1962-10-10

ANNOUNCEMENT OF DISCOVERY OF OIL SATURATED SAND DEPOSIT

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that last year I was able to announce the issuance of new regulations for oil and gas exploration and development in the north. These regulations outlined a policy which it was anticipated would encourage continued effort not only on the mainland of the territories but also in the Arctic islands. Since that time a deep test well has been drilled on Melville island and over $1,100,000 have been spent on geological exploration in the islands.
It is my pleasure to announce today that a geological party of J. C. Sproule and Associates, working in the Marie bay area of northwest Melville island for permit holders including Canadian Oil Companies Limited, Bankeno Mines Limited and W. R. Sheeky, have discovered a large exposure of sand saturated with oil. Preliminary information indicates that the saturated oil sand is between 60 to 80 feet thick and is exposed at the surface for a distance of approximately 60 miles. While much work remains to be done before the full significance of this discovery can be determined, it does give tangible proof that oil is to be found in the Arctic islands.
(Translation):



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-56, to amend the Criminal Code respecting provincial lotteries.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Georges-J. Valade: The purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code so as to enable the provinces which would like to do so to establish provincial lotteries with a view to providing assistance to hospitals and promoting social welfare.
The aim of this bill will be: (a) to bring into effect the act which, in 1935, amended
the statutes of the province of Quebec, authorizing the latter to hold provincial lotteries, (b) to establish provincial lotteries for provincial purposes, (c) to help the province of Quebec to make up, in a democratic way, the deficit incurred in the last two years by the present Liberal government which has caused a state of stagnation in that province.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
(Text):



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the minister advise the house whether the distribution in Canada of the preparation liefcort was stopped after similar action had been taken by the food and drug administration of the United States?


Hon. J. W. Monteilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker; before. [Later:]


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: May I
ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Essex East. The question is this, Mr. Speaker. Did the food and drug directorate of his department know of the constituents of the drug liefcort before the department allowed the Endocrine Research Laboratories to distribute this drug?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Our food and drug directorate has been dealing with this individual for a number of months while he has been in the process of gathering the information required for a new drug submission. This has involved a number of calls by officials of the department to determine the steps being taken by Dr. Liefmann to meet the requirements necessary before a new drug may be cleared for general distribution under medical prescription.
My officials have recently come to the conclusion that the present indefinite situation could not be allowed to continue. While the drug has been in circulation amongst investigators, suitable progress reports have not been forthcoming. For this reason, Dr. Liefmann was advised last week that distribution of his drug should cease. At the same

Inquiries of the Ministry time, it was pointed out to him that if he wished to reintroduce the drug for investigation at a later date, my department would be happy to review the situation again.
I might add that the reports furnished the department by Dr. Liefmann from time to time have not indicated the development of serious side effects associated with the use of the drug.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member a supplementary question?


Stanley Haidasz: My question, specifically, was did the food and drug directorate know that one of the constituents of the drug liefcort contained ten times the therapeutic dose of estradiol?


Mr. Speaker:: This is hardly a supplementary question. The hon. member is putting forward an opinion.


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


Mr. Speaker:: There is a question of a related question here.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you have just told the hon. member that his question was not proper. I suggest to you that this is a matter that might involve life and death in this country. Surely any question that bears on a question so related is one that may be asked at this time by an hon. member of a minister of the crown.


Mr. Speaker:: At no time have I suggested that the hon. member should not ask his question, but he asked it, I would not say under the guise but under the heading of a supplementary question, and I judged that it was not. In that regard he has intruded or cut back on the rights of other hon. members. It does not matter to the Chair, but it is a matter of the rights of other hon. members who may have true supplementary questions to ask, as I understand the meaning of "supplementary".


Mr. T. R. Berger (Vancouver-Burrard):: May
I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether his department has discovered whether the preparation liefcort was used in Canada by persons suffering from arthritis prior to distribution of the drug being stopped last week?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I believe it was being used in some instances, Mr. Speaker, but under direct distribution by the manufacturer. [Later:]


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the minister inform this house today, if he can, or

later if he has not the answer to my question, whether the food and drug directorate knew before this drug liefcort was distributed that one of the constituents of that drug contained ten times the therapeutic dose of estradiol.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, this is a very technical question, which I am not prepared to answer at the moment.



IMPORTATION AND SALE OP JEQUIRITY BEAN NECKLACES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. P. Ryan (Spadina):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the government taken any steps to prevent the further importation, sale and distribution of jequirity or death bean necklaces in Canada?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, there is no legislation under which my department could take action in this matter. The Food and Drugs Act gives us certain powers with respect to goods designed for human consumption or for the treatment of illness, but its terms go no further than that. Such hazards to health are always deplorable, but with the publicity this matter has received I would hope most earnestly that parents are well aware of the need for caution.



VOCATIONAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the fact that the premises and facilities for the training of unemployed persons in metropolitan Toronto are seriously overcrowded? If so, is the government giving consideration to providing assistance for the building of additional facilities there under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With all due respect to the learned member I do believe that by now he will have realized his question was not one of the kind asked on orders of the day.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister investigate the matter of the professional pilots serving in the Welland canal-Sarnia area of the seaway.

where pilots claim they are working up to 500 hours a month, and also claim that nearly all the promises made to them have been broken?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am asking the cooperation of hon. members, particularly those who have been here some considerable time and who know that representations may be made to the ministry on occasions other than the orders of the day.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate):: May I say a word on the point of order Your Honour has raised. It does seem to me that in the recollection of those of us who have been here longest, who have observed parliament the longest, it has been the immemorial custom in this house to ask questions based on urgent telegrams received from constituents about matters of public administration that arise suddenly in these places. This seems to me, sir, precisely the character of the question asked by the hon. member for Welland. I submit with great respect, sir, that a new boundary seems to be suggested by the ruling of Your Honour. [Later:]


Mr. J. C. McNulty (Lincoln):: May I inquire of the Minister of Transport if he has replied to the urgent request of Mr. Stevenson of the great lakes pilots? If so, would he communicate the nature of his reply to the house?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: I have not seen this wire yet. I can assure the hon. member that as soon as we have received it we shall take action.



RUSSIAN CARGOES CARRIED IN CANADIAN SHIPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question in regard to the part played, as he said, by eight Canadian owned ships in trade between communist countries and Cuba, following which the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) used these words:
I should like to ask a supplementary question. Can control not be exercised over these ships or the companies owning them because of the fact that their profits are taxed in this country and the money goes into the federal treasury?
To this I replied that I had no information in that regard but would look into the matter. I now find that the owners of approximately 125 Canadian vessels were allowed, in 1949 and 1950, to register their ships in the United Kingdom under the transfer plan.
Inquiries of the Ministry Control of these vessels was vested in United Kingdom managers who were required by the agreement to operate these ships in accordance with the laws of the United Kingdom.
Of that transferred fleet only 15 ships remain, and these are still under the control of the laws of the United Kingdom. I am informed that the Canadian taxation law cannot be used to override the law of the flag which controls ships operating in other countries.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alan Macnaughlon (Mount Royal):: have a question for the Associate Minister of National Defence. In view of the minister's interests and activities in connection with the world's fair for Montreal, has the minister's attention been called to the press report appearing on page 1 of the Gazette today? If so, what is the purpose of the meeting to be held in Paris and who are the persons representing the federal government?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, two subcommittees of the bureau of international exhibitions are at present studying the rules and regulations which apply to all world fairs or exhibitions, and in particular are studying the rules and regulations which apply to the petition which has been made by Canada to have the world fair of 1967 in the metropolis of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: One of them.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I say "metropolis" with due respect to the members from Toronto. The representatives of the federal government who are at present studying these rules and regulations are Mr. Kniewasser of the Department of Trade and Commerce, who is our trade commissioner in France; Mr. Bannerman, also of the Department of Trade and Commerce, who has taken a particular interest in the matter of world fairs in the past, and also Mr. Smith from the Department of Justice. May I say also that the city of Montreal is represented at these meetings by its mayor, Mr. Jean Drapeau, Mr. Lucien Hetu and Mr. Valmore Gratton. The province of Quebec, I am told, asked to be represented at these meetings by its delegate general in Paris, Mr. Charles Lucien.



REPORTED EXPORT OF TRUCK PARTS TO COMMUNIST CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade

Inquiries of the Ministry and Commerce. It is based on a report in today's Toronto Telegram. Will the minister confirm or deny that an export permit has been issued to permit a shipment of approximately $62,000 worth of truck parts to the communist Chinese government by a Canadian automotive manufacturer?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Trade and Commerce is aware that automotive parts, wholly manufactured in Canada by various automotive manufacturers, have been exported to the People's Republic of China in limited quantities. Automotive parts are not covered by any item in our export control list, and are considered to be legitimate export business for Canadian traders.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a further question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the statement he made in reply to my earlier question, and in view of the general unrest in North America on the subject and our obligation under NATO not to furnish strategic equipment to communist countries, or equipment that can be converted into strategic equipment, has the minister considered revising the present regulations to which he referred in his statement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is advancing an argument rather than seeking information.



REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry. What information has the minister relative to the progress of the hearings on exports of Canadian softwoods to the United States?


Hon. H. J. Flemming (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the case before the United States tariff commission is being presented by various representatives of the British Columbia lumber industry especially. The information I have is that the final stage of the hearings has yet to be reached, and that this stage will take the form of the appearance before the commission of a number of United States importers of lumber and certain representatives of other United States groups. It is possible that these groups will be more sympathetic to the Canadian viewpoint than were the earlier United States witnesses.
It is felt that the Canadian delegation have made a very strong case, particularly in rebutting certain arguments put forward by United

States interests. I shall be glad to keep the hon. gentleman informed as to any future information we have.
(Translation):



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: May I put
a question to the Secretary of State?
Does he intend to intervene in the disagreement between the C.B.C. and the Canadian council of authors and artists?
(Text):


Hon. G. E. Halpenny (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to raise that matter with the officers of the corporation and advise the hon. gentleman.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to pose a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is it a fact, as reported by Peter Newman in the current Maclean's, that the R.C.A.F. crews manning the North Bay Bomarc station recently went off 24-hour alert and on to an eight hour day; and if so, can the minister advise the house the reason for this change?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minisier of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have no information I can give on that matter at the moment. I will inquire into it.



TRANSPORTATION TO EUROPE OF CF-104 PLANES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if it is a fact that the first of the CF-104's is now being air transported in a partially dismantled condition to Europe by C-130 Hercules air transport. If so is there not, in the minister's opinion, a more economical way these planes could be transported to Europe?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The matter of transporting these planes to Europe was gone into in very considerable detail from a cost point of view by the R.C.A.F., and the conclusion was reached that this was the most economical means of getting them there.

Inquiries of the Ministry



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Malcolm Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the extremely urgent need for corn in the maritime provinces' agricultural industry, and since low grade western wheat will not be available as a substitute for another month, would the minister consider extending the subsidy on corn to the maritimes for another month beyond September 30, as requested by the provincial governments concerned and the maritime provinces federations of agriculture?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, a number of hon. members on this side of the house approached me some weeks ago on this matter, as well as the various provincial governments in the maritimes. I had the question looked into. Incidentally another hon. member on the opposite side of the house, the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart), indicated his intention of asking this question today.
I may say in answer that the subsidy on corn shipments to the Atlantic provinces was instituted in April of this year to meet the deficiency of high energy feeds caused largely by the short western wheat harvest of 1961. When this subsidy was introduced it was announced and understood that it was a temporary measure which would be discontinued on September 30. However, the administrative arrangements did permit feed retailers to obtain subsidized corn up to September 30 to cover temporary forward needs.
On the basis of average utilization rates as compared with the total movement of subsidized corn to the area, there should be at present adequate supplies of high energy feeds in the Atlantic provinces to meet total requirements for several weeks yet.



