbott would introduce those measures in the House of Commons so that parliament would have an opportunity to deal with the measures which Mr. Abbott had announced on the radio on November 17.
How different in this case. The Prime Minister in his statement on television on June 24 made no reference to submitting these measures to parliament, not a word, not a gesture.


Mr.   Mariin@Essex Easi: He said we should cool off.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He told us to cool off. Now we get the speech from the throne, and you can search it word by word and you will find not a single reference to an opportunity being provided to validate the action taken by the ministry. Is there any mention of


legislation? Have we seen anything on the order paper? Nothing. That is the difference between the present action and the Liberal action in 1947. At that time the action was announced and parliament was brought together. We had a majority government then. We did not have a government depending upon the unstable whims of a minority group in the House of Commons; but that majority government brought the legislation to the House of Commons for approval.
What did hon. gentlemen of the Conservative party, some of whom are in the ministry today, say on that occasion even though Mr. Abbott had brought legislation into the house to validate , his actions? Here is what one hon. gentleman, the present Prime Minister demanded to know of one minister on December 11, 1947. He said to the minister as found at page 189 of Hansard:
Can he tell me in any country of an occasion where taxation has been imposed by a minister, by order in council?
That was the Prime Minister who asked that question in 1947 when he had an opportunity to debate and approve the action taken by the government. Later, as found on page 408 of Hansard of December 17, the present Prime Minister had this to say:
Did something happen on November 17 that made it necessary for this government to depart from the time-honoured procedure of having parliament called together for the purpose of having budget proposals presented in a legal and constitutional form?
If the right hon. gentleman could make the welkin ring in 1947 when parliament was given an opportunity to debate a number of proposals, it is no wonder that hon. members of this house should feel outraged at the action of the government in not even intimating that we are going to have an opportunity to deal with these sweeping measures.


An hon. Member:: King John.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I intend to place an amendment before the house, Mr. Speaker, so that the House of Commons will have an opportunity to declare itself on this fundamental constitutional issue, to declare whether commoners, members of the Canadian House of Commons, still have the constitutional right to impose taxation and collect moneys. I am moving this amendment at this stage after an amendment and subamendment have been disposed of on the basis of a precedent of this house in 1957. Therefore I am completely regular, I believe, in moving an amendment at this stage. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin):
That the following be added to the address:
"We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that the failure of Your Excellency's advisers to place

before this house at the earliest opportunity a measure to approve the collection of taxes which have been imposed by order in council, as part of the austerity program, denies to this house the exclusive constitutional right to approve the imposition of additional taxation which is the foundation of our system of responsible government."


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? The hon. member for Royal.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, you will excuse my hesitancy in rising but as a new member I am not yet fully aware of all the machinations of this house. I am wondering why the last speaker could not save time by challenging the order in council in the courts if he is so positive about its illegality.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Never mind about parliament.


Mr. Fairweather:: After what happened in 1947 the Liberals should choke on the citations just quoted. It is particularly gratifying to me to represent the constituency of Royal because of the fact that for 25 years the government leader in the Senate served his people and New Brunswick as a fine representative of this constituency. The fact that I succeed him has made it doubly pleasant for me because of the residue of good will which still surrounds his name and his record of public service in this place. I also wish, Mr. Speaker, to pay tribute to your thoughtful yet fair guardianship of the rules of this house, without which it seems to me it could rapidly rival the tower of Babel of ancient times. The mover and seconder are now basking in an aura of well merited tribute for the manner in which they began this historic debate. May I, too, pay tribute to them.
Now, I have one other compliment I wish to pay, and it is to the former minister of justice. As a lawyer and a former provincial legislator I have had many opportunities of knowing his unique contribution to the better administration of justice in Canada. The national parole board, the new enlightened penal policy, including the establishment of minimum security facilities, are but one or two aspects of the forward looking reforms for which this country is the better. The justice ministry is not a popular portfolio in the fickle imagination of the public. Nevertheless, the Hon. Davie Fulton is entitled to recognition for the special qualities he brought to this department.
If I could classify and isolate a single impression, Mr. Speaker, after a week as a member of this house, it would have to be that words, and their ordinary plain meaning,
The Address-Mr. Fairweather are really not very ordinary, neither are they plain. They seem to take on shades and partisan connotations. Now, perhaps this is all very well in this house, although somehow I doubt it. But it does seem to me it makes our supposed dialogue with the public a bit complex. In addition, I am one of those who believe that words should be jealously treated.
May I illustrate this by reminding the house that during our Prime Minister's visit to London last month the Leader of the Opposition in a particularly unpatriotic and uncharacteristic way, said that Canada's attitude was little more than carping criticism. Then, in his speech on Tuesday last the Leader of the Opposition, among many other criticisms of Canada's stand in London, said that this government exhibited its peculiar genius for getting into unnecessary difficulty with its friends. In the Guardian of Manchester on September 12, the well known correspondent Patrick Keatley wrote this:
The prime ministers and the presidents hurled verbal thunderbolts but they did it with courtesy, precision and a marked lack of excess emotion or phony histrionics.
In a lead editorial entitled "The Reality of Consultation" a few days later the same newspaper said:
Mr. Macmillan has made a powerful case for British entry into the common market. Equally the commonwealth prime ministers have made a strong case for questioning the terms so far provisionally agreed in Brussels .. .
The editorial ends in this way:
It is a little frightening that, in all the volume of British press comment and public discussion, there has been so little talk of the commonwealth's detailed anxieties. Rightly the government (of the U.K.) and much of the press have emphasized the gains to be won by British entry into Europe. Rightly, too, the risks of staying out have been recalled. But we must also listen to what the commonwealth says-and not just brush it aside as due to domestic politics or unreal fears. Not long ago Conservatives in this country (U.K.) complained because others were supposed to have advocated "unconditional" entry into Europe. Today, ironically, it is the government (of the U.K.) that would like a blind eye turned to these conditions.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit this evidence of the effectiveness of our Prime Minister's contribution at London last month. The point of the conference, after all, was not just to join hands and sing patriotic airs but to see if Messrs. Heath and Macmillan could be forced to demand better terms at Brussels. After all, was this conference meant to be a sterile thing? Was there to be no frankness, no exchange of genuine points of view? For what it is worth, I happen to share the view expressed by the Canadian trade committee in its study of this subject entitled, "The Impact

