1962-02-19

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that a delegation of Canadian parliamentarians has been invited to attend an informal conference of congressional and parliamentary leaders of the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada to be held in Bermuda from the 20th to the 25th of this month. The chairman of the Canadian delegation will be the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), who will be accompanied by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Flynn), the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton), and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).
I am informed that the purpose of the conference will be to hold informal and confidential discussions on a number of major foreign policy issues, and in particular east-west relations including cessation of nuclear tests, disarmament and the problem of Berlin; organization of NATO and connected problems in Europe; economic co-operation, trade and financial problems of Europe, and common market and aid to developing countries and, fourth, commonwealth-United States relations.
This conference is the second such meeting, and I think the meeting together of representatives of the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada is most beneficial and helpful.
[Later:~\
On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. The members of this united and forward looking group-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.	_


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -were very interested in his announcement concerning the interparliamentary conference in Bermuda and trust it will serve some useful purpose. However, I should like the Prime Minister to explain
to the house why he did not follow the traditional and usual practice of naming members of all parties to this interparliamentary conference as part of the Canadian delegation, so that parliament can be completely and properly represented.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in so far as this particular type of delegation is concerned, the course the hon. gentleman suggests has not been followed in the past. In any event, far be it from me to inject anything into this day's proceedings that might be misunderstood, but I doubt whether agreement could have been secured.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if he has any comment to make on an observation attributed by the Canadian Press to a spokesman of the international monetary fund to the effect that the fund cannot give up its objective of having an effective par value established, that is for the Canadian dollar, in accordance with the articles of agreement.
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, at the meeting of the executive board of the international monetary fund last Friday morning, no new undertakings or commitments were entered into on behalf of Canada.
In view of the way in which what has been involved in these discussions has been exaggerated, perhaps I should make a further explanation of just what was involved in these consultations.
This was a routine consultation under the terms of article 8 of the fund. There were previously consultations under article 14 involving countries which had not established convertibility, before they did so. When convertibility was restored, certain countries which had been under article 14, then moved under article 8 and were then in the same position as Canada. Canada had never been under article 14. The wish at that time was expressed for the continuation of such consultations because they had been found to be helpful in the past.

Inquiries of the Ministry
I may say, so far as consultations under article 8 are concerned, other countries have been parties to such consultations in the same way in which Canada was a party to the recent consultation. There was a team of experts from the fund here last autumn, and discussions at that time were fruitful. Of course I do not need to say they were very friendly indeed.
There is no difference in kind so far as Canada's relationship to the articles of the fund is concerned between what existed prior to June 20, 1961 and what has existed since. I mentioned the other day that an attempt had been made something over a decade ago, indeed two attempts, to hold the Canadian dollar in terms of a fixed relationship to the United States dollar, and that the government of the day had abandoned both those attempts because of pressures that did exist. The Canadian dollar then went to a premium in terms of the United States dollar, and that continued until last June. Since that time the Canadian dollar has been quoted at a discount in terms of the United States dollar. However, throughout this period the Canadian dollar has not been maintained at a firm, fixed relationship with the United States dollar.
Now, naturally, having regard to the terms of its articles, the fund holds out the relationship of currencies to the United States dollar as the ultimate goal. There is no question about that. But Canada has not been required to establish such a fixed relationship at this meeting, and no date has been set for further consultations on the subject. The fund recognized that Canada has been one of the fund's best supporters and that Canada has followed international policies that are in accord with the fundamental aims of the fund. It is recognized that the exchange fund of Canada has been operated, as I reported to the house on February 9, page 711 of Hansard, with a view to responding to and moderating market pressures. It has not driven the exchange rate in one direction or another. It has not operated aggressively. It has not been manipulated. It has not been operated in a manner to hurt the interests of other nations.
After eight months of operation under the budget policy announced on June 20, 1961, our holdings of foreign exchange in the fund are virtually unchanged. We have carried out a most successful operation with, I am sure, great benefit to the Canadian economy and without hurting the interests of other countries. The fund is aware of the balance of payments problem which the budget policy of June 20 was announced to meet. The fund is aware that Canada has enjoyed a remarkable economic recovery since that time; that its growth has kept pace with that of the


United States, and at a time when the economies of other countries have been moving sidewise rather than upward. The fund is also aware, Mr. Speaker, that the balance of payments problem to which I have referred is not new.
I simply add, Mr. Speaker, that it is one that we inherited in its fundamentals from our predecessors in office.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wish to put a supplementary question on the minister's somewhat long and involved reply to my first question. Is it not a fact that at this meeting the members of the fund indicated they were not satisfied with the exchange policy of the Canadian government, and that they have announced there are to be periodic consultations with the Canadian government on this matter?


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: I just said that no date had been set for further consultations. I have also said the fund has its ultimate goal, but the Canadian representatives, acting on behalf of the Canadian government, have not entered into any new undertaking or commitment. I have also stated the view of the government in that respect. However, we do not take a dogmatic view of the matter, as to what may be the ultimate optimum in that respect. We say nobody can establish what may be the ultimate optimum relationship at the present time, and I think all Canadians will realize that the beneficial policies that have been followed in that regard should be allowed to operate, and so long as they are-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the minister has been given ample opportunity to explain. He is now entering into the realm of opinion as to effects, and therefore debate, and should he continue it will be necessary to allow a reply. We would then enter into a debate which would be improper at this stage. Has the Leader of the Opposition something to say?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would like to repeat my question. Is it a fact that announcements have been made in Washington that there are to be periodic consultations with the Canadian government on this matter?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not aware of any such announcements; and so far as the newspaper reports are concerned, I have seen three of them and they are quite at variance with each other, so I hope I will not be held responsible for those reports, or for at least one headline I have seen since in regard to it. By way of answering that particular headline I say that the Canadian government has entered into no new undertaking.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex Easl):: As a supplementary question, based on the minister's statement that he has seen varying newspaper reports, will the minister admit there was one opinion expressed in all these reports, and that was that there was not general satisfaction with the policy Canada has pursued in this matter, notwithstanding the able presentation of the governor of the Bank of Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will say, I think for the third time now, that naturally having regard to its articles the fund wishes a fixed relationship to be maintained in respect to currencies as an ultimate goal, but as to the immediate situation the position is fully understood and fully explained. I am quite certain that subject to what I have said about the ultimate goal of the fund policy, the Canadian position is satisfactorily explained and understood. What more I can be expected to say on that I just do not know. The hon. member knows what the fund articles are, and he knows that if there has been a departure from the articles of the fund since last June, or since June, 1957, it has been the same departure in kind that he and his colleagues were responsible for in preceding years.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister, is it a fact that the executive committee of the fund have expressed the view that this ultimate goal should be achieved in a matter of months?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not my information, that it should be achieved in a matter of months. There was a discussion as to what might be reasonable in regard to the goal or what modification might be considered. It was a matter of general discussion and was not at all a matter of an indictment being levelled against Canada. I deplore the extent of exaggeration that has been created on this subject and, I regret to say, deliberately by the opposition.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not realize that his refusal to answer questions-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -only adds to the disquietude which exists on this matter all over the country and in this house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's supplementary question is not appropriate now to the subject matter we have been discussing.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, although the hon. member has spoken in a manner that is clearly out of order, he has nevertheless said something that has been heard and recorded and, with respect, in all fairness I think I should be permitted a rejoinder.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to say that I am not able to form an opinion on that matter because there was a certain amount of open protest in the house when the hon. member for Essex East was speaking, and I did not hear what he said. Unless the minister thinks it is important enough to indicate what the words were, I suggest he leave the matter where it is.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have only one observation. The hon. member says that the manner in which I have dealt with this matter only adds to what he calls the disquietude existing outside Canada on this subject.


Mr. Hellyer:: Certainly confusion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would like, in fairness, to make this brief rejoinder to his remark. The position taken on behalf of Canada by the Canadian government is clear, it is strong and it is firm. It is understood outside this country, not misunderstood in the way hon. members opposite misunderstand it. I would say, in answering this suggestion that there is disquietude on this subject outside Canada created by the Canadian government, that it is unworthy and unCanadian on the part of hon. members opposite to downgrade and disparage Canada's good name abroad.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. members who are engaged in this controversy might find an appropriate time to debate it.



BOY SCOUTS ASSOCIATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. F. Matthews (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. As Baden Powell week is being celebrated throughout Canada and many other democratic countries, and knowing the Prime Minister's keen interest in and admiration for the boy scout movement, would he care to extend to all scouts the good wishes of the government of Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I know that the house as a whole will join with me in approbation of the contribution made by the boy scout movement and by its leader and founder, General Baden Powell. It is an organization that commands support not only of Canadians and of people in all parts of the commonwealth but throughout the world. It develops in youths initiative, selflessness,

Inquiries of the Ministry helpfulness and a brotherhood relationship, without regard to race or colour, that does much to maintain good relations and bring about good citizenship.



REPORTED DISCUSSION IN NATO COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: have a question for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether or not the government of the United States is now bringing the matter of trade with Cuba before the council of NATO?


John George Diefenbaker: I saw some reference to that in the press, but the information I have received is that no such matter has been brought before the council of NATO, by the United States or otherwise.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware that the Canadian National Railway Company has diverted all its ships with the exception of the William Carson from the port of North Sydney, supposedly on account of ice conditions, thereby creating economic difficulties for the stevedores of that port? Would the minister advise the house what icebreaking facilities have been provided to keep the port of North Sydney open during the winter months? Would he further advise the house whether any icebreakers have been diverted from the area during the past two weeks and, if not, tell us why it has not been possible to keep this port open to shipping?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: I shall be pleased to make a close inquiry into the situation. I shall report tomorrow and give as full an explanation as possible to show my hon. friend and the house that the icebreaker service of the department is doing its utmost to meet the difficult weather situation in that area of the gulf.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South):: I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister whether he would be good' enough to comment on the

most recent reports of interference with air traffic in the Berlin air corridors.


John George Diefenbaker: I had rather expected a question on that subject.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: It is just a case, again, of government members having to take over the responsibilities of members of the opposition.
Hon. members will have seen newspaper reports about attempts made by the U.S.S.R. to reserve for its exclusive use for a limited period part of the three air corridors which lead from West Germany to West Berlin. On February 8, 9, and 12 the Soviet representative at the Berlin air safety centre was informed by his three western colleagues that such an unprecedented request could not be met, that western aircraft would continue to fly in accordance with established procedures, and that the Soviet authorities would be held fully responsible for flight safety.
On February 14 Soviet aircraft threatened the safety of western aircraft flying in the Berlin corridors in accordance with the flight rules set out in post-war agreements reached with the Soviet union. The three western powers protested to the Soviet union on February 15 about the Soviet attempts to "force changes in the established procedures" in the three air corridors to West Berlin. The Soviet union has rejected the British, United States and French notes of protest. Hon. members may be assured that Canada, in close consultation with the three western occupying powers in Berlin and our other NATO allies, is keeping a careful watch on the dangerous situation the Soviet union has attempted to create in such an irresponsible fashion.
The western occupying powers had to take a firm line on these Soviet requests, because to do otherwise would compromise the western right of free access to Berlin.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wonder if I could direct a question to the Prime Minister. I have an objective interest only in this. I should like to ask when the house might expect that the measure relating to the Senate will be introduced.


John George Diefenbaker: We have now reached the concluding days of the debate on the speech from the throne, and when that has been dealt with the hon. gentleman's curiosity will be satisfied.

The Address-Mr. McGrath



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can he inform the house whether facilities for the storage of nuclear warheads are being constructed at North Bay?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: This is a question which I would have to look into, Mr. Speaker, in order to give a precise answer. There were, of course, plans with regard to construction at both North Bay and La Macaza of facilities for the storage of nuclear weapons. Whether they have actually been constructed I am not in a position to say without looking into the matter.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have a supplementary question. Perhaps the associate minister might have this information at his finger tips.



THE CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question. Has he received from the dominion bureau of statistics the population figures from last year's census which are required by the British North America Act for the redistribution of the constituencies represented in this house?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Mason Fisher: In view of the urgency of this matter, and in view of the fact that in previous years the statistics were available by this relative time, can the minister indicate when he expects to have the figures available?


George Harris Hees: I shall be glad to get in touch with the dominion statistician and find out when these statistics will be available.



REPORTED POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF MEMBER FOR BURNABY-COQUITLAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Drysdale (Burnaby-Richmond):: I should like to direct a question to the hon. member for Kootenay West. First of all I should like to congratulate him on his elevation to his new position as house leader of his party.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member has gone outside the rules in directing to a private member a question not related to his responsibilities with respect to the public business of the house.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Mr. Speaker, those remarks were preparatory to the question I wanted to ask the hon. member. I think I am in order under section 175 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which reads in part as follows:
The strict rule is that no question can be put by one private member to another except on the orders of the day-
Can the hon. member indicate whether the recent intervention of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) in British Guiana politics-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, January 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Rodrigue Bourdages for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. J. A. McGrath (St. John's East):: May
I join, Mr. Speaker, with those who have preceded me in this debate in offering congratulations to the mover and seconder of the motion for an address in reply to His Excellency's speech. Both these hon. members acquitted themselves in a most capable manner.
During the course of the remarks of my friend the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter), who spoke earlier in this debate, I could not help noticing his reference to the speech from the throne-and I paraphrase the hon. gentleman's remarks-as a Christmas stocking bulging with goodies. My hon. friend is not far from the truth. We have already seen some of the goodies in that Christmas stocking. To the 3,000 surviving members of the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit I will wager that it is the best Christmas gift they have received in a long time. To the two thirds of the population of Newfoundland resident in the Avalon peninsula of my province-I refer to the easternmost part-it has certainly been a memorable Christmas gift. For the first time they have now seen tangible results of efforts on the part of this government to provide the important easternmost part of Newfoundland with communications and transportation to the mainland of Canada. I refer, of course, to the announcement in the speech from the throne that parliament will be asked to authorize the institution of an automobile ferry service

The Address-Mr. McGrath between North Sydney, Nova Scotia and Argentia, Newfoundland, and to provide for the construction of the necessary vessel and docks.
Members of the house generally, apart from those hon. gentlemen who come from Newfoundland, are not fully aware of just exactly what this means to my province. Because of our insular position we are practically cut off from any direct communication with the mainland of Canada, except for the services provided by Trans-Canada Air Lines and to a limited extent by the C.N.R. As a consequence of this fact, Newfoundland has not been able to participate in the current boom in the tourist industry in Canada, particularly in eastern Canada. With the construction of this new vessel, for which provision has been made in the estimates for the fiscal year 1962-63, at an estimated cost of $12 million, Newfoundland for the first time will be able to build up a tourist industry which will be of no insignificant consequence to the economy of my province.
In this regard may I say that I was rather surprised, during the course of the remarks of my friend the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, to note his reference to this matter. As found at page 162 of Hansard at the conclusion of his remarks, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse) the hon. member stated:
In reply to my hon. friend's question, when it does materialize it will provide an extra day or two employment for the people in that area who are now working only two or three days a week.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend did not give his answer very much thought. Otherwise he would not have answered as he did. I am sure that on reflection he will agree that this service will mean, in terms of real value to the eastern part of Newfoundland, a substantial tourist industry and all the things that go with it, such as tourist accommodation and the real cash that tourists bring into an area.
When my hon. friend answered the question of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg in the way he did I feel that he did so without thinking, or else that he was motivated by what I suspect to be narrow political partisan motives. I can put no other construction on what he said. The people of eastern Newfoundland, and particularly the people of my constituency, will not forget the fact that it was this government that inaugurated this service. I hope that not too much time will elapse before this vessel is completed and is in service between eastern Newfoundland and the mainland of Canada.
At the appropriate time I hope to have more to say on this matter. At the present

time a controversy is under way in my constituency as to where the Newfoundland terminus for the new ferry service should be located. There is prevalent a school of thought in the Department of Transport which holds that the Newfoundland terminus should be located at Argentia. However, in my constituency there is an equally vocal group, which includes the municipal council of the city of St. John's and other important bodies, which is of the opinion that the Newfoundland terminus should be located at the harbour of St. John's.
I should also like to refer briefly to another matter of tremendous importance to the province of Newfoundland. I refer to the second report of what is known as the MacPherson commission, the royal commission on transportation. Among other things the report deals with a problem that has been a deterrent to Newfoundland's economic well-being for many years, and it has captured in a most imaginative way the real crux of the problems associated with the economy of Newfoundland. Commencing at page 263 of the second report of the MacPherson commission there is a section dealing with the special problems of Newfoundland, and I quote from that page as follows:
Because of its geographical position and stage of economic development, it has peculiar transportation needs unlike the other settled parts of Canada.
I should like to quote from the latter part of the section of the report dealing with Newfoundland's special problems, in which the commissioners summarize their recommendations and conclusions and advocate special assistance to the province of Newfoundland in the construction of a network of roads to facilitate the flow of goods and ease of communication, thus helping to stabilize the economy. I quote from the last paragraph, and I do so because it summarizes much more adequately than I ever could the real needs of Newfoundland with respect to transportation and its importance to the economy of Canada's newest province and, indeed, eastern Canada generally; because the economy of Newfoundland certainly has a bearing on the Atlantic region as a whole and we are in fact their most important customer. The last paragraph on page 272 reads as follows:
A highway network of the size necessary is beyond the present resources of Canadians in Newfoundland. The situation calls for assistance by the federal government and there are enough precedents for such a program. Public works to stimulate the economy of a province or an area have been a continuing part of national policy in Canada.
The report continues:
For example, assistance in constructing power plants and irrigation systems as well as transportation facilities in all parts of Canada can be cited.

What canals and locks did for the economy of the central provinces, what the transcontinental railways did for the prairies, highways can do for Newfoundland. We are convinced that such a program is in the national interest. It would stimulate the economy of the island with attendant benefits to the rest of Canada. All this could be accomplished in a short time with a relatively modest outlay of public funds.
I am particularly happy to note, Mr. Speaker, that conducting the affairs of Canada today we have a government that has the vision and the foresight to implement in the main the recommendations of such an imaginative report, and I hope that before too long the federal government will take steps toward the implementation of the important and far reaching recommendations of the royal commission report, particularly those dealing with the problems of transportation in Newfoundland and their importance to the economy of the province.
I feel sure that the federal government will deal with this report in the spirit in which they have dealt with the problems of the Atlantic provinces over the last five years; because it is no secret, and I make no bones about the fact, that in the last five years this government has more than doubled the conditional and unconditional grants payable to the province of Newfoundland, and the tremendous importance of this to the economy of the province cannot be overestimated. Newfoundland, and indeed the Atlantic provinces of Canada can ill afford to go back to the fiscal policies of the previous Liberal administration, and I suggest they will not subject themselves to the folly of such a course.
I should like to deal now with a matter of grave importance to my own constituency and thousands of my constituents. I refer to the curtailment of operation by the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation at the Wabana mines at Bell island. If the house will bear with me I should like to refer to this matter at some length. Wabana mines have been producing iron ore of low grade since 1895, and this surely makes them among the oldest working mines in Canada. The mines were first worked by the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company. The present operators are their successors, the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation.
In terms of profit I suggest that the operation has been a very successful one. But, Mr. Speaker, the worth of a company or corporation cannot be measure in profit alone. Rather, the real worth must be measured by its relationship with its employees and what the company does during the course of its operations to improve the lot of its employees.
In this regard the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation certainly has, with respect to
The Address-Mr. McGrath its Wabana operations, what I would consider an unenviable reputation. Theirs has been in the main a history of exploitation. I realize that "exploitation" is a harsh word, but in my opinion it covers their behaviour most adequately. In my opinion also, and this opinion is shared by many others, the company has been guilty of gross neglect of its employees down through the years.
The population of Bell island today is approximately 14,000. It is very heavily overpopulated. The 14,000 people depend on the earning of less than 1,500. As a matter of fact, at the end of 1961 the company announced that there would be further reductions and we find now that they will only be employing 900. One would expect to find built up around a 60-year old mining operation a well established and well laid out town. That is not so on Bell island. On the contrary, everywhere you go you will find examples of gross neglect on the part of government and particularly on the part of the company. A 60-year old mining town cannot be classified as a mining camp after that period of time, but to all intents and purposes that is the way the company treats Bell island today.
For example, by virtue of the fact that the mine is located on an island, and by virtue of the nature of the operation-that is to say it, is a submarine operation-one would expect to find hospital and other facilities to cope with an emergency. This is not the case on Bell island. If an emergency were to occur underground or at the pithead, emergency measures would have to be taken to deal with the injured. In this regard, the government of the province certainly is not without fault. The provincial government and the company have done nothing, in my opinion, to remedy this most important need.
However, what I am concerned with at the moment, and what I should like to feel is the concern of the government at the moment, is the future of the Wabana mine operation. As the house is aware, Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation was taken over by a United Kingdom industrial complex known as A. V. Roe. I am sorry to say that the record of this company in Canada leaves a lot to be desired. Shortly after the take-over of Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation by A. V. Roe in 1959, the company closed down one of the three working slopes at Bell island, thereby displacing 600 men. I could speak of the way this lay-off was handled. It was handled without due regard to the human problems involved and, in my opinion, in a most inhumane way.
Following that lay-off, Bell island was declared by this government to be a labour

The Address-Mr. McGrath surplus area. We all know that, by this measure the government of Canada agrees to underwrite the cost of moving a man and his family to whatever location in Canada he can secure suitable employment. Not many of our people have taken advantage of this provision to this date. This is not difficult to understand, Mr. Speaker, particularly if one is acquainted with the nature of the people who reside in Newfoundland and the maritime provinces. These people have close family ties. They have close connections with the land they own, and they take pride in their few possessions. Because of their family attachments and their traditional roots, they find it difficult if not impossible to go to an area of Canada that is, in the main, completely foreign to them.
If I may, I should like to go back to this lay-off in 1959. It was designed, in the main, as part of an efficiency program by the new landlord, A. V. Roe. It was alleged that this so-called efficiency program was designed to place the company in a stronger position to compete. Certainly that is a legitimate ground for an efficiency program. We are not unaware of the competition the company is facing today. New ore can be produced in Africa by cheap labour, and new outlets in South America are producing ore similar to the type produced at Bell island.
This program has undoubtedly met with a certain degree of success, just as automation itself has met with success wherever it has been introduced. Certainly it has no bearing on the ability of the human being to produce. Automation is an accepted fact of life today. For example, according to figures released by Dosco, in 1958 at the Bell island mining operation it took some 2,200 men to produce
2,300,000	tons of Wabana ore; whereas in 1960, following automation, it took 1,660 men to produce 2,600,000 tons. In other words it took fewer men to produce 300,000 tons more of ore than had been produced in the two years previous. These facts are indisputable. I think everyone is prepared to accept them, and in accepting them make the necessary adjustments in economic conditions and so on.
However, Dosco's plans with respect to Wabana did not end there. At the end of last year dark clouds began to appear on the horizon. The company announced that as a consequence of a reduction in its anticipated shipments of ore, production would be lower than that for which the company had contracted. They announced that, as a result, the mine would have to close down for seven weeks. This shutdown is now in effect and I understand will remain in effect until March 19.
On December 12 a senior company official stated in a letter to the heads of the unions

that because of the competition from countries with lower labour costs and new outlets in Africa and South America, and because of the cut-back in production which I referred, it was evident that shipments in 1962 would be approximately one million tons less than the
2,800,000	tons contracted for and shipped in 1961. The company announced that, as a result, it would be necessary to make substantial reductions in the Wabana work force, and on January 11 they announced there would be further reductions. The company announced that their 1962 ore shipments would be reduced by a further 300,000 tons, and that this would bring the company's production contracted for to something less than 1,500,000 tons. As a result of this further announcement the shutdown to which I referred is now in effect.
Now, you may say that the company had given warning of this. Indeed, they have sounded warnings from time to time. On December 20 the financial page of the Montreal Gazette carried this story under the heading "Roe Realigns Operations, Sets Sights on Exports". I quote from part of that story:
A major announcement is expected soon of housecleaning plans in Canadians operations.
Well, it seems that we have seen the results of their housecleaning plans, plans that affect the lives of several thousands of my constituents. The story goes on:
Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation Ltd., a major subsidiary with most ol its operations in the maritimes, continues to have troubles and is not making enough money.
That is what the officials say, and it seems to be very important. That is the crux of the matter. Their profits are not high enough; and because their profits are not high enough, because they are not able to pay a big enough dividend to their shareholders, several hundred people lose their jobs at a time of year when Canada is in the midst of a seasonal recurring unemployment problem.
In addition to the new outlets which I have mentioned, in Africa and South America, outlets that produce ore much more cheaply because of low labour rates, Dosco has also been met with competition from the new outlets in Labrador and northern Quebec. Granted that these are much richer grades of ore, nevertheless they are produced by surface operations and they are having their effect on the market. As a matter of fact, in this regard one finds it very difficult to understand why the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation uses a substantial amount of the Labrador ore in its steel plant at Sydney, Nova Scotia, much to the chagrin of labour unions at Wabana. Incidentally, on January 19 a representative

of the Iron Ore Company of Canada was reported to have made the following statement, and I quote from the St. John's Telegram of that date:
-Claude E. Howse disclosed Tuesday that the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation In Sydney. Nova Scotia, is using more iron ore from the Carol (Labrador) project of his company than from Dosco's own mines on Bell island.
That is very difficult to understand in view of the difficulties we are facing at Wabana, where some 700 Dosco employees are now to be laid off. The president of the steel workers' union at Wabana, when asked to comment on this statement by the representative of the Iron Ore Company of Canada, said that were Dosco to use 100 per cent Wabana ore at their Sydney operation, as they did in the past, it would mean an extra 300,000 tons of production for the Wabana operation. However, as we have noted before, Dosco apparently are not interested in the future of employees who have been loyal to them in the past. Their first loyalty is paying a handsome dividend to their shareholders. It is estimated that 60 per cent of the requirements of the steel plant at Sydney come from the Iron Ore Company of Canada's mines in Labrador.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, as recorded at page 885 of Hansard for February 15, the Minister of Labour replied to a question I put him in reference to this fact, and I quote from part of the minister's statement:
The root of the Wabana mines difficulties appears to lie in loss of European markets and increased use of ore from Labrador by the Dosco plant at Sydney.


