1962-02-22

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to report to the house in connection with the final payment for the 1960-61 wheat pool account, and advise that because of the increased volume of wheat exports it is now possible to close this account and increase the initial payment for wheat delivered during the current crop year.
As at the close of business, February 28, 1962 the board will close the accounts for the 1960-61 pool account for wheat in order that a final payment can be issued to producers. The final accounting will be completed as rapidly as possible and the issuance of final payment cheques will commence not later than April 2. This payment we hope will be completed on or before April 30, which will correspond to the time of heavy costs during seeding operations by grain farmers. Producers delivered 392,824,536 bushels of wheat into the 1960-61 pool account, and the final surplus for distribution will not be known until the accounting is completed.
Effective March 1, 1962 the initial price paid to producers who deliver wheat to the 1961-62 pool account will be increased as follows:
(1)	10 cents per bushel on all wheat other than Durum, whatever the grade, including all grades of sample and mixed wheats.
(2)	75 cents per bushel on Durum wheat grading No. 1 to No. 4 including Extra No. 4, toughs, damps and all off grades.
In respect of deliveries by producers in the 1961-62 pool account for wheat for the period August 1, 1961 to February 28, 1962, both dates inclusive, an adjustment payment will be made to producers at the rates which I have previously stated in order to raise the deliveries for this period to the new and higher price level which becomes effective March 1, 1962. The increase and the adjustment payment of 10 cents per bushel will bring the initial price of No. 1 Manitoba
northern wheat to $1.50 per bushel basis in store Fort William, Port Arthur or Vancouver. In the case of Durums, the increase and the adjustment payment of 75 cents per bushel will bring the initial price for No. 1 Canada western amber Durum to $2.50 per bushel basis in store Fort William, Port Arthur or Vancouver.
The adjustment payment will involve a distribution of approximately $20 million. The issuance of cheques for this payment will commence around the beginning of May, following the completion of the final payment for the 1960-61 pool account, and will be completed on or before May 28, 1962.
I would also like to inform hon. members that on February 19 last the Canadian wheat board commenced the issuance of cheques on the 1961-62 acreage payment. This payment, involving approximately $42 million, will be completed not later than March 16 to the holders of wheat board delivery permits which have been issued to that date.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I know that all in western Canada will be glad to hear that it is possible to make a larger initial payment, particularly this year because there is a shortage of cash in western Canada as a result of the poor deliveries which resulted from the lack of moisture last year. Farmers will also be interested, I know, to hear from the government very soon as to whether the first payment on the nine months' credit extended in connection with the special sales to China has been made by the China Resources Company. I believe that payment is due in a few days.
Mr. H. W. Her ridge (Kootenay West): Mr,
Speaker, on behalf of representatives of the prairie wheat farmers in this group-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Herridge:: -I want to say that we
welcome this announcement as a further relief to the prairie farmers in their present distressed situation.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. R. L. Hanbidge (Kindersley):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to. increase the initial payment on wheat for-the 1962-63 crop year to $1.50 per bushel, and to make it on a permanent basis?

Legislation


John George Diefenbaker: The wheat board has not so recommended, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that the Minister of Agriculture will take up this question with the wheat board on his return.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members a change in the regulations of the unemployment insurance commission relating to the allowable earnings of dependants consequent upon the recent increase in old age pensions. Previously, under unemployment insurance dependancy regulations, dependants were permitted to have an income of up to $14 per week. The recent increases in old age pensions will have the effect of bringing the income of senior citizens across Canada to $65 per month, which brings them above the present permissible ceiling.
The commission has now approved a change in regulations bringing the allowable earnings to $20 per week, which will mean that a senior citizen can still be claimed as a dependant by a member of his family who is a claimant and1 is his sole support. The same regulation will, of course, apply to all dependants whether senior citizens or otherwise. The new regulation is effective February 1, and if any adjustments are required to cover interim cases they will be made accordingly.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: May
I say that we in this group welcome very much the statement which has been made by the Minister of Labour. We sincerely hope that the lead which has been given will be followed by other ministers in other departments, and particularly in the Department of Veterans Affairs with respect to recipients of the war veterans allowance who are also affected in a similar manner.



VETERANS' LAND ACT


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Veterans' Land Act to extend the period during which a veteran may qualify for benefits; to establish dates on which persons shall be deemed to be discharged; to extend the repayment period of loans; to enable the director

to arrange group life insurance for veterans on a voluntary basis; to increase the rate of interest where a property reverts to the director; to increase the maximum assistance under part II; to provide further financial assistance to certain full time farmers; to provide further financial assistance to part time farmers and commercial fishermen; to extend the purposes for which a part III loan may be used; to extend the uses to which proceeds of a sale or other disposition of land may be put; and to provide for the release to a veteran of a portion of the land on which he is established.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion:
February 20-The Prime Minister-The following proposed motion:-
That the report of the Canada Council for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1961, laid before the house on July 1, 1961, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts in order to provide for a review thereof pursuant to section 23 of the Canada Council Act.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
February 20-The Minister of Veterans Affairs (for the Minister of Finance)-The following proposed motion:-
That the public accounts, volumes I, II and III and the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1961, and the financial statements of the Canada Council and the report of the Auditor General thereon for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1961, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING QUOTA ON PLYWOOD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I know he is absent because of government business. I

wonder, therefore, if the acting minister could take notice of my question and perhaps answer tomorrow.
Would the minister tell the house whether there are negotiations presently going on in Ottawa between representatives of the Japanese government and the Canadian government with respect to establishing a quota on Japanese plywood coming into this country?
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Acting Minister of
Finance): I shall take notice of this question and see that it is answered at an early date, Mr. Speaker.



MEETING OF AMBASSADORS RESPECTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, and I am sorry I was not able to give him notice. Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether the Canadian ambassador to Cuba and other ambassadors of the NATO countries were convoked by the Cuban authorities in Havana concerning the United States embargo on Cuba? If so, would the Prime Minister comment on the conclusion of this meeting and the Canadian position in this matter?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that, of course, is a question that requires to be given consideration. I shall take the question as notice.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I apologize for not giving him notice, but my telephone has been ringing incessantly this morning. In view of the recent decision of the board of transport commissioners to remove the agent from the station at Rossland, a city of over 4,000 population, and in view of the strong protests by the city council, the chamber of commerce and the population of that city, would an appeal to the governor in council against this decision receive consideration?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to study the implications of that question before giving an answer.
Inquiries of the Ministry SHIPPING



NORTH SYDNEY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria inquired concerning icebreaking facilities at North Sydney.
I have made inquiries and find that this winter the icebreakers Labrador, McDonald, Wolfe, d'Iberville and Alexander all operate from Sydney, and their task is to provide icebreaking assistance to any vessel requiring it. However, the number of icebreakers available precludes the possibility of assigning one or more to any specific port although Sydney and North Sydney have some advantage over other ports in that the icebreakers return there for fuel and stores. No icebreakers have been diverted from the area during the past two weeks.
While North Sydney is the regular port of handling for Newfoundland traffic, it is the case that the Canadian National has found it necessary to divert its ships, with the exception of the William Carson, while there are difficulties with ice conditions.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Michaud (Keni, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister any report to make on the program of transplanting disease free oysters to the New Brunswick waters?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: I wish to thank the hon. member for Kent, N.B., Mr. Speaker, for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question.
I am happy to advise the hon. member that the three year program to transfer a total of 10,000 barrels of disease resistant oysters from Prince Edward Island to the affected areas of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia has been completed as scheduled. There now remain only isolated areas such as Miscou island, where mortalities have only recently taken their toll. Transplants are planned for these this year. The last reports from the sampling last autumn give room for more than cautious optimism that the experiment has been a success, and that we can expect the oyster stocks to rebuild.
I should like to add that although the cooperation of the local fishermen has generally been excellent, there are one or two areas
1130	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry where some of the transplanted oysters have been illegally or accidentally removed but not to an overall serious extent.



SUGGESTED TRANSFER OF COLD STORAGE SUBVENTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries, who I understand is also Acting Minister of Agriculture. My question is this. What progress is being made toward transferring the administration of cold storage subventions from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Fisheries in so far as those subventions apply or might apply to fisheries products cold storage warehouses, in order that the fullest possible consideration may be given to any applications and in order also that it may be easier to lift the $50,000 ceiling on such subsidies which exists at the moment?


John Angus MacLean: I can advise the hon. member that this question has been studied and that we have come to the conclusion, perhaps not finally but for the time being at least, that it would require considerable duplication of staff to divide the responsibility for the administration of this act between the two departments. However, I can assure the hon. member that in a case where applications apply to facilities which are intended for the use of fish, there is close co-operation between my department- I refer to the Department of Fisheries-and the Department of Agriculture.
With regard to the final part of the question, as to the lifting of the ceiling on the amount of the subsidy in each case, I have nothing to report on that matter at this time.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has any progress been made with the British government in connection with landing rights in London on behalf of Canadian Pacific Airlines on its route from western Canada to the United Kingdom, which was announced last session? Can the minister make a statement on the present position of the matter?


Léon Balcer: I have been carrying on correspondence with Right Hon. Peter Thorneycroft on this matter, and there is an agreement between the two of us that preliminary talks will take place the middle of next month.


Lionel Chevrier: I wish to ask a supplementary question. Is B.O.A.C. asking for additional rights in Canada in exchange for the C.P.A. landing rights in London?


Léon Balcer: No.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: In
the absence of the Minister of National Defence I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Has he noted the announcement by the United Kingdom government of its decision to emphasize the role of its armed forces as that of a highly mobile, conventional force? If so, can he advise the house whether any thought is being given to a similar Canadian policy, in order that our forces may make their fullest contribution in opposing aggression and maintaining peace throughout the world?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is really asking for a fairly important declaration of policy in answer to a question. If the minister wishes to deal with it he is, of course, at liberty to do so, but I would think the question is not an appropriate one for orders of the day.



EXERCISE &quot;GREAT BEAR&quot;-STUDY OF RESULTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Has the minister yet had a chance to study the results of exercise Great Bear, a joint manoeuvre including 8,000 United States troops and A company of the second battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry from Edmonton? If so, does he intend to recommend the acquisition of any new mobile equipment?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have no comments to make on this matter. I have not yet seen the report on this exercise yet.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I sent him notice, but unfortunately it may not have reached him in time for him to review the matter. Does the government plan

[DOT]to discontinue the rescue section of the civil defence course at Arnprior this coming summer and, if so, what is the reason for the decision?


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, at the federal-provincial conference last November there was discussion by ministers and officials of the possibility of reducing the courses at Arnprior. It was pointed out that the army has taken over the greater part of the rescue training for emergency purposes and also that the provinces, with federal help, would gradually be undertaking their own rescue training operations. Consequently, while there is no specific date set, Arnprior probably will be closing at some time in the future.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: When the minister's estimates are before us, I wonder whether he would give us in more complete detail a review of how these same functions will be carried [DOT]out by the Department of National Defence or, failing that, why the financial burden should be unloaded on the provinces, which are already hard pressed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member recognizes that his statement is one for the estimates.



ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Can the minister report to the house regarding the activities of H.M.C.S. Skeena off the coast of British Columbia in looking for submarines?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to report on the activities of the Skeena. It has been stated before in the house in answer to similar questions that it is not considered to be in the public interest to report on such activities as those in which the Skeena is now engaged.



COURT MARTIAL FOLLOWING ACCIDENTAL SHELLING OF U.S. COAST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I wish to ask the Associate Minister of National Defence whether it is correct that Commander Leir of H.M.C.S Skeena is to appear before a court
The Address-Mr. Fisher martial as a result of the accidental shelling of the United States mainland from the Juan de Fuca straits.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: This matter is sub judice, and as such I do not believe it should be discussed in the house.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the Minister of Veterans Affairs brought to his attention the question I asked yesterday with respect to any proposals for the purchase of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway by the Canadian National Railways?


Léon Balcer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and the answer that was given by my colleague to the effect that such a question should be on the order paper was also brought to my attention.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, February 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Rodrigue Bourdages for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Late last Sunday afternoon a Montreal newspaperman called Oliver Clawson located me at a public gathering in Toronto. When I was given his phone number I thought to myself "Good lord, what have I said now about Quebec. What does he want to know?" When I got talking to him he asked what I knew about the departure from the New Democratic party of its house leader, Mr. Hazen Argue. I laughed at him and told him to roll that hoop in another direction. He insisted that a statement on Mr. Argue's defection was imminent and asked what did I think about it; had I talked it over with Mr. Argue; how was I sure this was just a gimmick of Mr. Thatcher, and how well did I really know Mr. Argue?
When I had finished the conversation I thought I had straightened Mr. Clawson out, but within a few hours my self-satisfaction was shattered. A news broadcast said that Mr. Argue, at a press conference attended by Mr. Thatcher, had announced his departure from the New Democratic party; that he had found the party was dominated by a

The Address-Mr. Fisher labour clique, and that dark and sinister things were abroad in Canada. The shock to me was overwhelming. This almost seemed like a fantasy, but it turned out that it was not a fantasy, though one part of the story was and is.
My colleagues in this party, particularly the three who joined with me in supporting this man for the party leadership, have asked me to speak in this debate about our departed colleague. It is my duty, I feel, because some of the responsibility for what happened is certainly mine. Further, this departure was accompanied by comments of its author which hinted that other members of this parliamentary party shared his views and would soon follow him. There is nothing in this; we are in, of, and for the party.
Mr. T. C. Douglas commented last Sunday over his shock and said that of course it was Mr. Argue's own business and up to his own conscience. We here, his former colleagues, take no issue with any hon. member or any citizen changing party allegiance in order to be more at home with his conscience and principles, and apparently Mr. Argue has almost found such a spiritual home, in the political sense, with the Liberal party. We wish the party well with him. Looking at it in the light of the rise to prominence of another C.C.F.'er in that party, like Mr. Thatcher, we can see how valuable a political training framework has been provided by J. S. Woodsworth, M. J. Coldwell and others. No; there is no real issue so far as we are concerned with freedom of choice about this.
Indeed, it has been my own personal view that there has been too much of a fetish about hide-bound partisanship in politics in Canada. My good friend from Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) was once a supporter of the Liberal party, as was my hon. friend from Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey). So was the Prime Minister, and I once acted as poll clerk and scrutineer for the Liberal party. It is hard for me to say that this kind of experience tainted me. So, Mr. Speaker, there are no recriminations on the right of this man to switch, or on the party he is embracing. After these remarks we shall not take up the time of the house again this session on the departure from this place of honour on the part of the hon. member for Assiniboia, but we must take up the reasons given with such cool, deliberate malignity for resigning from the party.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member, in attributing malignancy to another hon. member, is trespassing upon the proper rules of conduct among hon. members.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I will withdraw the word "malignity", but I think it is certainly fair to say "given so coolly and deliberately for resigning from the party". Essentially these are contained in the last paragraphs of the initial statement which he made. Of course this statement has been enlarged and garnished by its author, and the tale will probably grow with each telling. However, let us look at these paragraphs:
The N.D.P. has now become the tool of a small labour clique and is effectively under their domination and control. The N.D.P. has come more and more under the control of a few labour leaders, mainly within a few large and powerful international unions.
Labouring people, as with other citizens, have a right and obligation to take part in political activity, but it is in their best interest and in the interest of democratic government, that this action be taken as individual party members and not as representatives of a controlling class bloc within the party. Class control of a national political party now acquired within the N.D.P. constitutes a dark and sinister threat to democratic government in Canada.
This challenge to freedom is real. This challenge to freedom, I shall oppose and expose.
To this task I shall devote all my strength and energy. I do this in the defence of freedom and in the interest of my country.
You will forgive the zest I put into that reading, Mr. Speaker. It was as though John Blackmore or Ross Thatcher were nudging me.
The conception of the New Democratic party received public notice in April, 1958, at the C.L.C. convention in Winnipeg, shortly after the great triumph of the Prime Minister and his party in March. As a result of that election there was a total collapse of the Social Credit party and a debacle for both the Liberal and the C.C.F. parties. Our leader, Mr. Coldwell, was defeated although he undertook to carry on outside the house for a time. Then in the summer of 1958 the C.C.F. decided to join with the C.L.C. in a new party program.
The hon. member for Assiniboia had been chosen as our house leader, and he took part in the committee that was formed to set up the New Democratic party. We had two members of our caucus on the committee that was planning the new party; one was the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) and the other was the hon. member for Assiniboia. Throughout the whole period from 1958 to 1961 this man was or could have been in on all the deliberations, most of which were held in Ottawa where he was working and living. Remember this point; throughout the whole period he was at the heart of the whole project, from 1958 to the founding convention. In all that time and at all those many

meetings the other members of this committee cannot remember a single substantial objection raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia about labour representation in the party, labour affiliation with the party or labour finances in the party. Perhaps they have forgotten. Perhaps they are not telling the truth. Perhaps they have forgotten, but I have some memories on that very question. You see, one of the greatest doubters in the C.C.F. about this whole problem happened to be me.
In three articles given such wide prominence by our ever-loving press, in a statement to an Ontario C.C.F. convention, I reviewed the possible weaknesses of labour support. Did the hon. member from Assiniboia, from 1959 to the founding convention, ever join me publicly or privately in such fears? Not once, Mr. Speaker, not once. Repeatedly he was questioned, particularly by the hon. member for Kootenay West and by me about what was going on in those planning sessions. All we got was the general answer that everything was great. Which member of the caucus at this time was stamping around the nation talking to every trade union audience available, and carrying what message? I should just like to read what the general message was:
Farmers who today constitute only some 12 per cent of the population are still a major key to political success. Almost half of the electoral polls are still classified as rural. But if the farm vote is a key to political success so is support from labour necessary if the farmer is to be a political partner in government. The working people in the factories and on the farms have every reason to unite.
The problem facing both is that the great wealth of our nation is being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people.
This was the message that was carried across the country by the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Mr. Broome:: Will the hon. member give the source?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes, the source is an article by Mr. Hazen Argue that appeared in the founding edition of the New Democratic party paper, The Commonwealth, on page 18. That was the hon. member for Assiniboia from 1958 to August 2, 1961. And his star ascended. The C.C.F. held a national convention in 1960 at Regina. The house was sitting at the time. We sent our house leader off from here with our blessing. "Seek the C.C.F. national leadership", we told him. Mr. Coldwell was retiring. We said, "Let us not have any hiatus before the founding convention. You take the leadership". He promised that he would run for the post.
The Address-Mr. Fisher
I arrived late, at the Regina convention, to find that our friend had agreed not to run and had decided to withdraw. We were going to have a hiatus. My friends in the caucus and I did not particularly like this, so we got together at that convention and we got the hon. member for Assiniboia to change his mind. I have confessed my responsibility in this. I think this is the incident that really began to put responsibility on me for what has happened. In an exciting switch at that convention, and with some recrimination, the hon. member for Assiniboia became the C.C.F. national leader one year before the New Democratic party founding convention.
Some people were very bitter about this. I was blamed for much of it. I would not like to show hon. members some of the letters I received about my activities at that convention in supporting the hon. member for Assiniboia. My stock with both C.C.F. leaders and trade union leaders went to a new low, but I did not worry about it and I did not think the hon. member for Assiniboia was worried about it.
The other members of the caucus were pleased and proud to have him as our national leader. In the next year, and again particularly at my urging, he announced his candidacy for the New Democratic party leadership. Some old time C.C.F.'ers came and remonstrated with me. They said "Mr. Argue promised he would not run for the leadership if Mr. Douglas was going to run". Again we ignored this; we supported our leader. We said "He is a good fellow to get along with; he is working hard in the house. Even if Tommy Douglas does come into the house we will support him". We knew it would be an uphill fight, but a fight is worth a chance and you can only get beaten, and I discovered from the man I first beat that there is no disgrace in being beaten. As a matter of fact I can say from that experience that there are perhaps reasons for pride.
Anyway, we had the leadership control of the C.C.F. in the hands of our house leader. Mr. Douglas during this time stayed fairly close to Regina, and our C.C.F. national leader ranged the nation with tremendous vigour appealing particularly to trade unions. There is not much point in noting his development of a radical or socialist position as distinct from a more moderate one, or in introducing the championship he gave to the "Get out of NATO" movement. These two approaches of course struck responsive cords among the representatives of the trade unions and universities. Those travels from January to August, 1961 of course cost a considerable amount of money, more than $5,000.

The Address-Mr. Fisher


Mr. Argue:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. That figure is completely inaccurate and false, and I ask the hon. member to withdraw it.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I will not withdraw the figure. I have seen the figure, and that is what it is. This raises-


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not true; that is absolutely untrue.


Douglas Mason Fisher: This raises this tricky matter of trade anion money-


Hazen Robert Argue: That is a false statement. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has referred to a certain figure. I have denied the accuracy of that figure and I think he has to accept my word for it, under the rules of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member does not have the floor. If he wishes to disagree with what has been said, it is his privilege to do so; but if it is a disagreement I think it could more properly be made as an explanation at the end of the speech of the hon. member for Port Arthur.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The sum is not in question. The money to pay for all this travelling came through the C.C.F. This is not a confession; we all knew, including the hon. member for Assiniboia, that most of this expense money and the greater part of his salary as official leader came through the Canadian trade union movement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I ask the hon. member to consider the relevancy of some of the things he is saying. This is a debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, not on a motion to condemn a member of parliament for his conduct.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I would consider that only matters which are of public policy and interest in the affairs of his party would be relevant, and that personal, internal and other matters are not matters of relevancy in a debate of this kind.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order you have raised I should like to point out that the reason given in this house by the hon. member for Assiniboia for departing from the party was trade union control, or that the labour clique was controlling the party. I am going to go into this contribution of the trade union movement. I am going to try to paint the picture of trade union participation.


Mr. Speaker:: I understood that was what the hon. member wished to speak about, and of course I would not object to his dealing

with that issue; I would consider it relevant. I am not objecting to any specific thing except that it seemed to me the hon. member was introducing many personal episodes which are not matters for public debate. He was verging on that, and I just wished to caution him as he proceeded.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The point I wish to make is that the money came largely from the trade union movement in Canada, particularly from the trade union movement in Ontario, and more particularly from three unions, auto, steel and the packinghouse workers. I knew it and so did the other members. It was never any secret, and anyone who looked at our books at the founding convention could have seen it. The C.C.F. books are always open at conventions. This is the way the matter was. I knew where the money came from; I assumed that the hon. member for Assiniboia also knew, and I do not remember that he ever protested. In fact, because of the dearth of funds in the old C.C.F. it was very difficult to meet some of the expenses that occurred, and again our friends in the trade union movement were instrumental and sympathetic in providing this money.
However, I will get away from that part of it. Let us go back to the Coliseum and the convention. I was the nominator at that convention, and I was very honoured and proud to nominate the hon. member for Assiniboia. We know the result. I emphasize the result. We were very badly licked. We were neatly, soundly and completely licked at that convention. Some of us have been licked before; and while it was grim, there it was. My own personal chagrin, in sympathy with the hon. member for Assiniboia, was that we had been outsmarted and outmanoeuvred, but all this disappeared in the magnanimous way in which our candidate for the leadership threw himself behind Mr. Douglas: "I shall never let you down".
The convention ended and, the house resumed in September. The hon. member for Assiniboia, because of ill health, was not here for much of that time, and the session ended fairly quickly. Everything was quiet throughout the fall. This house did not resume until January 18. As chairman of the caucus of our party and as a friend I wrote the hon. member for Assiniboia and tried to get in touch with him a number of times. I was solicitous about him, how he was, what he was doing, had he recovered from the tremendous strain and effort he had made. I got no reply at any time.
In Montreal in November I met a minister of the crown. He came up to me, took me

to one side, and said in a friendly way, "I have a tip from Saskatchewan for you from a reliable source. Your house leader is going to the Liberals shortly after the new session opens". I pooh-poohed this. I said it was nonsense. I wrote to our leader and put the question directly to him. I pointed out to him that I had received tentative offers from the party that he was rumoured to be joining-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I pointed out to him that the surface advantages were very apparent. But again I got no reply. I took several other steps to try to find out what was going on, because after all I had nominated the gentleman; he was a friend of mine. I could not find out a thing; there were just these rumours.
The session opened last month on the day the by-election results from Ontario came in. These results were disappointing to the New Democratic party. Our leader issued a statement underlining labour's failure in Ontario. Between that night and a week last Friday he and I had many conversations about the party's strength and development, its future prospects both in the long and in the short range, the performance of the trade unions and their leaders, and these persistent rumours about a possible switch on his part to the Liberal party. I find now that within a few hours of his denying to me that he had ever seen Mr. Thatcher to speak to in recent years, he was closeted with him. I find now that when the national council of the Liberal party met here not too long ago they were told by Mr. Thatcher that the hon. member for Assiniboia would deliver himself over to the Liberals on call, and that the call would probably be forthcoming on February 20.
All this is not really important, except to me. Its importance lies in the denials he has made to the questions I put to him. After all, there have been past precedents for switches and changes. Most of us remember Ramsay Macdonald. The only thing that is important in any way at all is this charge about labour cliques and labour domination. In our conversations about this we agreed that the election failures in Ontario stemmed from slowness of support by the trade union leaders. It was not that there was a small group in control; it was just that the labour leaders were slow in coming through, showing a reluctance about giving a strong lead in developing more affiliations and more memberships. The C.C.F. part of the New Democratic party seemed to be doing very well, but
The Address-Mr. Fisher not the trade union leadership. This was some clique. Some dark and sinister plot.
After our conversations I returned to my constituency and so did the hon. member for Assiniboia, and he did not come back until he had made his statement about leaving the party. I have since tried to reflect upon what the reasons for the change might have been, to guess what might have passed between the time I last saw him and the making of the announcement last Sunday. I look at the political situation, and I see that in Saskatchewan the policies of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) are receiving considerable support. I can see that somewhere in the constituency there may be rumours that things are difficult for the C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan at the present time. I can see that someone could look at the Conservative party in this house-it seems to be doing very well on the prairies-and think there are 16 members from Saskatchewan and there are two cabinet ministers from Saskatchewan; there is not much future here. I thought that from a conversation I had about this very point. An article which had appeared in Maclean's was brought up between the hon. member for Assiniboia and myself. This whole question about what Mr. Douglas would do if, after the next election, a balance of power resulted as between the major parties, was discussed. The suggestion made in that article was that in such an event Mr. Douglas would move his group into the Liberal party here and form a coalition. I said at the time that this idea might sound all right but it did not make sense. Look at the political situation which would arise provincially as the result of such a rapprochement. What would be the effect between Mr. Thatcher and Mr. Lloyd in Saskatchewan. Would Mr. Winter-meyer welcome Mr. Donald MacDonald into his arms in Ontario?