The Address-Mr. Fairweather of European Integration on Canada." This is a most useful short statement prepared by Mr. Dana Wilgress.
It seems to me that Canada has, in fact, adopted the United States approach in facing the challenge on a regional basis. This will result in some form of trading area with the United States. The great legislative victory won by President Kennedy in the senate recently is good news for Canada and is recognized as such in this government. I think Canada is ready to accept the challenge and, as Mr. Wilgress wrote:
This will involve many difficulties in making the adjustments that become necessary. The stimulus afforded by this necessity may make Canada a stronger nation and a nation better fitted to achieve its destiny.
But it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, we must keep in mind that the common market means more than a united Europe the common market means a common tariff. Before that wall is built around Britain, surely Canada is entitled to some collective bargaining.
The throne speech contains three items that I have selected as being of special interest to the people of the Atlantic part of Canada. First, there is the fact that the program of rehabilitation and development of agricultural lands is proceeding actively and that we will be asked to provide funds for it. I am a great believer in the potential of ARDA. I think it is a great program, a great concept and, to use a word that has been abused in this house, I think it is concrete evidence of a great vision. My only concern is that up to now its potential has not been effectively put across to our farm people. The program should be talked about across this land with the zeal of an evangelist because its potential result could literally save rural Canada.
The national economic development board brings to Canada a pattern that is well established in western Europe, but may I suggest that it cannot work here without the voluntary support of labour and management. It also depends on their enthusiastic participation in the planning process. This is the crux of the program and one which must be free of petty political manoeuvering and petulant staged exits of those who must share in the common responsibility for economic and social development.
I shall next deal with another board which has been sought in the Atlantic provinces for many years and is now a part of the evolving pattern of this government's support for the three maritime provinces and Newfoundland. It is the Atlantic development board which has been unanimously welcomed by the press in Atlantic Canada. I am sure that if it is rapidly established and gets down to its job it

can make a great contribution to the solution of our economic problems. This approach towards regional decisions for regional problems has long been part of the British government's policy, and also has been in vogue in France. It has helped to solve economic problems in Wales and Scotland, and I believe it can be of great help to eastern Canada.
However, I would hope that, in addition to the setting up of this board, greater flexibility would be provided in our banking system which would allow cash and credit to be made more readily available in different parts of Canada. I have not given full study to this matter and do not know which particular statute would require amendment, but the federal reserve system in the United States carries out this principle to good effect. In the United States they have an adaptable and flexible policy which has proven to be of beneficial effect. Canada is so large that different antidotes are sometimes needed to take care of various regional problems, and I am sure hon. members would agree that there is no inflation in Atlantic Canada, and very little danger of it.
The establishment by the United Nations and the Food and Agricultural Organization of a world food program must touch the imagination of Canadians, and the fact that this program is the result of Canadian inspiration and initiative must be a cause of modest satisfaction to hon. members. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) so eloquently reminded us the other evening, two thirds of our people in the world are hungry. The fact that Canada proposes to share in a positive program based on a recognition of this human fact should be proof of our intention to do our part in the solution of this world problem. We have actively responded to a need which is ageless. Missions are already crossing the world to catalogue priorities, and we will soon be asked to make proper appropriation in supplying Canada's contribution.
Step by step we have evolved in this land from dependence to independence, and now the road is open to interdependence. I can think of no finer memorial to the late Dag Hammarskjold than the fulfilment of one of the causes he so effectively championed.
Might not the next step be a program outlined in the September 1 edition of the Illustrated London News by Sir Arthur Bryant? In it Sir Arthur writes:
In certain strictly defined and limited cases, where new production of real wealth urgently needed by mankind can be accurately gauged and measured, I feei that it would be possible, without causing any inflationary tendency, to attach to the production of certain forms of universally required wealth, notably the production of mankind's chief need, food, the equivalent creation by the state of interest-free capital which would enable the
2B9

