1962-10-09

Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this statement would have been given on Friday had I received official notification of it in time to give it on the order for motions. As a matter of courtesy I am making it now.
As the house undoubtedly knows at this time, the government of the Netherlands paid to the government of Canada in advance of maturity $32,130,000, representing one half of the remaining debt owed by the Netherlands to Canada for credits received in the years immediately following world war II.
The credits to the Netherlands were part of the post-war Canadian program of assistance to many European countries, including the United Kingdom, Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Norway, designed to help in the reconstruction of their economies. The total credits extended by Canada to the Netherlands in the immediate post-war period amounted to $123.9 million. Repayments by the Netherlands to the end of April, 1962 had reduced the amount outstanding to $64,260,000.
The Canadian government has welcomed this initiative of the Netherlands government. The repayment of this sum in advance constitutes impressive evidence of the economic progress achieved by the Netherlands since 1947; it is a further example of the close ties of friendship between Canada and the Netherlands, and of the growing economic co-operation among the free nations of the world. It will make a further substantial contribution toward the strengthening of Canada's foreign exchange position.



EXPROPRIATION ACT


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-54, to amend the Expropriation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This bill was on the order paper last year and was not reached. The purpose of the bill is to bring
the Expropriation Act into a position consistent with the bill of rights, and represents something that should have been done by the government.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



WAR MEASURES ACT


Paul Joseph James Martin: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-55, to amend the War Measures Act.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Explain.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is a bill designed to bring the War Measures Act into a position consistent with the bill of rights. This bill seeks to do what the Prime Minister told parliament, after the passage of the bill of rights, the government itself would do.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



RUSSIAN CARGOES CARRIED IN CANADIAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a special report made to the state department in Washington by the United States maritime administration on, among other things, the part being played by eight Canadian owned ships in trade between communist countries and Cuba.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this question was before the house the other day. Canada is not directly involved in this matter. We have been informed of the recent United States shipping regulations relative to trade with Cuba, but so far as I know there are no ships of Canadian registry that would be affected. Canada, as the house knows, does not permit the export to Cuba of arms or strategic materials. That is the basis of Canadian policy on this question, and it is not affected in any way by the activities of these ships to which the Leader of the Opposition has made reference and which, as I stated earlier, under maritime law and general international law are subject to the laws of the
280	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry country under whose flag they operate. The eight ships in question are under British registry and, I again state, are not subject to Canadian laws or regulations.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Can control not be exercised over these ships or the companies owning them because of the fact that their profits are taxed in this country and the money goes into the federal treasury?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have no information in that regard, but I will look into that matter and ascertain whether there is any basis for the views expressed by the hon. gentleman.



IMPORT OF CARGO FROM CUBA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister inform the house if the destination of a shipload of cement which came from Cuba has been traced, and if so can the minister reveal the name of the importer?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, I have no information with regard to that.



REPORTED CRITICISM OF NORTH AMERICAN BUSINESSMEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, believing that he is the member of the cabinet in this house who is seeking the co-operation of Canadian businessmen. I wonder if the minister's attention has been drawn to an irresponsible statement by a delegate to the socialist convention, that North American businessmen were uncivilized apes as compared to businessmen of Europe. Would he care to comment on that?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have not seen the statement, Mr. Speaker, but if that statement was made I would very strongly disagree with it.


Mr. Winch:: May I ask, sir, why you did not rule that out of order as an irresponsible question?



AUTOMOBILE TRANSMISSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the present permission for duty free entry of automatic automobile transmissions expires on October 31,


can the government indicate at this time that it will not continue to waive the existing 25 per cent tariff after that date?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this is a matter which has occurred at the end of every six months for some years. The government has given consideration to the problem, and in due course its decision will be announced.



