1962-10-03

EXPROPRIATION ACT


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-50, respecting the expropriation of land.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Explain.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is a comprehensive measure relating to government expropriation. It will replace the present Expropriation Act. It is more than a mere codification or consolidation; it will introduce new provisions as well.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SMALL LOANS ACT


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-51 to amend the Small Loans Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Since we are now about to deal with private bills I think I should repeat the caveat I made the other day when so many were moved for the first time.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I rise on a point of order, and ask that you apply that caveat to government bills as well, because they could equally be out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret I did not hear what the hon. member said.


Frank Howard: My point is that the other day, and again just now, Your Honour entered a caveat with respect to bills standing in the names of private members. It is my suggestion that you should apply it also to bills standing in the names of members of the government, because they could also be at variance with the rules of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: That may be so, but it is my opinion that bills introduced on behalf of the government have already received the scrutiny of the Department of Justice.


Frank Howard: And that is infallible?


Mr. Speaker:: I might point out that as far as bills which now appear before us for the first time are concerned, it is conceivable that one could be taken from a file on an hon. member's desk in typewritten form and presented to the Speaker, and I must therefore insist on the caveat which I voiced the other day.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT REQUIRING STATEMENT OF TRUE INTEREST RATE CHARGED

David Orlikow: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-52, to amend the Small Loans Act (advertising).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INTEREST ACT


David Orlikow: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-53, to amend the Interest Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the announcement yesterday of the findings of the special mission to Europe of the national productivity council, to the effect that there were serious gaps in management-labour-government arrangements on economic and social problems in Canada, will the minister say whether he will take immediate steps to bring together responsible representatives of government, labour and management to study the report of the special mission, and to explore measures to be undertaken to deal with these problems?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we have been studying these matters for quite some time. We have had several conferences between senior representatives of management and labour, one in Ottawa a year and a half ago and another last spring at Queen's University, both

Inquiries of the Ministry very extensive conferences. My department and the productivity council are working continuously with labour and management to try to bring about the same degree of labour-management-government co-operation-which has proved so effective in the countries of western Europe.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question. In view of his reply may I ask the minister, who obviously has not read the special report announced yesterday, what steps the government is taking to meet the requests made by the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Mr. Jodoin, with regard to his membership on the productivity council?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress chose of his own free will and accord, and for reasons of his own and of his congress, to resign his membership on the productivity council. The productivity council was sorry to learn of his decision to resign, and we hope it will not be long before perhaps he will reconsider and be back again as a member of the council.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. May I ask the minister whether the government has asked the national productivity council to give consideration to putting labour's members on the council on a representation basis, as asked for by Mr. Jodoin?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Jodoin announced when he told members of the press of his resignation, he mentioned a letter I had written to him outlining the government's wish that, at such time as the membership of the productivity council should be increased -and we hope that at some time in the future it will be-then the wishes he has put forward as to representation of labour on that council will be considered.

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the
Opposition): May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government that its proposed national economic development council, if it were established, should take over the productivity council?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is a proper question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Does the minister consider the resignation from the national productivity council of Claude Jodoin an indication of a lack of confidence of all organized labour

in this body, or does he contemplate the appointment of an alternative labour representative?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe the main purport of the question has already been answered by the minister in a reply to a question earlier this afternoon regarding the participation of Mr. Jodoin in the work of the productivity council.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I have a supplementary question. Does the minister care to say whether he is considering the appointment of an alternative representative on this council, not necessarily from labour?


George Harris Hees: Not at the present moment, Air.
Speaker.


Mr. J. R. Nicholson (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the one directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I wish to ask the minister if in the light of contemplated changes, necessary changes in the set up of the national productivity council by reason of resignation, consideration has been given to the appointment to the national productivity council of representatives of the universities.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, we have not gone into that much detail as to the specific people who might be asked at some future time, when the membership of the productivity council might be increased.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of Trade and Commerce make it clear that as the productivity council is now organized, nobody on it represents anything.


Mr. Benidickson:: Just the Tory party.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very obvious to all hon. members of the house that the information the hon. member desires to be given to the house is pure nonsense.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the press report in the Globe and Mail of October 3, 1962, that the civil service association of Canada yesterday sent a telegram to the Prime Minister demanding that the federal government immediately rescind its freeze on salary increases to 50,000 civil servants, will the Prime Minister tell the house what consideration he is giving to this request?


John George Diefenbaker: All I can say is that the information being sought is along the lines of that requested on several occasions. When the government is in a position to make a declaration in this regard it will be made.


Reid Scott: Will the Prime Minister tell us what we are to say to these 50,000 people when we cannot get any response in this house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe the answer is self evident.



A. S. WHITELEY-INQUIRY AS TO EXTENSION OF APPOINTMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last I asked a question of the Minister of Justice in his absence. It was probably drawn to his attention by his parliamentary secretary, and I should like to ask it again, with your permission. Has Mr. A. S. Whiteley, a member of the restrictive trade practices commission, been given notice that on the expiration of his term in a very short while he will not be reappointed and, if so, will the government reconsider its decision?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the terms of office of two of the members of the restrictive trade practices commission, Mr. WThiteley being one of them, expire on October 31, and they have been informed as a matter of courtesy that it is not the government's intention to appoint them for new terms.
(Translation):



INQUIRY AS TO IMPLEMENTATIONS OF COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell the house if his government will soon grant to civil service employees the increase recommended by the commission in its October, 1961, report.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe replies were given on this matter yesterday, the day before yesterday or last Friday. The question was similarly put. Therefore, I do not think we are speeding things up by again asking questions which have already been answered.
Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, while I have been nipped in the bud once, I blossom forth again on this subject in view of the urgency of the question and of representations made to me. In view of representations I have just received urging me to ask again about the government's attitude to the bid by Shell Oil to take over the Canadian Oil Company, would the Prime Minister assure the house that he will urge the directors of the Canadian Oil Company to put Canada first?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, the government has no authority in this regard. It is beyond the jurisdiction of the government to act in his behalf, however desirous all Canadians are that ownership and management of our resources be in Canadian hands. Any action suggested by the hon. gentleman would be gratuitous on the part of the government.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether, if this parliament is still in session, it is the intention of the government to have the house sit on Monday next, which is Thanksgiving day?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know about the preliminary portion of the question, or whether if it was not still in session that would be a reason for thanksgiving on the part of the opposition. If it is the general feeling of the house, as I believe it will be, that we ought not to sit on Thanksgiving day, I should be happy to make an informal motion in that regard if I were allowed to revert to motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the Prime Minister may have unanimous consent to revert to motions with regard to this particular subject?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Without formality I therefore suggest that a motion be placed before the house that we do not sit on Monday next, Thanksgiving day.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Whether or not the Speaker came with his music today, I do not know; but in any event by unanimous consent Mr. Diefenbaker, seconded by Mr. Churchill, moves:
That when this house adjourns at 6 p.m. on Friday next it shall stand adjourned until Tuesday, October 9, 1962, at 11 o'clock a.m. and that the provisions of standing orders 2 and 6 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has Canada met her repayment commitments to the federal reserve system of the United States, the Bank of England and the international monetary fund under the currency exchange arrangements of June, 1962?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question. With respect to No. 1, which was as to the government obligation, I can advise the house that no repayment obligation has as yet arisen in connection with Canada's drawing on the international monetary fund. With respect to the second part dealing with the arrangement between the central banks in question, may I say that the central bank arrangements referred to were for a period of 90 days and were renewable. They were renewed for a further period of 90 days on September 26 last.



REVIEW BY JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OF ORDER IMPOSING SURTAX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice, or perhaps to the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as the former minister of justice.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Make up your mind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If they will both listen that will be fine. Was the order imposing the surcharge on imports, to which the Prime Minister made reference in this house yesterday, referred to the Minister of Justice for scrutiny under the terms of the bill of rights, in view of the obvious fact that it is a case of taxation without due process of law?


Mr. Speaker:: If the Minister of Justice is willing to answer the question, well and good, but I would feel at this time that it is seeking

a legal opinion from the minister. That, of course, is not the purpose of orders of the day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With due respect, may I express the view that I am not seeking a legal opinion. I waited for some days to see whether there would appear on the order paper legislation confirming the surcharge on imports. When it did not come, I wondered what was happening. Yesterday the Prime Minister referred to the fact that the government had done this under statutory provision. That led me to look up the order in question, and I ask, was this order referred to the Minister of Justice for scrutiny to determine whether or not it complies with the terms of the Canadian Bill of Rights?
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of
Justice): The order in council providing for the surcharges was passed by council in the exercise of statutory authority conferred upon it by this parliament. Legal opinion to this effect was obtained from the law officers of the crown, the appropriate source for this purpose.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With respect, may I ask whether it was from the law officers of the crown or from the Department of Justice?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think most hon. members are aware that the expressions are, for practical purposes, synonymous.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. B. S. Beer (Peel):: I should like to address this question to the Minister oi Transport. Is the minister aware of the telegram addressed to the Prime Minister from the township of Toronto requesting that work on the Toronto terminal by-pass project be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I feel that this question is clearly in transgression of the spirit of the rules with regard to questions. I do not think it is quite in order merely to draw to the attention of the house that a telegram has been sent with regard to a particular subject. The information being sought by the nature of the question "has a telegram been received" I think may be obtained otherwise than through questions on orders of the day.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think Your Honour might have listened to the question before ruling thereon. It is a matter of the expenditure of public money.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If Your Honour will listen to the point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: I realize that some of the subject matters may be important in themselves, but the question here at issue is the urgency of getting information on orders of the day, and if we limit ourselves to that I think we can get our lines cleared. I have made my decision with regard to that particular question, and we can now go on-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is the question I should like to address myself to, if you will just hear me for a moment.


Mr. Speaker:: I have made my decision.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You have not heard the question. How can you decide it is not urgent?


Mr. Speaker:: One does not necessarily have to hear the whole of the question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: -in order to determine the urgency of it. I trust that hon. members will keep this in mind. I will do my best to have appropriate questions presented and appropriate answers given at this time, and I think those members in particular who have been here for years and are experienced in this matter, especially those who may have been in the ministry in the past, will also realize the true nature of questions at this time of the day.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask for guidance from Your Honour? Is it your ruling that questions should not be asked in respect of telegrams conveying information regarding the possibility and the necessity of employment in areas of surplus unemployment?


Mr. Speaker:: The point I am concerned with is the matter of asking about telegrams and so forth. I realize that there are various important problems in regard to constituencies, but I do believe that the type of question that is put may be corrected. This particular question may be asked in some other form. It was the same way earlier this afternoon. I was tempted but refrained from mentioning the nature of so-called supple-mentaries. I do not believe they were supple-mentaries. They were related questions and quite in order as such, but as supplementaries they are not true supplementaries. They are related questions. The hon. member, who has a related question, must desist now, let somebody else have the floor and await his turn. Then he can continue his questioning if he has a valid related question. But these questions are not supplementaries; therefore there is always the risk of their being ruled out of
Inquiries of the Ministry order as supplementaries. This is as I understand the rules with regard to questions, and I think we can move along from that point.


