1962-01-24

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1962, was presented by Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: I should like to table communiques of two recent Ottawa meetings, first the communique issued on January 4, following the meeting which certain members of the government had with the Right Hon. Edward Heath, Lord Privy Seal in the United Kingdom government, and, second, the communique dated January 13 issued at the conclusion of the seventh meeting of the joint Canada-United States committee on trade and economic affairs. If it is the wish of the house that these communiques be printed as an appendix to Hansard, I think that would be the suitable course.


Mr. Speaker:: It is proposed that the documents just tabled by the minister be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard. Is it agreed that this course should be followed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For the text of communiques above referred to, see appendix A]



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the right hon. gentleman taken cognizance of the statement of the state department of the United States, as reported in this morning's Globe and Mail, concerning the proposed restrictions on non-Canadian magazines, and the affirmation by the official that the United States would seek some form of
trade compensation if the Canadian government went through with its plan?
Has the Prime Minister any comment to make on this statement?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Yesterday there was a statement by the press representative of the state department to the effect that the reported plan for the disallowance of income tax deductions in respect of advertising in Canadian editions of foreign magazines was of the same general character as the 20 per cent tax formerly imposed by the previous government. All I can say is that there has been no official communication directly received by the government since I set forth the terms of the projected legislation. However, there was an earlier message received by the Canadian government last August.
There is nothing further that I can add. We believe that this legislation is necessary in the interest of the Canadian identity and as an assurance that Canada's destiny will be preserved. As far as the question of compensation and the like are concerned, while believing that this matter comes entirely within our rights and is not merely a commercial question within the terms of GATT, we are naturally prepared, as I said, to listen to the views expressed regarding it though not to depart from the general plan and purport as placed before the house by us. We in Canada believe we have the right to assert the preservation of those things which are Canada's and that our Canadian publishing industry is challenged in such a way that unless action is taken we shall, in the days ahead, be dependent entirely or almost entirely on the viewpoint of another nation, however friendly.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. During the intergovernmental discussions which took place recently the communique concerning which was tabled earlier today, were conversations held in connection with the subject mentioned in the question? May I further ask whether or not consultations will be held between Canada and the United States as seems to be indicated in the statement by the official of the United States state department.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, during the progress of the meeting between United States and Canadian ministers that was informally mentioned.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lionel Chevrier: May I follow up the last part of my question, namely, whether or not consultations will take place with the other government as referred to in the press report upon which I have based my question?


John George Diefenbaker: I made that very clear when I made the statement the other day.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate):: I wonder if I could put a related question to the Minister of Finance and ask the minister, in view of his opposition to what was done by the previous government, when did he see the light on the road to Damascus?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the minister need not reply to that question, as it is an improper one and anticipates a debate which might take place later in the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would you permit me, sir, to say this, in view of the form in which the question was asked? The government's proposal on this occasion is very different from the tax that hon. gentlemen opposite imposed when they were in power.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY REPORTED DISCUSSION RESPECTING OF SECOND ROUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works arising over a report by Robert Moon in the Regina Leader-Post of January 19, under the headline "Decision likely on second trans-Canada highway." Can the minister say whether discussions, in fact, have taken place between the officials of his department and highway authorities with regard to the construction of a second trans-Canada highway?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: I have not read the article, but I can assure the hon. member that when any announcement is made in this connection it will be made by the Prime Minister. In the meantime the Prime Minister's policy still is in effect, namely, that we should finish this very difficult and very expensive trans-Canada highway before we proceed with any further ventures.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I might repeat a part of the question. Is the minister in a position to tell the house whether, in fact, any preliminary discussions have taken place as the article says between officials of his department and highway authorities?


David James Walker: There have been no official discussions by my department with any other official department, to my knowledge.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask a supplementary question? Is the minister's statement to be interpreted to mean that the trans-Canada highway is to be finished in all the provinces before any alternative is undertaken?


David James Walker: In due course we will have further word on any subject such as that. My hon. friend from Newfoundland, his adopted province, is an expert in setting bear traps but he has not succeeded in setting any for me so far.


Mr. Maurice Bourgel (Levis):: Is the Minister of Public Works aware of, or has he read, all the promises that were made by his colleagues with regard to the trans-Canada highway when they were sitting on this side?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's supplementary question turns out to be an assertion of a debating point which I take it he will have an opportunity to pursue in the future?


Maurice Bourget: It is in accordance with the answer given by the minister.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is what is wrong with it.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter Pitman (Peterborough):: My
question is directed to the Minister of National Defence, although I think perhaps it might come within the purview of the Prime Minister. It arises from a Canadian Press dispatch stating that the federal government has ignored requests to have a representative take part in a debate on fall-out shelter policy in Cornwall sponsored by the Voice of Women.
My question is, would the minister assure these people that there will indeed be a representative of the federal government in attendance at a debate to take place this month in that city?


Mr. Egan Chambers (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: Since my name was mentioned in the Canadian Press dispatch to which the hon. member has referred, perhaps he would permit me to give an answer. I received an invitation from Cornwall on Friday last and on Monday I telephoned the sponsors of the meeting to say that I would be there. On Tuesday this

item appeared in the newspaper saying that no response had been received. I will be there.



REQUEST FOR NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM BY ST. JOHN AMBULANCE BRIGADE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister given any consideration to sponsoring a widespread national training program in St. John Ambulance courses across the country to take care of emergency cases where families may take refuge in fall-out shelters in the event of atomic war?


Hon. J. W. Monleith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1 know that the St. John Ambulance brigade has been working with the civil defence authorities.
(Translation):



WHEAT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Ariha-baska):: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question. In his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary.
Has the Minister of Agriculture taken the necessary steps to appoint a representative from eastern Canada to the advisory committee of the Canadian wheat board? If so, who is he and when was he appointed?
(Text):


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: When a decision is made on this matter, Mr. Speaker, it will be announced in this house.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, and ask him for an explanation of a news item which appeared in the North Bay Nugget of January 20, to this effect:
A federal survey of the possibility of creating a salt-water port at Moosonee, at the mouth of the Moose river on James bay, has concluded that the project is not economically feasible.
Can the minister say whether this report has been forwarded to Toronto and will he table a copy of it in this house?
Inquiries of the Ministry


David James Walker: There is no report available at this time, Mr. Speaker. When there is a final report I can assure the hon. member that I will bring it to the attention of this house. We have been working with the Ontario government on this matter and in due course, if possible, we will make any submission of it.


John Richard Garland: I have a supplementary question. Can the minister say whether any economic or engineering studies have been made in this particular case.


Hazen Robert Argue: A political survey.


David James Walker: A feasibility study has been made. As the hon. member appreciates, one must determine the feasibility before one can determine any of the other matters.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: With regard to this matter I should like to ask the minister whether he has any comment to make upon the reported statement of Mr. Robert Macaulay that, whatever the federal government report may be, Ontario plans to go ahead with this project.


Mr. Speaker:: I question the propriety of inquiring from the Minister of Public Works for Canada about statements made by the minister for Ontario.


Douglas Mason Fisher: It seems to me you raised a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Nipissing asked a question as to whether a report was available. In the public domain Mr. Macaulay was commenting upon a so-called federal government report. That is why it seems to me it is relevant within the minister's province.


Mr. Speaker:: I understood the hon. member to be inquiring as to the intentions of the provincial minister. Surely he cannot expect the federal minister to answer with regard to that matter.



NORTH BAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport regarding an announcement made several weeks ago by the hon. member for Simcoe East to the effect that several locks were going to be introduced into the trent canal system in order to open up navigation to the North Bay area. The question arises from protests made by the Canadian Fish and Game Association. Has the minister taken into consideration the fact that plans for this waterway may open inland waters of Ontario to both lamprey and smelt infestation?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: This matter was raised and my officials have taken it into consideration. Unfortunately I am not in a position to give the result of that consideration. The decision of the government to go ahead with these locks has met with a good reception in that part of northern Ontario.



EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. It is based on a newspaper story by the Canadian press in this morning's Globe and Mail under the heading:
U.S. expects Canada... to join future Inner six talks.
My question is this. Will he advise the house whether the Canadian government is prepared to participate in any new negotiations undertaken by the United States to reduce tariffs with the European common market?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That, of course, is a hypothetical question, Mr. Speaker. It will naturally depend on when this happens and also on the circumstances. I have had occasion to point out that the goals set forth by President Kennedy are identical with those pursued by the government of Canada. We are both seeking an expansion of trade on a multilateral non-discriminatory basis. After the United States president has obtained the necessary powers from Congress, if he then pursues negotiations with the European economic community and if it is then proposed that the scope of the discussions should be enlarged in order to include other countries, you may be sure, Mr. Speaker, that Canada will be intensely interested. We are ready to play our full part in pursuing the goal that we hold in common.



RUBBER FOOTWEAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has his attention been drawn to a statement by Mr. Greig Smith, secretary of the rubber association of Canada, to the effect that Japan has exceeded its self-imposed quota on the importation of rubber footwear into Canada by some 66 per cent during the last calendar year? If so, has the minister any comment to make?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am examining the assertions that are contained in that newspaper article.



EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is he prepared yet to answer the question I 'Ssked him on January 19 concerning the tabling of the speech of the Lord Privy Seal of the United Kingdom?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will see that it is tabled.


George James McIlraith: May I ask the Prime
Minister to give consideration to doing so reasonably promptly, in view of the fact that the throne speech is going on and it may be desirable to make reference to it?


John George Diefenbaker: It has already been published in the newspapers and I thought the hon. gentleman would have it. I shall try to get it again and table a copy today.


George James McIlraith: I would not like to rely on newspaper reports of the speech because the government denies them so frequently.


Mr. Churchill:: What about a recording tape?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a supplementary question I would ask when the Prime Minister tables the report of Mr. Heath's speech that he table, at the same time, the report which was made to the Canadian government and which they found insufficient. I ask this so that the house and the public may be able to compare the two.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question was completed before he began to elaborate on it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it was completed before it was started. So far as that question is concerned we would naturally wish to communicate with the British government on whether or not the document in question can be tabled.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the Prime Minister undertake to do that?



INQUIRY AS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL GRID

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he inform the house what steps

he has taken to date to promote interest on the part of provincial governments in the development of a proposed national power grid?


John George Diefenbaker: Decidedly informal discussions have taken place from time to time. My memory of the matter is that a letter has been sent to the premiers of the various provinces. In consequence of and following their replies, further steps will be taken. However, I will have the matter looked into and will be in a position to give the hon. gentleman a full answer tomorrow.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the resolution proposed at the United Nations by the Afro-Asian nations yesterday requesting that all aid to Portugal be withdrawn owing to the situation in Angola, will the Canadian government consider proposing an amendment to this resolution asking that aid be cut off to any nation which oppresses people in territory under its control?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this
Afro-Asian resolution dealing with the Angola question is at present under consideration in the department. My impression is that an amendment such as the hon. member raises would not be relevant to this particular resolution because it deals only with Angola.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Does the minister not feel that such a resolution would be discriminatory?


Howard Charles Green: I do not think that an amendment of that kind would be a suitable one for this particular type of resolution.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. The Owen Sound Sun-Times of January 19 reported that President Kennedy has requested from congress the sum of $967,000 for lamprey control in the great lakes. Can the Minister of Fisheries advise us if this money is for the international great lakes fishery commission?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, from the figure mentioned I can only assume that this represents the United States' share of the budget of the international great lakes fishery commission for the next fiscal year. By agreement Canada provides 31 per cent of the budget of this commission and an amount of approximately $350,000 will be included in the estimates for the next fiscal year as Canada's share.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the recent storm which took place on the east coast of Newfoundland and which destroyed private wharves, slipways, fishing equipment and boats belonging to fishermen, many of whom will be unable to resume fishing operations unless they get assistance, would the minister advise whether the government contemplates assuring that special assistance to the fishermen affected is provided?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member sent me notice of his intention to ask this question but since it relates to the situation so far as fishermen have been affected I have taken the liberty of passing the question on to my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, more than one department was advised of the effects of this storm in Newfoundland in December. On receiving reports of the damage following the storm the Department of Fisheries undertook a survey of the area involved to determine the extent of the damage. This survey is not yet completed.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gaston Clermont (Labelle):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister in a position to tell the house whether the government will meet the request of the representatives of the dairy farmers that the support price of 64 cents per pound be maintained for 1962-63?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: As the hon. member is aware, dairy policy for the ensuing year is announced prior to May 1, but not a great deal prior to that. I can assure him that this matter is receiving consideration and there will be an announcement by that date on it.

Inquiries of the Ministry
LABOUR CONDITIONS	DEFENCE PRODUCTION



WINTER WORKS PROGRAM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold Hicks (Fraser Valley):: I have an urgent question for the Minister of Labour. Before the close of the last session I got the impression that he had completed arrangements to provide, under the winter works program, the same facilities for persons living in unorganized territory as for those living in municipalities. I have just learned that 35 men living in the Popkum area of B.C. have been refused winter work because they have no organization to collect the 25 per cent stipulated. Why should they be expected to provide this amount when they have no access to taxes?