An hon. Member:: Never.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I take it hon. members can judge what the answer is. Anyway, that really closed the conversation we had on the whole question as to whether in the future we were going to become part of the Liberal party. I certainly cannot say that the explanation which has been given about what has taken place can ever satisfy me. I cannot say I think I shall ever find out what constituted the key factor in the complex which led to the change. I know that many of my colleagues in the New Democratic party, in this tremendous reaction which is going to take place in the labour movement in response to the charges which have been made, are going to kill themselves to see that the hon. member for Assiniboia is not re-elected to this house.

The Address-Mr. Morton
Maybe this is a case again of being the odd man, but I do not really feel that way. I should like to imagine the hon. member back in this house, maybe in a growing Liberal party as the heir of Jimmy Gardiner. I may be here to watch it, but perhaps I shall be back in a school room teaching some children. I should like to be able to say that once I knew that politician very well; and I think I can tell those children that he was a very likeable fellow.


Mr. M. D. Morton (Davenport):: My first words must be words of congratulation to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne for the constructive way in which they presented their points of view. I wish also to extend my Congratulations to the member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) on his appointment as Deputy Speaker and to the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn) on his appointment as Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.
My purpose in taking part in this debate today is to express some points of view on matters which affect the people in my riding. Before dealing with specific topics, however, I cannot but comment on the desperate efforts of the Liberals to confuse the issues before us at the present time. There is no denying that we are faced with many serious problems for whose solution understanding, study and sincere effort are needed. But the government, by very active programs, has been seeking remedies for these difficulties. The Liberals, on the other hand, want to take credit for the years of prosperity in a prosperous world, and then to blame the Conservatives for economic difficulties in this country which have been brought about by world conditions and world trends.
The opposition ignores the fact that the factors which led to our present economic difficulties were ever present when a Liberal administration was in power. It is not to their credit that a world war and the Korean war provided prosperity and economic development in the absence of competition from industrial countries which had been destroyed by those wars. Nor it is our fault that the competition offered by a restored Europe and Japan has limited the prospects for our own trade expansion and seriously challenged our trade in our own markets; or has this party caused automation and other trends which have brought about changes and unemployment. The Canadian people were not prepared for these changes, and no provision was made to meet growing competitions from abroad.
I blame the Liberal party for this; they were blinded by temporary prosperity, and

did not see the warning signs. Their hindsight is more vocal than their barren foresight. It is easy during times of war to establish secondary industries fed with cost plus contracts. It is much more difficult to expand and create industries when conditions are more competitive. The Liberals floated in the ship of state on the high waters of good times without a rudder or compass. They just floated with the tide. On the other hand this government since it came into power has given assistance to every part of our economy, to every province of our nation.
I do not have time to list all that has been done to assist the farmers, the miners, the businessmen and industry, or the social benefits which have been returned to our people, but I am sure those who have received such benefits can judge how hollow are the present promises and lamentations of the Liberal party. I hasten to add, however, that although we have done a great deal to meet the problems of the day, we realize there are a great many more things to be done. We know that if our people are to enjoy the rich resources which are ours much thought, study and action must be undertaken; and because I have confidence in the leadership of our Prime Minister and the cabinet I know no effort will be spared and no suggestion ignored for the benefit of the country.
The Liberals have quoted statements indicating the attitude of people outside the country concerning Canadian development. I should like to place on the record one extract from a United States magazine entitled Business Week, issue of December 23, 1961. On the page dealing with Canada the following comment is found. After pointing out the difficulties on the Canadian horizon it said:
Lying behind Canada's improved economic outlook for 1962 are the expansionary policies adopted by the Progressive Conservative government of Prime Minister John G. Diefenbaker last June, in the wake of the forced resignation of austere nationalistic James E. Coyne as governor of the Bank of Canada.
With Coyne removed from a position in which he was able to obstruct expansionist policies, the Canadian government moved quickly to administer a strong dose of monetary and fiscal medicine to the Canadian economy. That medicine is now starting to take effect.
That is the comment of an outsider.
I wish to make a few remarks concerning trade, and particularly the common market. During September of last year I had the privilege, together with five other hon. members of this house, of attending the seventh commonwealth parliamentary conference in London, where members of legislature bodies from all parts of the commonwealth had the opportunity of discussing their mutual problems. This conference was composed of people representative of many races, cultures and

groups. All were concerned with trade and the development of their resources. All expressed great hope in the future of the commonwealth and stressed the need for mutual co-operation and assistance.
Great concern was expressed over the effect of the United Kingdom entering the European economic community, better known as the common market. All members expressed concern and pointed out the adverse effects on their economy that would flow as a result of the United Kingdom joining the European economic community, and referred to the loss of the imperial preferences established in 1932. Many would be more adversely affected in their trade than Canada, especially New Zealand, Australia, Ghana and Nigeria. Incidentally, India has based its next five year plan on the present trade arrangements with the United Kingdom and would be seriously affected.
In the United Kingdom opposition to entry into the common market cuts across party lines. Labour and Conservative members have spoken out forcibly against it. However, it is apparent that the majority of the leaders in politics and industry and in the labour movement in England feel that Great Britain must enter the European economic community for both political and economic reasons.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member permit me to interrupt him in the interests of better hearing what he is saying. There are a great many conversations, I find, that are interrupting the train of thought of the speaker, and there are also some conversations behind the curtains which are disturbing the house. I wish hon. members would extend the usual courtesy to the speaker.


Murray Douglas Morton: These people felt that the United Kingdom could not remain outside much longer and prosper. Also, her entry would add to the political and economic stability of Europe as a whole. They questioned how much of the economic benefits of the commonwealth could be maintained. Both, Hon. Mr. Heath and Prime Minister Macmillan assured the conference that if they had to choose between the common market and the commonwealth, Britain would choose the commonwealth. However, it was suggested that in any event the present basis of the imperial preferences might have to be reconsidered in view of today's circumstances.
The political future of the commonwealth is open to question if the United Kingdom joins the common market and it becomes a political union. The entry of the United Kingdom into the European economic community could open up a great new future or it could create great economic and political problems. I urge the government to make a very careful
The Address-Mr. Morton assessment and give reasoned leadership to prepare the people of Canada for the great changes which may take place.
It should be clearly understood that under the present terms of the treaty only European countries can join the common market, as set out in article 237. It is true that there is provision for associate membership under article 3(k), but this would be only on a colonial or dependency basis. There would be no representation in assembly, council or commission as set out in article 4. Within the common market group there is to be free and unrestricted movement of capital and persons. There must be a modification of local laws to assist the functioning of the common market and, of course, there are to be no tariffs between the member countries but a common tariff against the entry of goods from outside the countries.
I turn now to a growing problem created by our changing society, the place or role of the displaced workman who may be unskilled or middle aged. This person through no fault of his own may find himself without work. I know a great deal is being done by local employment offices to assist these people, but a great deal more remains to be done. I urge the government to double its efforts and research to help these people find new roles in our Canadian society.
The proposed pension scheme and especially portable pensions, relate closely to this problem, as does the workman who retires at age 65. I think there must be an over-all new approach to these interrelated problems to provide more hope to people who are caught up in the human problems created by these changes.
Another matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the government is the problem of municipal finance. The recent brief of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities brought to our attention the great problem of municipal finance and requested federal assistance. Although we realize that municipalities are under provincial jurisdiction, their lack of finance could hinder the basic development of our country, and the works required could give much needed employment.
The federal government has already recognized the basic needs in its housing legislation, winter works programs and more recently loans to municipalities for the construction of sewers, as well as assistance, through the Minister of Labour to vocational and technical training. The question which arises is as to the best way of giving assistance within our constitutional responsibility.
A number of suggestions have been made. They include the extension of loans for specific projects which are required in the

The Address-Mr. Morton rapid growth of our municipalities, such as loans for construction of sewers; the establishment of a municipal loan fund, with regard to which problems of administration could arise; the establishment of a provincial-municipal bank or financial corporation which could co-ordinate financing of all municipal requirements. The original capital could be obtained by dominion-provincial investment and, of course, municipal bonds could be placed on the market in a more orderly fashion. Also suggested is the establishment of the same type of institution in each province with the same function. This, of course, would be more within the spirit of the British North America Act, but questions have been raised as to whether all the provinces would be in a position to establish such institutions.
The problem is big enough and important enough, having regard to the effect on our national expansion, to warrant serious study and action by the federal government. I urge the government to study these proposals and others in order to ascertain the best possible solution.
Perhaps the house would be interested in the effect of immigration since the 1951 census on the ethnic composition of the population in Toronto, and in particular in my own riding of Davenport. This effect has been ascertained as the result of a study sponsored by the city of Toronto planning board in the summer of 1960. One of the most striking developments in the ethnic composition of the population of the city of Toronto during the period 1951 to 1960 was the decline in the percentage of people of British descent. The 1951 census showed that about 70 per cent of the population were of British descent. The 1960 figures showed that only 40 per cent of the population were of British descent.
During the nine years it is estimated that 385,500 persons moved into the metropolitan Toronto area from foreign countries. Virtually all these persons settled initially within the limits of the city of Toronto. Of the immigrants coming into the Toronto area, 33 per cent were British, 22 per cent Italian and 13 per cent German. Whereas in 1951 besides the British only Italian, Polish and German immigrants were the most numerous, by 1960 there were eight ethnic groups in addition to the British entering Canada, each numbering more than 20,000, namely Italian, German, Jewish, Ukrainian, French, Polish, Hungarian and Greek. In my riding it is estimated that the population is about 35 per cent Italian, 30 per cent British, 10 per cent Ukrainian, 10 per cent German and 10 per cent Polish. Toronto has become one of the most cosmopolitan cities in Canada.
This great inflow of human wealth which has brought a rich diversity of cultures and


customs is evident also in many other parts of this country. It has challenged our ability to bring about a reasonable integration and the development of a Canadian culture which will reflect the contribution of all the various cultures.
At this stage of our history it is most important that we develop our pride in Canada and stress national unity. If we are to develop into a great nation we must provide the opportunity for all people to have one common ideal and ambition, and at the same time retain the best of their own cultures. Political union and national pride do not necessarily prevent the growth of local cultures. It is a paradox in this changing world that while many nations are pooling their sovereignties in order to ensure peace in the world, others are seeking independence in order to satisfy national pride. Within Canada we cannot afford, by drift and indifference, to encourage separate cultures to become separate political entities. We must be big enough and understanding enough to provide a political unity which will also give scope for various cultures to grow and enrich our future Canadian culture.
I hope the government will give leadership in this integration and national growth, and that by 1967 we shall have the outward symbols of unity such as one flag and the right to amend our own constitution. We are at the crossroads of our national growth and development. We face the dislocation of new international trade movements and the threat of communist expansion. Internally we are trying to grow nationally and to bring together the different groups, cultures and economic trends. If we cannot find a modus vivendi by which to achieve this national unity, how can we expect to achieve peace in the world at large? I hope that by 1967 we can celebrate the hundredth birthday of our country by showing real unity and national understanding, thereby providing opportunity for the human and cultural development of our many groups who have one thing in common, namely the welfare of Canada taking its part as a nation in the world, seeking peace and proving that communism is wrong.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: am pleased to join my fellow members in this house in commending the mover (Mr. Bourdages and seconder Mr. Browne, Vancouver-Kingsway) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I also want to congratulate the recently promoted members, wishing them great success in their new functions.

However, if we, in the province of Quebec, are able to rejoice with those promoted members and on their behalf, we have no reason to feel flattered by the theatrical and grotesque show to which the Prime Minister resorted in order to enhance some comparatively unimportant appointments. It is obvious that, in undertaking this trip to Quebec city, they tried to create an illusion of the Prime Minister's interest in the province of Quebec, without the Prime Minister having to take any action of equal importance which alone might have been considered a sign of true interest, even understanding as concerns that province.
To my mind, that whole pilgrimage to Quebec city was in very poor taste and showed an appalling lack of subtlety, as it seriously reflected upon the intelligence of the people of Quebec.
Does the Prime Minister really think that Quebecers would not see through such a gross propaganda screen?
We can evaluate the importance of the Secretary of State's (Mr. Dorion) appointment as chairman of the privy council. That post was vacant since 1957. In 1958, the Prime Minister indicated that it was an entirely unimportant post. He therefore appointed a minister from Quebec.
The appointment of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) as parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister obviously needs no comment.


Mr. Tremblay:: I should like to know who wrote that.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Therefore, why all the ceremonies and dramatics on the part of the Prime Minister, if not to make us believe that he attaches great importance to the ministers and members from Quebec, whereas, in fact, they neither control nor decide anything.
It is unfortunate that apparently the Prime Minister does not want to give his Quebec ministers the authority and responsibility that were enjoyed and used so well under the successive Liberal administrations. It is extremely insulting to see how offhandedly the Prime Minister looks down on Quebecers as imbeciles, incapable of making any distinction between light and shadow, in such an essential and important field as the management of their own country.
The Prime Minister must greatly underestimate the intelligence, the temperament and the patient yet eager determination of French Canada to play fully and effectively the part to which it is entitled in the administration of the country, since he has
The Address-Mr. Cardin chosen to come and laugh at us on our own doorstep at a time of social and political upheavals.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Who has written your speech?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: This unhappy trip to Quebec confirmed in the mind of many people that, despite the promises made by the Prime Minister in 1958, under the pretext of favouring Quebec, he systematically rules out the Quebec element from an equitable and significant participation in the administration of the country, just as he ruled out the province of Quebec as a significant factor to win the 1957 election.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: False representations.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: For those who might believe that I exaggerate-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: You said that in 1958 and you were defeated.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: -I refer you to an article-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Tell us who wrote your speech.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: -published in he Devoir of January 23. Mr. Clement Brown, who does not always flatter the Liberal party, wonders what could be in the Prime Minister's mind when he interprets as he does the answer allegedly given by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) at a press conference held, not in the province of Quebec, but in Nova Scotia, to determine who would decide about the national flag.


Mr. Pigeon:: Tell us about the two flags.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Why, Mr. Speaker, at a meeting in the province of Ontario, the Prime Minister twisted the answer given by the Leader of the Opposition to make him say that only Quebec ministers would decide on the national flag.
I am convinced that the distinguished Prime Minister, who claims to be the champion of national unity, would not have given such an interpretation to our leader's answer if the meeting had been in the province of Quebec, and yet nobody in Quebec would expect or like Quebec ministers to decide alone about the choice of our national emblem. To me, however, it seems perfectly normal that the ministers from Quebec as well as the other ministers should decide
1140	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Cardin together, not only about a distinctive flag, but any other question of national importance. Unfortunately, such is not the government's policy.
Recently, when the Prime Minister was asked if he would consider the establishment of a royal commission to study all aspects of bilingualism, he did not say that he would consider the suggestion or that he would refer it to his ministers, his only answer in the house was a loud and hostile "no", as if he had been deeply insulted by that question.


Mr. Dorion:: Would the hon. member allow me a question on that matter?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I shall answer the question of the Secretary of State after my speech.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He cannot answer.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: And yet bilingualism is not a dirty word which we should be ashamed of. For those who speak both languages, whether they are of English or French descent, bilingualism presents unquestionable cultural and practical advantages which are increasingly appreciated throughout the country.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You have refused simultaneous interpretation.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The fact of knowing two languages is not a denial or a betrayal of one's racial origin. Why then is the Prime Minister scandalized at the mere suggestion of a proposed study on a matter of present day interest? Why not ascertain whether bilingualism could not become a distinctive cultural character of all Canadians?


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: What have you done with bilingualism while you were in power?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: That narrow and hostile attitude on the part of the Prime Minister, which caused all well-thinking Canadians to shudder, renders even more odious the visit which the Prime Minister paid to Quebec city last December and makes of bilingual cheques a valueless gesture full of electoral hypocrisy.
It seems to me that the unceasing efforts made in the past to have the voice of Quebec heard in the federal parliament, and those made to reach a very encouraging degree of understanding, co-operation and unity, among all representatives of the Canadian people, are too serious and necessary to national unity for us to let the progress made today in that direction be jeopardized by the demagogic and old-fashioned tactics of a Prime Minister who does not understand and who does not seem to want to understand that we, from Quebec, are merely asking to play within the federal


parliament the role which is ours, to assume the responsibilities which are ours, and to contribute to the building of a united and strong Canada, which all Canadians, in the full exercise of their respective rights and freedoms, want to consider proudly as their country.
Mr. Pigeon. Twenty two years of division.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Very good.
Now that Mr. Lamontagne has been heard from, it is Mr. Cardin's turn.
(Text):


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I watched with a great deal of interest, Mr. Speaker, the remarkable performance of the Prime Minister in the throne speech debate a few weeks ago. His usual enviable vocabulary was there, his sense of timing and publicity was there, his questionable debating tactics were there, and he was certainly not lacking in arrogance. But the 1957 and 1958 vision was not there, and the fire that went along with it has apparently been doused; because the Prime Minister was groping to find a road, any road, that might lead him in the general direction of a new frontier. The confidence and, indeed, the cockiness displayed by the Prime Minister in previous throne speech debates were replaced by uncertainty and panic.
The uncertainty was more particularly spelled out by his refusal to answer questions of the Leader of the Opposition, who had extended that courtesy to the Prime Minister on several occasions on that very same day. The panic was evidenced by the increased pitch of the well known head and nasal noises used by the Prime Minister to denote a simulated sense of surprised shock, and which apparently is a sign for his acolytes to applaud.


Mr. Palleli:: The usual type of personal Liberal attack.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I will come to personal attacks in a moment. In case some should be scandalized and ask how a backbencher can dare to address the Prime Minister in somewhat less than flattering tones, may I say, using the Prime Minister's own words, "The Liberals have the answer to that too", and it is that the Prime Minister has been asking for it for a very long time. This is simply because he does not act like a real prime minister. He acts more like a silent movie hero who overacts his performance. The Prime Minister's attitude in this house lacks the dignity and the decorum so severely

guarded by all previous incumbents of that high office, including all the Conservative prime ministers. I feel the time has come when the Prime Minister must be reminded that in our democratic form of government the Prime Minister is not above the truth. The office of prime minister is not above the law, nor is it above the rules of this house or above the standards of political decency, and ft certainly is not above criticism.


John Cameron Pallett: On a point of order, the hon. member is reading from a speech prepared by someone, although I presume he accepts responsibility for it. He has used an expression which implies that the Prime Minister, in speaking to this house, does not speak the truth. Now, by implication it is a very cleverly worded expression, but I think the hon. member should make some explanation; and if the explanation is that the implication of the words is as he intended to give, then he should withdraw them.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Speaking to the point of order-


Mr. Henderson:: What have you got to do
with it? Sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Order.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is speaking to the point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am speaking to what purports to be a point of order; what I submit to Your Honour is not a point of order at all, but an effort made by the parliamentary secretary to reply to an argument in the course of a debate when he had no right to the floor, just because he did not like the words that were used by the hon. member. It is true that if someone says something that raises a question of privilege the person affected, not someone acting on his behalf, has a right to take that point up at the first possible opportunity, but I listened most carefully to what my hon. friend said-


John Cameron Pallett: I was listening, too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I listened also to the hon.
gentleman opposite who does not do the courtesy of listening to me. I listened most carefully to what was said by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, and he made-


Walter Clarence Henderson: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and he made no reference whatsoever of a direct nature to the present Prime Minister. He did say that the office should be treated in a certain fashion. That was all he said, and it was an unexceptionable statement. I suggest that the only reason they are hurt was that hon. gentlemen opposite applied to it what was in their own minds.
The Address-Mr. Cardin


John Cameron Pallett: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has taken time to speak on a point of order which he said was not a point of order. I suggest that by his very words he has admitted it is a proper point of order, and I ask Your Honour to deal with it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: I felt that the implication "above the truth" was not in good tone or taste on the part of the hon. member who has the floor, as I know him, and to that extent he would deem it worthy of consideration to soften the expression for the record.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I shall comply with your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I stated that no former prime minister acted in this way, and I said that the Prime Minister is not above certain things. I have full reason to say that, and I take full responsibility for the words I myself have written. It is because we had come dangerously close to a form of complete dictatorship in the province of Quebec under the late Premier Duplessis that I could not allow the Prime Minister to forget and ignore these fundamental principles.
Mr. Pallet!: Is the hon. member choosing to ignore the request of the Chair?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No. In deference to the Chair I will drop the phrase "above the truth". The Prime Minister's speeches in the house, which should set the note for useful and constructive debates, degenerate into criminal court debating tactics filled with personal insinuations, half truths and sophistry such as will not be found in the records of Hansard of any former prime minister of Canada, and are more in line with those we heard in the Quebec legislature under Mr. Duplessis. While the Prime Minister is himself the greatest offender in the House of Commons in this respect, he accuses the opposition of lacking in political chivalry and of adopting smearing tactics, considering himself like Caesar's wife to be above reproach. The Prime Minister is not above reproach and when he decides, in the short time left to him, to act as a prime minister we in the opposition will be happy to treat him as such.


Mr. Graffiey:: Why did you betray him? You turned your back on your own prime minister.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He is not worthy of his uncle's name, the late Hon. Cardin.
(Text):


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Although the Prime Minister smears our party and some of our friends who cannot defend themselves in this house, as he has done on several occasions, and

The Address-Mr. Cardin although this is understandably annoying to our party, it is not considered by us so fundamentally important as the Prime Minister's habit of toying with the truth, and this is particularly noticeable when the Leader of the Opposition is personally involved.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is a disgraceful attack on the Prime Minister in his absence.


William Heward Grafftey: He is reading his speech. He is not worthy of his family name.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: From the first day the Leader of the Opposition was chosen head of the Liberal party the Prime Minister, by his cynical attitude, words and disparaging remarks about the Leader of the Opposition, has revealed that in the deep recesses of his soul there burn the envious fires of the little green-eyed monster. This the Prime Minister would not have indicated toward any other leader of the opposition. This fact, and the Prime Minister's apparent reluctance to let go of the external affairs portfolio, lead one to believe that the Prime Minister, along with his other ambitions, cherishes a secret dream of becoming a great international figure-
(Translation):


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: If he had written his speech himself, he would know what he is talking about.
(Text):


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: This has apparently become an obsession, because it is the only reasonable explanation-


Mr. McCleave:: I rise on a point of order. The hon. member who is speaking has confessed to the house that he is reading from a prepared text, and I think that offends against the rules of the house. It is obviously not the type of speech which contains various statistics or carefully reasoned argument such as one wishes to set down precisely beforehand.


An hon. Member:: Everybody on your side does that.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I am referring to my notes, just as every other hon. member has done throughout this debate. This dream of the Prime Minister has apparently become an obsession, because it is the only reasonable explanation of the fact that the Conservatives want word to get around that Canada's greatest contribution in the field of international affairs, under Conservative administration, was the Prime Minister's speech which he made to the United Nations in September, 1960, when he spoke against Russia.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Shame.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: To hon. members opposite I shall quote from Le Nouveau Journal, and this is what I read:
(Translation):
We then ask Mr. Green to give us, in order of importance, what he considers to be the greatest achievements of the Diefenbaker administration in the international field.
Guess what.
First Mr. Diefenbaker's speech at the United Nations, in 1960, against Russian colonialism.
Well.
(Text):
It is most unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the New York Times and the other responsible newspapers did not appreciate the full significance and impact of the Prime Minister's speech, because if they had known that it was considered by the government as Canada's greatest international contribution since 1957, I feel sure the New York Times would have reported that in its columns. But surely the Prime Minister betrays his greatest weakness by his continued disparaging, insulting and indeed inaccurate statements on the career, and indeed the reputation, of a great Canadian diplomat, who, by the way, has also become a great leader of the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I should like to quote from an article written by Arthur Blakely in the Montreal Gazette of September 21, 1961:
Pearson is the author of post-war Canadian foreign policy which, in broad general outline, has remained operative under three prime ministers and one complete change of government. In his service at home and abroad as Canadian secretary of state for external affairs, and foreign policy specialist, he won an international reputation such as no Canadian has received before or since.


William Heward Grafftey: And we supported him in a bipartisan fashion.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The article continues:
He was the chairman of the NATO council back in 1951-52 and president of the UN general assembly in 1952. His statesmanship won for him the Nobel peace prize in 1957.
Perhaps the Prime Minister's otherwise inexplicable attitude toward the Leader of the Opposition stems from the fact that the Prime Minister has never quite forgiven the Leader of the Opposition for being awarded the Nobel peace prize in 1957. But be that as it may, and regardless of the Prime Minister's personal dreams and ambitions, it is still no justification for the Prime Minister toying with the truth as he did in this debate some weeks ago.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. We have another instance of insinuation that the Prime Minister is not telling the truth. This expression

"toying with the truth" is surely an implication that the Prime Minister was speaking falsehoods, and it should be withdrawn.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order which has been raised by the house leader, I most respectfully suggest to Your Honour that the rule book be consulted. There was in no way whatsoever a suggestion that the Prime Minister had said anything which was false or anything that was untrue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Clarence Henderson: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for
Cariboo-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Order.


John Cameron Pallett: Did the hon. member write the speech?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Order. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has the floor and I can say now, without further delaying the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, that I was not incensed by the words he used and I would ask him to continue his speech.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I realize that that point of order has been dealt with, Mr. Speaker, but I wish to raise at this stage another point of order having to do with the decorum in this chamber. Ever since I entered the chamber today, including this present moment, whenever any hon. member on this side of the house attempts to speak not just one, but in many cases two or three hon. members on the other side of the house interfere, make interjections and try to prevent the hon. member being heard.
No one over here is so sensitive as to object to single interjections which have something to do with the speech, because that is a normal part of debating procedure; but this constant, deliberate barracking by half a dozen hon. members, mostly connected with the Union Nationale, is destroying any kind of discipline, any kind of fair play or any kind of rights for the opposition in this house, and it should not be tolerated.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on this so-called point of order raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate may 1 say this. First, it was not a point of order; second, it was used just as a device to make an attack on the government side of the house. A point of order should be raised at the instant something occurs, and Your Honour's attention should immediately be drawn to it. The hon. member has been permitted to make an attack on hon. members of this house, an attack which should be withdrawn. He has accused 26207-1-73
The Address-Mr. Cardin hon. members of this house of interfering with debates in this chamber-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -and he is infringing the privileges of the House of Commons by so doing.	|,


An hon. Member:: It is the truth.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member should be requested to withdraw his remarks, which reflect upon every hon. member in this chamber.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the house leader has of course created for me a question of personal privilege, which I shall deal with now, and I hope I will be permitted to deal with it without what happened when I rose to speak on the point of order. The hon. gentleman said I should have dealt with the point of order immediately. I am dealing with it immediately. I was interrupted by the hon. member for Cariboo while I was attempting to speak; I was interrupted by an hon. member over here to my left who, because he was behind me, I cannot identify.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: It was I.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Rober-val admits it was he.
(Translation):


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Yes, it was I.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is happening again. When the house leader rose to raise a point of order, which Your Honour has already ruled was not a point of order, he was listened to respectfully by this side without interruption. However, when I rose as a member of the minority to reply to that point of order, I was interrupted. Almost every word was interrupted by catcalls and ejaculations of one kind and another from hon. gentlemen opposite.
That is what happened throughout the remarks of my hon. friend from Richelieu-Vercheres, and this conduct is becoming intolerable. If certain hon. gentlemen want to have a one party state, let them say so; but if that great leader of theirs, who went around saying he was going to restore the rights of parliament-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Order. To some extent the Chair is involved in the comments that have been made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate by way of a question of privilege, in the sense of keeping order in the house. I felt that in the

The Address-Mr. Cardin course of delivering his remarks to the house the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres was carrying himself quite well, and as an experienced member of the house has grown accustomed to normal interjections, which I did not feel were of any greater multiplicity than they have been when other experienced members of the house have been on their feet. Perhaps the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is more incensed by the interjections with respect to his colleague's address than his colleague is himself. I would ask hon. members to co-operate, and if the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres feels that his remarks are being overburdened by interjections, I am sure he will raise a point of personal privilege in that respect.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to deal with all the interjections that have been made, knowing the source from which they come. I do not wish to object, I just want to get on with my speech, which has been interrupted many times already.