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


James Aloysius McGrath: I was not aware of the fact that my time had expired. However, if the house will bear with me I will not take up more than an extra 10 minutes of its time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent so that the hon. member may continue for another 10 minutes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I think since the time of hon. members is limited, and since the rigid limitation has been observed by every other hon. member it would be a dangerous precedent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry; there does not appear to be unanimous consent, so I must call on the next speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Last Tuesday I sought to adjourn the house to discuss a matter of urgent and national importance. That day the Department of Labour and the dominion bureau of statistics had provided us
The Address-Hon. Paul Martin with their monthly release showing the employment and unemployment figures in Canada, for the week ending January 13, 1962. Mr. Speaker decided that under our rules I had not made out a case for the motion and that there would be a presumed opportunity during the course of the present session of parliament to debate this matter. Mr. Speaker's expectations have proven correct. That opportunity is now open to me.
We would1 not be fulfilling our duty in this house if we did not consider the alarming character of the release of last Tuesday; and although we shall run the risk of incurring the displeasure of the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance when we discuss matters not of their liking, and although we shall once again be charged with being prophets of gloom, it is the responsibility and duty of an opposition, as well as of every hon. member in the house, to examine this continuing serious situation which we have had in Canada almost from the day this government took over from the previous government.
It is important for us to recall some of the salient features of the report of last Tuesday. This report indicated that employment decreased seasonally between the months of December and January, and that the estimated labour force in January was only
13.000	higher than a year earlier. This is a clear indication of the fact that our economic growth has slowed down considerably. I shall have more to say about this, but it is one of the revelations contained in the recent release.
It is further pointed out that employment declined by 218,000 to 5,864,000 between December and January, and we are told that some 476,000 of the unemployed in January were men. It is significant that in the month of January there were 545,000 people on the unemployed list in Canada, and of this number some 476,000 were men and of these 132,000 were under the age of 25 years. The release also showed that there were an estimated
69.000	women unemployed in the month of January and that 35,000 of these were under the age of 25 years. All this indicates the serious unemployment problem which exists and that has a bearing on those who are under 30 years of age. I shall have more to say about this.
In every region of Canada employment declined during the last reported period, notwithstanding the speech made last night in Montreal by the Minister of Labour and notwithstanding the prognostications and assessments of the situation made by the Minister of Finance. Employment in the Atlantic region declined by an estimated
42.000	between December and January. Unemployment in January was 14.7 per cent of the labour force, compared with 14.9 per cent

The Address-Hon. Paul Martin a year earlier in the Atlantic region. In the Quebec region employment declined by
62.000	between December and January; in the Ontario region employment decreased by an estimated 62,000 between December and January; in the prairie region employment decreased by 37,000 between December and January; in the Pacific region employment declined seasonally between December and January.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that 545,000 people are out of work in a work force of little more that 6 million continues to present our country with a challenging problem that is not being confronted by this government. The government takes much pleasure in the fact that unemployment in this last reported period was not as high as in the comparable period for the previous year. The fact that
545.000	people are out of work in a work force of 6 million presents this country with an alarming situation. The fact that this has continued since the time this government took office warrants our indicting this government once again for the unrealistic way in which it is tackling the problem.
There are certain comments that one would want to make about the latest release in which we are told that 545,000 Canadians are out of work, which is 132,000 more than in December, 1961. That represents a very significant rise in the unemployment rolls shared by every region in our country. As the release indicates, there were 218,000 fewer jobs than in the month of December. This means that employment declined more than seasonally, this despite the winter works program.
This fall off in the number of jobs between December and January is larger than in any year since this government took office with the exception of 1958 when there was a fall off of 230,000 jobs. I suggest that the increase in unemployment would have been much larger if it were not for the fact that there was an abnormally small growth in the labour force between January of this year and January of last year. The decline in the labour force between December and January was 186,000. This means that approximately twice the average number of people have dropped out of the labour force since this government took office. The only conclusion that can be reached is that out of sheer frustration at not being able to secure jobs people are dropping out of the labour force or are seeking jobs in other countries.
One hundred and forty two thousand workers had been seeking jobs for more than three months in January. This was
34.000	more than in the month of December. If the Canadian economy had continued to

generate jobs at the same rate as it did during the last five years of Liberal administration, in January of this year there would have been 300,000 more jobs. That is the significant conclusion that the Minister of Labour forgot to underline in his remarks.
Our real concern should not only be for the high level of unemployment but, as I said a while ago, for the stoppage or the relative unprogressive character of our economic growth in Canada at this time. Compare this with a comparable period before this government came into office. From the beginning of 1946 right up until the middle of 1957, when this government took office, our total production in Canada increased at an average rate of 4.6 per cent a year. That was the real increase, after allowing for price changes, in our gross national product. This 4.6 per cent is the average that the former administration sustained over eleven and a half years.
But what has happened since 1957? I say again that our economic growth has slowed down, and no extravagant statement by the government, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Finance or others as to what the situation is going to be in the balance of this year can conceal the fact that the indications thus far and the assessment of the situation thus far establishes that we have had almost a stoppage in our economic growth.
I wish this government would face the situation with the realism that attended the remarks of the President of the United States last Thursday, when he noted how serious was the situation. He realistically faced into the situation. What did he say? He said that the creation of jobs for young people entering the labour force in the United States, and for older workers being displaced by new technology, had put a major burden on the economy of the United States and its society. Do we hear observations like that from this government? No. We are told that everything is fine, that unemployment is going to be a thing of the past, that its policies would solve this problem. This was reflected in the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) last Saturday night to the young Progressive Conservatives, when he said this government had laid the foundations for present economic prosperity in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What better example could I have than the reaction of this government at the present time to this statement? They are applauding a statement that is not in harmony with economic facts at the present time.
I say, let us examine what has happened in this country since 1957. Compare it with

The Address-Hon. Paul Martin
the figure I gave a moment ago in connection with the economic growth of Canada under the former administration. The cold, hard truth is that our economic growth has become less than the growth of our population. Our production per person in real terms was about 4 per cent smaller in 1961 than it was in 1956. If our economic growth had continued at the 4.6 per cent average rate, in the past four and a half years we would have produced goods worth nearly $14 billion more than our actual production.
That is the fact, and let the ministry applaud that statement. The fact is that we have had bad management of our affairs; we have had a disorganization of our public affairs; we have had an unwise, an unsteady leadership; we have had a lack of sound government policy, responsibility and wise planning; and largely because of that we are confronted again, in this fourth year of this government's term of office since 1958, with an unemployment figure larger than that of any country in the western world. Then, because we dare to examine this problem, we are criticized by the government as though we were hurting our country-


Mr. Siarr:: You are.
Mr. Pallet!: Not only by the government. Read the newspapers.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member says "Read the newspapers". I say, read the Gallup polls. Those polls show the displeasure which the Canadian people are experiencing at this time as a result of the lack of leadership, as a result of the mismanagement of our affairs, as a result of the reluctance of this government to resort to employment policies consistent with the extravagant assurances and promises given by this administration during the course of the last federal election. If this government wants to warrant a different assessment of its conduct, let it follow the kind of leadership which the President of the United States is giving with regard to this problem-


Michael Starr: What are they doing?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -instead of palliatives, instead of anaemic programs such as the winter works program which, the minister said in November, would put 111,000 people to work during a limited period in the winter months. The minister said, as reported by the Ottawa Journal on November 15, that work was provided for 121,000 people last winter and it was expected to provide jobs for 150,000 this winter. One hundred and fifty jobs-


Michael Starr: One hundred and fifty thousand.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -at a time when unemployment has reached 543,000. This government, which undertook to see to it that no one would suffer as a result of unemployment-


Michael Starr: Would the hon. member permit
a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: When I am finished. Now we are told by this government that it has not been able to provide work even for the total number which it said it would provide for. Not only are we confronted by this serious situation, but we find that those who are out of work are continuing to be faced with the possibility that unless this government takes strong measures to boost the unemployment insurance fund there may not be sufficient moneys in that fund to enable the government to carry out its obligations to the unemployed and to those who have contractual rights in connection with that fund.


An hon. Member:: Sounds like a scare campaign.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, if the hon. member wants to interpret it in that way. But does the hon. member, who comes from the Atlantic provinces where almost 15 per cent of the work force is out of work, think it is not the function of those who are in the opposition, as well as of those on his side, to bring home to the government the seriousness of the problem and the inadequate way, the anaemic way, the lethargic way in which this government continues to meet this problem?


Michael Starr: Would the hon. member permit a
question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: At the end of my
speech.


Michael Starr: You do not want to hear some
figures?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, I do, but I
want to take my full time to bring home to this government-


Michael Starr: I merely wish to give the correct
figures.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In that case, very well.


Michael Starr: The hon. member stated that there was a rise in unemployment between December and January of some 134,000. Does he not realize that 108,000 of these are people who have been engaged in seasonable occupations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister knows perfectly well that although that may look good to the uninitiated on paper, it does not confront the problem at all. He is saying

The Address-Hon. Paul Martin "we have to look at the increase in employment, a modest increase". What the hon. genleman fails to do is place the emphasis where President Kennedy and those responsible for the administration of the department of labour in the United States are placing it by saying that as long as one man is out of work, that situation becomes the concern of government.


Michael Starr: That has always been our position.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Labour glosses over the number who are out of work. He keeps referring to the positive aspects of the situation, limited though those positive aspects are. I say this to the Minister of Labour. In face of the fact that over half a million men and women are out of work as shown by the figures I have produced, this government, not having brought forward policies in keeping with its assurances in the last federal election, warrants, as it is going to receive just as soon as an election takes place, the condemnation of the people of Canada for allowing this social and economic problem to continue and extend year after year without taking effective action.
What policies have been brought forward by this government to deal with the situation? All it has done, in the short term, is to present us with the annual winter works program. Each year the minister makes a slight modification to that program, a revision suggested by the mayors of Canada or by members of the opposition. But the winter works program is not in itself the kind of program which will take care of our unemployment difficulties. It is not the kind of remedy that goes to the root of the problem. I have in my hands a resolution passed by the Windsor city council on August 2, 1961.


An hon. Member:: Go back to 1956.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If you go back to 1956 you will find that was a period of prosperity in Canada. You will find that that was a period when Canada enjoyed a high level of trade with other countries. You will find it was a period when Canada enjoyed high prestige among other nations of the world. I can tell the hon. member that though we cannot go back to 1956, we are soon going back to a government which created the conditions of 1956.
Here is the recommendation, a positive proposal made by the Windsor city council. It is addressed to the government and to all members of parliament in an effort to bring about a solution to the problem. I have seen no reaction by the government to this

proposal. It embodies some of the things which the Leader of the Opposition in particular has been urging in this house for a number of years. I intend to read the resolution and I invite the minister, having in mind the unemployment which continues in the city of Windsor, to tell us now what this government intends to do to implement this proposal. I ask him to tell us what it intends to do about the recommendations made by Professor Bladen over a year ago, recommendations which are now in the hands of this government but in connection with which no progress at all has been made, just as no progress has been made with regard to recommendations made by other royal commissions set up for the purpose of diverting public attention from the immediate issues.
Here is the resolution:
That the following recommendations of the greater Windsor industrial commission regarding its study of the United Kingdom local employment act 1960 and the possible application of certain of its features in Canada, be endorsed and the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities be advised accordingly:
(a)	That the designation "surplus manpower areas" be changed as it is negative in character to "development district" as in the United Kingdom.
(b)	That the government of Canada grant development districts, now called surplus manpower areas or double depreciation areas, extra allowance depreciation rather than accelerated depreciation. This could be offered for any two of the first four years, in the case of a new industry or in the case of an existing plant manufacturing a new product.
(c)	That the government of Canada authorize the industrial development bank to make low interest loans in development districts for periods of up to five years to industries manufacturing a new product or existing industry expanding where additional employment will be provided.
(d)	That the government of Canada authorize the industrial development bank to defer interest payments on such loans to industry in development districts.
(e)	That industries purchasing newly serviced land and erecting new premises be permitted to depreciate services such as water, sewers, roads (all local improvements) when such are included as part of the land purchased price.
(f)	That the government of Canada, when in their wisdom, find it necessary to establish pilot plants for the production of products not previously manufactured in Canada, and of benefit to the Canadian economy, establish them only in development districts.
Those are proposals put forward by the municipal government in a city which has had a large number of unemployed for some time, particularly since this government came into office.


Michael Starr: Since you became a member.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Labour has made an interjection. Let him tell us what study the government has given to a proposal of that kind.


An hon. Member:: None.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What reply did the minister or the government give to that proposal? I ask the Minister of Labour or the Prime Minister, who is now in his seat, to produce whatever reply, if any, was ever made to the municipal corporation of the city of Windsor that joined with its industrial commission in the recommendations made. Only within the last three weeks, I was asked to raise this matter on behalf of the council, because it had not been able to get from this government any indication of whether it proposes to try to solve the problem in that area and in other areas of Canada through solutions such as those involved in the United Kingdom local improvement act of 1950.
I say it is no wonder that the council of the corporation of the city of Windsor has interested itself in this matter, and has done so unanimously. I refer to a city council made up of the representatives of all political parties represented in this house. Instead of getting from the government a positive approach we are simply told by the Prime Minister and others, "We have laid a solid foundation for economic security in this country, and we are building on this foundation; we are realizing our new vision in this way". The Minister of Labour says "Don't worry; everything is going to be well for the balance of 1962". He fails to emphasize the fact that at the present time, in terms of unemployment in Canada, everything is not well.
I do not say that this is an easy problem to solve. No one makes that suggestion. However, we are entitled to have from this government evidence of having confronted this problem in a manner consistent with the severity of its effects. We have challenges ahead of us. We have challenges facing us now. We must get this country on the move again. We must expand our economy. The government must resort to policies directed toward that objective. We must cure massive chronic unemployment in this country. We are not having from this government evidence that it realizes the necessity for doing so.


John George Diefenbaker: The same old needle.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The	Prime
Minister says "The same old thing".


John George Diefenbaker: No; I said that it is the same old needle.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The	Prime
Minister says-


John George Diefenbaker: Change the record.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The	Prime
Minister says "Change the record". May I say that I was sent here, along with other
The Address-Mr. Sevigny members of parliament, to remind the Prime Minister that one of the things he assured the Canadian people in 1958 was that no one would suffer because of unemployment.


John George Diefenbaker: So long as public works were needed. I would ask the hon. member to give the quotation correctly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The government has not discharged that responsibility. It is my responsibility as a member of this house, particularly one who comes from an area in which there is a high level of unemployment, to remind the government of its obligations in this regard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must inform him that his time has expired.
(Translation):


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, once again, we, in this house, have had the pleasure of seeing that the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) missed his calling. He got up with this sad look on his face which he so expertly takes on whenever he speaks of unemployment, this woe-begone expression which comes to him naturally-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a matter of opinion.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: -and we have seen him riding to death his favourite subject, that of unemployment in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I have feelings of esteem and friendship toward the hon. member for Essex East. Like other members of this house, I admire his eloquence. Indeed, were I not, like other members, aware of the facts, I would be influenced by the hon. member's eloquence. But the facts are there to prove that, far from being in a slump, the Canadian economy has now reached a level of prosperity unheard of in this nation's history since confederation.
In the eloquent speeches they made in the house, the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. members for Laval (Mr. Bourdages) and for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne), clearly stated that according to economic experts on the staff of newspapers like the Financial Post, the Financial Times and Time magazine, the Canadian economy is heading for new heights under the competent leadership of Prime Minister John Diefenbaker and his lieutenants.
Those magazine articles explain that surveys conducted throughout the Canadian industry reveal that the leaders of our primary and secondary industries agree that 1962 will mark

The Address-Mr. Sevigny a new record of prosperity and that this boom will continue in 1963 and in the following years.
That prosperity is not merely due to chance. On the contrary, it is the direct result of the constructive action taken by the Conservative government since it came into office in 1957. If we have succeeded in converting economic recession into a period of progress and prosperity for Canada, it is precisely due to the dynamic steps taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the members of the government to get the Canadian economy on the move again.
If the economy today is flourishing, it is because of the increased purchasing power distributed among all the nation's families, to the advantage of each and every citizen of the country.
The present government has taken care of the aged, the disabled, the blind, and of our pensioned veterans who, even today, are still bearing the marks of their glorious deeds in the two world wars.
As far as the development of the secondary industry is concerned, the government has stimulated the productivity of our industries by enabling them to sell their products both on the domestic and the foreign markets.
Figures show that, in the year 1961 alone, with all due deference to our opponents of the Liberal and C.C.F. parties, our sales to the common market countries have increased by 16 per cent; those to Eastern Europe, by 90 per cent; those to Japan, by 38 per cent.
During the first eight months of 1961 alone, $312 million of Canadian commodities were sold to the Eastern world. We have disposed of wheat and pork surpluses and we are in the process of disposing of our milk products.
Mr. Speaker, those are positive results accomplished by the Prime Minister, by whose side I have the honour to serve, and by the Conservative government which, more than any other government, has given a good, wise and sound administration to this country so dear to us, to the Canadian nation which has done us great honor and confidence by asking us to take over the government.
A moment ago, the hon. member for Essex-East, pursuing his pet hobby, that is unemployment, was trying to tell us that the situation is worse today than it was the day before this government assumed power.

Mr. Speaker, those statements are not based on facts. It is unfortunate that the hon. member is not now in his seat to hear what I am about to tell him.
If my hon. friend had gone over the figures of the dominion bureau of statistics, he would know that in November, 1961,
80,000	more workers were employed as compared to the corresponding month for 1960. And it is interesting to note that a group of 46,000 persons have increased the Canadian labour force during the period extending from the end of 1961 to the beginning of 1962.
This means that 126,000 workers have found jobs, thanks to the dynamic action of the leaders of the Conservative party and to the intelligent steps they have taken.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out other facts that, in my opinion, deserve to be mentioned. And, with supporting figures and facts, I wish to say the following words.
The statistics show, Mr. Speaker, that, during the four years from 1957 to 1961, more than 500,000 new workers tried to find work in the industries of our country. It is truly remarkable that 430,000 of them should have found work that seemed stable, even during the period of economic recession that we have just gone through.
Let us compare, Mr. Speaker, the figures for the period from 1957 to 1960 with those for the period from 1946 to 1950, the four years that followed the second world war, during which 334,000 people, and not 500,000 were added to the labour force in Canada and during which 310,000 new jobs were created in spite of the extraordinary economic prosperity that prevailed in this country. I also think it necessary to compare the figures from 1957 to 1960, with those of the period from 1951 to 1955, during which, in spite of the state of war in Korea, only 267,000 new jobs were created in Canada and 387,000 new workers were seeking employment.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Essex East tried earlier today to ridicule the winter works	program	which	was	devised	and
worked out by this government, by resorting to irony and even trying to laugh it off. He said that it was ridiculous to glorify the fact that 111,000 new Canadian workers will find employment thanks to that program.
Mr. Speaker, it is thanks to the winter works	program,	which	was	devised	and

worked out by this Conservative government, that 400,000 Canadians obtained work since the scheme was started, without taking into account the 110,000 to which the hon. member for Essex East alluded to a moment ago. Mr. Speaker, when he makes his speeches during the forthcoming election campaign, I would suggest to the hon. member for Essex East and to those, who, like himself, state that nothing was done for the Canadian economy by the Conservative government, to speak to those who have found work thanks to the winter works program and ask them the following question: "What is your opinion of that program?" The answer will perhaps surprise him.
Mr. Speaker, let the hon. member for Essex East and his fellow members in the opposition and those of the New Democratic party go and ask the Canadian municipalities their views on the winter works program, thanks to which schemes that seemed impossible to carry out under the Liberal administration, have become a magnificent reality under Conservative rule. Let the hon. member and his colleagues consider the facts, and they will realize that, thanks to the winter works program, we have brought work to 500,000 homes and allowed Canadian municipalities to carry out long-awaited projects.
Mr. Speaker, I should like the hon. members opposite and especially my Liberal friends from Quebec sitting in the opposition, to tell me how it is that, if this winter works program is as harmful as the hon. member for Essex East would like us to believe, the first move of Mr. Lesage's government when it came to power on the provincial scene in Quebec was precisely to adopt this winter works program thought out from scratch and carried out by the government of the Prime Minister, while-


Mr. Denis:: Adding 40 per cent to it, because it was not adequate.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: When we came to power, Mr. Speaker, the economy of the country was in fact in a depressed condition, which condition had been caused by the bad management and the carelessness of those who preceded us here on the government benches.
Since we took over, we have repeatedly heard in this house the laments of the hon. members opposite. We have seen them rise one after another and doom our wonderful Cana-
The Address-Mr. Sevigny dian nation to despair, dismay and almost hunger.
We have listened to them because it was our duty to do so, but while they were talking, we Conservatives were acting. In fact, as a result of the dynamic and energetic work done during these past four years, as is shown by the reports of economists, Canada has moved forward to new peaks. Under a Conservative administration and under the intelligent leadership of our leader, whom we respect and admire, we are bound to achieve the apotheosis of our great destiny.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has worked as a team. We all have joined with our leader for whom we have respect, admiration and affection. True enough, we occasionally have different opinions, but we are interdependent and the decisions of the Conservative government are the result of common agreement.
And whatever our Liberal opponents and their supporters may think, the French-speaking ministers from the province of Quebec play as important a role as our Englishspeaking colleagues from Quebec and from the other provinces. We can express our views, and through the fair-mindedness that we all recognize in him, the Prime Minister willingly listens to us. In fact, whenever our representations are justified, we get results.
Mr. Speaker, some Liberal members take pleasure in repeating that the ministers from the province of Quebec are exceptionally weak and did not get anything for the province of Quebec since the Conservative party took over in June 1957.
To those who talk such language, whether they are actively engaged in politics as members of parliament or candidates; to those who are in the press gallery or elsewhere, and who work for our dailies or periodicals, I say this: facts are always more convincing than words.
Let us look at those facts briefly and reach the justified conclusion that the Conservatives from Quebec, the government members and members of the cabinet of the Prime Minister, have obtained more for Quebec in four years than the Liberals who preceded us during their 22 years in power.
Allow me to give you a brief outline of what has been achieved in the cultural field.
988	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Sevigny
Let us take, for instance, simultaneous interpretation, the appointment of a very distinguished French-speaking Canadian to the post of governor general; the solution to the problem which faced French Canadians as a result of the national census form; the satisfactory solution of the problem of assistance to the universities, a problem which our predecessors have never managed to solve. Now, let us say a word of the progress of bilingualism in all sectors of the federal administration, of the use made by the Prime Minister and of his colleagues of bilingual stationery, of the use of the French language in the orders and instructions given to the French-speaking units of our armed forces. Let us say a word also of the introduction of bilingual cheques, which had been claimed for a long time during the Liberal administration which preceded us, but which had always been refused to Frenchspeaking Canadians.
And I could mention many other measures to prove that national unity is very dear to the Prime Minister, that it is the very basis of his political thought. Many were the other steps taken by the Conservative ministers from the province of Quebec who are so ably supported by the French-speaking members from Quebec, to give that province its fair share, thus carrying out the promises made during the election campaigns which led the Conservative party to victory in 1957 and 1958.
The Conservative party's achievements are great in the economic field. For instance, there is the construction of new airports, new wharves, new post offices, public buildings, the Champlain bridge, to say nothing of harbour improvements which total $60 million.
We have introduced a bill for the construction of a railroad in the Gaspe peninsula We have also undertaken negotiations for the abolition of tolls on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges, a measure which has been requested for the past 30 years but which was always refused by the Liberals.
Thanks to the contracts awarded by the federal government and to the resulting subcontracts, our industries are most active.
Indeed, the government's achievements are many and great, Mr. Speaker. Few are the ridings of our province which have not enjoyed exceptional advantages because of the energetic action taken by the Conservative members and ministers of the present government.


Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock? Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Associate Minister of National Defence has called it one o'clock.
(Text):
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m. (Translation):
Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, before we took recess at one o'clock, I was saying that within the federal cabinet, the French-speaking ministers from the province of Quebec hold a position equal to that held by their English-speaking colleagues from Quebec and all the other provinces.
It is false to contend, Mr. Speaker, that our ministers from Quebec play a secondary role within the federal cabinet. It is too often contended by Liberal friends opposite that we are left in the background and that our responsibilities do not have the importance they should have considering the place that the province of Quebec holds within confederation. Nothing is farther from the truth.
Who, among members opposite could say that the transport department ably represented by the Hon. Leon Balcer, is a second rate department? On the contrary, that department is one of the most important on the federal scene and it is surely the one that gives its minister the greatest amount of work.
The Hon. Leon Balcer has fulfilled his task with competence and dignity. All those who have had matters to settle concerning railways, aeronautics, national harbours, etc., have nothing but praise for Mr. Balcer, who has been up to the confidence he was shown.
The defence production department, led by the Hon. Raymond O'Hurley, looks after defence purchases for the whole of Canada. Because of Mr. O'Hurley's initiative, for the first time since 1939, it may be said that his department has bought more in Canada than in the United States.
To fill the post of Secretary of State and chairman of the privy council, we have a lawyer of national repute, a great speaker

and a great patriot. Thanks to Mr. Noel Dorion's efforts, it can be said that bilingualism has made giant strides throughout Canada.
Who, among the opposition or elsewhere, could say that there exists in Canada a more important function than that of looking after the development of our mining resources and the improvement of technical surveys? At the head of this most important department, the Prime Minister has placed the Hon. Jacques Flynn, a lawyer of great renown who is also a great speaker, and who has won the admiration of all those who know him.
Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence alone spends 30 per cent of the public funds. Two ministers share the task of administering the affairs of this department. I will not claim like our friends of the opposition who profess to know all there is to know about everything-that I have become an authority on all matters related to national defence, but, after listening to the criticism made by the opposition and the new party during the debate on the department's estimates toward the end of the last session, I can state, in all modesty, that I am ready to discuss this question on any husting, on radio or television, with any critic of the official opposition. I think that I could easily show that the Conservative government has given Canada a wise and efficient defence policy.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset of my remarks, facts talk louder than words. And we have facts to prove that during four years in office, the French-speaking ministers from the province of Quebec have achieved more for the cause of French Canada and for the province of Quebec than the so-called supermen of the Liberal party during the 22 years they sat on cabinet benches.
I have feelings of esteem and friendship for our predecessors on the cabinet benches who were ministers in the Mackenzie King and St. Laurent administrations. I would not want to offend or insult them by useless words, but I think I can say that men such as Leon Balcer, Raymond O'Hurley, Noel Dorion and Jacques Flynn also have ability and have proven that they can be compared in every respect to men such as Pinard, Cote, Lapointe and Chevrier-


An hon. Member:: Do not forget Lesage.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: -who sat on cabinet benches under a Liberal administration, and I in-26207-1-63
The Address-Mr. Sevigny elude in that list the name of the present premier of the province of Quebec, the Hon. Jean Lesage.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the ministers from the province of Quebec have shown themselves worthy of the confidence placed in them by the people of our province. They came here, in Ottawa, fully conscious of the importance of the mandate entrusted to them by their electors. When they first came here, they were perhaps somewhat ignorant of parliamentary procedure and, at times, they may have been awkward. But they learned, Mr. Speaker, and, having learned, they took action. They will be proud now to display their achievements before the people, and since the people's court is always fair, they will be given their due and the Conservative party will be returned to power with an overwhelming majority after the next election.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Essex East stated a while ago, as it is his duty to do, that he does not endorse the government's economic policies. Moreover, as he and those around him usually do, he came back again on his favourite subject of lament, the question of unemployment, and he repeated the same old stories we have heard on several instances in the house.
We cannot blame him. No, truly, we cannot blame him, Mr. Speaker, because as he pointed out himself, under our parliamentary system, it is the duty of the opposition to criticize the government. However, he keeps on harping on the same subject, as if he had nothing else to say.
If we were to fall for his eloquence and his persuasive arguments, perhaps we would be convinced. But facts are there to prove that we did take action, that we did give Canada the administration it needed to come out of the recession. The facts are there to prove that Canada is heading for the highest economic destiny under the able leadership of John Diefenbaker and the Conservative party.
(Text):


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the previous speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The previous speaker's time has just expired; therefore unless there is unanimous consent he cannot answer the question.
990	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Michaud


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not seem to be unanimous consent.


Azellus Denis: You are afraid.


Mr. Pigeon:: No, sir.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, I shall be delighted to answer the question the hon. member wishes to ask.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As there now appears to be unanimous consent I would ask the hon. member for Vancouver East to ask the question.


Harold Edward Winch: In view of the remarks of the previous speaker I should like to ask him, in his position as Associate Minister of National Defence, whether there has been a decision on nuclear weapons in Canada or beyond.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, this question has been asked repeatedly by hon. members of the opposition during the last few days and before that. I have nothing to add to what has already been said1 on this matter by those to whom the questions have been directed.


Harold Edward Winch: No answer.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Ask Mr. Argue.
(Translation):


Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent. N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, it is with deep emotion that I rise today to pay tribute to the man who for 13 consecutive years represented my riding in this house, the late Senator Aurele D. Leger who passed on last December 28. No one knows more than I do how much he deserved the testimonies of appreciation and sympathy which have been given since his passing. Never did he fail to give me his wise advice when I sought his opinion. He was always a sincere friend to me and can never be replaced.
A loyal and convinced politician, the late Senator Leger will not be forgotten by the people of the riding of Kent whom he served generously for many years and by all those who knew him.


In this respect, may I now quote a few lines from an article published on the day following his death in L'Evangeline, the national daily newspaper of the Acadians:
Senator Leger was actively concerned with the interests of his county. When he was a member, he dealt with all the problems submitted to him by his constituents.
He was a man of high standards who had only friends, even among his political opponents.
He took an active interest in all aspects of the Acadian cause and, in Ottawa, where he performed his task in a discrete and steadfast way, he was the spokesman of all the Acadian people.
Mr. Speaker, the crowd which attended1 Senator Leger to his last resting place on the day of his funeral, including many prominent citizens from all parts of the country, was a silent but moving tribute which showed the very high esteem in which the deceased was held.
In the name of the constituents of the county of Kent, in the name of his friends and in my own name, I offer our deepest feelings of sympathy to the widow and the family of the regretted Senator Aurele Leger. May God, who has called him back, reward him for the good he has done by granting him everlasting life.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to stress a point in the course of this debate: unemployment insurance for fishermen. In order, no doubt, to test public opinion on the matter, the merits of unemployment insurance allowances to our fishermen have been questioned for some time, as we have noticed.
I do not know what are the real motives behind this stand, but I say it would be unfair to attempt to deprive of this social security measure as deserving a sector of our population as that of our fishermen.
I also want to take violent exception to the other measure, concerning help to Newfoundland fishermen, which the government recently adopted, but neglected to apply to the fishermen of my own area, although they needed it more than anybody.
The fishermen of my constituency, in particular, had a very bad year in 1961. They could have taken advantage of a measure similar to the one adopted for Newfoundland fishermen. A bare majority of them were eligible to the benefits of the seasonal unemployment insurance plan. Consequently, you can imagine the plight of those fishermen at this time, if they did not get their insurance benefits.
On top of that, we should not now consider depriving them of the benefits of unemployment insurance. That would be a discriminatory measure toward those people

who, very often at the risk of their own lives, embark upon perilous adventures in the hope of making a catch which represents the daily bread of their families.
Before entertaining such unjustifiable intentions towards those fishermen, we should consider providing them with other means of subsistance than the meagre ones which they now have at their disposal. The unemployment insurance act for fishermen is a measure introduced by the former Liberal government to supplement the lack of revenue of small fishermen. It would be inconceivable to now think of abolishing it.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, it has been said that the speech from the throne was more remarkable for what it did not say than for what it actually revealed. What is essentially the main economic problem of today, namely unemployment, was virtually ignored.
The question of unemployment as applied to the maritime provinces is of particular significance. We cannot ignore the fact that economic conditions in those provinces as compared with the national picture reveal a situation which is twice as severe as it is in the most prosperous areas of the country. It is a problem which arouses the concern of every public minded maritimer. Public bodies as a whole are giving this matter their intense attention and thorough study.
I should like at this time to make a few observations derived from a study made on this matter by the Atlantic provinces economic council, commonly known as APEC. In the maritime provinces since 1940 personal income per capita has been about 70 per cent of personal income per capita in all Canada. What are the major economic factors, therefore, which cause the differentials between the Atlantic provinces and Canada as a whole? One important factor is the participation of persons of working age in the labour force. In the maritime provinces about 50 per cent of the total population of 14 years of age and over participate in gainful employment. In Newfoundland the labour force participation rate is about 45 per cent. In all Canada it is about 55 per cent, while in Ontario the rate is approximately 57 per cent. The slower pace of development in the Atlantic provinces is the factor which causes the lower rate of labour force participation, and at the same time this low rate is a factor helping to produce a lower per capita income.
Furthermore, no account has ever been taken of unemployment among self-employed persons in the Atlantic provinces. Relatively high unemployment is usually considered to be 26207-1-631
The Address-Mr. Michaud characteristic of such occupations as farming, fishing and logging. Because these occupations are proportionally more important in the Atlantic region, any so-called unemployment assessment is probably an understatement. Seasonal unemployment is a problem in Canada, but nowhere in the country is it a greater problem than in the Atlantic provinces.
What are now the main causes for this situation? The first cause is a lack of investment. Investment, it should be noted, performs at least two very important functions. First, during the construction process investment is responsible for generating employment and income. Second, when construction is completed investment spending has provided a stock of capital goods to assist management and labour in the production of more goods and services. As applied to the Atlantic provinces, during the 1949-58 period, new investment per capita in fixed capital assets was only 57 per cent of the total new investment per capita figure in Canada as a whole. During the same period new business investment amounted to about one half of total new investment in the Atlantic provinces, as compared with 61 per cent in Canada as a whole.
It must be emphasized that new investment has greater ability to directly provide continuing employment. On the other hand, investment by government departments, investment in housing and investment in various institutional projects has a relatively low ability to provide employment directly once construction has been completed. Non-business investment accounted for nearly half the total new investment in the Atlantic provinces during the 1949-58 period, as compared to 39 per cent in all Canada. Thus not only is per capita investment relatively low in the Atlantic region, but total investment is directed to a greater extent to those sectors where the ability to provide continuing employment is limited.
From APEC studies it has become apparent that levels of income are lower in the Atlantic provinces because fewer persons of working age seek work, because unemployment among those who do enter the labour force is higher, and because investment is lower than in other parts of Canada. Moreover the rate of earning is lower, largely because a greater proportion of the labour force is engaged in low-productivity occupations relative to the rest of Canada.
We must now inquire more fully, continues this APEC study, into the nature and structure of the regional economy in order to locate the underlying causes of this situation. The three primary occupations of farming, fishing and logging have traditionally played an important and complementary role in the

The Address-Mr. Michaud economy of the maritime provinces. In spite of declining employment in these three groups of industries they continue to maintain a relatively high proportion of subsistence workers. This was described in the Gordon report as one of the most striking features of the economy of the Atlantic provinces. The report then suggested that the proportionally large number of subsistence workers is an important reason for the region's low income levels. The situation obviously, then, is closely related to the lag in economic growth.
In view of the nature of the markets which are likely to prevail for food products, we expect our agricultural output to expand. However, it is likely that the increased output of farm products will be accomplished by that part of the industry which has adopted the larger size of operation, a higher degree of mechanization and increased productivity. This means that labour which is no longer required must move to other occupations, or become congested in subsistence farming areas, or both.
Owing to the present subsistence character of much primary logging and saw milling activity, there is little long term prospect of any substantial increase in employment opportunities in the lumbering industry. Expanded output will likely be accomplished, as in agriculture, by improved efficiency and productivity resulting from heavier capitalization and larger size of operations. This will result in a continuing exodus of lumber workers from primary operations, accompanied by the retention of considerable subsistence characteristics.
The fish and fish processing industry occupies an important position in the economy. A significant trend during the post-war period has been concentration of activity in fewer ports, accompanied by the building of modern fishing vessels and processing plants. It is suggested that the sections of the industry which have made this adjustment have created a firm foundation for continued growth and prosperity. Unfortunately the entire industry has not been able to make the adjustment, and there remain areas of subsistence operations where productivity is extremely low. In view of these factors it is difficult to foresee any reversal of a recent trend toward a declining labour force in the fish and fish processing industries.
It is therefore indicated that labour has been displaced from the agriculture, lumber and wood using, and fish and fish processing industries. Employment must therefore be found for these displacements. So far indications point to the fact that it is the construction industry and the service trades which have performed the function of absorption. Total employment in the industrial sectors referred

to has dropped by about 40,000 since 1949, but only about 14,000 new jobs have been created in construction in the Atlantic provinces during the same period.
We cannot look to the construction industry to absorb an ever increasing number of workers. It is true that in the years ahead a vigorous expansion of the service industries can be foreseen. It is forecast that employment in Canada will have more than doubled by 1980, and the Atlantic provinces will share in this general increase. However, if some shift of Canadian industrial development to the Atlantic provinces does not take place, the rate of employment growth in the service industries is likely to be correspondingly less pronounced in this region.
Employment now in resource based manufacturing has grown more rapidly since 1949 in the central provinces, the prairie provinces and in British Columbia than it has in the Atlantic provinces. In the Atlantic provinces the increase in the number of workers in resource based manufacturing industries was 2 per cent higher in 1957 than in 1949; in the central provinces it was up by 15 per cent, in the prairie provinces by 32 per cent and in British Columbia by 27 per cent. In spite of the advances made in resource based manufacturing industries in the Atlantic provinces, these industries were not successful in opening employment opportunities to the extent that this has occurred in other regions.
Neither have the Atlantic provinces been successful in expanding non-resource based manufacturing in order to provide substantial new employment. Between 1949 and 1957 secondary manufacturing employment rose by 17 per cent in the prairie provinces, by 18 per cent in the central provinces, by 28 per cent in British Columbia but only by 1 per cent in the Atlantic provinces.
To summarize, may I say this. Chronic unemployment persists in our region. Growth of output is indicated in many of the resource based industries, but their ability to absorb labour is low, and in certain industries like coal mining, agriculture and lumbering, employment has been and still is declining. The expansion of secondary manufacturing has been slow, and few new employment opportunities have been created The service industries will continue to expand but at what rate is uncertain. The outlook is for lack of job opportunities for our people or a waste of our nation's manpower resources.
One of the great challenges for Canada is to find a way in which to attain a better balance in economic development among the several regions which constitute the nation. This is essentially a national problem, and

it should be attacked in its national context. We believe that the people of the Atlantic provinces have the enterprise and the initiative with which to achieve a higher standard of living, but they need the active support of all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, this study made by the Atlantic provinces economic council commands the sympathetic consideration of all those who are interested in the welfare of the maritime provinces. It is obvious that drastic measures must be undertaken to raise the economic standards existing in the maritime provinces to the same standard levels as those which exist in other parts of the country.
Besides the suggestions already embodied in the study made by APEC there is one main project which is constantly alive at the present time in the minds of all mari-timers. I have referred in the past to the construction of the Chignecto canal. I wish to repeat at the present time, and with the same emphasis, what I have already said on this subject in this house on a previous occasion, as found at page 1458 of Hansard of 1961:
In the field of transportation, we in the Atlantic region continue to stress the necessity of the Chignecto canal project as a national extension of the St. Lawrence seaway. Without it the impact of the seaway on the maritime region may well be adverse. Now that the federal government has the benefit of the views of the new Minister of Forestry, who always was such a strong promoter of this project, perhaps we can look with greater confidence to its early commencement.
The undertaking of the project would also provide a wide field of local employment to our working force, as well as fostering the development and expansion of our commercial and industrial life.
Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the opening of what was generally assumed to be the last session of the twenty fourth parliament, the Prime Minister was expected to announce a policy of national investment in the Atlantic region on a scale calculated to end, once and for all, the grievous disabilities suffered there since confederation. It would have caused relief and rejoicing throughout the four Atlantic provinces and would have been welcomed throughout Canada as a bold and honourable settlement of a just debt which would have turned out to be a highly profitable national investment.
Unfortunately, however, nothing of that nature was contained in the speech from the throne. One therefore wonders what has happened to the main resolutions adopted by the Progressive Conservative candidates on the eve of the 1957 election and endorsed by the present Prime Minister. What are the Progressive Conservative candidates from the Atlantic region, who are representing over
The Address-Mr. Chatterton three quarters of the electoral district in that region, expecting to do in this regard? What are they expecting to do particularly with regard to the three resolutions which I should like to quote at this time:
1.	A national development program of federal assistance for developing the resources of the Atlantic provinces, having regard to their differing needs and varying financial capabilities.
2.	Industrial decentralization, by placing a more equitable share of defence contract expenditures within the Atlantic provinces; by the establishment of crown corporations; and by encouraging private enterprises to locate in the area; and by encouraging the processing here of our natural resources as a result of special fiscal consideration.
3.	Capital projects program, to provide federal capital assistance for provincial projects to enlarge the basic economy of the area.
At this late date one can but conclude that these resolutions only represent further broken promises made by the Conservative party during the last two general elections. Can there be any doubt that it would be better for Canada's economy to invest on a great scale in the creation of lasting assets in order to vitalize the Atlantic economy, rather than to continue to pay hundreds of millions of dollars just to keep us alive?
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote what Professor Smith, president of APEC, has to say in this respect:
Let us spend more money in those new and permanent installations that will create jobs in the Atlantic provinces, so that less, much less be spent in the future, on such items that simply help to maintain incomes, but do little, or nothing to solve the basic economic problems.
And from another source:
You have got to have subsidies and unemployment payments if you have disastrously low income standards and unemployment. But they should only be for short terms. Compare this with the lasting benefits of growth investment. Our recommendations are for designed complexes of growth industries, which can hold their own with the major concentrations in southeastern England.


Mr. George Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: It is with humility, Mr. Speaker, that I rise to speak from a place once occupied by an eminent Canadian, namely General George R. Pearkes, V.C. I am sure all hon. members will be pleased to hear that His Honour, with the help of his lady, is fulfilling the office of lieutenant governor of British Columbia with the acclaim and admiration of all.
I congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I have read other such speeches, but this is the first time I have heard them in person, and I was favourably impressed. I offer congratulations to the hon. member for Bellechasse on his appointment as president of the privy council; to the hon. member for Quebec South on his appointment as Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys; to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the parliamentary

The Address-Mr. Chatterton secretaries and others who have been elevated. I express my joy in seeing our Speaker in good health and my satisfaction in knowing that the proceedings of this house will be guided by his firm impartiality.
Every member of the house is proud of certain things in his riding. There is one aspect of my riding of Esquimalt-Saanich which is rather unique. I refer to our mild climate. I have here a clipping from a Victoria newspaper which circulates in my riding.


Harold Edward Winch: Is the hon. member suggesting that the House of Commons has any control over the climate of Canada?


George Louis Chatterton: I did not hear the hon. member well, so I do not understand what he said. The clipping is from the issue of January 30, and it contains a picture of the crocuses and other flowers. I mention this not in boastfulness but because there is a connection between the climate of my riding and certain items contained in the speech from the throne. Because of the salubrious climate many fine people from elsewhere in Canada and from other parts of the world come to settle there, and in particular many of our senior citizens come there to enjoy the advantages of the area. I am therefore very pleased with the increase of $10 in payments to old age security recipients, effective as of February 1 last.
I made the few notes I have, Mr. Speaker, before the debate on the speech from the throne was interrupted by certain important measures. Since then I have listened to the debates carefully, particularly with regard to the question of pensions. I was very impressed with the Prime Minister's speech on February 8, a speech that I like to look upon in my own mind as the "horns of the dilemma" speech. At that time the Prime Minister pointed out that social security payments had increased from $1.3 billion in 1956-57 to $2.3 billion in 1961-62. He also pointed out that increases in payments of all kinds to the provinces and to provincial institutions had increased from $689 million in 1956-57 to approximately $1.47 billion in 1961-62. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, these increases in payments to the provinces could have been used by the provinces to relieve the municipalities and the property taxpayers. I know that in the case of British Columbia this unfortunately was not done.
Reverting to the Prime Minister's speech on February 8, I would point out that he put a question to the Leader of the Opposition. The question was this. Which of these measures, payments in respect of which increased from 1956-57 to 1961-62 by something in 
the order of $lf billion, would the opposition have eliminated? It was a clear question. I have heard equivocation, I have heard aspersions, but I have heard no answer in spite of the fact that the official opposition supposedly has all the answers. I heard many references to election promises and, Mr. Speaker, that brings me to a quotation from an editorial in the Victoria daily Colonist of January 31, 1962. The editorial is headed "The Growing List", and reads as follows:
It was just a little more than three months ago in Victoria that Mr. Lester Pearson made his now famous "no-promises" speech which was hailed by his followers as the introduction of a new and courageous Liberal party policy. It was then that Mr. Pearson bravely declared that his party would in future devote itself to planning practical and progressive action rather than "planning by irresponsible promises which . .. cannot be carried out."
Unkindly perhaps, but naturally, it was noted at the time of this revolutionary approach to election campaigning by the national Liberal leader that his party had already committed itself to an impressive list of promises-promises, to mention a few, ranging from a reduction in income tax to the institution of a free national health plan, from guarantees of full employment to the underwriting of low rental housing, from increasing veterans pensions to giving financial assistance to power, transport and other economic developments *-all without cost to the taxpayer.
Many Canadians took Mr. Pearson at his word to generously overlook these earlier pledges, satisfied perhaps that, as the Liberal party had already saturated the field of promises, its leader could now safely promise that there would be no further promises. On the face of things there did, indeed, appear to be nothing left to promise.
But, as was quickly proven, any thoughts along these lines failed to show an appreciation of the ingeniousness of Mr. Pearson and his cohorts, for, incredible though it may seem, the list of Liberal promises is still growing. So expert have they become in the science of making pledges that they have extended their operations to take in regional levels on a selective promise basis. This newest phase was explained Sunday in some detail by Maurice Sauve, the Liberal party's Quebec public relations director.
In briefing the Liberal national campaign committee in Ottawa he told them that Liberal workers must get about the ridings and find out what people want. There was no use promising bridges if they wanted hospitals, he said. Thus it would appear that even though the Liberals have run out of national promises they still have the parishes to work on. What price Mr. Pearson's promise not to promise now? Or don't the little ones count?
That will take care of the question of election promises so often referred to by hon. members opposite.
My area also has a very large percentage of veterans, particularly older veterans and veterans with war disabilities. As a tribute to those veterans, and particularly to those who are handicapped by virtue of their war disabilities, I should like to mention the name of one as representing all the veterans who have war disabilities. I refer to one of my constituents by the name of John Windsor. He was wounded and blinded in the Melfa

river battle where Canadian troops distinguished themselves. This constituent has just written a book called "Blind Date", and it gives me pleasure to read the foreword to his book by Major General Hon. George R. Pearkes, V.C., C.B., D.S.O., M.C., lieutenant governor of British Columbia. This is what General Pearkes says in his foreword:
I am very glad John Windsor has told his story. He was a popular cadet at the Royal Military College and a promising junior officer in Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians).
His writing combines a unique style of drama and humour. It is a Canadian saga, told simply with great restraint. The result is vivid and moving; a truly remarkable piece of writing.
All his friends in Canada and England will be pleased, I am sure, that John has given this book to us from his generation.
I expect that the book will soon be in the library of parliament, and I commend it to all members of the house as a great effort by a blind Canadian veteran.
So far as veterans are concerned, the Prime Minister has made it clear on many occasions through many means that we shall never forget those who fought for their country, and those who were bereaved in the effort. It is therefore no surprise to see in the throne speech recognition of these worthy citizens. I note with satisfaction that the effective dates of the War Services Grants Act, the Veterans Land Act and others are to be extended. I suggest to the government that these statutory deadlines in these pieces of legislation create certain anomalies and inequities. When the time comes-we have until 1968-I shall make further representations on that score. We know that this type of legislation benefits not only the veterans but benefits Canada as a whole.
Having had considerable experience in the administration of veterans legislation I should like to make one or two suggestions. The resolution with regard to the Veterans Land Act has not been brought before the house as yet, and although it is indicated in the throne speech that the deadline will be extended, there is no reference to the further changes to be made. I hope there will be certain improvement, particularly to the Veterans Land Act. I point out to the government that the present $10,000 limit in parts 1 and 3 of the Veterans Land Act is not as realistic now as it was a few years ago. In addition, the $10,000 limit on advances under part 2 of the Veterans Land Act is inadequate and should be increased to the amount of the loan, as is the case under the National Housing Act.
I suggest also that, having a precedent where veterans who were not Canadians have received certain benefits even though they did not normally live here before the war, the government should give consideration to extending part II of the Veterans
The Address-Mr. Chatterton Land Act to veterans of our allies who did not normally live here before the war. This feature does not involve any direct monetary subsidy, but it does encourage self-help. I know there are large numbers of allied veterans who would be very happy to be made eligible under part II of the Veterans Land Act.
Our senior citizens and our veterans, Mr. Speaker, have received some attention in the throne speech. However, there is another group of Canadians who I think are worthy of some attention. I refer to ex-civil servants and ex-armed forces personnel who were superannuated some years ago. I know that about four years ago this government introduced an adjustment in pensions which affected many of these people. I do believe, however, that many of them are suffering hardship. I know this government cannot do everything in five years, especially all that was left undone in 22 years, but I think these people may deserve further consideration from our government. I feel that in time this will be done.
The throne speech refers to some of Canada's activities in the international field. I am particularly impressed with the reiteration of the traditional policy of this government toward strengthening the commonwealth as an instrument of peace and freedom. It was most distasteful, Mr. Speaker, to hear members on the opposite side attempt to discredit the performance, as it were, of Canada in the international scene, to cast reflections and belittle the efforts of our Secretary of State for External Affairs. However, the rebuttal made by the Minister of Finance on January 24 and by the Minister of Veterans Affairs the next day was like a fresh breeze blowing over waters muddied by the opposition. I am sure Canadians as a whole will accept their version of our position in international affairs.
Vast distances and many differences lie between the island of Newfoundland and Vancouver island. I think, though, that the islands of Canada have at least one factor in common, that is a feeling almost akin to isolation and sometimes neglect. I am glad, therefore, for the people of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia when I see they will be receiving an automobile ferry service provided by the federal government. There are many people on Vancouver island who feel that under terms of confederation the federal government has a certain responsibility for providing transportation between the mainland and Vancouver island. I hope that this precedent on the Atlantic coast may in time be applicable on the Pacific coast.