INQUIRY AS TO RESTORATION OF PREMIUM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. C. Honey (Durham):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Having regard to the necessity for hog producers to have accurate market information in order to regulate present breeding decisions, and in view of the statement of the Minister of Agriculture in the house on October 3 that the reduction in premiums on grade A hogs represented the contribution of hog producers to the national effort to reduce the budgetary deficit, can the minister advise the house if
this premium will be returned to its former level when the austerity measures are lifted by the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may feel that the subject is rather important. While I agree with him, I do not think that at the moment the information is urgently required.
(Translation):



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES MONTREAL-OTTAWA    REQUEST FOR BILINGUAL HOSTESSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouelte (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Yesterday, I was travelling from Montreal to Ottawa on board a T.C.A. aircraft, flight No. 259, and I noted that two hostesses were unilingual, that is to say they did not speak French. Now, while I have much sympathy and respect for the English language, and while I am trying to improve my knowledge of that language as much as I can, I should like to know whether the minister intends to take steps in order that the personnel of Trans-Canada Air Lines speak French as well as English.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that having made his representations, the hon. member is not anticipating a reply from the minister, since he is not trying to obtain urgent information on this matter.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Lincoln.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. I think the Minister of Transport intends to reply to my question, and I should like to have a reply. I demand a reply.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the hon. member may demand a reply, since no member may do so here.
The hon. member having made his representations, I consider his question as irregular for the time being. However, if the minister wants to reply, it is up to him to decide.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am doing everything possible to settle to the satisfaction of everyone the problem of questions asked on the orders of the day. If the question period is to become a fishing expedition, it is the privilege of the members of the house to do so, but I fear that we will not achieve much as regards the business of the house.
348	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
Therefore, if a minister and a member have agreed on a question, it's all very well, but I am asked to rule on the matter at once, and I think that if the hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member would kindly examine the standing order concerning questions asked on the orders of the day, he will note that it is up to the Speaker to rule as to whether a question is regular or not, and that is why I often have to rule on the validity of a question. This is not a negative attitude, at least in my opinion. However, if the minister wishes to reply-


Léon Balcer: 


Mr. Speaker-(Text):: 


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: If I may rise on a point of order, I think once Your Honour has indicated a ruling, as you have done in the past and as you have just done with respect to the question asked by the hon. member, you have no right to leave it to the discretion or desire of a minister as to whether or not he should answer. If we are to have rules or rulings on questions, then they should be rulings of your own and you should stick by them.


Mr. Speaker:: In reply to what the hon. member has said, let me observe that perhaps he is setting a precedent which some day he might regret, inasmuch as he too might ask a question which the Chair might consider to be out of order but which a minister would be prepared to answer. I would advise him to judge the present situation in the light of what I have said. At no time do I wish to prohibit the giving of information, and if a minister is prepared to answer a question then it is in the hands of the house.
(Translation):


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to discuss your decision because I accept it. However, since in the circumstances you mentioned I could answer the question, I must tell the hon. member for Villeneuve that I shall be pleased to co-operate with him in order to help him talk as often as possible with the T.C.A. hostesses. So I shall ascertain that his representations are referred to the management of the corporation.


David Réal Caouette: I thank the hon. gentleman.


(Text):



PROVISION OF STATUTORY BASIS FOR ACREAGE PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address to the Prime Minister a question which I trust is under the wire and above the belt. In view of the great expectations of prairie farmers will the Prime Minister inform the house when the government intends to place acreage payments on a statutory basis?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that question does not fall in either of the categories mentioned by the hon. member.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Rosedale):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance, and may I take this opportunity of congratulating him on his assumption of his new responsibilities. The question relates to one of them, and has to do with the Currency Act. The question is this. Has the government entered into contracts with the two major printers of bank notes in Canada for the preparation of a large supply of funny money in order to fulfil the conditions of the government's most recent political alliance?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. While the hon. member may have wished to make certain observations, I think he has plenty of opportunity in the throne speech debate to make comments of the nature of those he has made. Without attempting to give a lecture, may I say that this type of question is the thing that turns the orders of the day question period into something that is not in the best traditions of this house.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister In order to clear up a matter of serious uncertainty, will the government give consideration to referring the surcharge on imports order to the Supreme Court of Canada under section 55 of the Supreme Court Act for determination as to whether or not the order is valid?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is no uncertainty. Therefore the government will give no consideration to the submission contained in the hypothetical question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Minister of Justice a question based on the reply which the Prime Minister gave a few moments ago regarding the legality of the surcharge order in council. Will the Minister of Justice table in this house or give to this house the legal opinion which he told us yesterday the government received prior to the decision of the government to impose its austerity program?
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of
Justice): I said we had received the opinion of the deputy attorney general, and we did. I did not say that there was a formal written opinion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: There are communications that pass between a minister and his deputy on this subject, Mr. Speaker, or any subject which are regarded as privileged. I made the statement that the deputy attorney general of Canada had given an opinion that the order was valid and within the authority conferred upon the governor in council by this parliament.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the Minister of Justice in 1947, and the Prime Minister in that same year, said that the government of the day should produce the legal opinion given to the then government by the law officers of the crown, will they explain to the house the answer the minister has just given? Is he not-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think all we are doing is reviving last night's debate, which was concluded with the vote on the amendment.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: On the point of order, may I say that during the course of the debate yesterday the Minister of Justice spoke. The Prime Minister did not speak. He did make an answer on the subject a few minutes ago, and I am now asking if the Minister of Justice will table the legal opinion which the Minister of Justice's reply yesterday indicated was a written opinion and which he now says was oral.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not commenting on the first question which the hon. member asked, which was whether the minister would table
Inquiries of the Ministry something. He received a reply. His supplementary question is a straight revival of last night's debate in this regard. I think the hon. member fully understands the rules on this point.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: If Your Honour will bear with me, I should like to say a word on this point of order. Your Honour will recall that the Minister of Justice said that while the opinion was oral, there had been an exchange of letters between the law officers of the crown and the minister which he regarded as privileged. This indicates that there was, in fact, a written opinion. My question, which I ask with great respect I be allowed to persist in putting, is, in view of the attitude taken by the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister in 1947, could we be given now or at the earliest possible moment the written opinion of the law officers of the crown which will determine whether or not this government was advised as to the legality of the austerity program?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member finished his question, I have not changed my opinion as to the nature of his supplementary.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: What does that mean?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Speaking to the point of order, may I say that we cannot have matters left in this way. Either my question is improper and should not be answered, if Your Honour so rules, or if it is proper Your Honour should not leave the matter where it is, as indicated by your remarks of a few minutes ago.


Mr. Speaker:: I thought I had made it reasonably clear that I consider the supplementary question which the hon. member was pursuing was reviving an argument made in the debate that had been pursued yesterday evening, and upon which there was a vote. The matter, therefore, is concluded. I permitted the hon. member, at his request, to complete his question, and I have indicated that nothing which he added to his question changed my opinion that he was reviving a debate that was entered into yesterday evening.
(Translation):



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to

Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Labour. Could he tell me if steps will be taken this autumn, under the winter works program, to come to the assistance of parishes which are not incorporated as municipalities and which the county councils do not want to look after?


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid that this time the hon. member is asking a question which, in my opinion, does not seem very urgent at the moment.
(Text):



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold A. Webster (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In the administration of the winter works program, are municipal authorities prevented from hiring regular summer employees who have now been laid oft but who are not registered as social assistance cases? Will the minister make a statement to clarify this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking for clarification of certain detailed rules of a particular program which are a matter of public record, and I suggest to him that his question would better appear on the order paper.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I should like him to tell us what is the present status of Mr. Coleman, a top official of the national parks agency, in the light of published reports that the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) and other Alberta members of parliament have gone to the Prime Minister asking for his replacement on the ground, as I understand it, of alleged incompetence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The subject matter having existed for some considerable time, I do not think an answer to that question is urgently required on orders of the day.


Douglas Mason Fisher: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you say that the subject matter has existed for some time. All I know is that I saw it very recently. It certainly is a question at issue, and the minister should give an answer when one of his senior officials has been criticized in this way.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not disagree with the hon. member that the matter may be important, but the point at issue as far as
[Mr. Laprise.l
I am concerned is whether the answer that he is seeking from the minister is urgently required at this time in our proceedings.


Douglas Mason Fisher: At what point in the proceedings would it be proper?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day are not the time when we seek all sorts of information of this particular type.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point of order raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur, I would respectfully draw Your Honour's attention to almost any day's Hansard, in the mother of parliaments, where it will be found that questions having to do with the civil rights of a subject, however obscure that subject may be, are always allowed by the Speaker of that house. I suggest that when a very senior servant of the government is criticized by a member of this house, who suggests he should be dismissed, it is a proper matter for inquiry on the orders of the day at the first possible moment, if we are to uphold the rights of the subject, which is our first duty in this house.



A. S. WHITELEY    GRATUITY IN LIEU OF RETIREMENT LEAVE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. If Mr. A. S. White-ley is retired at the end of this month as a member of the restrictive trade practices commission, will consideration be given to granting him a gratuity in lieu of retirement leave, as provided in the regulations under the Civil Service Act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe the hon. member is making a representation rather than seeking information of the sort that should be given on orders of the day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think we will have to have a session about this whole matter of questions. This is a matter in which the fate of an individual is at stake, but we have been unable to get answers to the questions we have been asking in order to find out whether consideration will be given to the protection of his rights as a civil servant. In fact I put my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that under this government the Civil Service Act was amended-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is speaking now on a question of privilege, and privilege is a matter of the rights of an individual member or of members of the house as a whole, and as such it very rarely arises as a question in this house. As I said

yesterday, I am not for one moment downgrading the importance of the subject matter about which the hon. member may wish to direct a question. What I am trying to do is to limit orders of the day to those questions where information is urgently sought which cannot be obtained otherwise, so that we can get on with what I conceive to be the appropriate business of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I submit that this is a question concerning which it is urgent that an answer be obtained before time runs out, so that if anything is going to be done to protect the rights of this civil servant it will be done in time. I would press my question to the Minister of Justice.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have told the Minister of Transport of my intention to ask him today if his department has any interest in or any knowledge of the proposed building of an airplane landing strip at Spanish Banks in the city of Vancouver?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the project that is mentioned by my hon. friend but I must say that the Department of Transport has no interest whatsoever in the project.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Hector McMillan: 

FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has he any knowledge about the movements, numbers and purposes of Russian 27507-3-23J
Inquiries of the Ministry
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):: Mr. Speaker, my department has no specific information on this matter, other than that the official publication of the United States fish and wildlife service has reported a fairly large Russian fishing fleet active in the Aleutian islands area, but there is no confirmation that it is moving toward Canadian waters.

ULiAJNu-REPORTED
On the orders of the day:


John Whitney Pickersgill: 
John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point of order raised by Your Honour, I submit that the question I asked today is not the same as the question that was asked yesterday. I inquired, and I was only inquiring, whether the government had taken action. The question asked yesterday was a question about intentions. I was asking about a matter of fact. I submit to Your Honour that squid are just as important in the fishery of Newfoundland as corn is in the maritime provinces, and Your Honour raised no question about corn.


John Angus MacLean: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker, but not the action that was suggested by yesterday's question.	J
(Translation):



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I gave the Minister of National Revenue notice of my question.
I should like to ask him what was the amount of taxes paid to the federal government in 1961 by private power companies in the province of Quebec.

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker:	Order. I think the hon.
member fully understands that his question requires detailed statistical information and that it is not proper on the orders of the day.



HARBOURS

[Stage Direction]
MONTMAGNYj QUE.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Cook (Montmagny-L'Islet):: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Public Works considered the question I asked him on October 4 last, which was put on the order paper under No. 112?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I will look in Hansard and I shall reply later to the hon. member.
(Text):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Georges-J. Valade: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which I regret bringing before the house. It relates to a breach of the rules that we witnessed this afternoon by the Liberal party, so I think I have to bring up this point of order. I want to mention this point of order because three members of the Liberal party have broken the rules this afternoon by asking questions of the ministers pertaining to articles-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Georges-J. Valade: I am putting my point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member is, as I assume, endeavouring to state his point of order succinctly he should be allowed to do so without being interrupted by repeated calls of "Order" from either side of the house. If the Chair is to make a ruling on the point of order I should be allowed to hear it clearly.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: There is no question before the house on which a point of order can be raised.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. Mary is stating a point of order; he has the floor.


George James McIlraith: There is no question before this house and a point of order cannot be raised. The rules are clear on that.
newspapers and have asked ministers to confirm or deny those articles. This is entirely contradictory to the rules according to Beau-chesne, citation 177. The members of the opposition are wasting the time of the house on articles appearing in newspapers, and I think this is contrary to the rules. I should like Your Honour to take a position in this respect so that the Liberals, either by ignorance or otherwise-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair is endeavouring to see, although it seems to take some considerable time to get the point across, that the questions asked during the question period are of a kind permitted on orders of the day. I must say that I believe it is contrary to the spirit of orders of the day when hon. members take this or that article and ask a minister to confirm, deny or comment upon them. I believe that has been amply shown to the house.
However, I must say that I am not in the confidence of all the members of this house in this regard, nor do I feel it is the Speaker's job to read over their shoulders if they are able to use long range vision and refer to some newspaper article. I leave it to hon. members to govern themselves discreetly and properly within the rules. I do not see that the raising of the point of order has helped too much at this time.
(Translation):



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
The Dumont incident was largely commented on last week in the province of Quebec and here is a report carried by Le Soleil on October 6:
That is only the beginning, told me Liberal whip J. A. Habel while one of his colleagues predicted that in the end, Mr. Diefenbaker will be so ashamed of owing his political survival to those clowns that he will call for an election himself.
I state here that there is no question about the integrity of our group in this house and I say that the biggest clowns ever seen in Canada since it became a country are the Liberals as we have seen and heard them in action-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must call the hon. member's attention to citation 113 of Beau-chesne dealing with questions of privilege.
With all due respect I do not think the hon. member can raise a question of privilege, and retort by calling another group the same


Georges-J. Valade: The reason I am bringing forward this point of order is that three members of the opposition have read articles from name.
[Mr. Marcoux.)