John Cameron Pallett: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate with reference to the speech the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres is making. I would draw Your Honour's attention to Beauchesne's fourth edition, page 115, paragraph 128 (1), which reads as follows:
A personal attack, by one member upon another, Is an offence against the house, in the person ol one of its members, which, on account of the respect due from every member to the character and dignity of the house, as well as the importance of preserving regularity in the debates, calls for the prompt interference of the Speaker, in order that any irregularity, into which a member may have been betrayed in the warmth of debate, may be rectified, and that any expressions, which may be disrespectful to the house, or painful to the feelings of individual members, may be explained, apologized for, or retracted.
The hon. member's speech to this point has consisted of a planned, deliberate personal attack on a member of this house who happens to enjoy the highest elective office of the country as Prime Minister. Notwithstanding the fact that he is Prime Minister he is a member of this house, and the rules apply to him and in relation to him as well as to any other hon. member. The hon. member who is now speaking should observe the rules.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I do not know why supporters of the government should be so highly sensitive today. It may be that the Prime Minister does hold the highest office in the land, but that is no reason why we cannot criticize him or find fault with him. This is not a personal attack-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown).]


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I am arguing that as Prime Minister he has done certain things and adopted certain attitudes in this house which I do not think are becoming to a prime minister. But it was not a personal attack; it concerned the public conduct of a public person. Now perhaps I may be allowed to continue.


An hon. Member:: Read on.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Order. I feel I should rise at this point to caution hon. members with regard to these continuous interruptions. As I judge it, 15 minutes of the hon. gentleman's time have been consumed in this way. As and when points of order or privilege have arisen I have endeavoured to rule on them to the best of my ability and I will continue to do so, but in the meantime I think the hon. member who has the floor should be given a fair hearing.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I should like to recall the profound thought that the Prime Minister expressed in the debate on the speech from the throne when he said, in his most pompous voice-
Mr. Pallet!: Mr. Speaker, this is another instance-


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


John Cameron Pallett: Does the hon. member intend to observe the rules or not? "In his most pompous voice", he says.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What is wrong with that?


John Cameron Pallett: I do not know whether you heard that, Mr. Speaker. It is all part of the pattern.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You should have been here during the pipe line debate.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: This is what the Prime Minister had to say, as reported on page 63 of Hansard on January 22:
In order to build yourself up in your own image you do not have to disparage others-
I should like the house to remember those particular words. Then the Prime Minister went on to mention what he considers to be the greatest contribution of this government to international affairs, namely his speech, and on page 64 he is reported as saying this:
We took our stand-and it was not a popular one at the time-in September, 1960, when I had the privilege of speaking at the United Nations. After Khrushchev had come out in favour of selfdetermination for all the peoples of mankind, I called upon him in the name of fairness, justice and equity and in pursuance of the principles of the United Nations to make it possible for those captive peoples under his control to be given the right to self-determination.

Nobody disagrees with that. A responsible prime minister would have stopped there, but not our Prime Minister. He had more to say. He went on:
That is the attitude which this party has taken throughout the years. We are glad the need for action in this regard has suddenly been recognized in these last few months by those who for many years in the United Nations, knowing of the situation and having heard the calls of these people, never at any time raised a voice on their behalf.
Earlier, as reported on page 64 of Hansard the right hon. gentleman said:
There was also a reference to the effect that this was the 44th anniversary of the independence of the Ukraine. We did not have to be told that. We brought that before the United Nations. All through the years the hon. gentleman did not deal with that question there.
To use the vocabulary of the Minister of Finance, that is a blatant lie; it is a nazi-like lie; it is a fascist lie with strong overtones of McCarthyism.


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: On a point of order, may I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fourth edition of Beauchesne, page 122, citation 140, which states as follows:
The rule relating to personal reflections occurring in debate, may be stated thus, namely: that it is doubly disorderly for any member, in speaking, to digress from the question before the house, and to attack any other member by means of opprobrious language applied to his person and character, or to his conduct, either in general, or on some particular occasion, and tending to bring him into ridicule, contempt, or hatred, with his fellow members, or to create ill blood in the house.
I direct your attention further to citation 141, the second paragraph, which reads as follows:
When the Speaker observes upon any expression as personal and disorderly, and tending to introduce heat and confusion, and this appears to be the general sense of the house, the member offending ought immediately to make an apology, and to ask pardon of the house for this breach of their order, in as large and liberal expressions as possible, so as in such apology to comprehend the person of whom the words were used.
Surely to refer to any member of this house as acting in a nazi-like way is a clear breach of this order, inasmuch as it tends to bring the hon. member referred to into disrespect, ridicule and contempt, especially if he is a member who holds a distinguished and exceptional position. Surely the hon. member who uttered those words is guilty of a clear breach of the ruling I have quoted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: 
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I will withdraw the reference to "nazi" and "lie". That was a reference to a quotation from language used by the Minister of Finance. I was quoting the minister.


Mr. Campbell (Stormoni):: Is this the withdrawal which you have requested, Mr. Speaker? There were two other offensive words used.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Perhaps I could consult with the hon. member during the lunch hour as to precisely what he said and we could resume at 2.30 p.m. to consider the point of order raised by the hon. member for Stormont.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, before lunch the point I was attempting to make was that the Prime Minister in this debate referred to his United Nations speech of September, 1960, which is considered by the government as Canada's greatest international contribution since 1957 and which dealt in part with communist imperialism. We have no quarrel with that statement. However, the Prime Minister went on to claim-and I placed this on record before lunch-that the Leader of the Opposition in all the time he served as secretary of state for external affairs had never at any time spoken out against communist imperialism. With all due respect to the Prime Minister and the sensitivity of hon. members of the house, may I say that is not true. It is a blatant prevarication with strong undertones of the vilest form of McCarthyism. Over the years-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Order. When I left the house before lunch there were remarks made by the present speaker somewhat akin to those he has just made which remained on the record unwithdrawn. I did not take the opportunity at the outset of this afternoon's proceedings to ask the hon. member to withdraw those remarks and clear up the record. I think that should be done now both with respect to the remarks that preceded the noon recess and those that have just been made.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the remarks the Chair finds objectionable and

The Address-Mr. Cardin which I borrowed from the Minister of Finance. I refer to the remarks I made before lunch. As to the comments I have just made,
I cannot see that McCarthyism is an objectionable and unparliamentary word.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: I am
afraid the word blatant came to my ear. I did not hear the word which followed.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Prevarication.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: I was
probably more concerned with the correction of the situation which existed before lunch. I shall listen carefully to what the hon. gentleman has to say and interrupt him again if necessary.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Over the years, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has spoken out against communist imperialism as strongly as and certainly more often than the Prime Minister. Even though he was not naive enough to consider any speech an effective weapon against communism or as Canada's greatest contribution to world peace, surely there is no question as to where the Leader of the Opposition stood and stands in that respect. I wish to place on record a portion of a speech made by the Leader of the Opposition before the United Nations general assembly on September 26, 1949:
Imperialism of the old kind is a rapidly diminishing force-a dying doctrine. The real danger today lies in the new imperialism of the post-war period. During that period only one state in the world has extended its borders and the area of its domination. That state has annexed 179,000 square miles of territory and included within its borders in the last ten years more than 21 million people. Backed by its armies, it has imposed satellite regimes on neighbouring states. It has used its great material power and resources to rivet its economic control over the peoples under its influence. Its leaders have talked freely of "liberation" and of "national sovereignty", but its agents abroad have never hesitated to proclaim their obedience to its control and their determination to serve its interest above the interests of their own governments and their own peoples.
How can there be a feeling of peace and security where an alien power insists on imposing its domination over other nations and peoples?
In another speech at the United Nations on December 1, 1949 the Leader of the Opposition had this to say:
Mr. Vyshinsky asks us to believe in the lamblike qualities of Russian revolutionary communism. Naturally we do not believe this, and we are not deceived by it.
If Mr. Vyshinsky really wishes to do something about the preservation of peace, he should try to persuade his government to pay some attention to the fear in the world of this new imperialism: to the concern which is deep and widespread about the methods which it adopts to spread its influence, and the threats to peace which are inherent in those methods.
Within the U.S.S.R. sphere of influence-the new Soviet empire-have been included many peoples

who previously had their own free governments: Finns, Estonians, Ukrainians, Latvians, Lithuanians. Poles, Rumanians.
Not all the impassioned eloquence of Mr. Vyshinsky or Mr. Manuilsky can convince us that these peoples, of their own free will, happily and confidently have entrusted their destinies and their persons to the U.S.S.R. The fact that the Soviet union government finds it necessary to cut off the inhabitants of its territories from all normal contacts with other countries and to distort and manipulate information about other peoples in order to create misunderstanding and fear is, to us, convincing evidence to the contrary.
In an address to the House of Commons on August 31, 1950 the Leader of the Opposition said:
Know your enemy is a principle taught to every soldier .. . the first characteristic of Soviet communist imperialism is that its operations are on a world wide scale. Believing, as they do, that their slave system is in inevitable opposition to the free systems of government of other people, the masters of the Kremlin survey in their calculations every part of the globe.
The second aspect of Soviet power is that while it is prepared to impose its will on other peoples by military aggression, it can also act-and does act-in other ways and through other agencies. It has at its command the weapons of conspiracy, subversion and mass agitation.
Third, we must be clear about the elements in a free society which Soviet communism uses and perverts for its own program of oppression, degradation and expansion. Our job is to play our part, a part determined by ourselves but worked out in consultation with our friends, in the collective effort of the free countries to prevent aggression, if possible by showing that it cannot succeed, or to defeat it if it occurs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Order. I regret to advise the hon. gentleman that, taking into consideration the time allowed for the interruptions, his time has now expired.
(Translation):


Mr. Robert Lafreniere (Quebec-Monlmor-ency):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that several hon. members intend to take part in this debate and I shall, therefore, try to be as brief as possible. However, I should like to congratulate most heartily the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. members for Laval (Mr. Bourdages) and Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) whose remarks were full of enthusiasm and sincerity.
I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn) on his recent appointment as Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. His competence in both parliamentary and professional matters, his moderation and good judgment will be most useful to Canada.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the appointment of Hon. Paul Comtois to the position of lieutenant governor of the prov-

ince of Quebec. His Excellency is the very impersonation of dignity and possesses to a degree the most important qualification required to hold that high office: a genuine love for his province and his country.
Several matters for discussion are suggested to us in the speech from the throne. I intend to deal with a few of them in the course of my remarks, but I should like first of all to discuss a question of great present interest which has not been overlooked in the speech from the throne, considering that the latter does refer to measures relating to the confederative pact.
It is common knowledge that at present serious difficulties lead to misunderstanding between the two main racial groups of Canada, that is English-speaking and Frenchspeaking Canadians.
The main topic of conversations and writings these last few months has been separatism. This serious problem should not be ignored by anyone, especially the elected representatives of the Canadian people, regardless of racial origin. It is impossible for me to assess at this time all the consequences which would result if Quebec should secede from the rest of the country, but I am afraid that the bad ones would be greater than the good ones. In any case, Mr. Speaker, the problem is definitely before the Canadian nation and it calls for a solution. The public authorities, politicians, citizens throughout the country, educators worthy of their calling cannot shy from it without failing in a serious moral and civil obligation.
Those who are in favour of separatism have many grievances. Some of these may seem exaggerated to the English-speaking population, but, bearing in mind the principle of justice, most of them are perfectly legitimate. I should like to have the time to analyse each and every one of the causes which have contributed to the misunderstanding between the two racial groups, but this is impossible at the moment. I shall therefore deal only with the main one, that is, bilingualism.
In this country, Mr. Speaker, bilingualism is a one-way street. It is compulsory only for French-speaking Canadians, and I must add that this situation is extremely painful and unfair.
Before going any further in my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I want to make something clear. When you hear the French-speaking members bring up matters concerning the rights of our minority group, do not believe
The Address-Mr. Lafreniere that we wish to impose on the Anglo-Canadian majority our language, our culture and our religion. We want only that they should have their rightful place in the Canadian context.
We do not pretend that the French culture is the best in the world; we do not pretend that it is either superior or inferior to the Anglo-Saxon culture. In some matters, comparisons are undesirable. We do not have either, as some people say, a superiority complex, but we do have an equality complex.
Why should it be amazing for a nation to feel strongly about its language, its faith, its customs and its traditions? When we have children, because we see them through our love, we usually find them handsome and bright. From those points of view, they are probably not any better than the neighbour's children but we are attached to them because they are our own. The same thing goes for a people with regard to its heritage. One must understand that this can be a very deep feeling, although it does not preclude full appreciation of, and participation in the culture and institutions of another people.
This has always been our attitude regarding Anglo-Saxon culture.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that English-speaking Canadians will not blame us because we are defending our rights when our claims are justified.
We have known for a long time that "fair play" is an essential part of the intellectual and mental discipline of Anglo-Saxons. However, I suggest that they have so far omitted to put such fair play into practice, particularly in connection with bilingualism in this country. It must be realized that at least 6 million French-speaking Canadians living in this country feel compelled to learn a second language while English-speaking Canadians, up to now at least, have shown indifference toward a second language.
Now, a hundred years after confederation, a hundred years after the convention passed between the two ethnic groups of this country to the effect that French and English should both be the official languages of Canada, we bitterly notice that we, Canadians, have undoubtedly ignored one of the main clauses in our agreement.
I will not mention any other evidence than the words of the secretary to the Canadian conference on education, Dr. Seraphin Marion, following a study that the conference was able to conduct through a donation from the Ford Foundation.

The Address-Mr. Lafreniere
This is a most interesting investigation carried out by the foundation on the teaching of the second language in Canada.
Dr. Marion writes:
It would be foolhardy to live in an illusory world and to act like the ostrich in the Canada of 1962. A whole set of events took place in 1961 and they should open the eyes of the most optimistic and bring them back to hard realities. At the present time, all Canadians must admit the following: there are major obstacles in the way of national unity-or rather the union between the two nations co-existing in our country, the English speaking Canadian nation and the French speaking Canadian nation. And unless all those concerned make vigorous efforts, we shall probably see in a short time that a difficult, and even tragic, situation has developed.
Those views, Mr. Speaker, clearly show that some serious prejudice has been done, and that someone is certainly responsible for it. In my opinion, those responsible are the various administrations which have succeeded one another since confederation, until the coming into power, in 1957, of the Conservative government.
The Prime Minister of Canada said all over the country, during the 1957 election campaign and later, that it was his intention to respect the spirit of the confederative pact, and he has kept his word.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that in a country with a constitution like ours, the state, the central government, must take all the required but fair measures to promote the full development of the various racial groups forming the nation.
Failure to fulfil that duty has been the awful mistake of the previous Liberal administration, which has been in power for nearly a quarter of a century and which has always turned a deaf ear to the fair claims and rights of minorities in this country.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that I would have become a separatist if the Conservative government had not given such excellent evidence of good will toward national unity, to which the Liberals so often refer but about which they have done absolutely nothing.
I am proud to be a member of the present government because it is, among other reasons, the only one that has taken concrete steps, that has achieved practical objectives in recognition of the rights of the minority I represent, in part, in this house.
The French racial group has obtained tangible results from the present government and those gains have caused no prejudice nor injustice to other Canadians.
Constructive criticism often becomes necessary, but there are times, however, when we are duty bound to express our gratitude.

I should mention at this point a particular event which took place these last few years in our national life. For the first time in history, the government has appointed as representative of the Queen a French-speaking person: His Excellency Governor General Georges Vanier.
It must be noted, as I have already pointed out, that there is in this country, out of every three Canadians, one French-speaking Canadian.
It is to the Prime Minister and to his government that we owe that great consideration. It is also to the Conservative government that we owe the installation of a simultaneous interpretation system in the House of Commons, which allows Englishspeaking Canadians and French-speaking Canadians to better understand each other.
As the representative of a constituency in which Laval University, is situated, I believe I should thank this Conservative government for having settled the problem of university grants to such great advantage. Such action is another step towards attainment of the true spirit of confederation. In this connection I should also mention that the Conservative government has increased provincial tax levies from 10 to 16 per cent, a percentage that will be raised to 20 per cent by annual increases of one per cent.
This means, Mr. Speaker, that during the few years it has been in power, this government has given the provinces twice as much as the Liberals gave them. So, in that field also, the Prime Minister kept his promise when he told us that he wished to make the spirit of the Canadian confederation a reality in this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to move on to another subject along the same line. One of the main causes of the uneasiness which is felt throughout the country, and especially in the province of Quebec, with the rise of the separatist movement, results from the fact that the federal government has never tried before to respect actually the use of the two official languages in Canada. It is undeniable that in all federal departments English is the only "working language".
May I mention a fact of personal knowledge. When they write to the departmental administration in Ottawa, the civil servants of the province of Quebec feel morally obliged to submit all their reports in a language other than their mother tongue.

As I already stated, it is the responsibility of the state to see to it that one of the main clauses of the confederation pact is adhered to. The federal government shall therefore have to take the required steps so that the civil servants of this country can perform their duties in their mother tongue. This problem must be tackled without delay.
In that field, the Conservative government made a worthy gesture when it introduced the latest civil service act. I am referring to section 47 which makes it an obligation for the commission to choose, in all parts of Canada, a sufficient number of bilingual civil servants to serve both major language groups.
I submit, sir, that any Canadian who wishes to make a career for himself in the civil service should consider it a duty and a moral obligation to learn the two official languages of our country.
(Text):
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I am proud to belong to a party the members of which really make a good effort to learn to speak both official languages of the country. I know personally that many hon. members of this house regularly take instruction to learn French and others to learn English. This means that the example in that connection comes from representatives of our nation, and this example has to be followed by all Canadians in whatever part of the country they live.
I should like to mention the excellent policy of the Prime Minister in that connection. When he comes to visit us in the province of Quebec he never misses an occasion to address the people in our mother language. Some of the prime ministers of former Liberal administrations did not even know the word "merci" to express their gratitude for the great support they were getting from the province of Quebec.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You are right.


Mr. Leduc:: Name one.


Robert B. Lafrenière: What I admire is the spirit of the Prime Minister when he addresses the people in both official languages, and this excellent practice is also followed by many other ministers of the crown. No previous government had so many bilingual members in its cabinet as has the present administration, and I believe this is important enough to be underlined in the House of Commons. To my personal knowledge that is the case with the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and many others.
The Address-Mr. Lafreniere
There is a strong desire in both ethnic groups to understand each other, and we should do everything we can to take advantage of such a situation, a situation for which the government is mostly responsible. Every Canadian and in particular every member of the House of Commons and the civil service should be given the opportunity to use their mother tongue during the course of their work. It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that when we express ourselves in our second language we certainly do not impart the full measure of our personalities.
(Translation):
I should like, Mr. Speaker, to sum up in a few words those three suggestions which in my opinion are bound to promote bilingualism in this country, and will eventually lead to good understanding and good co-operation between both ethnic groups, French and English, whose duty it is to work for the prosperity of the country.
First, the members of the House of Commons who are here the representatives of the people should consider it a moral obligation to learn both languages. Civil servants of a bilingual country ought to be bilingual.
Every province of this country should organize an educational curriculum enabling all Canadians attending school to learn in their early years their mother tongue as perfectly as possible, and the other official language correctly. With such a system, bilingualism will develop in this country within a few years.
To give only one example-and I regret I do not have here the figures concerning other provinces-I shall only say that in the province of Quebec the number of young persons at school total 1.3 million this year, which gives the impressive proportion of 25 to 26 per cent of the population of the province.
That is at least solid proof that the administrations of Quebec have been concerned about education for a number of years.
I should like to add that if the proportion of the student population was similar in other provinces, bilingualism would soon become a complete reality, provided that school boards throughout the country would set up a truly effective program for the teaching of both languages.
Before I bring my remarks to a close, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I find the attitude of some members of the opposition somewhat strange. I am also glad I have in front of me the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), who, for some time, seems to have been the advocate of bilingualism in this

The Address-Mr. Lafreniere country. It was the first time that I and many others had heard the hon. member speak about this matter. I think he could have done so a long time ago. I realize that-


An hon. Member:: He practises it.


Robert B. Lafrenière: -on his part, this would seem to be a question of political expediency.


An hon. Member:: That's it.


Robert B. Lafrenière: I also said-


William Heward Grafftey: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Robert B. Lafrenière: Certainly.


William Heward Grafftey: Is it not true that the separatist movement, in the province of Quebec, came to life after the Lesage government had been brought to power?


An hon. Member:: No, when the Conservatives came to power.


Robert B. Lafrenière: Mr. Speaker, I would be unable to say otherwise.


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: Surely such an answer could be expected.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: We are anxious to hear Mr. Brassard, who has been away for a few months.


Robert B. Lafrenière: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin)-


Augustin Brassard: And you, for a year.


Robert B. Lafrenière: -has criticized-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Away for the past four years.


Robert B. Lafrenière: -the Prime Minister's attitude with regard to external affairs. In this connection, I should like to add that no other country could rightly be as proud of its Prime Minister as we were when ours made a speech at the United Nations in September, 1960.
Mr. Speaker, the standing orders of the house contain a serious order that most members respect, that is to take a member's word when he speaks to the house. I must say that all Canadians were proud of the attitude of the Right Hon. Prime Minister at the United Nations, in September 1960, and as far as I know, the Liberals themselves congratulated him warmly on the speech he made on that occasion.


Mr. Meunier:: That is all he can do, make speeches.


Robert B. Lafrenière: Mr. Speaker, I should like to analyse the economic situation over the

last few years, but I shall not have enough time to explain all the measures taken by government.
Before ending my remarks, I only wish to point out that the Conservative government, in power for a few years only, has increased old age pensions by approximately $19. Prior to the 1957 elections, the Liberal government gave our senior citizens what we call in our language a little slice of bread-


Mr. Bourgei:: 


Robert B. Lafrenière: -that is, an increase of $6.


Augustin Brassard: 


Robert B. Lafrenière: Well, the Conservative government found a way to increase these pensions substantially and, these last few years, it has given our senior citizens an increase of about $19.
I also wish to mention another beneficial measure passed by the Conservative government and which, I know personally, has largely benefited the people of Canada, that is the small business loans act. In the province of Quebec, an amount of $23,160,000 was loaned to the owners of 625 enterprises. I do not have the figures for the other provinces, but I am satisfied that this move on the part of the Conservative government has made it possible to cut down unemployment.
Another initiative of the Conservative government, which I should like to draw to the house's attention, is the winter works program. In fact, the federal contribution for works carried out in Quebec totalled $1,426,000 in 1958-59, $1,685,000 in 1960 and $15 million in 1960-61.
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Order. (Translation):


Robert B. Lafrenière: That initiative-
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his time has expired.
(Translation):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the usual congratulations which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Pearson) has offered to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Messrs. Bourdages and Browne, Vancouver-Kingsway), to the new Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Flynn) and to the hon. member for Pontiac-Temisca-mingue (Mr. Martineau) who has been appointed chairman of the committees of the whole.