undernourished peoples of the world to absorb the surplus and exportable food production of countries whose peoples are already consuming all the food they require.
Perhaps such a bold program might be part of Canada's adaptation to the changed conditions resulting from Britain's participation in the common market.
My final observation has to do with the national power grid, one more of the visions about which my hon. friends opposite delight in ridiculing the Prime Minister. New Brunswick already knows how beneficial it is to be on a grid with Nova Scotia, and how useful it is to be able to sell surplus power to the adjacent state of Maine. I could never quite understand all the hubbub about the Columbia river, because we have found it most useful and beneficial in New Brunswick to be able to export power to the United States.
To me one of the bright prospects for the Atlantic region, and in particular for the coal mining industry of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, is a national power grid. In one instance it might utilize power from the Columbia and in another power produced by the Hamilton falls in Labrador. It would also be greatly effective in utilizing thermal power generated from the burning of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia coal. This vision is no more unrealistic than was Macdonald's for a cross country railway, and this vision could mate-realize into exporting much more electricity into the power-hungry United States. After all, power lines know no artificial boundaries.
As this debate has progressed it seems to me that speakers have vied with each other in declaring how important is this session of parliament. Let us prove it to the country by proving it to each other.


Mr. John R. Nicholson (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address this chamber for the first time I join with those who congratulated the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They have made a contribution to the work of this house of which both they and their constituents may well be proud.
I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) on his maiden speech in this august assembly. It was interesting, informative and witty.


Mr. McGrath:: Written by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Regardless of whom it was written by, it was an excellent speech. It was well delivered, and I say in all sincerity that Canada and the Liberal party are indeed fortunate that a young Canadian of such unusual ability has seen fit to continue a long line of public service that was begun by his distinguished grandfather, Sir Michael Cashin,
The Address

Mr. Nicholson more than 50 years before Newfoundland entered confederation. As a young man I knew Sir Michael Cashin and I am sure he would have been singularly proud with the efforts of his grandson in his first appearance in this chamber.
A new parliament has just opened-a parliament which is faced with grave and challenging problems. The way in which we address ourselves to these questions will affect not only the welfare of Canada but the welfare of peoples in many other nations. I firmly believe that the standard which the people of Canada will apply to this parliament will be an exacting one, and we should govern ourselves accordingly.
Mr. Speaker, as was drawn to the attention of this house when you recognized me, I, like Saul of Tarsus, come from no mean city. I come from Vancouver, a city which I am told by all who know it is not only one of the most beautiful but also one of the most progressive in Canada. It is also one of the most cosmopolitan cities in Canada. Many of its residents are immigrants and the children of immigrants. We have in Vancouver several thousand Chinese Canadians many of whom have won distinguished places in the life of our community, on the staffs of our universities and in other fields. We have several thousand Canadians of Italian, Greek, Scandinavian, German and Japanese origin. But the great majority of the inhabitants of this city are of Anglo-Saxon, Scottish or Irish descent. Vancouver is also the financial and commercial centre of British Columbia and is one of Canada's greatest seaports. The riding which I have the honour to represent, Vancouver Centre, is in the heart of metropolitan Vancouver. It is the core of a population of approximately 800,000 people. Vancouver, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, is on the west coast of Canada far removed from this capital. What I would like you to understand however, is that I come here as a coast-to-coast Canadian. I wish to assure this house through you, Mr. Speaker, that it will be my endeavour not to indicate any degree of sectionalism or any undue partisanship in points of view to which I may give expression from time to time. Undoubtedly I shall be partisan at times. After all I ran as a Liberal and I am proud of my party and of our leader. I trust, however, that I shall not be unduly partisan.
Having made my position clear, I now wish to say that, in my humble opinion, the first duty to which this parliament should address itself is the recovery of its prerogatives and powers. In June, 1956, I returned to Canada after an absence of some five years in South America. I had occasion to be in Ottawa in the early summer of that year and I followed

The Address-Mr. Nicholson with unusually close attention the proceedings in this house at that time. I did so partly because of my close association with the petroleum industry of Canada through the Polymer Corporation during its first 10 years, and also because of an extended stay in South America where political traditions and practices differ greatly from ours. In several of the Latin-American countries that I have visited, the army plays a most important part in government. It has been said, with some degree of truth, that the army is the greatest democratic force in several of the Latin-American republics. Apart from the army, however, there have been presidents and other national leaders whose viewpoints are extremely nationalistic and who have been highhanded and dictatorial in the way they run the affairs of their countries.
With such a background, it was not surprising that I should follow with unusual interest the matters which were being discussed in this house in the early summer of 1956. In the course of my visit and during the several months that followed I heard several hon. gentlemen, who now occupy front bench seats on the government side, speak in an impassioned and dramatic way about the rights and responsibilities of this house.
The present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) proclaimed time and again in 1956 and 1957, both in and out of the house, that the rights of the members of this house were being ignored and trifled with. I say in all seriousness that the arbitrary, dictatorial actions of the present government during the months which have elapsed since the election in June last are far more deserving of censure and condemnation than anything which took place in the spring and early summer of 1956, especially in the light of subsequent events. Again you will note, Mr. Speaker, it was this same Prime Minister who, in 1958, 1959 and 1960, boasted that he had restored the honour and the prestige of parliament.
Our leader, in his magnificent address on Monday last, dealt effectively with the government's failure to give our nation the leadership needed at this time. He dealt with their failure to implement many of the promises and assurances given in the course of the campaigns in 1957, 1958 and again in 1962. He also referred to the exposure of matters which should have been brought to the attention of the electorate before the election took place but which the people were kept from knowing through the deliberate action of the government in order to win votes.
I had not intended to even refer to what our leader said on these subjects. I would not have done so had it not been for certain things mentioned by the Secretary of State