Michael Starr: We have included the unorganized territories under our winter works program. However, no submission has been received from the province of British Columbia relating to winter works projects in this unorganized area. I am informed that a submission was forwarded to the province by this area, but was rejected by the province. So far as we are concerned we are dealing with unorganized territories on the same basis as municipalities, and are contributing 50 per cent of labour costs when provincial approval has been secured.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: In view of the answer given by the minister yesterday I wish to ask the Minister of Finance whether any expenditures now made on advertising on radio and television stations in the United States by Canadian taxpayers, would be deductible as a business expense.
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of
Finance): That would depend on circumstances. I do not propose to give the hon. member an off the cuff reply to a question of that kind.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was not asking for any off the cuff reply. I was asking if the minister could find out. Perhaps he could take this as notice of a question as to whether these are allowed as deductions?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. gentleman has questions of that kind I suggest he put them on the order paper in accordance with the rules of the house.
[Mr. Harkness.l



LINDSAY, ONT.-INQUIRY AS TO SALE OF CANADIAN ARSENALS PLANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production and ask him has the government given consideration to the sale of the Canadian Armament Corporation plant in Windsor, Ontario.


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: No sale of this plant has been made. A request was received by a company from Toronto to purchase the plant, and I have submitted it to the directors of Canadian Arsenals who are studying the question. There is no question of a sale for the time being.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Is the Postmaster General aware that thousands of Christmas cards and letters mailed before Christmas in the city of Montreal did not reach other sections of the same city until after Christmas? Would he care to comment on that?


Mr. Speaker:: The urgency of the matter seems to have disappeared with the Christmas season.


Azellus Denis: In view of the fact that this happened would the minister take steps to ensure that Easter greetings will arrive on time?


Mr. Speaker:: All I can suggest to the hon. member is that he might renew his question next November.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In order that the question might have a little more urgency may I ask the Postmaster General whether he would take steps to make sure Valentine greetings are delivered on time?



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 23, 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, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Pearson.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the government welcomes the test of confidence that is being put to the house in the amendment now under debate introduced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). In the time at my disposal today, just 30 minutes, it will be necessary for me to be quite compendious in my treatment of some of the subjects.
I have some comments to make about the speech of the Leader of the Opposition and about issues, both those which he raised and those which he so carefully evaded. Of his speech I will say that in general it was a compound of distortions, errors, half truths, half quotations and selected anti-Canadian quotations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There was little, if anything, in it that was constructive. If the Liberals have the answers that they claim to have, then certainly they are carefully hiding them. There is no better proof of that than the way in which the Leader of the Opposition, any time anybody asked him a question, sped away from that question as fast as he could. There was nothing new in his speech. Indeed, his speech was most unoriginal. It was a repetition of the same old baseless and empty charges and false accusations. As a performance it was old hat.
It was evident that the Leader of the Opposition was using Hansard, as a convenient vehicle for gathering together in one place a lot of newspaper quotations mostly from partisan, anti-government sources to serve as campaign propaganda in the next election, and he has left Hansard to groan under this dismal burden.
There were many subjects omitted from his speech. After touching ever so deftly, ever so lightly, indeed, almost ignoring some recent events and certainly completely ignoring subjects of very great national importance, and ignoring and misrepresenting the contents of the throne speech, he touched on, I think it is fair to say, three subjects: first, international trade patterns; second, the state of the Canadian economy; and third, he besmirched the image of Canada abroad.
I shall be obliged, because of the time limit, to confine myself largely to the first two of his subjects. In regard to the third, I say only this, that if anyone is astute enough and selective enough he can always find articles in the press abroad that are critical of Canada or Canadian policy. They were there also in the days of the previous government. This is not a new phenomenon. You will find these opinions expressed by people who do not know Canada or Canadian conditions or
The Address-Hon. D. M. Fleming who sometimes become self appointed authorities on Canada after a week end visit to Ottawa or Toronto or a visit to some Canadian port or city.
But not every Canadian would besmirch his own country by constructing his most important speech for 1962 out of the most careful selection of every adverse comment abroad that he could find, assiduously omitting the many which comment favourably on Canada and Canadian policy and then seeking to exalt his own image of himself by reflecting in a personal way on his distinguished successor, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green).
Sir, if this is the new Pearson let me say, as one who has known the gentleman for many years, that I personally very much prefer the old Pearson.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is obvious.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Was Canada's prestige abroad lowered when the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker), at the United Nations a year ago last autumn, made that eloquent and effective plea in the cause of the subjugated peoples of Europe under the heel of the U.S.S.R.; or when the Prime Minister, at the commonwealth prime ministers conference last year, took a firm stand on principles that saved the commonwealth; or when my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, with great patience and persistence has been carrying on an effort at the United Nations on behalf of disarmament and the control of arms and denouncing the way in which the Soviet union has been defeating these efforts?
Did Canada's prestige abroad suffer on these occasions, or did Canada's prestige abroad suffer at those many economic conferences under commonwealth auspices at which Canada took a leading role?
Has Canada's prestige abroad suffered when we see that our relations with the United Kingdom are as close and friendly as ever, notwithstanding the efforts of malevolent persons who misrepresent those relations as being disturbed, and when we have in this way healed the wounds that were inflicted on those relations five years ago by the previous government over the Suez issue?
Did Canada's prestige abroad suffer when our relations with our closest neighbour, the United States, are today as close as ever they have been and are based, I think, on a clearer and better understanding of one another than they ever have been?
For personal reasons I make no comment on the organization for economic co-operation and development. I leave these facts to speak for themselves, and those of us who know him

The Address-Hon. D. M. Fleming hope that the Leader of the Opposition will be better able to resist the temptations of the green-eyed monster.
I turn now to the subject of international trade patterns. On this subject the Leader of the Opposition departed far, far from the facts. He has done it before on this question. Therefore I wish to take it a stage at a time and to discuss it as simply and as clearly as I can.
First of all I refer to the European economic community, which finds expression in the European common market. This is an existing fact, a fact of primary importance. The E.E.C. has very important economic goals and very important political goals, the latter being quite often overlooked by some people on this side of the Atlantic. The six countries concerned are moving closer toward these goals and they have declared for closer political integration.
Similarly, they are moving toward a closer integration of their economic policies. They are moving toward a common external tariff, toward the free movement of persons and capital within their borders and toward the erection of a number of institutions.
Our relations with the E.E.C. are, on the political side, very warm and very friendly. All six countries are our allies and we recognize the value of a strong and united western Europe as a bastion of freedom.
On the economic side, the interests that we have in common with the community are enormous. We, along with the United States, have in the post-war years extended aid to these countries and have contributed substantially to their reconstruction and economic revival. We rejoice in their economic comeback.
We look upon the European common market as an enormous and growing market for Canadian exports. We have been taking full advantage, and urging Canadian producers to take full advantage of every opportunity to expand their sales in that quarter. Great success has attended those efforts. Canada's sales to the six countries of the common market have quadrupled in the last 10 years. Our sales to the common market countries are running currently at about half a billion dollars per annum.
Our concern as to the policies of the community are, first of all that they should adopt outward and not inward-looking policies, and second, we have deep concern over their agricultural policy.
The question is sometimes raised: can Canada join the community? The answer, Mr. Speaker, must be no.
The treaty of Rome, which gave rise to this institution, provides clearly that membership is open only to European countries. It is a distinctly European institution. There is


provision for association of what are called associated overseas territories. This category is not applicable to the self governing countries of the commonwealth. It applies to some countries that have been in association with these six countries. We have some examples in northern Africa. So that-


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about article 238?


Donald Methuen Fleming: -there is no provision there for North American countries.
There is an article in the treaty which provides for association, as it is called-not associate membership, but entering into association. Greece, for instance, has become an associate member. It has been made clear by the six that the kind of association which is contemplated there is with less developed countries, and not what we commonly call the exchange of trade advantages. That is not the kind of association which is contemplated. Of course, the community as an institution has been negotiating at GATT. We have been negotiating with them for a year and a half, so that is not to be confused with membership in the association or association in the sense to which I have just referred.
Some Liberals who have been saying that Canada should join the common market- and Mr. Douglas, the leader of the N.D.P. has been openly advocating this-are obviously not acquainted with the subject they purport to discuss. This matter has been touched on by President Kennedy who dealt with the subject in very plain terms when he said: "I do not know what the word 'associated' means in that question". He had been asked whether the U.S. proposed to become "associated" with the common market. Then he added:
I have not heard it proposed the United States should become a member of the common market or associated with the common market in the sense that the word is ordinarily used.
The fact is that Canada, particularly as a country looking for a larger market for the export of its agricultural surpluses, is not the kind of country that the Six would find it suitable to be associated with in the meaning which is contemplated by certain clauses of the treaty as I have indicated. There has been a certain amount of error and confusion on this point and for that reason I thought it well to deal with it now.
I pass, now, to the application of the United Kingdom for membership of the common market. These negotiations are currently proceeding. It becomes, then, a question of what terms can be negotiated. What decision has the government of the United Kingdom taken? It has not taken a decision to enter

the European common market. That is perfectly clear. Hon. members opposite, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) in particular, talk as though this was the decision which had been taken. The decision which the United Kingdom government took was to open negotiations, to ascertain whether acceptable terms of entry could be negotiated. That decision was taken at the end of July, not until after Mr. Duncan Sandys had been here in that month and visited other commonwealth countries. The decision with respect to entry will be taken, we have been assured, only at an advanced stage of the negotiations. That stage has not yet been reached. Undoubtedly, the United Kingdom government strongly desires to enter the common market, but not at any price, and Mr. Heath, when he was here-and he is conducting the negotiations for the U.K. government-made that abundantly clear within the last month.
The Leader of the Opposition and some newspapers were saying long ago that the United Kingdom was going into the common market. They were saying this even before the U.K. had decided to negotiate. Their statement has been contradicted by the United Kingdom government itself, and I think they know their own business better than the Leader of the Opposition knows it for them. We are, of course, fully aware of the possibility of the United Kingdom joining the common market and our planning takes this possibility into account. In the present stage, current interest is concentrated on the terms which are under negotiation.
The next question is, what is the meaning for Canada and the commonwealth of the United Kingdom entering the common market? There will, of course, be some pluses and some minuses. We can only consider these in terms of the net result. Obviously, the E.C.M. will become larger and enormously more powerful, both politically and economically. How will it use that power? This is a question which is of vital importance to Canada and to the commonwealth. The policies and attitudes of the various members of the community are not all the same. The question then is, will outward-looking policies prevail? We hope so. Only time will supply the answer to that question.
The importance to Canada of this question can be gauged from the importance to Canada of the United Kingdom market. We sell to that market today approximately $1 billion worth of goods per annum and these exports cover a wide area. They include agricultural products, industrial raw materials and manufactured and semi-manufactured products. There is a great variety in our sales to the United Kingdom, and these sales have been
The Address-Hon. D. M. Fleming expanding; this is not a static market. Seventy six per cent of all that Canada is selling to the United Kingdom could be affected by the entry of the United Kingdom into the common market, depending upon the terms. This is because these goods enter under the commonwealth preference system and in many cases are guaranteed free entry or free entry with a preference. This is a matter of agreement. Canada has bought and paid for these advantages in the United Kingdom market; it has been a matter of exchange of trading preferences. The United Kingdom market is Canada's leading market abroad for wheat. What of the prospect of a 20 per cent tariff against Canadian wheat if the United Kingdom enters the common market, replacing free entry into the British market as is the case today? That is not all. The countries of the E.E.C. have erected many quantitative restrictions in the course of their agricultural policy. Agricultural protectionism is high in Europe and it takes many diversified forms. If the United Kingdom were to enter the common market without taking steps to protect commonwealth, including Canadian, interests the results could be very grave for Canada and for the commonwealth. Our trade, both in agriculture and industry, could suffer enormous losses and dislocation.
In the course of our discussions with the United Kingdom we have received assurances that they will safeguard the vital interests of the commonwealth or they will not go into the common market. We value those assurances and we appreciate them. We recognize the difficulties which confront the United Kingdom and the heavy responsibilities which Mr. Heath, in particular, bears in these negotiations. We have sought to help him in these tasks.
Here I point the difference between the Liberals and ourselves. They have been trying to push the United Kingdom into the common market. For example, Mr. Walter Gordon of Toronto has been saying on various occasions that Canada should encourage and support Britain's plea to join the E.C.M. Apparently he is not greatly concerned about the safeguards necessary to protect the interests of Canada and the other commonwealth countries the importance of which is recognized by the United Kingdom government itself following our discussions at commonwealth conferences and in bilateral talks.
We can trace this attitude on the part of the opposition to the historic Liberal opposition to the commonwealth preference system and, indeed, going further, to the indifference that the Liberal party has shown in the past to the commonwealth as an institution. They

The Address-Hon. D. M. Fleming have shown it often in relation to the commonwealth preference system, and in the blithe way in which they would, apparently, throw away the advantages which Canada enjoys in the British market. They reveal themselves as oblivious to the interests of Canadian farmers, Canadian workers and Canadian producers.
Two days ago the Leader of the Opposition said we had been remiss in not selecting priorities. Do hon. members realize what that means? He said we were remiss because we had not come forward and made proposals for the sacrifice of Canadian interests or producers on the altar of entry into the common market. His idea is that Canadian industries, including agriculture-because agriculture has an enormous stake in these negotiations-should line up on the right, as it were, and step forward for extermination. The Canadian government has not regarded it as its responsibility to sacrifice Canadian interests. We have considered it our responsibility to have due regard for Canadian interests in the larger context of seeking those measures which will strengthen the economy of and good relations within the whole free world.
The importance of these economic factors in maintaining the commonwealth has been misunderstood and underestimated by hon. members opposite. I wish they had been at the Accra meeting to hear the representatives of the commonwealth countries there. Country after country pointed out the importance to them of the maintenance of these commonwealth trade arrangements. Indeed, a representative of one of the leading countries said there, "If you do away with our trade preference, my people will ask what is the use of belonging any longer to the commonwealth?"