The Address

Mr. Chatterton
I must say, too, that many people in British Columbia are not aware of the fact that this government does in fact pay a subsidy toward transportation across the straits of Georgia. This is in the form of a 40 per cent subsidy applied to the construction cost of the two ferries already built which service this strait and the two new ones under construction. There will be others. In eifect, therefore, this government does contribute something toward transportation in that area.
More and more, Mr. Speaker, this is becoming an age of technology where higher education, technical and vocational proficiency are important. Our government is already contributing generously in these fields, but the proposed increase of some 33 per cent in grants to universities is timely and far sighted. This assistance will be particularly welcome to the University of Victoria. This institution had an enviable record as the former Victoria college, but is now a full fledged, degree granting university which is expanding at the phenomenal rate of something like 400 pupils per annum. I know this university will welcome this additional assistance, particularly in view of the fact that certain assistance from the province was withdrawn from that institution this year.
The throne speech mentions acreage payments, and that matter has been dealt with by the house. This does not affect my riding, but it does indicate the attitude of this government toward the farmers of Canada. My own riding contains a large percentage of small farmers. The Farm Credit Act, itself an excellent piece of legislation, is very helpful, too. However, I estimate that some 75 per cent of the farmers in my riding could not qualify for assistance under this act. I think in due course the government, with its usual concern for the farmers, will give some thought to some assistance to these smaller farmers who cannot qualify for assistance under the Farm Credit Act.
In spite of the gloom and doom so generously spread by certain people there is a feeling of optimism in my riding, where the future promises much as a result of the positive measures taken by this government. Industries are expanding, and although I must admit that the present employment situation in H.M.C. Dockyard is not too good, the fact is that the shipbuilding industry is expanding. The future in that regard is very promising, largely as a result of the subsidies introduced by this government.
Because of the federal assistance given under the winter works program for sewage works and so on, municipalities, particularly the municipality of Saanich, are undertaking worthwhile projects which otherwise might

have been left undone. But in spite of this glowing picture there is one group in my riding who face the future with some concern. I refer to the commercial fishermen. Although the government has enacted certain measures to assist commercial fishermen, I believe some consideration might be given to more research and experimentation in connection with the preservation and restoration of the resources in the sea, and to an investigation into some means for better distribution of this crop amongst those who harvest it.
There is a general upsurge of economic activity in my riding and it is gratifying to note the references in the throne speech to extending the expansionist measures already undertaken by our government. In this regard I quote two headlines from the Victoria daily Colonist. The first appeared on January 13, 1962, and read "Victoria port business soars to all time high." No doubt that is largely due to the exports which have been promoted by the government. The other headline from the daily Colonist of January 6, 1962, reads: "More people working than in past decade." Judging by the previous reaction of members opposite to suggestions of good tidings, no doubt they will bring out their brushes dripping with black colour paints but I believe the mass of Canadians have a greater insight into this government's accomplishments and will so indicate at the appropriate time.


Frank Howard: Now that we are back on the throne speech we can engage in discussion on a variety of things. It affords members an opportunity to do substantially what the hon. member for Es-quimalt-Saanich just did, and affords them an opportunity to talk about particular matters that may have arisen even within the last few hours. For my part I would like to reiterate, as I did in past sessions, a thought or thoughts concerning parliament itself. I do not attempt to say this out of any desire to degrade parliament or anybody in it, but I believe parliament as an institution is more of a dictatorship than it is a democratic institution.
Over quite a number of years there has been a growth in the strengthening and popularizing of the party system. Because of this development of the party system, more rigid control and authority is placed in the hands of a cabinet than was originally conceived many years ago when the thought of responsible government first came to the attention of our forefathers. We have a great desire to express our differences of opinion behind closed doors in caucus, and that is especially so on the government side. In making that statement I am not applying it to

this particular government. When I say "government side" I mean whatever government happens to be in office, whether here or in any of the provinces under the party system, and the result of that tendency is an unfortunate decline in the role of the individual member.
On practically all issues, crucial or otherwise, we find that party lines are drawn. We find it an accepted fact that a person considers he must vote with his party in any division or vote called in the house. It is the exception which proves this. Just the other day we had a vote with respect to a certain subject matter relating to papers, at which time one hon. member broke ranks and voted according to his individual feelings. I commend him for that action and I believe there should be more of it. Without it we promote the party system and enhance the control which cabinet and government already have over parliament, while at the same time we discuss less and less the opinions of individual members. Thus parliament becomes more dictatorial.
On traditional occasions such as this when hon. members make formal speeches we find that on the government side they start off by commending the government for all the sunshine and blaming the opposition for all the rain. On the opposition side we find the tendency is to do just the opposite. While this may occasionally produce some fun and laughter I do not believe it adds a very great deal to what we are attempting to do in parliament itself.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Do you refer to Mr. Argue?


Frank Howard: I see my mouthy Union Na-tionale friend taking the floor, using his traditional approach of sitting and exercising his vocal cords. If my hon. friend would listen, and pay attention in the same way as I do to speakers from the other side, he would know that I have already said that I do not think this is the fault of any one party or any one government. It is an unfortunate growth which has developed over the years, but the solution to it can come about very easily and simply. It only requires a prime minister with a degree of courage and a desire to see parliament function to its fullest possible extent, a prime minister who, by a mere statement, will indicate to parliament that so far as the government is concerned it is not going to require its backbenchers to continue to operate as mere ciphers and vote on each issue that comes before parliament as though it were a complete party issue.


Mr. Graffiey:: This is the anarchy wing of the N.D.P.
The Address-Mr. Howard


Frank Howard: I should like to see that day arrive nor does it particularly matter whether it starts in any of the provinces. The provincial governments are equally guilty in following this practice. Mr. Speaker, I try my best to hear most of these usually inane comments from the other side, but oft times I miss them. I wish hon. members, if they want to interject, would do so in a proper fashion. I know many of them enjoy doing it, not for the purpose of contributing anything sensible to the debate but just to speak closely to the ear of the Hansard reporter, in order that what these hon. members consider to be their bright comments appear on the record.
I should like to deal with the all-important question of the need for a health plan in Canada providing coverage on a prepaid basis to the people of this nation to ensure that their illnesses will be treated expeditiously, and to ensure that they will not have to fret and worry about the wherewithal to pay doctors' and other bills when illness does strike. I am sure we all remember the glowing terms in which the Prime Minister some years ago referred to what he would do if he got into office, even with respect to the half way measure which we have in the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. One of the bad cheques which the Prime Minister wrote related to the inclusion of tubercular sanatoria under that act. Another referred to the inclusion of mental hospitals, and another related to including in the formula for payment from the federal treasury to the provinces an amount taking into account the depreciation of the hospitals' capital facilities. Each and every one of these things was promised. They promised to extend the coverage to tubercular sanatoria and to mental hospitals, and to take into account the question of depreciation.
Each one of these three promises has been forgotten, discarded and broken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the government in office. It is bad enough that political promises are so lightly looked upon, but when they relate to the welfare, well-being and health of the citizens of this country it makes it that much worse. In this respect the record of Canada is one of which we should not be too proud.
The record is one of the Liberal party wandering in the darkness for 40 years following its 1919 promise. It is a record of their promoting in parliament the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act under which we would financially assist the provinces in the institution of provincially acceptable hospital insurance coverage programs. It is also a record of this government amending that

The Address-Mr. Howard which I consider to be rather feeble legislation in this field to ensure that it could come into effect more quickly than was envisaged under the Liberal plan. This is the record in Canada.
In a few years' time we will be celebrating our centennial; we will be one hundred years old as a nation, and we still have not any degree of protection, medicalwise, for the people of this nation. I believe it was Germany in the 1800's which first instituted a national health plan for the people of that country. Austria and Hungary had health and medical coverage plans in effect before the turn of the century. Other commonwealth countries, New Zealand, Great Britain and Australia have plans in effect. In short, according to the latest figures I have been able to secure, some 39 or 40 nations in the world have general, all-inclusive, comprehensive medical programs in effect for the people of those nations.
The two countries in the world which pride themselves on having the highest standards of living, the highest income per capita and the best care, notably the United States and Canada, still do not have that degree of care for our people that would push us into putting into effect a program such as we envisage.
As I mentioned, the government in office made a commitment to the people of this nation when it was elected. They made a bargain with them, which was promptly broken, that there would be federal financial participation and coverage for patients in tubercular sanatoria and mental hospitals. This has not taken place yet. It is one of those bad cheques which the Prime Minister wrote.
Let me tell the house what this means with respect to the type of coverage which does exist. The total number-and these figures are taken from hospital statistics developed by the dominion bureau of statistics for the year 1959-indicate that 41 per cent of the hospital bed capacity in this nation is taken up by tubercular sanatoria and mental hospitals, none of which is covered. This means that in so far as the bed capacity is concerned, only 60 per cent of the people of this nation are being covered by the act at present on the statute books of Canada, and 40 per cent are not covered.
With regard to mental hospitals, which depend upon the financial resources of provincial governments, we find overcrowding; and with regard to the bed capacity in mental hospitals-and this is all across the country -they used this capacity to the tune of 110.4 per cent in the year 1959.
This not only indicates that we have an inordinately large number of people in mental

hospitals about whom we should be concerned, but it also indicates that these hospitals are seriously overcrowded. It also indicates that if this government had any real, definite, sincere and honest concern for proper medical coverage in this country, they would have instituted even the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act and amended it in such a way that federal financial help would have been given to the provinces in order that they could carry out a properly planned, over-all scheme of hospitalization and care for mental patients.
All the Prime Minister has done in this regard, after waiting and waiting week after week and month after month, is establish one of his national study groups to deal with this question, a royal commission. We know that so far as a health plan is concerned-I am sure this parliament knows, and I am sure the people of this country know it also-the royal commission established by the Prime Minister was a waste of time, a waste of money and a waste of effort and is nothing more than a subterfuge to cover up the inadequacy, inability and insincerity of this government to deal with this particualr question.


Mr. Palleii:: The ignorance of the hon. member is pre-eminent.


Frank Howard: At least my hon. friend from Peel knows how to pronounce the word "ignorance". Perhaps he has been consulting the Solicitor General (Mr. Browne).


Mr. Nowlan:: The hon. member feels so low today that we must forgive him for using these exaggerated terms.


Frank Howard: 
John Cameron Pallett: That is altogether wrong.


Frank Howard: No doubt we will see the Prime Minister waving reports and documents around and saying to the people: Just re-elect me, and all this is just around the corner. I can hear his voice quavering now.
(Translation):


Mr. Louis Fortin (Monlmagny-L'Islel):: Mr. Speaker, the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne affords the members an opportunity to express their personal opinions and those of their constituents on the widest range of matters. So, I had the widest choice but I thought I should, as the member for a riding in the province of Quebec, deal with a problem of concern not only to the people of my province but to everyone in this country of ours. The separatist movement gained new strength during the fall and experienced, as a result, a growing popularity. The popularity of the movement remains at such a high level that I feel it is useful, and even essential, to analyse briefly the cause that gave birth to it.
Mr. Speaker, the movement is not new. It is the logical and natural consequence of that movement which, at the end of the last century, had a certain strength and remained dormant during the years to experience a renewal of vitality at more or less close intervals and, particularly, during the years that immediately preceded the second world war.
Even if that movement is not new, it still has its value; all the more so since the cause which gave it birth in the past is still very much with us today, although the situation


has improved considerably in the last few years. That cause is the discontent, which is quite often justified, felt by my fellow French Canadians not only in the province of Quebec but throughout Canada.
Out of respect for the justice of that cause, I do not condemn as a whole the separatists who have undertaken a difficult, efficient and useful task, but I am not in agreement with them when they advocate the separation of the province of Quebec from the rest of Canada, because I feel that this ideal is illusory.
Personally, I am truly and deeply convinced that the movement will not achieve its aim, but it will at least have the merit of opening the eyes of my fellow French Canadians to their most sacred rights and those of my fellow English Canadians to their lack of comprehension towards us.
A great uneasiness exists-that fact must be admitted, unless one is blind or dishonest -in the Canadian confederation. Numerous are French Canadians who feel that they are in a strait-jacket. They breathe with difficulty and they feel that they are suffocating. In the province of Quebec, our fellow citizens of English origin and speech, enjoy privileges and advantages which are systematically refused to French Canadians residing in one of the other provinces of Canada. Indeed, when a French Canadian from Quebec, travels to another province and though he is still in his own country, i.e. Canada, he feels like a foreigner and is often much too often made to feel he is a foreigner. In other words, outside his own territory, the French Canadian in just tolerated, and he has the feeling of being the "Errant Canadian" of the well known poem and song.
Why such an anomalous situation? When the Canadian constitution was signed, that is the British North America Act, the terms of that act were thought out, worked out, and duly weighed by the fathers of confederation. French Canadians at the time understood that it was a friendship pact between the two great races which prevailed in Canada. After living under a constitutional rule which to them was unbearable, French Canadians welcomed with joy a new way of life which would place them on equal footing with their fellow citizens of Upper Canada. I say that French Canadian at present consider, and that they have always considered, the con-federative pact as a pact of friendship, and I hope that the other Canadians, whatever their origin may be, look at it the same way.

It would be extremely unfortunate indeed if the same spirit of co-operation and understanding had not inspired all the contracting parties when the confederative pact was signed in 1867.
It is almost a century since the fathers of confederation, Macdonald, Cartier, Chapais, Tache and the others, wanted to unite all Canadians forever and place them on an equal footing. We note with regret that their dream is only half fulfilled. As a matter of fact, we have to admit that the two races stand no longer on an equal footing.
One of the causes of this inequality results from the fact that, under cover of the war, the federal government, with the complicity of provincial governments, and especially that of the province of Quebec, invaded the field of jurisdiction exclusively set apart for the provinces under the confederative pact. I suggest that had our constitution been scrupulously respected, we would not have known certain issues which are now facing us.
Is this the result of ill will on either side? I should not think so. French Canadians have contributed very closely to Canadian unity. English-speaking Canadians have contributed a lot too, but my firm belief is that they would have done much more if they had better known and better understood my compatriots.
I have been more or less actively interested in politics for quite a number of years. During those years, I have heard oftentimes men like Bourassa, Lavergne, my predecessor in Montmagny, and others clamour for justice on behalf of French Canadians. Have we gained any ground since? That is the question.
There have been positive actions; certain attitudes have changed, it is true. This government has given living proof of its understanding towards my fellow citizens. However, I am still convinced that the majority of Canadians have not yet recognized the principle of equality as between Canadians. As far as we are concerned, it is a continuous struggle; we must always fight energetically to obtain, not privileges nor favours, but pure and simple recognition of rights which belong to us.
Here in Ottawa, we are not in the capital of a bilingual country, at least nothing would make us believe so. Yet, we have heard the Queen of Canada speak to Canadians in a very pure French, thus recognizing the bilingual character of this country. Other outstanding personalities have followed in her footsteps. At
The Address-Mr. Fortin the end of my remarks, I shall make certain suggestions which, if implemented, will appreciably correct the present situation.
I am confident that this government, which has given evidence of its good will since it has been in power and which has done more for the recognition of the bilingual character of this country than all preceding governments, will sympathetically consider the suggestions I shall make in all good faith, as the spokesman for 5 million French-speaking Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the causes of separatism are serious, I would even say very serious. I believe that the best way to correct a situation such as the one which we know at present, is to recognize the great principle of the equality of both races and to admit the basis of our rightful claims. The time for election promises, repenting promises like those made in Quebec city by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) a few months ago, is now gone.
The time has now come for all Canadians to make a serious soul-searching and an analysis of the situation. If Canadians want confederation to survive, it is time the great principle of equality of all Canadians be recognized.
I have stressed the fact, a moment ago, that this government has done more than the others to recognize bilingualism in Canada, and I shall give some concrete evidence of this.
When the previous government, in 1952, appointed a Canadian to the post of governor general, its initiative was commendable. However, when the term of office of Mr. Vincent Massey had expired, on February 1, 1957, the then Liberal government missed a unique opportunity to appoint as his successor a Frenchspeaking Canadian.
This government, on August 1, 1959, appointed Major General Vanier, a great diplomat, a gallant soldier, a glorious son of French Canada, as governor general of Canada. It was a day of glory for all Canadians; on that day a new hope was kindled in the hearts of my compatriots.
For many years, the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) asked the former government to provide the House of Commons with simultaneous translation so that members could speak in their mother tongue. This project was not carried out until a Conservative government came into power.

The Address-Mr. Fortin
The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and many of his English-speaking ministers never miss an opportunity to express themselves in French in this house or elsewhere. When the Right Hon. Mackenzie King headed the government, I do not remember that he showed such courtesy to French-speaking Canadians.
During the present session, the Conservative government acceded to a request made by French Canadians and which had been mentioned in this house at every session for the last ten years. I refer to bilingual cheques. Even when the prime minister of Canada was a French Canadian, this reasonable request of our people was always turned down with arrogance and contempt. Some editors who had been advocating such a measure had the indecency of writing that this action of the Conservative government was "too little and too late". We just have to remember our past struggle to realize that it is not "too little"; moreover it is undoubtedly a sign that we will soon have other things we have long been asking for. "Too late"? No, Mr. Speaker, it is never too late to do well.
There is another point I should like to stress and, in that connection, I wish to congratulate very specially the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion), my neighbour. Since the hon. member for Bellechasse became Secretary of State, all forms used at the national printing bureau are printed in both official languages.
Mr. Speaker, every Canadian is aware of this government's achievements. Indeed, the Conservatives from the province of Quebec, who have long been the victims of the Liberals' slander are proud to compare the present government's record with those of previous governments.
What is my personal position towards the separatist movement? I will say frankly-as frankly as I can put it-I am not a separatist. In fact, if I were one, I believe that my place would not be here.
First, I am not convinced that this movement offers a solution to our problems. While I strongly support those of my compatriots who, in good faith, are striving to improve the French Canadians' lot, I feel that secession would mark the beginning of insuperable difficulties for us and also the end of Canada, which would be quickly submerged by the powerful wave of Americanism.
Thus, if we have nothing to gain, if we have everything to lose, should secession come to pass, let us settle our disputes once and for


all and let us not forget the splendid thought which Marshal Petain left with his compatriots in the dark hours of the war, in 1941. Here is what Petain said, and I quote:
Patriotism's first rule is to maintain the country's unity. Were each one to claim the right to his own particular idea of what patriotic duty commands, there would no longer be any country left, nor any nation.
I offer that thought of a great soldier to the meditation of every Canadian. I invite my French speaking compatriots to accept all sacrifices in order to ensure the upholding of our language, our traditions and our culture. However, I am sincerely convinced that those precious gifts can be adequately protected within confederation.
Let us all strive towards the greatness of this Canadian nation of ours. As it has been said, "unity in diversity"; that should be our slogan.
Let us jealously preserve our own entity, let us develop our own culture and let both sides demand a complete respect of each other's rights and privileges. If we want confederation to live and to grow, we must learn to understand each other.
Mr. Speaker, here are the suggestions I want to make in all good faith. There is no doubt that if they are implemented-and I hope they will be-my fellow French Canadians will feel much more at ease within confederation and will try to preserve it rather than fight it. My suggestions, ten in number, are the following:
1.	That governors general be appointed for a five-year mandate only, so that the holders of that high office be alternately Frenchspeaking and English-speaking Canadians.
2.	That a French-speaking associate deputy minister be appointed in each department of the federal government.
3.	Since it is a tradition that the English Canadians of the province of Quebec be represented in the federal cabinet by an Englishspeaking minister, the French-speaking Canadians in the other provinces should have the same privilege and the cabinet should always include a French-speaking minister from one of the other provinces of Canada.
4.	That all signs and posters, both inside and outside the federal buildings, be bilingual, wherever these buildings are located.
5.	That the civil service commission be composed of members speaking both languages and that the commission do not require, as a qualification for people occupying jobs in the province of Quebec, that the applicant know English if it does not require, in the other provinces, that the applicant know French.

Moreover, one third at least of the commissioners should be French-speaking.
6.	That Canada be immediately endowed with an entirely distinctive flag-I need obviously not say that we do not want two flags-and that "O Canada" be officially recognized as the national anthem.
7.	That the final formula tending to bring the Canadian constitution home contain clauses which would guarantee and safeguard the vested rights of French Canadians. In asking for this, I express the numerous requests recently made by my fellow citizens.
8.	That the government consider carefully, and on its merit, the possibility of appointing a royal commission for investigating bilingualism in Canada.
9.	That all high officials in the government and crown companies which are in direct relation with French speaking people, be bilingual, and, moreover, that at least a third of all those high officials be of French origin and culture.
10.	That the first amendment to the constitution, when it is brought home, be in the nature of an official and solemn declaration of Canada's bilingual character.
That, Mr. Speaker, was what I had to say with regard to the separatist movement among our people which is more alive than ever and in respect of our national unity which we want to see fully achieved.
It may seem that French Canadian members frequently repeat their attacks, and that they often ask for the same things. But I would say that, as long as there is a single French Canadian member in this house, he will want to insist on the rights of his fellow citizens.
When, at the start of my remarks, I said that I was not condemning the separatists offhand, I was quite sincere. Indeed, I think that those people have tried, in their own way, to improve the lot of their fellow citizens. Even if I do not agree with their ultimate aim I know that they are in good faith. I shall not be the first to throw a stone at them. I shall rather leave that to him, or those among us who are without blame.
For my part, I would rather work towards the achievement of national unity. I realize that this is no easy task; to unite men of different languages, customs, cultures, ways of thinking and origins is a difficult goal to attain, but it can be done with the goodwill of one and all. I have already had the opportunity, in 1959, of addressing the house on national unity. I come once again to sow the
The Address-Mr. Rouleau good seed, hoping that it will fall on fertile soil.
To bring my remarks to a close, I will get my inspiration from a statement made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) at the Canadian Affairs' meeting, on November 15, 1961. Here is what the minister said:
It is a good thing, therefore, that Canadians should stop from time to time in order to measure the progress achieved, to try to discover the causes of dissension and to take the means to eliminate them. Just like the materials which go to make a building are often invisible, so it is with the elements which make up a nation; and the mistakes made there are so many flaws which, if not attended to while there is still time, eventually will cause the building to collapse. Thus, when examining the mistakes made within the framework of confederation, the point is not to magnify them, but to reduce their effects and to correct them.
We are aware of the flaws. Should we neglect to attend to them today, the price to be paid will be exceedingly high. What will it be? The very existence of the Canadian confederation.


Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I should like to offer the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) my sincere congratulations on his appointment as Deputy Speaker. Ever since he has taken over his new duties, Mr. Speaker, we have been very glad to see that he intends to follow the example you have set. I feel sure that he will wish to show the same honesty and courtesy that you have shown while presiding over the debates and that his decisions will be given in the same spirit of fairness as yours. Thus will be preserved the sacred character of your functions, since you are, in a way, the judge and the guiding hand of your colleagues.
I should also like to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn), who has been named Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. He is the newest member of the cabinet, and he was appointed under the difficult circumstances of the famous cabinet meeting in Quebec, an event preceded with much publicity and fanfare, the ministers having gone there by air, by sea, up hill and down dale. Except for the appointment of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, only wind came out of that meeting and it was greeted with a burst of laughter in the province of Quebec and in all Canada. That is what happened in Quebec, Mr. Speaker, and it is quite in the manner of this government.
It is all very well to give the people a laugh, but with all due deference to the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny), the Canadian people want more

The Address-Mr. Rouleau than only bread and games, they want a sound administration which will ensure economic stability as well as full employment in Canada.
Before I leave this matter of congratulations, I should like to point out a historical event which took place in the province of Quebec last December and more particularly in a part of the riding which I represent in this house. I refer to the election of Mrs. Claire Kirkland-Casgrain, the first lady to be elected to the Quebec legislature. Mrs. Kirkland-Casgrain will blaze a trail in Quebec, because she will open the doors to all the women in the province of Quebec who will want to take part in political life, either in the Quebec legislature or right here, in the parliament of Canada.
Mrs. Kirkland-Casgrain, whom I had the pleasure of knowing when I read law at McGill University, is a devoted mother, a perfect and talented wife who will be a credit to women in provincial politics. And because she is a dutiful woman, every one in the province agrees that she will have a brilliant political future. Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, that I worked on her behalf during her electoral campaign.
Mrs. Kirkland-Casgrain is a Liberal who has gone to join, in Quebec, the team that now directs the destinies of my province, the team that rid Quebec of the dictatorial government that was in power far too long.
The team headed by Hon. Mr. Lesage will see to it that Quebec plays its role within the confederation so that the province will achieve full economic development.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A team of geniuses.


Guy Rouleau: Whether the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm likes it or not, I am paying tribute to the first woman ever to be elected to the Quebec legislature and in so doing, I should like to honour all the women who take an active part in politics throughout Canada and especially those who sit with us in the House of Commons.
I should like to mention in particular the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss La-Marsh), whose many talents are now known to us, and the hon. members for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman), for York-Humber (Miss Aitken), for Kings, P.E.I. (Mrs. Macdonald) and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough).