for External Affairs (Mr. Green) this morning and also by the Prime Minister in the course of his remarks on Tuesday. He said in effect that never in the history of the country had there been such unjustified and unwarranted remarks made in the course of an election campaign and in this house about a government and its leader.
My comment on this statement is that never in the history of this country have the actions of a leader or of a government called for such condemnation. They should be condemned if for no other reason than many of the statements made in the course of the recent election campaign and for making a mockery of their boast that they had restored the rights and prerogatives of this house. As an example of wild and extravagant statements made in order to win votes, I intend to read a few quotations for the benefit of the house. This is what I was criticized for this morning. It was said that I had made wild and extravagant statements in order to win votes. But can hon. members think of anything more extravagant than the statement made by the very minister who made this accusation in this house earlier today? In Hamilton on May 17 the Secretary of State for External Affairs said:
When James Coyne left his post as governor of the Bank of Canada, tight money went too.
How absurd.


Mr. Churchill:: Would the hon. member identify that quotation?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes. It is from a speech made at a political gathering in Hamilton on May 17.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What paper was it taken from?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am not quoting from a paper. I have a note.
On May 12, the Prime Minister, speaking in Medicine Hat, said:
The devaluation will do wonders to increase trade. The critics tell me that inflation will result from this devaluation. Inflation merely means the rising of costs-
Again, the Prime Minister at Edmonton on May 26:
When we removed the headship of the Bank of Canada we removed the strangulation of tight money.
Was there ever a time in the history of this country that we had tighter money than we have today? These are statements made during the course of an election campaign.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Can the hon. member identify those quotations?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Again that statement was made at a political meeting addressed by the

Prime Minister in Edmonton on May 26, as reported in the Edmonton papers. I am now quoting from a newspaper.
At Ottawa on May 29 the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fleming) said this:
We are enjoying in Canada today one of the greatest periods of expansion in all Canadian history. We've achieved in Canada a remarkable stability in the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar.
And the dollar had gone, in a period of months, from a premium of $1.05 to $0.92 and a fraction.
Mr. Speaker, this morning I was criticized in this house for having told the truth that Canada's prestige and reputation had deteriorated greatly since the present government took office. I still believe that to be the case. It has deteriorated, as evidenced by the following articles. In Maclean's magazine, the issue of January 6 of this year, there is an article by Hannon referring to, and quoting from, British periodicals and newspapers of that time. It is headed: "Why even the tolerant British don't like us anymore". I am not going to read the whole article, but the third paragraph begins:
By year end, responsible London newspapers like the Times and the Observer were carrying reports accusing Canada of deliberately trying to obstruct the British entry into the Common Market and of rudeness and discourtesy at the diplomatic level.
Then again further down in the same article:
British annoyance really boiled over though when Finance Minister Donald Fleming insisted on the full text... of a speech by the Lord Privy Seal, Edward Heath... No doubt unintentionally Fleming gave Britons the impression that he thought the full text would be significantly different from the summary he had already received- that is, that Britain was trying to deceive her commonwealth partners and sell them out in secret. When the text was finally published, and turned out to be no more than a clear statement of the well-known British position, Britons stopped trying to conceal their indignation. "Inexcusable", said the Manchester Guardian, and the Daily Herald added:	"Heath is now due for some Canadian
apologies".
1 happened to be in Britain last year, Mr. Speaker, when this agitation was going on, and I was confronted every day with articles in the newspapers and also with comments from people I met from time to time.
The situation still continues. I refer now to an article in the Washington Post on September 17 of this year. The Washington Post says:
-Commonwealth countries, including Canada, probably won't succeed in keeping Britain out of the common market, though it may succeed "in boring the rest of the world with the pettiness of some of their complaints".
The New York Times, one of the finest newspapers in the world, says:
The Address-Mr. Nicholson
-the Commonwealth countries are staging a "virtual revolt" against the mother country at the prime ministers' conference in London.
In an editorial it says the conference issue "lies between Prime Minister Macmillan's dynamic world-wide 'grand design', which takes account of modern economic trends, and the separate and even parochial trade interests of the Commonwealth countries".
The grand design ... calls for Britain's entry into the European economic community "on the basis of the same imperative consideration that created the community".
"As Mr. Macmillan explained, a modern economy can no longer prosper within the narrow confines of a small national state when economic power is shifting to units of continental proportions".
In contrast, the editorial says, the commonwealth countries fear both a potential dissolution of the commonwealth and, more immediately, serious injury to their economies due to an extension of common market tariffs to Britain and loss of the imperial preference for their goods-
The British government is still determined to press ahead ... but the vehemence of the commonwealth opposition is bound to strengthen British domestic opposition.
And lastly the Daily Mail, during the conference in early September of this year, accused the Prime Minister of sulking because of hurt pride in politics.
Mr. Speaker, if anyone should tell me, when you find articles of that nature published in leading newspapers in the United States and leading magazines and periodicals in Britain, that the prestige and international reputation of Canada has not suffered, I would be a very surprised man. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I was accused of making an unthruthful statement and was criticized for it, but I said nothing more than the truth. To me, Mr. Speaker, a new member in this house, it is a shocking and deplorable thing that a government, having made extravagant and irresponsible statements such as those mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition when he reviewed the life of this government, and such as those I have read, which in spite of these misleading statements was beaten at the polls, should insist upon carrying on. To me it is an even more shocking thing for the government to adopt the attitude that it did at the recent prime ministers' conference. The Prime Minister, who had been beaten at the polls, saw fit to go to London purporting to speak for Canada without calling this house together to ascertain how the members felt. Is that the conduct that you would expect from a government which says that it has restored the rights and prestige of parliament?