(Text):
Mr. Speaker, 1 do not intend to detain the house longer in a language which I do not speak, in my own opinion, as well as the one I first learned to speak, but I cannot allow to pass without some comment the observations made by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency about my views on bilingualism. There are some people, such as my hon. friend from Laurier and my hon. friend from St. Denis who have been here longer than the hon. gentleman, who have been in Ottawa longer than I have, and who know that from the day I came to Ottawa I did not go around boasting about bilingualism, but I have never at any time asked anyone to translate any document out of one of the official languages into the other for my benefit.
I have always taken the view that if we are to make confederation work properly we must seek in every possible and practical way to make it equally easy for all Canadians to use either of the official languages in every part of this country, and I am no new convert to these views. It was not too easy for me to learn French in the bush in northern Manitoba, and if the hon. gentleman would like me to explain privately how I managed to get my foundation in it I would be glad to do so, but I will not waste the time of the house in that way.
It is quite true that there have been a few things done by this present government-and I have always given this government credit for everything it has done in this, as in any other field-to advance this cause. I think it would be strange if we had any government that did not do that. However, I should like to point out to the hon. gentleman that before he talks too much about the great efforts of his great party he should reflect on the fact that there is only one political party in this country that has chosen its leaders from both races, and that is the Liberal party.
In 1962 it is 75 years since Sir Wilfrid Laurier was chosen by the Liberal caucus in the year 1887 to lead the Liberal party of Canada. In those 75 years the Tory party has never even had an acting leader who was a French speaking Canadian, and for 40 of those 75 years the leader of the Liberal party was a French speaking Canadian.
The hon. gentleman talks about Liberal prime ministers who could not say "merci" in the French language. Perhaps Alexander Mackenzie knew no French-he was an immigrant from Scotland-but I would be very surprised if Sir John A. Macdonald was very conversant with the French language either. He was also an immigrant from Scotland. Other than Mr. Mackenzie there has been no leader of the Liberal party-Mr. Blake, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Mr. Mackenzie King, Mr. St.
The Address-Mr. Pickersgill Laurent or our present leader-who was not completely conversant with both official languages.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know this perfectly well. That does not mean that Mr. Mackenzie King was very good at speaking French-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He never spoke in French.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -any more than the hon. member for Roberval is exceptionally good at speaking English.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Still under three flags.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I hope I may be permitted to continue my speech for 30 minutes without interruptions. As I was saying, we on this side of the house do not cast any reflections upon what I regard as the laudable efforts of the present Prime Minister to express himself in the French language; we applaud those efforts. But that is no excuse for hon. gentlemen on the other side of the chamber trying to defame Mr. Mackenzie King because he was rather bashful about his accent. If they think this is a way in which to get votes I think the Tory party is going to find what it has generally found when it has employed that kind of tactics; that it will not get any support. That is all I have to say on this subject.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Will the hon. member permit a question-


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: -about three flags?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had not intended to say anything about it at all, because there are some things that I think we would be far better off to take for granted in this country rather than constantly talking about them. There are a great many problems that we have in common and which it is the business of this parliament to solve, and remarks such as we have just heard are not related to them.
I think it is no secret that we are within 16 months of a general election, and perhaps closer, although the capacity of hon. gentlemen opposite to make up their minds about anything is such that one wonders. However, we are at a time when the temper of the house suggests that an election is on the minds of some hon. members, at any rate, most of the time and perhaps on the minds of all of us some of the time.
This is going to be a time of testing. It seems to me there are two tests that every government has a right to expect to be applied to it and that the people normally will

The Address-Mr. Pickersgill apply to a government. They do not always do that. There are circumstances when some great issue arises which puts considerations like those in the background, but I am not sure that any such great issue has arisen at the moment. I think there are two tests that the present administration is going to have to face before the electors, who are the masters of all of us in this house, although some hon. gentlemen seem to be forgetting that. One of these is the test of good management, the question as to whether or not the affairs of this country are being well managed. I am very tempted to use the rest of my 30 minutes to talk about that subject, because my views upon it are very strong and they correspond very largely with the views that have been expressed by representative people in almost every occupation in this country today. However, what was said by the Leader of the Opposition on this subject was so well documented and so thorough that hon. gentlemen have been protesting about it ever since. Nothing has worried them more than that speech, and I do not think I shall attempt to gild that particular lily, if I might use such a bad figure of speech.
I want to speak about the other test which every government should have to face and which, I think, this government will have to face. My right hon. friend Mr. St. Laurent spoke about this when he sat here as leader of the opposition on October 16, 1957. 1 wish to repeat the words he used on that occasion because I think they deserve repetition. I think they deserve to be pondered by every member in the house, as well as by every Canadian. At page 43 of the unrevised Hansard of that day Mr. St. Laurent is reported as saying:
I believe I have reached a point where I should indicate, as precisely as I can, what the attitude of the Liberal opposition will be to the new government during the present session when I expect to be responsible for leading the opposition. It is over 22 years since the Liberal party was last in opposition. In the 22 years Canada has enjoyed- I use a word that I believe will become more widely used in that connection as time passes-
And has it not been?
I say in the 22 years that Canada has enjoyed a Liberal government, we as Liberals have prided ourselves on the fact that every item of the program placed before the public in each successive campaign has been implemented in full whenever it was possible for the government or for the parliament of Canada acting alone to implement it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then it goes on:
The only items in our Liberal programs which have not been fully implemented are those which have required provincial co-operation, which was not always forthcoming, or the co-operation of

the governments of other countries or of international bodies. Everything we have undertaken to do that could be done by a government here in Ottawa acting on its own has been accomplished.
These words were uttered nearly five years ago. I have repeated them over and over again all across this country, and no person in Canada has ever cited a single example to show that those words are not true.


An hon. Member:: Hospital insurance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Everybody who was here in this house in Mr. St. Laurent's day will know that they would not have been uttered had they not been true. It is no secret that Mr. St. Laurent did on occasion discuss his speeches with me before they were made; and as a matter of fact, before that speech was delivered I know very well that he gave the greatest consideration to that statement. He went over the documents to make sure there was nothing that had been overlooked. The best evidence of the truth of that statement is that although we are consistently told by hon. members opposite "Remember the promises of the Liberals", to my knowledge in the past five years there have been only two instances ever cited as undertakings which were given by the Liberal party but not carried out. I intend to deal for a minute or so with those two cases.
The other day the Minister of Justice, I believe it was-though this has been said on many occasions in this house-stated that it had taken the Liberals 38 years to carry out their pledge concerning hospital insurance. I intend to read precisely what the Liberals did say with regard to hospital insurance back in 1919. The resolution adopted at the Liberal convention of that year said:
That in so far as may be practicable, having regard for Canada's financial position-


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly. It is not a promise, as the hon. gentleman quickly perceives. But I will read on:
-an adequate system of insurance against unemployment, sickness, dependence in old age, and other disability, which would include old age pensions, widows' pensions, and maternity benefits, should be instituted by the federal government in conjunction with the governments of the several provinces; and that on matters pertaining to industrial and social legislation an effort should be made to overcome any question of jurisdiction between the dominion and the provinces by effective co-operation between the several governments.
Mr. Mackenzie King, when he went to the country in 1921 as leader of the Liberal party, did not repeat that statement of policy at all.


Richard Albert Bell: It was only a chart and a compass then.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, but it was a chart and a compass that was published, not like the program drawn up by the party of the present hon. member for Carleton and his friends in 1956. The hon. member for Carleton has spoken very correctly. That is just what Mr. King said it was; it was a chart and compass for a long term future, and over that long term future virtually all these objectives were achieved by Liberal governments despite the fact that they had to face the opposition of the Tories, both federal and provincial, in doing so. It should not be forgotten that the right hon. gentleman who is now Prime Minister of this country, and who raised the level of debate in this house the other day by talking about the Liberals starving the old age pensioners, is the same gentleman who was a candidate for Mr. Meighen in 1926 against Mr. Mackenzie King at a time when the Tories were fighting tooth and nail to prevent the old age pensioners from getting one red cent. That is the great latter day champion of social justice. He made his debut in politics by fighting old age pensions tooth and nail.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about six buck Harris.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall leave that to the hon. gentleman. I will tell you about no buck Diefenbaker. In 1945 Mr. Mackenzie King repeated his undertaking in more specific language.


Grant Campbell: May I ask the
hon. member a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. I am reading from the speech made by Mackenzie King in London, Ontario, on May 30, 1945, when he was laying down the program which was being placed before the people of this country. He said:
Th Liberal program looks beyond family allowances to the early establishment of other great social measures. The government is prepared to support a national scheme of contributory old age pensions on a basis more generous than that of the existing pensions. The government also believes that a substantial improvement in national health could be achieved through dominion-provincial co-operation. We have accordingly pledged ourselves to support a measure for federal assistance in a nation-wide system of health insurance, to include assistance to the provinces for preventive medicine. If the present government is returned to office, we shall proceed with these measures as soon as agreements with the provinces can be concluded.
And on August 6, 1945, at a dominion-provincial conference held in this building, Mr. Mackenzie King put forward this great post-war program, which was torpedoed by Mr. George Drew, the Tory premier of Ontario, and by Mr. Maurice Duplessis, the Tory premier of Quebec. Neither of those 26207-1-74i
The Address-Mr. Pickersgill reforms could be achieved until both those gentlemen had departed from the political scene in this country. That is another evidence of the great historic contribution to social justice of the magnificent Tory party.


Mr. Ricard:: What about Taschereau in the province of Quebec?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is one thing that always amuses me, Mr. Speaker. Every time these fellows are caught with their hands in someone else's pocket, they always say that someone else stole something too. They never try to defend their record. They just say, "We are no worse than the Liberals were". Well, they are a great deal worse than the Liberals were and1 that is a fact. It is no defence of them to say they are no worse. If they are no better than the Liberals, we would be better off if the Liberals were in office, if that is all they have to say for themselves.


Grant Campbell: Is the hon. member prepared to accept a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I will not accept an interruption at this stage.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Speak about six bucks.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The other question about which the Liberal party has been accused of making a promise that was not kept was, of course, long before the period to which Mr. St. Laurent was referring. It was in the year 1925 when the Liberal party went to the country on a program which included, among other things, the reform of the Senate.
I wish to read what was said about this in the Liberal handbook for 1925. I shall not read all of it because it would take too much of my time but I shall read the essential parts of it, if I may have the attention of hon. members. This is how it reads:
The people believe that the Canadian House of Commons should have the same power as the British House of Commons to pass legislation and the Prime Minister has personally declared this to be his view. How he is going to bring this about was fully set forth in his keynote speech in North York.
Liberal senators already in office, as well as those who are to be appointed, will be pledged to support the necessary constitutional amendment for the reform of the Senate. The government in this campaign is seeking a mandate from the people. If that be forthcoming, the will of the people will be translated into political action as soon as the supporters of the government constitute a substantial majority of the Senate.
The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) will recall the outcome of the 1925 elections. Mr. Mackenzie King would never admit himself that the Liberal party was defeated in that election but I do not think even he would have claimed that they got a clear mandate when the Liberals elected only 101 members and the Tories elected 116.

The Address-Mr. Pickersgill
It is true that as far as I have been able to discover from my search of the records this pledge was never repeated in any subsequent election. I may be wrong. I have not made a careful study of it but my research does not reveal that the pledge was ever repeated. I looked through the index of 1930 and, of course, in 1926 the preoccupation was with things other than Senate reform.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Does that constitute absolution?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, it does not constitute absolution. It is, however, a fact for whatever it is worth that there was not the mandate that was a condition of this policy. I wish the hon. gentleman who is the present Prime Minister were here because I would like to give him a little advice on the subject. I know he would not want any advice from me.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Who does?


John Whitney Pickersgill: However, I believe he respects Mackenzie King more than he does me. At least the newspapers are constantly telling us that Mackenzie King is his model. I must say there does not appear to me to be much resemblance between the Prime Minister and his model.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thank heaven for that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But if I might offer the Prime Minister one piece of advice it is this. On one occasion Mr. King said to me, "Pickersgill, the most foolish thing I did in all my public life was to advocate Senate reform". Now, that did not mean he thought the Senate should not be reformed. He meant it was a foolish thing to make it a party issue in an election. I just offer that opinion of Mr. King to the house and to the Prime Minister for what it may be worth.


An hon. Member:: Has he changed his mind since?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If, in the whole Liberal record from 1919 to the present time, the only thing it may be said the Liberals did not do which they undertook to do was to reform the Senate, I am not ashamed of that record nor of standing up for it anywhere.


William Heward Grafftey: What about the promise of no conscription?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman knows very well what happened in that respect. A plebiscite was held. The hon. gentleman knows the whole story.


Ernest John Campbell: What about restricted Chinese immigration?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That has nothing to do with this-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ernest John Campbell: That was in 1911 and in 1925.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since the hon. member has interrupted me I say that promise about restricting Chinese immigration unfortunately was kept, and I am sorry it was. Mr. King came into this house on May 1, 1947 and said he was sorry, too, and he made amends for it. It was not a Liberal policy. It was a Tory policy which the Liberals unfortunately adopted and which I am sorry they adopted.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I say that is the record of good faith of the Liberal party. Now, what is the record of the Tory party?


An hon. Member:: Put another record on.


Ernest John Campbell: What about the flag?


An hon. Member:: Yes, the three flags?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hon. gentlemen opposite certainly do not like to allow members of the opposition to speak. That is another promise made by the Prime Minister, to restore the rights of parliament, that is certainly being kept in a remarkable fashion.
What was the record in 1930? After the election of 1930 the man who became prime minister went across this country sowing promises like clover seed. And what a harvest he got. Mr. King put those promises on the record. They were there for people to look at five years later and the people looked at them.
Because hon. gentlemen opposite seem so ashamed of the past utterances of their leader we have made a collection of the promises and undertakings given by him to the Canadian people in the elections of 1957 and 1958. I have spent some of my time, rather profitably I think, sir, going over those promises quite carefully in the last few weeks in an attempt to determine how many have been kept. I have been afforded considerable assistance by friends and strangers who have written letters to me in response to my appeal. I appealed for assistance because I felt this job should be done thoroughly. I have a list of 81 promises that were made in those two elections that have not yet been kept.
At least half of those promises could not conceivably be kept because they were promises to take action immediately and the time has long since passed. Others could not be kept because they were going to be paid for out of Mr. Walter Harris' surpluses, and we all know where they went after six months of Tory management of our affairs. I could go on to cite many examples but I know perfectly well that even if I had time I would

never be permitted by hon. gentlemen opposite to cite them in this chamber without so much interruption that I could not place them on the record.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member hesitates to cite them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, do I? The minister says I hesitate to cite them. I only hope I will be allowed to do so without interruption. I shall not cite all of the 81 because there is not time. But I will cite a few. Simply because I happen to have it in my hand, I will cite the Prime Minister's promises relating to employment and unemployment. Employment was hardly mentioned by the Prime Minister during the 195V election and unemployment was not mentioned at all anywhere that I could find because there was not any. That is the reason.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister confined himself to promises to continue the full employment policy then existing in Canada under the Liberal government. In his Toronto speech on April 25, 1957, the Prime Minister promised that full employment with the highest possible standard of living would be one of the primary objectives of his government. That is certainly an unkept promise.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: With that promise I think I shall have to advise the hon. gentleman that his time has expired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I regret very much having to deprive hon. gentlemen opposite of the rest of this document but I will send it to them by post.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, before you
recognize the next speaker, may I ask for the unanimous consent of the house to ask a question of the previous speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Will the house give unanimous consent to the asking of a question by the hon. member for Vancouver East?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: There does not appear to be unanimous consent.


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: It was a weird thing, Mr. Speaker, to listen to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). We were informed in advance that we were going to hear a tirade about the unkept promises of the Diefenbaker government. We waited for five, ten, fifteen or twenty minutes while the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate outlined the history of the Liberal party, the historical background for our meeting today, the qualifications of Mackenzie King as a French scholar, and then
The Address-Mr. Walker after he carefully looked at the clock and saw that he had four minutes to go he started for the first time to mention 81 alleged unkept promises. So far as I can make out he has dealt with only one of them and that was the question of unemployment which we inherited from the last Liberal administration and did so much to correct. There is no question about this matter. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who has done more harm to the cause of the Liberal party through his ridiculous statements all over the country in the last two weeks, has been told to pipe down and not to mention this matter because with all this powerful campaign he put on in the newspapers throughout the country, he failed to find any support for this allegation of 81 or any number of unkept promises.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have them all here.


David James Walker: That is ridiculous. The hon. member had half an hour in which to put them on the record and he sought not to do so purposely, because he did not have any that could stand up under scrutiny. Never in my short experience have I heard such vilification as we have heard today of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). The Liberal party had a program first of gloom and doom. Now that they find that the country is prospering, they have given up that attack. Then, led by my hon. friend, they tried to have a program attacking our program and our promises. Today they have given up that attack. Now all we have in the house is a constant effort, with a repetition of wicked words and phrases such as they are able to get together, at a campaign of vilification of the greatest parliamentarian that ever sat in this house, namely the Prime Minister. I know that my hon. friend was a clever boy. At kindergarten he was the brightest student there, but he never graduated. He specialized in the game of alphabet. He wanted to show his prowess up in Simcoe a week ago. I read from the Globe and Mail. This is what he said: "Remember, P stands for progress, peace, prosperity and you know who." He smiled and then he said "And I do not mean Pickersgill either."


John Whitney Pickersgill: Read the previous sentence.


David James Walker: We members of the government have a one-syllable word starting with P which would adequately describe the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. But we will not put it on the record today.


An hon. Member:: This is cheap.


David James Walker: Then the hon. member went
on to say something which is interesting. He said, "We are not going to win this next election"-I would ask whether you heard

The Address-Mr. Walker that, Mr. Speaker-"unless we demonstrate to the people of Canada that we are a real alternative and a believable alternative." Did you ever hear such a thing, Mr. Speaker? Then he goes on to say this, poor fellow, "We have also got to convince the people that we have something worth their while." Then the poor benighted member who does not dare make these statements in the house went on to say in a great burst of candour, and this is a quotation, "I admit Mr. Pearson is not a perfect leader of the opposition".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Read the resit of it.


David James Walker: Two flags in Canada, two leaders for the official opposition both starting with P.
All this nonsense about the history of the Liberal party and the promises that were and were not kept-if you go back over the 22 years of Liberal rule, you will find that the Liberals in all their 22 years in office did not fulfil one half the promises fulfilled by the Conservative government. There is no question about that matter. In those days there were few suggestions. One was Senate reform. I remember Mackenzie King speaking in Blyth in 1925 with regard to Senate reform. What did they do about it after all those years? They did nothing. What did they do about the campaign in 1919 for the acceptance of the principle of proportional representation? That is all they had to think about in those days. They did nothing except they proposed a more effective restriction of Chinese immigration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker.


David James Walker: Just a minute.


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


David James Walker: No. I will treat you in the way in which you treated the hon. member for Stormont, but not with the same contempt.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is fine.


David James Walker: It is essential that these things should be put on the record. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has a phantom number of 81 promises. We have not yet heard even of one of them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Read that speech from Simcoe and you will have.


David James Walker: I would ask the hon. member to remain calm and peaceful for a little while, while I outline the situation and this will not be pleasant for him-and the 60 promises that the Prime Minister made while leader of the opposition and later as Prime Minister and which he considered


as promises in both elections, all of which have been fulfilled. In the first place with regard to northern development may I say this, and it will not take long.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, that will not take long.


John Cameron Pallett: Who is interrupting now?


David James Walker: I am going to put this on the record and if my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate can challenge any one of them at any later date, I will put them on in their numerical order.
1.	Under northern development, the Prime Minister promised completion of confederation by developing the north, and how well he is doing this.
2.	The Prime Minister promised Arctic research and exploration to develop resources. The Inuvik research centre is proof of this being done.
3.	A road program in the north to allow exploration of new mineral areas. May I say that 2,500 miles of roads have been built.
4.	On roads to resources, as distinct from the former, $75 million has been spent by the federal government as its contribution.
5.	The Prime Minister promised federal aid to economically sound railway projects. The Whitecourt extension in Alberta and the Gaspe railway are indicative of such aid.
6.	The development of the northern community of Frobisher Bay. At last this has been and is being done, and the eastern Arctic, which was so long neglected, has now come into its own.
7.	The Prime Minister promised to improve transportation, communication and development of power in the north. This has been done. A microwave network has been opened. The C.B.C. covers all of the north and a national power grid is now under consideration.
8.	He promised an inventory of hydroelectric potential in the north, and the Yukon, Mackenzie and Nelson rivers are all under investigation.
9.	He promised a joint federal-provincial forest access road program, and this is now under way under the distinguished new minister.
10.	He promised a railway from Edmonton to Great Slave lake and the Pine Point railway, 438 miles in length, is now under way.
11.	He promised he would ensure that Canadians would have a proper opportunity to participate in Canada's development. How well this has been done under the gas and oil and mining regulations in order to protect and ensure participation of Canadians.

12.	With respect to natural resources the Prime Minister promised the first tourist roads in the maritimes, and what a bountiful harvest this program has resulted in.
13.	He promised federal aid to the upper Thames river project and the project has already been started. The metro Toronto conservation program has also been started.
14.	He promised an Ottawa-Hull interprovincial bridge, and the Macdonald-Cartier bridge is now in the process of being started.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Don't forget the Van Horne bridge.


David James Walker: Contrast this with the Liberal restrictions on Chinese immigration. These are the things that have been done.
15.	The Prime Minister promised export of western natural gas if recommended by the national energy board. Just the other day, Mr. Speaker, a pipe line from British Columbia to the western states was opened.
16.	Aid to the provinces for power development. Of course, the Atlantic provinces power development is the fruition of this promise.
17.	A national conservation convention. The resources for tomorrow conference, one of the most important conferences since confederation, has taken place.
18.	The Prime Minister promised action to bring about freight rate equalization. This has been carried out as evidenced by the MacPherson report and will be proceeded with in due course.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In due course.


David James Walker: 19. He promised subventions for maritime coal used for power. This is already a reality.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Especially in east Saint John.


David James Walker: Could the hon. member, who is so good at parlour tricks, restrain himself for a few minutes? We can get along without his interruptions. There are a lot of things I could have said to the hon. member today but I have a certain latent liking for him and I have desisted.
20.	The Prime Minister promised assistance to control pollution of interprovincial streams. We know how magnificently this has been carried out in the sewage disposal program and in other ways.
21.	He promised the South Saskatchewan dam, and this has been brought about.
22.	He promised a national energy board, and this has been set up under a very distinguished chairman.
23.	He promised agricultural rehabilitation and development and an act to accomplish
The Address-Mr. Walker this end has been brought about. Soil and water problems on a massive scale are now under study.
24.	He promised to step up reforestation and conservation programs. This he has done through a new ministry under a former premier who is one of the most distinguished foresters in Canada.
25.	He promised the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants. How magnificently this has been fulfilled.
Even in the realm of parliament I might state 20 improvements that the Prime Minister has made but I will just deal with three.
26.	He promised to appoint an Indian to the Senate. People laughed about this but it was one of the first things he did.
27.	He promised to restore parliamentary committees, and how magnificently has this been done. The power of parliament has been restored to the backbenchers, and what a great success the public accounts committee has been under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Mac-naughton), a member of the Liberal party.
28.	He promised to place redistribution of constituencies in the hands of a non-partisan commission.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nothing done about that.


David James Walker: This is something we thought could never take place but it will form part of the legislation at this session. Then I come to the question of taxation. If one looks back in retrospect he is aware of all the talk of gloom and doom; but he just has to review what has happened and it amazes him to think that any single leader in any democracy could fulfil so many promises in so short a time.
29.	The Prime Minister promised a meeting of federal and municipal representatives to hear municipal views on their financial problems. It is a matter of history how well that has worked out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Ask the mayors.


David James Walker: 30. He promised to end tight money and to expand economic growth. Hon. members will recall the tight money situation we had when we came into power. They will recall our adverse trade balance. Now we are riding on one of the most prosperous waves and the beginning of a very wonderful program in the 60's.
31. He promised tax cuts, and it cannot be denied that percentagewise 75 per cent of all income taxpayers in Canada are paying less income tax than they were under the former administration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And far more sales tax.

The Address-Mr. Walker


David James Walker: 32. He promised to eliminate the excise tax on automobiles and the whole 10 per cent has been eliminated.
33.	He promised a Hoover-type commission to study government operations. We have the magnificent Glassco commission functioning so thoroughly and with such tremendous results in prospect.
34.	In the field of trade the Prime Minister promised to call a commonwealth trade conference to recover lost markets. This took place in Montreal in 1958 under the distinguished chairmanship of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming).
35.	He promised to increase Canadian exports, and how magnificently that has been accomplished under the energetic Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees).
36.	He promised to cut the commodity trade deficit with the United States and it has been cut almost in half.
37.	He promised a national oil policy. We know that in co-operation with industry such a policy has been established to provide for the orderly development of Canada's oil and gas and that it is a tremendous success.
38.	The Prime Minister promised a great program of port and harbour development. Think of the $13 million harbour at St. John's, Newfoundland, the tremendous development at the head of the lakes, the developments at Nanaimo and Port Alberni, the great developments at Toronto and Hamilton for deep water ships.
39.	He promised to set up a forestry department and he has done so with tremendous results.
40.	He promised to reduce Canada's overall deficit in world trade. He did not promise to balance it. No one thought that was possible. The Liberals did not balance it since 1952. We came into power with a $713 million deficit and in the year 1961 this was not only balanced but for the first time since 1952 we have a favourable trade balance. We had this without having another Korean war.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You just had Castro.


David James Walker: As a matter of fact I would just like to go on to say what a tremendous instrument the Prime Minister has been toward peace in the world. I shall now deal with social security.
41.	He promised to increase the old age pensions and, as you know, the last increase of $10 a month means an increase in our senior citizens purchasing power of $10 million a month.
42.	He promised to increase veterans' pensions. He did so, not once but twice, 20 per cent each time.
43.	He promised to increase civil servants retirement allowances. This he has done.

44.	He promised to increase blind pensions, and of course he did.
45.	He promised to appoint a standing committee on veterans affairs and this has been done with great success.
46.	He promised to increase unemployment insurance benefits and this has been done, with the vacation pay act; and he also has extended the benefits to 52 weeks.
47.	He promised to appoint labour representatives to all government boards and commissions dealing with labour interests. This has been done.
48.	He promised to revise pension regulations for retired railroad employees, remove inequalities, and provide fair and reasonable basic pensions. At the present time this is under very active study and will be implemented in due course.
49.	In the realm of agriculture there are 50 achievements and I shall only mention the over-all one, No. 49, assistance to agriculture. Even as one who knows little about agriculture I could talk for three hours on that subject alone.
50.	He promised to appoint a royal commission on price spreads, and this was done with wonderful success under Dr. Stewart.
51.	He promised to work for a world food bank. This was his original idea and the United Nations are in process of adopting it.
52.	He promised aid to the tobacco industry and this has been done in no uncertain way.
53.	In the realm of business, he promised to provide a small business branch in the Department of Trade and Commerce. This has been done, and very successfully done, that branch coming first under Mr. Roberts.
54.	He promised loans to small businesses. Even the members of the C.C.F. party did not think this was possible but he implemented a nation wide program of loans for small businessmen.
55.	In the realm of labour the Prime Minister promised extension of the period in which seasonal unemployment benefits are paid, and this was increased by two months.
56.	He promised hundreds of millions of dollars for housing and, Mr. Speaker, $2 billion have been made available. I have no hesitation in saying that, after studying the programs of other countries, Canada has the greatest housing program and the greatest number of houses per capita of our population of any country in the entire world.
Finally, he made certain promises with regard to provinces and municipalities.
57.	He promised a new deal that would maintain the constitution and preserve the equalization principle in dominion-provincial relations. This has been done by ending the tax rental.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Ask the premiers.

The Address-Mr. Walker


David James Walker: It was also done by restoring to the provinces the right to impose their own taxes, and he also introduced equalization to the "have not" provinces.
58.	The Prime Minister promised greater aid to the provinces and this has been done in no uncertain way, with a billion dollars a year more than was given under the last Liberal administration.


Mr. Pugh:: Twice as much.


David James Walker: You bet; twice as much. You are right.
59.	He promised to convene a meeting of federal and municipal representatives to hear the municipalities' views on their financial problems. This has taken place with tremendous results.
60.	Last, but not least, he promised something that was spoken about in the House of Commons ever since the end of the war, and even before the war. He promised a bill of rights and such a bill of rights is now on the statute books. He brought into line a backward Liberal party that through its years of government strenuously opposed a bill of rights. Now we have the provinces following in line.
Let us get away from vilification during the debate on the throne speech, but let us not forget that we inherited inflation such as had never taken place in Canada previously. For 12 years the Canadian dollar fell in value by three cents a year. As a matter of fact it went down 38 cents, with the result that when we came into power we had galloping inflation. We have now cured that. Do you hear anything about inflation now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Ask any housewife.


David James Walker: Ask any housewife is there
tight money now? There certainly is not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Don't forget the high interest rates.


David James Walker: We inherited the greatest recession that ever hit the country since 1929. So that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate may not remain on the record unchallenged, he suggested, as reported at page 701 of Hansard, that the depression of the 30's began under the Bennett administration. Do you not remember 1929 when we had the greatest crash of all time, which took place in November of that year? Do you not remember the dog days? I was walking the streets trying to get employment during those days-January, February, March, April and May of 1930-as the paralysis of our country set in. Then in July the Canadian people rose in their wrath and threw out the Mackenzie King government and brought in Bennett. Those are the facts of history and they cannot be gainsaid. In the recession of 1956-


John Whitney Pickersgill: A recession in 1956?