All those ladies are the pride of womanhood just as Mrs. Kirkland-Casgrain will be in the Quebec legislature. I know that hon. members will join with me in this tribute.
Reverting to the matter under discussion during this debate, and before dealing in particular with the speech from the throne, I should like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address, Messrs. Bour-dages and Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway).
Those two members performed very well the thankless task entrusted to them. However, when I listened to the hon. member for Laval, I thought for a moment that we were back to the times when Mr. Duplessis was in his heyday and when his philosophy prevailed in the province of Quebec. As a matter of fact, when Mr. Duplessis was Quebec premier, he liked to hear his scribes and friends call him the greatest premier since confederation.
As far as the present Prime Minister is concerned, the member for Laval was a little more modest, fearing no doubt the anger of the late Mr. Duplessis. He said that the Prime Minister was one of the greatest since confederation. Carried away by his enthusiasm, the hon. member exclaimed:
-Hail, thrice hail, Mr. Prime Minister.
What a charming sight, Mr. Speaker. For a moment we might have thought we were at the Grand Guignol.
But why this acclaim? Why acclaim the Prime Minister and this government? Why applaud the period of unemployment which we have been going through for the last four years? Why hail them for the slowing down of our economy? Why commend them for the loss of our foreign markets, and for the loss of Canadian prestige on the international scene? Why acclaim them for the blunders regularly committed by the members of the cabinet, and hail them for the contradictions we note between members of the same cabinet? Shall we applaud them for the confusion prevailing on our political scene?
Mr. Speaker, either the hon. member for Laval is blind and fanatical, or he is a very good comedian, and a poker-faced one, too.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Tell us about the two flags.


Guy Rouleau: And after having praised the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and this government's policy, the hon. member for Laval revealed something we probably were not aware of, that is that our country consists of ten provinces. Following this terrific speech, the hon. member confers upon the present Prime Minister the title of "Father of modern Canadianism".

He goes on speaking of a close union between the various Canadian provinces. He tells us that one needs the other, and vice-versa.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder what the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) thought of that, who boasts of being a separatist and who, on January 28 last, even attended the celebration of the fifth anniversary of the foundation of the "Alliance Laurentienne", under the leadership of Mr. Raymond Bar-beau.
While the hon. member for Laval wants to strengthen confederation-and justly so- the hon. member for Roberval-that new, veteran separatist, was unflinchingly and complacently listening to the chairman of the "Alliance Laurentienne", who said:
Five years from now, we will not observe the centenary of confederation, but rather the independence of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, while one Conservative member expounds one dogma, another preaches the opposite. That is a striking instance of the present administration.
Mr. Speaker, I sometimes feel a measure of sympathy for the leader of the Conservative party, the Prime Minister. How can the latter, as leader of the Conservative party, associate himself with members whose philosophies are so absolutely opposed to his own? On the one hand, we see people like the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Small), who openly states in the house his imperialist views and his opinions as an orangeman, and, on the other, men like the member for Roberval, a French-Canadian nationalist, who is opposed to confederation. And, between the two, we have a full range of Union Nationale members who have been sitting in this house since the last election.
Thus, with all these very divergent elements, little wonder that we now have a policy of confusion.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Could I put a question to the hon. member?


Guy Rouleau: The hon. member can ask as many questions as he wants to when I have finished my remarks.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What do you think of the two flags advocated by your party?


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, the comment is as trifling as the one who made it.
Since its coming into power, the Conservative party has acted only on the spur of the moment, and in all fields of activity, with the results that are well known. And evidence of this is given by the speech from the throne, which has been directly inspired by the impending election without any consideration being given to the economy of the
The Address-Mr. Rouleau country. Faced by the imminence of an election, the government is bringing forward costly legislation without taking into account the economic balance of the country, thus risking to upset it.
It is, therefore, not surprising to note, in the editorials published in various newspapers throughout the country, the concern expressed by the editors about the expenses that might result from the carrying out of the measures announced in the speech from the throne.
To give an example may I quote from an editorial published in the Montreal Gazette on the day after the speech from the throne was read:
(Text):
It has come to be expected, as a matter of course, that a government, facing an election, will make promises. But is there not a prior obligation to have the money with which the promises might be carried out? For a government that is already deep in debt and deficits to promise to undertake new commitments, large and lasting, is scarcely to accept responsibility.
Yet this is the pattern outlined in the speech from the throne The government in the current fiscal year is running a deficit that amounts to about $1.3 billion.


Mr. Clancy:: What paper are you reading from?


Guy Rouleau: The Montreal Gazette of January 23, 1962.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, that is why the businessmen and the newspapers are concerned about the policies of the present government which lack consistency and preparation.
As I stated earlier, the present government acts on the spur of the moment. Moreover, the government has brought forward in the speech from the throne legislation which will require the co-operation of the various provincial legislatures in order to be implemented. Proposed legislation has been announced without the provinces having been consulted, for the sole purpose of window dressing on the eve of an election campaign.
The government has announced an increase in old age pensions and the setting up of a contributory pension system without having consulted the provinces.
The increase in pensions for the blind and the disabled persons was also announced without prior consultation with the provinces.
The Senate reform is another measure which I feel requires consultation with the provinces.
1006	HOUSE OF
The Address*-Mr. Rouleau
The assistance program to municipalities, the establishment of a national grid are measures which, in my opinion, come under provincial jurisdiction.
The abolition of tolls on Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges will require the consent of the authorities of the province of Quebec, since the province is a joint owner of those bridges.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the central government has no right to interfere in fields which do not come under its jurisdiction. We have the strict duty to legislate in a field which is ours, but we are forbidden to infringe upon those which come exclusively under provincial jurisdiction.
In a speech he delivered in Quebec on November 6 last, the leader of the Liberal party, the Hon. L. B. Pearson, stated the policy of our party in that field. I wish to quote an excerpt from that speech which he made in Quebec and which he had already made in Winnipeg:
Furthermore, the Liberal party believes in a strong and stable central government, within the limits of its jurisdiction. It is a necessity for the Canadian nation in our troubled world. Such strength however ought not to depend upon the weakness of provincial governments. On the contrary, the balance of our federalism is based also on strong provinces.
And he goes on to say:
Indeed we believe that the federal government should withdraw from the field of joint programs of a permanent nature once those programs are well established across the country. Upon putting an end to its financial participation to those programs, the federal government should compensate the provinces by granting them greater access to the field of direct taxation and adding equalization in order not to increase their financial burden.
Such is the doctrine of the Liberal party, as stated by the leader of the party, concerning the field of federal-provincial relations.
It is absolutely necessary that those who represent the Canadian people in this house be aware that provincial legislatures also have responsibilities to the people they administer.
If we, here, have no concern for the protection of provincial rights, certain movements will develop, not only in the province of Quebec but elsewhere throughout the country, as was the case in the west in the thirties, at the time of the depression. The central provinces were then noticing the birth of secessionist movements. This development could possibly recur in western Canada, as it is in the province of Quebec at present.
The province of Quebec has always been jealous of its rights. Under the leadership of Mr. Lesage, the present government wants the province to play its rightful role within the confederation. In order that the province of Quebec may assume its rightful responsibilities, in order that it may enjoy a con-


structive autonomy, and not merely a negative one, it must be in a position to exercise its rights. And in order that it may do so, it must have the financial means to provide its population with what it is entitled to get.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What a contradiction.


Guy Rouleau: If we do not care about provincial governments, as I have just said, movements will soon develop on an increasing scale, which will be disastrous not only for the country as a whole but for the provinces concerned in particular.
Mr. Speaker, I think that in our proceedings in the house we should always keep in mind the rights of the other provinces. We should deal with the problems coming under our jurisdiction and work in the interest of our fellow citizens, from coast to coast, in the interest of Canada and of the Canadian economy.
(Text):


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat quoted out of context from the Montreal Gazette. Could I suggest that the whole article be put on the record.


Guy Rouleau: I am sorry, I did not hear
the question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked that the editorial of the Gazette from which the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) read be tabled. If public documents are read, hon. members are entitled to have them tabled. I suppose the hon. member has no objection to tabling the editorial.


Guy Rouleau: I have no objection whatsoever. The rest of it is worse for the Conservative party.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the hon. gentleman who spoke previously in congratulating the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Bourdages) and the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) respectively. These hon. gentlemen spoke logically; they were impressive; they knew what they were talking about, and I am sure their respective constituents are proud of them.
For four and a half years we in this chamber have been treated to a chorus of moans and groans. We have been treated to insults by the hon. gentlemen opposite-


Mr. Habel:: Oh, no.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: -and a similar chorus has gone out into the country.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member lor Cochrane (Mr. Habel) is rising on a point of order.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I think the hon. member is absolutely out of order in saying that they have been treated to insults, because we know that you, Mr. Speaker, with your great impartiality would not tolerate such a thing.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member-


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not necessary to speak to the point of order. The hon. member apparently wishes to deny that there have been any insults, but that really does not raise a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Back to your crossword puzzle.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: We have been treated to various accusations, that we are ignorant, that we have fooled the Canadian people, that we have misled them, and this has occurred not only in this chamber but throughout the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I am glad hon. gentlemen say, "Hear, hear" because I know the Canadian people will put the proper interpretation on some of these slanderous remarks hon. gentlemen opposite are passing about the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), the cabinet and my colleagues who sit on the government side of this house. I am fully aware of that.
Mr. Speaker, apart from that we have heard nothing but boasts. We have heard boasts of superior knowledge-everything is in the superlative-and the superior experience of people they think are experienced. They speak about their infallibility; they never make mistakes. They try to build up their party and their frontbenchers if not their backbenchers, as some type of super men who by divine right are destined to rule this country, and by a certain misfortune in 1957 and 1958 they were dislodged and put into the opposition benches.
They want to convince the Canadian people that conditions will never be the same until they get back to the front benches and are the ruling party. Hearing all this, we know what to expect on the hustings during the forthcoming election campaign. It appears to me, as I think it appears to every average Canadian, that all they seek is to get their jobs back. Getting their jobs back seems to be more important that trying to find a solution for the problems which face this country.
The Address-Mr. Mandziuk
They are indeed anxious to have an election. I might say, Mr. Speaker, to these hon. gentlemen that they will have to face an election and they had better start worrying about the results from today, in spite of the fact that the premier of New Brunswick said in his address to the Liberal rally on January 29 that:
Well, the first step is to elect a new Liberal government here at Ottawa. He also said, and we are going to win, there is no question about it. The smell of victory is in the air... and it smells good.
Perhaps the absence of so many hon. members of the opposition today is accounted for by the fact that they are out in the country taking a whiff of the victory they expect.
I wish to refer to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) during this debate. That was a keynote speech. Several challenges were thrown at the government. These challenges have often been repeated, and the chorus followed suit, "Bring on an election". Well, we heard that in 1957.
Then they say the government must fight the election on its record. We are ready to fight the election on our record. We are not ashamed of our record. We are going to fight on a record of having carried out our election promises to the best of our ability. We are going to let the Canadian people be the judge and jury, and they shall decide. We are accused in this house and on the hustings of going back, and it is said that we should look to the future. The Leader of the Opposition spoke to his cohorts in the Chateau Laurier on January 3 this year and accused us of bringing out some old shopworn issues. We are going as far back as 1957. How far back would hon. gentlemen go? They go back to the beginning of history. Oh yes, they are allowed to do that. I can quote, at this point, remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) himself.
"But while we look ahead, we also have the right and the duty to point out the fumbling and the follies of this government."
The Canadian people will judge on the basis of the Conservative record. The Canadian people will know where we stand.
But where does the Liberal party stand? What do they stand for? Nobody knows. The country does not know where the Liberal party stands. When I hear some of their frontbenchers-


An hon. Member:: Where are they?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: If anyone had simply
listened to an address given the other day given by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) without knowing anything more about what has gone on in Canada he

The Address-Mr. Mandziuk would have been obliged to reach the conclusion that if it had not been for the Liberal party there would be no pensions in Canada. According to him, the Liberals originated them; we dare not deprive them of that honour. Similarly there would be no family allowances and no unemployment insurance. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there would be nothing. That is the kind of performance to which the Canadian people are being treated. I should like to warn the opposition that the Canadian people are not only watching our party; they are watching the performance of the official opposition and of that little group in the corner. The Canadian people are intelligent. They read. They listen to the radio; they watch television. They are going to weigh the performance of the present government and its supporters against the performance of the opposition which consists of filibuster tactics and the spreading of doom and gloom, the dragging through the political mire of every measure we introduce, and then, in the words of the Prime Minister, voting for it, like lambs.
Hon. gentlemen opposite are fond of statistics. I hear that Mr. Grimm who wrote the fairy tales is to have a modern competitor who will write the book of our promises. But why not make a list of the measures introduced by this government to which the opposition had objected and which they voted against? I think the Canadian people would be anxious to have a list of these various measures which have been criticized. I think they would be anxious to have a list of all the measures that we have passed and that the opposition intends to repeal if given a mandate. Contrary to Liberal hopes, the Canadian people have long memories. They do not have to go too far back. I intend to comply with the request made by the Leader of the Opposition that we should look ahead, but I beg his indulgence if I look back a couple of years because, as I have indicated, the hon. gentleman and his friends are doing it every day, going further and further back into the past.
The Canadian people will not forget the do-nothing policy of the Liberal government which disregarded the warning given by their experts that a recession was imminent. That is in the record. Yet what does the country hear? "The Tories brought it along; Tory times are hard times; we left a full kitty, and look what they did". Yet all the time the advice which was given them by the economic experts was ignored.
Canadians will not forget that in 1957 the Liberal party said tax cuts were impossible.

Not more than $6 could be given to the pensioners. Yet in 1958, within a year, the Liberals promised tax cuts of $400 million in addition to $178 million of taxes which this government had reduced. What a sudden transformation. The Canadian people will not forget the tax exemptions that the Liberal party promised to newly married couples. What has happened to that today? Why do we not hear anything about it? Furthermore, the Canadian people will not forget that the Liberals when in power, fought against adequate pensions. They followed a policy of too little and too late. Now, as an alternative, they advocate a nebulous policy of contributory pensions which is not supposed to cost anybody anything. Even the spokesmen of the Liberal party are not clear as to what this program proposes to do. I wish to apologize to the Leader of the Opposition for not having looked ahead. If anything, I have looked just back a few years.
According to a pamphlet I have here, the Liberals have the answer. Oh yes, the Leader of the Opposition logged some 28,000 miles in a journey over the length and breadth of this dominion of ours. He made two trips across Canada and back, but despite what this pamphlet says he did not have a single answer to give the Canadian people.
May I call it five o'clock?


Mr, Speaker:: The hour for private business does not intervene.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Then I shall continue.
After logging 28,000 miles, the Leader of the Opposition has told the country quite a lot. The smear campaign kept on going, and in October of last year the hon. gentleman made his key note speech in the constituency of Marquette in Manitoba during the first Liberal nominating convention. Marquette is a constituency which is strictly rural. It has good farms; it is dotted with small towns and villages. The largest of the towns has a population of around 2,500. As I say, it is an agricultural area and my people are interested to know what answers the Leader of the Opposition might have. They still have problems. We do not say we have solved them all.
I have two reports from the daily papers. The Winnipeg Free Press contains the headline "Trade is Keynote to Growth-Pearson". He used such phrases as "inefficient and desultory methods" in reference to the Conservative government and "the country has ceased to go ahead".


An hon. Member:: Carried.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Oh, do you know what the Liberals will do, Mr. Speaker? Again I quote from the newspaper report:

The Liberals, Mr. Pearson promised, "can do something about that when we are in office and we will."
The charge made was not substantiated. Then when these farmers came in hundreds to hear him, and there was a good crowd, what did he say about agriculture? According to the Winnipeg Tribune of October 17, he said this:
He said the Liberals don't have an answer to all agricultural problems, but would come up with a sound, stable program to increase farm income.
What he is saying is, "Oh, re-elect us, brothers, and we will do everything for you". They have said that previously and they are saying it again. What is the agriculture policy of the Liberal party? Their policy is that they will just come up with something. I think the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Muir) was quite right in what he said when he was speaking in the debate on acreage payments. Those acreage payments received a really rough going over in this House of Commons, as everyone knows. The hon. member for Lisgar very mildly and, I would say, diplomatically-he did not mean to insult hon. members or the Leader of the Opposition or anything like that-made reference to the fact that the Hon. L. B. Pearson did not touch on agriculture in his key note address in the debate on the speech from the throne. He said that the only conclusion we can draw is that he and his party have no ideas about agriculture.
I think the hon. member for Lisgar was right. The hon. member was born and raised on a farm, is still one of our outstanding farmers and was elected by farmers. I will stake his judgment any time against the judgment of any agriculture expert sitting on opposite benches or in offices at 251 Cooper St., Ottawa.
You know what followed, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) gave us a preview of what his leader would say. His leader followed him on the succeeding Monday. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the preview was longer and more interesting than was the main feature produced by the Leader of the Opposition. I therefore still think that the hon. member for Lisgar was right. They are still floundering around and do not know what their agricultural policy is. I can tell you what it is, Mr. Speaker. Repeal the stabilization act, cash advances, national crop insurance, acreage payments, the farm credit act, the amendment to the P.F.A.A. and you have the Liberal agriculture policy.
I know that my time will not permit me to quote from all the briefs presented to us by various farm organizations. However, I think I shall have time to quote one. This brief was presented by members of district No. 3 of the Manitoba farmers union which
The Address-Mr. Mandziuk covers the constituency of Marquette. This brief was presented to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) and me in Russell, Manitoba on November 25, 1961. The third paragraph of it reads as follows:
First of all, we would like to thank you and your government for the initiative you have taken in setting up some of the policies we have been requesting for a number of years.
And they did so. The farm organizations know what happened to their briefs or presentations under the previous administration. They were locked up in the cupboard or thrown in the wastebasket. Everybody knows that. Every farmer in the country will tell you that. Indicating what they are grateful for, the paragraph continues:
Namely crop insurance-
Oh, how that step was criticized.
-deficiency payment program on hogs and eggs, feed and fodder assistance, etc., and the improvements made on existing programs.
That is just one example of the approval given by farm organizations whose membership consists of those belonging to various political faiths. Their leadership could get away with drastic criticism a great deal faster than they can get away with passing on compliments to the government of the day. I have not the time in which to quote from the Western Producer. However, I should just like to mention the page numbers which hon. gentlemen can refer to if they wish to follow this matter up. I would refer them to the national farm union brief at page 8, where they commend the Minister of Trade and Commerce for external trade, and also pages 9 and 10. I would also refer to the brief of the federation of agriculture at page 6. I would ask hon. members to read those briefs very carefully. We have taken the farm organizations into our confidence. We have established a measure of co-operation between the government and Canadian agriculture. Canadian agriculture has come to realize that the government alone cannot do everything and the government knows full well that it cannot do anything without their co-operation. The farm organizations appreciate that fact.
I am still watching the clock, Mr. Speaker, but I have one more matter that I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture whom we wish a speedy recovery and hope to see back in his place at an early date. I also wish to bring the matter to the attention of the government as a whole. There are certain difficulties with which we are going to be faced this spring and which the measures we have in mind are not going to take care of. These may require immediate attention. I have in mind those farmers who

The Address-Mr. Mandziuk had no crop at all, who did not even pull out their combines and who did not thresh a bushel of grain. I am worried about where they are going to get money for their seed next spring. These farmers-and many of them are in my area-had a difficult job in getting a supply of fodder in order to save their herds. In the fall they thought they were successful. However owing to the severity of the winter and having regard to the fact that they are rationing their fodder to just so many bales a day, they may run short. I suggest that while acreage payments are appreciated, this money may have to be used in order to supplement their fodder supply so as to save their herds. We want them to save their herds. I have had letters from farmers and I have had farmers speak to me and, according to the information I am given, there are those who will not have the cash with which to buy their seed. This situation would, of course, result in the land lying idle. We all know-and I do not know why the opposition cannot hear it-that our Minister of Agriculture has done wonders with our surplus. He did not pray for a crop failure in order to get rid of our surplus as did the former administration. He went out and sold our grain. He wants every acre put into crop so that we can meet our overseas commitments and can supply the hungry world. I suggest to the government that this problem will have to be solved and I would offer two possible solutions. The first would be cash advances on 1962 grain. That can be done on the basis of so much per cultivated acre of land. The second way would be by way of guaranteed bank loans. There is no doubt that such action will be necessary. I know that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) does not wait until he is kicked into doing something. He realizes the situation and tries to find a solution. I do hope that a solution will be found for this problem.
Finally, I wish to repeat that the farm organizations have complimented the government, and I take their opinion as against the criticism of the opposition. The farm organizations have come here with an open mind and have laid their cards on the table. We realize their problems and they realize ours. Together we realize that we must work as a team instead of trying to stir up one segment of the economy against another.
I also feel that simply to go around the country and make charges without an iota of truth is not going to convince the Canadian people that the Liberal party is now ready to take over the government. I believe they still have a lot to learn. Smear tactics, insults against the Prime Minister and acting big do not go over with Canadians.


Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Norihumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, following the time-honoured custom I wish to extend congratulations to the mover (Mr. Bourdages) and seconder (Mr. Browne, Vancouver-Kings-way) of the address in reply to the speech from throne. My congratulations and best wishes are extended to the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn) on his appointment to the cabinet and my congratulations and best wishes are also extended to the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) on his election as Deputy Speaker. The members of this chamber look forward to his discharging his responsibilities in the same capable and impartial manner displayed by our Speaker, who has gained the highest respect of all members for his impartial, firm and courteous enforcement of the rules, which at times is made difficult by overzealous members.
The speech from the throne followed the pattern of throne speeches of previous years in that very little was stated about what the actual legislative program will be at this session of parliament. The omission of intended legislation from the speech from the throne over the years has led to great speculation in the press and among the public. It has made the role of the opposition more difficult. The leader of the opposition in the previous parliament and his colleagues complained bitterly about being denied information as to proposed legislation, claiming that parliament was entitled to know in the best interests of the nation.
This trend is still evident to the point that it is considered necessary tactics of the government in power. The foreseeable future does not indicate that future throne speeches will outline the complete legislative program of the then current sessions. Speculation will still be the order of the day. Announcements of legislation will continue to be timed as is considered most effective from the point of view of the government of the day.
Opinions are varied as to the effect of the final results of the withholding of the announcement of legislation from the speech from the throne. To many it appears as a strange vehicle in a country that boasts of a great democracy. The overriding fact is the claim that the government of the day, having been given a public mandate, has the right to present legislation in the manner of their choice as they hold the responsibility and are answerable for the consequences.
In every parliament down through the years, Mr. Speaker, members have taken the opportunity provided by the free-wheeling rules of debate in connection with the speech from the throne to discuss matters that range
ion

through national, international, provincial and local levels. The leaders of all parties and their frontbench colleagues advance their parties' views on the issues of the day, which in a general way sets the patterns of the different debates that follow throughout the session.
Many members use the time allotted to them in the debate on the speech from the throne to discuss constituency matters. I am going to confine the remainder of my remarks to a situation that arose in the constituency of Northumberland-Miramichi, a situation that aroused the interest of the people of that area more than any other in a long time. Today, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a suggestion that I feel is in the public interest. While the situation that developed which prompts me to make the suggestion occurred in the constituency of Northumberland-Miramichi, it is one that could develop in any of the other 262 constituencies in Canada.
As hon. members are aware, minimum wage scales for workers are provided for in federal government contracts. However, there are no rates set in federal government contracts for the supplying of material or the hire of equipment. The difficulties in setting up rates for the hire of equipment or the supplying of materials with respect to federal government projects awarded by public tender are well recognized. However, it is felt that minimum rates could be designated in contracts for the conveyance of material, provided by the contractor, from one location to another in cases where individual truckers perform this service. In this connection I have in mind the trucking of gravel supplied by a contractor and conveyed by individual truckers from one location to another, worked out on a per ton mileage basis.
The situation I wish to speak about is the tie-up that occurred at a Royal Canadian Air Force runway construction project at Chatham, New Brunswick. From December 29 last until January 29 the trucking of gravel for this R.C.A.F. project was tied up. Failure to arrive at a mutual agreement over a four week period disrupted many lines of business and aroused a keen interest among the public, with tangible evidence that local gravel truckers had the complete sympathy of the people in their request for a trucking rate at a level that had been established, recognized and paid for several years, as against an offer by the company holding the contract at a rate 42 per cent below the rate paid over a period of many years. The amount of gravel involved is 400,000 tons for an airstrip 10,000 feet long. The difference in dollars between
The Address-Mr. McWilliam the established trucking rate and the rate first offered by the company was reported to be $200,000.
When the crown company, Defence Construction Limited, awarded the contract to the lowest tenderer the tender price was considered low and it was stated unofficially that Defence Construction Limited was reluctant to award the contract at the low tender amount. However, as the required guarantee for the completion of the contract was provided the low tender was accepted.
When local truckers got in touch with the contractors they were offered a rate of 70 cents per ton which amounted to $6.30 for a nine-ton load over a 43-mile round trip. Local truckers, members of the New Brunswick truckers association, refused the offer of 70 cents a ton on the basis that it was much below the long established and heretofore recognized rate.
For several years the minimum rate paid by provincial governments and by construction firms for trucking gravel, for the same distance and under the same conditions, has been $1.21 per ton. A number of out-of-the-area trucks, non-members of the trucking association, were brought in and commenced hauling gravel at a rate reported to be 70 cents per ton. The local truckers established a picket line at the gravel pit, with the result that trucking operations were suspended. The tie-up continued for two weeks before any negotiations bore fruit. After two weeks, the contractors offered a rate of $1 per ton, later followed by the offer of $1.21 per ton. The trucking rate was finally agreed upon by both parties in the dispute as the provincial government established rate, which would be determined by the actual mileage involved, estimated at $1.18 to $1.24 per ton.
However, the rate agreed upon brought on the introduction of a rider by the contractor to the effect that for every local truck engaged the company would engage an out-of-the-area truck. The truckers association agreed to truck gravel at the provincial government rate and assured the contractors and Defence Construction Limited that there would be no delay in the conveyance of gravel to the project site. The truckers association also agreed that the contractors could use their 22 company trucks. However, the truckers association did not agree on the local and out-of-the-area truck for truck basis. It is estimated that between 80 and 100 trucks could be operated without danger of traffic tie-ups.
Public concern was expressed at the outset of the tie-up over the fact that the season's cut of logs was still in the woods.