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I did not hear it because I sit at this end, but would Your Honour be good enough to tell me what the question was that you ruled out of order?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will you hear argument on the urgency of the question which was being asked at the time you ruled? If you will, sir, I put forward with deference that this is a matter of urgent public importance.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member has seen the course I have indicated. I have not ruled out questions on that particular subject. I have ruled out the question on the basis of the way it was being asked, and I think the line is quite clear now. If the hon. member will rephrase his question in a way that is acceptable to the Chair, then I am quite prepared to hear him.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will Your Honour now listen to the balance of the question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is a matter of urgent public importance.


Mr. Speaker:: I repeat that a question in that form is not acceptable to the Chair.


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for my ineptness in phrasing my first question. I have now reworded it and would like to address it to the Minister of Transport. Does the minister know that Canadian National Railways are proceeding to build level crossings in Toronto township, while a petition to prevent this construction has been before the cabinet as of August 21, 1962; and has any decision been reached?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: I am sorry to tell the Leader of the Opposition that a telegram has been received by the Prime Minister, of which I received a copy, asking that the work by the C.N.R. on the terminal by-pass in Toronto township be halted. I do not think it was a request to provide work. It was a telegram asking the government to stop the work. That telegram was received yesterday, and it is under consideration.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask the minister whether his attention has been drawn to the

Inquiries of the Ministry proposal of Canadian National Railways to discontinue trains Nos. 195 and 196 between Prince George and Prince Rupert, British Columbia, this month. If so, what steps are being taken to prevent this proposal, to ensure the safety and employment of the employees concerned, and to guarantee a proper degree of service to the communities involved?


Léon Balcer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, my attention was drawn to this matter, but I will answer the other part of the question tomorrow.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the expressed intention of the International Nickel Company to lay off 2,200 workers, comprising a 15 per cent cut in the work force of Sudbury, and directly affecting some 10,000 people; and in view of the proposed rotational work plan suggested to the management of Inco by local 598 of the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is perfectly in order.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put his question succinctly without a lengthy preamble? We have to be fair to both sides.


William Moore Benidickson: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: Can the minister inform the house whether he or his department is in any way assisting to avert this lay-off?


Hon. Michael Siarr (Minister of Labour):: Last Friday I met a delegation from this organization who presented me with a brief in which they suggested a rotation of work. I pointed out to them that this was not a matter which came within federal jurisdiction, and that it was entirely a matter to be left for the decision of management. I also pointed out to them that rotation of work had been adopted by mutual agreement between employers and employees in other instances in the past. I may add that I sent the brief that was presented to me to the president of International Nickel Company.
[Later:}


Mr. D. R. Miichell (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, of which I have sent him notice. This is somewhat related to the question asked by the hon. member for Yukon, but I will try and make it more concise.
Due to the lay-off of 2,200 men in the Sudbury area by the International Nickel Company, would the government consider stockpiling nickel and copper as a means of continuing full employment?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in advising me of his intention to ask this question. However, it is more properly addressed to my colleague the Minister of Defence Production, who is free to answer the question.


David Rodger Mitchell: With due deference, Mr. Speaker, I feel this is just as much a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce as it is for the Minister of Defence Production. As we all know, this company is in domestic and industrial markets-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As I understood the answer, the Minister of Trade and Commerce suggested that the question could more properly be answered by the Minister of Defence Production. I do not believe the hon. member gave the Minister of Defence Production any chance to indicate whether he was going to answer.


David Rodger Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, may I now ask whether the Minister of Defence Production will answer?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely somebody in the government is interested.


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: I am always glad to answer, Mr. Speaker. It has never been the policy to stockpile, either under this government or the previous government, except items of strategic materials to be used in an emergency. Under the circumstances I cannot see that the situation warrants any stockpiling at this time.



PRINCETON, B.C.    SUGGESTED DECLARATION AS DEPRESSED AREA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour, of which I have given him notice. In view of the urgency of the situation in Princeton, British Columbia, where the closing of industry has had a serious effect on employment and small business operations, has this area been declared a depressed area, and are any plans in offing by the federal government for the purpose of rectifying the situation?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, Princeton was not declared a depressed area; it was declared a surplus labour area on July 25 of this year. The
[Mr. Howard.)

closing in 1956 and 1957 of mines at Copper Mountain and Hedley were the main reasons for this deterioration. However, in September there were fewer persons registered for employment at Princeton than at this time last year.
(Translation):



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport. Could he tell us what steps have been taken by his department to close the famous death tunnel at South Stukely, in Shefford county?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I do feel that this question should be put on the order paper.



MONTREAL-QUEBEO    RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF NIGHT TRAIN SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean-Paul Cook (Montmagny-L'lslet):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
In view of representations I received this morning, could the minister tell the house whether his department is considering the possibility of re-establishing night train service between Quebec and Montreal?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will realize that his question is one for the order paper.
(Text):



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has his attention been called to the report in this morning's Globe and Mail of the takeover by an American loan company of two existing Canadian loan companies, and will he consider having this amalgamation of foreign and domestic sharks investigated by the combines investigation branch?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The answer to the first part of the question is no. My observation on the second
Inquiries of the Ministry part is that I think this matter can safely be left to the director of investigation under the Combines Investigation Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You should read the Globe and Mail.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And you should read a great many things that you do not.



STATEMENT ON RENEWAL OF TREATY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Yesterday the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River asked a question relating to an article he had read dealing with the Canada-U.S.S.R. trade agreement. The answer is that the renewed Canada-U.S.S.R. trade agreement, which expires April 18, 1963, provides for annual consultations between officials of the two governments concerning the operation of the agreement, to be held alternately in Ottawa and Moscow. The next such consultations are scheduled to take place in Moscow in late November. The present agreement expires in April, 1963; therefore it is proposed, during the course of the annual consultations, to give preliminary consideration to the future of the agreement.



POSITION RESPECTING CREDIT TO CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: My
question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture, and I have provided the hon. gentleman with notice. In connection with the agreement which exists for the export of food grains, would the minister tell us what the present situation is, in terms of dollars, respecting the credit extended by Canada to the People's Republic of China?


Mr. Speaker:: That is definitely a question for the order paper. It seeks statistical information.



IMPORT OF CARGO FROM CUBA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. J. Flemming (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give an answer to a question asked yesterday by my hon. friend for Gloucester concerning a shipment of cement from Cuba. The answer is as follows.
There is a shipment of cement from Cuba awaiting customs clearance at Montreal. Entry is in order under the regular provisions of the customs tariff at the rate of eight cents per 100 pounds, and no special authorization is required when regular conditions of import entry are met.

Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):



SIMULTANEOUS TRANSLATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
(Page 148)
Mr. L. P. Antoine Belanger (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, after having carefully listened to the discussion which took place a moment ago, and as a new member, I am not quite sure that my question is in order and put to the right person.
First of all, allow me to draw your attention to the fact that several French speaking members complain about the quality of simultaneous interpretation, especially from English into French. Of course, I would not like to lay the blame on anyone in particular, because I do not know what may be the cause of such a situation, but there are many difficulties in this regard.
Second, would it be possible to have the French version of the order paper of the house sent to the French speaking members at the same time as the English version is distributed to the English speaking members? This request is being made in order to help French-speaking members to fulfil their duties in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his representations; I shall examine the situation and see whether it is possible to improve it.
(Text):



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Malcolm Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the minister's statement on federal government policy regarding the Atlantic provinces' economy, namely, that "he wondered why it was necessary for the whole family to take castor oil when only some members needed it", does he now disagree with the government's cutbacks in spending in the Atlantic region, in view of the pressing need for employment opportunities in the Atlantic provinces?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, of which I have
[Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton) .1

already given notice. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to a matter of urgent importance to the Indian chiefs of Bridge Indian reserve, Fountain Indian reserve and Lillooet Indian reserve, whereby an endeavour is being made by certain interests to claim that Indian reserve rights do not extend over a river bed? If so, what interest and action is being taken by his department to protect the rights of reserve Indians?


Hon. Richard A. Bell (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is yes. A very highly technical legal problem is involved here. The department is well aware of it and is making representations to the British Columbia gold commission, which is holding hearings in respect of the matter.
I think that is as far as I would be permitted to go on the orders of the day. I will be glad to give additional details to the hon. member privately.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Could the minister advise the house the nature of the contraband that was taken today from the Cuban freighter Bahja de Siguanea, and could he also tell the house whether any of the goods seized were of United States origin?


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, I have some information which will be of interest to my hon. friend. Some 1,685 bags of chemicals known as permatox which were to be loaded on the freighter-this is a tough one-Bahja de Siguanea were detained under the provisions of section 22 (2) of the Customs Act. Detention was made pending further investigation as examination indicated the chemicals to be of United States origin. No religious literature was detained during yesterday's action or at any time.
We have no record of action taken in respect to the alleged export shipments of 168 cases of nuts and bolts or of quantities of zinc stearate. I believe those latter items were also mentioned in the article in the newspaper.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister say whether a false manifest was filed, and does he contemplate that any charges will be laid?


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to answer that question. I have given all the information that we have at the present time. However, I would be glad to take note of the hon. member's question, and I will try to give him the information at a little later date.
(Translation):



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the genial Minister of Agriculture?
Could he tell us what was his department's reason for reducing the premium paid to the producers of grade A hogs?
(Text):


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a full answer on orders of the day. I will simply say that we ask all Canadians and all segments of the economy to try to bear some share of the government's efforts to reduce the budget deficit. Since hog prices were at a fairly high level, and since we raised the support price last year by roughly $1.50 per hog, we thought this would impose the least burden on this type of producer.
(Translation):


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question in order to make this clearer?


Mr. Speaker:: I am very sorry, but the object of a supplementary question must be to clarify the reply which was given. If his question simply relates to the same matter, I would ask the hon. gentleman to give the floor to someone else, and he can ask his question later on.


Marcel Lessard: Well, Mr. Speaker, the object of this question is precisely to clarify the previous one.
Could the Minister of Agriculture tell us if he expects to restore that premium soon. (Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, nobody is more reluctant than I to reduce the premium, and I shall certainly have this matter under consideration at all times.
(Translation):



LOANS TO SMALL FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Viateur Ethier (Glengarry-Prescolt):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Could the
Inquiries of the Ministry minister tell the house whether he intends to ease the present guarantees on agricultural loans in view of the fact that only large farmers can benefit from such loans at present, the smaller farmers being unable to qualify?


Mr. Speaker:: As I see it, the hon. member's question calls for an opinion and I think it would be better to have it put on the order paper.
* # *



PRICE OF WHEAT IN EASTERN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Bellechasse):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Following the good news we heard yesterday about the sales of wheat, will the farmers and bakers of eastern Canada be able to buy their wheat at the same price as the Chinese and the Poles?
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Wheat prices are all based at Fort William, and we will be glad to take any orders from people in every part of the world.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government proposes to reduce Canada's contribution to the Colombo plan?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when the estimates are tabled the fullest information will be available.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is it not a fact that his department has already given an indication that it proposes to reduce the amount of Canada's contribution.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: The answer is yes.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat the statement made by the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

Inquiries of the Ministry
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT	CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


REPORTED REDUCED WAGES IN RUSH SEASON
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. James E. Walker (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Postmaster General and I am sorry that I have not given her notice. Is the Postmaster General aware that during the Christmas period casual or regular postal employees are requested to offer their services at a reduced rate of pay to take care of the Christmas rush?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With all due respect to the hon. member, I feel that this question is definitely one that should be placed on the order paper.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas R. Berger (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Since the unemployment insurance fund is in imminent danger of being exhausted, what steps is the government taking to ensure that funds will be available to pay benefits to unemployed persons this fall and winter?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, this was the situation prior to January 1, 1962, it was the situation prior to May 1, 1962, and again we have the same situation. There are still funds in the unemployment insurance fund. The government has a responsibility in this respect, which it has always recognized in the past and will in this instance.