I do not believe there is ground to raise a question of privilege at the moment.
(Text):



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, October 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gordon Chaplin for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would hon. members who are leaving the chamber please do so as expeditiously as possible and without entering into conversations on their way out so that the hon. member who has the floor may address the house.


Mr. E. A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, like all those who have preceded me in this debate I wish to extend my congratulations to you and Mr. Deputy Speaker on your elevation to the high offices you hold. Though my words may be brief, and though your job is becoming more difficult, my thoughts for you are none the less sincere.
I extend the same compliments equally sincerely to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and before proceeding further I should like to pay tribute to the efforts put forth in this house by the deceased member for Wetaski-win, Mr. Speakman, on behalf of the veterans of Canada and in the field of agriculture, as well as all his other interests.
Before making any comments on the debate which has taken place so far I should also like to make some specific mention of the assistance that has been rendered to me by the ministerial benches. I particularly mention the Minister of Agriculture because I represent two counties in Ontario, the county of Grey and the county of Bruce for which, as well of course as for others, the minister has laid down a program the implementation of which, he assured me within the last few days, will be expedited.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, to whom I extend my gratitude for instituting, in conjunction with provincial authorities, a survey program for determining the feasibility of establishing a park in the Bruce peninsula. I also recognize the assistance given by the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Robinson) and the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Noble). I hope this park will be
The Address-Mr. Winkler established in the vicinity of the terminating point of the Bruce trail, which will probably come to fruition in 1964 or 1965.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have some thoughts to put forward on things that have been said in this house. These subjects have been brought back to me in some cases by my constituents and in other cases by the newspapers which have some influence in the riding I have the priviiege to represent. They deal with the efforts of the official opposition to downgrade and vilify the Prime Minister of Canada, and hence the Canadian people. Unquestionably the Liberal party has downgraded the standards of political life. They have done this not only in the past but during the last few days in the course of this debate. For instance, there was the statement by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, which is to be found on page 216 of Hansard for October 4:
I might say, sir, that if anyone wants to see how the Prime Minister looked that day himself it is recorded on page 38 of Newsweek, the issue of July 2, and I commend it to the hon. gentlemen opposite.
That is a statement which is very definite in its implication, and there was a further statement by the same hon. member, to be found at page 218 of Hansard, when he made this remark in regard to the Minister of Justice:
He can get up and make a speech in this debate if he dares.
That was rather typical of the hon. gentleman from Bonavista-Twillingate. Earlier than that, as recorded at page 73 of Hansard for October 1, the leader of the official opposition said:
If the government tries to tell us that it has continued to play an increasingly effective role in international affairs, then I would ask it to present the evidence in support of that.
Then there was the statement made last evening by the leader of the official opposition replying to the invitation of the Minister of Finance, in which he said:
Presumably it was to apologize to the Prime Minister for what I have said about the attitude of the Prime Minister and his government on the common market-
There are other things I would like to comment on with regard to the interest shown by my constituency, by myself, and by other people who support the stand that we take.
First of all I regret that the Leader of the Opposition is not present, because I wish to remind him that on many occasions and in many circumstances I supported him because of his type of personality and the type of man he was, in the past, but not the type he has now become. Some time before the end of the

The Address-Mr. Winkler last parliament he made a speech in my home town of Hanover in which he said:
Our influence as a country abroad has diminished.
This will be found in the Owen Sound Sun-Times of that date. There are many other such quotations that I could use. I could refer to the one used by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, from a speech made by the former minister of public works when he stated Canada was on the verge of bankruptcy. I could also refer to another statement made by the same man at Sherbrooke, Quebec, when he said that Canada's prestige had been lowered and it had even lost the confidence of its own people at home. If these were not deliberate efforts to downgrade our country and our political life, then I am afraid I must be wasting my time here. I say that because it is the type of representation in this house and the support and assistance I have received, in my own experience, from the ministers of the crown that permit me to stay here in my own good conscience to serve the people of my constituency, and not the sort of thing that has been coming from the other side, particularly from the senior members.
Let us go back a step further, Mr. Speaker. This all did not happen in very recent times. For instance, we recall the many, many speeches made by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and the great effort he made to play up the circumstances that existed when we were having a difficult time finding employment for all the workers of this country.
I refer hon. members to a newspaper article published in the Galt Evening Reporter by one of the local members of the press gallery. He said:
The Hon. Paul "Mother Goose" Martin is spreading his fairy tales with a heavier hand than ever. But it is as a wicked fairy that he continues his three year old campaign of smearing Canada as a country of misery, depression and unemployment.
This was about the hon. member for Essex East, and you will note, Mr. Speaker, that he has been rather quiet of late; just a little bit quiet.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are going to arouse me if you continue.


Eric Alfred Winkler: We know why. Is he now unhappy because a lot of Canadians are working, more than ever before in the history of our country? This reporter goes on to say, of the hon. member for Essex East:
Would not his pulse quicken with glee, if he could rise in the house and talk about one million Canadians out of work?
But it is a regrettable effort on the part of the hon. member for Essex East. That is


not all. I could go on all day, but I have chosen these examples because I am endeavouring to prove that the members of that party did what they could to the best of their ability to downgrade this country and vilify its leaders, particularly the Prime Minister. This quotation comes from the Owen Sound Sun-Times, the only daily printed in the vicinity of my constituency. It is the issue of February 10, 1962, after the hon. member for Essex East made a terrific attack on the government's policy of endeavouring to get people back to work. The commentary was this:
And, as so often is the case of such critics, he took the risk of actually harming the nation's economy to attain his end.
I wonder what that end is. I do not think it is very difficult for hon. members of this house to see, although it may not be the same in all quarters of the country. It might be wise at this time to warn the leader of the official opposition that he has other problems to deal with. Perhaps the hon. member for Essex East is sitting in his quietude and waiting for a campaign to start on that side of the house; or perhaps it would be the former minister of public works, in view of that speech in Lunenburg and Sherbrooke, Quebec, who is waiting; or would the elections in Quebec have any connotation regarding what we might expect as the leadership of the Liberal party in the near future? I do not know; but it all looks very, very significant to me.
Then let us consider what the country had to read about statements that were made regarding the Prime Minister's efforts overseas in relationship to Britain's entry into the common market. I will read from the Ottawa Journal. I admit that here we can perhaps expect a little sympathy for our stand and our views. Here two questions appear in regard to statements made about Canada in the commentaries of newspapers of Great Britain. This article specifically mentions the Observer, the Sunday Telegraph, and so on. The two questions posed are these:
(1) Who inspired these offscourings in the London Observer, and (2) does Mr. Lester Pearson, who from Ottawa kept stabbing Mr. Diefenbaker in the back every day he was in London, go along with them?
These were very derisive statements. I am sure most hon. members have read them. I wonder if that is true. Certainly his activity all through the period when the Prime Minister was out of the country will require some sensible answer, if it is possible, to those two questions. Or I wonder, does the Leader of the Opposition not understand that without putting forth a strong view and a strong stand at that time, Britain's own position

35S
would be weakened upon going into the common market. It would have been weakened today. Not only our Prime Minister, who may have taken the lead and I hope he did-but every prime minister of the commonwealth understands that when the time comes for Britain to enter the common market, not only should there be a strong political union, but our rights and privileges should not be lost. We wish to feel as important a part of the commonwealth in the future as we have in the past. Our contribution, Mr. Speaker, as you know, has been a very substantial one.
How far will the Liberals go to smear a leader, a policy or a country? I hold in my hands-hon. members may possibly have seen it-a pamphlet without any heading, not being authorized by anyone, which is headed on the back, "Can the deceivers govern?" On the front page there are two pictures of the Prime Minister, in one of which he is very well dressed and in the other he is supposedly in rags. One picture is dated June 18, 1962 and the other June 25. This may be all in the course of putting their propaganda to the country, but let me tell you, Mr. Speaker and hon. members of this house, that this was a piece of literature that came to me from the Liberal booth at the Canadian National Exhibition in Toronto. How did it come to me? It came to me through a gentleman who is concerned with the export of Canadian goods out of this country, who does quite a substantial amount of business with the Chinese nationalists.
This was handed to a Mr. Wu, who is the Chinese trade commissioner from Taipei. What can we expect outside this country if they try to dish this out at one of the places where we have international figures coming in to buy our products? Can we expect any increase in trade? It is a wonder to me that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is meeting with any success whatsoever in his programs, and it is a wonder that such booths are set up at places where these international buyers can come and buy our products. It is a wonder to me, also, that these people do not put up loudspeakers and tell them not to buy. That is what they are trying to do, and they are not making too bad a job of it.
I might say that it bears the name of Mr. Kuch in the top right hand corner. The editorial was taken from the Winnipeg Free Press.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Nothing more need be said. It is interesting to note that while all this was going on in regard to Canada and their efforts to downgrade our position internationally, all the newspapers across the country
The Address-Mr. Winkler that were sympathetic to them did not necessarily agree with them. We read this in the daily Packet and Times. It has been referred to before in this house. This is published in the city of Orillia, Ontario, and it is a newspaper that is noted for being neutral. I say it again, Mr. Speaker; it is noted for being neutral:
Whatever his limitations, and they are not nearly so many or so marked as his critics would have us believe, history-
Listen to this, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members across the way:
-history will show Mr. Dlefenbaker to have been one ot this young nation's ablest leaders.
Then I ask you, Mr. Speaker, which one of the hon. members opposite wants so badly to be leader of the campaign they have been carrying on?
Perhaps I may digress from my remarks at this particular moment, but this is very relevant. I did not see the program referred to on C.B.C. television, but I have before me an editorial, again from the Owen Sound Sun-Times of September 18, 1962, which makes some comment in this regard. Again, it seems to me there are people in other places who would carry out the Liberal program. This is what the editorial has to say with regard to a program called "Anatomy of an election". They call it the "vivisection of a Prime Minister":
There was one quick reference to Diefenbaker's "finest hour" following a quickie shot of his Vancouver reception.
Then they go on to say:
We think the Prime Minister had many fine hours-
And this is true. The truth is that when these people go out of their way to destroy a person, they certainly know how to approach such a program.
Now I should like to move on a step further, because I have some interesting communications from my constituency in regard to what has transpired recently. I should like to say this: we heard a debate yesterday which culminated last evening in a vote. That vote was determined fairly and squarely. There are many indications around the house of who is getting into whose political bed. But these do not concern me as a supporter of the government. Why? Because, again, there is a deliberate program opposite. Let us consider the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson). I regret he is not here, because he is the fellow who rose in his place and said he could vote with the Social Credit party if they would lose their name. That is what he would have everybody do-lose their names and join him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He did not say
that.

The Address-Mr. Winkler


Eric Alfred Winkler: He said that, and that is a fine way to respect elected representatives in this house.