John Whitney Pickersgill: "Let's cool off".


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Responsible government is the foundation of our democratic institutions. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that I would be gravely remiss in my duties as a member of this house if in my first utterance in debate I did not

The Address-Mr. Nicholson express my opinion of the government's complete disregard of this basic constitutional principle of responsible government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like in the balance of the time at my disposal to deal with the speech from the throne. It is noticeable not so much for what it says but for what it fails to say. There is a sad lack of any clearly-defined program for this session, and a complete failure to recognize that if the economy is to boom again measures must be taken to stimulate growth and production in the nation's industries. Attention has been drawn to the fact that no mention whatever is made in the speech from the throne of Canada's important fishing industry. But what is even more remarkable is that no mention whatever is made of Canada's most important industry, the forestry industry. There is no mention of forests, forestry or forest products in the whole of the speech from the throne. There is a passage to the effect that the government will reintroduce some legislation eliminating or correcting discrimination in the logging tax, but apart from that there is no mention whatever of any intention to improve matters or conditions in the nation's most important industry. And yet, Mr. Speaker, one out of every 12 Canadians working in the nation's goods manufacturing industries is concerned with forestry and the manufacture of products from our trees.
Of all the manufacturing industries in this country the forest industry stands first in employment, first in terms of wages paid, in new investment and in net value of output. Approximately one third of Canada's total export earnings come from the sale of forest products outside of our boundaries or approximately $2 billion a year. Yet in the speech from the throne there is to be found not a word of what the government intends to do to help this industry. It is not only important to the province of British Columbia, where 50 cents of every dollar comes out of the forest industry, but it is also important to the economies of New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec and other provinces.
This industry has serious problems. During the question period yesterday I referred to one of them, namely the move on the part of the lumber industry in the United States, which is by far our most important market, to reduce through a quota arrangement lumber imports from Canada. A hearing opened before the United States tariff commission in Washington earlier this week on a petition lodged by the lumber manufacturers of the Pacific northwest. Vancouver, Ottawa, Toronto and other Canadian papers have made extensive references to this inquiry. The Vancouver papers are full of it. These articles all


highlight one thing, namely that the prime thing that is actuating these Americans in their request is the fact that the Canadian dollar has not only been devaluated but has been pegged at 92J cents. The United States manufacturers put this fact forward as their basic case. They contend that this devaluation of the dollar constitutes a built-in tariff wall. While admittedly the forest and other Canadian industries have gained some temporary advantages from the "pegged" devaluation, the tables are now turning. As the leader of the Liberal party and other spokesmen on this side of the house have been saying for weeks, the tables are now turning and this move of pegging the dollar which has resulted in the built-in tariff is now becoming a matter of grave concern to Canadian lumbermen and other exporters.
I had hoped, Mr. Speaker, that my old friend the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) would be in the house today, as I should like to have congratulated him upon his appointment as Minister of National Revenue. As an old friend I congratulate him on the appointment and I wish him well in the tough spot in which he finds himself because of the government's austerity program. However, in congratulating this new minister upon his appointment I know I voice the feelings of the forest industry in all parts of Canada that it is a matter of grave concern that this government is so short of good men that one man is obliged to handle two of the most important portfolios.


An hon. Member:: One did not exist under the Liberals.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It seems to me that when parliament in its wisdom decides that there should be a department to look after the welfare of the nation's most important industry, the importance of that industry warrants the appointment of a full-time minister to look after it. When the Department of Forestry Act was passed great stress was laid on research. In fact, three of the five subsections which define the powers of the minister deal with research. In the light of the stress that was placed on research, it is a matter of great regret that, as to the research program which the industry hoped for, no action is being taken upon it. Research is urgently and vitally needed in the forest industry in this country. One has only to go back, as some of my friends in the far corner will recall, to the time when hemlock was a waste product in British Columbia, good for little more than a firewood. Suddenly as a result of research it has become a valuable product in the manufacture of high quality pulp and paper. Cedar is equally a wood that was discarded. Eighty per cent of all the

red cedar in the North American continent is in the forests of British Columbia. Only 75 per cent of the cedar is being cut because there is no economic use for the older trees. The matter calls for extensive research. Yet little has been done in that regard.
While -in the speech from the throne reference is made to the fact that the government is going to give the big corporations some tax incentives in order that they may carry on further research, what are they doing for the small businessmen? What are they doing for the loggers in British Columbia, with their stands of cedar, who have these problems to solve? Nothing is being done in that regard as they cannot get any benefit out of these tax incentives. Speaking here on behalf of the small operators in all parts of Canada I say that it is high time the government did something about research in this important field of forestry.
I might say that I have a soft spot in my heart for research because during the 15 years that I was in industry, nine and a half of them in the Polymer Corporation, we plowed millions of dollars into research. Think of the handsome dividends that are being paid today on the money that was timely spent at a difficult time in the history of the Polymer Corporation.
If we were to arrange the large nations of the world today in order of their strength, virility and effectiveness, in either peace or war, we would find a similar order if we were to substitute for effectiveness the total national expenditure a nation makes on scientific research.