Thomas Rodney Berger: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What steps will the government take should this situation, which is one of imminent danger, result in the exhaustion of the fund?


Michael Starr: Appropriate steps.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour, notice of which I sent him yesterday. What was the financial state of the unemployment insurance fund in September 1962 as compared with the state of the fund-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is definitely a question seeking information of a statistical nature. Unless the minister is prepared to give an answer at the present time, it should definitely go on the order paper.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PREPARATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: I do not
wish to be repititious on this subject, but judging from the number of inquiries coming in, some importance appears to attach to it. I should like to direct a request to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister advise the house at his earliest convenience regarding the progress which has been made to date in preparation for Canada's centenary?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works, and I apologize for not having given him notice. In view of the stimulation which could be given to our economy by the construction of additional housing, would the minister care to comment on a statement made by Mr. Hector Boudreau, president of the associated federation of letter carriers, that he was laughed at when he applied for a central mortgage loan, and that his low salary made him ineligible?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not the responsibility of members of the ministry to comment on statements by individuals that appear in the press from time to time.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should
like to ask the Secretary of State in his role as voice for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the board of broadcast governors whether the government has found or is seeking any way to resolve the contretemps between the B.B.G. and the C.B.C. over the latter's application to program a certain pending football match.


Hon. G. E. Halpenny (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the C.B.C. that they have had meetings with not only the B.B.G. but with the C.T.V., and it looks as though we shall have a solution.


PUBLIC WORKS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Rock (Jacques Cariier-Lasalle):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Will any municipalities intending to construct sewage treatment plants be able to request and receive federal financial aid after March 31, 1963?


Hon. E. D. Fullon (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is yes, within the limits of the funds provided and in accordance with the terms of the amendment to the National Housing Act for that purpose, one of the many constructive pieces of legislation recently introduced by this government.


AIRPORTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. E. Nixon (Algoma West):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister say how soon tenders will be called for the construction of a permanent terminal building at Sault Ste. Marie airport?


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


PARLIAMENT HILL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the insecurity of leaving our cars unattended, because of the pilfering from parliament hill, would the Minister of Justice take steps to see that our cars are protected?


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which ordinarily would not be of an urgent nature, but I suggest that in this particular case, because of the indefinite nature of the length of this session, the answer will help our programming of legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: I feel that if one were to ask many hon. members here, they might at one time or another place that qualification upon
The Address-Mr. Cashin any question regardless of its nature. I do not think it warrants any priority in asking it on orders of the day, if that be its basis.
(Translation):


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: May I direct a question to the Postmaster General?
(Text):
Is it the government's intention to pay regular postal employees for overtime work during the Christmas period by giving them holidays instead of cash?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know the procedure will be the same as that followed formerly.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph B. Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that I wish to direct to the Prime Minister. On the floor of this house on Tuesday last he said, as reported on page 102 of Hansard of that date: They went around and threw out those myriads of documents which they did not dare stand behind; they did not dare place the name on them as having been printed by the Liberal association.
If this is a contravention of section 71 of the Canada Elections Act, I should like to ask why the Prime Minister or the government does not enforce the act by instituting legal action.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, October 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gordon Chaplin for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Pearson.
Mr. R. J. Cashin (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to add my voice-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members might subdue the buzz of conversation so that we may hear the hon. member, and also in particular show the courtesy of this house to hon. members making their maiden speech.

The Address-Mr. Cashin I therefore call on the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) with the due attention of the house.


Richard Joseph Cashin: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my voice to those who have already offered you praise and congratulations on your elevation to your new post. I should also like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply on their very creditable efforts.
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy and honoured to take part in this traditional debate. I may say that I am particularly honoured because the constituency which I represent in this house was represented for a great many years in the house which presided over the destinies of the then colony, and later dominion, of Newfoundland by my late grandfather, Sir Michael Cashin.
Would that I could continue in such a reminiscent and pleasant vein on this the occasion of my first speech. But, Mr. Speaker, at this time, in this place, and in this country circumstances are such that the members of the house should at all times devote their energies and their attention to the great problems facing this house, and facing indeed the whole nation of Canada. So, Mr. Speaker, I am rising to support the motion of want of confidence placed before the house. If there was any doubt in my mind that I should do so, it was certainly dispelled after enduring the long barrage, indeed the deluge, from the other side of the house. Instead of adopting a straightforward approach which would show that this government appreciates the problems that face the Canadian nation, they have chosen to put on the blinkers that have obscured their vision for so long. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that there was no example in the speech from the throne of the moral fibre and the moral courage which the people of Canada have every right to expect from their government at all times, and particularly at this time. Oh yes, there have been a great many words. Indeed, the manipulation of language seems to be one of the few significant traits of this government that I have been able to observe in the short time I have been here watching the other side of the house. Words that I thought had one meaning to all or most people seemed to have different meanings to suit the occasion for the members on the other side of the house. For example, we heard the very fine sounding phrase that fear begets fear, and indeed it sounds good. It perhaps sounds better than does my phrase that government mismanagement begets government mismanagement and that government befuddlement begets government befuddle-ment.
Another interesting observation is this. While the members on the other side of the

house are entrusted with the responsibility of government and have been entrusted with that responsibility for five years, they can come into this house, as they have done in other houses, and accuse 50 Liberals of obstructing about 200 people from governing Canada. If 50 Liberals could be so successful in doing that, how successful would they be on the other side of the house?


An hon. Member:: Twenty two years.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Indeed, I am glad to know that those on the other side of the house have not lost their ability to use words. However, I noted that the statements which have been made indicate indeed that the speech from the throne is not what the Canadian people expected. I humbly suggest that otherwise they would have held all of us for, whatever side of the house on which we sit, we are all in the same house. If one group does not live up to its standards, inevitably it affects all of us who are in this profession. I am afraid that is what has happened, namely that they have not given us what they should have given. I humbly suggest that had they done so, they would have been held in higher regard by the people of Canada, instead of indulging in obvious attempts at grasping for straws. They have embarked on a tremendous manhunt to discover what went wrong and who is to blame. I believe it is obvious to the majority of Canadians what went wrong and who is to blame. It must have been a shattering moment to see the house of cards come tumbling in. I suggest that the reason for the great outbursts on the other side of the house and directed at this side of the house and at our leader is based upon the fact that this group is in office but not in power, and that the great shock of it all is not the trouble that faces Canada but the realization that they are not invincible and are subject to mortality. If I were to believe all I have heard quoted from the other side of the house, it would seem that everybody is out of step but them. However, I do not believe that is good enough for the Canadian people.
As hon. members are no doubt aware, I represent a Newfoundland constituency. I should therefore like to devote a goodly portion of my remarks to the constituency and the province which I represent. This constituency and this province have been adversely affected, as have all provinces and all parts of Canada, by the way in which this government has handled itself. However, in this province there are some peculiar and particular problems which are demanding special attention. Indeed, there is another problem down there for the other side which they would like to take care of, but that is

not the one about which I am going to talk. I might remind you, Mr. Speaker, that if Newfoundland, the province which I am proud to represent in this house, is to grow, to develop and to make an increasing contribution to the growth and development of Canada-and by that I mean a contribution commensurate with her capabilities and potential-then there are certain physical and geographical conditions which must be recognized by the federal government by way of action. If you look at a map, you will find that the problem of Newfoundland is obvious. It is a problem of communications. We have an area of 43,000 square miles on the island itself. There are 6,000 miles of coast line, and over 1,000 communities are scattered around this coast line.
Progress has been made. In fact progress was bound to be made because there was nowhere to go but up. It gives me great pleasure as a Newfoundlander to drive into tiny hamlets on roads however dusty, because I know that two, three or four years ago there were no roads. I am deeply moved by the enthusiasm of the people who greet me because of appreciation of what has been done. We all remember that in the 19th century the matter of communication was one of the most significant problems to the fathers of confederation. In fact, even today it still is, although "communication" is perhaps a larger word today. I refer not only to physical communication but communication of ideas. However, communication has been and for a long time will be one of the keys to the success of confederation.
The problem in Newfoundland today has reached the stage perhaps that unless and until the federal government of Canada is prepared to recognize the special and peculiar nature of this problem, then I really do not see how Newfoundlanders can be truly integrated into confederation and can consider themselves to be first class and equal Canadians. It is not the fault of the men who go down to the sea in ships, that this problem exists. Their own government and their own people have made great sacrifices over the years in order that many of these problems may be circumvented. What has been done by the federal government to alleviate this problem? What has been done to show that the federal government appreciates and recognizes this problem as a special and peculiar one demanding particular attention? Of course Newfoundland benefits, as do all provinces, from the arrangements made under the Trans-Canada Highway Act to pay all provinces a certain proportion of the cost of building a trans-Canada highway; but this arrangement still leaves Newfoundland with a much greater relative cost than any other province. It must be remembered that Newfoundland
The Address-Mr. Cashin has enjoyed the advantages of confederation for about 13 years while the rest of Canada has enjoyed these advantages for 95 years.
This past summer there was a so-called opening of a so-called trans-Canada highway and this matter brings me back to my earlier point about words. I do not know what is regarded in some quarters as a highway. However, I know that in Newfoundland in many places we have secondary dirt roads and in other places none. I also know that most of the people I have met from the mainland of Canada and most of the people I have met from the United States regard a highway as something with asphalt on top of it over which human beings in automobiles can drive in relative comfort. When this opening was held I understand from very reliable sources that a good many inquiries were received from people in the United States wishing to come to Canada. They heard that there was now a highway right across Canada but they did not know about the game with words being played in Canada. So they were very much disillusioned when they arrived in Port aux Basques and began their trek across Newfoundland.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I was very disturbed to see no mention of this matter in the speech from the throne. It is plain that the government of Canada is content to have Newfoundland relegated to a lesser position in the confederacy that is Canada. Therefore it is not very difficult to know why the little strength that the Conservative party has had in Newfoundland is diminishing. It is diminishing because the people in the government have not approached the problems of Newfoundland from the point of view of finding a straightforward and equitable solution.
There is much talk about the Canadian economy and about productivity but in Newfoundland I can think of hardly anything that would help our economy more than the trans-Canada highway. It would literally get our economy moving. It was not enough that this very basic problem of Newfoundland was ignored, but in fact we had to endure the embarrassment of politics being played with the word "highway".
I was also saddened to note the absence of any mention of fisheries in the speech from the throne. In fact I believe that the fisheries are a problem of national importance which affects, of course, not only Newfoundland but Quebec, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and British Columbia. It is disheartening for one who comes from an old historic fishing area to see no mention of the fisheries. When I have travelled about my constituency it has been disheartening for