John Whitney Pickersgill: Was that the representative of Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. Some of the newer countries of the commonwealth have not the same background as we have. This fact has been misrepresented and distorted by hon. members opposite but it is a plain fact readily recognized by all who are up to date in their knowledge of the commonwealth.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Such as the press.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I come now to the
question of commonwealth views. The concern that we have expressed is shared by all of the commonwealth countries, and all of the commonwealth countries spoke unanimously on this subject at Accra and elewhere. The misrepresentation of what happened at Accra has been enormous. It has been said

that Canada led a ganging up on the United Kingdom. Nothing could be further from the truth. That statement was published by the nephew of the Leader of the Opposition. It is not a true statement. There was not any ganging up. It is a bad picture to draw of the United Kingdom as if it were not able to look after itself at a meeting of the commonwealth countries where we always meet as friends. When hon. gentlemen opposite take the position that was taken, they are attacking the position of the whole commonwealth, because it was an unanimous expression of concern. And so, Mr. Speaker, there is no right to select Canada as a whipping boy for those who disapprove of a position taken by the entire commonwealth including Canada.
I am pressed here for time, but let me say this. We have always recognized that entry into E.E.C. is a decision which the United Kingdom will take and the United Kingdom alone. We have been concerned for the interests of Canada and the commonwealth, and we have properly, frankly and amicably expressed that concern and the grounds for it at these meetings, as was our duty. The course that we have taken has, in fact, greatly strengthened the hands of the United Kingdom in these present negotiations, the Leader of the Opposition to the contrary notwithstanding.
We are assisting the United Kingdom in these negotiations with all required information in relation to Canadian trade. Those negotiations are about to enter a new phase. There have been discussions at Brussels hitherto carried on by our very distinguished ambassador there, Mr. Sydney D. Pierce. I do not like the way in which hon. members opposite seem to downgrade a very eminent Canadian representative there in the person of Mr. Pierce. But because the negotiations are about to enter a new phase we have arranged to send over a strong team of trade experts to Brussels to be available there at all times for constant consultation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not bureaucrats?


Donald Methuen Fleming: These negotiations are of vital importance to Canada, and Canada and other commonwealth countries are not parties to the negotiations. Therefore, consultation is of the highest importance. That has been recognized in our talks with Mr. Heath. I have no apology to make for having renewed the request of the Canadian government addressed to the government of the United Kingdom for a copy of his Paris speech of October 10 which was of such vital importance to all of the commonwealth countries. When we received a copy of that

speech we were delighted with it and had the opportunity of congratulating Mr. Heath and expressing our appreciation to him of the full contents of that speech when we had our recent meeting with him. I invite hon. members to read what was said in the communique issued following the talks with Mr. Heath.
Mr. Speaker, there has been the grossest kind of misrepresentation of the position taken by my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and myself, at Accra. The discussion there and in our other meetings, whether in London or Ottawa, has always been frank. Views have been expressed in friendly terms. There have been no bitter speeches. Some newspapers have been saying there have been, but their statements are just fairy tales. There is no news in good relations between Canada and the United Kingdom, but if someone can imagine that there is some disturbance of relations, that makes news.
1 do not accept the statements of the Leader of the Opposition in this matter. He was not at Accra, and no newspaperman was inside that conference. But I will accept the statements made by British ministers since the Accra meeting.
One of the leading British ministers at that *conference was Mr. Reginald Maudling, then the president of the board of trade. Mr. Maudling was in Canada a fortnight later and was asked about this. At page 9056 of Hansard *of September 28, 1961, I gave the full text of the Canadian Press dispatch on a statement he then made but at this time I shall quote just one paragraph from it:
He-
That refers to Mr. Maudling; and remember, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Maudling was a veteran of all these commonwealth economic conferences where the subject had been discussed. I continue:
He described the recent meeting of commonwealth ministers at Accra, Ghana, as "the best discussion we ever had". He didn't agree with all that was said but he considered that everything said was reasonable.
That statement was made by Mr. Maudling who was present at Accra.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would you expect him to say anything else?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the face of the blatant nonsense uttered by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) and other hon. gentlemen opposite, here is what was said by Lord Amory, the British high commissioner to Canada, a former chancellor of the exchequer. This statement was made just two days ago on his arrival in British Columbia.
The Address-Hon. D. M. Fleming


Lionel Chevrier: Why is the minister so exercised?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister is exercised about the untruths uttered by hon. members opposite who utter untruths because they think they will help them back into power and I detest their actions in this regard.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister is calling everyone a liar these days.


Donald Methuen Fleming: These are the words of Lord Amory according to a Canadian Press dispatch dated January 22:
Lord Amory said there is no resentment in Britain about Canada's early reaction to proposed British membership in the six nation trading bloc. "Canada was fully justified in putting any reservations she had fully before the government of the United Kingdom," he said.
Those are the words of Lord Amory. But that is not all. Let me read from Lord Amory's speech to the Canadian Manufacturers Association in Toronto, November 22, 1961. Here are some of the comments he made:
-we in Britain do understand the anxieties expressed by your government-
Speaking of the Canadian government.
-about the possible consequences upon Canadian trade and the commonwealth if we enter the European common market.
Nor have we any reason to resent the forthright way Canadian ministers have voiced these anxieties.
It is right and healthy that on such occasions we should speak frankly to one another, and there is no reason whatever why doing so should impair our friendship or our confidence in one another. I am sure that it is not going to do either in this case. Personal relations between British and Canadian ministers are close, friendly and cordial. And though we each have our own ideas we agree that in a matter of this kind it is impossible to be sure how things will in fact turn out or what their effects will be in this rapidly changing world.
Speaking of the anxieties expressed by the commonwealth countries he went on to say:
Those anxieties are not vague apprehensions without substance.
And further:
We understand very well Canadian anxieties about trade in the various categories of importance to Canada in which there is at present free or preferential entry to Britain-foodstuffs and notably wheat, raw materials such as aluminium and timber, and manufactured goods.
Mr. Speaker, I will accept those statements as accurate statements as to what has been the tenor of the discussions between Canada and the United Kingdom in relation to the United Kingdom application to join the common market, but I will not accept the untruths and distortions that have emanated from the opposition on this subject and, not least of all, those from the Leader of the Opposition that we heard on Monday last.
What of our trade relations with the United States? No new initiative or wider approach

The Address-Mr. Godin would be possible today without participation of the United States having regard to the extent of its interests.
President Kennedy's announcement of a few days ago has been received with the keenest interest by the Canadian government. We have expressed our policy in virtually identical terms. We recognize that his initiative is in the very early stages. His message to congress on the subject is, I believe, expected today or tomorrow. His proposal will then have to run the gamut of congress. It is estimated it will take at the very least six months before congress can act on any such legislation.
We would not wish to prejudice, by what might be considered in some quarters as foreign intrusion, the course that that legislation may follow in congress or the consideration that may be given to it there. It is clear that the United States are pursuing the same goal of seeking an expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis as we are. The means is not free trade, but freer trade. This is not to be confused with joining the common market.
President Kennedy was quite clear on this when he said recently:
I am not proposing, nor is it either necessary or desirable, that we join the common market, alter our concepts of political sovereignty, establish a 'rich man's' trading community, abandon our traditional most-favoured-nations policy, create an Atlantic free trade area, or impair in any way our close economic ties with Canada, Japan and the rest of the free world.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that these words apply with even greater force to Canada's situation. Like the United States, our trade and economic interests are far flung; only we depend relatively much more on foreign trade than does the United States. Just as our southern neighbour has political interests all over the world so our own political interests are very wide, embracing many areas and countries. We have a European heritage and we are a member of the Atlantic community but we also value our membership in the commonwealth, we are a country of North America, we have close relations with the United States, and we have developed increasing trade bonds with third countries such as Japan.


Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Belt):: It is an
honour for me, Mr. Speaker, and for the people of Nickel Belt that again this year I should be given the opportunity to join my colleagues in this traditional debate on the speech from the throne. I should like to do as my colleagues on both sides of the house have done and congratulate the seconder (Mr. Browne, Vancouver-Kingsway) who accomplished his task very well and was appar-
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton).)

ently so short and sweet in congratulating the government.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I also wish to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Bourdages), who moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and to the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau), who has been appointed Deputy Speaker.
I must not forget to congratulate the hon. member who has now become Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. I have to remind him of the fact, that, representing, as I do, a constituency where the mining industry is quite important, I will often have to call upon the services of his department, and I will perhaps be one of those who will be paying the closest attention to whatever he does.
(Text):
I am sure the people of Nickel Belt would like me on this occasion to address myself to the general problems that face us in Canada and not necessarily deal with certain details which hon. members undoubtedly will have the opportunity to discuss under various circumstances during the session. The backbenchers have been greatly helped in this debate, of course, in this way. On the first day we had the occasion to hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and also I must admit, we had the opportunity of listening to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) himself, who spoke in rebuttal. As has been mentioned, this may be an election year, and therefore the record of the government is undoubtedly a matter for discussion. Notwithstanding what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) believes the Leader of the Opposition, with evidence in hand has indicated to the people of Canada the shortcomings of this government, as a member of the opposition I am certainly proud of the information given on Monday last by the Leader of the Opposition concerning the grave problems in Canada. On the other hand, I must admit that we had occasion to listen to the Prime Minister himself who was called upon to defend himself and the government against the accusations made against him.
The difference between the two speeches was obvious to all members of the house. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, in the last portion of the first day the Prime Minister, when he was called upon to speak, spent all his time making reference to a document written by Mr. Blakely and purporting to deal with the situation in 1'955 and 1956. Notwithstanding the fair record of the Liberal party at that time we are, of course, prepared to admit that, in the face of the promises of this government and of the Prime Minister, the Liberal party

could not be elected in 1957 and 1958. But surely to goodness the Prime Minister himself does not wish to believe that he can be elected on a worse record.
What was the course of the Prime Minister on the next day? To what purpose did he engage the attention of the house? On the next day we were taken back to 1952 and 1953. It was an example of the old process of diversion. We have problems to discuss and to solve but the Prime Minister took us back to 1952 and 1953. He attacked one Mr. Drury and others. I am told that Mr. Drury has a wonderful record of service in this country. The Prime Minister attacked persons who cannot stand up in this house and defend themselves. Those were the people who were attacked on the second day. That is a type of diversion.
We must recall that the Prime Minister took charge of this government under a theory of diversion. Then it was diversion of trade. We now have diversion of issues. A little later we had a good example of it in the speech of the minister representing Newfoundland. Although the speech was entirely out of order we were diverted into exclusively provincial matters. While we are busy here this week trying to discuss problems facing Canada and to enlighten ourselves with regard to them, we have this kind of diversion.
Then this afternoon we had the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) criticizing the Leader of the Opposition because he, the Leader of the Opposition, had used quotations or information received from people who had something to say in criticism of this government. Then the Minister of Finance himself went on to speak for half an hour using all the quotations he could possibly locate in order to excuse his government and possibly to improve his position. Is that not a diversion from the problems with which we are faced? Let us deal with the problems themselves and not try to divert the discussion into other channels.
If the attempt to divert the discussion in this house fails, resort is had to the old routine of saying that the opposition is a party of doom and gloom. It is no such thing. A loyal opposition is an integral part of our parliamentary system and we appreciate it in that way; it should be so appreciated at all times and not just when the Conservatives are in opposition. It should be appreciated whenever the Canadian parliament sits.
Is the Prime Minister going back to the theory of Mr. Khrushchev, namely complete imperialism? A few months ago we all received reports of the praesidium meeting in Moscow when Mr. Khrushchev had occasion to deliver a speech which was possibly similar to the one we heard last week. As we find from reading the reports of it, nobody was
The Address-Mr. Godin allowed to object. In those reports we have seen absolutely no objection. Is that the type of Canadian parliament our Prime Minister wants? Do the members in this house recognize the Prime Minister who says he wishes to stand for the best traditions of this parliament? What type of tradition are we upholding if we are trying to muzzle the opposition which has a purpose and a function? I realize, of course, that as the Conservatives were in the opposition for so long a period, the Canadian position may not be affected. But nevertheless I believe we should have this respect.
Before I go on to speak about economic matters I should not like the members of the New Democratic party to think that I am forgetting them. Of course, it is rather hard to know what these initials mean, as we hear so many versions. For instance, just the other day I heard Mr. Douglas, the new leader of the N.D.P., referred to as the newest displaced politician. He was apparently so well displaced that even the person who was trying to become his successor could not fill his shoes. More recently I have heard people refer to the N.D.P. as the new demolition party. There may be some truth in this reference. If they are trying to demolish anything, it may be the party itself. We have read this in the papers. I think it is time that someone stepped up to protect the right to vote of the Canadian people. Certainly this party will demolish something if from now on the workers of this country cannot vote as they wish according to their choice but rather must ask someone else in what manner they should vote.
There is no doubt that we are facing an election year unless the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) is prepared to imitate in every respect the action of Lord Bennett some 30 years ago when he stayed in office for the full five year stretch. Undoubtedly everyone recognizes that an election should normally take place this year. If the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and other speakers on the government side are right, the present administration must be a great success and I think it is only proper and fair that members of the House of Commons should demand an election this year.
Furthermore, we must demand a proper accounting, something which will satisfy the Canadian people so that when they go to the polls they will know with certainty the problems with which the country is faced. I say that an election should take place but I also say at once that an accounting is necessary. Immediately upon the conclusion of this debate, why could not the Minister