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


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, one of the trials under which I suffer now in returning to parliament after four years absence is the long unwieldy title that has been attached to my constituency. I cannot help thinking that it is a typical Conservative action, namely as much as possible to smother reality in words.
In coming back to this chamber after four years absence I must confess that I have been assailed with the disconcerting thought that in spite of the rapid pace of events in the world outside, here is some strange cloud-cuckoo land in which time stands still. What do I find, Mr. Speaker? I find our old friends the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition still brandishing their wooden swords, waving their cardboard shields, fighting the mimic battle all over again as they did previously, as they were doing when I left here in 1958. I suppose one can say there is something quaint, amusing and entertaining in
The Address

Mr. C. Cameron this stylized performance; but to me there is something dismaying and disturbing in the flippant and frivolous manner in which these two eminent gentlemen discussed the problems of the nation, if that is what they were doing, on the highly intellectual plane of "You're another", obviously more concerned not with how Canada's affairs are to be conducted but with who is to get the job of conducting them.
My hon. friend, the leader of this group and member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge), remarked the other day on the strange fact that the Liberal and Conservative parties can examine the same set of statistics and come up with diametrically opposed conclusions. I am equally impressed by the manner in which these two great parties regard certain dates in history such as the year 1957.
The Liberal party, of course, regards the year 1957 as a date hardly less significant than the fall of man when our first parents were expelled from paradise. Ever since, of course, they have been standing wistfully at the gates, like houris at the gates of paradise, hoping again to be admitted to the green gardens. On the other hand, the Conservatives, of course, regard 1957 in much the way in which the leaders of the revolutionary movement, the liberation movement, regard the anniversary of the day on which they led the forces of liberation to victory, and like such liberators they have a tendency, of course, to imagine that by harping on the horrors of the previous government people will tend to overlook the horrors of the new one.
Being neither a Liberal nor a Conservative I have a different view of 1957 and I rather suspect it is the view that history will take of that doom-laden year. I rather suspect that history will regard 1957 as the year in which the Canadian people awoke from a long uneasy slumber, shot by the occasional nightmares of 22 years of Liberal rule, and that when they awoke, rubbed their eyes and regarded the spectacle of the results of those 22 years they went stark, raving mad and elected a Conservative government.
I am interested in the way in which both the Liberals and Conservatives would have one believe that the year 1957 was a sharp cut-off date at which everything changed. Of course, if one examines the statistical record one finds that there is not even the slightest irregularity in the dismal curve down which we have been descending for the last decade. This government's incompetence, and heaven knows that has been well proven in the last five years, is not so much in having created a crisis as in having been unable to cope with the crisis already created by their Liberal predecessors.

The Address-Mr. C. Cameron
In fact, I wonder sometimes, Mr. Speaker, if the well known occult powers of the late prime minister Mackenzie King may not have descended to his successors because they would seem to know when it is advisable to lose an election, and I wonder whether the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Piekersgill) may perhaps be the custodian of that crystal ball. I must say that it was one of the brighter moments of my life the other day to hear the honourable and irrepressible member for Bonavista-Twillingate, standing arrayed in the white robes of purity, washed in the waters of repentance, with not even a smidgen of oil from the trans-Canada pipe line soiling the hem of his garment, reading us a lecture on the evils of cynicism in public life.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not read it.


Colin Cameron: No, I must say he did not read it; he spoke it. I must say, sir, that there can be no one more expert in cynicism in public life than the members of that group who, with cynical abandon, very nearly destroyed the high office that you now adorn and, moreover, utterly and completely destroyed the unfortunate incumbent of that period. There must, I think, have been great joy in heaven, if what we are told is true that there is more rejoicing in heaven over one repentant sinner than a hundred righteous men. The hon. member stood there, as I say, giving us a sermon on the evils of political cynicism.


An hon. Member:: Amen.


Colin Cameron: I must say sir, that though I do not pose as an expert on the mores of revival meetings, it strikes me as rather comic that the repentant sinner should go up the sawdust trail so rapidly that he cannot even pause for a moment at the mourners' bench before leaping into the pulpit.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have been there for five years.