The Address-Mr. Cashin me to learn of the work of foreign trawlers which have ravaged fishermen's gear by coming in to the very headlands of the sea. It was disappointing and made me most sorrowful to learn from the fishermen, who after all live in an area with the highest cost of living of any province and the lowest standard of income, that their gear was being harassed by foreign vessels and, worse still, their traditional inshore fishing grounds were being interfered with by foreign trawlers.
I realize that there has been talk of a 12-mile limit, but from all I can gather it seems that a 12-mile limit will not be realized at all if the attitude of the present government outside of the house is to be believed, or at least it will not be realized in the near future. I believe that the establishment of a 12-mile limit, whether we do it by speeding up negotiations on an international level or by taking the bull by the horns and doing it ourselves, would be a significant step forward for the fisheries not only in Newfoundland but in our sister provinces on the Atlantic coast. It is not enough to tell these fishermen in eastern Canada that a 12-mile limit cannot be established because after all they realize that Iceland, which has less than half the population of Newfoundland, was able to do it. Has Iceland more courage, more moral fibre than Canada?
But mention of the 12-mile limit was not the only omission vis-a-vis fisheries in the speech from the throne. The federal government ought to concern itself more with the policy or idea of putting capital into the fisheries because the fisheries, particularly in Newfoundland, and I realize also in other provinces, have the problem of modernization. Generally speaking, these foreign trawlers that come over and ravage our fishing grounds are far better equipped to approach the fisheries and have an advantage in that regard over our fishermen. There is a real need. I realize that government, be it federal, provincial or whatever the level, cannot take it unto itself to solve all the problems of the fishermen. Indeed, that is not what the fishermen want and anybody who has any experience or knows the fishermen knows that one of their significant traits is their independence of spirit which makes it difficult for them sometimes to accept outside help. They are not looking for handouts; rather, they are looking for a constructive program from the federal government.
Another result of a program to make capital more readily available would be that it would assist men in eastern Canada to get back into the fisheries. In Newfoundland, as in our sister Atlantic provinces, we are confronted with unemployment. We have a very high birth rate in Newfoundland so I suppose that

conceivably we could have more people working one year in Newfoundland and have twice as many unemployed as in the previous year. Evidently the natural increase does not seem to be noticed by the federal government. They have not taken judicial notice of the fact that the human race increases and so when they talk about unemployment and jobs they forget to realize that at least in Newfoundland we are very good at it. Indeed, that is what they fear, that we will become too good at it, populate all over the place and bring our political philosophy with us.
Newfoundland itself has recently called a conference on the fisheries and I think this will mark an improvement. The fact that the federal government knew this was going on in Newfoundland made the omission of anything to do with fisheries all the more striking. I am afraid "statesmanlike" is not the word to describe this omission. I wonder, Mr. Speaker.
We in Newfoundland are a reasonable and fair-minded people and we will support any legislation whatever the source of which is aimed at dealing with our particular and peculiar problems. The first is the problem of communications and the need of roads to open up our country so that we may enjoy confederation the same as all other people can enjoy it and so that our storehouse of wealth may be better cultivated. More movement of our people from one place to the other all over the island will help to get our economy moving. It will create, for example, a greater demand in the public service industries. It will give us a better chance to attract secondary industry.
The second of our great problems is the fisheries. I differentiate between these two problems because the fisheries are a problem that we share with many other provinces. We have peculiarities in our fisheries as they have in theirs. The situation is somewhat like that in agriculture. I cannot emphasize too strongly how very important this problem is in Newfoundland. I am sure it was the intention of those who brought about confederation that both governments would deal with Newfoundland in a spirit of co-operation and show an interest in solving this problem. We do not want to slip into confederation and be forever doomed to the role of second class Canadians. We came in so that we could make a contribution to the success of confederation. Is it to be held against us, Mr. Speaker, that our political philosophy does not happen to coincide with that of the government of the day? We did not expect confederation to be a panacea and now that we are in confederation we do expect that we will be required to pull our weight and to do what we can.

The situation is like an investment. We have already given Canada sovereignty over our immense Labrador which has great mineral resources that are just now beginning to be developed, in addition to the resources of timber, minerals and fisheries on the island and around the island itself. We have also contributed to the confederation a market which it did not have previously and now, of course, we get most of our consumer goods from the mainland. However, we still sell the major portion of our products to foreign countries. That is why we in Newfoundland are particularly worried about some of the things said and done about trade policy on the other side of the chamber. Trade policy is very important for the people of Newfoundland, and its mishandling is another example of how the government has alienated the support it originally had there.
We in Newfoundland were shocked, as were people all across Canada, to see the great about-face that took place so shortly after the election. We were told that there was no crisis before the election; but now I, and other hon. members, are glad to learn that the crisis which did not exist has been cured. There is a lesson to be learned from that by one making his first appearance in parliament, and if this session continues-and there is a mathematical possibility that it might-I suppose I shall learn the English language as it is spoken in this chamber. Of course I must also learn the French language, as it is spoken, but I believe I shall have an easier time with it.
The government has claimed that its record is unequalled. I agree, and only hope that we shall never again see a government in Canada with a record like it.
(Translation):


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monimorency):: Mr. Speaker, it is really moving to speak in this house. It is also a fearful task, after hearing so many eloquent speakers.
First I should like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, for the unanimous vote that brought you to the Chair of this house.
I also want to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply.
I should like also to extend special congratulations to the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) who succeeded in finding so much enthusiasm to defend a speech from the throne which contained so little.
As is customary, I should like to associate the voters of my constituency of Quebec-Montmorency in these congratulations. That
The Address-Mr. Marcoux county is the most beautiful in Canada after the one of the hon. member who is listening to me.
Of course, the constituency of Quebec-Mont-morency is composed of different classes of people. There are farmers, professionals, white collar workers, as well as people who depend more or less on the federal government's policy. That is why they change parties so often, because they often prefer also to elect a member from another party.
I must say that I was very disappointed by the speech from the throne. We expected much more than that. We thought the government would have heeded the warnings given to the effect that it should introduce much more sensible measures. Moreover, we expected more sincerity on the part of some colleagues of the Liberal opposition. We were greatly disappointed, but in spite of the challenges issued by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) we are still sitting in this house.
I must add that from an electoral and political point of view, we suffered a failure yesterday. We should have taken out the words "Social Credit" from our subamendment. Unfortunately, we are still green in politics. We are not used to the artful tricks performed in this house and we just failed to come up with a brilliant feat, for we would then have stolen our friends of the Liberal opposition's thunder. But I am assured that they slept much better last night than they would have if we had omitted those words.
We have mostly heard the Liberal opposition, through the voice of its leader, take the present government to task for many things which this government itself had criticized when its members were sitting on the other side of the house. These are things which we have too often been wont to hear since confederation. It is hoped that, with Social Credit, we shall succeed in banishing from the house this dialectical interplay, this game of empty words and that at last, we shall get down to business and start working in the interest of Canadians, and especially in the interest of the voters of the Quebec-Montmorency riding.
We have heard the Leader of the Opposition regret the fact that we have come to the point where we must tighten our belts.
I also heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about the regrettable Coyne affair. If I am not mistaken, and if my memory serves me right, I think that when that question was discussed on the floor of this house, Mr. Coyne was precisely asking Canadians to tighten their belts and that Mr. Pearson championed Mr. Coyne's cause.
156	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Marcoux
Which makes us wonder what is happening to sincerity. We wonder when did our career politicians really work for the good of Canadian citizens and for the good of the whole nation.
The Liberal opposition as well as the other two parties speak of a municipal development bank. It is well known that as far back as 1935 the Social Credit party, of which I have the pleasure of being a member on the federal scene, recommended the establishment of such a bank.
People are aware today that the ideas put forward at that time by the Social Credit party are really conducive to an effective action against unemployment and the desperate situations in which we find our municipalities and our school boards.
Naturally, we, Social Crediters, feel that any grant or assistance given by the government to the municipalities must fully respect the autonomy not only of the province of Quebec but of all the provinces.
The Liberal opposition speaks of increasing family allowances and extending them to the age of 21 for children who continue their studies.
I think everyone will agree that the Social Credit party was the first to include such a measure not in its electoral platform but in its social program.
We hear also about Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which should normally help the average or sub-average Canadian. Everybody knows that it is absolutely impossible for a Canadian who earns between $2,500 and $3,500 a year to take advantage of the loans presently provided by C.M.H.C.
I claim that if the government really wants to help the Canadian citizens to become property owners, it might amend the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act so as to enable the people I have just mentioned to borrow from the corporation.
The government boasts also of having set up the famous winter works program. Because of this winter works program many municipalities are now overburdened with loans that taxpayers find hard to pay back.
In principle, the program is excellent, but it causes the municipalities to secure 20 to 30-year loans, an additional burden which must be borne by the taxpayers.
(Mr. Marcoux.]

In my opinion, such conditions are not good enough and are not in keeping with the pride of the Canadian people.
Furthermore, the government was candid enough to confess that the policy that succeeded in keeping it in power was its farm policy.
Of course, we know that there are all kinds of small things that my fellow members will draw to the attention of the hon. members of this house later, but, personally, I am of the opinion that if the government looked after some farmers, they certainly were not in the province of Quebec.
In this connection, I think that the amount of $5 million to be earmarked for an investigation on non-arable or marginal land should be given to the farmers who already own a family farm so that they may be able to set up stocks of wheat along the St. Lawrence river near existing harbours where there are wharves to stock wheat and grains.
I think it would be in fact a very efficient way of helping the farmers of the province of Quebec without hurting the interests of western farmers.
Now we heard the Liberal opposition mention its health insurance program; we also heard our friends the socialists talk about state medicine.
I believe that as a doctor and a free man it is my duty to defend private ownership, even in the field of health. I agree that we have no right to abandon the people who are unable to secure medical care. I agree also that we have no right to deprive people from hospital care if they need it. But we have no right either to tie people to plans and systems which leave them with no freedom.
Socialists often say that Social Crediters are afraid of the state. We are not afraid of the state but we fear that the state will interfere with matters where it is not concerned. And once you understand in that perspective the part which is the government's in the Canadian economy, I think the door is open to several purposes but nothing must be done at the expense of individual freedom.
In view of the fact that in our democratic system we have non-profit organizations, I think that those organizations could render very great service to the Canadian people

without the government intervening too directly.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, there was something in the speech from the throne about our national flag and our national anthem. I think I should say, as one of the reporters in our province said, it might be too little and too late. I know everything indicates that we might at some time have a distinctive national flag and a national anthem. We hope, really, that this question will be settled during the present session, because now we know that our Liberal friends will keep the session going for a while.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Guy Marcoux: We have also heard something about bilingualism in Canada. We know it is impossible to make a Frenchman from an Englishman, or an Englishman from a Frenchman. That is impossible, and no sensible person would ever ask that those cultures be melted together. But the thing is that in our capital city and in the parliament buildings here we should really enjoy the complete bilingualism that almost everybody has talked about for so many years and about which our Liberal friends in the opposition were never able to do a single thing during their 22 years on the other side of the house.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the government should revert to the principles which presided over the establishment of the Canadian confederation in the time of Sir Georges-Etienne Cartier and Sir John Macdonald whom the present Prime Minister admires so much.
I know that in that time, the sole purpose was to promote a normal development in all provinces through the central government. We have reached the point today where the central government controls all the provinces, collects from them the greater part of taxes and decides for them how that money should be spent.
I find however in the official Debates for last April 18 that the government had decided to make quite a few changes in this field, even though we had hoped the amendments would be much more significant as a matter of fact, according to the official Debates for April 18, 1962, the province of Quebec, as well as the other provinces, gets back 50 per cent of taxes on public utilities and power companies, and for the years 1962 and 1963, the amount is expected to reach $2,097,000. Of course, when considering statistics, we find that the Liberal premier of a certain province has suggested that that province should 27507-3-11
The Address-Mr. Marcoux recover payments of approximately $15 million on taxes from private companies. I think, as the fact is known, that it already receives 50 per cent of the tax amount and that what it receives amounts to $2 billion. There is reason to believe that these total tax amounts paid do not come now to more than $4 million.