The Address-Mr. Godin of Finance present his budget? That is possible, and certainly in that way the Canadian people could be enlightened.
I have read comments on the speech from the throne. There is not too much to be found in it but I should like to refer the house to a comment I read in a paper that is very friendly to the government, the Globe and Mail of January 20. The editorial commences in this fashion:
There was a general expectation in Canada this week that the speech from the throne, opening what is presumably the last session of the present parliament, would be a resounding election manifesto. It has proved to be nothing of the kind; it would be difficult to imagine anything further from a blast of trumpets. It is, in fact, a curiously thin and inadequate statement from a government which must soon face the voters.
The present situation is a harmful one. In the face of the weakness of the government in expressing itself as to the state of affairs in Canada, people are wondering just what they are heading for. I should like to read another paragraph from the same editorial because it puts the situation quite well.
We shall apparently have to wait until the budget is brought down for an answer-which may be several months. This is hard on the public and still harder on business concerns, which must plan their 1962 programs, without knowing whether they face higher taxes, another bout of inflation, or some radical change in government economic policy. This uncertainty will hardly promote enterprise and expansion.
So far as an accounting is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I think the major emphasis should be on the promises made by the Conservative government, and they are many. There have been discussions about them but I will restrain myself and only refer to a few of them. There is the problem of a balanced budget about which the Minister of Finance, who has just taken his seat, has spoken so often. What is the situation in that regard? We have had deficits ever since this government has been in office. In the last ten years of what they call poor Liberal administration there were not only balanced budgets but surpluses amounting to $2.4 billion. What have we had in the short time that this government has been in office? We have had deficits totalling $2.2 billion. A short period of four years was sufficient to wipe out the surplusses provided this country by a Liberal administration.
There was a promise to lower taxes by about $130 per person. When we review the figures we see that taxes have increased. That is a matter of accounting which should be explained to the house and to the Canadian people. We should be told why this has happened because that was not the promise.
The Canadian people were also told that the government would stop foolish spending and

reduce the cost of government. What do we find now? I should like to refer the house to the figures which hon. members may find in the estimates for 1961-62 and I would ask hon. members to compare them with the total expenditures in 1957, the last year of Liberal administration. We find that in 1957 the estimates totalled $4.8 billion under a Liberal administration. We also find that these people who were going to cut the cost of operating the government are now spending $6.4 billion, an increase of nearly 25 per cent. Is that not a matter of accounting? Should the Canadian people not know why this has occurred. Should these same people who promised a decrease in expenditures not be asked to explain why there has been an increase of this order? Under the Liberal government the Canadian people were accustomed to travelling in a medium-priced car but under the present government they must now afford a Cadillac. I think it is time that we should ask the Canadian people if they wish to travel in a Cadillac under this government or go back to the medium priced car and the costs to which they were accustomed in previous years.


An hon. Member:: Go back to the Liberals who drove a model T.


Osias.-J. Godin: Maybe the hon. member would be interested in these figures. Not only have the administrative costs of the government gone up but capital expenditures, which could be beneficial for Canada, have gone down. There has been an increase in expenditures on the administrative side while expenditures on the capital side have gone down. I should like to refer hon. members to a publication, "Private and Public Investment in Canada", which contains figures for investment of all types, including capital investment by the government. Here are the figures:
Millions of dollars
1957 			 1,151
1953 			 1,209
1959 		
19fi0 			 995
1961 			 996
Capital expenditures have decreased, expenditures that would provide something permanent for Canada. The expenditures that create jobs have gone down. In the type of inquiry that we could possibly pursue in a budget debate we would find out how costly it has been to "follow John", as it has been put. I have a number of other figures here which I should like to place before the house. Since the Conservative administration has been in power we have had deficits in the following amounts:

1962	(estimated)	 700,000,000
There is the depletion of the unemployment insurance fund from 1957 to 1961, in which last named year the figure is $900 million, and also the depletion of the special defence fund from 1957 to 1961 amounting to $165 million. This makes a grand total of $3,126 million.
In the speech from the throne it is indicated that the government desires to require financial returns and reports from foreign corporations and unions. I have no quarrel with this, but surely it should apply the same principle to itself and bring forward as soon as possible a proper report and accounting with respect to all these matters I have mentioned.
The government has had in four years possibly 1,500 days to talk about itself and to administer the affairs of the country, but an election would give our citizens one day in which to exercise their choice, and I believe after a proper accounting that that one day should be given to the Canadian people to allow them to make their decision. (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that in the course of this session we will have the opportunity of discussing numerous problems, especially those which are related to the amendment of the Canadian constitution, as it is indeed mentioned in the speech from the throne. From the remarks which were made this afternoon, I understand we will have an opportunity to discuss that subject but, for the time being, I should merely like to say that the amendment of our constitution certainly entails problems which will have to be solved before a complete and satisfactory solution is found.
I should like to call the attention of hon. members to an article which was published in the magazine Relations under the signature of Rev. Father Ares, a Jesuit. Father Ares seems to have read the suggestions made in that connection for he thoroughly covers the subj ect.
I should also like to call the attention of the house to the speech which was made yesterday by my colleague from Hull (Mr. Caron), who spoke authoritatively on one of the most important problems in Canada. (Text):
Before I conclude I wish to say that the speech from the throne was weak and that it was, in parts, a rehash of former speeches received under the present administration. In that connection I quote an article from the Globe and Mail of January 20, in the following terms:
The Address-Mr. J. Smith
A curious feature of the speech is that the sections announcing these goodies, and particularly those relating to farmers and fishermen, are copied almost word for word from the speech from the throne which opened the 1957-58 session.
This afternoon I am pleased to support the amendment to the address in reply, proposed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. If the government is satisfied that its record is what the Prime Minister and other ministers of the crown state it to be, why could we not immediately proceed to a budget debate, have a proper accounting of the affairs of the country, and then grant the reasonable request of Canadian people by giving them the only thing they wish, an election date?


Mr. John Smith (Lincoln):: I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne and at the outset would like to congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on being elected to the post you hold where you will assist us in our deliberations during the session now opened.
I would also like to extend my congratulations to the deputy chairman of committees (Mr. Chown), and I believe I would be remiss if I did not pay a tribute to the former deputy chairman, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Rea) who is unable to be with us at this time due to ill health. I am sure I speak for all members of the house in wishing him well and hoping he will be back with us in the very near future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Smith: I should also like to thank the whips on both sides of the house for the assistance they have given us in the past in our parliamentary duties, and I extend my hearty congratulations to the mover and seconder of the speech from the throne for a job very well done.
It is not my intention to deal with the major problems facing the country at present. I am prepared to leave those matters to our cabinet ministers, to deal with matters such as our national defence policy, the common market and other problems of that kind, although I have my own definite opinions on them. Instead I shall deal with some of the common problems that affect the common people of the country with whom I have been very closely associated during the last 25 or 30 years.
I am pleased to note that the throne speech foreshadows much new legislation to improve our economy, further, expand our trade abroad, provide more jobs and opportunities for our young people, and assure a greater measure of social security for our senior citizens. Any program proposed to give greater stabilization to Canada's economy must contain strong measures to ensure the stability
156	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. Smith and growth of our farming industry, and I am pleased to note there are proposals in the speech to assist the western farmers in the drought stricken areas by means of acreage payments.
During this time of farm product surpluses in many parts of the world I am pleased to note it is the intention of our government to continue, in an orderly manner, the principle of price stabilization and other measures designed to provide the farmer with a fair share of the national income.
The proposed immediate increase in old age pensions, old age assistance pensions, disability pensions and blind pensions, to be followed by the introduction of a contributory retirement pension for all, will be most welcome news to all Canadians.
The proposal to grant war service allowance to merchant seamen, overseas firemen, Red Cross and other civilian personnel who saw service in a theatre of war, will fulfil a request that was made to the former government on many occasions, but upon which they did not act. Time will not permit me to deal with all the proposals contained in the speech from the throne. However, the more one examines its text the more one is convinced that when the proposals contained in it are put into effect in legislation they will provide another great stimulus to our national economy.
I should like to deal with two segments of our economy that affect the Niagara peninsula in general and more particularly Lincoln county, the riding I have the honour to represent. I refer to our secondary or light industry and our fruit and vegetable growing industry.
I begin my remarks in this connection by congratulating the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and the members of the cabinet for negotiating last year with Japan voluntary quotas on certain lines of goods being imported from that country in such large quantities that our Canadian industries making goods of the same class or kind were being destroyed.
I regret, however, to note from a press report in the Globe and Mail of January 23 that shipments to Canada of rubber soled canvas shoes and boots exceeded by more than 66 per cent in the first nine months of 1961 the amount that Japan had voluntarily agreed to ship to Canada. If this is a correct report on the manner in which this negotiated agreement is being honoured by Japanese exporters, I think our government should bring the matter to the attention of the Japanese government in very strong terms.
I might say at this point that I do not blame the government of Japan or the people of Japan in matters of this kind. I blame


the importers of Japanese goods, who seem to be most anxious to bring those products into Canada because their margin of profit is much larger than it is on Canadian manufactured goods.
I should like to bring to the attention of this house, and the Minister of Finance in particular, how voluntary quotas on Japanese electronic receiving tubes coming into Canada has helped to provide more jobs for Canadians. I will cite two plants as examples, one in Toronto and one in my own riding.
I paid a visit to the Toronto plant about six months ago, before the quotas went into effect. I found the plant in a depressed condition, with rows of idle machines, employment at a very low level, production at about 20 per cent of the normal capacity of the plant, and the company sustaining a heavy monthly deficit.
I paid a visit to the same plant just prior to Christmas and found a changed condition since quotas had become effective. Employment had increased by over 60 per cent, production had increased by over 60 per cent, and the company was spending $400,000 on plant expansion, research and development to produce new lines of electronic goods not now made in Canada.
I also visited the smaller plant in my own riding owned by an entirely different company and found the same type of progress since quotas were put into effect. The number of employees has risen from 52 to 130. A class of learners is being trained and will be put on the production line as soon as they become skilled in this intricate work.
This on the spot check that I made on conditions in these two plants before and after quotas were put into effect makes it quite certain in my mind that if quotas on electronic tubes had not been negotiated with Japan last year, at least one or perhaps both of these plants would be closed today.
I recommend to the Minister of Finance that he continue his negotiations with low wage countries for the establishment of quotas as a means of protecting the jobs of Canadians against the competition of those countries whose wage rates are a fraction of ours and whose production costs in general are very much lower than ours.
This has also come to my attention, Mr. Speaker. In some cases I believe Canadian manufacturers have reason to complain about the present method of levying federal sales tax and excise tax. I shall cite two cases, one being the manufacture of axes and the other electronic receiving tubes. If a 2i pound axe, which is commonly used in Canada, is made in this country it bears a sales and excise tax of 16 cents. The same