Colin Cameron: However, sir, I must not fall into the error of the two great political parties and rake over old and rather malodorous straw. We have to regard what is now proposed for the future by these two great parties of Canada and, of course, if we refer to the throne speech we have some difficulty in discerning just what that program may be. I note that it is one of the aims of the government to adopt measures to develop the Canadian economy, to maintain a high level of employment, to strengthen the balance of payments-all very laudable aspirations. Unfortunately, the rest of the speech does not


reveal that the government has the slightest idea of how to achieve these laudable purposes.
One of the points in the throne speech that particularly interested me was the matter of incentives to our shy and diffident business community. I would have thought that the present all too generous depletion and depreciation provisions with regard to oil, petroleum and minerals would have been enough to encourage even the shyest entrepreneur to proceed on his way in making profits. But no, we give him some further incentives. I was particularly interested to notice that some help is to be afforded to the hard-pressed forest products industry of British Columbia, about which the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Nicholson) was speaking a few moments ago, because I recall that just a few days before I left the Pacific coast to come to Ottawa two of the largest lumber corporations in Canada were indiscreet enough to report that in the first half of 1962 their profits had increased over the same period in 1961 by 43 per cent and 50 per cent respectively. If this is part of the belt tightening process, then all I can say is that it is going to be a highly selective process. But I am quite sure that those of my constituents, of whom there are a great many who work in the forest products industry, who are members of the international woodworkers of America and the pulp and sulphite workers, will be greatly interested in this gesture toward their employers, particularly as they have recently signed a no-pay-increase agreement on the basis of the stringencies affecting their industry.
We all know, of course, that our Prime Minister is a very devout and pious man but it does seem to me that it is carrying piety to extreme lengths to undertake to implement a policy on one scriptural adjuration alone, namely, "to him that hath shall be given and from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath". I have observed that spokesmen both for the Conservative party and for the Liberal party are apparently hoping to overcome our present discontents by re-establishing patterns of the past that have been irretrievably shattered. It is a truism, of course, that we live in an age of revolutionary change, but unfortunately a great many of our people, perhaps a majority, are unable to accept the fact that this truism is in actual fact the plain unvarnished truth. The confusion perhaps arises from a misuse of words or a misunderstanding of words, perhaps a semantic confusion. To all too many people the words "revolution" and "revolutionary" conjure up visions of Fidel Castro or communist conspiracy or people with bombs and beards plotting in basements

when in actual fact the revolutionaries of the twentieth century are to be found in other places. They are to be found in our laboratories, in our technical and engineering institutions. They are being urged on in their revolutionary work, of course, by the self-styled opponents of revolution.
They, of course, themselves would be horrified to hear themselves described as revolutionaries. However, they are the real revolutionaries of today and all our problems of today result from the revolutionary activities of these people about whom we hear very little. The European common market, balance of payments, the grim and rising tide of unemployment, the shattered trade patterns, all these arise from the work of these revolutionary forces in our midst. I would suggest, sir, it is time we in this house recognized this revolution and realize that sooner or later throughout the world we have to establish revolutionary institutions to match this technological revolution which is taking place.
I am among those who find it literally impossible to believe that 18 million people in possession of the largest per capita natural wealth in the world are able to produce poverty without the exercise of the utmost ingenuity. We have not lacked ingenuity to date. We have, indeed, been more than ingenious in devising stumbling blocks in our way. In the meantime, we have to face some immediate problems. I suggest to you, sir, we are not going to face them by attempting to re-establish institutions, patterns and customs that have now been shattered beyond repair.
Let us take this question of export trade of which we hear so much from all sides of this house. While the objective of the division of labour throughout the world and the specialization of production between the different economies of the world is undoubtedly a desirable and commendable objective, surely the spectacle of 18 million people allowing themselves to drift into the position where they depend for the elements of their daily living on their ability to force on other people their surplus goods, while at the same time rejecting and resisting as far as possible the efforts of others to force their goods upon us, speaks of inspired lunacy. There is mounting evidence, I suggest, that we are not going to be allowed to pursue these lunatic paths much longer, even if we choose to do so. It is painfully evident that something else must be done. Let us, by all means, export what we can of our surplus products. Let us, by all means, find all the customers we can. But let us recognize that the day is gone when we are going to live in Canada in the lap of luxury, trading in traditional patterns.
The Address-Mr. C. Cameron
We are approaching the end of the age of pack rats, as someone has described this age in which the energies of the human race are devoted to transporting materials back and forth across the face of the globe. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in facing these problems we might well take a look at our own Canadian history to see if a study of that history may not give us a solution for our immediate problem. I am always surprised and somewhat dismayed to hear the statement made, as it is made plainly and bluntly in the throne speech, that Canada's development will continue to require imports of capital, a statement in which I believe the Liberal opposition concur. This is an approach that I completely reject on two grounds. The first is that it is demonstrably false, and the second that it is an encouragement of the continuation of a process that has almost brought us to the brink of disaster.
I think that this is the time when we should begin to grow up. I have noted in recent months in the newspapers rather acid and pointed comments by various authorities in different parts of the world about Canada's infantile and regressive determination to remain in a state of economic infancy. Some very sharp things have been said about Canada and Canadians persisting in regarding themselves as an undeveloped economy in desperate need of help from abroad. I suggest to you, sir, that our history gives the lie to that position.
I should like to take you back, sir, some 20 odd years, to a time when we faced even more dangerous and difficult days than we face at the present time. In 1939 we were faced with the problem of playing our part in a war to exterminate the nazi disease that was creeping over the face of the globe. It is rather interesting to see what we did on that occasion. In fact, I think we sometimes forget the almost miraculous force of that war effort, the astonishing achievements of those years from 1939 to 1945. At that time, from the depths of the depression, with an industry grinding to a halt, almost overnight we transformed ourselves.
Now, there will be those who will say, it is all very well to go back to the days of war, but we cannot do that again. For one thing, people will say, look at the enormous volume of debt that was created. I want, first of all, to deal with this question of the necessity for importing capital which every member, even those who advocate the import of capital, fully recognize is fraught with great danger.
In 1939, the rate of capital formation in Canada stood at $754 million. Only three years later, in 1942, it had risen to a rate of