An hon. Member:: Does Mr. Lesage know about it?


Guy Marcoux: I did not mention any name; if the cap fits some people, let them wear it.


An hon. Member:: No doubt Mr. Lesage will wear it.


Guy Marcoux: Now, the problem facing the country at this time and which we all regret is unemployment. The Conservative government seems to believe it knows the answer, when the facts prove that no solution has been found up to now. The members of the Liberal opposition seem to think they have found a solution, whereas it was duly established in the years just before the war, that the unemployment problem was a matter unknown to them as well. As for our socialist friends, they did find a solution: the solution of planning.


An hon. Member:: In the Rene Levesque style.


Guy Marcoux: Today, we shall have planned unemployment. The workless will be divided in various categories. They will form very definite groups and will be able to boast of having attained an additional status: that of qualified unemployed.
We of the Social Credit party believe that unemployment is due to a lack of jobs. We believe that there is not enough employment because companies manufacturing products make inadequate sales and because people employed by those companies are unable to sell enough as the result of a lack of money. We have always believed that by increasing the buying power of consumers, we would give a new impetus to our economy and bring a lot of stocked-up products out again, while, at the same time getting people-all those unemployed workers qualified by our socialist friends-back to work.
That is why we were under the impression that, even if our solution was not the best answer, it was the only one up to now which would answer Canadian needs; until we are shown evidence to the contrary, we shall continue to believe that there is unemployment because there are not enough jobs.

The Address-Mr. Marcoux
We heard the leader of the Liberal opposition speak of the place of this fine country of ours in the international field. We saw him upbraid the Prime Minister for having said in London, at the commonwealth conference, things of which the house had not been informed. That is why our leader suggested that the Prime Minister be accompanied by leaders of the various political parties in order to represent the views of part of the house. We remember that at the time, the Leader of the Opposition said that the suggestion of our leader, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), was nonsensical. We therefore really wonder how one can advocate anything new and remain sensible.
For that reason, we feel that everything the leader of the Liberal opposition says probably has no merit whatsoever, because he says that it is all sensible talk. I believe that, in addition to being represented at that commonwealth conference, the Canadian government should have defined this country's true position in the western world, and I even would say in the whole world. We have failed too long to point out the real position of this country to those who are called the West and those whom we call the East. We have had among our most sincere and warmest allies, people who today are our most deadly enemies. To my mind, that is an anomaly which just happened because we did not define the real position of the Canadian people in respect of other nations in the world.
We are a society we dare call Christian. We face a bloc to which we often refer as those countries "behind the iron curtain" and which we should more often call those atheistic and materialistic countries. I believe that our country must stop advancing directly toward socialism as our friends opposite would like, or as the other two parties would want, even though they do not state so clearly. In any case, whether it is overt or behind the scene, we are actually moving toward an ideology we wish to fight on the international front and which we allow to infiltrate our national fabric.
I do not have to give details in that connection, but we still know that an ideology has infiltrated the country, even our crown corporations, and to name only one of those infiltrated organizations, I mention the C.B.C. In my opinion, the government may have

shirked its responsibilities by failing to prevent such an occurrence in our own country.
Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay unduly the debate, because we heard so many unimportant things these last few days that I would not like to deserve the same remarks when I am through.


Mr. Dupuis:: Keep on going, we like it.


Azellus Denis: One more or less.


Guy Marcoux: Before concluding my remarks, I wish only to point out that it is often said that people have the government they deserve. I think it is true and I am even inclined to think that our population deserved nothing better than what they have today. However they deserve a government, not an election in the near future. This is why I sincerely believe that this government can become the best government since confederation, because they will no more speak of an opposition numbering only 50 members using delaying tactics and because the opposition will no more be able to speak of a government majority of 150 members.
When all the members in this house, facing their duties and responsibilities, ready to vote according to their conscience in the interest of Canadians and Canada as a whole, I believe that the government will consider taking the steps which are liable to help Canadians pass through the crisis in which they find themselves, alleviate unemployment which is prevailing at the present time and give our children a certain hope in the future of this beautiful country of ours for which we will continue to exert ourselves, unless we definitely find that there is nothing whatsoever we can do.
(Text):


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), and other hon. members who have already taken part in this debate, in complimenting the mover and seconder of the speech in reply to the address on the very excellent job they did in making their maiden speeches and moving and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I feel sure that their constituents are proud of them, that their own families are proud of them, and that those who elected these members as their representatives in Ottawa will feel again very sure that they send excellent representatives to be their members of parliament.

Mr. Speaker, in the short time available to me this afternoon I should like to speak very briefly about the Canadian economy and about some of the things which the government is doing to assist our industrial and trade expansion. Speaking yesterday, the Prime Minister referred to the strong advance which had been made in several of the key indicators in our economy, and he mentioned that the gross national product had been running at record levels. I think hon. members might be interested in hearing the actual figures of this key indicator which measures the strength not only of our economy, but of any economy. The gross national product for the first half of 1962 stood at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $39.1 billion, compared to $36 billion in the same period of 1961. That is an increase of 8.6 per cent. Mr. Speaker, only a small part of this increase was the result of higher prices. The gross national product expressed in terms of constant -that is, 1957 dollars-rose from $33.8 billion to $36.4 billion between the same two periods, which is an increase of 7.7 per cent. This expansion in our productive activity which has taken place during the past year has made it possible, as the Prime Minister so ably pointed out yesterday, for 200,000 more Canadians to be working in August, which is the last month for which figures are available, than were working at this time last year; and I think that those figures I have mentioned are a clear indication that our economy is moving ahead very strongly indeed.
I should like now to mention some of the things that the government is doing to help maintain that expansion. On September 4 the government announced a new phase of our trade expansion program, made up in several parts. The first part is a plan to fly more than 700 important buyers, carefully chosen from all parts of the world, to Canada next spring to inspect the products which Canadians have to sell. Mr. Speaker, not only will these important buyers be able to inspect our products under the most favourable circumstances and, we hope, be able to place a considerable number of orders here at that time but, equally important, they will be able to advise our producers in instances where our products do not measure up to the standards required by them so that they would place an order, of what must be done by our producers in order to get orders in the future.
This was one of the most important phases of the two similar trade shows which were held this spring in Toronto and Montreal. A great many sales were made to important American buyers who came to these cities from Chicago, New York and Philadelphia, 27507-3-Hi
The Address-Mr. Hees which are important buying centres in the United States market. Also, the large number of buyers who went there were able to point out to our producers, and very kindly did so, where they fell down, and for what reason, in certain instances where they were not able to place orders with the Canadian producers. They showed them that if they were able to improve their design in a certain way, to improve their quality in a certain way, or to lower their prices by a certain amount, then they would be able to place orders with them; and this is one of the important things that our Canadian producers learned at those meetings. I have learned since that time that many large and important orders have been made possible through the information passed on to our producers by the buyers who attended those two shows.
The second part of this new activity will be the bringing of our trade commissioners home at this time to Ottawa for a week's conference with myself and the officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce to discuss at first hand, ways and means which we can adopt to enable our producers to sell more actively, effectively and successfully in the markets of the world A similar conference was held, as you know, Mr. Speaker, in this city in December 1960, and very good results were obtained because our trade commissioners who came home at that time were able to discuss at first hand with our officials what could be done in their particular markets; and I would say that in every case their suggestions have been carried out with beneficial results.
The third part of this trade expansion activity will be to invite businessmen from all over Canada to come to Ottawa to meet with our trade commissioners in private session. This will be similar to the meetings which took place here in Ottawa in December 1960, when, as you know, Mr. Speaker, something over 1,350 businessmen from all parts of Canada came to Ottawa, and in more than 10,500 individual half-hour sessions with our trade commissioners from all parts of the world were able to find out at first hand what chances there were for selling their products in the markets in which they were interested. In many cases they found out for the first time that to their great surprise sales could be made of their products in those markets; and since that time they have become firmly established in the export market, their sales have grown year by year, and they are making good sales which have resulted in worth-while increases in employment in their plants. The program which we expect to have carried out here in Ottawa at that time we believe will be about twice the size of the conference that was held in

The Address-Mr. Hees December I960, and at that time the businessmen who come to Ottawa will not only be able to talk with our trade commissions from all around the world, but will be able then to go across the road and talk to our departmental officials in the trade and commerce building, to the great benefit of both.
Then following that, Mr. Speaker, on September 7 the government held here in Ottawa an industrial expansion conference to which were invited over 400 leading industrialists from every part of Canada, who met with senior government officials to discuss the means that we in this country can adopt for promoting additional industrial expansion. In particular, the conference was called to discuss how to bring about the greater use of products, either made in Canada, or which could be made in Canada but which are now being brought into Canada from outside sources. In the morning, papers were presented by six outstanding industrialists: specifically, the president of the Ford Motor Company, the president of the Imperial Oil Company, the president of Du Pont of Canada, the president of Electrohome, vice president of Northern Electric Company, and vice president of the T. Eaton Company. They were chosen to present these papers because already in their company they had made important contributions to the purpose we had in mind, which is specifically the expanding of the use of products which are already made in Canada, or which could be made in Canada, and which are being brought in from outside.
In the afternoon, a wide open discussion was held. I think it was the opinion of all those who attended, both government and businessmen, that a great deal of benefit resulted. Typical of the excellent papers that were presented was the one given by the vice president of Northern Electric Company, who outlined in some detail a plan which his company had been operating for the past six years. This plan entailed the following. They set up a team of engineers who examined more than 10,000 individual products which the company at that time had been importing into Canada for use in their production, in order to see which of these products either could be bought in Canada, or could be produced in Canada. They set themselves two extremely strict criteria. The first was that they would not accept anything inferior to what they had been bringing in from the outside, just because it was Canadian. The second was that they would not pay more for the product just because it was Canadian. Operating on those two extremely tough criteria they found that the result of this operation has been no less than spectacular. Of more than 10,000 products which
[Mr. Hees.l
formerly were imported into Canada by this company, today only 800 are imported, and they are still working on those 800 in order to ascertain which of them can be changed from one category to the other. The remaining more than 9,000 products which they formerly imported, of a total value of $11 million a year, are now manufactured in Canada, and are providing 1,600 steady year round jobs for Canadians to work at. This operation has resulted in a substantial saving to the company, and the tooling costs have been recovered in the first 12 months of production of the new products. I believe we would all agree that this is an excellent example of what can be done to use more products which are now being made in Canada, or to have manufactured in this country products which we are now bringing in from the outside.
Many of those who attended the conference have since told me that they have already started on a program similar to that embarked on by Northern Electric Company six years ago. As a follow-up to this conference, we are going to hold, all across Canada, similar conferences on a regional basis. The purpose is to bring together Canadian producers in all regions of Canada in an effort to try to get as many as possible into this worth-while and important program to produce more products here in this country and to work out the practical details with the practical men concerned at those regional conferences. The first of these regional conferences will be held in Montreal in the first week of November. Other conferences are planned in other parts of Canada in the months ahead. When completed, this program will produce many thousands of additional jobs for Canadians to work at.
Mentioned in the speech from the throne were several measures which were designed to help industry become more competitive, which already appeared in last spring's budget, and which will be presented to parliament for passage at this session. The first of these measures reduces the tax rate by 50 per cent on sales in excess of those made in the previous year. This tax incentive will be a great spur to production. It will make it possible for producers, who up until now, particularly in the export field, have not felt that certain ventures provided sufficient profit margin to make it attractive to enter those export fields. Now, with this production incentive, they will be able to enter those export markets, become established, and produce more sales and jobs for Canada. It will also be a great help to Canadian producers who produce for the home market, to help them to meet stiff competition from products that come into this country from other sources.