EFFECT ON FISH EXPORTS OF RUSSIAN BASE IN CUBA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. L. Morris (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Fisheries a question of which I have sent his office notice. May I inquire whether he is in a position to assess the possible effect on our traditional Caribbean markets, and if any representation has accordingly been made to the Soviet union or Cuba, concerning the announced intention by the former to build a $12 million fishing port within the latter, presumably in Havana bay, to service the Soviet fishing fleet in the north Atlantic?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Here again I think the hon. member will recognize that he has made his representations and that the question is more fitting for the order paper.
(Translation):



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lafontaine put to me a question to which the answer is no. No Canadian city, except Montreal, has asked the government to make the necessary request to obtain the world fair in 1967.



STATEMENT RESPECTING RESTRICTIONS ON BUYERS AND SELLERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the hon. member for Bellechasse asked me a question. The answer is that I had no knowledge of this particular shipment. Any buyer or consumer in Canada is free to get his supplies where he sees fit, taking into account prices, availability, characteristics and time to be allowed for delivery of the product.

(Text):



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is there any connection between the government's decision not to reappoint Mr. C. Rhodes Smith and Mr. Whiteley as members of the restrictive trade practices commission and a report in that connection involving the manufacture, distribution and sale of paperboard shipping containers and related products, especially in view of the fact that one Mr. McCutcheon is referred to in that particular report?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member has asked a number of questions in regard to this matter and in my view the question is definitely of the kind that should appear on the order paper. Furthermore, I believe I would have to look at the question on the order paper, since it seems to express some sort of opinion contrary to the spirit of questions on orders of the day.



A. S. WHITELEY    INQUIRY AS TO RETURN TO CIVIL SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if, as he informed us the other day, Mr. A. S. Whiteley, a member of the restrictive trade practices commission, is not to be reappointed at the end of this month, the minister has given consideration to returning Mr. Whiteley to the civil service, in view of Mr. Whiteley's long and loyal service to the government of Canada and to the people of Canada.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Justice):: I have no power to appoint anyone to the civil service. Mr. Whiteley has the rights that are open to anybody in that respect.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the answer given to the hon. member for York South by the Minister of Justice, will he himself, and will he have the civil service commission, look into the case of Mr. A. S. Whiteley to make sure that his rights as a long time civil servant are protected? There seems to be some uncertainty as to those rights, in view of the fact that he came out of the civil service and took this position on a commission for ten years.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, expert as he is in the rules of this house, would agree with me that he has made representations rather than seeking urgent information from a minister of the crown.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of concern not only to one individual but to civil servants generally. We have not yet had an answer from the government as to whether a civil servant's rights in a case like this are protected.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I feel, also, that the hon. member was endeavouring to make his argument under the guise of privilege when no privilege of either himself as an hon. member of this house or of hon. members generally has arisen.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of the many applications now before the board of transport commissioners for the abandonment of railway branch lines. Has the government formulated any plan or policy for the orderly abandonment of railway branch lines, as has been requested by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture? Will any such plan include compensation for those whose income and investment are seriously affected by the abandonment of a branch line?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think perhaps if the hon. member worded his question in a proper way it would be appropriate for this time of day. We have had a series of three questions which would lead me to believe that they would have been more appropriate on the order paper.


Hazen Robert Argue: Before you make your ruling Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would hear me for one minute concerning the urgency of this question. I should like to point out to Your Honour that there are a number of applications now before the board of transport commissioners for the abandonment of branch lines all across this country. The first hearing is to be on Monday next. This question has been placed before the government repeatedly, and I feel it is urgent in view of the hearings that are about to commence. I believe the minister was prepared to reply to the question.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not disagree with the hon. member that the question was urgent.