David James Walker: Yes, it was predicted in the hidden report which was tabled in March of 1957.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That statement isn't true.


David James Walker: It was tabled. I can produce the report and table it in parliament now so that my hon. friend may have it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It has been tabled already.


David James Walker: This report predicted that the economy of Canada had been going downhill since 1956. The Liberal government knew a recession was on the way but took no steps to obviate it. However, in spite of the Liberals trying to hide this, the people realized that it was on the way and for a second time they threw out a Liberal government and restored Canada by bringing in a Conservative administration.
It is true we have deficit spending. Deficit spending is right in a recession and we have deliberately had it. It has been a principle of both parties, and of the C.C.F. party too, that in times of recession one can indulge in deficit spending to bring the country out of recession.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not what the Minister of Finance said in his budget speech.


David James Walker: Do you know that in the 95 years since confederation there have been only 24 surpluses? Does my hon. friend suggest that in those years of recession, brought on by the Liberal administration, we should have tried to have a surplus? We deliberately had deficit spending.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Finance
promised a balanced budget.


David James Walker: The pay-off is that in this year, 1962, C.P.R. statisticians and prudential life statisticians predict an increase in gross national product of 7 per cent, which would be approximately $3 billion. The actual increase in the gross national product will be twice as great as all the deficits incurred up to the end of April of this year. Does the pay-off not justify deficit spending to produce that increase in gross national product? The facts cannot be controverted. When we came into power the gross national product was $30 billion but at the end of 1961, five years later, the gross national product had increased from $30 billion to $37 billion, an increase of 22 per cent, something that is almost incredible in view of the situation in which we found ourselves when we took over the administration of the country's affairs.
Now that we are on the highroad to prosperity we will turn our attention no
1160	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Boulanger longer to deficit spending. True, there will be deficits this coming year-there is no question about that-but when we are on the road to prosperity, as we truly are, watch the future and watch how well we do this job.
Mr. Speaker, all these things have been done at a time of stress and strain. We have made this magnificent contribution to Canada, and at the same time increased the social justice payments to a figure that not even the most ambitious of us could ever have contemplated. As I conclude my remarks I must say this, that the Leader of the Opposition has changed his tune from gloom and doom to Tory boom.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting all hon. members of this house. This morning the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate accused hon. members of this house of interrupting those who were speaking. He has now interrupted the Minister of Public Works on 23 occasions in the short space of 30 minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if anyone will consult the record of what I said, it will be found that I said we accepted as a normal part of debate interventions from across the floor that were related to the speech-that will be found in Hansard-but it was this barracking by half a dozen members at the same time that was objectionable. I have no apology to make for seeking to correct some of the grosser errors made by the Minister of Public Works.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: I believe the question of privilege has been duly disposed of.
(Translation):


Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Ariha-baska):: Mr. Speaker, following the example of my colleagues, I should like to congratulate you upon your appointment as chairman of the committees of the whole. May I also extend my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Bourdages and Mr. Browne, Vancouver-Kingsway).
I should like also to tell the house that we were sorry to learn that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) was ill. We wish him a prompt recovery and hope he will soon be back in the house.
Mr. Speaker, I intend, during the few minutes allotted to me, to set forth my opinion on government policy.
I should like to refer in particular to an industry on which the people of Drummond-Arthabaska depend to a great extent, that is agriculture. I would have liked to have


time to deal also with the textile industry, but I shall have the opportunity to come back to that subject on another occasion.
If you examine the present situation of the Canadian economy and compare it with that of other countries in Europe and America, you will find that it cannot even be compared with the one that prevailed in this country a few years ago.
The first thought that comes to mind, is to find out the causes of that stagnation and recession. Would it be that we lack resources or that we are wanting in financial and intellectual potentialities? Yet, Canada is the richest country of the world in all kinds of natural resources: lumber, coal, oil, large and numerous water courses, iron and all types of minerals, and Canadians are a healthy and hard-working people.
During the last quarter century, before the Conservatives came to power, our country made great progress and yet the means at its disposal were far from being as efficient then as those which are available nowadays. Industries have developed, means of communication have expanded and improved, the St. Lawrence has been deepened, pipe lines have been laid and numerous other services have been organized.
If Canada has known such intense development in that quarter of a century it is because we have had at the head of the government, sincere and competent men of action.
Inertia and incompetence have now replaced action and efficiency. The Canadian people are the spectators of a big show costing a lot of money, but which will soon come to an end.
To get an idea of the country's stagnation today you only have to look at the per capita gross national product figures, the determining factor of a country's prosperity, which have gone down from $1,959 in 1956 to $1,898 at the end of 1960, on the basis of the constant 1949 dollar.
Yesterday, Canada was the second country in the world as to per capita production; today it is the third. It used to be the world's third trading nation; it has now been relegated to fifth place in that respect.
When we are informed of the country's financial situation in a few months-unless a general election is called before then-the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) will announce his fifth consecutive deficit. It will be in excess of $1 billion. According to the Financial Post, cash deficits could well reach $1.5 billion.

What about unemployment which seems to be a left-over from the Conservative administration of the years 1930-35? In February of last year, the number of unemployed reached 713,000, which means that one out of every nine workers was unemployed. On January 13 of this year, the figure was still 545,000. We have just heard the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) sing the praise of the Conservative government; he claimed that the present administration has fulfilled all its promises.
Well, there is one promise they did not keep, namely to give employment to all workers, to give them an opportunity to earn their living.
When the Prime Minister states that he has kept 50 of the 62 promises he made during the 1958 election campaign, he is very careful not to mention the ones he did not keep, such as his solemn undertaking in the 1957-58 election to check unemployment once and for all.
Let me quote what was reported in the Montreal Star of February 19, 1958:
(Text):
As long as I am Prime Minister everything that can be done-everything without regard to limit- will be done to the end that no one will suffer.
That is one of the promises he has not kept.
If the Prime Minister believes he has kept all his promises, let him tell it to the
545.000	unemployed, let him tell it to the
545.000	wives and the millions of children of those unemployed.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Have some respect for Mr. Lesage.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, we have had, since 1957, a government which holds a great many records; the record for unemployment; the record for deficits, for deferred decisions, for administrative sham, for seeing things, for confusion, hesitation and inaction.
We would be inclined to believe that, in the field of agriculture, the situation is altogether different and that farmers are enjoying some kind of prosperity. Well, in agriculture as in all other fields of activity, we would have to go back to the years of Lord Bennett's Tory government to find the same distressing conditions that now exist among the farmers.
I would not have enough time to make a full analysis of the situation and to explain the extremely serious difficulties which face agriculture throughout the country; however, to give you a good idea of the poor state of
The Address-Mr. Boulanger agriculture under a Conservative government that has been in power five years, let me quote the opinion expressed by an outstanding citizen, formerly minister of Mines and Technical Surveys in the present government before his appointment to a high office in the province of Quebec. Here is what he said to the Montreal chamber of commerce, as reported in La Presse of November 22, 1961:
The farmer is a neglected man. Moreover, he does not derive the income he should from his work. Although he plays in our society a most essential part for which he must have more and more qualifications, the farmer does not look for popular acclaim but, unfortunately, neither does he reach the standard of living he should expect.
Farm productivity has doubled over the last twenty years. The number of farms has gone down by one tenth in ten years, but mechanization has come to our farms to stay. In spite of that tremendous technological development, the farmer's economic situation has not improved and his purchasing power has decreased considerably.
If one adds to that the farmer's insecurity because of the seasons and the temperature, the diseases and whims of nature, his income is far too low to cope with the difficulty.
That is right, Mr. Speaker, the farmer's income does not allow him to meet his obligations; I could even say that the milk producers in the country, especially in eastern Canada, do not derive sufficient income from that industry.
That statement from a former minister of the crown contradicts that of the member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) who said in this house, on March 2, 1960:
No one would deny that the agricultural situation in the province of Quebec is, at this time, excellent.
His words often go beyond his thoughts, and that is why perhaps he is now talking about separatism.
Mr. Speaker, some time ago, I read in an article that the Minister of Agriculture had just announced that the net income of farmers, from farming operations, had reached an alltime high in 1961, and that it amounted to nearly $3 billion. I would not like to contradict that statement because it is true, but it is only one aspect of the agricultural situation. It is just as if I said to a layman: the salary of a federal member is $8,000 a year, plus $2,000 for expenses. At first sight, that sounds reasonable; but if we take into account all the expenses incurred to represent our electors properly, reality is quite deceiving.
When we refer to the gross income of farmers, the figure is impressive, especially in the mouth of a visionary. But if we want to be frank and sincere, we must consider operation and depreciation costs to know what remains in the farmers' pocket. What farmers are interested in is their net income.
1162	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Boulanger The point that the Minister of Agriculture wants to hide is the fact that the farmers' net income from farming operations has been the lowest since 1956. The net income forecasted by the authorities of the Department of Agriculture would be $1 billion, compared to about $1.3 billion in 1960. This means that the farmers have made $352 million less in 1961.
How can such a decline be explained? It is because the government has not yet had the wisdom of putting a stop to the increase in the cost of goods and services purchased by the farmers.
The promise of widening the spread between production costs and selling prices has again been violated and trampled under foot.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Will you please not read so fast.


Samuel Boulanger: One of the problems which deeply concern the farming authorities is the existing situation of the dairy industry, especially in eastern Canada and mainly in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario which produce 67 per cent of all the Canadian dairy products.
The producers and consumers may be held responsible for our tremendous surpluses of butter and all other farm and dairy products. In so doing, however, we would not be fair to them because there is no one else actually responsible for the situation but the two ministers who have been in charge of the agriculture department since 1957. Both, one after the other, in taking over the management of that department, saw fit to bring about changes in the law passed by the Liberal administration on the recommendation of the late Right Hon. James G. Gardiner.
The Agricultural Stabilization Act was amended in order to give back to the farmers the share of our national income to which they are entitled and to assure them of a price fixed a year ahead for the sale of their produce.
In the case of the dairy industry, this act proved itself to be wrong, illusive and misleading and it could even be described as mythical.
Here, I refer to the words of the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) who said on January 28, 1960, as reported on page 469 of Hansard:
I am one of those who believes that agricultural policy has one prime and overriding objective, namely a fair share of the national income to those who produce the nation's food. Down through the years farmers, farm organizations and most of our ministers of agriculture have agreed that stability of production and orderly marketing were instruments valuable beyond compare as a means of achieving that objective. So it was that the former government, under the guiding influence 

of the minister of agriculture, the Right Hon. James Garfield Gardiner, brought into being, among other measures, the old prices support act. Farm people across Canada wanted something better. They were encouraged to believe that the new stabilization act would provide that something better. I would remind hon. members of the preamble to that measure.
And he concluded his remarks by speaking on the Agricultural Stabilization Act passed by the Conservative government with the following words:
If I understand this program correctly. It is the most retrograde step that could be taken from an already established position. Moreover, the arguments used are unworthy of an informed ministry.
Such was the opinion of a Conservative member and I think that it reflects the opinion of all Canadian farmers.
Proof that this is backward legislation lies in the price of farm products, and especially of milk, which has gone down considerably in the last few years.
This decline of prices would be serious in itself, but there is another factor which is still more damaging to the farm income, and it is the increase of production costs.
For every hundred dollars that the farmer paid for goods and services in 1956, he now pays $114, whereas the sale price of his products has not increased, or only by a fraction.
Therefore, it is in no way surprising that bitter criticism should be voiced by various farm groups in this country with regard to a lack of competence and action on the part of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton).
I could quote some newspaper items commenting on the government's dairy policy but I shall just say that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture seem to lack interest as far as that industry is concerned.
As the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion) stated two days ago, we now have a surplus of 200 million pounds of butter, 60 million pounds of cheese and 30 million pounds of skim milk.
We now have enough butter in stock to feed the Canadian population for the rest of the year. And a production surplus of 45 million pounds is expected for next year, which will add to an already huge surplus.
What does this government mean to do to alleviate the situation? Why does it hesitate before acting in accordance with the advice the government received from the opposition and Canadian farm unions?

We would have expected the Secretary of State to make an interesting announcement when he spoke in this house two days ago. However, after having listened to his speech and gone over it, I realized that he knows nothing, absolutely nothing about the present agricultural conditions in Canada.
Besides, his ventures in this field are not incriminating, since he puts as much caution in his statements on the floor of this house as he does in signing incriminating letters. His secretary signs them.
This is what the Secretary of State had to say:
The Agricultural Stabilization Act, passed by this government, has been of great benefit to Belle-chasse constituency, as it has to all eastern Canada. Formerly, under the previous regime, unstable prices had been a sort of worry and disappointment. At times, prices were quite high, at other times they were too low and, naturally, this had a substantial bearing on the farmers' income.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Read more slowly.


Samuel Boulanger: I should have liked to make some remarks on the Agricultural Stabilization Act, but I am afraid that my time will run short, and I will go on to the comments made by another member, the member for Champlain (Mr. Lahaye), who, in one of his very rare contributions to our debates, went out of his way to criticize, in a most unbecoming and malicious way, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). I must remind him very kindly that he will not succeed in his attempts to bring disrepute on a man who has been elected every time since 1935. The hon. member for Laurier has been a minister with a group of the greatest men Canada has ever known.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He refused Gaspe a railroad.


Samuel Boulanger: And his name will go down in history with those of Mackenzie King, St. Laurent and Lapointe.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I hope that after the next election, he will pass to history.


Samuel Boulanger: The hon. member for
Champlain was speaking more particularly about prices established for butter and powdered skim milk. He said:
The minimum price for butter was set at 58 cents a pound and the price for powdered milk at 17 cents by a Conservative administration.
And he added:
What an anomaly.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is an anomaly resulting-
The Address-Mr. Boulanger


Mr. Lahaye:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Samuel Boulanger: That anomaly results-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Champlain is rising on a point of order.


Paul Lahaye: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is not correct. I did not say that the price of butter was set at 58 cents a pound and that of powdered milk at 17 cents by a Conservative government, because this happened under a Liberal government.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I apologize.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: This is not the first time he has twisted the facts.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the hon. member for Champlain, I must say that there is indeed an anomaly, in that this government, which took over from a Liberal administration, has increased the price of butter to 64 cents a pound, but has reduced the support price for powdered skim milk. What are the results today? Milk which was selling at $3 per hundredweight in 1957, now sells for only $2.75 per hundredweight. These are the results of the policy of the Conservative government.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Lesage has his own responsibilities too.


Samuel Boulanger: I challenge anyone to prove the contrary-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Courcy has his responsibilities.


Samuel Boulanger: -even the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, who does not understand anything about dairy industry problems.
The Liberal government was justified in fixing the price of powdered milk at 17 cents a pound at the time; what is not justifiable is for the Conservative government to have abolished the price support on powdered milk.
When I hear the hon. member for Champlain commend the government for its agricultural policy in relation to the dairy industry, I say that he does not know anything about it, that he does not represent the views of his electors at all-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Whom are you representing?

The Address-Hon. H. J. Flemming


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: You are representing the dead, the war dead.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: We'll fix you at the next election.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, in commenting on the speech made by the hon. member for Laurier, the hon. member for Champlain did not say all. For his information, I shall quote the very words spoken by the hon. member for Laurier at Cap de la Madeleine, because I have here the full text of this speech. Here it is:
And to what must we mainly attribute that decline in farm income? First and foremost to the Conservative government, which is abandoning the price support program introduced by the Liberals, as the egg and pork producers know only too well. More than that, in 1959, the government disowned the legislation it had caused to be approved by both houses before the 1958 election, which legislation guaranteed a reasonable price support on eggs and pork.
Once the elections were over, and it had secured votes from a great number of farmers because of that 1958 legislation, the government dropped the price support and replaced it by deficiency payments on very small quantities. The farmers who, in 1958, trusted the government, increased their production of pork and eggs, but in 1959, the government took away from them all the security they had been guaranteed before the elections.
What should we think of a government which, through the measures taken by its agriculture minister, brings about a continuous drop in farm incomes, thereby betraying his electoral program-


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


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member for Laurier knows nothing about agriculture.
(Text):


Hon. H. J. Flemming (Minister of Forestry):: I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to make some comments in this historic debate. I wish to make some observations regarding measures forecast in the speech from the throne. However, before proceeding to discuss various items I specifically refer to the motion before us moved by the hon. member for Laval and seconded by the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway. It is no mere formality so far as I am concerned when I congratulate the mover and the seconder on the subject matter of their remarks and the excellence of its presentation. I listened to the speeches with great interest and found that there were expressed by both the mover and the seconder thoughts which I consider are tremendously significant to every member, of this house, especially to those of us who are members of the Conservative party.
My friend the hon. member for Laval brought to the attention of the house the

fact that the Conservative party has always believed in private enterprise. He said private enterprise is the very essence of democracy. In his speech he stated that Canada under a Conservative regime is living its finest hours of freedom and that there is a place in the sun for everybody in this great country of ours. He stated that private enterprise and the state are two great friends who, provided they keep understanding and helping each other, will never see hovering above them the dark cloud of doubt and suspicion. And he continued, "For man is not made for the state; it is the state that is made for man". I think those eloquent words so well expressed by my friend the hon. member for Laval are most inspiring and thought provoking, and I commend them to the house for re-examination.
Then, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway in his interesting and analytical address said much with which I concur- as a matter of fact, I usually concur with what he says anyway. However, his comments with which I find myself in complete agreement are found at page 23 of Hansard, about two thirds of the way down the first column:
The time has long passed when during the course of a single speech one could begin to recite all the accomplishments of the present administration because they are far too numerous
I think you will quite understand why I agree with those remarks. Later on, as recorded at page 27 of Hansard he made this statement which I enthusiastically endorse:
By any analysis of the government's record there is no cause for fear now or in the future. By any analysis of our economy and its future prospects there is no cause for pessimism. By any analysis whatever there is every reason for all Canadians to move forward to a greater and brighter future under the brilliant leadership of the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, one of the world's outstanding leaders.
A day or two ago, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kent, New Brunswick (Mr. Michaud), in speaking in this chamber, referred in most appropriate words to the passing of the late Senator Leger. At this time I wish to say that I subscribe fully to what he said concerning this distinguished citizen of our province. My experience with the late Senator was not as close as I would have desired it, but I always found him to be,- whether in New Brunswick or in Ottawa and under all circumstances-always the perfect gentleman. He will be greatly missed by all and I take this occasion to extend sympathy to his wife and family.
It is with pleasure that I congratulate you, sir, on having been appointed Deputy Speaker of this house. I am confident that you will

discharge your duties with all the qualities necessary to commend the respect of all hon. members and in accordance with the best traditions of this house. I am also pleased that my hon. friend, who formerly held the same position, is now the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and I am certain that he will continue his career of distinguished public service. I am certain that he will execute his duties to the satisfaction of all concerned.
May I also express my regret at the loss I believe this house has suffered in the removal of the fine gentleman who was the immediate predecessor of the present Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, a man of fine disposition and even temperament and a man of tremendous ability. He will bring great credit to himself and honour to our country as the representative of Her Majesty the Queen in the province of Quebec.
I should like to congratulate all who have participated in this debate. Naturally I have been more impressed by those who spoke in support of the administration than those who did otherwise. Sometimes I was rather annoyed at some of what I consider to be very undeserved criticism. However, Mr. Speaker, it has been a most interesting debate, I believe, for all concerned.
I should like at this time to say a word or two concerning the momentous event of history that took place on Tuesday, February 20, when history was made on behalf of our great friends to the south, the United States of America, by Colonel Glenn, who was the successful astronaut and space man who covered 81,000 miles, circling the earth three times and finally landing in practically the exact intended location.
I feel a distinct sense of satisfaction for myself and happiness for every citizen of the United States. Having spent the greater part of my life living practically alongside the United States border, having travelled frequently and freely back and forth, having made many friends and having acquired an addition to my family from that great country since my son brought a lovely wife with him back to Canada, I am very pleased and I rejoice with our neighbour to the south in the tremendous scientific achievement and accomplishment of Colonel Glenn on behalf of his country.
It seems to me that we in this house might very well consider that unemployment is our greatest domestic problem and, next to world peace, probably the most important one. However, I feel there is a difference between those on this side of the house and the Liberal opposition in our approach to it. We believe in and work for employment. They
The Address-Hon. H. J. Flemming seem to enjoy talking about unemployment. This has been the pattern in recent years. They never ask how the figures compare with a year ago, a month ago or how they compare percentagewise with the richest country in the world, the United States. They appear to gloat and almost express pleasure when the figures of unemployment go up, and they indicate no particular satisfaction when they go down.
I contend that the program of this government announced in the speech from the throne on November 17, 1960, has, to the extent of my knowledge, been tremendously successful. It called first of all for a larger program of assistance to municipalities for winter works. My comment is that this has been tremendously effective. Efforts have been made and are being made in every part of our country to plan our activities in such a way that there will be maximum employment during the winter season.
There is nothing new about winter unemployment. I have spent my life in the business of lumbering and in connection with woods operations we always had people employed who worked at something else during the summer. It is just that we are going through a different phase and different plans must be made in the future. There is no question, Mr. Speaker, but that the winds of change are blowing. Activities which were adequate in the past will not, for one reason or another, be adequate in the future, and it is tiding us over this period of change that renders assistance to municipalities so important since the intention is to stimulate winter works. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the winter works program was last year, is this year and will be in the future an effective program so far as meeting the problem of seasonal unemployment is concerned.
I would also draw the attention of the house to the fact that all possible public works are now being carried on during the winter season. I have no doubt, and I am sure the house has no doubt, that this will have a most beneficial effect, and it will continue to be done in the future to the fullest possible extent.
Since the employment situation is much improved this year compared with last, I wonder whether anyone has taken the trouble to ask himself or herself what has brought this about. I submit that government policy, government activity and private enterprise, inspired and assisted by government participation, are responsible for the improvement. It did not just happen.
Let me recite some of the changes instituted by the government in the past two years. We are told, Mr. Speaker, that we

The Address-Hon. H. J. Flemming need to be reminded more than we need to be educated, and so I am going to review some of the things which I think are responsible for the fact that today we have a lessening of unemployment compared with a year ago. This will continue to be the case and that should bring to every member of the house the greatest possible degree of satisfaction.
First, the government announced a five year extension of the policy of sharing in the expense of hospital construction from March, 1963, to March, 1968. I do not need to elaborate on the importance of this. I am sure that hon. members are all convinced that hospitals which are badly needed subsequent to March, 1963, will be planned for. They need to be planned for, and this program has a twofold advantage. It furnishes work and it also furnishes the hospital. Federal aid will be available and municipalities will know what they may expect in that five year period. This is most important, and the result will be more construction, more jobs, direct and indirect, and more hospitals.
There is another encouragement to construction in that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been authorized to increase their volume and improve their terms of mortgage lending. We listened to the Minister of Public Works tell us this afternoon that Canada had the greatest record with regard to housing of any 18 million people in the world, and I submit this is due to the fact that the government has recognized the situation. We all know of the increase. We know of the great acceleration in construction generally and in the building of homes in particular. We all know that there has been a reduction in the rate charged by the corporation. We all know that this has contributed tremendously to the furnishing of employment both directly and indirectly. There is an old saying that there is no better way to improve general economic conditions than to stimulate construction, and I have no reason to doubt that that is the case today.
I should also like to draw the attention of the house to the fact that recent legislation authorized Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to become a partner with provincial authorities with respect to urban redevelopment, which is often called slum clearance, but whatever it is called it is most desirable. With respect to this action I say that it has been most definitely job producing.
Then there is the question of universities and their need for more residences. Recent

governmental action provided special authority to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to make loans for university residences on attractive terms. To my certain knowledge this has been used to a great extent by many universities.
We also have another illustration in the provision of long term loans for sewage disposal and treatment plants up to two thirds of the cost, with the special incentive that the federal government will write off, in other words, will make an outright grant of 25 per cent of the cost for all expense incurred up to March, 1963.
I should like to refer now to one item in some detail because I live in a province where waterways are tremendously important. The Saint John river, of which the upper part is international, has a difficult pollution problem, and the prevention of any increase in pollution of this waterway is vital to our province. I only cite this as one instance of the need to grapple with the situation, but to add to our difficulties so far as the Saint John river is concerned there are many branches of it flowing from the state of Maine, thus complicating an already complicated situation.
Some years ago the New Brunswick government passed legislation encouraging the municipalities to deal with the whole problem of sewage disposal and participating in the financial implications. The provincial legislation plus the federal legislation should be a tremendous incentive for all municipalities to face up to the situation, grapple with it and deal with it. I submit that this is most essential legislation. It has been used to a great extent though not to the extent it should be; but it is on the statute books, it is to the credit of the government, and in my opinion it will be of increasing value and will be recognized as such.
May I refer for a moment now to the productivity council. I do not expect to elaborate on this. It has been debated in this chamber by many members, and I am sure that the general hope and expectation are that it will bring about a great improvement. The same plan has been tried in England with outstanding results. In Canada the productivity council has become established and has held meetings. The chairman is an outstanding and successful businessman. I believe that from a long range point of view this council will achieve results and I feel we are fortunate we have so many capable people on this council rendering valuable and efficient service.
Now I have a word to say concerning guarantees for bank loans for small business, a subject which would appear to deserve

comment. As hon. members know, this measure provides for the government's guaranteeing a portion of bank loans for small businesses, to finance additions and for the improvement of business premises and equipment. A few evenings ago I listened to a debate on the floor of this chamber dealing with the extension of this act so that it might meet additional needs of something like the same general nature. Our friends in the opposition voiced tremendous concern because they said it had not been used much, in fact used so little, with only $23 million worth of applications so far. Some of them almost shed tears-I believe of the crocodile variety. Now, Mr. Speaker, I come from a part of the country where $23 million is a lot of money and when that amount of loans has been made under this general heading and realizing there has been considerable difficulty in getting a proper understanding with the chartered banks, and other difficulties which are not uncommon to new legislation, then it is my submission that properties have been improved under this legislation which otherwise would not have been improved because there was no provision under which this type of business could borrow. As a matter of fact this legislation has been an outstanding success. It has brought about increased employment and great benefit to small businesses.
Extending assistance to provincial governments for vocational training has been another one of the achievements of the government. This has led also to the retraining of those who have already become employed. The legislation likewise provides a grant of 75 per cent of the amounts expended for technical schools prior to March 31, 1963. We heard a report on this a few evenings ago from the Minister of Labour and I now have figures from him indicating that there have been 236 vocational and technical schools either built or improved under this act. The figures given me, which I believe are up to February 9, indicate that these schools will cost a total of $254,300,000, of which the federal share will be $170,000,000. I am likewise informed that of these 236 institutions 123 are new schools, 78 are additions to existing schools, and 30 are alterations to existing schools. I do not believe I need to elaborate on the importance of this assistance, or to emphasize that it has much more than one benefit because the construction of these schools furnishes a good deal of employment and stimulates employment in many industries.
Then there is the benefit in the technical education and vocational education of young people, in the opportunity furnished them to acquire a technical and vocational knowledge
The Address-Hon. H. J. Flemming so important in this age of mechanical activity and automation. I submit that this program has been a tremendous success and I believe the Minister of Labour in particular, the government in general, and the people of Canada as a whole will derive great satisfaction and benefit from this program.
Much has been said in this house concerning secondary industry, its need and its importance. I believe the house is familiar with what took place in connection with the "class or kind" legislation which was passed last year. I listened quite intently to the various debates on second reading, committee stage and third reading of that measure. In my opinion the action of certain members of the opposition, presumably with the knowledge and consent of their leader, and perhaps under his direction, gave every reason that they be accused of conducting a filibuster against this legislation. I found myself unable at that time to comprehend their attitude, and I still find myself unable to do so.
They had complained that governmental action in connection with employment was long overdue and there was nothing that might furnish, reasonably prompt amelioration of the difficult situation existing with regard to employment. They said everything was long range and that we should do something that would have an immediate impact on the unemployment situation. Yet we saw them acting in such a way that I believe would be capable of being considered obstruction, or would appear to be attempting to postpone almost indefinitely the passage of the act. I submit that when goods of a class or kind made in Canada are imported into this country, that must displace potential jobs for Canadians.
The proposed act was to give the minister authority to deal with any situation without delay. Yet we saw our friends opposite gang up in an apparent attempt to prevent the passage of that legislation. I do not know how they will explain their action to the people of Canada in the coming election. Indeed, I would not care to have the responsibility which they have. Probably they will say that eventually the act was passed, but we know what happened to it. It was not passed in the other place and consequently did not become law. In my opinion it was legislation which would have kept Canadians working at their jobs and which, in some cases, would make a direct contribution to the establishment of new jobs.
Little has been said in this house regarding the development of the Columbia river. I suppose, coming from almost the extreme eastern part of the country, it might be considered a trifle presumptuous for me to say much about it but it is a subject which
1168	HOUSE OF
The Address-Hon. H. J. Flemming is most interesting to everyone. I am sure that everyone within the sound of my voice is well aware how this matter stands at the present time. A treaty has been signed by Prime Minister Diefenbaker on behalf of Canada, and the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance have been working diligently and faithfully to secure agreement with the province of British Columbia.
More progress has been made under this government in connection with this great development-the greatest that Canada has ever undertaken, greater perhaps than the St. Lawrence seaway-than in any other period of our history. As a matter of fact we in the east hardly knew there was a Columbia river until the coming into office of the administration of Prime Minister Diefenbaker. I am one of those who believe that the difficulties which are now irritating, and which have brought about some delay in carrying out the plans of the government in connection with this great project and the development of this great waterway, will be overcome. I have the greatest confidence that those who are working towards a solution of the difficulties will be successful and within a short time arrangements will be made to proceed with this tremendous undertaking.
I shall now mention the program for agricultural rehabilitation and development. In connection with this objective, legislation has been passed, a director has been appointed and plans are under way whereby the aims and objects of this particular legislation will be advanced. It is a long term objective.
In the process of the establishment of the many families making up the population of this great nation undoubtedly much land has been cleared which is probably not very suitable for the growing of agricultural crops. I have no doubt that there is much cleared land in our country that is more suited to the growing of crops of trees than any other crop. I assure the house that there will be the utmost co-operation between the department over which I have the honour to preside and the Department of Agriculture, in connection with future plans under this particular legislation. Let us make no mistake about it. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation that has ever been put on the statute books of this great country.
The Minister of Agriculture has great plans for the future under this act. He is assured of complete co-operation from us and the house may be assured that I anticipate a most successful long range development under this act, all for the good of agriculture and for the good of everyone connected with it.