The second incentive is one which makes it financially attractive for producers to do more research in our country. This will do several things. First of all, it will help to improve the design and quality of Canadian products, and will help us to do something which we must do if we are to be as successful as we must be in the markets of the world, namely, to produce individual and distinctive Canadian design and qualities which people will ask for by name. Second, it will provide work for our young scientists, who, all too often, come out of university here in our country and drift to other more lucrative jobs in other countries. It is hoped that a great many of these young scientists will now, as a result of this incentive, be able to stay in Canada. The third incentive encourages the exploration and development of our oil and gas resources. The benefits from that policy, of course, are only too obvious.
Also, in the speech from the throne is mentioned a measure to help producers make sales in the export market, namely the proposed amendment to the export credit legislation. This will make it possible for the Export Credit Corporation to handle a great deal more business on terms which will be more beneficial to our customers, and also, thereby, our export business. This export credit legislation, and our export financing legislation which was amended at the last session, has made it possible for many millions of export sales to be made in all parts of the world and which otherwise would not have been possible. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the export credit legislation insures against loss in these foreign sales, and the export financing makes it possible for us to sell capital goods on long term credit; sales which would otherwise be impossible to many countries to which we sell. These policies will be continued, and will be expanded where necessary.
The programs and policies that I have mentioned are, as I have said, aimed at helping industry produce and sell more efficiently and effectively. However, I think it is obvious to all of us, especially those of us who are engaged in business, that the most important effort must come from industry itself. Government can do a great deal to help industry, and government is doing so and we plan to do more. But industry of course-and this is recognized by industrialists-must do a great deal to help themselves.
Today I am glad to say that I sense a new spirit of confidence and competition among businessmen in Canada. Whereas a few years ago Canadians did not think they could compete overseas in many lines, they have now learned they can do so by having these
The Address-Mr. Hees things pointed out to them by our trade commissioners and other people who have been in these markets. They are learning that Canadians can compete successfully in world markets if their product and their price are right. Also, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, labour, management and government are moving considerably closer together, and are showing a greater willingness to co-operate. As you know, this is extremely important, as it is one of the main reasons why those who compete against us in trade from countries of western Europe are being so successful in their competition against our products. There, labour, management and government sit down at the same table, and in a really co-operative spirit, work out ways and means whereby they can make their products competitive so that they will sell in markets around the world. I think an outstanding example of this new labour-management co-operation was in the excellent railway settlement that took place here in Canada only a short time ago.
Management and labour, travelling together on our trade missions abroad, have seen at first hand how labour and management cooperate in these other countries through which they have travelled, and how this co-operation is making it possible for those competitors of ours to make their products competitive and thereby sell and provide jobs.
Our trade commissioners abroad can do a great deal to help Canadian producers sell their products in the markets of the world. They tell us that Canadians have a great reservoir of good will in all the markets they serve; but these foreign buyers want to see us visit their markets in person; bring our products with us; get to know these buyers; discuss our products with them; and make the sale on the spot. They tell us that if our products are competitive in quality, design, price, service and delivery, we will get a break on almost every occasion, because these people like doing business with Canadians. They like doing business in dollars. They like doing business with people who live up to their word, as Canadians do, and whom they can trust in a contract. Generally, for many reasons, they like doing business with Canadians, and therefore we should make the best use of this very real advantage that we have. But, as I have said, our people must be willing to go abroad and make contacts and sales.
If our products are competitive, they will sell, and thus create jobs. If they are not competitive; if they are passed over; then they will not create jobs, and they will not create profits. The people of western Europe and Japan have learned that only too well. It is up to Canadians to realize that more

The Address-Mr. Hees than they appear willing to realize it at the present time. I believe and I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that if we are willing to work as hard with our brains and with our hands as our competitors are willing to work with their brains and their hands, we can have any level of employment in this country that we are willing to work for.
The government, as I have tried to outline in this house on many occasions, has a great many services available free of charge to business, to be used by these businesses to help them produce better for the domestic market, and to get into the export market, no matter what size they are, and sell with success, to enlarge their sales, to enlarge their runs, to get their costs down, make more sales, and create more jobs. But there is just so much that we can do if they do not get in touch with us. I appeal to every member of the house to go to the producers in his area and tell them that if they are interested in developing small businesses, or making small businesses bigger, they should get in touch with us and tell us what their problems are. We have answers to almost any problem they have got. We are not miracle men, but we have people who have made studies in practically every line of business, and we can be of assistance to businessmen, no matter what the size of their businesses. We can help them produce more efficiently, we can help them produce more effectively, but they must get in touch with us. Please have them get in touch with us so we can be of use to them at no cost to them whatever.
We can help them to get into the export market, no matter what size they are, if they have a product that is a good product or if they are willing to work to make it a better product. We can tell them what they have got to do to make sales abroad, what they have got to do to produce a product of better quality, design, price and so on. We can help them, but we want them to let us know they are interested. Help will then be readily available and will come forward in a very short time, a period of time which may surprise them.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say that at this particular time when the world is a very competitive place indeed, when new market arrangements are developing; when the general movement appears to be toward a lowering of tariffs; when businesses have got to stand more and more on their own feet; it is up to Canadians in every line of economic endeavour to get to work to bring their costs down and to get their quality and design up, so they can stand on their own feet, and so they can expand in this tough, competitive world. We have a great challenge facing us today, as has every

country in the world, because there is a limited market and a great many people competing for it. Nobody is going to buy our products just because they are Canadian. They are going to buy only if they are the best quality and the best price.
I am convinced that Canadians can produce products that are better, and can be sold more cheaply than those of anybody else in the world. I am not willing to accept as a fact that we cannot. This government is ready and willing, as it is doing day by day with people who are coming to see us, to help people to produce better and sell their products more effectively and more widely. I am convinced, as I say, that if we are all willing to work hard to make our products competitive, and if we are willing to go out to the markets of the world and sell our products aggressively, we can enable this country to reach its full economic potential. Mr. Speaker, it is up to us.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my first words in this debate are to extend my sincere congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne who, I believe, acquitted themselves very well on that occasion. I have been asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) to put forward at this time some views and policies of the Liberal party with regard to the important field of agriculture. I think it is fitting that at this early stage in the debate this very important industry in this country should be recognized by having a full discussion of its problems. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) has gone about the country telling the people of Canada that he has solved many of the agricultural problems. He has been quite a good salesman of his party. He has been selling the Tories, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to examine some of the things that have actually been going on, some of the statements that he has made and alongside them some of the actions of the government. It has already been said in this debate by the Leader of the Opposition that the Minister of Agriculture did not recognize any recent financial crisis. In the Toronto Star of June 21 he is reported as having said:
There is no crisis that anyone can point a finger at.
Yet on August 30 the minister issued a statement "related to the necessity of reducing government expenditures", to quote his words, announcing a cut-back in the premium paid on grade A hogs. So the producers of hogs across the country have become victims of a financial crisis about

which the Minister of Agriculture has known nothing. This is one of the things that has been done by the government as a result of this so-called austerity program. In the recent election, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Woolliams:: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: No, my time is limited. When I sit down I will be very glad to hear from the hon. member.
On May 25, during the recent election, the Minister of Agriculture stated in Preston, according to the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, that subsidized agriculture was on the way out. The heading on the newspaper report read, "Subsidies to Vanish". That seems to be the course which he is following. There has been the reduction in the premium on hogs and a recent report in the newspapers indicates that the government may soon move to abolish the payments of storage under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. These payments are very valuable to the wheat producers of the country and were first introduced many years ago by the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe.
The Minister of Agriculture has not been able to be in the chamber at this time but, when he speaks, I would ask him to assure the producers in western Canada that this legislation will be maintained and will not become a victim of the government's austerity program.
The minister has pointed out the steps which the government has taken in regard to crop insurance. These steps were very welcome, but of very limited benefit.
How much crop insurance is there in Canada today? There is a scheme in Manitoba that covers about 25 per cent of the farmers, and another in Saskatchewan that covers less than 2 per cent of the farmers. Provincial governments have steered clear of crop insurance mainly because they have felt they could not underwrite, as they are required to by the act, the total losses which might be involved.
Now the Minister of Agriculture has a new program. On May 21 he stated in Manitoba that he was about to sign a new agreement on crop insurance with the provincial government of Manitoba in order to provide reinsurance of crop losses. Although on May 21 he inferred it was about to be signed it has not been signed yet. Indeed it could not be signed because it would not be in accordance with the law as it now stands, and there was no announcement in the speech from the throne that the government intends to do anything to improve the crop insurance program. Here is one place where the government should act, and act immediately.
The Address-Mr. Argue
During the recent election the Minister of Agriculture made a lot of forecasts in relation to the government's policy and took a lot of credit for a lot of things he said had been done. Since December 1960, we have heard the minister talk about ARDA, the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act. This act was to do wonders for Canada. It was to lift the face of agriculture; but what has been done under it? To date not a single agreement has been signed with any provincial government under the terms of this legislation, according to the information I have received. To sign an agreement you have to have two signatories, and I just wonder what progress has been made in that regard.
The speech from the throne says that the government is making progress under this act. It introduced this act in December, 1960, and now it is coming to parliament for the first time seeking money for something to be done under it.
Under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, introduced by the former administration, almost 2 million acres of land were turned into pasture. How much land has been brought into pasture under ARDA? I ask the Minister of Agriculture to answer that when he speaks in this debate. A pamphlet was printed shortly after the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act was introduced in this house. It was circulated across the country and could be read everywhere, but what projects have been undertaken to date?
During the election the Minister of Agriculture told farmers in western Canada how well they were going to get along and, according to him, how well they were getting along. He said, "Our markets are going up; we are selling more wheat." On June 12 in Edmonton, according to the Canadian Press, the minister said that the sales this year were expected to be 375 million bushels, an increase of 22 million bushels over 1961. In 1961 sales totalled 353 million bushels, and in the crop year just ended they reached 357 million bushels, not an increase of 22 million bushels but an increase of only 4 million bushels. Yet the minister made that forecast within seven weeks of the end of the crop year. It was not a very encouraging export total on the basis of the minister's own forecast.