type of axe made in Sweden bears a sales tax and an excise tax of 11 cents. That is a difference of 5 cents, which is very important in these very competitive lines of manufacture.
I also find that a Canadian made electronic receiving tube with a manufacturer's selling price of approximately $1 bears an excise and sales tax of 26 cents, whereas exactly the same type of tube made under United States patent rights in Japan and imported into Canada bears an excise and sales tax of 14.5 cents, a difference of 11.5 cents.
It can readily be seen that this method of assessing for tax purposes places the Canadian manufacturer at a great disadvantage and might very well offset whatever tariff protection there may be on the imported article.
I have found that in some cases goods brought into Canada from low wage countries at a much lower distributor cost price and with a much lower sales and excise tax are sold to Canadian consumers for the same price as goods of the same class or kind made in Canada by Canadian workers.
I have discussed this matter with customs officials and have been advised that in both these cases sales and excise taxes are levied on the following basis: for Canadian manufactured goods, at the manufacturer's selling price to the distributor, and for imported goods, at the value for duty or import broker's purchase price.
I feel this is a matter which should receive some attention and it should not have to be delayed two years waiting for a decision from the tariff board, which apparently is the procedure at the present time. In 1961 some adjustments were made in the levying of excise sales tax on imported electronic tubes, but the tax is still less than that collected on goods of the same class or kind made by Canadian workers in Canadian plants.
I understand some other goods are assessed in a different manner and that tobacco by the pound, either imported or home grown, carries the same level of sales tax and excise tax; so do cigarettes by the pack and playing cards by the pack, besides a number of other articles.
I should like to cite another example of unfairness to a Canadian industry in my riding. This case concerns the manufacture of high test firebrick of a class or kind used in all of Canada's steel plants and refineries. Little or no raw material of the kind required to make this brick is produced in Canada, yet this company is required to pay a duty of 15 per cent on raw material coming into Canada and to compete with brick of the 26207-1-11
The Address-Mr. J. Smith same class or kind entering Canada duty free from countries in Europe which are not too friendly to our Canadian way of life. I think this is a matter which deserves urgent attention.
I regret that Bill No. C-72 to amend the Customs Tariff was defeated in the Senate last year. Had that bill been in effect at the present time I am sure many unfairnesses to our Canadian industries and our Canadian workers could be corrected without the necessity of waiting for long periods of time for decisions by the tariff board.
I should like to speak for a little while about fruit and vegetable growing which is an important industry in my riding and in other parts of the Niagara peninsula. There are approximately 5,000 registered growers in the peninsula. Twenty four plants are engaged in the processing of fruit and vegetables and there are 12 plants which manufacture wines, juices, jams and jellies. Legislation passed by this government during the last three years has given the growers all the protection they have asked for to safeguard them from the dumping of surplus United States crops during the Canadian crop harvesting season. I refer to price stabilization, the assessment of fair value for duty and seasonal tariffs, all of which have done a good job in this regard.
However, the growers have other problems. The surplus pack of canned goods from the United States is always a threat and it has a depressing effect on Canadian market prices for canned goods. The change in the distribution of fruit and vegetables has created marketing problems which have not yet been solved. Small grocery stores and home canning have given way to distribution through the big chain food stores.
The building of new schools, hospitals, roads and the other local improvements which follow housing and industrial development has led to taxes on the farms being increased to a point at which farming is becoming less attractive. I am told that 80 per cent of all the fruit and vegetable processing plants in Ontario is now owned and controlled by United States corporations. The Canadian Horticultural Council is the body which makes representations to the Department of Agriculture on behalf of the fruit and vegetable growers. I hope the council is giving these changing conditions in the fruit growing industry its full consideration.
I have made recommendations to grower organizations and marketing boards suggesting that more facilities are required in the Niagara peninsula for processing and cold storage, particularly for small cold storage units on the farms and increased cold storage

The Address-Mr. J. Smith facilities at the shipping and processing plants. I have also recommended to the processing plants that they should seek some kind of government guaranteed bank loans on canned goods in bond during the canning season when millions of dollars are required in a very short space of time to pay the farmers for the crop and the cost of operating the plant. This, I think, might help to keep some of the smaller independent Canadian processors in business. I have further suggested to the processors and growers that they should seek quotas on imports of canned goods rather than ask for higher tariff protection which besides being difficult to obtain is often not too effective.
I am pleased to be able to say that business in my riding has greatly improved even though we still have problems. There are one thousand fewer unemployed people in the St. Catharines area than there were this time last year. The new subsidy on shipbuilding put into effect by this government last year has greatly helped our two shipbuilding yards, and our automobile parts industries, I am told, are employing more people now than in any previous year.
Water pollution in our rivers and in the great lakes has become a very serious matter especially in the lake Ontario and lake Erie areas. It is my conviction that the regulations passed last year by this government to assist municipalities in the construction of sewage disposal plants and trunk sewers should be extended beyond 1963 in order to encourage municipalities to proceed with major projects which could not be completed by 1963 in time to get the full benefit of the rebate on their loans.
Now I should like to deal briefly with the question of air transportation. During the past years we have seen many changes in rail transportation. Branch lines are being disbanded and passenger services curtailed as a result of which the Niagara peninsula, like other parts of Canada, is required to depend more and more on air transport.
In common with other areas, the Niagara peninsula has great need of improved air transportation for both passenger and package freight. I think the Department of Transport might well review the present regulations for the financing and construction of new runways and the other facilities required for the landing of the types of aircraft now used by industries and feeder air line companies.
I am sure if the Department of Transport undertook the building of necessary facilities, such as longer runways, at regional airports, the congestion at the larger air passenger terminals could be greatly relieved. Industries in the Niagara peninsula that have even

medium sized planes have to keep them at Niagara Falls, New York, or Malton airport, Toronto. I do feel that air transportation has an important part to play in the development of our future economy, and the matter of proper facilities required at regional airports in our industrial areas is becoming more important each year.
I should like to again bring to the attention of the Prime Minister the historical importance of the old town of Niagara, the seat of the first government of Upper Canada. I believe that among the many acts of parliament that were passed there in those colonial days was an act to abolish slavery in Upper Canada. I trust that this part of Canada will not be overlooked when plans are being made for Canada's centennial. I should like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity of speaking at this time, and I hope that I have not overrun my time.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few observations which I should like to make on the speech from the throne. Before I begin, I should like to associate myself with the congratulations that have been tendered to the mover (Mr. Bour-dages) and seconder (Mr. Browne, Vancouver-Kingsway), of the address in reply, and also with the felicitations and good wishes which have been extended to the Deputy Speaker, to our new Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Flynn) on their appointments and to the parliamentary secretaries on the occasion of their reappointment.
The more 1 study the speeches from the throne brought down by this government the more they remind me of those fancy Christmas stockings that we admire at Christmas time. They bulge and are attractive and, in some cases, we can get a glimpse of what is inside. There is one difference, of course, because when you get one of those fancy stockings you know you really have whatever is inside of it. This is not always true of speeches from the throne. We know from experience that sometimes the contents have a very unhappy knack of disappearing, sometimes for good, sometimes for several sessions and then sometimes to reappear in quite a different form as did the changes in the Immigration Act which were announced a few days ago by the minister in the form of new regulations.
Well, now we have a new stocking in front of us, stuffed with what appears to be all kinds of good things designed, no doubt, to impress the Canadian people with the wisdom and generosity of this government. I think we can take it for granted that when this

particular stocking was being stuffed the possibility of an election this year was not overlooked. Yesterday or the day before the Prime Minister plucked out a few of those things and held them up so we could get a better view of them. I refer to things like the old age pensions and the pensions for the blind. I am sure we all found them very attractive. It will be a very happy day for Canada when someone can devise a plan which will remove old age pensions completely from party politics.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne had nothing in it to emphasize to the Canadian people that these good things, desirable as they are, must nevertheless be paid for. We, as parliamentarians, are supposed to give leadership to the people. We certainly ought not to lead them into thinking they can get something for nothing. It is quite understandable that the people of Canada do not realize that all these good things have to be paid for because, since this government took office, we have not been doing that. We have not been paying for them out of our own production. Instead, we have been borrowing and paying for them out of the production of others. During the past five years that this government has been in office the apparent generosity of this government has added $2,000 million to our public debt. This seems very strange to me coming as it does from a party and a government that was elected on a specific promise to reduce expenditures.
We can all remember, in 1957, how hon. gentlemen opposite went back and forth across the country decrying the waste and inefficiency of the Liberal party and saying that when they took office they were going to cut down expenditures by $500 million. Indeed, when the expenditures were presented for the year 1956-57 I can remember how the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), who were then sitting in opposition, attacked the Liberal party and castigated the Liberal government because they had allowed expenditures to reach the high level of $4,433 million. Now, four years later, in 1961-62, we have this same group proposing estimated expenditures of $6,415 million and that, Mr. Speaker, is only an estimate. The actual expenditures might very well prove to be much higher. Instead of a reduction of $500 million as was promised, we have an increase of nearly $2,000 million, up 42 per cent. This certainly is one promise the Prime Minister has not kept and, so far as I can see, he is not going to be able to keep it.
The throne speech presents a very glowing account of our economic recovery, and that 26207-1-UJ
The Address-Mr. Carter account has been expanded by speakers from the government benches who have told us that our exports are up, more people are employed than ever before and everything is just wonderful. Well, of course a large part of these exports are accounted for by sales of wheat to China. I realize this is a very difficult question and I have every sympathy with the government that has to make a decision in matters of this kind. The interests and welfare of the farmers and our trading position as a nation are both vitally affected. These are things that cannot be ignored.
But there are other considerations, too, which ought not to be overlooked. In the first place, this raises the question of the motives and values by which our actions are governed. We cannot salve our consciences by saying we are selling this wheat to feed hungry people. There are millions of hungry people in the world waiting to be fed. We are not selling food to them because they are not offering us dollars in return.
Experts who are acquainted with this matter raise a question as to whether the wheat being sold to China is actually reaching the hungry people who need it. There is a great deal of evidence that this wheat is being used as a political weapon, an instrument of coercion, by an unscrupulous government in order to force people to go along with what they want at a time when that particular government is becoming discredited and unpopular. In other words they say, "Go along with us or you do not eat".
In a time of war, trading with the enemy is an act of treason. At the present time, in this twilight zone between peace and war, we are nevertheless engaged in a cold war no less deadly and no less dangerous. The government of China is our implacable foe dedicated to our destruction just as fanatically as is Khrushchev and the Soviet union. We must exercise the greatest care because if, by our sales of wheat, we are bolstering and strengthening an unfriendly or enemy government, it might very well turn out that along with our wheat we might also be selling our freedom.
As the Minister of Finance pointed out earlier today when he was talking about what are the real interests of Canada, surely our paramount interest is to preserve our freedom. That is a matter that must be taken into account in all our relationships with enemy countries.
Someone has made a great deal of the argument that more people are working today than ever before. I really do not see why they do not say that more people are working today than 50 years ago, as it would prove exactly the same thing. There are
160	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Carter more people working today than there were 50 years ago simply because there are more people. That is the only reason that there are more people working today than there were a year ago. The undeniable, irrefutable fact is that, despite this improvement in our economy, our economic growth has lagged and is still lagging far behind our increase in population; and this at a time when our rate of population growth has declined.
If we take the population figure presented by the bureau of statistics for June 1, 1953, 1957, and 1961 we find this situation. In 1953, the population was 14.865 million; in 1957 it was 16.589 million and in 1961 it was 18.168 million. The increase in the four years, the period from 1953 to 1957, is 1.744 million. The increase in the four years from 1957 to 1961 is only 1.579 million. Under normal circumstances the increase from 1957 to 1961 should be considerably greater than that from 1953 to 1957 but in actual fact it is 200,000 less. What a great unemployment problem we would be faced with today if that rate of growth from 1953 to 1957 had been maintained during the period this government has been in office.
Sensible people know that we cannot continue indefinitely going further and further into debt. There is a limit to our borrowing capacity as a nation and there is a limit to the debt burden we can carry as a people. If our economy is to support our present expenditures along with the additional expenditures envisaged in this speech from the throne, our rate of growth must increase considerably over what it is at the present time.
As a Newfoundlander I am naturally most interested in those particular things which the stocking holds for my own province. I wish to thank the government for the reference to the proposed pensions for members of the merchant navy, the forestry units, the firefighters and other groups of this kind who served during the last war. I appreciate the increases in veterans disability pensions and veterans allowances which have already been granted and I welcome this further recognition of the services of those groups which I have just mentioned. I must, however, express some disappointment that the method decided upon in granting these awards is to amend the civilian pensions act rather than the veterans charter. From my own experience I believe that the veterans allowance payments would be far more suitable having regard to the needs of the members of these groups. This decision to amend the civilian pensions act is tantamount to denying these people any status as veterans. A person does not become a veteran just because he puts on a uniform. I refer back to


the gallant exploits of the Jervis Bay. They were unequalled in the history of our naval tradition or in any of our military traditions. Yet these people, if they are entitled to a pension, cannot be recognized as veterans but must get it as civilians. A member of a service can only give his life in the service of his country. That is the supreme sacrifice. When he has done that, he has given everything. I wish to point out to the house the fact that in my own particular riding more members of the merchant navy made the supreme sacrifice in the service of their country than of any other branch of the armed services.
I also welcome the reference to the provision of an east coast ferry service between the mainland and the east coast of Newfoundland. The speech from the throne tells us that the eastern terminal is to be Argentia. Since this is a United States military base I would ask the government to explore the possibility of acquiring access to this terminal without the necessity of having to get permits from the military authorities.
I also welcome the reference to the extension of the period of application of the Farm Improvement Loans Act and of the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. No doubt the Farm Improvement Loans Act has been of some use to farmers, but from my experience the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act has been of doubtful value to the fishermen of my province for the very simple reason that the banks have shown themselves to be extremely reluctant to make loans to fishermen.
If the fishermen are to be assisted in the same way that farmers are assisted, some other means must be devised outside of the banking system, and I would recommend that the government consider setting up a fishermen's small loans board to deal with this problem. Fishermen's insurance should also be extended to include nets, gear and other items of equipment which are not now covered and in addition a disaster fund should be set up to protect fishermen against those circumstances and exigencies which sometimes suddenly occur and confront our fishermen as groups and as individuals with disastrous consequences.
We do not think it is too much to ask that our fishermen be accorded the same treatment as is being given to the farmers of our country. It was a great disappointment to all of us that this principle was not followed by the government in assisting our fishermen who are suffering from the catch failure in my province. Hon. members will have learned from press and radio reports that the past year has been a very trying one for our province. Disastrous fires destroyed millions of acres