I wish to refer to the railway which has been mentioned by the Minister of Public Works as one of the accomplishments of the government in the carrying out of its promises. It is just within the last day or so we saw a picture in the newspapers of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources sitting on a bulldozer. He was apparently turning the first sod for that railway. It seemed to me that this was a tremendous undertaking, 400 miles from northern Alberta into the north, the opening up of a tremendous new country and opening up great vistas and great prospects for all our people. Now we find the situation is that the funds have been voted, the survey has been completed, the work has been started and the minister drove the machine which turned the first sod. If this may be considered by the house as being a progress report, it seems to me a pretty good one. What more could we ask? For years the Liberals talked about it. We are doing it.
The speech from the throne contains many more important passages and declarations of intent. It is certainly not my purpose to try to refer to each of them because time would not permit. Hon. members will perhaps recall that I said a few moments ago in the course of these remarks that unemployment-or employment, if you like, because I prefer to refer to employment in the positive sense-that in the furnishing of employment it seems to me the peace of the world is the most important objective. The speech from the throne contains a recital of many important happenings of the past. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the preservation of peace is the most important single objective that any government could have. I refer especially to these words in the speech from the throne:
The Canadian government remains devoted to peace as its primary objective.
I see no sign of any dissent around this chamber, neither did I expect any.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but his time has now expired.


Mr. Matheson:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister's time had expired, and unless there is unanimous consent it is too late to ask a question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not know that the Columbia river negotiations began under a Liberal government?


An hon. Member:: It did not do anything.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They finished nothing.


Hugh John Flemming: What is the question?


Mr. Maiheson:: The question is, does the minister not know that the Columbia river negotiations began under the former Liberal administration?


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, in answering the question of the hon. gentleman, I made no comment about when the negotiations began. I made a comment as to the result of the negotiations and what had been accomplished by this government.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: You
dragged it out for 13 years; we did it in two.
(Translation):


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (St. Ann):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with all the previous speakers to congratulate and offer my best wishes of success to the hon. members for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn) and St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) for the confidence the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has shown them. I would be remiss if I did not mention the movers of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. members for Laval (Mr. Bourdages) and Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne). They have really shown a creative spirit in the sense that they succeeded in making something out of nothing.
The hon. member for Laval broke into the chorus his leaders have been singing since 1957 about the poor legacy left by the Liberals. Following the example set by his leaders, he voluntarily forgot, or simply ignored like his colleagues a certain part of that enviable legacy left by the former Liberal administration.
And by the way, Mr. Speaker, what was that legacy? In brief, this country lived in an atmosphere favourable to the economic expansion which had been taking place for many years; Canada still had in all parts of the world the peak of her prestige but not a peak in the sense the Conservative members from Quebec understand it; the Nobel peace prize, awarded to our former minister for external affairs, who is now the leader of the Liberal party (Mr. Pearson), confirmed the universal esteem and friendship of the countries of the world toward Canada.
To come back to the national front, the former administration, from 1946 to 1957, through an administrative policy which lent more importance to the welfare of the nation than to the welfare of the party reduced our
The Address-Mr. Loiselle public debt by almost $2J billion; there was over $900 million in the unemployment insurance fund; the former administration had also left a special fund of $165 million for national defence purposes and let us not forget the $272 million surplus in the last federal budget. Here is the true legacy left by the Liberals in 1957.
But what happened after the coming to power of a group of Conservative adventurers who were then and still are today more thirsty for domination and power than they are concerned about the general welfare of Canadians.
Here is a very concise summary of what really happened here under a Conservative administration. The conversion loan of more than $5J billion flooded the bond market, and expanding private enterprise was hard hit by those who like to call themselves its champions. The result was that Canadians will, for years and years to come, pay an additional amount of $52 million just to pay the interest on that loan. To which we must add the not inconsiderable amount of $25 million which went to pay friendly brokers' commissions as well as publicity costs. That is how the Conservatives went about upsetting our Canadian economy soon after they came into power.
In the international field, the total lack of the most elementary sense of diplomacy in some of our ministers is doing considerable damage to our good relations with Great Britain. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) himself are largely responsible for that deplorable state of affairs. Yet, they spend their time, especially the Prime Minister, posing as champions of the commonwealth. They keep talking about it, but they never miss an opportunity to undermine it. The Minister of Finance denied the reports about the speeches delivered at the Accra conference. Is it through ignorance or insincerity that he is unaware of an indiscretion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce who gave a copy of his speech to a reporter? That is how we learned the truth, the actual truth, about the almost senseless stand taken by the Canadian representatives at Accra. They pretend today that this actual truth reported in the press has been distorted and misrepresented.
The Conservatives went even further: within two years, they reduced to nothing our repayment of $2.5 billion on the public debt by increasing the debt by $2,218 million. In addition, the Conservatives have almost depleted the $900 million unemployment insurance fund, while completely draining
1170	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Loiselle the special national defence fund of $165 million as well as the $272 million surplus of the last Liberal budget. To that we must add an ever increasing number of deficits without our country experiencing in return a prosperity proportionate to its wealth. We must also take into account unemployment which again this year, and for the fourth consecutive time, has reached proportions which are truly at variance with the Prime Minister's vision of 1958. Since the opening of the session, the parrots on the government side of the house have been repeating endlessly that unemployment is less serious this year than a year ago. If that is true, the better for those who are working. However, I do not think that this will be of much comfort to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who cannot find jobs.
That is not all. In his celestial vision, the Prime Minister had promised us a tax reduction. What happened? In the fall of 1957 and in June 1958, the Conservatives did indeed reduce taxes by an amount of $204 million. The Prime Minister promised a $500 million reduction, but to him promises are more important than deeds, as far as votes are concerned.
In the 1959 budget, the Minister of Finance raised taxes by $352 million, apart from the indirect tax on the workers, the small wage-earners in this country, as he increased by approximately $80 million the employees' and employers' contributions to the unemployment insurance fund. But that was not enough. The Prime Minister wanted to fulfil his promises to the limit. At the same time he increased the sales tax from 10 to 11 per cent as well as the tax on spirits and cigarettes and he raised from 47 to 50 per cent the tax on corporation incomes over $25,000.
Add up all those increases and you will find that the Conservatives have taken back at least two or three times the slight $204 million decrease, with the result that Canadians today pay much more in taxes than before the Conservative magicians came to power. Yet, this does not prevent the Conservative parrots from repeating, with the assurance that comes from ignorance or bad faith, that the Tory administration has reduced taxes. What reduction? The situation in which the Canadian economy really finds itself has not, by any means, prevented the specialist in sensational and resounding statements, the


Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny), from proclaiming shamelessly in Toronto, on November 4, 1960:
Never has the country been so prosperous as under the Diefenbaker administration.
Another one who, like his leader, feeds on visions.
Mr. Speaker, at this point, I should like to go back to a matter-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Gérard Loiselle: -which I discussed on so many occasions in this house, the slum clearance-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) rises to ask a question.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: I should like to ask a question, Mr. Speaker. Could the hon. member tell the house who wrote this speech he is having such a hard time to read?


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I might tell the hon. member that this speech is my own; I wrote it myself.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Was it not written by someone else?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. All hon. members should listen to the hon. member who has the floor and not interrupt from their seats. If some members persist in acting this way, I will ask them to stop or to please go and make their remarks outside this chamber. Otherwise, it would be impossible to proceed with this debate. I ask all hon. members to co-operate so that the debate can proceed in an orderly fashion.
I recognize the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Loiselle).


Gérard Loiselle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for calling the house to order. The hon. member for Roberval has spent the whole afternoon yapping on the other side of the house while hon. members on this side had the floor, and it is about time you intervened.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must call the hon. member for St. Ann to order. I did not mention anyone in particular. Interruptions are made from both sides of the house. All I ask is that all members co-operate with the Chair in compliance with standing orders. I feel the hon. member for St. Ann should refrain from making such remarks about his colleagues. All he has to do is proceed with his speech.


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling, and now I would like to revert to a subject I have dealt with many times in this

house, that is the slum clearance and the provision of low rent housing. I have always been interested in that question which I have brought to the attention of the government since the Montreal St. Ann riding has elected me.
That riding is one of the oldest areas of Montreal and I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the workers who live there and that I have the honour to represent are great-hearted men who deserve consideration.
As a councillor of the city of Montreal I had the honour to be appointed to the sanitary housing board, under the previous administration. I always made it a point to emphasize the need for clearing the slums and replacing them by low rent housing.
In 1960, the sanitary housing board, asked the economic research corporation to investigate and report on the housing situation in the city of Montreal.
In the first days of July 1961, the board submitted to the present administration a very comprehensive report on the Montreal housing situation.
I may assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the report is not very encouraging and is food for thought. I would say that the report alone should have convinced our municipal board of directors and the management of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that immediate action was imperative. To justify my statement, I shall just say that Montreal has 17,645 slum dwellings in which 29,282 families are living. Those figures mean that a total of 116,450 people, or 8 per cent of the whole population of Montreal, experience hardship in unsanitary surroundings which beggar description.
There have been people in the past who criticized the Jeanne Mance housing project. And, at this point, I want to bring to the attention of the house a financial report in this morning's Le Devoir with regard to that project, which, it is said, has yielded a surplus of $70,755.43.
Some people said, before the housing centre was built, that Montreal could not afford it. May I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that having followed closely the building of those housing units, I am very happy about the results. I am therefore pleased to point out that surplus today, as it should encourage our municipal and federal administrations to go ahead with similar projects in the city of Montreal.
The Address-Mr. Loiselle
The Jeanne Mance centre created some 800 new housing units equipped with all facilities required for modern living. Not only are there no vacant flats in those units, but I may assure hon. members that there is a waiting list which might surprise many hon. members. Even though these housing projects are not perfect, we must admit that they have made possible the clearing of an important district of Montreal and, especially, a great number of families have found in them all the comfort of a modern home. Moreover, this type of housing has greatly contributed, I am sure, to a substantial decrease in juvenile delinquency in this area. Montreal has an urgent need for several other similar housing projects, comprising units with several rooms for our large families.
In its report, the economic research corporation mentions that there are 17 blighted areas requiring redevelopment. Of these 17 residential areas, 9 were considered in a mediocre or bad condition and have been dealt with in a very detailed report.
Zones 2, 3 and 5, and a part of zones 1 and 4 are located in my constituency. May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that zone 2 covers 310 acres, zone 3, 160 acres, and zone 5, around 275 acres.
This justifies the pleas I have repeatedly put forward to the government for slum clearance and construction of low cost housing.
I therefore repeat my request to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) who is responsible for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and I urge him to give special consideration to the representations of the administrators of the city of Montreal, so that a favourable decision can be reached as regards assistance to these 30,000 families.
If, perchance, the minister is somewhat dubious about the merits of my statements, he might yield to my invitation and see for himself, on the spot, the conditions under which families live in these slums. I will gladly take him around. He would, therefore, be able to see for himself the inhuman and pitiful conditions under which those workers' families live in my riding. He might also have to go up or down shaky staircases.
I have here photographs which were published in Montreal newspapers showing the frightful conditions which I just mentioned. I might even draw the minister's attention to a newspaperman's caption below one of those photographs:

The Address-Mr. Loiselle
The rear balcony, which will soon give up, has many uses. It is used at the same time as a dump and as a storage for the furniture which could not be placed in the rooms of the apartment. This is where they go also if they want to get a bit of fresh air.
After a meeting in Ottawa of the mayor of Montreal with the Prime Minister (Mr. Dief-enbaker) and the Minister of Public Works, the latter, in a statement made a few days later, described Montreal as a surplus area.
I should like here to read a few sentences from an editorial published in the newspaper Le Devoir of January 19, 1961:
A peculiar situation, since Montreal may just as well be considered as a housing shortage area, because it is the only possible justification and explanation of the continued enforcement of rent control in the metropolis, 16 years after the war ended and long after all other war controls have disappeared.
Nevertheless, federal authorities are most serious in their stand for the only reason that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is stuck with empty apartments which it cannot rent.
So we have a metropolitan area with a housing surplus and a housing shortage at the same time. There is a surplus and a wide choice for those who can afford to pay a relatively high rent and an acute shortage for those with a low income.
And the newspaperman goes on, Mr. Speaker, to explain that situation.
Again in the same connection, Mr. Speaker, I shall keep on calling the minister's attention to this very ticklish matter which is being discussed both by the Montreal authorities and by the leaders of the various organizations of the city of Montreal. In fact, I cannot but keep on renewing my representations to the minister.
As there are some hundreds of unoccupied apartments in houses built with the assistance of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the government is turning a deaf ear to the municipal authorities' repeated requests for slum clearance, to facilitate the construction of low rental housing. Such a thoroughly negative attitude on the part of the government is in no way justified, if we consider that it has granted credits for the building of housing in localities quite far from the Montreal labour centres.
In the face of the hard-headed obstinacy of the government which refuses its financial assistance for the construction of housing, the Montreal municipal authorities are considering asking the provincial government to grant them special powers to decree the freezing of municipal assessments in some areas for a ten year period.

If such a request were granted by the provincial legislative assembly, it would allow the construction of more sanitary housing, without any increase in real estate taxation during that ten year period.
However, the fact remains that those less fortunate workers are paying taxes to the federal administration and they are entitled, just as any other Canadian citizens, to benefit from the National Housing Act and from the loans granted by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In fact, I cannot understand the obstinate attitude of the federal government towards the Montreal labour communities. The Minister of Public Works will undoubtedly allow me to appeal to his humanitarian feelings on behalf of my fellow citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I would briefly deal with another matter I raised a few times in this house. This is the construction of the C.B.C. building in the eastern part of the metropolis. Over two years have gone by since the representative of the municipal administration and those of the corporation reached an agreement on the site and purchase of land for the establishment of the whole radio and television services.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, those services are at present located in several buildings scattered throughout the city, and such a situation is very costly for the taxpayers.
The relocation of the C.B.C. services in eastern Montreal, in addition to eliminating a great many slum dwellings in an older part of the city, would be an incentive for several owners to improve their buildings. Furthermore, in many instances, we would see the construction by private enterprise of magnificent apartment blocks around that site. This would be a repetition of what is happening at present in the western part of the city along Dorchester boulevard. I am actually wondering why the government is delaying so much its decision about that project. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) always seems to be without a definite answer in that connection. I recently put repeated questions to him and to the Minister of Public Works in an effort to obtain an encouraging answer. Unfortunately, there was nothing definite in their replies.
I ask the government to carefully examine the situation and let us know its stand on that problem which requires speedy action. Let the government say yes or no but at least let it say something sensible. If the answer is yes, I say without hesitation that the

eastern part of Montreal will be the scene of a redevelopment which is well deserved. If the answer is no, at least the municipal authorities will know where they stand.
In a transaction of this kind, the important point is not to know who gets the better part of the bargain but to be aware of any possible agreement between two governments for the sole purpose of serving the best interests of a whole community.
I hope that the Ministers of Public Works and National Revenue will be able to announce the good news shortly, so that the residents of Montreal who pay their share of taxes to the federal government may be treated fairly by those responsible in the central administration.
At this stage of my remarks, I should like to deal with a matter which is mentioned in the speech from the throne in these terms:
My government is initiating negotiations with the provincial and municipal authorities with a view to removing the tolls on the Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges in Montreal: should these be successful you will be asked to approve legislation for this purpose.
In reply to a question which was directed to him recently, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) stated that he has had some news in connection with the negotiations going on with the province of Quebec but that he has not heard from the city of Montreal. In fact, I doubt that he will receive a definite reply from the municipal authorities of Montreal because, if my information is correct, the only exchange of correspondence between the city of Montreal and the Department of Transport is a letter marked "personal and confidential" which was sent to the municipal authorities. How then could the latter make public their views on that question when they are sent a personal and confidential letter.
Being a citizen of Montreal, I am, like my fellow citizens, in favour of the elimination of tolls on Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges but under certain conditions, I am almost convinced that very few are aware of all the facts about the Jacques Cartier bridge and more particularly about the terms of the agreement passed between the federal, provincial and municipal governments.
As a matter of fact, according to that agreement, the city of Montreal was to pay an annual amount of $150,000 for its share of the deficits, and from 1930 to 1951 the operation of Jacques Cartier bridge cost the taxpayers of Montreal the sum of $2,789,768. From 1951 to 1957, the same operation brought financial surpluses and if my in-
The Address-Mr. Loiselle formation is correct, I believe the Quebec provincial government never paid its share of the deficits. When the authorities of the city of Montreal in 1944 decided to discontinue their payments, court procedures were initiated and, following a judgment, the city of Montreal was condemned to pay its share of the deficits for the years 1944 to 1949 inclusive. As a matter of fact it had to pay $210,407 in interest charges and $3,552 for legal fees.
Mr. Speaker, it is good politics, especially on the eve of a general election, and to save a few seats on the south shore, to offer the elimination of tolls on Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges. I am all for it, so that my fellow citizens of Montreal might benefit from it, if possible, but provided the contract be amended and the operation of this bridge become the joint responsibility of the federal and provincial governments. Thus, the Montreal taxpayers would no longer be required to assume their share of deficits and maintenance.
The operation of the Jacques Cartier bridge, from the time it was built until now, has cost Montreal taxpayers the sum of $3,003,738. Furthermore, for the last two years, following an agreement between the federal government and the municipal administration, citizens of Montreal who have to use the Jacques Cartier bridge to get to St. Helene island, owned by the city of Montreal, have had to pay an additional amount of a little over $42,000. Why should the citizens of Montreal always be the ones to pay, when the time comes to be of service to the surrounding municipalities? It has always been said, in the past, that Montreal was the milch cow" of the surrounding municipalities.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gérard Loiselle: The Address-Mr. Beech
Well, when he spoke on February 15 last, the Minister of Finance made the following statement, as can be seen on page 915 of Hansard:
From the inception of the act in January 1961 to the end of last December, 2,977 loans amounting to over $25.5 million were made to small business enterprises.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot compare the figures quoted by the Minister of Finance and those given by the member for Quebec-Montmo-rency (Mr. Lafreniere) who said that small industries in the province of Quebec alone had received the sum of 23 million whereas the total amount of the loans granted throughout the country reached 25.5 million.
I would like to see small industries in the province of Quebec receive not only the sum of 23 million but much larger sums because the whole future of the province of Quebec is predicated upon the achievements of small business, and I am convinced that their growth should be encouraged.
(Text):


Mr. W. G. Beech (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all offer my congratulations to you on your appointment and wish for you every success in this new and important position. May I also extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Laval and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway for the excellent manner in which they introduced the motion we are now discussing. Of course, Mr. Speaker, they had good material with which to work. When we consider that less than five years ago no member of this government had sat on the treasury benches, I think we can say that they have an outstanding record of achievement. This record appears to be disturbing some of the members of the opposition. I was greatly disappointed to hear the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) adopt the tactics he adopted today. First, he accused the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) of having at one time been associated with the Liberal party. Then he accused him-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I made no such accusation. In what I said the hon. gentleman will find nothing to that effect, although I believe it is true.


William George Beech: He then went on to say that the Prime Minister was opposed to old age pensions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is well known.
[Mr. Loiselle. I


William George Beech: May I say this. 1 have known the Prime Minister for a great many more years than has the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and never at any time or under any circumstances did he either directly or indirectly ever take a stand against old age pensions. This is unequivocally and completely false information. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has just stated that I made a false statement to the house. I think that statement raises a question of privilege. Perhaps I should allow Your Honour to rule on whether or not it does so before I attempt to say anything further.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As I understood the hon. member, he said that it was based on false information. Is that correct?


William George Beech: That is right, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hence a question of privilege would not arise at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Speaking on a point of order, may I say that I take it I will be permitted, at the conclusion of the hon. gentleman's speech, to make a correction.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes, that procedure would be in order and in accordance with the established practice.


William George Beech: I should like to say that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has a certain amount of ability and that it should not be necessary for him to adopt these tactics. Earlier this afternoon he offered the Prime Minister some advice. I wonder whether he would mind accepting a little bit of advice himself, namely that the good salesman does not attempt to sell his product by pulling down the other fellow or by trying to discredit the other chap's product.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I give the same advice to the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: There he goes again.


William George Beech: For the last two years I have been in receipt of representations by the representatives of the Canadian boiler society protesting the importation into Canada of pressure vessels that do not meet the specifications required by the various provincial governments. Approaches have been made by the provincial chief boiler inspectors to the Departments of Trade and Commerce, National Revenue, and Finance, asking for the assistance of the federal government in controlling this problem. Thus far these approaches have met with little success, and my purpose in addressing the house today is to

lend my support to their efforts and to solicit the help of all hon. members in what I believe to be a reasonable request.
All the provinces have enacted legislation governing the manufacture, installation and operation of certain pressure vessels, the primary objective being the safety of their citizens. To this end, no boiler may be installed that does not meet the specifications set forth in that legislation. Nor may these vessels be placed in service unless they have been examined by inspectors appointed by the government for that purpose. Furthermore, no boiler may be operated except by persons who are authorized under certificate issued by the provincial department concerned, after an examination based on the type of boiler to be operated.
The number of inspectors and the task of carrying out these inspections are lessened because of the regulations governing the manufacture of boilers, and there can be no doubt that the law requiring that these boilers be built to certain specifications is the main factor responsible for the relatively few accidents due to the explosion of boilers in this country.
Adhering to these regulations does impose upon the manufacturer certain obligations which I believe they have no desire to evade, but I also believe that it is unfair to impose these requirements on Canadian manufacturers and then to allow boilers to come into Canada from foreign countries which do not impose the same requirements.
The Canadian boiler society is only asking for equal competition. If the safety of our people depends upon these boilers being built to certain specifications, then surely all boilers should be made to conform regardless of where they come from. The society has suggested that this could be brought about by the federal government requiring that all boilers imported into Canada bear a stamp indicating that they have been made according to the specifications required by Canadian regulations. As the government already requires some imports to be stamped and as there are no tariff revisions requested, there seems to be no valid reason why the suggestion made by the Canadian boiler society and the chief boiler inspectors of the provinces should not be granted, particularly as it affects the safety of Canadian citizens.
I should like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) for giving me the honour and privilege of attending the NATO parliamentary conference in Paris last November.
I found the discussions there most enlightening and I have a much broader picture of the problems facing us in foreign affairs.
The Address-Mr. Beech
I appreciated the opportunity given to visit our forces attached to the NATO command, and I can tell the house that I believe that the Canadians have the finest fighting force in Europe. They are upholding the finest traditions of our armed services and deserve the best and most effective weapons and facilities we are able to procure for them. I also enjoyed attending the remembrance day ceremonies at Vimy Ridge and I want to commend the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill) for the intense personal interest he is showing in the perpetuation of these memorial services at our national shrines, for there is no truer measure of the character of a nation that the manner in which that nation honours its dead.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if you will
permit me to make a correction, the hon. gentleman said that I had made a statement this afternoon about the Prime Minister being opposed to old age pensions, which was based on false information. The Prime Minister was a candidate in the constituency of Prince Albert in opposition to Mr. Mackenzie King in the election of 1926, as can be found by consulting the Parliamentary Guide, and one of the main issues in the election of 1926 was the opposition by the Tory party to old age pensions. If the Prime Minister says he was not in support of his party-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has the right to make a short correction but he does not have the right to continue the debate. The hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean.