An hon. Member:: Quote Hansard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, what the hon. gentleman is attempting to do is to establish that the hon. member for Leeds took a position in this house which in fact he did not take. The hon. member for Leeds suggested that if, in the Social Credit amendment, the words "in accord with Social Credit principles" were withdrawn, then it would be possible for him to support the motion. That is not what the hon. gentleman who has the floor was attributing to the hon. member a moment ago in seeking to suggest that the hon. member for Leeds was prepared to adopt Social Credit.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. That really is not a point of order or a question of privilege. I am sure the hon. member for Leeds is capable of speaking for himself if he has been misquoted.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He is not here to do so.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Not only that, if they were interested in anybody else's opinions in this house there would be more than 19 members sitting in those seats over there now. We certainly extend to them a great deal more deference than that. I think the hon. member for Leeds would be better occupied trying to drum up more enthusiasm among his own members. Anyway, my statement stands. If he will withdraw his, then I will withdraw mine.
Whom do the Liberals crawl into bed with? There is no question of what their intentions are in this house. Not only that; there is something much more deliberate. Does anyone in this chamber think they want an election right now? Let us not be deceived. I say this because on every occasion, prior to every one of the votes which have been taken there has been a definite smear made by one member of the Liberal party on the Social Credit party. It is not a case of whether I agree with it or not. That is not what I am trying to point out. My point is that they are making a division between parties in the house in order to make absolutely sure they do not have to go back to the country.
The Leader of the Opposition has made it plain where he stands on the taxation issue. Regardless of what certain principles may be, any one of the elected representatives here can ask his constituents what the effect has been. When I quoted the Leader of the Opposition as saying that an apology should come from across the floor to him, I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the article and the


cartoon put out as Liberal propaganda at the Canadian National Exhibition and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, from whom the apology should come. It should come from every one of them.
I wish now to turn to the actualities of our present economic situation and the attitude of the public towards the measures taken by the government. It seems to me that the Liberal party has entirely failed to take this into consideration. That may be perfectly right, because they do not take many other people into consideration, anyway. Let us refer at this point to the great argument made last night by the hon. member for Essex East on this subject and the legalistic approach he took to the situation in which the government found itself. He may or may not have been right. I couldn't care less. Today, I am satisfied that the right thing has been done and I am prepared to justify this by a little more comment based on communications I have received from my constituents which I have in black and white here before me.
To introduce this, may I say that all the cry and howl by the Liberals on the question of these surcharges and taxes should lead us to reflect on the situation as it exists in this country. For instance, Canada is the largest spender on imported goods in the world. This country is spending per capita $235 a year on imported goods as compared with $35 in the United States, $75 in Great Britain and $60 in West Germany. Does this in itself not give us good cause to consider what we have to do. What do the Liberals want to do? Do they want to ruin our secondary industries completely? That is what would happen if they had their way. However, things are straightening themselves up. I should like to quote from the St. Catharines Standard of August 15:
Canada's current dollar crisis notwithstanding, a number of the foreign countries that trade with Canada persist in trying to tell us that it is in our own best interests to import more from them. Trade, they continually remind us, is a two-way street and if we do not buy from them we cannot, in turn, expect to sell.
Mr. Speaker, we have to wake up to the fact that what this government is doing now is not only plainly beneficial in its effects but might well have to be continued for some time. I have received a letter from one of the largest manufacturers in my constituency. As a matter of fact he is the largest manufacturer in his field in the entire country, and he says this-I quote part of the letter:
As at time of writing we are operating with full staff. Some departments are on overtime and as a result of excess business accumulated commencing during the summer months we presently have the largest backlog on hand since 1958 and it is increasing each week.

That is what I like to hear. This sentence, I think, is even better:
It is odd, too, to see the apologetic approach of so many of these buyers. Long live austerity- and may it never end as far as I am concerned.
That is proof of the value of the program which we have put into effect. Possibly it should have been brought in some time ago. I am all in favour of it myself. I have received further letters from producers of poultry in my constituency, as well as letters from other producers. They all support the program. Not only do they support it, but they do not want it to be removed even when our present exchange position improves. Let the Liberals be a little more careful, then, in assessing the effects of what this government has done and is doing. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how can a country with a population of 18 million compete on the markets of the world when our secondary industries are at their present stage-a stage at which in most cases a mere 10 per cent of the industrial capacity of our neighbour to the south could lock the doors of any of them? Again, I refer to a telegram received by the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Chaplin):
Dear Sir. we want to forward this information to the Prime Minister. The Kitchener Waterloo Record of Wednesday Oct. 3 had an editorial entitled Pearson harps too much on one issue. The third paragraph says Mr. Pearson concentrated his fire on the governments concealment of the impending dollar crisis which he termed a major political fraud.
This is the important part:
He also said that the crisis didn't come like a bolt from the blue but that it had been building up for some time back. The industrial committee of the Hespeler chamber of commerce takes exception to this type of talk and has called it political treason and wants it known that the town of Hespeler is bursting at the seams industrially working day and night shifts in all textile and metal factories and has expansion programs on hand and attribute this to the devaluation of the dollar. Adjacent towns and cities in this midwestern hub of industry are experiencing the same kind of industrial boom. We think Canadians everywhere should be told the truth.
The only thing I am inclined to do today is to put the situation before the house the way the people back home see it. This is the kind of member I hope that I can always be. I wish to represent my people in the best way possible and in their best interests.
To me it was interesting to hear some of the comment and criticism that was made against the speech from the throne when this debate opened initially. Then, of course, it came down to leaders day when we heard the Leader of the Opposition put forward his alternatives, and to review the whole thing in the light of what has happened in the past. I refer not only to the recent past but a few years back.
The Address-Mr. Laing
I noticed that in one of his programs-he has five points as you will recall-is a government boost to construction, including a municipal loan fund to finance local works projects. There are a number of measures to provide this kind of assistance in the throne speech. Number two, a program to seek out new ways of expanding industrial production. For instance, the automobile industry imported $300 million worth of car parts. Surely a good fiscal policy is to increase the Canadian content of cars made in this country. Surely it is understood that this is what we are trying to do. We presented a program in this regard and we are endeavouring to assist it through labour and management organization. Four, a national health-


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


Eric Alfred Winkler: I wonder whether I might be extended an extra moment that was taken up by the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, in this my first attempt to speak at any length in this 25th parliament of Canada I wish my first words to be those of congratulation to you upon your appointment as our Deputy Speaker. Were he here, I would also extend my congratulations to our Speaker. I extend them to both of you because, like myself, you come from the western tier of Canadian provinces where the sun lasts longer every day.
I must also extend my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I do so particularly because in September, 1949, in this place it was my honour and responsibility to do the same as they did on this occasion. I wish to say to them that I was particularly delighted that they had a great deal more composure than I was then able to achieve or than I am able to muster today. I hope their sojourn here is profitable and I feel certain they will contribute a great deal to this beloved country of ours.
I wish to deal today with a government which I think, out of some experience, is supported by the most curious parliament I have ever seen. I was here for four years only. Since then I have spent some time- and I may say it has been a very interesting and indeed hard time-in the legislature of one of our provinces. However, I cannot believe some of the things that I hear in this chamber.


An hon. Member:: The Liberals.
358	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Laing


Arthur Laing: 
hold the mother country to the preferences, I think we are acting in a manner which indicates that we do not realize that history has moved on and that these preferences have not the validity nor the advantage to Canada which they once had. In Canada-and my province of British Columbia is a particular example of this-we are depending upon the great nation to the south of us to purchase our goods. Last year we exported to the United States $629 million worth of newsprint; of book paper, with some more Canadian labour in it, $1,300,000 only; of writing paper, with a great deal of Canadian labour in it, $58,000 only. However, we exported $629 million worth of newsprint. Of lumber we shipped out $250 million worth; of Douglas fir plywood, which my people in British Columbia would like to sell in the United States, $128,000 worth only; of iron ore, $95 million, but of steel manufactures of all kinds only $13 million; of aluminum pigs, $54 million and of aluminum fabrication of all kinds, only $7 million; zinc slabs, $13 million, zinc fabrication of all kinds, $96,000; lead pigs, $9 million, lead pipe, $125,000; asbestos fibres, $45 million; asbestos products of all kinds, $119,000; nickel ingots, $136 million and nickel fabrication of all kinds, only $4 million. Here is a situation in which these raw materials have to go into the world market at the lowest prices.
I wish the Minister of Trade and Commerce had been here today because I had intended to implore him not only to be more active in his own department but to seek the support of other departments. He spoke in this debate and he indicated he was doing a number of things. He was bringing our trade commissioners together, which is a splendid thing. He was bringing buyers from th United States on these so-called champagne trips to buy goods in Canada, and I have no objection to that. But I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that attempts to sell are largely the responsibility of the manufacturer himself and that government activity in this regard should be directed toward negotiation with governments and the conditions in the countries in which we try to sell. I do not think that has been done adequately.
I should like to know to what extent the government has gone to the department of commerce in the United States and pointed out to them that we cannot forever have an imbalance of trade of the nature that now exists between our two countries. I remind the house that in the first four months of this year we had an adverse balance of trade with the United States alone of $218 million. Would it not be possible for the government to put the proposition to the government of

the United States that we have to equate our sales, that we have to sell them as much as we buy from them and therefore they must lower their tariffs to the point where we can export to that country some goods with a higher Canadian labour content?
My friend from British Columbia, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) is of the opinion that foreign trade no longer has any validity. He talks about pack rats. Let me tell him that I disagree with him completely. The great, longstanding Liberal concept, and I hope I can express it, is that goods the world over are naturally wanted by human beings the world over and the freer the movement of those goods the better it is for all mankind. I suggest, therefore, that our policy will be a continuation of that splendid policy enunciated by my leader before the last election when he talked about freer and freer trade. At that time the Minister of Trade and Commerce made this statement in a speech in Hamilton:
The Pearson freer trade plan will lead to enormous increases in imports and a rise in unemployment.
When the minister spoke the other day I noticed that he had recanted somewhat from that position. He said, as found on page 162 of Hansard:
I say that at this particular time when the world is a very competitive place indeed, when new market arrangements are developing, when the general movement appears to be toward a lowering of tariffs, when businesses have got to stand more and more on their own feet-
He went on to say that we must bring down costs and get quality up. That is all very nice, Mr. Speaker, but what is the Minister of Trade and Commerce doing to accomplish this? He is not accomplishing it by bringing people here on champagne trips to buy Canadian goods. He is not bringing it about by bringing the trade commissioners together or by bringing businessmen together. It seems to me this is dependent upon a drive on our part with those with whom we deal to lower their tariffs in exchange for a lowering of tariffs on our part. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce were here I would not want him to tell me that GATT prevents us from entering into such an agreement because it seems to me that today we can make any agreement in respect of these things.
When the Prime Minister spoke in this debate he instanced the case of a truck factory that had moved to Canada as the result of the austerity measures. He was referring to Mack trucks. I would remind the house that this company produces a specialized truck capable of carrying heavy loads and used to a great extent in the lumbering industry of 27507-3-24^
The Address-Mr. Laing British Columbia. The company is going to build Mack trucks in Canada. I would remind the house that as a result of the depreciation of the dollar and the tariff surcharges the cost of a Mack truck went up $3,600.


Mr. Skoreyko:: In the United States, yes.


Arthur Laing: It is $3,600 in Canada.


William Skoreyko: What are they going to cost in Canada?


Arthur Laing: I would suggest that probably the plant will be able to sell them at an increased cost of something like $3,000. This is bringing industry to Canada, so the Prime Minister says, so the Minister of Trade and Commerce says. This is the result of the austerity measures, but austerity has a cost. In the case of our industries in the province of British Columbia, which have to sell at the lowest possible prices they can, when they go to buy a Mack truck they are going to pay $3,000 more for it. The plea of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to get costs down is made impossible by virtue of the other action of the government which immediately raises costs.
So far as the depreciation of the dollar is concerned, I say quite frankly that the big exporters in the province of British Columbia are doing better today because a depreciated dollar sells more in foreign countries. But do not say that there is no cost involved in a depreciated dollar. Do not say that there is no cost in austerity. A cheap dollar buys less here and austerity today is being visited upon a very great number of people who are not in good shape to withstand it. I should like to give some figures as to the cost of austerity. These are bureau of statistic figures which I obtained the other day. In June of this year sirloin steak was $1.06 a pound while in August it was $1.12. Prime rib roasts were 95 cents in June and 99 cents in August.


An hon. Member:: The farmers are not getting it.


Arthur Laing: The farmers in my area are not getting it, and I will tell you something about that shortly. Pork shoulder roasts were 56 cents in June and 64 cents in August, ham 98 cents in June and $1.07 in August, a half a pound of bacon 48 cents in June and 54 cents in August and poultry, grade A, 43 cents in June and 47 cents in August.
I suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that he should co-operate with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton). We heard a great deal the other day about agriculture but it centred only on the feed grains which are grown in western Canada. I remind the house that the biggest agricultural activity in this nation is in Ontario. There are a

The Address-Mr. Laing great number of specialized crops coming along such as the one referred to the other day by the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Whelan), who said that an experimental quantity of fresh frozen beans had been exported to Germany. Last year we shipped from the city of New Westminster to Great Britain a considerable quantity of fresh frozen peas.
I plead with the Minister of Trade and Commerce to take an increasing interest in these aspects of agriculture because the sale of these commodities will result in more and more labour being used and the opportunity to maintain the family farm will probably be provided. So far as agricultural problems are concerned, there is the tremendous problem of integration and corporate farms which is rising in this country. There is also the cost of machinery and mechanization of farms which have already resulted in a great number of farmers going to the cities. We are faced with the problem of the lowest one sixth of the farmers in Canada from the point of view of income being forced to go into the cities and creating real social problems there. The real problem in respect of agriculture is that it has been visited by the greatest invasion of technology of any of our industries.
Now then, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with a problem that is of tremendous moment to us in the province of British Columbia. I refer to the proposed building of the Columbia river dam. I note that the new Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fulton) is with us. I cannot, for the life of me, understand where he stands on this question today. A short time ago he seemed to indicate that the adoption of a treaty along the lines insisted upon by the premier of British Columbia would be equivalent to the sale of Manhattan island.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is not what I said at all.