of valuable timber and brought woods employment to a standstill. On top of that some 12,000 or more of our fishermen suffered a catch failure. In a year of normal catch an inshore fisherman earns on the average a net income of about $650. Out of that he and his family have to try to subsist for the winter and then secure sufficient supplies to enable him to resume his occupation when the season opens in the spring. Under these circumstances it is easy to understand that a reduction in the catch of 20 per cent or even 10 per cent is attended by extreme hardship but when there is a catch failure which ranges from a complete, total blank up to 25 per cent of the normal catch then the circumstances in which our fishermen find themselves are indescribable.
When the farmers suffer a crop failure we come to their assistance by making acreage payments. We are not against that. We have always supported measures providing for acreage payments. We did so last year and the Prime Minister announced that we are going to do so again very soon. But contrast this with the treatment which has been given to our distressed fishermen. When the government finally made up its mind to assist our fishermen at all, this was the scheme that they proposed. First, they agreed to match dollar for dollar provincial road allocations to be spent after October 15 and, in addition, they agreed to grant up to $300,000 on two conditions. The first condition was that the money had to be spent on a winter works program, which it was pointed out was not practicable in the situation in which most of our fishermen found themselves. The second condition was that the provincial government would contribute 25 per cent of the labour costs involved.
Our premier has estimated that this assistance works out to about $20 per fisherman, not for one month but between seasons. On the northeast coast where the catch failure was the worst that means from November to April or perhaps May. It amounts to $20 for 150 days or 13 cents a day per family or roughly 3 cents per head, and that with strings attached. Our premier has termed this treatment shabby. Compared with the treatment that is accorded to other Canadians in similar circumstances, I think he could have said that it is not only shabby but shameful.
There are other matters upon which I had hoped to have time to enlarge. I particularly wanted to say a word about the Atlantic provinces, my interest in whom is second only to my interest in my own province. We all remember the Atlantic resolutions that were framed and advertised so well just prior to the 1957 election. The three most important
The Address-Mr. Carter of these resolutions have still not been implemented, namely, the national development program for the development of the resources of the Atlantic provinces, industrial decentralization and the capital projects program. These are still outstanding and time is running out.
In the meantime the age old disparities between the Atlantic provinces and the rest of Canada still remain. Unemployment is 75 per cent higher than the rest of Canada while income is 40 per cent lower. The unemployment figures released by the government on January 16 emphasized this disparity. In Ontario 4.7 per cent of the work force were unemployed, in the prairie region 5.4 per cent and in the Atlantic region 10.8 per cent.
We shall never cure the economic illnesses or solve the problems of the Atlantic provinces by the piecemeal methods which have been employed up to this time. What we must have is a complete survey of the financial and geographical disabilities under which we suffer. Then we must have measures enacted in this house that will offset these disabilities and put the Atlantic provinces on the same footing as the rest of Canada. We can begin by making a complete survey of the fishing industry and proceed from one industry to another.
I see that my time is almost up so I will conclude by saying that in spite of all the glitter and the fancy wrappings the speech from the throne is not an inspiring document. It ignores completely the main problems with which the country is faced, problems of defence, problems involved in connection with the common market, and others of that nature. It makes no mention of the dangers Canada must face as a member of the free world. It calls forth no challenge. It gives no indication of the firm and wise leadership so sorely needed in these troubled times. Therefore, I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Crouse:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Chesley William Carter: Certainly.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In addition to the other benefits that will accrue to the people of Newfoundland from the new ferry service that will be implemented between North Sydney and Argentia, would he care to comment and give the house his opinion on how much more employment this will provide for the people of Newfoundland?


Chesley William Carter: Well, sir, I had hoped to deal with that problem at much greater length in the speech I have just concluded, but I would point out to my hon. friend that we know from experience it will take at least

The Address-Mr. Weichel three years for that ferry service to become a reality. During the last election campaign my opponent went around telling my constituents that the Solicitor General stated that all he had to do was to phone Mr. Hees when he got to Ottawa and in ten minutes he would secure two coastal boats for my riding. The first coastal boat materialized about eight months ago, and the last one this summer. 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.


Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to join with previous speakers in this debate in extending congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I also wish to congratulate the Deputy Speaker on his appointment to this important position. It is a distinct honour and well deserved. No doubt he, along with our popular Speaker and chairman, will enjoy the confidence and respect of all members in the house.
I would like to deal with matters pertaining to the welfare and progress of my constituents in Waterloo North, and Canadians generally, under the leadership of our esteemed Prime Minister and his government.
It is gratifying to know that Her Majesty the Queen Mother, along with their Highnesses the Duke of Edinburgh and the Princess Royal, will visit Canada sometime this summer. In 1939 the Queen Mother visited Canada, and her itinerary included my riding of Waterloo North. At that time I was among the amputees who were honoured in being presented to her, and I hope that their visit this year may be a most pleasant one. The visit of the Queen Mother reminds us of the continued growth of the commonwealth, which is playing a great part in the world in maintaining freedom and peace. The strengthening of the commonwealth is a primary objective of our government.
Several items, particularly those relating to old age pensions, aid for our Canadian industries and university assistance, were particularly commendable in the speech from the throne. As member of parliament in a riding which is strongly industrial I was happy to see four proposals which should assist in no small way toward helping industries to develop, and employment to increase. Aid to scientific research by industry and a national electric grid should be of tremendous assistance over the coming years. Critics might say these two moves will not bring aid to industries and cut employment fast


enough. I do not think they are really designed to do that. Instead, I am sure they are intelligent steps which, although they will not pay dividends for some time, will help to promote a steady industrial growth for all regions of Canada during coming decades.
The third item, broadening of the Small Business Loans Act, will give a further shot in the arm to our secondary industries at a time when our country is striving to move ahead in this phase of business activity.
Critics may again say that the measures outlined in the speech from the throne are not bold enough. However I say that the variety of moves, whether they are small or large, is an indication that our government has the welfare of many groups, individuals, and yes, of all Canadians at heart.
During the last four years many changes have been made in Waterloo North in regard to industry. The main street in the city of Waterloo with its new civic square, approval of new post offices in the twin cities of Kitchener and Waterloo, and of university buildings and other structures too numerous to mention, are some of the improvements that have taken place or are contemplated.
We will be asked to increase federal grants to universities and make suitable provision in those cases where alternative arrangements are made for supplementary provincial grants in lieu of federal grants. These increases will be welcomed by all universities across Canada, including universities in my riding of Waterloo North, the University of Waterloo, the Waterloo Lutheran University, and the University of St. Jerome's College, all of whose progress has been phenomenal. These institutions in the past have received financial aid from our government.
One of the most interesting developments during the last year in the North Waterloo riding has been the continued rapid development of the University of Waterloo. This institution was incorporated only five years ago. Since that time student enrolment has grown to over 1,200, with a faculty of 111 providing instruction in arts, science, engineering and graduate studies. The university is located on a 240-acre campus and now has three large science and engineering buildings in use, the last of which was constructed during the past year. As of this year the financial assets of the university total in excess of $9.5 million.
Construction of an arts building is now under way and is scheduled for completion in the fall of 1962 at a cost of $1,350,000. One of the interesting features of this building is that it includes a 500 seat amphitheatre patterned after the Stratford Shakespearian festival theatre, which suggests the possibility

of a close relationship between the University of Waterloo and Stratford, so essential in our modern world of today.
Also under construction at the present time, and scheduled for completion in 1962, are three teaching and residence buildings for federated and affiliated colleges. The university of St. Jerome's college, federated with the University of Waterloo, is building a residence to accommodate 100 men students. The Sisters of Notre Dame, associated with St. Jerome's college, are building a women's residence for 55 students. Renison college, an Anglican institution, is building a residence for 40 men and 40 women students and the total construction costs of these church colleges is in excess of $2,500,000.
The University of Waterloo has pioneered in the introduction of co-operative education in Canada. Co-operative education embodies a program in which the student alternates periods of on-campus study with equal periods spent in gaining practical experience in an industry, business firm, or service agency related to the student's university course.
The Waterloo Lutheran University, like others, has made tremendous strides during the last few years. This university, which celebrated its fiftieth anniversary last year, can look back over the past five decades with pride. Affiliated with the University of Western Ontario from 1925 to 1960, it is now an independent degree-granting university, and there has been tremendous growth on the campus since it became an independent degree-granting institution in 1959. I was pleased to be one of the speakers in December at the dedication of the new women's residence and the laying of the cornerstone for two more new buildings, the university theatre auditorium and the students' union. Also included in this expansion program are a men's residence and a dining hall, the former due to be constructed this year, as the final stage of a $1,500,000 expansion program. Enrolment has reached a total figure of 1,220 for the academic year 1961-62, which is an increase of 50 per cent over 1960-61.
The two distinct units controlled by this university are Waterloo University College and Waterloo Lutheran Seminary. The seminary is a sister institution to Waterloo University College. Its purpose is to educate young men for the ministry. Its graduates serve in seven provinces, the United States, India and South America. The federal Department of Labour recently approved additions to Eastwood collegiate in Kitchener, Waterloo collegiate in Waterloo, and the Elmira district high school for vocational and technical training. My riding of Waterloo North, with its many public schools, separate
The Address-Mr. Weichel schools, collegiates, colleges and universities will present many fine educational opportunities to our youth.
Over the past four years our government has amended the Pension Act on many occasions. These amendments include increases to disabled veterans and their dependants, war veterans allowance, Veterans' Land Act improvements, and other important changes.
It is gratifying to know that we will be asked to approve an amendment to the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act to authorize the payment of allowances under specified conditions to merchant seamen, firefighters, foresters, members of the voluntary aid detachments and certain other civilians whose war service overseas has been recognized in other respects. Other amending bills will bring about increased allowances and other improvements under the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act, and an extension of the qualifying period under the War Service Grants Act, Veterans Insurance Act and Veterans' Land Act. I am sure that every veteran in Canada and the citizens of this country will appreciate the approval of such amendments. As long as one veteran or his dependant is in need of assistance, this government will gladly meet this obligation.
One point that I have raised in the house on several occasions and which has given others and myself much concern is the qualification respecting the continuation of the allowance after death of a pensioner in receipt of a pension of less than 50 per cent. The present legislation provides that in the case of those in receipt of a pension of less than 50 per cent at the time of death and whose death is not established as due to pensionable disabilities, no pension or allowance is payable.
A great many widows have brought this to my attention and to the attention of other hon. members. I hope that the present legislation can be amended at some future date in order that we may improve the financial circumstances of these widows.
It is most satisfying to know that this session the government will propose important measures in the field of social welfare. What could be more important than assisting our senior citizens and looking after those who come under the Old Age Assistance Act, blind people, and those who are disabled? Our government has always been intensely interested in the welfare of these citizens and these improvements in the field of social welfare will be deeply appreciated by all concerned.
Recently our government passed a bill providing $5 million for encouraging our youth

The Address-Mr. Weichel in fitness and amateur sport. Representatives have now been chosen to sit on this council and should in the near future be able to carry out their important tasks. I hoped that someone would be selected from western Ontario, because this is one of the hotbeds of interest in fitness and amateur sports in Canada. Canada is fortunate in having so many outstanding sportsmen. Although only a limited number can be selected for the council at this time, I am sure others will be ready to assist this program which is so essential to the welfare of our youth. Incidentally, I might mention that this week is minor league hockey week in Canada and 200,000 boys will participate in this great game.
I should like to say a few words regarding agriculture in Waterloo county and the province of Ontario. Before doing so I should like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton), for the success he has achieved in finding markets for grain, which has helped a great deal to reduce surplus stocks. Our government should also be commended for the proposed legislation mentioned in the speech from the throne. This should be of great assistance to the farmers of Canada, especially those in the prairie provinces.
We in Ontario, as well as people in other provinces, were disturbed to hear of the losses sustained by the prairie farmers during the 1961 drought. However, we are being asked to provide assistance by means of acreage payments to those who have been affected. As one who represents an Ontario riding, Waterloo North, I should like to say that this province ranks first among Canadian provinces in agricultural production and has for many years had the highest annual farm cash income of any province. It has one of the most diverse farming areas of any single administrative unit in North America.
It may be interesting to know that of the 1.5 million estimated rural population of Ontario, one third live on farms. The size of most farms is between 50 and 100 acres, but there are some 23,000 farms of 200 acres or more. The average size is 140 acres, Which is much smaller than the average prairie farm.
Livestock is the foundation of the agricultural economy of Ontario. In my riding dairy farming comes first in agricultural production, followed by hogs and beef feeding. Sheep used to be a familiar sight on many Ontario farms and it is certain that the new inducements our government is offering in the way of transportation of breeding ewes from the west, premiums on good lamb carcasses and price support for wool, are going to make farmers take another look at this line of livestock. There is a great deal of good land for sheep farming in the
[Mr. Weichel.1
province of Ontario. I understand that under the transportation assistance program for sheep which was announced recently by the Minister of Agriculture some 6,000 western range ewes were moved into Ontario last fall.
I now wish to say a few words about our younger folk. It is heartening to note that 4-H and junior farmers organizations are strong movements in the province of Ontario. There is no doubt that the cultivation of youth in the cause of our primary industry will bring the most suitable people into agriculture with the awareness of the need for good breeding and management practices already instilled into them.
Members of the 4-H organization contributed the facts and figures for a recent farm safety survey. This was a valuable type of service which we all hope will bring a reduction in the number of injuries and the amount of damage caused by carelessness at work on the farm. I understand that the federal Department of Agriculture contributed something in excess of $100,000 toward 4-H activities last year.
I should like to mention one further point. Ontario's poultry industry is one of the most remarkable developments in agriculture in this country. The production of chicken and turkey meat has multiplied several times in the last decade, and egg production has gone up by more than 1 million cases. Some of these products are beginning to be better known in the markets of Europe. The application of efficient management, breeding and feeding principles-for which federal research takes some credit-are among the reasons for the spectacular success of these industries.
I come from a community which is one of the largest cosmopolitan centres in Canada, and I think that old and new Canadians were deeply impressed when they learned that for the first time a bill of rights had become a reality under the leadership of our Prime Minister.
This bill, which is well known to Canadians, provides for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Our Prime Minister has through the years urged that such a bill be enacted. His untiring efforts in bringing about this bill should be an inspiration to all our people. The stand of our Prime Minister against racial discrimination at the commonwealth prime ministers' meeting in London bears living testimony to the principles for which he stands.
Since this bill was enacted I have heard people from all walks of life express their views with these words: "It is great to be a Canadian". Others have asked "What is a Canadian?" To this question may I express my observations in this way? We are citizens