David James Walker: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, old age pensions were introduced in 1908 by a Conservative member, as can be found on page 2398 of Hansard of that year, and the Prime Minister has always been in favour of old age pensions from the time he was a child.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: I believe that the matter raised by the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate involves an explanation, which he has given, and I do not think it should be the subject of further debate at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, Your Honour interrupted me and I took my seat before I had completed my explanation. You allowed a minister of the crown, who had no right of any kind, to get up and make a statement and it seems to me-

The Address-Mr. Bourque


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I believe the hon. member had already completed the personal explanation that he wished to make and he was embarking on a matter of debate. That is why I have ruled that the matter should now be closed and the floor is given-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why should the minister be allowed to debate it?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: -to the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean.
(Translation):


Mr. Bourque:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean has asked that we call it six o'clock and it is five minutes to six. Has he unanimous consent to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
(Translation):
Romuald Bourque: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join those who spoke before me in congratulating the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Bourdages) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) for the excellent way they carried out their task as mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I also wish to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, and I wish you all possible success in your new functions.
I also wish to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn), the new Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. May he also have every success in his new post, as well as the new parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard).
At the beginning of this speech, let me say how proud I am of my chief, the leader of the Liberal party (Mr. Pearson). I listened with great attention to his speech on the address in reply to the speech from the throne and I congratulate him warmly for it. (Text):
Since September, 1960, there has been a substantial increase in the money supply. In May the government asked Mr. James B. Coyne, the governor of the Bank of Canada, to resign and since his resignation became effective there has been a startling increase in the money supply. The Coyne controversy

lasted for about four weeks and during that period there was only a moderate increase in the money supply. But in the week ending August 2 there came the largest weekly increase in the money supply that has ever taken place, $267 million. Since then there has been a further net increase of $157 million. From October, 1960, to October, 1961, the increase has been $842 million. The increase during the 12 weeks that followed the resignation of Mr. Coyne was $452 million, more than half the total year's increase.
Since the Diefenbaker government came into office there has been a great expansion in our money supply and this form of inflation, monetary inflation, can be highly dangerous. The purpose of these Diefenbaker excesses and expenses, in expanding the money supply, is no doubt to sell its bonds. The Diefenbaker government, since taking office in 1957, has had an unbroken series of deficits totalling $2,105,000,000 to March 31 last and the Minister of Finance has estimated that the deficit in the current fiscal year ending March 31, 1962, will be $980 million while the gross total up to that date will approximate $300 million, a staggering amount of money.
This cannot be accepted as a permanent way of life. The deficits should be met by direct borrowing from the public instead of by an increase in the money supply. The shocking situation which has developed as a result of this policy is that now far more Canadian assets are owned by outsiders, mainly citizens of the United States, than was the situation when this government took over in 1957. This resorting to the printing press and the new Diefenbaker dollar is bound to deliver us to foreign investors whose currencies have become so much more valuable in Canada, and we may anticipate a still larger inflow of United States and other foreign currencies, further pressure on our exchange rate, further government requirements in the capital market, further upward pressure on interest rates, and so around again in a vicious circle.


Mr. Clancy:: You are reading your speech. Why don't you table it.


Romuald Bourque: May I quote from the Toronto Globe and Mail for November 24, 1961, an article which is headed "Money supply rise in year near $1 billion." The excerpt reads:
The increase in the money supply was begun by the Bank of Canada early this year and has had to be undertaken in large part to help finance the government's anticipated cash deficit of $1 billion.
I also have a clipping from the Winnipeg Free Press of November 18, 1961, which reads:
Money supply soaring... In October alone, it took $187,000,000 to maintain the position of the Canadian dollar in terms of U.S. currency.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Why not read the whole editorial?


Romuald Bourque: You can make your speech later, my friend.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: I will.


Romuald Bourque: I should like to quote from the Montreal Gazette of January 12, 1962. This article is headed "Fund braking rate by U.S. dollar sales". It reads:
The exchange stabilization fund is actively selling American and buying Canadian dollars on the foreign exchange market to prevent the exchange rate for the Canadian dollar from falling off too precipitately.
The Diefenbaker government, by thus increasing the money supply, has simply pumped out paper money, what the late Mr. Aberhart used to call "fountain pen money".


Mr. Nesbitt:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Romuald Bourque: You can ask a question later on when I have finished. Over the past four years the Diefenbaker government has increased our money supply by approximately 25 per cent, a fantastic percentage.
I should like to quote an article from the Winnipeg Free Press of December 12, 1961. It is headed "The victims" and it reads:
Some unnamed Ottawa economists are explaining away the enormous increase in the money supply m the past few months by saying that it was made necessary by increased economic activity in the country... The real reason is not increased business activity but the fiscal needs of the Diefenbaker government.
Further on the article states:
Since it took office in 1957 the Diefenbaker government has had deficits totalling $3 billions. It has increased the money supply in the same period by $3.06 billions.
In the long run the victims of this policy will be those who have life insurance, pensions and other fixed investments which decline in value when profligate governments inflate the currency.
I should like to quote a further article from the Montreal Gazette of November 29, 1961, which reads:
Dollar at 10-year low point.
The dollar has been steadily weakening, in foreign exchange transactions-
Then under the heading, "Canada to appear before IMF in January":
Informed sources at Washington yesterday said the international monetary fund likely will scrutinize Canada's economic and monetary policies at a meeting of the executive board in January.
The Diefenbaker government expenditures have been greatly in excess of the money received from taxes. Unwilling to increase taxes or cut expenditures, the proper recourse of the government was to borrow money from the public to pay for deficits incurred. But the Diefenbaker government seemed unable 26207-1-75J
The Address-Mr. Bourque to sell these huge amounts in bonds to the people, at least directly. The public seemed hesitant to buy unless higher rates of interest were authorized.
With interest rates approximately 50 per cent higher than in the pre-Diefenbaker days there was still reluctance on the part of the public to purchase these bonds, so finally the Minister of Finance had to resort to the printing press or fountain pen money.


Richard Albert Bell: That is utter nonsense, complete nonsense.


Romuald Bourque: The increase in the money supply under the Diefenbaker government has been very great. In 1958 the increase was $1,324 million. We are now at some point in a second great expansionist splurge. On October 4, 1961 the total was $14,550 million, up $76 million over September 27. In 1958-59, on top of a very large deficit, the government converted much of the federal bonds into longer term securities, resulting in a gigantic financial failure. The Diefenbaker government inherited a rate from the Liberal government of 3i per cent. In 1958 the rate of interest had reached 5.8 per cent due to the government s great deficits plus an upward movement in interest rates.
The printing press method of creating money has been demonstrated to be a disastrous expedient in country after country where it has been tried. It leads to uncontrolled inflation, which could sweep across Canada like a prairie fire bringing desolation and ruin in its path.
Maybe hon. members think it could not happen here. It could happen here, just as it has happened in many other countries. There is nothing sacred about the Canadian dollar which can enable this government to defy economic laws. In the United States between 1940 and 1957 inflation cut the buying power of the dollar in half. What has happened before can happen again, and worse. Not only can it happen, but it is happening now right here in Canada.


Richard Albert Bell: That is not true.


Romuald Bourque: This government must immediately change its attitude. Many people think inflation is a good thing. They believe that by cheapening the value of the dollar it is helping the little fellow. They believe they can pay old debts with cheap dollars. It never works out that way. The little fellow will soon find his savings sadly shrunken, and maybe completely wiped out.
Canadian citizens have a tremendous stake in maintaining the buying power of our dollar. Their savings, their insurance and their future pensions are worth a definite, stated number

The Address-Mr. Bourque of dollars. Deflated dollars could cut the value of these dollars to one half their present value.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about goof balls.


Romuald Bourque: The goof ball bill was a good bill. It was needed at the time it came in. You must admit that it was badly wanted. I should now like to read a clipping from the Toronto Star of July 22, 1961 under the heading "Dollar cheaper-and up go prices". The article is by Gordon McCaffrey:
A shock wave of higher prices is hitting the Canadian consumer.
It's bumping up the prices of most of the things we buy-food, clothing, home furnishings, building materials, repairs for cars, industrial equipment and office machinery.
The result will be increasing pressure on the cost of living index, which for the last few months has been holding steadily at about 129.
I should now like to read a clipping from the Vancouver Sun-
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I draw your attention to the fact that the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) is presently making all kinds of remarks. If he wants to go on, he should speak from his seat which is near the exit.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Do not read so fast, please. (Text):


Romuald Bourque: I should now like to read from a clipping of the Vancouver Sun of November 9, 1961, under the heading "The cost of devaluation

" The article reads:
It's difficult for the average citizen to decide whether Ottawa's fiscal juggling will provide a cure for all our economic ills or end in financial calamity.
Then later on, under the title, "

And
where will it lead?" the article continues:
-it appears that either higher interest rates or inflation must come when it's time to pay for this year's experiments.
I should like to read another clipping from the Toronto Telegram under date of August 25, 1961. The title is "No right to lecture, your policies 'A Mess' U.K. writer chides us". The article says:
The cause of Canada's present economic plight has been her absurd financial policies-
Then a further clipping from the Winnipeg Free Press of November 3, 1961, under the title "Bear by the tail". The article reads:
When Mr. Fleming announced earlier this year that the government had decided to use the resources of the exchange fund to drive down the price of the Canadian dollar, his statement was received with some incredulity by those who remembered his earlier speeches on this subject. After all, this was the same Minister of Finance who had warned parliament in March, 1960 that: "An attempt by the government artificially to

lower the external price of the Canadian dollar would involve borrowing or raising by taxes very large sums with which to buy up foreign exchange". Mr. Fleming at that time had cited various cogent objections to any such course and had summed up in this flat statement: "In other words we would be embarking upon a gigantic financial speculation with no assurance of success".
Then further down in the article:
The minister is, indeed, "beginning to look, and act, like a man with a very large bear by a very short tail... He can't let go and, as matters now stand, he can't hold on much longer".
Then later:
Mr. Fleming is, indeed, walking the brink with no assurance that he can get back with his own and the taxpayer's skin.
Every time the buying power of the dollar goes down, so does the value of our savings, our insurance and our pensions. We must protect the value of the dollar itself. Inflation must cease. It must stop now; we may not be able to stop it later. Unless we stop inflation now the result will be not only the serious losses we would have to bear, but we will face a serious recession and increased widespread unemployment.


An hon. Member:: Gloom and doom.


Romuald Bourque: If we continue to increase Canada's money supply we will eventually decrease by one half the value of the Canadian dollar. It is like pouring gasoline on the fire. When one considers that the government was again compelled to sell 134 million American dollars during January to withstand discount pressure on the Canadian dollar, now five cents off par, one begins to appreciate how dangerous the Minister of Finance's printing operations have become.


Richard Albert Bell: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Romuald Bourque: Due to the unbroken succession of huge deficits and to the policy of the Diefenbaker government-


Richard Albert Bell: Is this incredible nonsense-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Romuald Bourque: -to manipulate the exchange rate and thereby force down interest rates and the value of the Canadian dollar in terms of the United States dollar by the new tactic of manipulation, what might soon happen is of vital importance. This manipulation is so obvious that it was pointed out by my colleague from Leeds on June 23, 1961. This will be found on page 6949 of Hansard for 1961. (Translation):
How does the minister propose to "manipulate" the rate in the manner and to the extent he believes to be desirable?... Where are we going to go for the moneys that are going to be necessary

to go into the market and buy these United States dollars? I submit that we have two alternatives. We are either going to borrow more or we are going to print more and neither is a very happy choice. We have to do one or the other.
(Text):
Canada, as I said before, is now far advanced on the greatest inflation of our money supply in our history. Every Canadian will be affected-it will, in effect, influence and change the value of the dollars earned by each and every Canadian, the dollars they have in the bank or in investments. It is bound to affect those who live on pensions and those with fixed incomes. It will even prove to be a menace to all life insurance policies. Every Canadian will suffer thereby. Every Canadian will be poorer. Never has a government been in such a predicament. Investors are not interested in purchasing the bonds of a spendthrift government without a policy. Should the government risk putting out a bond issue it might have to admit that the bonds will not sell. Having overspent by many millions of dollars above the taxes received, due to lack of policy, this government dare not resort to the recognized methods of taxation or borrowing; it resorts as I said previously to the printing press and prints fountain pen money, thereby undermining our currency.
I have gleaned a considerable amount of my information from newspaper articles published by the late Mr. Grant Dexter. The late lamented Mr. Dexter, editor emeritus of the Winnipeg Free Press, was an outstanding journalist and a man who contributed greatly to the prestige of the so-called servile press of Canada.
We are immensely interested in the figures provided by the government in answer to starred question No. 2 placed on the order paper by my colleague from Leeds (Mr. Matheson). This starred question asked:
(1)	What has been the net increase or decrease in the money supply for each of the years 1950 to 1961 in terms of volume and percentage?
(2)	What has been the net increase or decrease in the money supply for each of the months of 1961?
(3)	What quantity of silver dollars have been minted in 1961 (a) prior to July 13, 1961 (b) subsequent to July 13, 1961?
From the reply given by the Minister of Finance, placed on record in Hansard of Monday, January 29, 1962, it would appear that in 1961 the increase of money had been surpassed only once in the last 12 years-in 1958, just before an election. In 1957 when the present government came to power, the total amount of money was under $12,000 million and in 1961 it had increased by approximately 25 per cent to about $15,000 million. If this is not inflation, what is inflation? The Diefenbaker-Fleming government will go down in history as a gov-
The Address-Mr. Bourque ernment of economic tinkerers who never faced up to any fundamental economic problem. One can summarize the answer to starred question No. 2 by saying that in four years of recession the Diefenbaker-Fleming combination has pumped into circulation substantially as much money as the Liberal administration did in eight years of substantial growth. If hon. members will look at the answer to part three of the question they will conclude that soon silver dollars will be as scarce as hens' teeth. It takes too much metal to make a dollar's worth of money.
May I now cite a few excerpts from the address of Mr. Earle McLaughlin, president of the Royal Bank to the bank's annual meeting recently. Mr. McLaughlin said that on a similar occasion last year he had discussed the problem of maintaining Canada's independence. He added that the general problem is still with us and that in some respects our difficulties may have increased rather than diminished. He mentioned the fear we had last year concerning the burden of our external debt, of economic union, of foreign domination through the inflow of capital from abroad. This he said had now changed to a feeling of concern over Canada's place in a developing world economy. Canada, he told his audience, must adjust to this environment and make its own positive contribution. He spoke of three types of floating rates. From 1950 to 1960, he said, Canada had a true floating exchange rate, its value being determined entirely by demand and supply. From December 20, 1960 to June 21, 1961, this true floating rate was abandoned in favour of what might be called a nudged floating rate, and a downward pressure on the Canadian dollar was exerted through the purchase of United States dollars in the open market.
In the final budget of June 20, 1961, a third variety of floating rate appeared, with the result that the nudged floating rate has clearly given way to a manipulated floating rate. That is the end of this summary of the president's remarks. It is my sincere opinion that a manipulated rate is undesirable.
The following paragraphs I quote verbatim from Mr. McLaughlin's speech:
Now it is this policy of manipulation, the very success of which depends on the creation of uncertainty, even confusion, in the exchange market, that I maintain cannot be accepted as a permanent part of our international financial machinery.
"Follow John" has now become an outmoded slogan soon to be relegated to the waste paper basket. The people will not be fooled again.

The Address-Mr. Ricard


Thomas Miller Bell: The hon. gentleman indicated he would answer a question at the conclusion of his speech. Would he indicate whether the incredible and fantastic nonsense he has read to the house is now the official policy of the party for which he speaks?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It seems to have excited hon. gentlemen opposite.


Romuald Bourque: Would the hon. member mind repeating his question? I did not hear it all.


Richard Albert Bell: Certainly. Will the hon. gentleman indicate whether the incredible and fantastic nonsense he has read to the House of Commons is in fact a statement of the policy of the Liberal party?


Romuald Bourque: I have supported all the statements I have made by newspaper clippings. I did not say all those things. No doubt those people are aware of what they are saying. I have substantiated everything I have said.


An hon. Member:: Too many goof balls.


Romuald Bourque: The goof balls bill was a good bill.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: During the course of his speech the hon. member indicated he would accept a question at the end of his remarks. I wonder if I might ask my question at this time? Would the hon. member inform the house to what extent the cost of living in Canada has risen in the last two years.


Romuald Bourque: I believe it is an all-time record.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Would the hon. member not agree that when the government of his party over there was in power the cost of living rose 38 per cent and that it has risen only 6 per cent in the last four years?
(Translation).


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, the debate on the speech from the throne gives hon. members an opportunity to express their views on government policies. In the few minutes at my disposal, I should like to make a brief review of the events which occurred since the present government came into power.
First of all, I should like to quote from an article which was published in the January 19, 1962 issue of La Presse under the signature of Mr. Vincent Prince and which reads as follows:
Once more, the government feels ostensibly generous. Let those who have been forgotten rise and be counted.
For the time being, it seems that the government does not feel we have the obligation of returning it to power. It is not complacent like the previous government which seemed to take for granted that it could not be replaced. We must not let ourselves be fooled by electoral tactics, but we must recognize that the present administration is
[Mr. Bourque.)
making a genuine effort to acknowledge its obligations towards citizens of all classes and towards every part of the country.
Thie parties in opposition will perhaps claim that the government has stolen their platform. That is normal. The important thing is that the taxpayer be satisfied.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the opinion of a newspaperman who can definitely not be called a Conservative. His article shows, I think, that he views things objectively and sees facts in their true light.
To hon. members opposite who have tried to make the people of Canada believe that the country was headed for disaster under the Conservative government, I would recommend the following subject for meditation.
In 1956, the gross national product amounted to $30.6 billion, whereas in 1961, it reached $37.4 billion. During that period, exports went up from $4.8 to $5.7 billion. Companies' profits totalled $3.55 billion in 1961, as compared with $2.91 billion in 1956. Consumer spending which was $18.8 billion in 1956 went up to $24.6 billion in 1961.
That seems at variance with the contentions of hon. members opposite that Canada is going bankrupt under the Conservatives. It will be recalled that during the 1957-58 election campaign, the Conservative party pledged itself to increase old age pensions and reduce taxes. Now, our friends opposite claim that, under the Conservatives, workers are paying more taxes than under the Liberals. I would ask you, then, Mr. Speaker, to refer to table VIII of the income tax deductions. Let us take, for instance, the unmarried worker who earned $60 a week under the Liberal regime. He paid $8.15 in personal income tax. Under a Conservative regime, he pays but $6.05.
The married worker with two children paid, under a Liberal regime, $2.93; under a Conservative regime, he pays only $2.75 in personal income tax. Those are the deductions.
Our friends opposite boast quite a lot about the prosperity we had under the previous regime, claiming that everybody had jobs and nobody suffered from unemployment. If you will but refer to figures published by the unemployment insurance commission, you will find that, from 1942 to 1956, benefits paid out amounted to the fabulous sum of $1,340,480,905.23.


An hon. Member:: Give the figures for each year.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I have them, but it would take too long. My hon. friends opposite say nothing about the fact that under the Liberal administration the most tremendous black market Canada had ever seen was set up. It is under the Liberal administration that we could not buy meat, sugar, tires and gasoline when we had a control system that our friends opposite would like to bring back on us at this time.
You know that on the black market list, there were names, most of the time, names of the organizers of the hon. members who sit on the other side of the house.
That is the regime that our Liberal friends would like to see in power again in the country, because through their controls they would have a chance to see their friends make money for themselves again like they did while they were in power.
This afternoon, we heard a speech by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin)-a most shocking speech. Never, in this house, have hon. members listened to a speech as demagogic and revolting as the one made by the member for Richelieu-Vercheres this afternoon.
He had brought us to think that he was ashamed to speak his own language in this house, but for this once, the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres used his mother tongue to hurl the vilest insults at the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) of the country.
If you read the debates published in Hansard, Mr. Speaker, you will notice that never or almost never does the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) speak French in this chamber. Last year in one of his speeches, which covered about four pages, the only French there was consisted of one single sentence talcing about three and a half lines.
During the three years we have been here, these gentlemen opposite have day in and day out uttered all kinds of nonsense, accusing us for all sorts of reasons, of having diminished Canada's prestige.
Mr. Speaker, these gentlemen have lacked sincerity, frankness, and respect for others for such a long time that they have acquired a way of thinking that makes them accept all sorts of things, that makes them believe that anything they say is right, and that they may abuse everybody.
The hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) said in his speech which appears on page 1059 of Hansard:
The Address-Mr. Ricard
... I would not like... to deal with questions of prejudice. On the government side, and especially the members from Quebec have been trying for some time to have us believe that the Liberal members are stirring up racial prejudice.
Mr. Speaker, I will read something that proves beyond question that those who stirred up racial prejudice, not only in the house but especially throughout the province of Quebec, are our friends opposite and their organizers, with the blessing of the gentlemen sitting in front of us.
I refer here to an article published in the town of St. Hyacinthe in a Liberal newspaper called Le Clairon Maskoutain on June 6, 1957.
The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) will recall that at that time he came to the assistance of his former comrade who, however, bit the dust. The hon. member for Laurier is not responsible for the defeat of his friend, but I believe that he helped me, however, and I invite him to come again because following each of his visits in my riding, I win the votes of 1,000 or 1,500 Liberal supporters.
As I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, that Liberal party organ wrote that we had been accused of stirring up racial prejudice. But listen to what this gentleman had to say, on page 4 of his newspaper of June, 6, 1957:
For a French Canadian, the issue does not seem very complicated. On the one hand, we have Mr. Louis St. Laurent, leader of the Liberal party, who has inspired the domestic and external policies of Canada, and who was able to give a true meaning to Canadian unity. On the other hand, there is Mr. John Diefenbaker, leader of the Progressive Conservative party, who has given many proofs of resentment against the French Canadian minority in this country.
Who else but you, gentlemen of the Liberal opposition, have raised the racial issue among our people, because you thought this might work to your advantage.
Then, we find this:
But, that is not the main point. It illustrates, at the most, the distorted thinking of a politician who wants to govern our country by sowing discord, resentment and embarrassment on the eve of his accession to the office of leader of the Progressive Conservative party.
That is the kind of speeches you were making. You travelled round this country with your plotting friends, you roamed about the province of Quebec stating that John Diefenbaker intended to take the crucifix out of the schools and that he would forbid members of religious orders to wear the habit of their order in the schools.
Gentlemen of the opposition, you were the ones to blame for that odious campaign of racial prejudice witnessed in the province of Quebec. You were responsible, because you

The Address-Mr. Ricard felt-as you do now on the verge of political demise-that you were sinking and drowning, and you were ready to grasp at anything.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: They are going to disappear a few weeks from now.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Again on June 6, in a program which the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) is sure to recognize he said:
Voters of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, we do not want Diefenbaker and his anti-French Canadian policy.
Who was launching a campaign of disparagement in the province of Quebec, if not yourselves. And today, you are trying to whine; you are just a whining lot.
Those people who today, want to give our country two flags-


An hon. Member:: Three.
Another hon. Member: Four, five.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Six.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: They did not even dare to rise when they had the opportunity to do so. Why did you not give Canada a flag when you were able to do so, because now you will have no such possibility for 20 years. What good is it to you to make any promise?
In 1956, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) was saying that it was impossible to increase pensions to more than $46 a month. And today, with all the others behind him, he claims that he is going to give $70 a month, after having described the claims of the members of the new party as undertakings absolutely unfeasible and unrealistic.


An hon. Member:: Six dollars, six flags.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: They are trying to put all the responsibility for unemployment on the Conservative party.


An hon. Member:: It is true.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I have here an advertisement published in 1960 during the provincial election campaign. It reads:
The Liberal solution-
-like all the other Liberal solutions which have never been able to solve anything-
The Liberal solution: unemployment shall be considered as a family problem and a provincial responsibility.
Ask your friends in Quebec to assume their Liberal responsibilities. You have not missed one opportunity to make remarks about the hon. Maurice Duplessis. You have always accused him of being a dictator, a man with no value whatsoever.

Listen to what the leader of the Quebec Liberal party had to say. This is from Le Nouveau Journal of February 16 last.
Mr. Jean Lesage appealed to Mr. Duplessis and to the duty of the ministers as representatives of the people.
Mr. Duplessis was a man of great experience; he was the greatest premier since confederation, and it is he who introduced this principle in our provincial legislation, said the head of the government.
Therefore, be consistent; my friends, be consistent.


Mr. Deschaieleis:: Would the hon. member permit me a question?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I also want to deal with my friend, the hon. member for Laurier, who has not been with us very often lately. Since he is here this evening, I should like to remind him of the statements he made at a convention in Vaudreuil-Soulanges, as reported in this newspaper:
Mr. Chevrier admitted that the government had granted an additional sum of $40 million to the western farmers who suffered badly from the drought.
And the following is in quotation marks:
"But what did they do for the eastern farmers? asked Mr. Chevrier; nothing. Absolutely nothing."


An hon. Member:: It is true.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Laurier repeated again the same thing in even more explicit terms when he was in Cap de la Madeleine last week where he took the government to task, according to Le Nouvelliste of February 19, 1962:
He accused the Diefenbaker government of having reduced the farmer revenue by dropping the price support on foodstuffs, particularly on butter and eggs.


An hon. Member:: It is true.
Among other things, he criticized the fact that $40 million had been voted for the western farmers on account of their crop failure, while no step had been taken to help the eastern farmers.
What is the hon. member for Laurier doing-


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, no, there is no point of order there.


Lionel Chevrier: I have here the notes which I used1 at the Vaudreuil meeting as well as at the Champlain meeting, and I should like, in answer to what the hon. member has just said-

(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: There is no point of order. (Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: I am
sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Lau-rier but I feel that the matter with regard to which he is making a point of order is one of argument or debate which can be put right, as far as the record is concerned, by the hon. member at an opportune time.


Lionel Chevrier: I am rising also, Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege because I have been quoted by the hon. member as having stated certain things which have not been stated. I now have before me exactly what I said and I wish to put it on record. I think I have that right as a matter of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
(Translation):


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Do not insult the press.