Inquiries of the Ministry I was more concerned about the form in which the question was put. If the hon. member is prepared to rephrase his question appropriately, without a number of addenda or tail ends, perhaps he could get his question properly before the house. If he now would limit his question to the first part, and the hon. minister is prepared to answer that question, perhaps the hon. member could get a reply to his question.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would be quite happy if I could get a reply to even the first part of the question.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: In reply to the first part of the question I would say that the matter is under active consideration by the cabinet and an announcement will be made in due course.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Leverett Morris: May I ask the
Minister of Public Works whether he is in a position this morning to assess the extent of the week-end hurricane damage to fishermen's wharves and breakwaters in Nova Scotia?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Public Works):: As soon as the hurricane abated, our engineers went out to the various centres where damage took place, to assess the damage. I am advised that it will take a week or so before they can make a close estimate of the damage, but a preliminary investigation shows there was little damage in New Brunswick, but in Nova Scotia damages are fairly heavy at least in the four counties of Lunenburg, Shelburne, Queens and Yarmouth.



WEST BLOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Would the minister please explain why the bells did not ring this morning to inform members in the west block that the house was sitting?
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Public
Works): No, I am unable to inform the hon. member as to the reason, but I shall be glad to look into it and have an expert electrician attend to the matter.


(Translation):



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State if the restrictions imposed upon the C.B.C. under the austerity program are applied to one network only or to both the French and the English networks.


Mr. Speaker:: I do believe that, according to the rules, the hon. member ought to put his question on the order paper.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Secretary of State. Is it true that the director of the C.B.C. news service sent a group from Toronto to cover the election in the province of Quebec rather than a group from Montreal?
(Text):


Hon. G. E. Halpenny (Secretary of State):: I shall check with the corporation and let the hon. member know tomorrow morning. (Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it true that in accordance with the austerity program, a team of eight men was sent from Toronto, with a single representative from the Montreal French network, to cover the incidents which occurred in Mississippi?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but in my opinion, he must be able to see the difference between a supplementary question and a related question. The hon. member cannot ask for an explanation from the Secretary of State, since the minister stated that he would take the question as a notice. The last question the hon. member wanted to ask was rather related to his first one.
(Text):



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister which is of urgent importance to the people of the Kootenays, because the

sands of time are running out. Has the Prime Minister received representations from municipalities, labour organizations, other organizations and members of his own party in respect of the application of the Canadian Pacific Railway for the discontinuance of passenger service on the Kettle Valley Railway? If so, will he tell the house what his reply was to them?


Mr. Speaker:: While I very much appreciate the local concern in the area from which the hon. member comes, and I know it is a very fine part of the country, I feel that he has made his representations; but if he wishes to go into the question further it should be put on the order paper.
(Translation):



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Have the senior officers of the Department of Transport made a study concerning the hazards of radioactive fall-out for aircraft flying at high altitude? What steps does the department intend to take with a view to protecting aircraft and their passengers against those hazards?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I received notice of this question only a few minutes ago. I shall have to inquire of the senior officers of my department. I know they are interested in the matter, but I am unable to give a definite answer this morning since this matter is of a strictly technical nature. I am not in a position to say at the moment what are the results of this study made by the officials concerned.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport a question. Is it true that last Friday he promised the municipal authorities of Montreal that the government would pay the cost of the approaches to Champlain bridge?


Léon Balcer: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no change in the stand taken by the national harbours board
Inquiries of the Ministry who abide by their agreement signed some five or six months ago with the authorities of the city of Montreal.
(Text):



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, which he may want to take as notice. In view of the government's policy to encourage industry, and in view of the large tax bill of International Nickel, what steps, if any, are being taken or contemplated to assist workers in the matter of lay-offs at Port Colborne?