of Canada, either by birth or by adoption and naturalization. We are citizens of the commonwealth. Our skins may be brown, yellow, black or white, but we are Canadians. Our names may be Poloski, Fraser, Wong, Spermanti, Dubois, Schmidt, Weichel or Jones. Our forefathers may have come from Glasgow, Prague, Tokyo; from Dublin, London, Paris, Rotterdam, Berlin, Madrid, or from countries such as Poland, Italy, the Ukraine or Israel. We may be labourer, student, businessman, member of parliament, news reporter, doctor, lawyer or machinist. Whatever we are, whatever our occupation, whatever our background, if we accept Canada as our country and with it the democratic way of life, we are Canadians.
We have the right to speak freely, to worship freely; but with these rights, we must learn our duties-to speak wisely, to worship wisely, to choose our leaders wisely. We inherit two great cultures, the Anglo-Saxon and the French, and more than 30 others as well. We are creating out of these a new and growing Canadian culture. At times we may whine when things go wrong, be unfair in our criticisms, forget to help the other fellow when in need, be unappreciative of some of our blessings. However, we finally realize that it is great to be a Canadian.
As we old and new Canadians travel along life's pathway together may we unite in one great effort for the progress of our country and the peace and welfare of all nations in the world. Perhaps I can close with these words as written by Kipling, words so often expressed during world war I:
It ain't the individual nor the army as a whole. But the everlasting teamwork of every blooming soul.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: As
the calendar year comes to an end I am always interested in reading the statements which are made by political, industrial, financial and trade union leaders on the occasion of the new year messages. I was most interested in the messages which were published just before January 1 of this year and in particular I was impressed by that which was released by Mr. Claude Jodoin, president of the Canadian Labour Congress. Opening his new year message, Mr. Jodoin said that the year 1962 was certain to be a decisive one in Canadian history. He stated:
We are confronted with major changes and developments both within and without the boundaries of our country. As always, the challenges which confront us are accompanied by great opportunities and responsibilities. This is a time at which we should firmly determine to meet them.
The need is for a firm determination to meet these challenging and rapidly changing conditions 26207-1-12
The Address-Mr. Winch and to be ready to adopt new approaches which alone can meet the needs of 1962 and the years to follow.
I am sure we would all agree that those challenging words emphasize the responsibilities and the problems which are before all of us as we meet this session early in 1962. There are many problems to be faced. There are many decisions which can only be made by the government of Canada; there are imperative problems which are in need of solution.
Having listened to the contributions which have been made to this debate on the address I feel, being basically a compassionate man, that perhaps many of the Liberals in this house have been a little too harsh on the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in expecting him to have found solutions to these many problems within the period 1957-62. Being, as I have said, a compassionate man by nature, I believe that although they should have been resolved, and must be resolved, we should remember in our criticism the makeup and the temperament of the Prime Minister. It is only fair that we should. Let us not forget that the right hon. gentleman is slow in reaching decisions. That is emphasized by the fact that it took the Prime Minister three weeks, according to stories which appeared on the front pages of our newspapers day after day, to reach a decision as to what to name the dog he was given for Christmas. I am glad he finally chose the name "Happy". It was mentioned to me the other day, and I could not help but agree, that someone ought to come along now and give a dog to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and name the dog "Slap". If we had a prime minister with a dog named Happy and a leader of the opposition with a dog named Slap we would, indeed, have a slap-happy situation in that respect. I think they are slap-happy in their approach-


An hon. Member:: What about your dog?


Harold Edward Winch: I own neither a dog nor a cat. All I have are principles.
Speaking about slap-happiness I believe the most slap-happy speech I have heard in all my years of politics was the speech delivered in this house last night by the Solicitor General (Mr. Browne). I am glad he is in his place at the present moment. It was extraordinary to hear a minister of the crown-


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last night we were debating a subamendment on which a vote was taken. That debate was concluded and I think it is a breach of the rules to refer to a debate which has been concluded.

The Address-Mr. Winch


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) would allow me to say a word on that important point of order which has just been raised by the Solicitor General. I think most of us who have had some experience in this house are aware that the debate on the address has always been regarded as a single debate. The only thing we are restricted from doing in this debate is to discuss a decision that has been made by the house. We are not prevented from discussing any extraordinary argument which may have been advanced before that decision was taken.
I refer Your Honour to the fact that what we were dealing with was a subamendment which had some relation to the amendment and it would seem to me extraordinary, in view of the fact that what was said last night had nothing to do with parliament or national affairs, if Your Honour should restrict the comments of one hon. member after permitting another to wander so far afield.


Harold Edward Winch: I do not think I need to worry about this point of order because I know, Mr. Speaker, that in your justice you recognize the right of members to speak in this debate on any subject whatever. I am also confident you do not intend to impose what would amount to closure in the light of the reference to the abolition of closure in the speech from the throne itself.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think it has been the general practice to allow a considerable amount of latitude in the subjects treated in the course of this debate. I think that as long as the hon. member relates his remarks to the amendment he will be in order.


Harold Edward Winch: That is exactly what I am doing.
I find it extraordinary that the sins of omission and commission of a Liberal premier should be laid at the door of the New Democratic party. We have been charged with many things, but that is a brand new one to me. It certainly demonstrates the depths of political expediency to which the government must be driven in an endeavour to try to bring into disrespect their political opponents and to win votes when the election is called.
In particular, Mr. Speaker, certain statements have been made which I think we are entitled to answer. It was very noticeable that when the Solicitor General made his so-called contribution to the debate last night he not only had something to say about the province of Newfoundland but also about the province of Saskatchewan. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that mention was made of two crown corporations established

under a C.C.F. government which are no longer in existence. Admittedly, they are not. No mention was made, however, as to why they were established or the reasons that led to their cancellation. The important thing is, if any government is to be condemned because two of its ventures failed, then should not my hon. friend on the other side of the house apply that principle to his party's beloved system of free enterprise? During the first nine months of 1961, 2,006 bankruptcies occurred in Canada under that system, with total liabilities of $4,100,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Tory government.


Harold Edward Winch: If my hon. friend thinks it is right that the people should know that under a C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan two crown corporations went under, then does he not also think that they should know about the other crown corporations which did not go under? May I just very briefly refer to the auditor's report of the Saskatchewan crown corporations for 1959 and 1960, wherein I find this, and I quote:
In spite of the reduced level of economic activity in Saskatchewan during 1959-60, the net revenue received from crown corporation surpluses, excluding the Saskatchewan Power Corporation and Saskatchewan Government Telephones, totalled $1,290,917 ... a return of 16.64 per cent; ... in the years 1947-60, with an average capital investment of $8,704,165, these corporations . .. have earned a total of $11,853,774 after losses have been deducted.


Mr. Jones:: Not the losses of the other crown corporations.


Harold Edward Winch: That is after all losses were deducted.


Henry Frank Jones: Not the losses of the ones that were discontinued.


Harold Edward Winch: I continue:
In addition during this period they have made significant contributions to the Saskatchewan economy by way of $702,766 in municipal taxes, $7,873,450 in royalties and $45,900,599 in wages and salaries.
Yes, I can understand my hon. friend, the Solicitor General. He has only one objection to the success of crown corporations and that is that their profits are going to the people of Saskatchewan and not to a minority group of profiteers.


Mr. McIntosh:: I wonder if my hon. friend would permit a question?


Harold Edward Winch: I have already lost some time through a stupid point of order. Nevertheless, you can ask me anything that you like afterwards.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I know why you do not want to answer that.


Harold Edward Winch: There seems to be a deliberate and conscious attempt, for some reason or

other, to create a belief in the public's mind that the Prime Minister really meant what he said some time ago, that the next campaign will be fought on the issue of free enterprise versus socialism. We accept that challenge. But in order to accomplish that then, somehow or other, they have to drive the Liberals and the New Democratic party into the same camp. We have seen an indication of this in the various speeches during this session.
I admit right off the bat that there are, without doubt, similarities between the New Democratic party, the Liberals and the Conservatives. This is only natural. It is understandable. It has to be so. Because the Conservatives and Liberals are in such a race to steal our program that similarities are bound to occur. However, there are major, important and fundamental differences. One of these differences was mentioned only this afternoon by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter). I think I heard him correctly when he said something to the effect that we were giving away our freedom in the selling of wheat to China. I am certain that is the way it was said.


Chesley William Carter: No, those are not the exact words I used.


Harold Edward Winch: Here is the quote: When we sell our wheat, we sell our freedom.


Chesley William Carter: On a point of order, may I say those are not the exact words I used. I was not speaking from a text, but what I did say was that we should take care lest when we sell wheat to China we might be selling our freedom.


Harold Edward Winch: It will be very interesting to read Hansard tomorrow. However, the principle is the same. May I say that so far as the New Democratic party is concerned, if Canada has its surpluses, whether or not we like the governments in the countries concerned, we should assist the hungry of the world by disposing of those surpluses. This is the moral responsibility of this country. Moreover, sir, if the principle is correct that when we sell to China we have to watch out that we are not selling our freedom, then I presume the principle applies across the world and Canada will have to consider that in our sales to all countries, some of which are behind the iron curtain, we are in danger of losing our freedom. I just wonder what would be the situation if that principle were to be applied so far as the trade of Canada is concerned.
However, I said there was a fundamental difference between the New Democratic party and the others. In view of the fact speakers before me on the other side of the house have insisted on bringing up this matter, I 26207-1-12J
The Address-Mr. Winch think the fundamental difference should be made clear in this forum. Very briefly, in order that I shall not be misunderstood, may I say that it is our contention that every man and woman must learn that his welfare is to be found in the welfare of the whole community. This can only be learned through sharing social responsibility, and methods which do not vitalize and broaden social action shape results that are undemocratic. I have no hesitation in saying that the objective of the New Democratic party, the objective of those of us who sit here, cannot be handed to the people; that is why we do not make promises. Our objectives will arrive and endure when the people find an opportunity to accept and appreciate social responsibility.
We realize in this corner that we are in a social revolution today. We are not concerned about any revolution that may come tomorrow or one which is around the corner. Our concept of society, Mr. Speaker, our concept of Canada, is that natural forces compel change, growth and progress. We desire to remove, through democratic action, the existing restraints upon natural social change. I can say that basically and fundamentally the motivation behind this group speaking in the House of Commons is to use the instrument of political democracy, the parliament of Canada, in order to build an economic democracy which will provide not only greater economic efficiency but the greatest happiness to the greatest number.
We realize that Liberals, Conservatives and Socreds do not like the thought of revolutionary change. They do not like anything which will endanger the maintenance of their beloved system of free enterprise, business as usual and the devil take the hindmost. However, whether the Liberals and Conservatives like it or not, they are facing change. Progress and real democracy demand that we replace monopolistic enterprise by democratic socialism. We believe that this is something that could and should be done by common sense, conscious, deliberate methods and not through being the victim of blind processes, as unfortunately is the case far too often when governments move only when ultimately they are compelled to do so by circumstances or by public opinion built up for them by the New Democratic party.
We have always stated-and I wish to reiterate it-that it is the responsibility of all of us to emphasize that the ultimate goals of a real society in Canada, a society of personal and collective security and permanent peace, must be achieved by utilizing the political instrument for its supreme task of enabling this nation to meet the challenging times.
168	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Winch
We are undoubtedly facing challenging times, Mr. Speaker, I know that if anybody dares to criticize the government or their party, their actions or their statements, we hear from the Conservative side of the house a great deal to the effect that we are doing a disservice to Canada and that we are bringing Canada into disrepute. When they say this they are completely ignoring the duties and responsibilities of members of parliament and are showing their own callousness and ineptitude. It is therefore necessary for them to bring out the blindfold in order to hide their own failures and shortcomings.
We live in an age of anxiety. We have anxiety in Canada domestically as to individual economic security and anxiety as to whether we are to have peace or war. It is the responsibility of all of us in this House of Commons to recognize that fact, to face up to and confront the problems and to see what we can do about them.
We hear a great deal about the national production and increases in employment. That is all to the good. We are happy about it. However, Mr. Speaker, statistics do not fill the bellies and pay the rent of those who are out of work; and I may say that there are many people who are out of work in my own province of British Columbia. According to the latest figures we have the second highest ratio of unemployment in Canada. Some people are losing their homes and their furniture-they are even losing their morale-because of the failure of this government to solve the problem they told us they were going to solve in 1958. I wish to say this, Mr. Speaker, you can use all the statistics you wish to use, but what the unemployed Canadian workers want are jobs and not statistics gumbo. I say that something is wrong in this country of Canada and with the government of Canada, when, at a time when there are slums to be cleared, homes to be built, roads to be built, hospitals and universities to be built, new resources to be opened up, we have existing conditions and unemployment.
I know the answer comes back, "Where is the money coming from?" I have enough pride in Canada and in Canadians to believe that if we can find, as we did, $44 billion in order to wage two world wars and maintain the Department of National Defence, we can find the money with which to put our unemployed to work. I am certain that the people of Canada will respond to an invitation to make an investment in prosperity and peace just as fully as, if not more fully, than they will respond to an invitation to make an investment in order to win a war.