Lionel Chevrier: Now, Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what I said, and I quote:
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Order. If the interpretation by the hon. member for Laurier is that he was misquoted by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot I think he should be permitted to proceed on a question of privilege, because it does cast a cloud on the veracity of the hon. member for Laurier with regard to a speech which he apparently is able to quote verbatim to the house in order to correct the misinterpretation. I only say this because I am satisfied, and I can be corrected if I am wrong, that the text of the address made by the hon. member for Laurier is not in the hands of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, and to that extent I think the hon. member for Laurier should be given the opportunity-


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: -and I presume he can do so very briefly, to correct the record.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker-
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker-
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Order. I will hear the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot on the point of order.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I was quoting a newspaper report. I did not say that he said that, but I have no doubt that he did say it because it took him about two weeks to come here and deny what he said previously.
The Address-Mr. Ricard (Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your decision. And now I wish to put on record what I said on both occasions:
What should we think of a government which obtains a $40 million vote apparently for the western farmers-and they certainly need it on account of their crop failure-which does not pass any legislation to help the eastern farmers and particularly the egg and butter producers?
(Text):


Grant Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot said nothing about that speech at all. He was merely referring to a newspaper report and the question of privilege of the hon. member for Laurier is completely irrelevant to what the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot was speaking about. He was speaking about a newspaper report.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: The hon.
member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot.
(Translation):


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member for Laurier wants to know what the Conservative government has done for the eastern farmers, I feel obliged to refresh his memory and tell him that he was sleeping in his place, because he voted for the legislation we proposed in order to assist the eastern farmers. We have adopted the Agricultural Stabilization Act under which the eastern farmers were granted, during the first two years it was in effect, approximately $75 million.
During the year 1959-60, federal grants totalling $10,487,965 were paid for the transportation of grain from the west to the east, whereas under the former Liberal government, during the year 1956-57, these gentlemen had granted only $7,300,000 for the whole of Canada.
During the year 1959-60 the farmers in the eastern constituencies benefited from grants totalling $22,443,000 for the transportation of grain from the west to the east.
During the years 1959, 1960 and 1961, the grants on milk sold to the creameries brought to our farmers the sum of $816,609.
That is what the government has done, Mr. Speaker, for eastern farmers, and I am sorry to note that the hon. member for Laurier should be so utterly ignorant of those figures.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He is all mixed up.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Furthermore, the sugar beet producers of the constituency I have the honour to represent in the house received, in 1958, 1959 and 1960, subsidies amounting to

The Address-Mr. Ricard $213,156.77. Supposing the 1961 crop should be subsidized on the same basis as that of 1960, it would mean that the farmers of the constituency of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot would put in their pockets $336,410.77.
Those two subsidies on milk and sugar beets will have given the farmers of the constituency of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, in four years only, the sum of $1,153,019.97.
That is what the John Diefenbaker government has done, hon. member for Laurier. That is what you have failed to do, yourself. That is why, at the time of the next election, what you are now dreading will become a great defeat. If you come back here, barely 15 strong, that will be about all the vestiges of the Liberal party. It is high time you got your handkerchiefs ready, because you will certainly cry over the things you failed to do when you had the opportunity during 22 years of power.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, once again I warmly invite the hon. member for Laurier to come to my constituency, because I wish to increase my majority at the next election.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Certainly.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: When the present Prime Minister was elected leader of the Conservative party, was the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot among those who left the hall in protest?


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Oh, what a bright boy.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That was a trick by your friends in the C.B.C. who were working at throwing discredit

as they have done repeatedly-and had selected a given moment to point their cameras to empty chairs. That is what happened. That is what the Liberal party has always done. It has continued its attempts to throw discredit where there was none.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot a question.
Is he aware that while he was speaking, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) remarked that he was suggesting six flags for Canada?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I would not be a bit surprised.


Mr. Marcel Boivin (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like at the beginning of my remarks to offer you my respect and my congratulations on the way you have conducted the affairs of the House of Commons. Before going into my mother tongue I should also like to add in English that, as is customary, if a vote is called we will vote for the motion

out of respect for the representative of the Queen but this will imply no approval of the government.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I would like at the start of my remarks, to render tribute to you in my own language, to congratulate you on the way you are directing the debates in this house.
Without delaying any further, I shall also congratulate the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau), for having been appointed Deputy Speaker.
It is also in order for me to join my colleagues in proffering congratulations to the mover (Mr. Bourdages) and seconder (Mr. Browne, Vancouver-Kingsway) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I also, on behalf of the people I have the honour to represent, tender my best wishes to the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn), on his appointment to the cabinet.
Mr. Speaker, if the rumour is correct the Conservative administration seems to get the credit for a very lengthy fourth session and a very short fifth one during the twenty fourth parliament, which, on the whole, will not have brought much to the Canadian people.
We heard, and then we read in the speech from the throne, that we would get some new legislation to stimulate our economy and help national development.
Mr. Speaker, this reminds me that, hardly three years ago, we heard similar remarks from a certain party leader, and I do think it strange that all sorts of new bills are being introduced during this last session.
Indeed, I remember an article published in the Toronto Globe and Mail of April 26, 1957, under the title "Promises full employment". I quote:
(Text):
Mr. Diefenbaker promised that full employment with the brightest possible standard of living would be one of the principal objectives of his government.
(Translation):
Promise made by the head of the Conservative party in the 1957 election. Promise, promise, there will always be those to believe you.
I remember also that during the 1958 election campaign, after a statement made by the present Prime Minister, the following appeared in the Montreal Star of February 19, 1958:
(Text):
In the live telecast Mr. Diefenbaker said he would take any practical step to ease unemployment in addition to the million dollars for public

works. Unemployment reached a post-war record of 520,000 in mid-January. He said that as long as he was Prime Minister of Canada everything that could be done would be done to relieve unemployment.
(Translation):
Needless to say, the Prime Minister has seriously failed to keep his numerous pledges which I could not all list here tonight. He spent his time making promises but unfortunately he has done nothing for the people of Canada. We merely have to spend a few hours in our respective ridings to realize that the people are wondering when the next election and their hour of liberation will come.
I remember the circular letter issued in 1953 by Hon. George Drew, the predecessor of the present Prime Minister. It reads as follows: Canada will vote Progressive Conservative because the people want tax reductions, through savings in the administration.
Mr. Drew's words were taken up by the present Prime Minister during the same campaign, that is on July 22, 1953. In fact, La Revue de Granby stated the following:
Canadian farmers are going through another painful experience. The government in Ottawa seems unable to solve, for the benefit of Canadian farmers, a large scale problem which is responsible for the loss of several million dollars in the annual income of the farmers. (Published by the Progressive Conservative party).
Speaking of the leaders of the Conservative party, I should like to refer to the 1945 election, my first election campaign as a candidate. I found in La Presse of May 15, 1945, an article entitled:
The policy of Mr. Bracken, at St. John, New Brunswick.
I quote:
The hon. Mr. Bracken said that the farmers would benefit from the policy of his party which would consist in setting the price of farm products before the crop season. He also promised free grain transportation between the lakes and the eastern Canada.
Strangely enough, Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Conservative party has changed its policy or repudiated its leaders since it came into power, for according to that same article, the hon. Mr. Bracken was supposed to publish that same evening, in Ottawa, a manifesto of the policy with which his party was trying to get elected.
I had secured that manifesto and kept it very carefully, and rightly so, Mr. Speaker. The manifesto, which I now have before me, is entitled:
(Text):
John Bracken says.
26207-1-76J
The Address-Mr. Boivin (Translation):
I invite all members, and especially the newcomers, to read this document. They will find good guiding rules in it.
Since I have been referring to agriculture, I draw their attention to page 5, where are to be found the words spoken by the Conservative leader of that day, on the evening of his election to the leadership of the Conservative party in Winnipeg, on December 11, 1952. And I quote:
(Text):
The right of farmers and other primary producers to a fair share of the nation's income.
Nearly one third of Canada's population is engaged directly or indirectly in agriculture, yet during the last decade farm income fell to such a low average as to become of very great concern in our Canadian economy. It is the responsibility of the nation to see that this great inequity shall not be perpetuated. I may say quite frankly that if it had not been for that plank in your platform which provides for a square deal to agriculture, I would not be here.
(Translation):
Mr. Bracken certainly had qualities since this government appointed him to a position of responsibility.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: "Appointer" is not French.


Marcel Boivin: 
Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Why not go back to Adam and Eve.
(Text):


Marcel Boivin: Equality for Agriculture-The objectives of the Progressive Conservative party for Canadian agriculture are three in number:	(1) equality for
farmers in the Canadian economy; (2) the maximum contribution of agriculture to the welfare of the Canadian people; (3) the conservation, as well as development, of our greatest heritage, the storehouse of wealth in the upper foot of the nation's soil.

The Address-Mr. Boivin In this discussion I shall confine myself to the first of these objectives: Equality for Agriculture.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, our present Prime Minister certainly does not agree with what one of his predecessors said because you know his slogan: Parity not Charity.
Spoken words pass but written words remain, which goes to prove their lack of sincerity. In short, Conservatives who trade places trade faces. Despite all his promises and his interesting manifesto of 1945, the farmers of Canada again expressed their confidence in the competence of a Liberal administration.
Mr. Speaker, we went again to the country in 1949. The farmers knew that we had steered the ship of the state more efficiently than any other party could have done during a transition period from war to peace. The farmers expressed again their confidence in a party which had always understood them, that is the Liberal party.
I remember that a by-election was called in 1952 following the death of one of my colleagues, the late Mr. Henri Gosselin, whose remains lie in peace in the cemetery of his birthplace, in Lawrenceville, in my constituency. He had represented a constituency adjacent to mine, the Brome-Missisquoi riding. I was among the Liberal group which took part in that by-election; the Conservative party was then campaigning under the leadership of a new Conservative leader, Hon. George Drew. Once again, a circular letter was found during that campaign which had been distributed at the last moment under the title:
To our Liberal friends.
And under the heading:
But a vote for Henri Demers will give you the opportunity of stating on behalf of the whole province;
And I quote section 5:
That you want the government to help Quebec farmers as it has western farmers-Gardiner gave them $65 million last year.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party is not against grants to western farmers, but we want our fair share.
Since that election, I see again several members of the Conservative party still sitting on the government benches, who had supported the defeated Conservative candidate, Mr. Demers, and who are now in a position to fulfil that promise, now that they are in power.
Why do we not suggest two ministers of agriculture, one for western Canada and one for eastern Canada? Eastern Canada would include Ontario, Quebec, the eastern provinces, and Newfoundland.

What is being done at present for our farmers? Nothing. And the farmers of Brome and Missisquoi, in 1952, like those of all Canada in 1953, having benefited from a good government, again put their faith in a regime of prosperity, that is to say in the Liberal regime. They knew that our party was the only one to recognize that agriculture is the most important industry in Canada.
We, on this side of the house, know that farmers have fully contributed to production demand. We have said so several times and we repeat it again today. It is essential that farmers all over Canada be in a firm economic position and that they enjoy greater stability and security.
We have two ministers of national defence. Why not two ministers of agriculture? We have been brought to realize that defence matters are complicated; but in the field of agriculture, eastern problems although completely different from those of the west, are no less of extreme importance for this country's economy.
I said a moment ago that during the 1957 campaign we heard the present Prime Minister, like previous leaders of the Conservative party, declare himself the protector of the farmers. I should like to quote what he said in St. Patrice de Beaurivage, on May 30, 1957; his words were reported by the newspaper L'Action Catholique of May 31 of the same year:
We admit that prosperity for the agricultural class is a condition to the general prosperity of the country. The reform we suggested would involve reasonable prices through price support and important markets for your products. We promise the farmers that their lot will improve, he declared, and that is what they have been requesting for so long:	a Conservative government will give the
farmers a just share of the national prosperity through price support.
If we judge by the comments of the farming community, after four years of Conservative administration, we had a depression rather than prosperity. I would invite the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) to meet with our farmers who will be only too glad to talk about those famous reasonable prices for their products.
Not to say "lie" I will say "promise, promise, there will always be those to believe you".
The promise of May 30, 1957, would be appropriate today. Indeed with all those promises, our farmers put their confidence in the Conservative party but their lot was entirely different from what they had expected. Instead of the fair share of prosperity, it was in fact a share of depression they got. I know that our farmers, particularly those in Quebec,

will remember their motto which is Je me souviens.
Mr. Speaker, I note on page 568 of the French Hansard for January 29, 1960, that the hon. Minister of Agriculture replied to my colleague from Drummond-Arthabaska on the disbursements or losses suffered by the farm products stabilization board. I could see for myself that it did cost the Canadian taxpayers $1,094,364.31 for the year 1957-58 and $6,996,943 for the year 1958-59 to dispose of their powdered skim milk. And now, those people want legislation to solve their problems. Why not listen to them and let them have what they are asking for?
It is too bad that the government so suddenly removed the support price on that commodity, because several small manufacturers have been in a disastrous situation. In short, they did not have the cash to change over their processing plants. Appropriate legislation could not only help the manufacturer, but also provide assistance to the farmer.
I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the party of which I am a member has always been liberal both with a capital L and a small 1, and liberal for both the workers and the farmers. My party wanted to enable the farmers to get, from their products, an income proportionate to production costs, thus providing them with a fair share of the national income.
I do not know what the government's future policy will be on the support price of butter. I should like to point out, however, that the price of butter is, in a way, the gauge for that of other agricultural products. Moreover, it is of vital importance to the farmers of my area.
We wanted to establish an agricultural development bank. We wanted to improve storage facilities on the farms. In a word, we wanted, as always, to help the farmers. All this we had to put off, but we will be at it in a few months. The farmers now realize that the Liberal party is the only one which can meet their needs, and I am sure that the promises made by the Conservatives will serve them a lesson. Thank heaven, Canada is still a democratic country. They are already saying that tomorrow or in the near future, they will again be under a Liberal administration when they will be able to forget the uncertainty and fear they suffer at present.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. We can hardly hear the member who has the floor.


Marcel Boivin: Mr. Speaker, since I have very little time at my disposal and it is going by very rapidly, I would like to review some facts briefly and arrive at 1935.
The Address-Mr. Boivin
At the time of the 1935 election, as soon as the houses had been dissolved, a folder published by the Conservative party began to circulate in my constituency of Shefford during the electoral campaign. I have this circular here. It was printed by La Revue de Granby, Limitee. Here is an extract from it:
The Canadian Rubber Company was about to open its doors, thanks to the Conservative party.
The people of Granby had a sad experience at that time, and the doors remained closed.
And history repeats itself. The Conservative party of that time and of today has remained the same.
And this time, Mr. Speaker, they called for a certain Joseph Charles Van Horne, a former member for Restigouche-Madawaska, to take out of my city of Granby a certain industry known as Radio Engineering and send it to New Brunswick.
The Tribune of Campbellton-I doubt that it is favourable to the Liberal party-reported on May 10, 1961, that Mr. Van Horne, the popular former member, had told a meeting held at Dalhousie on the preceding Friday, that they should cast their votes for the Conservative candidate in the next by-election, in order to assure the prosperity of this new industry.
The same newspaper published on its first page on May 17 the following passage:
(Text):
Defence production minister to head inauguration ceremonies.
(Translation):
Another article on the same page read in part as follows:
(Text):
Minister may make statement on contract.
Mr. O'Hurley heads the federal department responsible for the placing of defence contracts such as those required by Radio Engineering Products Ltd., the firm now relocating here from Granby, Que.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, any contract which Radio Engineering Products, Limited, will get in New Brunswick, like those it got while in Granby, were granted directly, upon checking by the officers of the United States Army, in Washington. I know that they go through the division called "Canadian Commercial Corporation". It does not come under the minister but directly under NATO.
In the same bulletin, Mr. Speaker-as I have only a few minutes left-in another article, it was announced that the rubber workers were going to enter prosperous times.

The Address-Mr. McFarlane There is no better time for these gentlemen to prescribe quotas on imports as they asked for them when they were in the opposition.
Again in the same memorandum, still in 1935, more work for the textile workers was announced. Here is their chance today, when they are in office, to support their colleague, the member from Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) who is back from a trip and begs for quotas in order to assist that industry.
The same circular letter was also addressed to the workers in the stocking industry. The Nordic company closed its plant in Roxton Falls, Mr. Speaker, and that in Bedford has been virtually closed for two years.
Also in the same circular letter, we could find an article entitled:
Workers in elastic fabric vote for Bennett.
And today, all the machines in the braiding division of that industry have been stopped by imports; and to conclude, Mr. Speaker, in the same article, they were addressing the citizens in the following manner, just as the Prime Minister did last Friday:
People of Granby, who are going to vote for the first time in the present election, think well and vote in your own interests.
That is why in 1935, the people of Granby, of the province of Quebec and of Canada from coast to coast, voted in their own interests in supporting Mackenzie King, as they will do tomorrow in voting for Hon. "Mike" Pearson and his party, for the greatest welfare of all of Canada.
(Text):


Grant Campbell: May I ask the
hon. member a question?


Mr. Habel:: On a point of order, I do not think the hon. member for Stormont can be recognized because he is not speaking from the seat in which he usually sits.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would point out that the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin) has now resumed his seat and that I have recognized the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. McFarlane).


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is the story of the life of the hon. member.


An hon. Member:: Not so bad as yours.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before the hon. member for Kootenay East begins, may I ask the co-operation of all our members in order that he might be heard. I would ask those who are interrupting from their seats to kindly desist.


Mr. M. L. McFarlane (Kootenay East):: First, I should begin by congratulating Your Honour on your appointment and saying how happy

we are to see you discharging your functions as Deputy Speaker. In addition, congratulations are due to the new Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys on his appointment.
I am sure that with our present officers we shall have a successful year. I wish, also to extend congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address on a job well done.
Canada at this time expects to continue her remarkable growth. This government and our Prime Minister have set a good example for other countries by resisting the temptation to intervene artificially to attack the problem of Canada's trade imbalance and the dollar premium while responding selectively to the needs of special areas such as those which produce textiles. All in all, it should hearten us in Canada to know that this country's outlook for the future is that of a growing economy playing a significant and responsible role in the world of trade. I am sure that all members of the house are glad to be here in, and contribute to the solution of the many difficulties which confront our country today. The purchasing power of our dollar is steady but I am positive we will weather the storm and Canada will again emerge as one of the leading nations of the world with our Prime Minister at the helm.
Of prime importance to all of us in East Kootenay, for which constituency I am speaking tonight, is the announcement that in cooperation with the United States progress is made toward the development of the Columbia river. In connection with this power project we should also include the development of the Kootenay river. The headwaters of these two mighty rivers are in my constituency. At one time a canal joined them together but only one boat went through this canal some 70 years ago. Since that time numerous studies have been made of the power potential of these two rivers. In recent years the international joint commission has finalized several plans for the development of the Columbia with a dam at Mica Creek near the northern tip of the big bend in the Columbia; also by the construction of a dam on the Kootenay at Libby mountain in the United States. This dam will back the water up into Canada for a little over 40 miles and cause many acres of farmland to be flooded. Residents in the area affected have been living in a state of uncertainty for the past 12 years, not knowing which way to turn

not knowing whether to make much needed improvement to their holdings or to make preparations to move to another location. Now it is up to our government to take action. It will mean the end of many years of waiting for those in the area, one which will eventually be under water. The construction of this dam

will mean more power available for industry-in my district, and it is my sincere wish that we will see the finalizing of this project in the near future.
Consideration should also be given to the completion of the trans-Canada highway. The northern route is now nearing completion and it is up to the government of the provinces and the federal government to complete a southern trans-Canada highway which would serve all of the southern portion of British Columbia where the greatest number of the residents of the province now work and live. Its completion will assure an expansion of the economy. This road across this section of the province-1 am still referring to the southern trans-Canada highway-will also be of great value to the present trans-Canada highway when completed by the connection road links running north and south through the province.
Up to this time we have made terriffic expenditures on the present route, which is well deserved and needed by the province of British Columbia. We also need the southern trans-Canada highway as a means to bring the tourist dollar into the thickly populated section of the province. The impact of the tourist dollar in Canada cannot be over-emphasized. Statistics show only part of the picture. The benefit to Canada and especially to our great Canadian Rockies in British Columbia is declining from lack of foresight, in not making our main highways attractive and safe for the travelling public. Leadership in encouraging the extension of the tourist season in British Columbia is essential. In my constituency of East Kootenay we have many attractions, both winter and summer, for tourists. We have good accommodation for tourists the year round.
During the past years, due to a lack of foresight on the part of the previous administration action was not taken in developing the highways that are needed in Canada today.
Going back to the period between 1930 and 1935 when we last had a Conservative administration federally, roads from the United States into Canada were classed as access roads to develop our national parks. There are portions of three great national parks in my area.
I wish to stress the need for the construction of a road from Montana through the Flathead country into the city of Fernie. We have pressed for this road both federally and provincially for many years. This road will open up not only a recreation facility but also the timber volumes which will come out of this area. It will serve to assist in fire prevention and lead to greater efforts
The Address-Mr. McFarlane in the conservation of the watershed. There is a potential in this area for gas and oil developments and the development of mineral deposits will assist the exploring companies in eastern British Columbia.
I wish also to bring to the attention of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) the need for an armoury in Kimberley where we have an active unit. Premises are being rented to carry on lectures and they are dependant on accommodation from various sources. Rental charges are high and it is not conducive to producing a good militia unit. Training suffers and administration is a problem. In our committee work we have been advised that the army would assume command in the event of a nuclear attack. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we must have efficient and well equipped militia units and the only way this can be achieved is by supporting militia units in armouries located in active areas. The need is great in Kimberley and I am distressed when I hear that armouries are being built in areas which do not want them and we are not receiving the consideration we deserve. Thirty million dollars is budgeted this year and we are asking for a fraction of 1 per cent of this budget to construct a building suitable for our needs in Kimberley. Negotiations are now in progress with a very active committee in Kimberley who are willing to build this armoury and rent the premises to the government on a long term basis. I would like to ask the minister for his support of this project at an early date.
Consideration should be given to the question of improving airports in East Kootenay. This is of prime importance not only for the present domestic service but also in case of emergency. Present airports in the area are in need of improvement so that we can handle larger planes than those now in use. Due to physical reasons there are limitations, but I believe that improvements should be made at an early date and that this should be a federal responsibility. Millions are being spent in the larger centres and I would request the Minister of Transport to take this matter under advisement. The problem is not going to be an easy one to solve but I feel sure that the money spent would contribute to the expansion of the air services in my district.
At this time I wish to bring to the attention of the government the historical site at Fort Steele, British Columbia. The old town of Fort Steele which is about to be rehabilitated as a provincial historic site is located ten miles northeast of Cranbrook. It is set

The Address-Mr. McFarlane above a sweeping valley at the junction of Wild Horse creek and Kootenay river.
Gold was discovered on Wild Horse creek in 1864 and by midsummer a thousand miners, traders, and labourers had found their way to the new goldfield where a town sprang up. To link this new community with the coast, governor Douglas gave orders to complete the building of the Dewdney trail and by September 1865 pack trains were making the trip across British territory from Hope on the Fraser river to the Kootenay diggings.
The gold excitement was short-lived. The East Kootenay country slumbered on until it reawakened with the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the mid 1880's. The coming of settlers created a new situation. Fort Steele's claim to fame is that it was the first and only fort constructed and manned by the northwest mounted police in British Columbia. It saw no shooting war but acted as a deterrent to disgruntled Indians at a time that bristled with threats of violence.
The fort was built in 1887 and manned by a detachment of the northwest mounted police under the command of Colonel Samuel Ben-field Steele; hence its name. Its purpose was to intimidate insurgent Indians who felt they were being deprived of their rightful heritage of land.
This matter has been the subject of correspondence between the provincial and federal governments for some time. It was understood by the provincial government and the Cranbrook historical society that the property was to be turned over to British Columbia free of any charge. I have now been advised that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have reported surplus a property located at Fort Steele to be acquired by the government of the province of British Columbia and converted into a park and historic site. A stone cairn and memorial bronze plaque erected on the site in 1921 and restored in 1957 recall the historic significance of the location in relation to the early days of the west and the provincial government intends to restore the site and maintain it.
The original property was obtained by the R.C.M.P. from the government of British Columbia. It included a residence for the commandant and one for the caretaker.
However, in 1955 it was deemed advisable to acquire additional land and a number of parcels were then expropriated from private owners at a cost of $3,100 to the crown in the right of Canada.
Crown Assets Disposal Corporation has offered to dispose of the property to the province for a consideration of $3,100 being

the reimbursement of the cost of the recently acquired lands, which may or may not form part of the original historic site.
The government of British Columbia wishes to acquire the entire site without charge or consideration in view of its undertaking to maintain it as an historic park and make some outlays for the restoration thereof.
I suggest that this land be turned over to the province of British Columbia for an historic site without charge and free of encumbrances. In view of the small amount involved it appears to me we could well afford to donate this land as an historic site. Development of this historic village will have great meaning to East Kootenay. Efforts are being made locally to give every assistance to the provincial officials and the historical society. Because the amount involved is small, I believe we should turn this over to the province free of charge immediately.
There are just one or two other items I should like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker. For a number of years the district of East Kootenay has been almost the forgotten land provincially, federally and in many other ways. There are a few conditions which I think should be brought to the attention of the government. I should like to start at the north end of the district and direct attention to the question of flooding which we run into almost every year at the present time. This valley is practically surrounded by the bend in the Columbia river at the north and by some flooding of the Kootenay river in the south. The flooding at Golden is periodic from the fact that the Kicking Horse river which runs into the Columbia brings down a great deal of waste, shale and rocks of many kinds. This causes floods in part of the valley near Golden and creates a problem for a great number of residents in that area. So far we have been unable to interest either the provincial government or the federal government-and this has been going on for a number of years- in giving us some relief in that area.
Going south in the valley we find the village of Athalmer also has a flooding condition through the fact that tributaries of creeks which become swollen in the spring bring down a great deal of refuse. In one place the water is actually running uphill into the Columbia river. A similar situation is also to be found at the village of Creston. We have a problem there also where the water coming down from the various rivers is bringing down refuse and creating a difficulty.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being 9.45 o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 5 of standing order 38 as provisionally

amended, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question now before the house.
Motion (Mr. Bourdages) agreed to.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Gordon Minto Churchill: I would now move that the house adjourn, if it is agreeable to hon. members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that I shall call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the house leader what the business will be for tomorrow and next week as well?


Gordon Minto Churchill: For tomorrow we will start with item No. 1 under government orders on
Business of the House
today's order paper which has to do with the proposed railway line commencing at Whitecourt, Alberta. This bill has come back from the other place with an amendment which is acceptable. After that business is finished we will take the further supplementary estimates omitting from the group the estimates dealing with national defence, trade and commerce and perhaps one or two other items depending on whether or not the house is agreeable.


Lionel Chevrier: National defence or defence production?


Gordon Minto Churchill: National defence and perhaps also defence production. It depends on the house. However, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Trade and Commerce will not be available for tomorrow.


An hon. Member:: What about the associate minister?


Gordon Minto Churchill: On Monday an alert opposition should be prepared for a supply motion which I will announce tomorrow.
At 9.50 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Friday, February 23, 1962