Hon. Michael Siarr (Minister of Labour):: can assure the hon. member for Cariboo that all the facilities of the government will be placed at the disposal of those who are laid off, and every possible assistance will be given to them.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Roy Tucker: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the acute shortage of squid required as bait for the catching of codfish by Newfoundland fishermen, would the minister advise whether his department intends obtaining squid from other countries, as he did in 1958-59, and would he state whether explorations for squid are being carried out in the waters of Newfoundland in the meantime?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would point out to the hon. member for Trinity-Conception that even though the problem might appear very important to the fishermen, the purpose of orders of the day is to seek information urgently which is not available from other sources. The hon. member has made his representations.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I may say a word on the ruling that Your Honour was considering making. I think perhaps Your Honour, coming from Alberta, does not quite appreciate the importance of getting bait at this time and not in two or three weeks from now, when we might hope for a response to a question put on the order paper.
This is a very urgent matter, not just to one community but to the whole province of Newfoundland and to the most ancient industry in this country. I feel sure the minister would be only too happy to make a response.
284	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think I indicated in my remarks that I did not for one moment downgrade the importance of the subject matter, but I think the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate is also quite aware of the immediate purpose of questions on orders of the day. The hon. member has made his representations. The minister could merely, if he wishes, take the matter as notice and delay his reply.
I think we are making progress in this regard, and I am hoping that with the passage of time we will arrive at some basis whereby we will mutually agree on generally what are the proper questions for this time. By so ruling this morning, I am not at all downgrading the importance of the subject matter to a community, in much the same way as the railway service in the Kettle Valley is important to the people of southeastern British Columbia as are I am sure the problems in connection with a shortage of bait to fishermen.



REPORTED SALE OF TORONTO PLAYER TO CHICAGO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is it not a fact that the sale of Frank Mahovlich to the Chicago Black Hawks at any price would constitute a violation of the Canadian Bill of Rights?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It would help the exchange problem.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, on October 4 last the hon. member for Lake St. John asked the following question:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Does the minister intend to grant subsidies to Quebec truckers for the transportation of feed grain such as those he authorized in the province of Ontario?
Mr. Speaker, I have the answer here, but in view of your rulings I think the question would be more proper if placed on the order paper, when I would be glad to provide the answer immediately.


(Translation):



GRAIN STORAGE FACILITIES IN EASTERN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Are the plans for the construction of grain storage facilities in eastern Canada, as proposed in the speech from the throne, being prepared now?
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously referring to the speech from the throne where we have indicated that we are working on a new feed grain policy for all Canada, with special reference to British Columbia and the eastern provinces. That is as far as I can put forward our views at this time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration when the house might have introduced the measure indicated in the speech from the throne to establish a court of Indian claims, or an Indian claims court?


Hon. Richard A. Bell (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: In the near future, Mr. Speaker.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare a question based on a reply given by the Prime Minister on Friday last as to the time when the royal commission on health services would be making a report to the government. Can the minister say, in the light of this reply, if it is a fact that the royal commission has finished its public hearings; and, in that event, can the minister say what remains for the royal commission to do other than to write its report?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check on this to be sure of my answer, but I believe there is to be another hearing.

The Address-Mr. Bourbonnais



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Davis (Coast-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the minister for external affairs. Would the minister please inform this house whether the Canadian government is represented at negotiations which are currently under way in the United States between officials of the government of the province of British Columbia and officials of the United States federal government and other public authorities concerning the sale of Columbia river downstream benefits in the United States?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, there are no such negotiations under way at the moment. There have been informal negotiations, at which this government was represented.
(Translation):


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Rinfret (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Like the United States administration, is it the intention of the Canadian government to send a message on the occasion of the opening of the ecumenical council which will open in Rome next Thursday, October 11?
(Text):