If the government have not that confidence, they have no business to be in the seats of administration in this country.
I have heard it said so often that these things are impossible. I heard that word "impossible" from a government speaker just the other night when we had a debate at Carleton University. It should be understood that the word "impossible" means only one thing, namely those things that have not been done yet. Let us start doing some of the things that are long overdue, not only in the domestic field of endeavour but also in the international field.
May I say that one of the greatest heartbreaks of my life is to see the way in which this government has brought Canada into international disrepute and made her the laughingstock of the nations of the world.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is nonsense and the hon. member knows it.


Harold Edward Winch: I know that the Conservatives attack the Liberals and members of the New Democratic party, saying that we are the ones who have done that because we face up to the facts in Canada and in international affairs. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is this government that has done it. Down in the United Nations we have the Secretary of State for External Affairs-a man for whom I have the greatest admiration-who is speaking, I presume, on behalf of Canada, sponsoring a motion for no expansion of the nuclear club. Not only does the motion go through the committee but it goes through the general assembly. Then at the same time we go over to Europe and we visit the military camps of Canada in France and Germany where we see our infantry with the Honest John. We know that this year they are going to be supplied with CF-104's. We are also getting Voodoos in Canada. We have two Bomarc bases for which there are no conventional warheads. None have ever been designed and there are none on the drafting board now. The weapon is useless unless it has it. How do you put the two things together? It is political hyprocrisy, and hypocrisy is conscious and deliberate dishonesty. The government is therefore guilty-


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are going too far now.


Harold Edward Winch: The government is guilty of conscious and deliberate political dishonesty when it says one thing in the United Nations and has an entirely different policy at home.


Henry Frank Jones: Is the hon. member in or out of NATO this week?


Harold Edward Winch: Oh, the hon. member will have his chance to speak if he ever dares to do so.


Henry Frank Jones: The hon. member has interrupted others.


Harold Edward Winch: That is the situation unless, of course, there is no intention of having nuclear warheads. If that is so, just what business has the government had in sending down the drain the hundreds of millions of the taxpayers' dollars spent on the CF-104's, the Voodoos, the Bomarcs and the Honest Johns? Members on the other side of the house cannot have it both ways. As a result of policies at home and pronouncements in the United Nations you have made Canada a laughingstock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Where?


Harold Edward Winch: Throughout the United Nations.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Nonsense.


Harold Edward Winch: Excuse me. Go down to the United Nations and after some of these speeches are made talk to the delegates from other countries and they will say that this is not what is being said in Ottawa. That is the situation. Face up to it.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Harold Edward Winch: I know it is true or I would not be standing in my place saying it. I am asking you to have the intestinal fortitude to decide on a national defence policy, nuclear weapons or no nuclear weapons, and let the Canadian people know where you stand. At least have the guts to say yes or no.
These are some of the issues which should not be left until after the election. This House of Commons and the people of Canada are entitled to know, now that the house is in session and in light of the fact that the government has over 200 members out of 265, just what the policies are with respect to domestic and international affairs. I say further that if you have any answers, if you have any solutions, if you are sincere Canadians interested in Canada, you will not wait until there is an election. You will use your power now to do now those things which should be done. Action, not promises, is what is required. You have the authority and the power.


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


Harold Edward Winch: I will finish in one sentence. Let me say this. For everything that is of benefit to Canada at home and abroad and which is in the interests of the people you will have the unqualified and full support of every member of this group.
The Address-Mr. Bigg


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, it is a wonderful privilege to represent the great and predominantly agricultural district of Athabasca. As I stand here I think it is a rare thing to be able to sav in any parliament that the promises maae to the people of one's riding have largely been fulfilled I do not think any government in the history of Canada has ever been able to go to the people tomorrow, next month or perhaps even next year and say to them, "We have done what we promised to do".
I offered myself in public service to the people of Athabasca and said I would come to Ottawa with an open mind to see what things it was possible to do and to implement to the best of my ability the promises that we made. I have never been more proud than I am at this moment to be able to go back at any time our great leader decides to go to the country and say to my people, "I have been your hired man and I am asking you for the same job again".
Some of the chores we have been given by the people of western Canada have not been easy. Canadian taxpayers were affected because the economy of the country was in a slump. We have steered the ship of state through very troubled waters and today we can say that we are bringing the ship home with a well-stocked hold.
We have unemployment. There is chronic unemployment. Both the Liberals and socialists say that we have done nothing about it. We have not permanently cured unemployment but we have done something about it. We have been seriously criticized for depleting the unemployment insurance fund. What was the fund for? It was to fill the gap between full employment and unemployment. This we have done. What would they have had us do? Leave the money there that these people had paid into the fund for the purpose of protecting themselves against such an emergency? No, we have spent the money and we are proud of it. We have not created government jobs for everybody in Canada like the socialists would have us do, and if you look at the record in Saskatchewan you will know well why we have not. This is still a land of freedom and opportunity, a land where a man is expected to pull his own weight. The socialists would have labour and the farmers join in an unholy marriage. They call it the New Democratic party but it is rank socialism with a new name.
Mr. Douglas in his concluding remarks at their convention challenged the people of Canada by saying that he would give them rank socialism. He said, "If you do not believe I will nationalize everything, look at my record. We have nationalized everything

The Address-Mr. Bigg in Saskatchewan that we could get our hands on and we are going to carry on until we have nationalized everything and have brought you Jerusalem the golden. Let me say to each and every member that you cannot share wealth which you are not going to go out and earn.
When I have spoken before in the house I have said that the policy of this government is to make us strong at home and generous abroad and that we were not confining ourselves to matters of international agreement around the council tables of the United Nations or even NATO but were speaking economically as well. We cannot be generous abroad until we are strong at home, until we pull up our economic socks. How are we going to do this?


Hazen Robert Argue: Get rid of John.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Not by nationalization, not by going back to the old laissez faire of leaving things alone. We have got to go back to work as individuals. No labour union can guarantee us an income for Canada. The farmers know this fact. They know that men like myself have come to Ottawa to represent them honestly, fairly and truly and to speak good common sense, to tell them that we have got to work and create wealth before we can share it. Anyone who says differently is a liar. There is no way by which you can share poverty and get to Jerusalem the golden.
Mr. Douglas won a provincial election on the promise of free medicine. There is nothing free in this world. If you want medicine you will have to pay for it. You cannot give the people of Saskatchewan free medicine, and now the socialists admit it. They say they will

give them free medicine if the federal taxpayers will pay 60 per cent of the cost. Free medicine. They started shoe factories, they started box factories and they all failed. You cannot compel a man to work his best. I agree that in Russia where men can be regimented from the cradle to the grave a certain amount of work can be forced out of them and if mass production methods are used more tanks can be turned out even by slaves, but you cannot get better work out of Canadians. They must be led not driven.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it is now six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I have some indication from the house leader concerning the business for tomorrow and the rest of the week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The intention is to continue with the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is terrible. Shame. You should proceed with the acreage payments tomorrow, after all this fanfare.


Gordon Minto Churchill: As tomorrow is the fourth appointed day for this debate there will be a vote on the amendment at 9.30 p.m. On Friday we will take supplementary estimates unless, for some reason now unknown to me, we have to make a change. If some crisis arises we may have to disappoint the hon. member for Assiniboia. I hope he will not call the payments "peanuts" again.


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


[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, January 4, 1962
Canadian ministers and Mr. Edward Heath, Lord Privy Seal in the British government, have concluded two days of useful and constructive talks concerning European trading developments. The Canadian ministers taking part in the meeting were Hon. Donald M. Fleming, Minister of Finance, chairman, Hon. Howard Green, Secretary of State for External Affairs, Hon. George Hees, Minister of Trade and Commerce, Hon. Alvin Hamilton, Minister of Agriculture.
During the discussions Mr. Heath informed Canadian ministers of current developments in Britain's negotiations with the European economic community. He stressed the efforts being made by the United Kingdom to safeguard the essential trade interests of Canada and other commonwealth countries. Canadian ministers welcomed his statement and emphasized the extent and importance of Canadian interests in the British market. They indicated that they would provide the British government with complete information on all aspects of Canadian trade interests relevant to the negotiations in Brussels. The ministers reaffirmed that full consultation and co-operation would be maintained between the two governments throughout the negotiations in Brussels and that the means to this end would be adapted as circumstances might require.
There was complete agreement on the great value of commonwealth trade links and the need to maintain them. It was also agreed that when the talks with the European economic community are further advanced it may be desirable to examine what additional arrangements for consultation with commonwealth countries are necessary.
Mr. Heath and the Canadian ministers noted the conclusions of the recent meeting of trade ministers arranged by the GATT in Geneva concerning future tariff negotiations, trade in agricultural products, and obstacles to the trade of the less developed countries. They welcomed the recent reaffirmation by the ministerial council of the organization for economic co-operation and development of the objective of expanding world trade on a multilateral non-discriminatory basis. They stressed the importance they
attach to further progress in the reduction of tariffs and other barriers to world trade.
Ottawa, January 13, 1962

[Stage Direction]
The seventh meeting of the joint Canada-United States committee on trade and economic affairs was held in Ottawa, January 12 and 13, 1962, under the chairmanship of Hon. Donald M. Fleming, Minister of Finance.
2.	The United States was represented at the meeting by Hon. C. Douglas Dillon, Secretary of the Treasury; Hon. Stewart Udall, Secretary of the Interior; Hon. Orville L. Freeman, Secretary of Agriculture; Hon. Luther H. Hodges, Secretary of Commerce; and Hon. George W. Ball, undersecretary of state. The United States delegation also included Mr. Livingston T. Merchant, United States ambassador to Canada.
3.	Canada was represented by Hon. Howard Green, Secretary of State for External Affairs; Hon. Donald M. Fleming, Minister of Finance; Hon. George Hees, Minister of Trade and Commerce; and Hon. Alvin Hamilton, Minister of Agriculture. The Canadian delegation included the Canadian ambassador to the United States, Mr. A. D. P. Heeney.
4.	The committee noted the improvement in the level of economic activity in both countries since the previous meeting in Washington in March, 1961. They agreed on the importance of achieving sustained economic growth in accordance with the resolution adopted at the first ministerial meeting of the OECD on November 17. Measures for the expansion of world trade would be essential to the achievement of these aims.
5.	Canadian ministers reiterated their support for the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis, and Canada's readiness to play a constructive role in the promotion of freer world trade. United States members welcomed this statement and pointed out that the United States had consistently supported these objectives for many years. The committee recognized the importance of the recent decision at the GATT ministerial meeting to explore new arrangements for the multilateral reduction of trade barriers and for moving toward freer trade. The
[Stage Direction]
United States members emphasized that the new trade legislation being sought at this session of congress is intended to contribute substantially to this objective.
6.	The United States members explained the general nature and purposes of the trade expansion program which the United States administration will be submitting to congress, which, if approved, would enable the United States to make a greater contribution to the growth of international trade on a multilateral basis, and in this way contribute substantially to the strength and prosperity of the free world.
7.	The committee examined the problems inhibiting international trade in agricultural commodities and underlined the importance of securing international agreement on measures which would provide adequate access to world markets for agricultural producers. They agreed that such measures should take full account of the comparative advantage of production in agricultural commodities among different countries. United States and Canadian ministers expressed the hope that coming international discussions would effectively contribute to the freeing and expansion of international trade in agricultural products.
8.	The committee noted the current negotiations between Britain and the European economic community and the widespread consequences which British entry into the E.E.C. would have for the rest of the world. The
committee recognized the great importance of the commonwealth as a unique association of free nations bridging five continents and the constructive contribution which it was making to world peace and stability.
9.	Canadian ministers emphasized that the commonwealth trade links, including the exchange of preferences and the historic right of free entry into the United Kingdom market, were an essential cohesive element in the commonwealth association. They stressed the importance the Canadian government attached to Britain's efforts in their negotiations with the E.E.C. to safeguard the trade interests of Canada and other commonwealth countries.
10.	The committee recalled the constructive conclusions reached at the recent ministerial meeting of the GATT concerning the trade of the less developed countries. They reaffirmed that it was the continuing policy of both countries to assist the efforts of those countries to expand their trade and improve their standards of living.
11.	The committee recognized that direct exchanges of views at the cabinet level are useful in helping to maintain soundly based and effective economic co-operation between Canada and the United States. Such understanding and co-operation will be all the more necessary in the years ahead if each country is to play its part in a changing world with a full recognition of the essential interests and aspirations of the other.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday. January 25, 1962