The Address-Mr. McWilliam and that the log hauling truckers were on strike in sympathy with the gravel truckers. A serious situation was averted when the gravel truckers voted to release the log-hauling trucks from active picket duty, thus enabling them to resume their log-hauling operations.
The tie-up first brought about by the offer of a 70-cent per ton rate and continued after the $1.21 rate was agreed upon as a result of the contractors' demands to bring in out-of-the-area trucks, delayed the construction of a project closely linked with Canada's defence system, both in an operational and training role. This situation, one that could have been averted and could occur again in the future, can be avoided by the insertion of a clause in federal contracts to the effect that prevailing gravel trucking rates as paid by respective provincial governments should be recognized by those submitting tenders and that local truckers' preference be recognized over individual truckers from outside areas.
This situation was not one wherein the gravel truckers supplied materials. It was one that involved the wages of the truckers operating their own trucks, and thus should be taken out of the rental of equipment classification. This suggestion is offered to the ministers of government departments or crown companies awarding contracts that involve delivery of materials, supplied by a contractor and delivered by individuals, for their consideration with the end in view of eliminating stoppages on federal government projects and at the same time protecting the labour force against attempts to lower existing rates, and to ensure fair and equitable returns for services provided.
The tie-up ended and the truckers are now engaged in trucking gravel for this important project. The terms requested by the truckers' association were finally agreed upon by the company, which I suggest is an indication that the truckers' demands were fair and made in a just cause. I express the hope that safeguards will be inserted in contracts in the future to ensure the rights of gravel truckers of Northumberland-Miramichi, as well as all gravel truckers across Canada, and to ensure them a fair return for their labours. With these safeguards written into contracts, parties submitting tenders will be guided by the fact that set rates are established, just as hourly labour rates are now established. These safeguards will eliminate attempts to force individual truckers to provide services at below cost rates, or below rates that have been recognized as standard rates, and eliminate such unsuccessful attempts to take advantage of a situation as I have outlined.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments about a matter that is disturbing all New Brunswickers. In the February 17 issue of the Montreal Gazette there is an article inquiring what happened to the framed oil painting of the late R. B. Bennett, a former prime minister of Canada from 1930 to 1935. The article states that the only portrait of former prime ministers missing from the halls of parliament is that of the late R. B. Bennett. The news article further states that Lord Beaverbrook arranged to have the only oil portrait of Mr. Bennett known to exist forwarded by the University of New Brunswick as a gift to the Canadian parliament. Several years ago Senator Burchill, together with New Brunswick Senators and members of parliament, made efforts towards securing a portrait of the only New Brunswick native prime minister. Eventually Lord Beaverbrook, chancellor of the University of New Brunswick and a life-long friend who in his early days read law with Mr. Bennett in a Chatham, New Brunswick law office, was successful in bringing about the gift to the Canadian parliament.
The portrait has not been hung in the parliament buildings up to this moment, and Canadians in general are disturbed by the fact that the gap has not been filled. New Brunswickers are disturbed, and in particular the people of Northumberland-Miramichi, because the late Mr. Bennett taught school in his early days at Douglastown, adjacent to Newcastle, and made his first steps in his notable career as a lawyer at Chatham. The ceremony of the hanging of the portrait of the late prime minister Bennett is looked forward to, and I trust that arrangements will proceed with great dispatch.


Mrs. Jean Casselman (Grenville-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my congratulations to those of other speakers to the mover (Mr. Bourdages) and seconder (Mr. Browne, Vancouver-Kingsway) of the speech from the throne, and also my congratulations and best wishes to our popular colleague, the new Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Flynn) and the new Deputy Speaker. It is understandable, Mr. Speaker, that the tempo of the house seems to have quickened this session and that many people seem to want to say many things on many subjects. I, personally, have been interested in many of the items in the throne speech, as are the people of my two counties. However, these items have been reviewed ably and eloquently by those preceding me, so I shall try to be as brief as possible.
I have mentioned before in this chamber, and outside it, my very great interest in federal participation and federal encouragement

of education at all levels and in all branches, and I am rewarded to see the success of the federal contribution to vocational training, resulting in 170 new technical schools across Canada. In that same area, education, I am very glad to see increased university grants.
Like all Canadians I am very sympathetic and anxious to assist the aged, the disabled and the blind to the fullest possible degree, and I commend the government for their steps in that regard. That these are reasonable and practical steps is substantiated by the type of criticism of them which, to say the least, has been confused. We also welcome the proposal to set up an independent commission to make recommendations with regard to the redistribution of electoral districts. There has been much distasteful politics played in this regard in the past and I commend the government for their desire to remedy that situation.
We in eastern Ontario, particularly since the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway, are highly interested in the subject of industries and the development of new industries. We therefore welcome aid to industries for industrial research and we also welcome aid to industries through the proposal to establish a national power grid. Closely related to industry, the people of my area are always conscious of our trade in exports and imports because we live on one of the great trade arteries of the world. Therefore we have been encouraged this last few years to see the $713 million trade deficit we inherited from the former government being whittled away until last year when we saw a trade balance for the first time in nine years. I commend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) for his aggressive policies, the hard work of his department and the assistance given to him by other ministers to bring this about.
We were also interested in the comments in the speech from the throne indicating that the world outlook still contains dangerous aspects, but that there is cause for cautious optimism and that the processes of conciliation and negotiation are in progress or are in prospect on many important issues. Canadians have reason to be proud of Canada's position in world affairs. Canada is well known to be a leader in the most important problem of our time, namely, disarmament and the efforts to set up mechanism whereby we may reach peaceful solutions to world problems.
We are also well known for our efforts to bridge the gap between the very wealthy countries of the world and those less wealthy, to bridge the gap in average income of about $2,500 in some countries as against an average income of less than $100 per year, all that is enjoyed by a third of the world's population. We have not just talked of these
The Address-Mrs. Casselman things. Canada has contributed fully in such well known projects as the Colombo plan, UNICEF, education in Africa and refugee programs of all types.
Last fall at the sixteenth session of the United Nations Canada spearheaded the awareness of the hazards of radiation brought about by resumed nuclear testing by the Soviet union, with the successful result that the general assembly gave high priority to the annual progress report of the scientific committee. Canadian scientists have worked very hard on that committee ever since it was first established in 1958.
Canadians have worked equally hard on other important committees of the United Nations, some very well known and some less well known such as the outer space committee. Also last fall, Canada's long standing interest in the development of international law was recognized and a Canadian was elected to the international law commission. We have full reason to be proud of the fact that the deputy under secretary of state for external affairs, Mr. Marcel Cadieux, had such a large majority in his election.
In September, 1960, our Prime Minister, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, spoke to the United Nations and recommended the use of surplus foods to feed the world's hungry. Again Canada's contribution was not just a high sounding ideal. Last fall this proposal was piloted through the second committee by our colleague, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), who deserves much credit for his hard working efforts. He not only showed Canada's awareness of the problems involved in food producing countries but also the problems of the agriculturists in the recipient countries, with such unqualified success that the world food program was supported unanimously.
I could elaborate, long beyond the time allowed, on the facts of our position and our prestige in world affairs. If our position is to be challenged then I feel obliged to answer the challenge by relating my own personal experience. I had the honour to serve all through the sixteenth session of the United Nations last fall as Canadian delegate on the third committee and I must say the sentiments reported earlier in this debate by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) are exactly opposite to anything I heard there.
Lest anyone should think that I too am indulging in political in-fighting, I have no hesitation in reporting here, as I have reported privately, the number of friendly greetings I brought back to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). I might also add, Mr. Speaker, that I find this quite natural. When the Leader of the Opposition

The Address-Mrs. Casselman was secretary of state for external affairs Canada was liked and respected, and she is still equally liked and respected. Indeed to me it is very sad that Canada's outstanding, admirable position should be tossed about in this chamber for political reasons.
I regret that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is not in his seat at the moment. He is fond of reiterating the right to his own opinion. I am his junior in this chamber. I hope that fact is so self-evident as not to need too much reiteration, but it has always seemed to me rather strange that opinions which are unique to an individual should by that fact alone be considered any the more true. It is our system to respect minority opinions but I feel I need not apologize for belonging to the majority view, and certainly this is the majority opinion. I heard no other opinions expressed at the United Nations, and Canada's position and prestige are very high indeed. In all fairness to the hon. member he did say that he was at the United Nations for a short period. Possibly to some extent that may explain the differences in our opinions.
At any rate, as I served daily on the third committee and talked to each and every member of the committee, and to many of their friends on other committees, I heard none of the disparaging reports which he seemed to have heard. Many of the African delegates are young, with youthful enthusiasm and frankness. Many of them expressed their preference for our system of government, for the freedom of the western way of life; but they also expressed the need of our proving ourselves, of our proving our good faith, and they commended Canada for her obvious good will and for our very real efforts at understanding. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) epitomized for them this honourable and honest dedication to the good of all that they were seeking, and there was a predilection to trust all Canadians because of the calibre of our foreign minister. His efforts for disarmament, combined with his broad humanity and irreproachable character, may have a deeper significance than that expressed by those who feel as we do.
It seems to me that there is a growing desire in the Soviet union itself to find common grounds with us. Far be it from me to pose as a world traveller, much less an expert or commentator on world opinion, but I should like to say that I found the same friendship and good will in the parts of the world that I visited as was reported by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill) in the parts of the world he has visited.
Last summer I motored many thousands of miles through parts of Russia. I visited Minsk, Smolensk, Moscow, Novgorod and Leningrad.

We met many Russians who expressed their liking for Canadians as individuals and expressed an interest and awareness in our common problems of climate, geography, great distances, etc. They also expressed the faith that Canadian individuals were like individuals in all countries of the world. Like us, they wanted peace and they expressed the hope that our governments can achieve this.
This seemed to me a vast improvement over their previous declarations of the complete infallibility of their own government, and this is very encouraging. One other very encouraging fact is evident; they want peace and we are looking for the same strength to work toward this aim from other countries of the world.
We cannot undiscover dangerous or troublesome knowledge. We have added to our store of knowledge two very burdensome factors, nuclear discoveries and the awareness of the world's hunger. Whether we like it or not, we have a great deal of development to do, both morally and politically, to deal with these facts. It has been said that to the extent that our foreign policy is humane and reasonable it will be successful, and to the extent that it is imperialistic and aggressive it will fail. I feel most strongly that our foreign policy is humane and is reasonable.
I am proud of the prestige of our country. I am proud of our contribution to the United Nations, which works sometimes dramatically, sometimes undramatically, but always steadily under the unavoidable weight and pressure of 104 nations discussing, debating and persuading.
That this does not take hard work and infinite patience can only be said by those who have no actual knowledge of the mechanics of such an undertaking. It is to be hoped that there will come the day when the members of the United Nations think as members of this parliament, when individuals will not consider raising an army to wipe out those who hold different views, where the primitive urge to solve one's own difficulties and inadequacies will not take the form of striking out arrogantly against others, but in a reasonable admission of need and a faith in the good will of others.
In recent weeks the prime minister of the United Kingdom has spoken in support of statements made by his very respected foreign minister, Lord Home, and again they have displayed the well known British ability for facing facts. It would do no one any good to ignore the difficulties of the United Nations. Certainly there is the danger that unclear resolutions will make it difficult for the secretariat to carry them out. Certainly it is complex, and some governments abstain

in desperation of finding the right decision. Certainly countries do vote on programs that they do not help to finance.
It seems to me that these and other difficulties can be overcome. Enunciating them clearly may help, but this is not to be considered a suggestion of disbanding our greatest hope of all. When one considers the possibility of freeing the world from fear of war, from pain of hunger and disease, for the development of world law and the development of a law of outer space, it seems to me that we cannot afford the luxury of impatience or resignation from further efforts.
Indeed, at the present time we should be particularly encouraged by the astonishing change of historical patterns in Europe, whereby Britain contemplates a change in her independence and whereby other countries of Europe who have killed one another for many centuries are now co-operating toward common goals. Proof is indeed being given to the communist world that we can co-operate, that we can make unexpected and successful adjustments to their cold war threats, that we have infinite possibilities for economic growth, for production, for the exchange of goods and an increased standard of living. This adaptability and spirit of compromise will not go unnoticed in the new countries of the world.
There are about 800 million people with new independence striving desperately to establish themselves under this system. They do not want to lose their precious new independence to communist imperialism, which they recognize full well and also fear. Neither do they want war, and they are looking to us to bolster their faith that our free governments have the ability to look beyond war preparedness and to meet the challenges of economic competition both with one another and with a communist world. The success of 300 million free people working together in a common market may be the greatest proof we have yet had that our way of life has adaptability and ability in this regard.
In the chain of world governments Canada is a strong link. We are an inspiration to these new countries, an example of the civilized way in which widely divergent races, divergent religions, divergent geographical parts can be welded together voluntarily without force or bloodshed into a nation. It is right and proper that Canada should be a leader at the United Nations; that she should carry forward into world affairs a faith that this is possible amongst the countries of the world. Certainly the difficulties are astronomical, but we have gone a long way in 16 years. The very fact that 104 nations now overcome the handicap
The Address-Mr. Denis of distance, language and finances to meet together in annual sessions at the United Nations is proof of this. Nothing comparable to this has ever occurred in the history of the world.
The tragedy of a collapse of this world parliament and all it promises in human development seems to me to be too heartbreaking to even contemplate. There is no alternative; we must continue our efforts, not despite bloodshed in the Congo, not despite colonial issues and racial discrimination, but because of them. We are living in a period of breakthrough. The scientific breakthrough can be measured, and weighed and seen, but the philosophic breakthrough is none the less real.
I bring back from the United Nations a firm faith which I feel it my obligation to express to my colleagues in this chamber. If it is naive to be optimistic, Mr. Speaker, then I am naive. May I in closing express my very great pride in the fine work done by Canadian civil servants abroad. Their unselfish and generous assistance to official delegates as well as unofficial travelling Canadians is envied by many other countries of the world. It is our good fortune last fall in New York to have the advantage of an experienced ambassador and his excellent staff. Ambassador Ritchie takes with him on his new posting to Washington the good wishes of a host of friends.
This year's delegation had the benefit of the groundwork of good will which previous delegations and our permanent mission in New York had laid for them. I believe-I feel certain-that next year's delegation will find this in no way depleted.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne has been adjourned for so long and that speech contained so little that I even wonder if I remember anything about it.
I remember that I wanted to extend New Year's greetings to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), but I believe they are a little belated now. At any rate, better late than never.
Besides, that is the policy of the present government: to do too late what it should have done earlier. Nobody is to blame except the Prime Minister who once again has not kept his word. Once again, the Prime Minister makes promises right and left and does not keep them. Thus, he asked the consent of the house to discuss emergency measures. When he said that these comprised grants designed to help western farmers and one or two other

The Address-Mr. Denis measures, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) asked him what were those other measures, and the Prime Minister replied as follows:
Might I just add this, because I want to be as fair as the Leader of the Opposition. There is also the program in connection with winter works.
I do not go beyond those two.
You see how the Prime Minister keeps his word. We agreed to discuss grants for western farmers because that was an urgent matter and those people needed money without delay. We thought the government would put those estimates before the house much earlier since the damage goes back to a year ago; they could have been voted last fall.
The second urgent measure dealt with winter works. It was high time, indeed, since we are now in February. We agreed to consider those two measures before continuing with the debate on the speech from the throne. In fact, if the government had to introduce those measures on the grounds that they were extremely urgent, it is because they procrastinate. Well, those emergency measures were to be the only two the house would have to consider before the continuation of the debate on the speech from the throne as the Prime Minister promised, according to page 7 of Hansard.
The number has now reached 13 or 14.
We have had to vote even before the end of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, that is, without the government having obtained the confidence of the house. Naturally, I do not think that the government, with such a "small" majority, was in any danger of not getting the confidence of the house.
Rumours of a forthcoming election were in the air; of course, there was also some talk to the effect that these "small" legislative and social measures would help a little to patch up the popularity of the present government. That is why a dozen or more social measures designed to please different little groups have been put forward. Here, a boat; there, a little branch line; elsewhere, a grant. All that, plus the $10 increase in the old age pension, gave us the impression that a general election was coming. That is why the session started at the wrong end. I am wondering whether we have reached the point where we will begin with prorogation and end with the speech from the throne.


Mr. Valade:: Just like Mr. Lesage in Quebec.


Azellus Denis: That is what is called putting the cart before the horse. On the other hand, those social measures we have adopted have been discussed in many speeches by our hon. friends opposite, although there was no disagreement about them. However, they gave to some of them the occasion to prepare a well-written speech, to have it printed and to distribute it during an electoral campaign in anticipation of the election to be called any day.
But, as usual, the government is undecided, as are its ministers. I think that so far there have been seven or eight announcements of a forthcoming election.
We were happy, we were for the bilingual cheques.
It should be noted that the measure concerning bilingual cheques will come into force only after existing stocks of cheque forms and those already on order are depleted.


William Heward Grafftey: That is better than waiting for 22 years.


Azellus Denis: Now, approximately 60 million cheques are issued each year. To a question I asked in this house, it was answered that the government, at present, had a stock of about 30 million cheque forms; it means that the measure will not come into force before six months.


Mr. Ricard:: It is better than 22 years.


Azellus Denis: I wonder why the matter was so urgent that it was necessary to disrupt our parliamentary procedure to deal with it. Surely, it was not to pass a measure which could not come into effect before six months.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I see it is six o'clock.
(Text):
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
(Translation):
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, before recess I was saying that if the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne has been delayed it was the fault of the Prime Minister who, having promised to introduce two urgent measures, had adopted a dozen or more, because, apparently, he had to please the Canadian electors, since election rumours were in the air.
I was saying also that those measures were not urgent because most of them had a retroactive effect. Take, for instance, the

social measures; they are retroactive to the first of February. Consequently, if the speech from the throne had been completed, that is four days later, this government would have obtained the confidence of the house, and it could then have had those measures approved after having obtained the vote of confidence, which is a normal procedure in our democratic institutions.
Consequently, since I wanted to wish a happy New Year to the members, to the ministers and to yourself, Mr. Speaker, I will take a leaf out of the government's book and offer you my best wishes with retroactive effect.
These session openings have had one good thing, especially these last four years, in that they allowed members to find out what kind of ministers they have, to see them in a group, and finally to know who are those who head such and such a department, because, as you know, there have been many changes in the Conservative ranks in the last six months.
And then you know also that our ministers are great travellers, beginning with the Prime Minister himself.
Some newspapers even claim that last year the Prime Minister travelled 100,000 miles, while some of his ministers were in Egypt, others in Israel, others in Japan, Mexico and in the Cameroons.
I fail to understand them; they don't miss a single event outside the country; be it a conference, a centennial celebration or even a stag party. There are more ministers abroad than here when there are important meetings in this country.
Take for instance my friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton), when hundreds of people gather to meet him, he is always absent; sometimes, he is in the Cameroons, some other time in Nigeria, etc.
So, if the Prime Minister has reached his one hundred thousandth mile, I submit he should consider changing his engine.
I think there must be some carbon on his pistons.
(Text):
Mr. Pallet!: It is a low grade of gas the hon. member is using in his motor.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: I am not the one who says it; it is some of our great Canadian cartoonists; here is a sample by one of them. Good Canadian citizens are looking up in the air while planes are criss-crossing the skies, and one of them says:
(Text):
Heck, no! that ain't the entire air force on the move. That's just Diefenbaker flying back 'n' forth all over th' country.
The Address-Mr. Denis (Translation):
I am not the only one to notice that situation. I commend the government for having opened the session here in Ottawa. I think it is the most suitable place for that.
Our ministers started the habit of meeting everywhere. They went to Quebec. I do not know whether it is because of the resulting fiasco, but we heard that the next meeting of the cabinet would be held at St. Pierre les Becquets. To announce what? Useful things? To announce "bread and games" as would say the hon. Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny), honorary appointments to the privy council, etc.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Surely not two flags like your leader.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the new Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Flynn) was privileged in that the whole federal cabinet displaced itself for his appointment. By the way, I heartily congratulate him, because I know he is competent. He well deserves the praise which was given to him; I suppose so and I venture to think so. But I think that the government has overlooked his talents too long and that his appointment comes too late. As a matter of fact, the next general election is only a month or two away. If the minister is so intelligent and talented, why has the present government not appointed him earlier.
It is not that there was no room in the cabinet, since it was rumoured that certain ministers would be replaced by others. At all events, I congratulate the new Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, but I still feel that his appointment was only a show, mere window dressing.
The whole cabinet was displaced, including the present Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer)-who were probably with their families or here in Ottawa-to inform the public of a simple routine matter, merely an appointment to the privy council.
If at least on the occasion of that great pilgrimage, the Prime Minister had confirmed the Associate Minister of National Defence in his duties, he might have had some success, some publicity. If at least the Prime Minister had announced the appointment of the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) as chairman of the centennial celebrations, well and good.


Mr. Tremblay:: Now he does me the honour of naming me.


Azellus Denis: I am glad-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Idiot.

The Address-Mr. Denis


Azellus Denis: I would only wish that the hon. member for Roberval be appointed chairman of the centennial celebrations. Perhaps that would bring him back to normal and cure him of those whims he has periodically.
Coming back to the speech from the throne, I must say quite frankly that even though they spoke at great length, the mover and seconder of the address did not say much. They were eloquent but unfortunately they did not have much to say since they were speaking of the speech from the throne.
They showered praise on their leader but that was only natural. Indeed, the Prime Minister could not have made a better choice for someone to praise him. They spoke of extraordinary improvements and of the dynamism of the present government. The word apotheosis was used. They called the Prime Minister the father and grandfather of confederation and so forth. However, they forgot to say why they gave him that title.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What do you think of Mr. Pickersgill's two flags?


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, you have heard the interruptions. Will that be allowed to continue indefinitely in the parliament of Canada?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would ask all hon. members not to interrupt from their seats. The debate could thus follow its normal course.


Azellus Denis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I doubt if your warning will be enough to put an end to the interruptions. Let us hope that we will have order for a few minutes at least.
The speech from the throne smacks of election; one group is given one thing, another group, something else; grants are given to one, a ferry to another. Definitely, there is an election in the air.
What about the old age pensions? Naturally, the Conservatives were peeved because the Liberals' pension program was much better than theirs. They thought they could go one better. All this strangely recalls Mareaut's book entitled "The Art of Fooling the Voters". It is possible not to do anything for four years and1 get away with it, as long as, just two months before election time, you increase old age pensions. Mr. Speaker, I ask you, is this the way to run a country?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is better than $6.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: How painful this must be to you.


Azellus Denis: The government has ignored the unemployment situation, it has ignored the common market problem. It has ignored-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: We give to the old.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I had told you that your warnings would be of little avail.
It is not the first time that we hear the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) whimpering, he who was opposed to the construction of the trans-Canada highway and who now favours this project, now that the Quebec government has decided to carry out work on this highway, in co-operation with the federal government, and that work will provide more jobs for the people of Quebec than the famous winter works program.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What about joint projects.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, you have heard the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) interrupting me, just like his colleague from St. Hyacinthe-Bagot. And yet, those two were opposed to the construction of the trans-Canada highway. On the other hand, the moment construction was decided and now that it provides work for Canadians in Quebec, one is unhappy because the highway does not go through his home town and the other is angry because it goes through his. You have heard the member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot cry and say: "This cuts through the land of my electors!" And the other one objects because it does not go through his constituency.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Azellus Denis: No, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: The smashing team has wrought havoc in the province.


Azellus Denis: You will note, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. members do not seem to have heeded your warnings and I should like you to warn them more explicitly.
Mr. Speaker, a study of the speech from the throne, indicates that a quarter of it concerns the coming of distinguished visitors to Canada. There is a reference to the discovery of Canada, and a review of the world situation. It is said we are in favour of peace and against war but there is nothing to say how we will preserve peace and protect ourselves against war.
The speech also refers to assistance to underdeveloped countries under the Colombo plan, a charitable initiative that the Liberal party inaugurated and that our hon. friends, who are always interrupting, fought tooth and

nail, with their friends of the Union Nation-ale. In fact, you will recall that in the province of Quebec, their friends of the Union Nationale took pleasure in repeating all the time Duplessis gives to his province but the Liberals give to other countries. Do you know what they have done? They have doubled the amount of our contributions and now, they approve of the plan.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Why not quote what we said?


Azellus Denis: They go a little further. They talk of the support Canada gives to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Something new. Another Liberal initiative for which the Conservatives try to take credit. However, it is the continuation of a fine Liberal piece of work.


Georges-J. Valade: Talk about conscription.