Mr. McGee:: Give us the 1957 figures.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Minister of Agriculture gave the farmers some additional advice. They were talking about crop conditions and market conditions and he told them "Your job is to grow wheat; you grow it and we will sell it". The farmers have grown the wheat; let there be no doubt about that. The forecasts vary as they are being brought up

The Address-Mr. Argue to date with the continuing harvest, but they are harvesting in the neighbourhood of 550 million bushels.
Last year the minister said we might run short of wheat. He said he was worried about whether he could get enough wheat. This summer they found 100 million bushels that they did not know was in existence and so they have got that much extra. With a carryover of 395 million bushels, and with the forecast crop now on hand this crop year, for sales, exports, seed and other uses we will have 947 million bushels of wheat. That is one of the highest carryovers of wheat this country has ever had.
The minister said we were going to have an increase of 22 million bushels in sales last year. The increase in fact, was 4 million bushels. He said what was worrying him was where he was to get wheat to meet all commitments. His worries should be over because now he has over 940 million bushels, and one may well ask how exports are going.
I have in my hand the board of grain commissioners statistical summary for the week ending September 19, 1962, for the crop year to date and, during the crop year to date, up to this point, 35.8 million bushels of wheat were exported from Canada as compared to an export of 52.3 million bushels in the same period a year ago. That shows a drop of 16,500,000 bushels in Canadian exports comparing the two periods this year with last year. That is a drop of more than 30 per cent, yet the Minister of Agriculture was telling the farmers he had sales for all they could grow. He started the election campaign by telling the farmers to grow 500 million bushels of wheat. Later on he grew really enthusiastic and said, "Grow 600 million bushels." The farmers have grown 550 million bushels but the minister is exporting 30 per cent less. What a colossal indictment that is, so far as the present export period is concerned.
According to press statements the minister said a few weeks ago that he was going to make a sales trip to Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Poland, but added that he had to wait a couple of weeks to see if there was a crop. Everybody else knew there was a crop but the minister was waiting to see it. Then the story was given out that we were short of the exact grades of wheat which some countries wanted. Mr. Speaker, I would point out in answer to that that we had a frost and so the farmers produced all grades of wheat. Why has the minister not gone on his super sales trip? The other day he announced a sale to Poland, a welcome sale, but just a fraction more than the same quantity of wheat that was sold to Poland last year.


The government will have to do better. The government has been quite successful, the wheat board has been quite successful, in selling increased quantities of wheat to communist countries. But the sales of wheat to Canada's traditional customers in recent weeks have been falling away. Here is the challenge to the government. The minister said, "Produce the wheat; we will sell it". He is going to have to do a little better than the exports so far this year, which are off by 30 per cent.
The Liberal party enunciated an agricultural policy during the election campaign. The Leader of the Opposition came into the city of Weyburn, Saskatchewan, made a speech and said that a Liberal government would guarantee a return to the producers, during the life of the current international wheat agreement, of not less than $2 a bushel for No. 1 northern wheat, Fort William. The Minister of Agriculture pooh-poohed this. He said it did not mean anything. He said, "Why, under our policy wheat prices will climb close to the ceiling of $2.19 a bushel under the international wheat agreement". He said to the farmers, "Vote for us; you will get another 19 cents a bushel". Where is it?


Mr. Hales:: They voted for him.


Hazen Robert Argue: 
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Correction.


Hazen Robert Argue: If we are to have crop insurance that means anything in this country, the government will have to bring in amendments to the act to provide for reinsurance, so that the federal government will underwrite some of the total liabilities that are now borne by the provinces under this act. Under prairie farm assistance the federal government and the farmers in western Canada had something of a partnership; the federal government paid approximately 50 per cent of the cost and the farmers paid about 50 per cent. When this government introduced the Crop Insurance Act it did not do as much under that act for the farmers in western Canada who would have crop insurance and the farmers in other parts of Canada who might some day get crop insurance; the federal government was prepared to pay only 20 per cent. The 50 per cent of P.F.A.A. was reduced to 20 per cent. If the Crop Insurance Act is to function well, the 20 per cent figure should be increased. This is another of those good policies being advanced today by the opposition in this house.
The minister says everything is well on the prairies. He says the farmers out there have never had it so good. Well, as far as the bins are concerned, the bins are full and the wheat is good. The spokesmen for the Conservative party went back and forth across western Canada during the election. A senator, Senator Hnatyshyn, came into my home village. He said: Farmers, you need not worry any more about quotas; you can sell all you can produce. The quotas are there and the elevators are full. Why, he said, markets are going to be so good that you

The Address-Mr. Argue will haul the wheat directly from the combine to the elevator. What a joke. The Minister of Agriculture said the price of wheat was going to rise-


An hon. Member:: May 1 ask a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: After I sit down you can ask all the questions you like.
The Minister of Agriculture said the price of wheat was going to rise; produce more. Well, the price of Durum wheat to the producer on July 31 was $2.50 a bushel No. 1 CW store Fort William. The very next day it was reduced to $1.50 a bushel. No inkling was given by the minister during the election that if he became the Minister of Agriculture after the election such action would be taken. The farmers have produced a lot of wheat. They have produced a lot of spring wheat and a lot of Durum wheat. The wheat pipe line is full, but the markets are not there and exports are going down. The rate of export from the lakehead this year is just a little more than 50 per cent of what it was last year. These, then, are the wonderful conditions to which this government was looking forward.
The policy of the Liberal party to guarantee $2 a bushel for No. 1 northern for three years is a good policy and a necessary policy. If it were in effect at this time it would give real assurance to the farmers. The Liberal party goes beyond that and says it is prepared to provide a two-price system for wheat sold in Canada, which means a return to the producers of western Canada over and above the $2 a bushel.
We believe there should be a more aggressive sales effort-that the Minister of Agriculture should not have cancelled his prospective trip, and that in addition to selling grain to communist countries-a good policy -the government should make a greater effort to maintain and expand the sales of wheat to our traditional customers. The way to do this is in accordance with a general trade policy in support of the European common market, and in support of free trade, not by a continuation of high tariff policy, not by ridicule of the British government and by the course of generally obstructing world trade which this government has been following.
In 30 minutes there are many things in connection with the agricultural situation that one is unable to mention. There will be other speakers from this party who will deal with further aspects of the agricultural situation in the course of this debate. They will present and develop further policies to deal with this industry. However, there are two more things I should like to mention in the few minutes
at my disposal. One is this: it is time there was developed now a policy on railway line abandonment. The royal commission on transportation, the commission set up by this government whose report was presented to this government, said in substance: let the railway companies take up the branch lines. They are doing that now; they are making applications to the board of transport commissioners for that purpose. We say this government should have a policy with regard to railway line abandonment-that the people who built their farms and businesses along those branch lines which will be affected should not suddenly find that as a result of a simple declaration the lines are to be torn up and the value of their properties sharply decreased. We believe there should be a policy as a result of which anything which is necessary in this respect may be done in an orderly fashion; that there should be policies to cushion some of the financial loss which is bound to result. The effects of such a policy will not be confined to any one part of Canada. The board of transport commissioners will be going back and forth across this country and branch lines may be taken up in any part of this nation.
I began by saying I did not feel the agricultural producers were asking for special consideration. They are asking for a fair break and if they are given a fair break they can give a very good account of themselves. But there is another thing they would ask, namely that steps should be taken to make it easier for them to obtain farm labour on a basis comparable to conditions under which labour is obtained in industry and in all parts of Canada. We say, therefore, it is necessary that the Unemployment Insurance Act be extended to cover farm labour as far as it is possible to do this in a constructive way, in consultation with the farm organizations. It is time the farmer had an opportunity to hire a worker in circumstances where the worker would know that if he obtained employment in the agriculture industry he would be eligible for the same kind of unemployment insurance benefits as are those employed in other industries and in other parts of the country.
The features I have outlined are only part of a very excellent agriculture program which I believe the farmers will support in increasing measure in the days ahead.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Fine with me.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I should like to ask the hon. member for Assiniboia whether in view of the statements he has made during the last

30 minutes I am to understand that he is the official spokesman for the Liberal party in this house?


Hazen Robert Argue: I have nothing to add to or take away from the remarks I made.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should also like to ask the hon. member a question. As I understood his introductory remarks he left the impression that the policy of this government was not good for the hog producers. It so happens that at this moment-


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will put the question. Is that the statement which the hon. member for Assiniboia made-that the policy of this government is not good today for the hog producers?


Hazen Robert Argue: What I said was that it was a very bad thing for the Minister of Agriculture to ask the hog producers of this country for support for the government on the basis of a $3 subsidy for grade A hogs and then reduce it by $1 a few weeks afterwards. (Translation):


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). He said that there were large quantities of wheat but that at $1.50 a bushel, there was no market. As a solution, he suggested to bring up the price to $2.00 a bushel. Would this allow him to find markets for our wheat?
(Text):


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the question aright, it was about the price of $1.50 for wheat, and had I found markets for the wheat?


Some hon. Members:: It was $2.


Gilles Grégoire: If you do not get markets at $1.50, then how do you get markets at $2?


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, I thought that some of the older members who were giving us this "heehaw" would know the answer to that question themselves; they have been here long enough. The price of $1.50 a bushel is the Initial price being paid to the producers and it was the initial price that was reduced by $1 a bushel. My statement had to do with Durum wheat, and the last figure I had showed that it was selling for around $2.62 a bushel, which was very much lower than the $3.55 a bushel during the election campaign when the minister said all was well.


Mr. J. C. MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate my first words must be of congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They have acquitted themselves well. Their families and their constituents have every right to be 27507-3-124
The Address-Mr. MacRae proud of them, and we can see a great future for them in this house. I should like too to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your elevation to the office which you hold. Your record in peace and in war is known to all of us, and we wish you many years of success in your position. To you, sir, now occupying the chair we extend our congratulations and our best wishes; your reputation for fairness and common sense is well known to all of us.
Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because I know there are many who wish to take part in this debate. Many years ago it was said to me that there are four primary duties of a member of parliament. First, he should press for those measures which are in the national interest. Second, having done that he should work for those measures which are in the interests of his region, of his province, and of his constituency. Third, if he is a party man, as we in this country who adhere to the party system are, he should support his party; he should be loyal to his party. Finally, it is his duty, having served, to be re-elected. I do not intend to discuss in the short time at my disposal the last two of these, but I should like first of all to talk about those measures in the speech from the throne which are of interest to all of us nationally, then, the matters of interest to those of us who come from the beautiful province of New Brunswick; and lastly, matters of interest to me in my own constituency of York-Sunbury.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that every one in this house regardless of party should compliment our government on the program of legislation which is envisaged in the speech from the throne, and on the action which is intended through that legislation. I would especially like to commend for his address to this house the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees). President Kennedy a short time ago said of the United States of America that they either had to "trade or fade". The Americans use many of these catch phrases, but this one, it seems to me, is very apt. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has brought to his department a dynamic approach, and the steps which he listed this afternoon will go far in keeping Canada in its rightful place in the world.
Another measure in which I was interested, which was discussed in the speech from the throne, was the royal commission on taxation which is now sitting. As one interested in small business, I feel that our government should take the lead in reducing taxes. We are now taxed too much. Taxes after a while tend to become a burden and to stifle industry. I was especially pleased to note that this commission is soon to report.