Arthur Laing: A change has been made in policy. The minister seems to be shaking his head to indicate he is in agreement-


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I said that you did not quote accurately what I said.


Arthur Laing: The minister has been quoted on a number of occasions as having said that the export of power to the United States under conditions that the premier of British Columbia wanted would be equivalent to the sale of Manhattan island.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is entirely different from the treaty. If you are discussing the policy with regard to the disposal of the benefit, that is right; but the hon. member said I applied those words to the treaty.


Arthur Laing: The minister will have an opportunity to make his explanation in the future. I cannot explain the legal gyrations of his mind at the present time.
I want to remind the house what one of the members of the government said in respect of this matter in 1957. On January 21, 1957, five years ago, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green), who was viewing with alarm this project and was not pointing with pride as he is now, said this:
There has already been a great delay in this matter. Someone either here or in Washington is dragging his feet in connection with these negotiations.
Then again, the same hon. gentleman said on April 6, 1957, as recorded on page 3188 of Hansard:
May I ask why it is necessary to wait until the negotiations are completed before any attempt is made to reach agreement with the province of British Columbia?
In the light of what has happened since in respect of agreement with the province of British Columbia, I think the minister did not take sufficient action then.
I should like to return, Mr. Speaker, to some remarks made by the preceding speaker in this debate, the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler), who largely made an attack upon members on this side of the house. I only want to say of him this, that his very great predecessor in this house never had to look across the aisle to see only 19 members listening to him.
In so far as the negotiations that took place in London on commonwealth matters are concerned, I am of the opinion that the United Kingdom is either going to walk upright into the European common market or she is going to fall in. If this matter is procrastinated and obfuscated to the point where Britain falls into the common market, she is not going to be a very good buyer of our goods. Let me ask this of the Prime Minister, who claims to have such foresight and love of the commonwealth: Two or two and a half years ago when the leader of this party was pointing out most admirably the inevitable position the United Kingdom was facing with the development of this tremendous new agency in Europe, why did the government not then do something about strengthening the commonwealth to enable the United Kingdom to make stronger representations when she had to go to Brussels? Our commonwealth is not weak; it is exceedingly powerful. We have a territory several times that of the United States, and I think that we have three and a half times her population. We are rich in tradition and we are rich in moral fibre.

Why did the Prime Minister not, two and a half years ago, as the leader of the greatest country outside of the mother country, call the commonwealth countries together to see what they, collectively, could do for the mother country in respect of a massive five year loan in connection with these foodstuffs we want collectively to sell? Why was this action not taken? Then, the mother country would have been strengthened to the point where she could have gone to these other countries and said: I want an arrangement that is beneficial not only to me but is beneficial to the commonwealth countries as well. Instead of that there was procrastination, delay, until finally the Prime Minister had to choose another argument and call for an international meeting on world trade. Well, this is too late. I would think that those countries in Europe today are too preoccupied with the building of their enormous engine to attend such a gathering. I would agree with the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he indicated that the future of the common market is now indefinite. It is true that success breeds success, and they have had nothing but success. I think anyone would be taking a risk if he suggested he had enough foresight to indicate what is going to come out of all this.
This is what I feel. I believe that in the next few years my suggestion will be borne out. I believe that these great nations of Europe are getting themselves into a position where they can, with impunity begin to buy products from the U.S.S.R. One of the most significant situations in Europe is the increase in purchases from the U.S.S.R. It is going to be very difficult for this government to complain against that movement to purchase goods from the U.S.S.R. when last year we increased our exports to that country 300 per cent in one year for a total of $24 million. What concerns me is that the great variety of goods they were purchasing from the U.S.S.R. were parallel to the goods Canada would sell to that area.
Are these things of no concern to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees)? Has he not his eye on this situation for the future? Is he not going to tell the Canadian people what the facts are in respect of these matters? This is what Canada needs at this time, to be given all the facts, instead of a call going forth from the Minister of Trade and Commerce, whom some people in my province say is a good drummer. I am going to say very frankly that of all the ministers he enjoys the best reputation. I have heard more compliments given to him in British Columbia than to any other minister. I am going to suggest to you that the finest compliment I have heard of him is that he could
The Address-Mr. Laing be a lot worse. This is a fact. But we are not meeting the situation that is confronting Canada today in so far as exports are concerned. I do not know what the solution is. I hope the solution by this government is not the solution that was found, for a short period in the days of my old friend the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), when the government of Mr. Bennett decided he would have one set of tariffs west of old Fort Garry and one east of old Fort Garry. It is one of the great historical facts of Canada that for a time we had two sets of tariff laws in the country.
The great central provinces have problems different from those we have, but we would not represent the true position of the western provinces if we did not bring our solutions before this house. We could, to great advantage, deal in complete free trade in the province of British Columbia. There is no question about that because we sell $50 millions a month worth of products to the United States out of British Columbia alone. Indeed I am quite sure that at this particular time there is no other market for those goods, and I am quite certain no other country has the money to pay for them in the way the United States does.
However I question why there was not, at least, a burst of indignation from the federal government when it was suggested that the United States was going to prevent the importation of lumber from British Columbia. I saw no great action taken by the federal government. Industry and labour on the coast joined together, but the federal government did not give the leadership it should have at that time. When we are buying, in a four month period, $218 million more worth of goods from that country than we sell to it, then any change should not be made without the strongest possible representations from the government of Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Those representations were made long before you suggested them.


Arthur Laing: Well, they were not strong enough to have been recognized by any newspaper in Canada that I have seen.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They were fully reported. You have just not been reading the papers.


Arthur Laing: The industry itself has been very active.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Just read the papers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Arthur Laing: If I am to have these interruptions from the former minister of justice then I shall require another five minutes. After all, he is a citizen of my province and I am sure he wants to hear me.

The Address-Mr. Rondeau


Mr. Fullon:: I want to hear you speak accurately.


Arthur Laing: I plead with the Minister of Trade and Commerce to take a more active interest, a deeper interest in these matters beyond bringing buyers or suggested buyers into the country. I plead with him to make a much deeper study of these affairs so that he -and this government can make proper representations to the nations with which we trade. This is the best security for Canada to grow and develop.
^Translation):


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be to tender you my congratulations for the unanimity of your election as Speaker of the house. I also want to congratulate you for having, up to now, led our parliamentary debates with a remarkable objectivity.
I also want to thank and congratulate the mover (Mr. Chaplin) and the seconder (Mr. Vincent) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Mr. Speaker, as it is the first time I have the privilege of sitting in this imposing assembly, I should also like to commend all members of the staff, in the external as well as the internal services, for their courtesy and for the prompt and kindly way in which they fulfil their respective tasks and duties.
The atmosphere, the spaciousness and size of this house, as well as its comfortable set-up should, to my mind, incite hon. members who sit here to establish in Canada an economic system inspired by the comforts which surround us in this august chamber.
Mr. Speaker, the night of June 18 last we, and more particularly the French Canadians in the province of Quebec, gave a sigh of relief. Considering that, in our province, which had been called Liberal for almost a hundred years, Liberal governments had always been elected, except in 1957, and more particularly in my riding, where the people had voted Liberal for 68 consecutive years, we cannot but give a big sigh of relief.
My predecessor was a member of parliament for 17 years. Yet, yesterday, the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) tendered him his congratulations, whereas he knew very well that, like the others he named yesterday, my predecessor had lost out and been rejected by the people and the voters of his county in the June 18 election. For 17 years, my riding had been Liberal, and, for 68 years, the voters in the province of Quebec had voted in favour of the Liberal party.
[Mr. Laing.)
Now, we begin to breathe again, to feel freer. We begin to feel the effects of a new economic system which will, perhaps, not be at the mercy of the old parties that have led the province of Quebec, and the whole of Canada, into the economic stagnation we are having today.
We obtained a clear vote on June 18 last, and we shall win a greater victory in the future. Some people looked upon the Social Credit vote in the province of Quebec on June 18 as a tidal wave, but I think that at the next general election, the tide will sweep away all the political rats, more particularly in our province.
At the first public meeting I held in my riding after the election of last June 18, I did not hold a press conference as was suggested yesterday in this house. It was only an organization meeting where I expressed the hope that the house proceedings would be televised during at least one hour every day. If the people could have witnessed the behaviour of some members of this house during the past week, they would have found out the truth about, first of all, their turpitude, their trivialities and their empty words and they would also have seen how those members beat around the bush for an hour's time or four hours on end, as the leader of the Liberal opposition did, to achieve absolutely nothing. Our constituents, who, in addition to being taxpayers, are also those who provide the funds to finance the C.B.C., should be the first to know what goes on in this august assembly. I feel it would not be too much to ask to have the parliament debates televised an hour each day, so that the people could be informed directly, instead of being given a falsified account, of what goes on in this house.
Mr. Speaker, we are not here to play into the hands of the old parties or to lend ourselves to the Liberal practice of seeking a means to overthrow the government overnight. Did not the Liberals themselves deplore the fact, and rightly so, that France experienced nothing but temporary governments which changed from one day to the next? We do not wish to see Canada in a similar situation. And that is why we of the Social Credit party shall not play into the hands of the Liberals, who are seeking to overthrow the government tomorrow or the day after or next week, to end up in that same situation which we do not want.

The Address-Mr. Rondeau
We do not wish to keep the Conservatives in power just for the fun of it, but for one purpose only, and that is to obtain better legislation for Canada and for all Canadians.
To us, the important thing is not to change the seats of the pants on the benches in parliament but it is rather to amend the legislation which in the near future will govern the destiny of our people. We want legislation and we do not intend to be satisfied with empty promises, or beautiful phrases or billing and cooing on the part of the Conservatives, to get nowhere. We are ready to co-operate. We are willing to assist. We are ready to give them an opportunity either to legislate for the common good of the Canadian people or to weave the rope they will be hanged with at the next federal election.
We want better laws from the government. Among other things, we want family allowances proportionate to the cost of living index. When family allowances were initiated in 1945, milk sold at 8 to 10 cents a quart, but the cost of living has increased threefold since then, while family allowances have been increased by a single dollar. For that reason, on behalf of my constituents and of Canadians throughout the country, I ask that family allowances be proportionate to the present cost of living index.
I also request an adjustment in old age pensions. Our older people must live just as our younger people. The rate of old age pension was not adjusted since the adoption of the act. I, therefore, request that it be proportionate to the cost of living index.
I request also for the small wage earner, the worker, the farmer, all those who build the real wealth of Canada and of our province, an exemption of taxes as being heads of families. Such an exemption should be at least $5,000 for the head of a family and $3,000 for a single person. Statistics show that it costs at least $86 a week to live, to give the bare necessities to a family of five. If such is the case it is only logical and normal for us in this house to request a total exemption of tax for all salaried people earning less than $100 a week.
We also want, Mr. Speaker, more encouragement for private enterprise.
In 1962, everybody is against private enterprise. Public bodies, aldermen, municipal councils, provincial governments and even the federal government are grabbing private enterprise by the throat. We are trying to crush it by imposing heavy taxes upon it,
and in one province in particular there is even some talk of nationalization. Yet, it is thanks to private enterprise if we have prosperity in Canada right now.
It is neither the Liberals, during their 22 years in office, nor the Conservatives, in the last five years, who have made Canada what it is today.
If Canada is rich and prosperous in 1962, if she has abundant natural resources, if her production is high, that is not due to any government but to private enterprise, because private enterprise was the one to understand the situation in our country.
We rise to the defence of private enterprise. If we do not save it, we will soon live to regret it. In fact, a country which is 1,800 miles away from here but which is quite close to the U.S.A., Cuba, was in the same situation not so long ago. Today, everybody deplores the way things turned out there.
There were millionaires in Cuba before the communists took over; there was private enterprise and also the proletariat, workers and farmers. Came the day when those people had enough of being exploited and crushed by taxes. Revolution started to brew and Castro entered the scene. Under the guise of planning, of state socialism, he removed private enterprise and established a totalitarian government which handed the country over to the communists. We Social Crediters knew already that the Liberals were socialist and that the socialists were Liberals. We fully understand their stand in this house, we know why they want economic planning and nationalization of our business concerns.
We of the Social Credit do not advocate the nationalization of private enterprise.
I am an industrialist, and my problem is not to produce but to sell the goods; my problem is to face farmers in need, to face farmers who need my products, but who must live in debt for five or 10 years in order to purchase today what I can produce and manufacture today.
Our economic system, as it stands today, does not allow our farmers, our workers to live today, in this country of ours, with the money they earn today and to buy what is produced today. They have to go into hock for many years to come.
That is the baseness of the present system. We have been elected to fight against this system, and that is the reason I want to be