Azellus Denis: And the government goes even further. In fact, the speech from the throne announces that the government follows closely the negotiations regarding the common market.
Mr. Speaker, you heard about Accra. You know in what way the government, and especially certain ministers, follow closely the negotiations regarding the common market. One would rather be inclined to think that they follow them from afar. Some say: We will try to join the common market. Another minister says: No, we cannot do it. That is the policy of the present government.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Listen to the clown of the opposition.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, the present government-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The clown of the opposition.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making that remark for the second time. You have heard that serious-minded gentleman who is always talking about kill-joys.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The clown of the opposition.


Azellus Denis: The brain of the Conservative party.
The present government states that it is in favour of world trade-because it claims to have discovered that we are an exporting country. The first thing it did when it came to power was to reduce by 15 per cent our trade with our best customer, the United States.
That is how the government decided to act with regard to our exports to countries anxious to buy our products.
The Address-Mr. Denis
A little further in the speech from the throne, we can read this, which is a good example of the logic of our Conservative friends, I quote:
My government plans to recommend to you a number of measures that will constitute further steps in working out the purposes of confederation and identifying more clearly the Canadian nationality in various aspects of public and business affairs. With this purpose in mind, you will be asked to give effect, with modifications, to the recommendations of the royal commission on publications.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: He is the joker of the opposition.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He is the joker of the opposition.


An hon. Member:: You do not understand anything.


Azellus Denis: It is as if somebody said: My daughter is deaf and dumb, I will have her eyes examined.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Have his head examined.


Azellus Denis: Speeches from the Conservative benches have a hollow sound.
With respect to winter works, the Associate Minister of National Defence said that Mr. Lesage was in favour of them since he contributes on a 40 per cent basis. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that if the winter works program was successful to a certain extent in the province of Quebec, it is entirely due to Mr. Lesage.
Mr. Duplessis, the close friend of Conservative members from Quebec, who disown him today because it is not suitable any more-


Georges-J. Valade: Tell us about the joint
programs.


Azellus Denis: -supplied nothing. Yet, Mr. Duplessis was the unemployed's great friend. But Mr. Lesage supplies 40 per cent. He even offered this government to share the material costs. Under the Duplessis administration, the friends of our Quebec Conservatives, only 169 municipalities out of 1,540, I think, took advantage of the winter works program. But, thanks to Mr. Lesage, 875 municipalities in Quebec, that is a large number of municipalities than in all the rest of Canada in 1958-59, are now benefiting from that program.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about hospitalization insurance and its complete failure in the province of Quebec.


Azellus Denis: Hospitalization insurance enables citizens in the province of Quebec to get benefits derived from taxes levied to that end, whereas, under Mr. Duplessis and his
1020	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Denis Conservative friends, we were paying taxes for hospitalization insurance without getting any benefits, Mr. Speaker.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is talk of reforming the Senate, at the very moment when it becomes useful, at the very time when a minister is prevented from becoming a dictator, by taking a final decision with regard to imports we may allow from the United States or elsewhere, and the tariffs we are going to charge.
You want to make changes in the Senate at the very moment when it-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: At the very moment when it is waking up.


Azellus Denis: -at the very moment when the Senate is justifying its function and when it enabled a man to be heard before being sentenced. And if perchance, the Senate has lessened in value, it is hardly to be blamed on the opposition. Indeed, if you take note of all recent nominations, you might draw your own conclusions, Mr. Speaker.
In the speech from the throne, there was talk of a redistribution of seats. A commission was to be appointed to do so. We have now reached the 15th or 16th commission. Our friends, the Conservatives, Mr. Speaker, never lived up to their responsibilities. They appoint commissions and make investigations, they excite people, but never decide anything. They are undecided, irresponsible people who complain because things are not going well. They put the blame on previous administrations.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: The same happens in Quebec.


Azellus Denis: But, when it comes to carrying out their responsibilities, there is never any action. A section of railroad has just been voted for Gaspe, and that is alright.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Are you against it?


Azellus Denis: A small piece of railroad in Gaspe. That is fine. Gaspe was said to have been forgotten, abandoned-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is so, by Mr. Chevrier.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Azellus Denis: -very well. If that area is developed, and becomes a progressive and prosperous district, it will mainly be thanks to Liberal administrations. For 16 years Mr. Duplessis was premier of the province of Quebec. What did he do for the Gaspe Peninsula? Nothing.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mind you, he beat the Grits.


Azellus Denis: The new leader of the opposition in Quebec who, at the time, was a minister, what has he done for rural electrification? Nothing. What was the hon. member for

Gaspe (Mr. English) doing? Nothing. He was one of Mr. Duplessis' deputy ministers.
So, if the Gaspe peninsula has been abandoned, the fault does not lie with either the Conservatives or the Liberals, but rather with your friends you are now disowning; it depends on Mr. Duplessis, on the Union Na-tionale, on the member for Gaspe, on the member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot and on the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, who have disowned these people, who have abandoned the Gaspe peninsula.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You have been denounced as a collaborator at the Reform Club.


Azellus Denis: Our Conservative friends from Quebec are making a lot of fuss about assistance to the universities. Yet, they were against it when we were in power. Today, the amount of the grants has doubled. You see they are now in favour of them. They were black yesterday, they are white today. They were worshiping yesterday, they are now burning what they worshiped. This is the true picture of our good Conservative friends from the province of Quebec-and I am not telling the whole story.


An hon. Member:: Skip parts of it.


Azellus Denis: Let us talk now about the Jacques Cartier bridge and the abolition of tolls. There has been a lot of talk about that for a long time; but the federal government of our Conservative friends has been stung to the quick by the hon. member Pierre Laporte who, during the last by-election in Chambly, was in favour of the abolition of those tolls.
Why are tolls on Jacques Cartier bridge not yet abolished? It is because we had Mr. Duplessis in Quebec, while here in Ottawa, under the Liberal regime, we were prepared to settle that matter. But the municipality of Montreal, the province of Quebec as well as Ottawa were parties to that dispute.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It was Mr. Chevrier who refused.


Azellus Denis: They are the same fools, Mr. Speaker, who are interrupting me; make no mistake about it.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chevrier was refusing.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Here comes the second act.


Azellus Denis: Here is what Mr. Chevrier stated on May 5, 1953.
The last time I took the floor in this house on the matter, in February 1951, I said that the federal government would be glad to hear the remarks of the province and the municipality about the abolition of those tolls. We have heard nothing from either of those two parties.


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


Azellus Denis: So much the better for Conservatives.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Do not regret anything!
(Text):


Mr. R. D. C. Stewart (Charlotte):: May I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of extending my congratulations to you on being appointed Deputy Speaker of this house. I am sure that you will preside over the deliberations of this assembly properly, honestly and fairly. I should like also at this time to extend to the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn) my congratulations on his appointment as Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. I should like also to extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Bourdages) and seconder (Mr. Browne, Vancouver-Kingsway) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Both gentlemen acquitted themselves ably. They not only brought forth the program of this government, but they brought prestige and honour to their own constituents.
During this debate, which was adjourned so that beneficial legislation might be enacted, we have heard much criticism. We have heard many statements regarding the failure or the inability of this government to solve the problems of the country. I listened very intently to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) speaking in this debate, because as leader of the party that now claims to have all the answers I thought he would bring to this country some hope, some encouragement and some light on the problems facing it. Every country in the process of development has problems. When we cease to have problems, we cease to grow. Progress means change, but all change is not progress. I failed to find anything in his remarks that would lead the people of Canada to return to this house those who governed the country before 1957.
The tactics of the Leader of the Opposition, and I am sorry he is not in his seat tonight, remind me of the story of the farmer with the balky donkey. He was asked by one of his neighbours whether the donkey led or whether he did the driving. His answer was, I keep close to the donkey so that people cannot tell who is leading and who is driving. I wonder if that is not the position of the Leader of the Opposition. I have had a good deal of respect over the year for him.
At one time he occupied a very important place in the life of Canada but the speech he delivered was beneath him, and I say that sympathetically. It was the voice of the Leader of the Opposition but the sentiments were apparently those of someone else. When he visited my constituency in 1958, as chairman of the school board I arranged for him to 26207-1-65
The Address-Mr. Stewart speak to a local class. I listened to him and he made a fine speech. Now I wonder what those boys and girls would say on hearing him decrying the position of Canada and saying Canada has lost prestige abroad.
I want to be fair to the Leader of the Opposition and I want to put on record the statement which he made, as recorded at page 40 of Hansard:
I have no doubt that when the time comes we shall have a full debate on international affairs at which time we shall be able to examine why, among other things, Canada's influence in these matters has declined rather than increased in the last four or five years.
What would those same boys and girls think of him when he criticizes the Secretary of State for External Affairs, a man who has done more to keep the name of Canada high in the councils of the world than any other man has done? He is a Canadian, a man who fought for peace on the battlefield and he is now fighting for peace in the councils of the world. Surely that criticism was absolutely uncalled for and unjust? The Leader of the Opposition has probably forgotten what the Premier of Sweden said about our minister of external affairs, and I quote:
Of all the world leaders, the man in the forefront in the fight for disarmament is the Hon. Howard Green.
When he made this statement he was speaking to the United Nations for all the world to hear.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister have held the name of Canada high in the councils of the world. Never before in the history of Canada has any prime minister dared to stand up and speak against aggression as has the present Prime Minister. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill) replying to the criticism of the Leader of the Opposition, regarding the position of Canada abroad placed on the record of the house for all time a complete answer to that criticism. He stated that Canada's position abroad was never better than it is today. I echo that statement.
Last fall, as a member of the NATO parliamentarian group, it was my privilege to visit with our armed forces in Germany and France and1 to serve as a member of the military committee. I also had an opportunity of speaking on military matters before the NATO delegates and I found that as Canadians we were highly accepted in the councils of the world. It is beneath the dignity of any man, any Canadian-and this is particularly true of and it applies to the Leader of the Opposition-to stand up in this house to decry and degrade the name of Canada throughout the world. We shall have our difficulties at home. We shall have our arguments and disputes but

the

The Address-Mr. Stewart let us present a united front to the world, let us show we are Canadians and are proud of our country.
We have heard a lot of criticism during this debate. We have had some criticism from hon. members representing my province. Tonight I should like to examine the record to find out where those great exponents of maritime rights and union were in all the years prior to 1957. It seems to me that, like Saul, they saw the light in 1957, and not before. I am a New Brunswicker. I have lived all my life there and I believe I know as well as anyone else the problems and difficulties of that province. I have seen its economy change from what was basically agriculture to being more or less dependant on manufacturing, and I say that this government has done more for the province of New Brunswick since 1957 than was done in all the years prior to that date.
The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) a New Brunswicker like myself, stands up in this house and, to hear him, one would think that all the ills and woes of New Brunswick started when the Conservative party assumed office in 1957. If he has the answers, if his party has the answers then let us examine the record and we shall find some of the answers to capital assistance, to project development, to the assistance that has been given by this government to my province. I am sorry the hon. member is not in his seat as I would like to refer him back to 1951 when the Liberal premier of New Brunswick came to the Liberal administration in Ottawa, that benevolent Liberal administration the remnants of which now sit in those four seats in front.
The premier came to Ottawa seeking assistance for the building of the Cross Point bridge. What did he get? He got the answers, and the answers were consistent. I quote what that Liberal premier of New Brunswick said when he got back to his own province, and this is from the official report of that year:
The attitude of the dominion government is only understandable as a simple manoeuvre to avoid responsibility by 'passing the buck'. It admitted its full responsibility in 1945 in language so plain that he who runs may read.
Again, further on in that report he said:
It seems strange that Ottawa can spend millions upon millions of dollars out of the federal treasury in other parts of Canada and in the next breath refuse to honour its constitutional responsibilities on this bridge project about which there can be no question where probably about $2 million are involved.
Contrast that with what the present administration did. In 1957 negotiations were started between the province of New Brunswick, the province of Quebec and the federal government, with the result that we now


have the Campbellton-Cross Point bridge which means so much to the people of northern New Brunswick. Did the hon. member for Gloucester, that self-appointed New Brunswick and maritime champion, stand up in this house and ask that all assistance be given to this development in the province of New Brunswick?
Now I move on to other items. When the province of New Brunswick came to this house for assistance in the development of Beechwood they received the same answer from the Liberal government, a consistent answer throughout the years. The answer was no. We were told by the Right Hon. C. D. Howe that as we had no industries in New Brunswick we had no need for power. When we asked for industries during the war years we were told that we had no power to support industries. Regardless of what angle was discussed, the answer was no.
In world war I, under Sir Robert Borden the province of New Brunswick had two munitions plants. In world war II not one single industry was established in the province of New Brunswick. Did the Liberal members of this House of Commons get up and beseech the government of that day to render capital assistance to the province of New Brunswick or to any of the maritime provinces? The Liberal administration never heard of the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants; they never heard of assistance in the development of hydro and thermal power; they never heard of a winter works program, which this year will cause nearly $600,000 to be spent in the province of New Brunswick by the federal government on payroll contributions. Prior to 1957, we never heard of anyone getting up and asking that some of the inequities in the province of New Brunswick be righted.
The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) never beseeched the government to give some assistance to Beechwood. My predecessor in the house said that Beechwood was not feasible from an engineering standpoint. He did not support the request of the province of New Brunswick.
What happened when this government came into power? Sufficient money was made available at a low rate of interest to develop Beechwood. We got results from this government. All we got from the Right Hon. C. D. Howe was a speech, which certainly did not contribute to the building of Beechwood.
My hon. friend from Gloucester and his cohorts, in those years after world war II when the economy of the province was declining, like Nero sat here and fiddled while

the country declined. What did he do? Nothing. The record fails to disclose anything. In 1944 the Liberal administration had the idea of a massive public works program. They called it the "post-war development program". I know something about it because I worked on it. But what happened? It was put in moth balls and stayed there as far as the Liberal administration was concerned.
The hon. member for Gloucester did not ask the minister of public works of the government he supported to bring that program out of moth balls as capital assistance to his constituency or to the province of New Brunswick. In those years his constituency was receiving roughly $400,000 in public works assistance from my hon. friend's party. Last year they received nearly $800,000 from this government. Is that not capital assistance to the province of New Brunswick?
Then we have in New Brunswick something that means a great deal to the people of my constituency, namely the Campobello-Lubec bridge. I did not create the channel between Campobello and the state of Maine. It was there when the white man came to this country and before. It was there during all the time the Liberal administration was here, and many delegations came up to Ottawa asking that they be given a bridge so that they might have ready access to the mainland at all times. But their pleas fell on deaf ears.
The hon. member for Gloucester did not get up and state, "Oh, I am a New Bruns-wicker and the people of New Brunswick need this bridge". The record shows that there was not one word from him, and not much more from my predecessor. He did ask the Hon. Robert H. Winters to table the correspondence in this house, and if you examine the correspondence you will find that the Hon. Robert H. Winters disclaimed any responsibility in connection with the project. However, I wish to be fair. He did indicate that the federal government might pay 50 per cent of the Canadian cost, and that is where the matter lay until this government assumed office in 1957.
In 1958 the Hon. Howard Green, who was then minister of public works, had caused to be enacted a bill making the Campobello-Lubec bridge possible. The island of Campobello is now connected to the state of Maine by girders of steel and before too long, within a matter of a few months, that bridge will be open for traffic and will provide a safe means of egress and exit from Campobello to the state of Maine.
I say that the Liberal candidates in New Brunswick will have some difficulty convincing the people of Campobello that the Liberal party has the answer. They certainly did not 26207-1-65i
The Address-Mr. Stewart have the answer to the plea from the people of Campobello. I give my hon. friend from Gloucester credit for having some knowledge of the fishing industry; but when the government that he supported cut the fishery-estimates for the province of New Brunswick by nearly $400,000, not one single word did he utter in protest. Yet he stands up in this house and says this government is not doing what it should regarding the fisheries.
Before I resume my seat I wish to place on the record some figures regarding fishery expenditures in the town of St. Andrews. Prior to the advent of this government it was rumoured that the fishery station was to be moved from the town of St. Andrews in the province of New Brunswick, and yet my predecessor in this house and his cohorts from New Brunswick raised no protest. But if my hon. friend would examine the figures he would find that this biological station, and fisheries research board is very important to the economy of New Brunswick.
I should like to place on the record of this house some of the expenditures over the years since this government has been in office. I will give these amounts in round figures. In 1957-58 the sum of $240,000 was spent on new construction, on salaries and wages, $480,000; on research, including salaries and wages, $659,000; on maintenance $36,000. In 1958-59, there was spent $93,000 on new construction; $543,000 in wages and salaries, $712,000 on research, $43,000 on maintenance. In 1960-61-I have the figures here-we spent in St. Andrews $82,000 on new construction; $595,000 on salaries and wages; $757,000 on research including salaries and wages; on maintenance $48,000. In 1959 we spent nearly $500,000 in St. Andrews on new construction.
Surely the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) cannot say that this government is not assisting the fishing industry in the province of New Brunswick. When the government that he supported was in power we spent about $57,000 a year on shipping construction for the fishing industry. That amount has been doubled, and with the increase in the subsidy it will be further increased. We increased the subsidy on fishing vessels from $165 a gross ton to $250 a gross ton. We provided a 40 per cent construction subsidy for other types of vessels. There are now being built in the constituency and in the adjoining province of Nova Scotia a great number of vessels which will add to the efficiency of the fleet. The hon. member talked the other day about a 6.6 per cent decline in the fishing this year. Let me refer

The Address-Mr. Stewart to some other figures. These appeared subsequent to his figures, and I quote:
The landed value of fish and shell fish in the maritime provinces during the month of December amounted to about $4 million or $800,000 greater than the average of the previous three years. This increase came about primarily as a result of favourable weather and prices during the lobster season in western Nova Scotia.
Further on, it says:
Fishermen's income from the sale of shellfish reached record levels in December, 1961. The landed value of these species amount to $3.2 million and was $1.2 million greater than in 1960 and $1.0 million greater than the average of the years 1958-60. This increase occurred largely as a result of excellent catches of lobsters and scallops- 6.2 million and 0.5 million pounds, respectively.
I quote those figures not to suggest that everything is right with our fishing industry or that we are living in a state of utopia. However, I say that this government has taken effective measures to assist the fishing industry in New Brunswick and the maritime provinces.
The hon. member for Gloucester and other speakers from New Brunswick have referred on numerous occasions to the Chignecto canal. The Chignecto canal would, no doubt, contribute greatly to the economy of the area but I sometimes wonder if we have not overlooked one basic fact. What would be the effect of an equivalent amount of money spent in the development of secondary industries in the area? The Chignecto canal was an issue when hon. members opposite were in power. There was a Chignecto committee which came to this house in 1950 or 1951, and some of the hon. gentlemen who now sit in the front row on Your Honour's left sat in on that conference. One did not hear however that any action had been taken as a result of that conference. They had the answers, but apparently they kept them to themselves because no benefit was ever forthcoming to the province of New Brunswick.
The hon. member for Kent (Mr. Michaud) referred to the development program, and I agree in the main with his submission. We need some assistance but we shall not get the assistance we need unless we are prepared with the united front. Certain inequalities do exist in the maritime province but I will say, as I said before that the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has done more to level out those inequalities than any other prime minister in the history of this country. The people of New Brunswick-and I speak entirely for my own province-have full confidence in the Prime Minister and I think I can safely say the indications are that we shall be back in equal force, if not in greater force, after the next general election.


Mr. C. R. Granger (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: In rising to participate in this debate I should like first of all to congratulate you, sir, on your elevation to the high position you now hold. I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Bourdages) who moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) who seconded the motion.
I come from a province which historically has lived by international trade. The reference to trade in the speech from the throne is of particular interest and importance to those of us who come from Newfoundland.
Broadly speaking, there is cause for serious reflection in respect to Canada's position in this world of trade. Not only does the province from which I come live by trade, but this whole nation lives by trade. In this world of change-and it has always been a changing world, and will almost certainly continue to be so-there is need for a forward looking, imaginative attitude toward the problems of today. The formation of trading blocs, the changing pattern of European commerce, the immense increase in productivity and prosperity in other lands make it vitally important that the government of Canada and the industry and commerce of Canada should not only adjust themselves to the changes which have taken place and which are now evolving, but anticipate them and do some vigorous thinking, followed by equally vigorous action. This must be done if Canada is to regain her place in the word of international trade, and this can be done. In our system of free enterprise, our resources, our land, our forests and our waters we have the food, the minerals and the materials which are the basic needs of humanity. We also have the people who can produce and manufacture the articles and the food needed by the world. However, we need a more definite and more imaginative policy in government in order to give the leadership which is so essential and the political climate to lend confidence which is also both requisite and necessary.
As European countries seek to work out their own destiny by freer trade amongst themselves and as the United States hasten to shape their trading policy in order to meet these new developments abroad, is it not of paramount importance that Canada also face the facts of today and make the changes which are necessary in order to do business in this world of trade? It has been said that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. It is also quite true that eternal vigilance is the price of economic survival.
It seems to me that a real change is taking place today in the attitude toward tariff

walls and protective barriers and that the policy of protective trade barriers which was accepted generally during most of this century is now being superseded by a freer trade policy, at least within certain areas. It would seem that the next logical development would be freer trade between these areas.
I suppose that an outstanding example of free trade between peoples in a large geographic area is the group of federated provinces which through confederation became the modern nation of Canada. Confederation made possible free trade between all the provinces, and the spectacular growth of Canada is a justification of the wisdom of the fathers of confederation and of an integrated economic system of free trade within a vast geographic area. As we in this land of free enterprise and enormous resources see the changing trends in the world abroad, is it too hard to visualize a broader application of the principles which worked so well at home so that commerce may move more freely between the trading and economic blocs taking shape in the world today? Far from being dismissed as utopian, the idea of freer trade is realistic and may well point the way to economic prosperity as well as provide a mighty argument for peace.
However, I should like to particularize for a few minutes with respect to trade in Newfoundland. I do this for two reasons. The first one is this. From time to time the Atlantic provinces, of which Newfoundland is one, are referred to as the have-not provinces. The second reason is that I and others from the province of Newfoundland, and I might add the other Atlantic provinces, from time to time make requests for special assistance or special forms of assistance for our fisheries. There is the possibility that hon. members may, after hearing repeated requests for assistance, be inclined to think that we from the eastern seaboard are constantly begging help, that the assistance we receive from the federal treasury is simply a subsidy to bolster an uneconomic region, and that in order to exist at all the Atlantic provinces must be the recipients of federal dole. Nothing is further from the truth.
In fairness to hon. members I may say that they have probably been too kind to put this idea into words. However, I might say, such suggestions have been made outside this house; and repeated utterances with respect to what the federal government has done for the Atlantic provinces are apt to give rise to this thought.
I should like to recount briefly what is the position with regard to trade in Newfoundland. From earliest days Newfoundland depended upon international trade for survival.
The Address-Mr. Granger Prior to our entry into confederation we exported all that we produced and we imported all that we used. I use the term "all" broadly. Perhaps I might say that we exported 90 per cent of what we produced and imported 90 per cent of what we used. However, the fact is that we exported practically all we produced and we imported practically all that we consumed. We imported largely from the United States, Great Britain and Canada. Our fish, wood, pulp and paper and minerals all went to markets outside Newfoundland. Our food and our clothes and the other multitudinous items used in our households and our industries were imported from abroad.
After Newfoundland entered confederation we still exported abroad our paper, minerals and fish, but-and here is the significant difference-we now bought, after Newfoundland entered confederation, practically all our consumer goods from the mainland of Canada. I would call the particular attention of those members representing industrial areas to this aspect of Newfoundland trade. Those members from farming and fishing areas can well understand our problem, for all producers have at least two things in common. The first is that they are the producers of the nation's primary wealth and the second is that they are buyers of the nation's industrial output.
In Newfoundland we provide food and materials which the markets abroad want. We consume the things which the Canadian manufacturer makes. The money earned in Newfoundland is by and large passed on to the industries of Canada for clothing, machines, tools and so on. Most of our foodstuffs including grain products, breakfast foods and all the myriad forms that foodstuffs take, come of course from various parts of Canada of which we are now a part.
There is a partial exception to the above statement. Some of our fish goes to the Nova Scotian plants to be processed for export, but of this I shall say more anon. By and large, the money earned by our exports finds its way into mainland Canadian coffers. I might add that I am not complaining about this situation at all. I merely wish to establish the fact.
We produce thousands upon thousands of tons of paper. The Anglo-Newfoundland Company last year sold approximately $36.5 million worth of pulp and paper. We export fish of various kinds, including dried salt cod and fresh frozen cod and haddock as well as other varieties. In 1960 it is estimated that about $32 million worth of fish was exported. We export iron ore, copper, lead and zinc. In my own district there is the mine at Buchans,

The Address-Mr. Granger where concentrates containing lead, zinc and copper with some silver and gold are produced.
There are the copper mines at Tilt Cove and Little Bay, with other similar developments in the offing. There is the asbestos mine at Baie Verte soon to come into production. There are also great iron ore developments at Labrador City and Lake Wabush, and the power development at Twin Falls. There, I might say, is one of the great industrial developments of the century. There are new towns with a new modern school, a new hotel, new mills, a busy airstrip, and there as far you can see are mountains of iron ore.
At Labrador City one mill has been built with a pelletizing plant to be constructed soon. The first mine will go into operation early this summer. Significantly, the first mine is called the Smallwood mine in honour of Premier Smallwood whose vision and energy did so much toward making this great northern development possible. Labrador iron and Labrador power will undoubtedly make this area one of the greatest industrial regions in North America.
As I stated before, practically all the fish we catch and the minerals and paper products we produce are sold abroad. The money received in exchange is spent on the mainland of Canada. Prior to confederation Newfoundland was Canada's second best customer. The amount now spent on the mainland by the province of Newfoundland has increased greatly over what it was prior to confederation. Certainly when we ask for financial assistance from Ottawa to improve our fisheries so that we can catch more fish and have more money to spend it must be realized that most of our spending is within Canada and that the Canadian economy profits directly and almost exclusively from Newfoundland's production of fish, minerals and woods products.
I have mentioned before the importance of the woods industry of Newfoundland to the Canadian economy. There is a threat to the forests of Newfoundland which is probably much greater than the threat of forest fires. I refer to the pestilence of the woolly aphid. I call the attention of the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Flemming) to this blight. The Minister of Forestry with his colleagues, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Dinsdale) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Browne), showed an interest in our problems by coming to Newfoundland last summer when the scourge of fire was afflicting our province. I believe the Minister of Forestry is aware of the threat of the woolly aphid and of the fact that some areas are already affected.