The Address-Mr. MacRae
The last speaker mentioned the unemployment insurance fund in connection with another group which he thought might be brought under this particular fund. I believe, and I think all sound-thinking Canadians believe, that something will have to be done in the near future about the tremendous number of abuses which are taking place under this fund, abuses which were never envisaged when the fund was set up. Also, the proposal to set up a national welfare council was mentioned in the speech. I have never agreed with the principle that voters should be bribed through welfare payments. I think that we in this country have now reached the limit in welfare payments beyond which it is not safe or wise to go. I was pleased to see that in the speech from the throne there were no handouts. True, some people-and this was proven in the last election-are bribed at times by such promises, but surely the majority of right-thinking Canadians will see these promises for what they are worth.
There were two other measures of interest to me. I believe that contributory pensions are a most worth-while step. If people are shown that they do not get anything for nothing in this world but must pay for everything, then I believe they will accept and support this measure. Contributory pensions will make it possible for people to set aside amounts under some well defined plan for their old age to supplement what governments can provide. Also, there was the question of portability of pensions. I realize that this is a provincial matter, but I would urge our government to take every possible action to encourage the provinces to help bring this about. Unlike some who are economists, perhaps, I get a little bewildered on occasion with monetary funds, devaluation, and matters like that, but there is one thing about which I have no doubt at all. As far as devaluation is concerned, we in the maritimes have had the best tourist season in the history of that part of Canada, and I am sure that will also apply to all parts of our nation. For that we can thank devaluation.
I have another item I wish to discuss which is of great interest to me, that is, that we should give consideration to the establishment of a national office of education. True, under the British North America Act each province has its own system of education, and, of course, Quebec has two. That was necessary in times past, but times have changed. In the old days it took many weeks to get across our great nation. Now we can cross it in a few hours. Families are moving about. In my constituency we have Camp Gagetown, and there are several thousand soldiers there with their families. A few years ago I was told that one

family had moved five times in one year, and they had children. Hon. members can see what that would do to the education of these children. I think that it is time that we gave some thought to standardizing education across this nation, and I believe it will come, with, of course, the co-operation of the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I have reason to believe that the next point will be touchy to many hon. members. It was mentioned in the speech from the throne that consideration would be given to the question of a Canadian flag. As far as I am concerned there will be no other flag that I will support except the red ensign. That was the flag under which I fought during the last war. It was good enough for those who came before me, and I am satisfied with it.
Those were the national measures about which I wanted to speak. Now I should like to talk for a moment or two about matters of provincial and constituency interest. When I came here a few years ago, a very fine member of the House of Commons represented the constituency of Fort William. He had been here for many years. After I had been here about a month or so, he took the occasion one day to walk across the floor of the house to this side to talk to two or three of us. He said to us: "Young fellows,"-I was rather complimented by that-"you will find that there will be so many things going on here that you won't be able to keep track of them all. I suggest to you that you pick out three or four of more interest to you than anything else, get to know all about them, and press for them on every possible occasion. In that way you can make your greatest contribution to this house". On thinking that over, I decided that my objective would be to support in every possible way those measures which would raise the economy of our Atlantic areas of Canada, our maritime provinces.
The history of the maritimes is well known. It is said that England suffers from too much history; but we in Canada suffer from too much geography. We in the maritime provinces are an example for the second part of that statement. We suffer because we are so far away from the central part of Canada. We know that in 1864, when the maritime provinces were talking of union. Sir John A. Macdonald came to Charlottetown. He persuaded those meeting there to go to Quebec, to give up the idea of a maritime union, and to join in the formation of the Dominion of Canada. We did that, of course. On the first day of July in 1867, the Dominion of Canada came into being. However, we gave up a great deal in the maritime provinces when we went in with Upper and Lower Canada and formed this nation. Our trade had been with the New

England states, in the days of the wooden ships and iron men. Some have said to me that it might have been better if we had joined the United States in those years. Perhaps we would have been better off. On the other hand, perhaps we would not. At any rate, over the years our people have had to leave the maritime provinces. They have gone out to the rest of the nation and they have gone to the United States to head universities and great business establishments. That is the sort of thing that went on for nearly 90 years until in 1957 there came into office in this country a government which had a new concept of the problems of the maritime provinces. I refer to such matters as adjustment grants, aid to power development and all those other things.
Finally, in the speech from the throne there is the proposal to establish an Atlantic development board. I should like in a moment to quote a short editorial which sums up this matter very well. It is sometimes said that it is all right for you fellows in the Atlantic provinces to be complaining all the time, but what are you yourselves doing about this matter? We are trying to do something, Mr. Speaker. We are trying to raise ourselves by our bootstraps. An example is the Atlantic provinces economic council formed eight years ago and now composed of 1,800 able businessmen, university leaders and so on in the maritime provinces. They are trying by every means at their disposal to encourage industry, by research and development, to raise further the whole level of Atlantic Canada.
I believe that the solution of our problem in the maritime provinces-and certainly in my own province of New Brunswick-lies in the establishment of small industries which will employ 10, 20, 50 or 100 men and based on our natural resources. The experience has been that if one big industry closes, a whole section of our region can be vitally affected, as illustrated by the difficulties in the coal producing areas of Nova Scotia. We, of course, know of these difficulties and we sympathize with these people of Nova Scotia who are having them. However, there is not very much that can be done about the matter. We know that today coal is not being burned. We know that oil is taking its place. We realize the difficulty in the lumbering industry because of automation. Years ago logs were being cut by means of the saw and the use of men's strength. Then the chain saw was invented. It could do in one day what eight men did previously. Now there is a machine that will go through the forest and harvest logs like a mowing machine going through a field of
The Address-Mr. MacRae hay. To my mind, small industries are the answer to our economic difficulties in Atlantic Canada today.
Now, I should like to quote briefly from an editorial which appeared in the daily Gleaner of September 28, 1962, and in which the Atlantic development board is mentioned. It states as follows:
The great news for maritimers in the speech from the throne is, of course, the Atlantic development board announcement. This is what the people of the Atlantic provinces have been fighting for over the past years. It signifies the realization of our hopes and the fulfilment of our aims.
The Atlantic development board will be the means of implementing the pledges inherent in the Atlantic resolutions. In announcing in the mari-times his intention to establish it, Mr. Diefenbaker coupled it with the Chignecto canal and tidal power development. He said then that he hoped the proposal for the Chignecto canal would be the first project brought before the board, and that the board would also complete the power studies ...
Here at last-
In the words of the editorialist of this great champion of Atlantic development,
-is the means at hand to end the injustice that has cursed the regional economy for a century.
It has been said, Mr. Speaker, that we as Conservatives have not obtained the best press over the last few years. Perhaps that is so. If it is so, perhaps in many cases it has been our own fault. I believe that if Canadians are fully informed about the steps which this government is planning and which are envisaged in the speech from the throne- and by the way, I feel that the press has been giving excellent coverage to it during this past week-they will commend and accept them and will support this Conservative government in the steps which it plans to take in the years ahead.


Arthur Laing: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John Chester MacRae: Yes.


Arthur Laing: Did I understand the hon. member to say that he had knowledge of an army family which had been moved five times in one year?


John Chester MacRae: That is what I was told.
(Translation):


Mr. Vincent Drouin (Argenleuil-Deux-Monlagnes):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the hon. member who just took his seat?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is willing to accept your question and wishes to answer it, he has the time to do so, but you cannot insist upon a reply from him. However, you may ask your question.


Vincent Drouin: I am not insisting, Mr. Speaker, I am simply asking if I may put a question to him.

The Address-Mr. Gordon
Does the hon. member understand that other Canadian citizens are not satisfied with the red ensign as a Canadian flag?
(Text):


John Chester MacRae: As I said, I feel that this throne speech contains the finest program of legislation that has been offered, certainly in my time and in the time of many of us sitting here. I believe that Canadians will accept and commend it and will support the government on it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the hon. member for Coast-Capilano who is to speak next?


Mr. Davis:: Mr. Speaker, I surrender my position to the hon. member standing on this side of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the hon. member for Davenport.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should like to draw to the attention of hon. members that with the whips the Chair has worked out a list of speakers. After some careful working out of these lists we have arrived at a proper balance. We have asked that the whips submit names in order for the Speaker to recognize the members and so as to keep some control. While the party may nominate anyone under the formula, the Chair would appreciate some foreknowledge of any switching within the party so that we do not get into the embarrassing situation in which the Chair is calling on a member who, according to the information supplied to the Chair, was the next one to speak. I should like that procedure to be followed.


Lionel Chevrier: I think Your Honour has a point in the statement he has made. However, I wish to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that last night under similar circumstances, exactly the same thing happened and it was unknown to us, although perhaps it was known to Your Honour. This unfortunately is a matter which was determined just a few moments ago. That accounts for the fact that Your Honour was not aware of it. I trust that it will not happen again.


Mr. Speaker:: The incident referred to last night has been rectified. However, I would ask the co-operation of members in following the list that has been supplied to the Chair.


Mr. Walter L. Gordon (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, in congratulating you upon the very important office to which you have been appointed and in congratulating Mr. Deputy Speaker I should like to apologize for any part that I have had in this slight confusion between the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) and myself. I should also like to congratulate hon. members opposite who moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. As a new member

speaking for the first time in this house I can say with great sincerity that I thought they performed their tasks very well indeed.
I feel deeply honoured, Mr. Speaker, to be here, a new member of this house, as the representative of Davenport riding in Toronto. I follow in the footsteps of two men who served that riding faithfully and well, Mr. Douglas Morton from 1957 to 1962 and my friend, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), who was the member for Davenport from 1949 to 1957. Both these gentlemen have many friends in the riding and I shall hope to live up to the standards they have set.
Davenport is typical of the changing city of Toronto. Probably a majority of the residents of that riding were born there or have lived there for a long time; but in addition there are a great many others who have come to Canada since the war. Many of these people have language problems and thousands of them have not yet obtained their Canadian citizenship. These newcomers are unfamiliar with our ways and they should be given special attention and special help with their problems. Many of these newcomers are making a very great contribution to the life of Canada and to the life of Toronto. In Toronto their presence is being felt in the professions, in business, in politics, in the arts and in the art of living. Toronto is a more pleasant place in which to live than it used to be, and to a large extent this is due to the influence these new Canadians are having.
One of the changes, Mr. Speaker, is that the term "Tory Toronto" no longer has any meaning in that city, except perhaps in an historical sense. I expect that 16 of 19 members from the Toronto Yorks and Peel constituencies will agree with me when I say this, and we hope to do better next time.


Lionel Chevrier: Particularly in Eglinton.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Davenport, as I say, is typical of this new Toronto; and its people, its residents, have the same problems and the same fears as many hundreds of thousands of other people in urban centres all through this country.
The first of these is unemployment and the fear of unemployment. This is the No. 1 problem for this parliament to deal with and I for one was not impressed with the rosy optimism and the questionable statistics expressed in the speech from the throne on this score. If anybody would like to go to Davenport or to any other of the similar ridings in Toronto he will find plenty of unemployment now, and the fear that there will be a great deal more unemployment before this winter is over.

In addition to this fear of unemployment, there is a great need in these urban centres particularly, although I think it applies to all ridings throughout Canada, for more action and more help in the field of social security. There is a clear need for a national health plan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ever since 1919.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is older than I and perhaps he knows more about 1919 than I do.


An hon. Member:: He is not older than you.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Then I apologize to the hon.
member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You can read history, can you not?
The Address-Mr. Gordon


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am not too interested in what was needed in the past. I am interested in what is needed now and what must be done. I for one place a national health plan very high on the list and I place it with the need for more adequate provision being made for our older citizens. I include in this proper housing for those older citizens as well as adequate pensions. I think people are more conscious than they ever were of the need for improvements in our educational system, and I include in that vocational and training programs. These are things that concern not only the people of Davenport but people in most parts of Canada these days.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 4, 1962