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure about a message, but Canada will have a representative at that conference.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, October 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gordon Chaplin for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. MacEachen.
(Translation):
Mr. Marcel Bourbonnais (Vaudreuil-Sou-langes):: Mr. Speaker, the first session of this new parliament is but a few days old and it already seems as though it is going to be a long one, profitable for the Canadian people, yet deceiving for the opposition.
I should like to associate myself with the distinguished members who spoke before me, to offer my humble congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. members for Waterloo South (Mr. Chaplin) and for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent). Last fall, I made discreet inquiries in Nicolet-Yamaska to find a worthy replacement for His Excellency Hon. Paul Comtois, lieutenant governor of the province of Quebec, who had resigned his seat. Today, I am glad that last June 18, the people of that constituency approved the wise choice I made. I congratulate not only the new member for Nicolet-Yamaska but all the people of that fine riding for having elected a true farmer, a young man who will, in the true tradition of the Conservative party, uphold the rights of the Quebec farmers who were too long ignored by the Liberals at both the provincial and federal levels.
Speaking of new members, I should like to take this opportunity to offer my congratulations and encouragement to a member of the opposition, the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pilon), whose grandfather, Dr. Hormidas Pilon, a professional veterinarian, represented the provincial riding of Vaudreuil at the Quebec legislative assembly for 32 years. He was a friend of the farmers, and the latter showed him eternal gratitude for the countless services he rendered to them. I hope the hon. member will follow in his grandfather's footsteps. He can be sure of my wholehearted sympathy when he has to discuss agriculture within the Liberal caucus or take the advice or orders of the turncoat member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), the Liberal expert on agriculture.
With regard to farming, I would like to draw a parallel between recent Liberal policy in this field and the principles applied by the Conservatives in the county I represent.
On one occasion-in 1940, if I remember correctly, and under Liberal rule-a unit of bulldozers invaded St. Dominique and St. Fereol in Vaudreuil-Soulanges, tearing down fences, toppling down trees, filling in ditches and letting the cattle of about 40 farmers and milk producers run off in an undescrib-able scramble before an invasion ordered by the dictators of this century, the Liberals of Ottawa.
In order to win the war and annihilate the common enemy, the farmers' fields and herds, as well as the observance of ownership rights, had lost their significance: those peaceful

The Address-Mr. Bourbonnais people had to be shown that Canada was at war and that not even a second could be lost to build storehouses for explosives.
The administration of the day did not think it fit to send a message of warning to the farmers of that area to enable them to put their cattle on some other pasture, before the contractors' equipment changed the site earmarked by the Liberal high command for the erection of storage space for explosive matter.
You may imagine the disappointment, not to say the disgust, Mr. Speaker, felt by those 40 farmers or so who saw their land being invaded, their cattle chased about and their crops ruined because instructions had been given by the political appointees of the Liberal government to disregard ownership rights: the war effort was to be a total one, the stocking of explosive matters had a priority over the protection of cattle and farmers' rights.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a factual illustration of the Liberal attitude with regard to the farmers of Vaudreuil-Soulanges.
Moreover, after seizing part of their land for which a derisive price had been arbitrarily set, the Department of Defence Production under Liberal rule registered some assessments for about 75 per cent of the whole acreage included while offering $1 a year per acre in compensation. Not only did those farmers have their cattle annihilated, their crops and land put to waste, but they also had to suffer a considerable devaluation of their property without receiving-and this was under Liberal rule-any compensation from the Department of Defence Production.
For over 18 years of Liberal rule in the county of Vaudreuil-Soulanges, these forty-odd farmers had to endure the oppression of their Liberal dictators who, every time these farmers dared complain, would reply: "There is the solution, take it or leave it!"
A Conservative government had to come along, which studied the farmer's problems and offered them a more equitable compensation, which was accepted.
Today that problem is settled, and those farmers are happy to have received double the offer of the Liberals, thanks to the understanding and the intelligent policies of the present Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley) to whom I wish to express my sincere gratitude on behalf of the people whom I have the honour to represent here.