The Address-Mr. C. Cameron $1,556 million. We will be told, of course, that the people of Canada endured all manner of hardships and restrictions during the war, and cannot possibly be asked to undergo them again. Well, statistics do not bear that out because I find that personal expenditure on consumer goods and services rose from $6,510 million in 1939 to $9,261 million in 1945. Then, we are told, of course, as I say that we would only add to our mounting debt. I have some figures that cast not only a revealing light on what occurred at that time but also what has occurred since those days of the war.
In the depths of the depression in 1933 and 1934 the charges on Canada's national debt consumed over 8 per cent of our gross national product. Throughout the whole of the war, when an enormous war production program was being carried on, when standards of living were being raised throughout the country, the carrying charges on Canada's national debt remained almost constant at just over 4 per cent of the gross national product. Here, perhaps, is an indicator, Mr. Speaker, of the truth of what I said a few moments ago, that the crisis in which we are involved today had its genesis long before the advent of this unfortunate and incompetent Conservative government. I find that back in 1955 the carrying charges on Canada's debt had dropped to 1.8 per cent of the gross national product. In 1957 they went even lower to 1.6 per cent of the gross national product, and last year they had only risen to 2.1 per cent of it. Therefore I suggest that there is ample leeway for a vast expansion program in Canada without any dangers whatsoever of the sort of inflationary pressures which many fear, or any dangers of an overwhelming burden of public debt.
For that reason I would recommend to the government and the Liberal party that they should divert some of their attention from trying to re-establish broken patterns of conduct and behaviour and seek an outlet elsewhere.
If it was possible for Canadians to place their economy, as we did, at the service of the war to defeat nazism, is there any reason today why we cannot place the Canadian economy at the service of providing for the raising of living standards throughout the world? Is there any reason whatsoever why the Canadian government cannot plan, and inaugurate a planned program of production to meet the needs in capital goods of the underdeveloped areas of the world, and do it by long term low interest or no interest credits? Even if we were never repaid we would be in no more difficult or dangerous position than we were during the war when all this vast expansion of production was consumed


by the Canadian people in the sense that it was paid for by them, and in the process Canada refound prosperity. I would suggest that this is the great task of the present age.
We have become so involved, mentally and psychologically, in the absurdities and horrors of the cold war, in mutual bomb rattling and bomb testing, and in mutual suspicions, that we are overlooking the fact that this cold war, with the possibility of its erupting into a hot war, is already becoming a thing of the past; that there is another war that is beating on our doors today, and that is the war against hunger, misery and ignorance throughout the world. That is a much more dangerous war. It is a war which, if we lose it, will have as disastrous consequences as any that might come from a nuclear explosion.
Here we have the vast majority of the human species, because remember we members of an affluent society are only a small proportion of the human species, living in conditions which we would consider intolerable deprivation and hardship, and one of the reasons for the revolutionary actions I was speaking about is that today, for the first time in history, two things have happened. One is that we have conquered the problem of production. We know now we can create material abundance, and the other is that, also for the first time in history, human beings in every part of the world are made aware, by sight and by sound, of the way in which other human beings live in other parts of the world.
It is one thing to hear vague rumours that people on the other side of the world live in comfort and luxury while you yourself live in poverty, but it is an entirely different thing to see a picture of these affluent people on the television or movie screen. The vast bulk of the have-nots in this world are not long going to be content. They want to come into the twentieth century.
Here, I submit, is a golden opportunity for a country such as Canada to place our economy-our developing economy, and let us not be silly and place ourselves on the same economic level as Ghana-in the forefront of a drive to combat this misery. We are a developed economy. We can generate our own capital, we have done it before. So let us advance now on this much more important war, this war for human freedom, this war for human decency, this war against misery.
Would not this lay the foundation for a real clarion cry of advance, a call to arms to which every Canadian could respond with good heart? It would give our nation that thing which everyone says we need desperately, a sense of national purpose, and it would give each individual Canadian one thing that every individual requires, a sense of spiritual purpose.

This, I submit, is the challenge of the twentieth century, and this parliament and this nation will fail that challenge at their peril.
(Translation):


Marcel Bourbonnais: Mr. Speaker, I only have time to offer you my congratulations on your recent appointment, and especially for the manner with which you conduct the debates in this honourable chamber.
The Address-Mr. Bourbonnais
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock? (Text):


Mr. Speaker:: It now being six o'clock I shall leave the chair. Pursuant to order made Wednesday, October 3 last, this house stands adjourned until Tuesday next at 11 o'clock a.m.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 9, 19G2