The Address-Mr. Rondeau the prime defender of the people of my constituency who elected me. I have not been elected to be a supporter of the Liberal and Conservative policies, but for the sole purpose of seeking improved legislation for the farmer, the worker, the small businessman and the individual who is still self-employed.
Everybody is crying for the opening of new markets abroad and no one is looking at the markets we have here in our communities, our provinces and across Canada.
Once upon a time, two gentlemen were admiring a beautiful mountain. One said to the other "Do you see that mountain in front of you?" And the other replied "Indeed I do" and the first gentleman went on: "Can you see the fly on the mountain?" The other replied "No, I cannot see it on the mountain because it is on the tip of your nose."
Well, Mr. Speaker, when we see Conservative or Liberal politicians wracking their brains in order to find ways and means to sell Canadian goods throughout the world, while there are so many people who need them here at home, we are inclined to tell them: Instead of going outside Canada, why not try to sell from door to door in our cities or in our municipalities. Visit our farmers, our workers, our small contractors, see what the needs are in the province of Quebec, and then you will realize that we do not need to send commissioners in other countries in order to sell our products, we can sell a lot of them right here, in our own country.
Let us ask ourselves why it is that so many firms, so many plants, so many businesses have to close their doors at the present time or have to lay off some of their employees because of a lack of orders.
Let us ask ourselves why, in my own constituency, for instance, over 600 employees from three different plants were laid off.
Let us ask ourselves why, in the constituency of St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville, workers were laid off by the hundreds not later than last week, although it is said that we have enough buying power in Canada.
If we do not lack buying power in this country, why do we try to sell our products to the tourists? Why woo the American tourists? Why woo the foreign tourists? In order to extort dollars from them in exchange for our products.
Production in Canada is well known for its quality and its variety. Those who will set up a system-and we want to do it-that will

enable Canadians to live in a wealthy country, where production is not lacking, those will not remain in power during 22 years, instead power will be theirs for the rest of their lives.
At the present time, people say jokingly that we want to form a coalition with the Conservatives. Such is not the case.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) is in a dilemma. His own supporters, after suffering two defeats, would like a new leader. And because his party was defeated twice, that gentleman would like to have an election as soon as possible, in order to prevent the Liberals from choosing a new leader.
Last night, when the non-confidence motion proposed by the official opposition was put to a vote, several Liberal members had not been consulted. They were asked to vote although they had not been consulted before. And several have told us of their surprise.
We do not want to get caught at the game of "old gimmicks" nor do we want to get involved in the old game of petty politics. Our mandate is clear and simple, and we want to serve the voters of our ridings and those of the province of Quebec especially.
Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec elected the Liberal party for 22 years, in Ottawa, and I must say today in this house that it is the province which has been the most badly treated.
The Liberal party is shocked and offended in considering that its favoured province, the province on which it thought it had forever a grip, has forsaken it.
Today they realize that Social Credit, on June 18 last, achieved a break through which we shall continue to enlarge, not only in this house, but also during the next election, which may be not far off. We are going to wipe off the political map of the province of Quebec, not only the Liberal party but the old parties who have not been able to give Canadians prosperity in our province, as in other provinces, whereas Canada has all it needs to yield that prosperity.
The small retailer, the industrialist and private enterprise want a prosperous Canada.
What we want, is not a planning government, not a government with socialist leanings, not a government which is perpetually searching our pockets. What we want is a government with sound business principles. We do not want the government to be mixed

up in our business, but we want sound business principles in the government.
If, in the past, legislation had been based on sound business principles, we would not now have to deplore the fact that Canada has a terrible debt which is increasing every day.
Canada has known and still knows today, a period of recession. We are still going through times where private enterprise is exhausted and gives all its benefits away in taxes. The proof, Mr. Speaker, is that today our savings capital is swallowed up by public works.
People have lost confidence in the administration of Canada, but not in private enterprise. Why is that? Because, today, our savings capital goes to finance sidewalks, water mains, bridges, sewers and public works.
If people had confidence in private enterprise, in this country, they would not be interested in financing public works.
That is why we ask, as did the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), that a municipal development bank be established to give municipalities in our province, and throughout Canada, a source of credit which would help carry out their public works. We should not finance public works with our savings. The money we have saved should be used to finance private production, and public capital made available to our governments should be used to finance public works.
Mr. Speaker, people complain at this time- and justly so-that our national economy, and also our provincial economy, are slipping into the hands of other countries and of international finance. We need hardly be surprised at that fact, when our own government does not even make available to our private industries the capital they need to finance their projects. We must draw from our savings capital to finance 50- to 100-year projects.
It is about time, Mr. Speaker, to stop laughing at Social Credit proposals. It is very easy to laugh at a certain thing, one has only to twitch one's face and that's it, but it takes much less intelligence to laugh at something than to understand it.
Before June 18, many were those who were laughing at Social Credit proposals, as well as at the Social Credit philosophy. Many were those who were laughing at all that, but on the evening of June 18, they got the lesson of their lives.
The Address-Mr. Fulton
We shall keep on explaining to the people what is Social Credit; we shall keep on explaining to the people that we have not been elected here by means of election funds which would tie us to national or international financiers who would like farmers to be still exploited by companies which have contributed to both parties' funds.
My election cost only a few thousand dollars, about ten times less than the campaign of the one who was defeated after sitting here for 17 years, wearing out the seat of his pants to such an extent that one day he was so mixed up-and those who were here at the time will remember the incident- in his absent-mindedness he voted against his own party. By the way, he asked the Speaker to correct his mistake, and to record his vote as his party wished it.
Having been defeated on June 18 last, he is now trying to find himself another place in provincial politics. Well, I wish him the same fate he has known on June 18, in order that all these jokers of our province and of our country disappear before long from the political map of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, those few minutes were put at my disposal to serve and represent the electors of my constituency who gave me a wonderful majority on June 18. I congratulate them and I shall try in this house to serve them with honour and to be always at their disposal.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your good attention.
(Text):


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I take this opportunity of associating myself publicly, as I have already done privately, with those who have extended to you, Mr. Speaker, their congratulations and compliments upon the occasion of your elevation to this high office? May I also associate myself with the things which have been said in complimenting the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne? With respect to yourself, Mr. Speaker, it is naturally a matter of particular pleasure to me, coming as I do from your neighbouring province in the west, to see you occupying the chair in this house, not only a fellow western Canadian but one who in his person combines also the two major racial divisions of this country.

The Address-Mr. Fulton
To the mover and the seconder of the address in reply I wish merely to say this, in addition to what I have already said. I desire them to know that I experienced profound admiration for the way in which they discharged their duties here. That admiration was perhaps tinged with a little bit of envy because I recall that on the occasion of my maiden speech I was far from acquitting myself with the distinction with which they acquitted themselves in a much more onerous position, having undertaken as they had the much more onerous task of moving the address in reply to His Excellency. It is an onerous task not only because of the fact that it is a difficult and nerve wracking burden on a new member but because, as I am sure they would agree, Mr. Speaker, and as they themselves indeed said, it fell to them to move the address in reply to one of the most important and far reaching throne speeches that have been laid before this house.
As we are now nearing the end of a time allotted for the debate on the address, it is perhaps not inappropriate to spend a few moments in review, as it were, of what has taken place during this debate. One of the things, of course, that marks the debate on this occasion, is the fact that we have seen moved in the house a variety of amendments, all of which have raised the question of whether this government should continue to have the responsibility of governing. On those amendments, I am glad to remind you, Mr. Speaker, the government has been sustained by a majority of the members of this house. Of course, this result but confirms the verdict which the people of Canada recorded on June 18. It is not inappropriate to recall that on that day, under our system, the Canadian people entrusted the continued responsibility of government to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the present government and thus far this house has sustained that verdict.
One can therefore understand the obvious frustration of the Liberal party, a frustration arising not only from their experience to date in this house but out of the fact that they have made three attempts in the last five years in carrying their case to the people to take over the responsibility of office and that in all those attempts they have failed. In the last attempt we saw the most desperate scramble for power in Canada's history. In the course of that attempt, culminating on June 18, we saw the Liberal party stop at nothing in their efforts to translate into reality their highly imaginative lust for power. After all, I suppose one could almost sympathize


with them in their frustration. Three times they have tried and on the night of June 18, Mr Speaker, you will recall what happened. I am sure you watched with me, as I am sure did many other hon. members, the Leader of the Opposition when he appeared on television so confident that he was going to be able to drink the wine of victory. How frustrating it must have been to have that cup so rudely dashed from his lips at the last moment before he had really tasted a drop. Hence he is left now only to drain the dregs of the cup of bitterness. We recall these things.
As I say, one can sympathize to an extent with the members of the Liberal party in their frustration. However, as they seem to have forgotten it, it is perhaps as well to remind them that while they lust for power, there is one essential requirement which they have not yet met, namely that they win the largest number of seats in this house, if they are to have that responsibility. This fact they continue to overlook. However, until that event takes place or that remote possibility occurs, with the support of this house the responsibility of government rests upon this party and this government under the present Prime Minister of Canada. We accept that responsibility.
It is my view that the Canadian people, as they look towards their parliament now, expect the government upon which they imposed that responsibility on June 18, to respect it and to discharge it. The Canadian people expect this government to offer them a program designed to meet the problems with which this country is confronted. In accordance with that expectation and in accordance with our responsibility we have introduced that program into this house by way of the speech from the throne. It is a conscientious and, in my submission, a constructive program designed to meet today's problems and to lay a further foundation for the coming long range problems and requirements of tomorrow. That program represents no compromise or concession. It represents nothing by way of a deal or a special arrangement with any party or group. It is the government's own program which we have worked out to deal with the problems for the solution of which we are responsible. Thus far that program has been accepted by a majority in this house, although opposition parties in the house on various occasions have attempted to defeat that program.
In the time at my disposal this evening I propose to elaborate somewhat on the constructive actions and detailed programs which we lay before the house and country. First, however, in order that it may better be seen in perspective, it may be helpful if I deal for

a moment or two with the background or the backdrop against which that program is presented. The salient feature of that backdrop is, of course, the Liberal tactics which were started prior to the election campaign, reached their climax as it progressed, and then continued in this house as well as outside of it since that time. I refer to the scream and scare tactics which characterize the current approach of the Liberal party to Canadian problems. A little earlier I said that during the election campaign they stopped at nothing in their desire to achieve power. We saw them indulging in a tactic of attempting to create panic and confusion in the business and financial community. I shall give some examples of each of these criticisms. For this one, I think particularly of the example of a prominent Liberal businessman who, speaking in Truro, Nova Scotia, in early June said that Canada was teetering on the verge of bankruptcy.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Nothing could be better calculated to create panic, confusion and uncertainty in the minds of the business and financial community.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about the Minister of Agriculture?


Edmund Davie Fulton: We heard them uttering cries about the financial crisis while they themselves proposed measures that would add at least a billion dollars to the Canadian tax bill or the Canadian deficit. The Leader of the Opposition talks about irresponsibilitiy. He says now, as he said then, that he knew there was a financial crisis. Yet he deliberately advocated measures which, if he knew there was a financial crisis, he must also have known would add immeasurably to that crisis.
That is their tactic, Mr. Speaker, charges of misrepresentation and misleading while they themselves indulge in the most coldblooded misrepresentation and distortion of policy that has ever been seen in the record of political campaigns in this country.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have effectively given the lie to these charges in so far as they are applied to the government, but let us look for a moment at the tactics followed by the Liberal party during that campaign. Virtually every policy, in many cases policies which they themselves had advocated or knew to be right, for political purposes they distorted, misrepresented and criticized as being wrong and leading the country to the brink of disaster.
I think of some prominent examples. There is the policy of devaluation. Did you ever see such a spectacle as these prominent advocates of a policy of devaluation, a policy they knew
The Address-Mr. Fulton to be to the advantage of Canada and which they had advocated before they became Liberal candidates, turning around and adopting an attitude and associating themselves with and participating actively in a campaign which would have had the Canadian people believe that the policy of devaluation was the worst policy that the country could follow? I think particularly of such members as the member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon) and the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Nicholson) who were prominent in urging upon the government that we should follow a policy of devaluation; and when we did, and in the light of the fact that it was having the results it was calculated to have in that industries in Canada were benefiting, we then saw these members go about distorting and misrepresenting not only their own position but the effects and the nature of the policy. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) placed before the house a list of commodities today which are exported from British Columbia and Canada, but he forbore to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that every industry producing these commodities has been immeasurably helped in British Columbia by the devaluation policy of the government.
What did the Liberal party say about the cost of living, coupling this with devaluation? They attempted to strike fear into the hearts of the Canadian people on the grounds that devaluation would lead to astronomical rises in the cost of living. The Leader of the Opposition, speaking in Halifax on June 8, a popular day for misstatements on the part of the Liberal party, was it not, Mr. Speaker, said words to the effect that the Canadian cost of living can rise to a point where it would be very dangerous indeed. What happened to the cost of living, Mr. Speaker? The fact of the matter is that the cost of living has remained satisfactorily stable in the months since. The campaign began in April, and yet between the months of August and September the cost of living experienced an appreciable drop. Again, the hon. member for Vancouver South, having reinherited the tactic of the selective use of statistics which is, after all, characteristic of members of the Liberal party, proceeded to quote some statistics from the dominion bureau of statistics in his speech today; but he conveniently overlooked the fact that the cost of living as a whole has dropped and that the major reason for that drop is a decline in the cost of food index. This is the very index that the Liberal party said repeatedly during the campaign would be sent up out of sight as a result of the policy of devaluation.
Nobody can be unconcerned if there is an increase in the cost of living, and there has