My information is that 2,000 square miles of forest are affected and that the disease is breaking out in other places. I am told that treatment to control the woolly aphid has to be in the form of severe surgery. 1 understand it is impossible to counteract the spread of this blight by means of spraying from aircraft and that it is necessary to burn the affected areas. This means the building of more roads so as to obtain access to the principal forests on the island. It may well mean building a road westward from Buchans toward the west coast to reach the valuable forests that lie between this part of the interior and St. George's on the west coast. Certainly the situation is one that needs to be faced immediately and with the utmost vigour.
I have referred to the fisheries of Newfoundland on many occasions in this house. They are still of paramount importance not only to Newfoundland but to Nova Scotia and, in fact, to all of Canada. As I stated earlier, the fish plants of Nova Scotia depend to a large degree on fish caught in Newfoundland waters by Newfoundland fishermen. Although much has been done by both the federal and provincial governments, much remains to be done. What would be very helpful is an extension of the services already in use. I think of the perennial shortage of bait. Although the bait service has been extended, many more bait holding units and cold storage facilities need to be installed.
Investigation and development of artificial bait is highly desirable. The development of bait which would be impervious to spoilage would have a directly beneficial effect upon the fisheries. The Labrador floater fishery, practically dormant for years, is showing healthy signs of making a comeback. As a matter of fact, the rich fishing grounds off the Labrador coast are becoming more and more attractive as the need becomes felt more and more. I would strongly urge the need for more and improved marine works for the fishermen of Labrador and for those who go to Labrador for the fishing season.
The first community stage to be built in Labrador was built at Williams Harbour last fall. This was a federal project. A community stage complete with bunkhouse and cookhouse is being built at West St. Modeste in the straits of Belle Isle. This is a joint federal and provincial project. With the Labrador fishery growing in importance both types of structures are needed badly and I would hope that the federal Department of Public Works will see fit to build more marine works such as wharves and breakwaters in

Labrador in addition to community stages for the fishermen of Labrador and community stages plus cookhouses and bunkhouses for those who come to Labrador from elsewhere to fish during the fishing season. I need not emphasize the fact that the value of small marine works has been proven over and over again. Most of these marine works which are so essential to the fishing communities in northern Newfoundland and Labrador are projects which might be described as small marine works, small wharves and breakwaters, but they are extremely valuable.
The value of the community stage program is beyond question and I must say that it was disappointing to me that the government did not see fit to institute another program of building community stages when the first program was completed last fall. I know that the needs of all fishing communities cannot all be met at once but I do think that if a policy were decided upon whereby 10 community stages per year would be built a great improvement would be effected and within a reasonable length of time many much needed marine facilities would be built in Newfoundland and Labrador. As time goes on the need for community stages is bound to increase as fishing property such as stages, flakes and so on have to be replaced, and as it becomes more difficult to find material the need for community stages will in fact become aggravated.
The replacement of fishing property is a real problem to many fishermen. Improved facilities are needed in order to increase the catch per man and an increased catch is necessary if the fisherman is going to make a real livelihood out of his vocation. As I said before, something has been done toward meeting the basic needs of the fishermen but a definite increase in these services is needed, and needed now.
I maintain that the cost of supplying these services is comparatively small and that it would represent an investment which would pay real dividends. It is not a matter of giving money away without hope of return but rather a matter of investing money so that production may be increased; and I hope it is from this aspect that the needs of the fishermen are viewed. I strongly urge the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean) and his colleagues to consider actively the supplying of these needed services so that fish production may be increased.
I should like to mention briefly the whaling industry, an industry which used to be very active in Newfoundland but which has all but disappeared from Canadian waters. At one time this industry was carried on out of the harbours of Williamsport and Hawkes
The Address-Mr. Granger Harbour in my riding. These industries have ceased to operate. I should like the whaling potential to be reviewed by the federal Department of Fisheries. I understand it is carried on profitably by other nations. Certainly, the whales are still there and modern, technical knowledge ought to be able to find a way in which this industry may be revived on a profitable basis.
I should like to make a reference to Gander airport. At the time Newfoundland entered into confederation, Gander airport markedly improved Canada's position in the field of commercial aviation. Today it boasts a modern terminal with air navigational aids among the most complete and most modern in the world. In recent years, the amount of traffic through Gander airport has fallen off, although I believe last year business increased considerably. Needless to say there is considerable concern in Gander, where a large town has been developed. The houses are owned by these people who have put a large part of their earnings into them. The lives of the people in Gander are irrevocably tied to the airport itself. For this reason, these people would like to know, if possible, what the future holds in store.
There has been a tendency for modern, jet airliners to overfly Gander. There is some suggestion that in time, as the pattern of air transport changes, planes will use Gander more frequently and it may become a very important airport again. No one can deny that, as I said, it has the most modern navigational aids and it has a strategic location. The location made it an invaluable asset for many years.
What does the future hold? I know forecasts are quite dangerous. Nevertheless, I should like the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) to analyse the trends in aviation today to see if he cannot give us some idea of what the future may hold for Gander. For instance, it has been suggested that planes originating in the western part of the .North American continent, instead of being routed through busy airports like New York, would fly on and stop at Gander for fuel. Then, they would continue to their European destinations. It has been suggested also that the smaller, near-sonic jet airliners of the future would, because of their immense speed and comparatively short range, use Gander as a matter of course. Then, too, if aviation forecasts are accurate, there is almost certain to be a great increase in air freight, air express and charter runs. All of this could well mean that the facilities at Gander will again be used to the extent to which they were designed to be used. I feel sure that the Minister of Transport is interested in the

The Address-Mr. Stefanson future of Gander because that airport represents a considerable investment, as I am sure the minister is well aware. I would ask him again to look into this matter of the utilization of Gander.
I am well aware of the fact that many of the air carriers are not Canadian, so there is a limit to what can be done to influence them to use the port of Gander. However, I hope no avenue will be left unexplored and that the minister will use every means in his power to negotiate with all potential customers so that the port of Gander may become the busy airport it once was, and which I am sure it can be again. It has been suggested, too, that a new look should be taken at the charges for the use of airport facilities. I believe landing fees are uniform all across Canada, regardless of what the airports have to offer. It would be reasonable, I believe, to assume there should be a relationship between the charges made and the potential revenue available.
I should like to mention briefly the desirability of having mail delivered by road in central Newfoundland. I have in mind the Buchans, Millertown and Grand Falls area, where I feel sure the present mail delivery can be considerably speeded up if the mail were moved by road from Gander. I should like to suggest also that it is desirable to have air mail service in northern Newfoundland and Labrador continued throughout the year.
In conclusion, I should like to say a brief word about the trans-Canada highway. Since confederation, the provincial government has made enormous strides in road building. Progress has been made to a remarkable extent and after centuries of isolation many remote areas are now connected by road. The building of these roads placed a heavy financial burden upon the provincial government. Add the cost of building a network of roads to the hundreds of communities in our province to the high cost of building the trans-Canada highway, and the burden becomes back-breaking. Bearing in mind, Mr. Speaker, the high cost of transportation in Newfoundland and in the Atlantic provinces in particular, I would hope that the federal government would consider the advisability of completing the trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland.


Mr. Eric Stefanson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate my first words are those of congratulation to the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Bourdages) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne), for the excellent job they both did in moving and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne. As a result


of the job they have done, they have brought honour to themselves and to the constituencies they represent. I offer my congratulations to you, sir, on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. I am sure you will preside over this assembly with fairness to all.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches so far in this debate. These speeches have covered a wide field.
I notice from press reports that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and the former leader of the C.C.F. both expressed disappointment with the throne speech. This was to be expected. Whenever this government has introduced good legislation, and this has happened regularly, these expressions indicate their disappointment. I suppose this is human nature-to be envious of a government which is discharging its duty well.
I shall leave the section dealing with external affairs and international events to others who are more experienced in that field. The hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman) dealt very ably with the subject this afternoon. However, I was surprised to hear the Leader of the Opposition make an attack on the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green). There is no minister held in greater affection right across the country than he and I am sure no one has worked harder for peace. The comments I have heard indicate that people generally feel the minister of external affairs is doing a noble job and they are proud of the Canadian achievements at the United Nations and in international affairs.
Surely we have not forgotten the speech which our Prime Minister made to the United Nations in September, 1960? At that time the feeling was that we were all proud of him, proud to be Canadians and rightly so. At that time he gave leadership which was so vitally needed.
The speech from the throne contains the following sentence:
The Canadian government remains devoted to peace as its primary objective.
Surely this is a principle that all hon. members in the House of Commons can accept, and dedicate themselves to work together to achieve that objective?
It has been pointed out that in 1961 there were more people at work than ever before. They earned more and, saved more. Productivity was at an all time high and exports created new records. I am not going into detail and I shall not quote statistics, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce ably outlined all of this when he spoke. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) is reluctant to give the government any credit. In fact he said it was only natural that all these things

should happen but I am sure many hon. members will agree that the legislation passed at the last session of parliament did much to bring about these improved conditions.
The outlook for 1962 is good. Business people are predicting a good increase in total productivity, increased employment and an increase in business generally. I shall not quote any of the business leaders as many of their statements have already been placed on the record and are in Hansard for all to read. However, I am sure most members would agree that the legislation enacted at the last session is largely responsible for the upsurge in business and the bright future facing Canadians in 1962.
Mention is made in the speech from the throne of the economic policies which have been implemented in preceding sessions of parliament. It is true that great benefits are flowing from these policies which are helping to bring about improved conditions in this country and further benefits can be expected, especially when the people who have taken technical training come back on the labour force. I feel that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) deserves a lot of credit for much of this legislation. The municipal winter works incentive program has been a real success and of real benefit in creating employment, as was shown in the debate on the supplementary estimates.
Last summer was the hottest and dryest summer we have ever had in Manitoba. With that combination it is amazing what crops were harvested. Some farmers had to reduce their herds but in most cases farmers were able to get enough fodder to retain their basic herds. The government deserves credit for taking quick action in working out a plan with the provinces to assist in the movement of livestock and fodder, and also in establishing a fodder bank.
This government has passed a great deal of legislation relating to agriculture and this legislation is having favourable results and is bringing about improvements. The agricultural picture is brighter now than it has been for a long time. At this stage I want to quote from a brief submitted by the farmers' union to the special legislative committee on livestock marketing in Manitoba on September 21, 1961. This is to be found at page 9 of their brief:
The interest shown by the United States in our cattle since the latter part of June of this year has been the greatest boon to drought-stricken cattle marketings that we could possibly have had. There is no doubt that the movement of cattle to the United States from 2,174 head in June to 24,492 head in July, 42,896 head in August and 12,424 head up to September 2 (one week only) has helped to hold price levels and has even increased prices to producers. The greatest impetus to this movement has been the difference in the exchange
The Address-Mr. Stefanson value of the U.S. dollar as compared to the Canadian dollar. The 6 per cent or more change in the exchange to the benefit of U.S. buyers selling on their home market helped boost our price by this difference. It has even created a greater hurdle for any slaughter cattle attempting the reverse procedure and being sold from the U.S. on our market.
The interlake area is now included in P.F.R.A. This change was brought about last July. Farmers and municipal officials had been making requests for many years to be included in the terms of P.F.R.A. but they always fell on deaf ears. The minister of agriculture in the former government said that the interlake area would never be included, and it never would have been if the Liberals had stayed in power. People will not forget the shabby treatment they received from the former government.
During the past few years there have been more houses built, and more construction in such towns as Selkirk, Stonewall, Gimli, Teu-lon, Arborg and others than in any previous similar period. Last summer one lumber dealer told me that he had never had a busier year and that there was more construction going on than ever before. The interesting fact is that this happened under a Conservative government.
Due to the policies carried out by the present government the constituency I have the honour to represent has received many benefits. Under the aggressive policies of our Minister of Public Works new post offices have been built or are being built at Fisher Branch, Lundar, Riverton, Eriksdale and Winnipeg Beach, and others are in the planning stage. R.C.M.P. detachment barracks have been built or are being built at Selkirk, Lundar and Gimli, with others in the planning stage. New docks have been built on lake Winnipeg at McBeth Point and Whiteway Point. Extensions have been built to several others including those at Selkirk, Gimli, and Gull harbour and work is nearing completion for the breakwater for the harbour at Gimli.
The Minister of Transport and his department are carrying out an aggressive aids to navigation program for lake Winnipeg. Many new lights have now been installed and this work is much appreciated. The Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) and his department have increased the frequency of mail service in many areas. I could list many other benefits but I think I have illustrated that our government is both progressive and alive. Under the former government things had been at a complete standstill for many years.
The former house leader of the N.D.P.-C.C.F. and other opposition members have poked fun at the A.R.D.A. bill. In my opinion this is one of the most important bills passed

The Address-Mr. Stefanson by parliament for a long time. I am convinced that it will create tremendous benefits for agriculture and, in fact, for all community development. Those who poke fun at this today will be the laughing stock of tomorrow. Any legislation that requires agreement between provincial and federal governments often has a tendency to take longer to implement. I am likewise convinced that cooperation is forthcoming from the provinces in the implementation of this act. In my own province of Manitoba I know they have several projects in the planning stages and these will shortly be ready to be put into operation.
A.R.D.A. is an adjustment program and it emphasizes multiple use of our resources. It is part of a broader national program of price supports, farm credit, crop insurance and all the other activities of the provincial and federal governments that make up the agricultural legislation. In reality it is part of an over-all community development.
There are three sections to the act, the first of which provides for directing the use of resources to more profitable alternatives; another provides for the construction of physical works for such things as soil and water conservation projects. The other and perhaps the most important part deals with rural development projects including studies of resources of communities, possibilities for bringing industries and new business into communities, and such other projects that contribute to community development.
I can see that this act can have a tremendous impact on a riding such as the one I have the honour to represent, a riding which includes two large lakes, lake Winnipeg, lake Manitoba and other smaller lakes. It also has some of the most fertile land in the province. It has large areas of ranch land, particularly along the lakes, large tracts of marginal and submarginal land, large areas of forests, and vast areas which could be improved for community pastures. Many marshes are located in the area and there is also an abundance of game and wild life. There are many, many miles of beautiful sand beaches located on both the shores of lake Winnipeg and lake Manitoba, and also along some of the rivers and on some islands in lake Winnipeg. A large portion of the commercial fishing industry in the province of Manitoba is located in this area. Agriculture is mostly mixed farming. The area has several gypsum and limestone deposits.
From the description of the constituency one can readily see that A.R.D.A. will be a real challenge. It is, however, essential that members of municipal councils, chambers of commerce, farm organizations, women's organizations, service clubs, etc., take an active

interest in this act and come up with suggestions regarding what type of planning is most suited to their own environments.
I mentioned that the act had three sections. Under the first of these it is assumed that substantial areas of land now in agriculture can profitably be put to other uses. There will be a strong demand for livestock products in the years ahead and it is quite possible that it would be advisable to take some land now under cultivation for community pastures. Forestry, recreation and wild life uses of our lands also offer real opportunities throughout the country for raising the incomes of communities and for effecting better land use. An important activity under A.R.D.A. will be the redirection of land use.
Under the second category a great many projects can be undertaken to improve drainage, to conserve soil and to provide water supplies for farmers where the land resources are of good quality and where such additional works made their development economically feasible. Benefit-cost analyses will be made in such instances and one can foresee a broad application of this part of the act to the country as a whole.
The third section, that of rural development, is both new and challenging. Under this section communities will have to assess the resources at their disposal and come to some decision as to the types of development that would be most desirable. They may feel they need to attract small industry or activities of some type that provide a steady payroll within the community. For a town to be able to attract industry it needs a good water supply. The selection of projects made by a community should be based on a careful assessment of what the community feels it needs and upon the resources available to it.
It is of great importance that a good deal of planning take place at the grass roots because it would be futile to organize this type of activity from the top down. However, it is important that communities undertaking this kind of organizing and planning receive guidance and assistance from higher level of governments. At this time I wish to refer to page 5197 of Hansard of May 22, 1961. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) was speaking on Bill C-77, and he said:
1.	While the program is focused mainly on farm people, it cannot be exclusively agricultural. Rural economies are no longer separate from town or urban economies, and the program must be one of area development embracing local centres of population as well as the farms surrounding them.
2.	The program should be regarded and accepted as long run rather than short run since many of the problems to be encountered are structural rather than either cyclical or transitory.
3.	The program should have two levels-a regional or local level; that is a local level within that region under the all-embracing framework of the

national joint provincial-federal committee. Planning and action must be primarily local; the kind of action taken will depend on local resources
and conditions.
While success depends upon local leadership, a national program directorate is essential for research, assistance in selecting personnel, and financing co-ordination of plans of various local programs, and to record and make available the experience of local programs to other local areas. The leadership msut be primarily under the control of the provincial-federal directorate.
4.	The co-operation of provincial governments, universities, farm organizations, and other bodies, is essential, but it is important that the national program directorate take the lead in co-ordinating any activities of these bodies. It would be undesirable to have several unco-ordinated programs proceeding simultaneously and in isolation, under provincial, university or other leadership. The national directorate should maintain the position of leadership in all activities which are not local.
5.	The program may at times be closely related to other federal programs such as the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, the Maritime Rehabilitation Act and the farm credit corporation, as well as, of course, to provincial extension and educational programs.
6.	It must be recognized at the outset that the problems of marginal areas and of programs developed to relieve these problems will be social as much as economic, political or technological. This in itself makes it essential to regard the program as a long run one, and to recognize the difficulties which it will encounter.
I take it that a national interdepartmental committee will be formed to work with a provincial interdepartmental committee to receive suggestions from the various regions of the country. The provincial agricultural minister becomes the person through whom ideas are funnelled and he is also the person who is expected to encourage the local communities to embark upon an assessment of resources and possibilities for development. As I said before, this act is a real challenge. It is a challenge to farmers and people living in small villages and towns. Let us get busy and dream up suggestions for projects which could be implemented under this act.
The resources for tomorrow conference took place in Montreal last October and there were about 700 experts in attendance who discussed resource management. Among the resources discussed were agriculture, forests, wild life, water, fisheries and recreation. Many of the topics discussed at this conference and much of the information gathered can be of direct benefit to those who will be charged with the administration of A.R.D.A. It can likewise give inspiration and suggestions to those who are seeking ideas and projects.
I am pleased to note that the resources for tomorrow conference steering committee has now been set up on a permanent basis and will be known as the resources ministers council. The aim of the council will be to
The Address-Mr. Stefanson improve intergovernmental liaison and coordination in the field of renewable resources.
Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a copy of the Selkirk Enterprise dated March 8, 1961. The heading on page 3 is "Cunningham Visualizes Edmonton to Selkirk Water Highway."
Mr. Cunningham is a resident of Selkirk, Manitoba, and until his recent retirement was in charge of all dredging operations for the federal government in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest Territories. Mr. Cunningham, when speaking to the Selkirk chamber of commerce, outlined his plan for a water highway from Edmonton on the Saskatchewan river to Grand Rapids, down lake Winnipeg and up the Red river to Selkirk and Winnipeg. It was evident that Mr. Cunningham was talking about a subject with which he is familiar, and also that he has carried out a great deal of research work on this topic. It is also a topic in which he believes, and he feels it would be practical to make it a reality.
Whenever new ideas are advanced there are some who immediately say that those ideas are ridiculous and nonsensical and that the man responsible for them is a day dreamer. I am sure that when the St. Lawrence seaway was suggested there were those who said the project was nonsense. After the idea had been advanced it no doubt took a long time to stir up interest in it and to convince people of the possibilities. Later, extensive surveys were required to determine whether the project would be of sufficient benefit to warrant the spending of public money. I have no quarrel with that. I do think it is important that this type of project be given careful study. I agree one has to be convinced of the over-all benefit to the country as a whole before public moneys are spent. I merely point this out because I am sure that throughout history whenever a progressive idea has been advanced there were those who referred to it as absurd. However, one should remember that the man advancing the idea has given study to the topic while those who criticize have usually not given the matter any thought or consideration, which is why they offer the kind of criticism I have mentioned. I am one of those who believe that whenever someone suggests a project, particularly when that project is imaginative and visionary, one should look at it carefully and give it every consideration.
The suggested program of Mr. Cunningham is one which, I believe, comes in that category. It certainly is imaginative; likewise, it is visionary. One can visualize this type of project leading to the development of the northern ports of the three prairie

The Address-Mr. Racine provinces. It is essential that we should provide all practical forms of transportation. Since Canada is a growing nation with an expanding economy and the likelihood of a greatly increased population in the years to come, I think it will be desirable to have varied forms of transportation so as to serve Canadians wherever possible. The presence of rail, freight, truck transportation, air lines and water transportation would tend to establish competitive freight rates which could not help but be beneficial to people in general.
Mr. Cunningham has done a lot of work in connection with this project and he has presented to the chamber of commerce a brief of great interest outlining the possibilities of this plan for a water highway from Edmonton on the Saskatchewan river to Grand Rapids, down lake Winnipeg and up the Red river to Selkirk and Winnipeg. In his summary of the cost and freight possibilities, Mr. Cunningham listed goods which could be transported. He goes on to say:
From these plains of Canada one could dream a little higher still and, again looking to the past, realize that Winnipeg need not be the eastern terminal of this inland waterway. With channels of 100 to 150 feet wide having a mean depth of six to eight feet, large loads can be taken clear from lake Winnipeg to the Great lakes via the routes of the old explorers. Yes, and some of our military movements of the earlier days up the Winnipeg river to the lake of the Woods, from there to the watershed, and thence down into lake Superior by means of the rivers running on the other side of that watershed, would show us the way.
One could dream a little beyond even that, and envisage the day when a seaway will also be built down the Nelson river to connect Hudson bay and lake Winnipeg. Then western Canada would be connected by a seaway to the Atlantic ocean and Hudson bay.
I would suggest that the Department of Transport begin gathering data and information concerning this proposed waterway between Selkirk and Edmonton. It is within the realm of possibility that some time in the future this proposed waterway would become a reality and be of real economic benefit to the people of Canada.
(Translation):


Mr. Jean-Paul Racine (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks, may I offer you my warmest congratulations for your appointment as Deputy Speaker of the house, and my best wishes in your new functions.
I also want to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address, Mr. Bourdages and Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway). They have surely excelled for they have attempted to magnify the meager accom-

plishments of their government, and to gloss over the numerous errors of their party, but without success.
I also want to congratulate the new Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Flynn). I wish him well in the performance of his new duties. His appointment made a great stir, but the reshuffling which was predicted during this suicide trip of the cabinet to Quebec fizzled out.
This inspired the Montreal newspaper La Presse to make the following comment on December 29 last:
With its sophisticated staging and all its sensational rumors, the deceiving press conference given by Mr, Diefenbaker yesterday in Quebec smacked of a tempest in a tea cup.
As for the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion), he was promoted, on the occasion of that trip, to a post which is said to be very important.
The Prime Minister is alleged to have a natural aptitude for staging and for making, at the right time, the symbolic gesture which strikes the imagination of the voters, but he will now have to admit that if he had anything in mind when he decided to call his ministers to Quebec city, he has completely failed in his attempt.
It was a great to-do for very little and one has to come to the conclusion that the cabinet met in Quebec for its own pleasure, probably for an annual picnic. In short, the member for Quebec South replaced the previous minister of mines who had just been named lieutenant governor of the province of Quebec, and the Secretary of State was appointed to a post so important that it had been vacant since 1957.
About this so-called shuffle, here is what Le Devoir had to say, on December 29:
The Quebec representation in the cabinet comes out neither weaker nor stronger from what we hardly dare call a shuffle. Let us say that it is rather weak, a fact which will not help the Conservative cause at the next general election.
It must be admitted, I think, that the letter from the legal office of the Secretary of State has had much more publicity than the trip to Quebec. It is often said nowadays that it will be more and more difficult to get the Secretary of State's autograph.
As for the member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard)-I would not wish to forget him-I should like to congratulate him upon his appointment as parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. At least, we will be able to say that, as far as rewards go, he will be on an equal footing with the member for Peel (Mr. Pallett).
Between sessions, cabinet members have travelled a lot. Getting ready for the election

has taken much of their time. This might explain the poor results and the lack of action, on the part of the government, in dealing with the serious problems we now have before us, such as unemployment and the slump in which agriculture finds itself.
(Text):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Before you leave the chair, perhaps I could persuade the leader of the house to let us know whether this debate
Business of the House will be carried on until a conclusion, according to the rules.


Mr. Churchill:: This debate will be carried on until its conclusion, which, of course, could occur at any time. The house is not obliged to keep this debate going for eight days. We shall continue this debate tomorrow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the other two days if necessary?


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.