The Address-Mr. Fulton been an increase over all between April and September. But the fact of the matter is that by comparison with previous years there has not been as great a rise between April and September of 1962 as was the custom in those earlier years. Therefore one can see the extent to which this tactic was used by the Liberal party to mislead the Canadian people.
Finally, we see the tactic, unprecedented in the history of Canada, Mr. Speaker, indeed, I should think unprecedented in the history of the western world, of a direct and deliberate attack on the nation's currency, an onslaught on the integrity of the Canadian dollar, an attack on confidence itself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: By the Minister of Agriculture.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Attacks on policy, of course, may oe expected and should be expected, particularly during an election campaign; but as for attacks on confidence in the currency, never before have I seen and never again will I see, I hope, a tactic such as that, destructive of confidence in the very integrity of our currency. Never again, I hope, will we see such a tactic such as that policy because confidence in the dollar outlives governments and parliament if it is maintained; and if it is destroyed it is more important and is a greater loss than the passage of any government or the demise of any particular parliament. This is what my hon. friends lost sight of, driven to the lengths of irresponsibility that they were in their lust for power.
I know that someone has said or maybe suggested: why do you rehash the election campaign? This is not just a rehash of the election campaign because unfortunately these tactics are still continuing. The fact of the matter is that apparently it is still the view and objective of the Liberal party that on the self-imposed ruins of the nation's currency, if they had their way, on the backs of Canadian workers and consumers whose devastation they would have encompassed, they would build a political future for themselves.
It is a continuing policy. We still see them in their frustration continuing their attempts to destroy confidence on the part of the Canadian people in their institutions, trying to capitalize on the fact that the country has a minority government by seeking to intimidate and frighten investors, businessmen and people generally with regard to the course of events. As authority for this statement I cite words used by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) speaking in the Stormont byelection campaign, as reported in the Montreal Star of July 13. He said:
Their minority will not stand. We can destroy it at a moment's notice ... at the opportune time.


Could any words be more calculated to inspire and instil lack of confidence in those who are looking, as they are entitled to look and expect, for stability in the affairs of our government? "Destroy it at a moment's notice, at the opportune time", even though the Canadian people had entrusted them with the responsibility of government, before they had any chance to submit their program to the house.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Of course they did not entrust.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Under our system, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people entrusted us with the responsibility of government and until the hon. member for Essex East gets that through his head I fear he will be doomed to sit in frustration on the other side of the house.
With this approach, Mr. Speaker, I should like to contrast the program which we have offered this house and the country. As I have said, we accept the responsibility for government. We are fully conscious of the fact that we are a minority government but that fact does not relieve us of the responsibility of governing. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you, and it our view, that it but heightens the responsibility that we must show. So we have come before the house with a program of working, building and planning. That is the aim of the program embodied in the speech from the throne.
I should like to give the house some illustrations of it by referring to the work and planning of my own department, but I also think I can illustrate it effectively by contrasting it in the course of my remaining remarks with that ragtag and bobtail collection of left-over bits and pieces that the Leader of the Opposition tried to characterize as a program toward the end of the speech which he delivered on Tuesday of last week.
First, as to planning, Mr. Speaker, let me point out to the house that in spite of the fact we have had to implement emergency measures in my department, and there are some restrictions on physical construction, we have not in any way interfered with the planning vote of that department. Therefore, the vote of $1.5 million under which the planning of major and minor projects is carried on is untouched. Those plans are going forward so that at the earliest moment, when other factors permit, the plans can be implemented for the people of Canada.
Next, I should like to say a word with regard to physical activity, working and building. The Leader of the Opposition calls for a massive increase in construction. Let me refer to the July figures. Building permits issued for construction amounted to over $273 million for the month of July alone, up 20.2

per cent from a year earlier. The Leader of the Opposition says that half a billion dollars of construction means the equivalent of a year's work for 100,000 men, and their employment in turn would mean stimulation for a great deal of other business. This reference is found at page 70 of Hansard.
May I point out that permits issued in July for construction amounted to over a quarter of a billion dollars. If we have another month like July, we will have the half a billion dollars in construction ready to get under way and the 100,000 men to whom the Leader of the Opposition referred will be going back to work under Conservative policy.
May I refer the house to an item which appeared in the Gazette of October 9, which reads as follows:
Construction contract awards during the first nine months total $2,525 million-5.6 per cent higher than for the same period last year, according to the MacLean Building Guide. The increase derives from more housing and business construction con-ceentrated in the Quebec and Ontario areas.
These are some of the positive achievements and programs. The Leader of the Opposition speaks of the Liberals' national plan for municipal development. He speaks in the same breath of the colossal failure of our proposal and then goes on, in the same breath, to advocate more of the same. Let me give you some of the particulars of what has been done in this field in the years from 1957 up to August, 1962. There have been
724,000	new dwellings started in Canada, 45 per cent of which are financed under the National Housing Act, and $1.5 billion have been advanced in direct Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation loans during that period. There have been 20,000 units of rental accommodation provided for low income families, in an aggregate amount of $157 million.
The next item concerns some 5,000 public housing units which have been approved under the federal-provincial partnership arrangement since we took office; some 3,300 land assembly lots have been approved; approximately $675,000 have been contributed to urban renewal studies. Forty four such studies have been undertaken in the five years since the Conservative government was first elected, whereas there were six under the Liberals.
The Leader of the Opposition speaks of urban redevelopment. If I may paraphrase his own words used in another context, he thinks this program is as new as his own knowledge of it. The total contribution approved for urban redevelopment purposes under this government has been close to $20
The Address-Mr. Fulton million. Then, again, he speaks of sewage disposal. He criticizes, Mr. Speaker, but carefully omits to point out that it was this government that amended the National Housing Act, in December, 1960, to provide for sewage disposal projects and to assist municipalities. Since that time, 264 loans totalling over $68 million have been made and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has now some 271 preliminary applications on hand with a loan potential of another $67 million. This is the first time in the history of this country that a direct attack has been made on the joint problems of pollution and water conservation, the first time in the history of this country any constructive approach has been made to the problem of helping the municipalities whose need in this field was so desperate.
I could go on. The greatest tribute, I may say, should be paid to my predecessor, the Hon. David Walker, for the vision he had and the broad concept that he had in bringing this legislation into effect. I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but in fact we have spent the last five years in working, building and planning in areas ignored by the Grits. I say without hesitation that if, in fact, there is a national concept of municipal development, it rests with this government and this party. The plans and the programs that I have outlined indicate the truth of that statement.
Coupled with that, I say that further imaginative, practical plans are to come. As an example of what I have in mind, I may say that I am asking Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to study three important and closely related matters. The first of these is in the broad field of providing housing for the physically handicapped; second, the study of a proposal to build university residences for married couples; third, the general question of the further application of the sewage disposal plan.
I think I have said enough. I hope I have said enough, Mr. Speaker, to show, particularly by way of contrast as against the scare and scream tactics of the Liberals, that we have for this country a constructive program of planning, building and working. The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) and his colleagues would have the business of the country grind to a halt, they would have Canadian and foreign investors run from the country, they would have this parliament become little less than a forum for their scream and scare tactics, they would have everybody stop and wait while they make their play for power. We cannot allow the government, parliament and people of Canada to be intimidated by threats such as the one used by the hon. member for Laurier, that they can

The Address-Mr. Mackasey destroy us at a moment's notice at an opportune time. No, Mr. Speaker, it is the electors of Canada who will determine when any opportune time comes, on the basis of which any government will be defeated.
I believe it is our duty, Mr. Speaker, and we accept the duty and responsibility of placing our program before this house, bringing in the detailed legislation by which this program will be implemented. On that basis, I invite the support of this house without compromise or concession. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we can leave to the hon. member for Laurier and other members of the Liberal party such ideas as they believe will destroy us, and that they will destroy this program at a moment's notice at the opportune time. What an arrogant statement. I suggest to hon. members of the Liberal party, in spite of their bravado, that they well know if, for opportunism such as they wish, they were able-they will not be able-to succeed in frustrating this constructive program and deprive this parliament of an opportunity of seeing this program implemented, it would be the most inopportune thing that could happen to them as well as being disastrous for Canada.
On the basis of the program, Mr. Speaker, I say to you that the Conservative government, the Conservative party, is prepared to go ahead and accept that responsibility of giving constructive government which the people have imposed upon us, satisfied when the proper moment comes to face the people on the basis of that program and that record. (Translation):


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Verdun):: May I be
allowed, Mr. Speaker, like many others, to offer you my congratulations for your appointment to the high office you now occupy. My short experience in the house has already convinced me that the welfare of our country depends, to a large extent, on the integrity and impartiality with which you fulfil your functions.
May I be allowed also to congratulate the mover (Mr. Chaplin) and the seconder (Mr. Vincent) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The quality of those first two speeches has set a standard that all members will no doubt wish to emulate.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, as I stand here to speak for the first time in the House of Commons I do so with mixed emotions. I am very proud of being part of this house and representing the English speaking population of the province of Quebec. It is traditional, and perhaps in the spirit of democracy, that they have picked a backbencher to represent them here today, but at the same time I realize very humbly that I speak in the presence of so many
[Mr. Fulton.)
distinguished parliamentarians, men I have admired and respected, men who are sitting on both sides of the house.
I have just listened with great interest to the Minister of Public Works. I listened with concern as he expressed his disapproval of our attack on the monetary system of Canada during the election, but I say in all sincerity that it was not the printing of funny money or our remarks on the monetary system which caused a run on the Canadian dollar. It was the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture when he blithely admitted that it did not matter whether the dollar stood at 95 cents or 90 cents, and that they could decide by a flip of a coin that it should be 92 J. One cannot have respect for a government when one hears such talk from a minister of the crown.
Yesterday I listened with great respect to the Minister of Justice when he sprang to the defence of the deputy attorney general of Canada. With great indignation he stood up for this gentleman who, allegedly, was attacked by a member of the New Democratic party. What a contrast was his defence of the deputy attorney general to his behaviour in the Coyne affair.
Mr. Speaker, I am conscious of the fact that there is a new sense of awareness in the country. Never before in the peacetime history of Canada have so many people looked to parliament for leadership. Never before have so many people looked so desperately for some guidance and reassurance, for a plan to be formulated to show that leadership is available, leadership that will put the country back on the road to recovery. Like a man who has had his first heart attack this country realizes all is not sound with its economy. Its people are bewildered at the fact that there is no indication of a plan for the recovery of the economy, and they are anxious because the government does not take them into its confidence and confront them with the problems impeding our progress.
I am convinced that had the government introduced its austerity program a year sooner the people of Canada would look more favourably on the government than they do today. The people are ready, in a manner reminiscent of their wartime effort, to work, to increase production, to put their shoulders to the wheel if only the direction and leadership were available. Unfortunately the government is not taking advantage of this desire to face the facts. Rather, it is once again assuring the country that all is well, that unemployment is vanishing at a rapid rate and that in the very near future everyone will be back to work. For the sake of the unemployed I hope so.

The people remember the days when the prestige of Canada was at an all time high, when Canada's voice was a powerful one in the United Nations. They recall the time when the economy of Canada was strong and vigorous. Those were the days when skilled immigrants regarded Canada as the land of milk and honey. Those were the days when our dollar was more sought after than that of our mighty neighbour to the south. In five long years of Tory government the people have seen our prestige dwindle until our voice is no longer listened to, and our shores are no longer the goal of immigrants from prosperous Europe. Our money is no longer eagerly snapped up.
Canadians have sat back in amazement and watched the once proud Tory party accept, with gratitude, the assistance of the Social Credit party to stay in power. They accept the help of a splinter party whose very doctrine is fundamentally opposed to anything the Conservatives hold sacred. One would have thought that at least the Conservatives would have refrained from showing their glee.
As I listened first to the mover of the address in reply as he traced the industrial development of his constituency, and next to the seconder as he spoke with obvious pride of the industrial achievements of his country, I realized that I could not eulogize Verdun in either of these fields. The truth of the matter is that, situated as it is on the island of Montreal, the city of Verdun has long passed the time when it could lay claim to any achievement in the field of agriculture. Nor can we claim any fame in the field of industrialization, since the citizens of Verdun have long been happy to earn their living in the vast industries outside our boundaries. (Translation):
The Verdun riding is remarkable for the quality of its citizens. It has a population of
86,000	and is the third largest city in the province. But as regards bilingualism, Verdun is probably first in the country. For years, English Canadians and French Canadians have lived side by side in perfect harmony and nobody will make them believe that in the sight of the Divine Providence, there is any difference between the nations that live on this earth.
(Text):
Our degree of bilingualism can be traced directly to our vast recreational program. From an early age our French speaking and English speaking children play together on our many playgrounds, and when they reach the age of reason it is very difficult for any adult, already poisoned by the seeds of racial intolerance, to convince them that their French speaking or English speaking neighbour is not a wonderful person.
The Address-Mr. Mackasey (Translation):
As an English Canadian born in the province of Quebec, I have been for many years aware of the tremendous part played by the French Canadians in the building up of our country. Their faithfulness to Canada in the truly critical moments fills many pages of our history.
I am proud, Mr. Speaker, of being a citizen of Verdun and a resident of the province of Quebec. I boast of speaking, although with some difficulty, the tongue of my French Canadian friends.
(Text) :
There are two other accomplishments of the community of Verdun about which I wish to speak very briefly. I am proud of the fact, for instance, that the name of Verdun is known throughout the free world, and indeed behind the iron curtain. Within the boundaries of Verdun lies the famous Verdun Protestant hospital, the leading institution dedicated to the alleviation of mental illness. There a dedicated staff, under the direction of Dr. Roberts, has introduced new techniques and new methods of curing mental illness, methods based on kindness, compassion and the restoration of human dignity. These methods have been copied by other institutions throughout the world for there are no barriers, nor should there be any, to the exchange of ideas in this field.
The last item to which I wish to refer is the tremendous contribution Verdun made in the last war. It is on record that Verdun had the highest rate of enlistment per capita of any large city in Canada. Is it little wonder then, Mr. Speaker, that the citizens of Verdun resent certain political leaders expressing their admiration for the two greatest exponents of man's inhumanity to man?
Listening, as I did, quite attentively to the speech of the Prime Minister I found little of consequence. I think it is a little surprising when one realizes that this government had an abnormally long time at its disposal to prepare its program. While the opposition and the people of Canada cooled their heels waiting for the convening of parliament, the Prime Minister prepared a program that got progressively worse as the available time became shorter.
I did, however, hear him express the desire to balance the budget. This after five years of record deficits-not calculated deficits to relieve unemployment, but record deficits at a time when the unemployment rate was at an all time high in the history of Canada. I could not help thinking, again on a regional note, as I listened to the Prime Minister, that a week or two before the election our Prime Minister promised to visit the city of Verdun,

The Address-Mr. Mackasey as the Leader of the Opposition graciously did. We prepared the gold book, and all the traditional ceremonies that go with it, for our Prime Minister. What did he do? Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his entourage sped through the city of Verdun by the shortest possible route and at the highest speed they could possibly go. Thousands of disappointed citizens were then left with the impression that the Tories had written Verdun off as being a bastion of Conservatism. On this latter conclusion I commend the Prime Minister for his foresight.
I mention this, Mr. Speaker, because the city of Verdun has as its proud city manager Mr. French, who has been able to balance the budget of our community for 24 consecutive years. Unfortunately for our Prime Minister, Mr. French is an avowed Liberal. So when the following evening came and the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) rose to his feet, I listened very attentively. I have had occasion to hear his marvellous oratory on previous occasions. Here was the voice of French Canada in the Conservative government. Perhaps in his own inimitable style he could fill in the many voids in the Prime Minister's speech. After all, the Prime Minister had things on his mind when he delivered his speech. He knew from the evidence confronting him, documented evidence, concisely and accurately placed before the people by the Leader of the Opposition, that Canadians were aware the government had callously hidden the true facts about the economy of Canada before the election.
What did the Associate Minister of National Defence do instead? He used the valuable time at his disposal to attack the Liberal government of the province of Quebec, the very premier who, by his co-operation, by his sincere desire to help his people, had gladly co-operated on the removal of tolls on the Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges, probably the sole reason the Associate Minister of National Defence sits in parliament right now. I listened to the attack on the province of Quebec first started by the deputy leader of the Social Credit party and continued by the Associate Minister of National Defence and the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Bourbonnais).
The Lesage government, in the two years it has been in office, has done more to close the economic gap between Quebec and Canada than any other government in the history of that province. His reforms in the field of education, his introduction of the hospital plan, his exposure of the most corrupt political machine in the history of that province will result in an overwhelming Liberal victory
[Mr. Mackasey.)
in November. May we suggest that the Associate Minister of National Defence, instead of repaying favours to the remnants of this broken Union Nationale machine, should instead thank Mr. Lesage for keeping him in parliament.
I can document what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to refer to La Presse of Thursday, May 10 with regard to the Champlain, Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges. For hon. members outside the island of Montreal and the province of Quebec I would just like to take a moment or two to explain a little of the background. The Champlain bridge was conceived and started by the Liberal government in 1956-57. It was designed to alleviate the deplorable traffic conditions that existed on the two bridges, the Victoria and the Jacques Cartier. This magnificent structure was developed barely a mile or two from the two existing structures. The Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges at that time were being taxed beyond their capacity-and when we come to think of it, so are the Canadian people today.
Therefore it was agreed to construct the Champlain bridge in order to alleviate traffic on these existing arteries. I compliment the government for having agreed that it was necessary to relieve the traffic across the mighty St. Lawrence.
However, Mr. Speaker, is this new bridge fulfilling its role? Is the Champlain bridge carrying thousands of automobiles in and out of the island of Montreal daily? In fact, while automobiles still line up on the old bridges bumper to bumper, the new bridge is relatively unused. The trouble comes from two sources. First of all, in their haste to assure the Associate Minister of National Defence re-election, the government removed the tolls from the Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges. This was a good move; it helped the people. But the government omitted to remove the tolls on the new bridge, which is situated just a few miles away. Consequently, those motorists situated equidistantly from the toll-free bridges and the new Champlain bridge still use the old arteries, for in this day and age of austerity 50 cents a round trip is still a lot of money.
This is what La Presse of Thursday, May 10 had to say with regard to the alleviation of tolls on two bridges and leaving them on the third:
The lack of logic is obvious. It was decided to build the Champlain bridge besides the two others to alleviate the traffic on these two latter bridges. Everyone understood the necessity. But what motorists who, having a choice between three bridges situated very close to each other, will seek out the only one on which they must pay? There will be some, of course, but they will be in the minority. Therefore these two bridges will

continue to be taxed to their full capacity. The purpose for which the new bridge was designed will not be achieved.
The following paragraph strikes me very forcefully, Mr. Speaker.
On the other hand, as the eventual minority of motorists using the new bridge will come from Verdun and St. Lambert-Laprairie, the toll will be for them a sort of indirect tax that will apply to them exclusively.
One of my confreres has suggested wryly that we surmise that this toll on the Champlain bridge will not last beyond the next election. Evidently the government does not intend to cede everything at once, in order to have some ammunition on hand for the next election. But in the present case one would suppose that reason would prevail. The Lesage government in particular has acted very impartially. It has not refused its collaboration on the excuse that it would help a rival government at the time of election.
I would suggest to the government that if it is their intention to remove the toll on the Champlain bridge just before the next election, they should do it in the next few days that remain at their disposal.
There is another problem in my constituency, Mr. Speaker, which I think exists right across this vast dominion of ours. It is the plight of a vastly growing segment of our population. I am referring to those young men-and I stress "young men"-who have reached the age of 40 and are out of work. Whilst the government is now discovering the need for vocational training and is attempting to turn out skilled labour for our industries, other very skilled workers, men who have worked for 20 years or so in the railways, in the aircraft industry and in the electronics field are being laid off because of automation or for other reasons. These men start out confident in their ability to find work. Has not the press blared out the need for skilled workers? But their confidence is soon destroyed as company after company refuses to hire them.
This was not because of any lack of talent but because these men are considered to be too old to work and too young for their old age pensions. Who says so? The architects of our company pension plan say so-these dealers in cold mathematics whose plans cannot tolerate the addition of new employees over the age of 40. Is this situation logical?
I did note in the speech from the throne some indication that the government has finally recognized this injustice. I would suggest that they discard for once the lines of political expediency and use the plan outlined in the Liberal program and elaborated upon by the Leader of the Opposition in a speech in the House of Commons last year. On this particular point, the government did finally recognize the difficulty, and I suggest they should use the few days at their disposal to implement without further delay a pension
The Address-Mr. Mackasey scheme which will end forever this insidious discrimination against our citizens in their best years of life.
When the Leader of the Opposition in his brilliant address suggested an extension of the federal share of expenditures in connection with slum clearance and urban renewal, members on the government benches ridiculed the proposal or referred him to the winter works program. But, in fact, Mr. Speaker, my community urgently needs some type of housing development for the use of its senior citizens, as do thousands of communities across Canada. It is of no use for the Tories to point to existing legislation in this regard. Private contractors, with few exceptions, are not using the legislation which is presently on the statute books pertaining to the construction of homes for the aged. The government itself, if necessary, should enter upon the construction of such homes. Every year, thousands of married couples in the twilight of their lives are forced to separate as the husband goes pathetically to an old men's home and the wife elsewhere. What we need, and need soon, is provision for our senior citizens to live out their lives together in security, comfort and privacy, and this might best be brought about through housing of a motel type such as is common in the Scandinavian countries. Our obligation to our senior citizens goes much further than simply raising old age pensions every few years. Private industry is not interested in the problem to any great degree, for if it is to build and operate these homes under present legislation it must charge rents far beyond the normal reach of our senior citizens.
I should like to point out briefly the experience of Toledo in the United States whose one-storey group of row housing units for older people represents one of the first of the new and imaginative approaches in this field in that country. Early in 1956, extensive research was begun to determine the extent for the need for public housing. I am sure the five points which I am about to mention and which represented the result, in part, of the survey, are deeply applicable at this time to Canada. These are:
1.	Existing public housing did not provide the type of living arrangements often needed by elderly families.
2.	Retirement acceleration had become an established practice in industry and many unprepared employees were being forced to retire.
3.	The number of recipients of social security benefits was mounting monthly.
4.	There were no opportunities for elderly families to continue living independently at a cost they could afford.

The Address-Mr. Mackasey
5.	Neither private nor public funds were available to meet the need and to make this type of development a reality.
Unfortunately, time does not permit me to go into the Toledo plan in further detail, but the subject is one which I am sure hon. members would agree must be of great concern to us all.
Mr. Speaker, when I walk along the miles of boardwalk for which Verdun is famous I can look across the water and see ships from all nations as they travel up the mighty St. Lawrence seaway, contemplated and executed by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) during the time when the present opposition was in power. When I listen to our good friends at the opposite end of this house saying that there is no difference between the two old parties I want to tell them this, that there is a basic difference. The Liberal party is a party of action and the Conservatives are a party of words. The record is here. Take, for example, unemployment insurance, a measure which members of the Social Credit party admire and want to stretch a little-in fact, I think most of them are sitting on their unemployment insurance now. Well, this was implemented by the Liberals in 1940. The veterans charter was brought in in 1953; family allowances in 1945; a national health program in 1948; old age pensions in 1951; old age assistance in 1951; allowances for the blind in 1951; and extension of the health grants in 1953; a measure to assist disabled persons in 1954; the second phase of the national health program in 1956; unemployment assistance in 1956; the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act in 1957, and
increased payments to children under the Family Allowances Act in 1957.
Lack of time does not permit me to give a complete list of all the accomplishments of the Liberals while in office. In closing, may I thank hon. members on both sides for the attention they have shown me in my maiden speech.
(Translation):


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes which I have at my disposal, I join all the other members in offering you my sincere congratulations on your appointment as Speaker of this house. The appointment of a French-speaking Canadian from a province other than Quebec is an honour for all citizens of my province, for we are conscious of the rights of the French minorities both in the other provinces and in the Canadian parliament. I congratulate you and offer you my best wishes.
I also wish to join all the other members of this house in congratulating the mover (Mr. Chaplin) and the seconder (Mr. Vincent) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, who gave such a good account of themselves. They were a credit to their constituencies, to their party and to their country.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I now leave the chair until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 11, 1962