This, Mr. Speaker, proves the positive arrogance with which the Liberals approached agricultural problems in Vaudreuil-Soulanges.
Again today the farmers in my county are being pushed around by another Liberal government. This time, it is the construction of the trans-Canada highway to which the federal government contributes generously. Under the federal statute enacted in that respect, the location of the highway and the expropriation of land come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the province. The locations chosen by the provincial Liberal government could not make less sense. In Vaudreuil-Soulanges, the highway seems to have been designed so as to destroy as many cultivated areas as possible, thus forcing many farmers to abandon their farms. When the actual construction starts, the Liberals use the same system which is dear to them. Graders start working on the fields, destroying fences, wells and crops, without the owners being advised even a few hours in advance.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' attitude towards farmers never changes. They seem to enjoy harassing the farmers. I should like to give another example of their lack of consideration for those people whose properties are expropriated to make way for the trans-Canada highway. Lately, a minister in Mr. Lesage's cabinet compelled a school board to buy land at $5,000 an acre for the construction of high schools. This land forms part of a 400-acre farm bought at $1,000 an acre by a group of Liberals under the instructions of the Liberal minister. It is adjacent to the land which will be expropriated for the trans-Canada highway. But the Quebec Liberal government has offered the farmers $250 an acre only for the land to be expropriated. The farmers are given $250 while friends of the Liberal party receive $1,000.
This is a further proof of the lack of consideration, to say the least, that the provincial Liberals as well as the federal Liberals have for the farmers.
When friends or institutions founded by them are concerned, the Liberals are ready to pay a high price; but they do not have the decency to give proper compensation to farmers who are deprived of their property.
There is another case which clearly shows the lack of seriousness of provincial Liberals,

caused by the paltry directives given by the federal member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), and in order to better identify him, I mean the ex-member for Stormont, who has now been transferred to the leadership of the federal Liberals in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, this house will remember the pressure-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have no objection to the hon. member referring to me, but according to a ruling of the previous Speaker, a member must not discuss provincial elections, nor anything concerning another legislative assembly, as was done by the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges; therefore I object to the attitude taken by the hon. member.
So I think, Mr. Speaker, that you should draw the hon. member's attention to that ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: In reply to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Laurier, it goes without saying that we shall hear, from time to time, references to provincial legislative assemblies. I do not think that, during the debate on the speech from the throne, such references could not be accepted, but I believe the hon. member is right when he objects to his speech being considered as an opportunity to discuss the policy of a provincial government coming under another jurisdiction, or activities of prime ministers representing certain legislative groups. Therefore, I think reference cannot be made to such a matter. If the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges has somewhat slipped in this connection and I believe that we can anticipate references of the same kind, from time to time, because we have heard some quite often-I should like, however, to advise the hon. member to come back to the business under consideration.


Marcel Bourbonnais: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker, I shall begin at once.
The house will recall the pressure exerted by the hon. member for Laurier in order to transfer the Soulanges canal to the Quebec provincial government, a federal property, insisting on the urgency of setting up therein a tourist park, fishing ponds and a birds' paradise. In support of his friends, who were about to vanish from the Quebec political picture, and making himself their spokesman, the hon. member for Laurier was preaching the importance of providing for the welfare of birds and fish, instead of supporting our project of a more practical use of the Soulanges canal properties, that is the sale of certain parts of the canal to interested firms, in order that some manufacturing industries
27507-3-19J
The Address-Mr. Bourbonnais might be set up that would thus provide to the numerous workers of the Vaudreuil-Soulanges areas who had been looking for jobs since June 22, 1960, more permanent and remunerative work.
Despite the merits of that project, and as a result of the pressure exerted by the hon. member for Laurier who thought that his Liberal friends from the Quebec government could implement some of their fantastic projects in the Soulanges canal area, that canal was handed over to the province in July 1961. But, since then, the friends of the hon. member for Laurier have kept silent, have not yet accepted the federal government's offer of handing over to them all properties in the Soulanges canal area, valued at more than $200,000, for the "enormous" sum of $1. Perhaps the financial situation in which the provincial government now finds itself, thanks to Mr. Lesage's tremendous team, does not allow it to dispose of a single dollar for the purchase of the Soulanges canal.


Mr. Denis:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not seem to heed your advice to refrain from talking about provincial politics.


Mr. Speaker:: Until now, the hon. member has been dealing with representations and relations between the federal and the provincial governments about a site located in his own riding. I trust that the hon. member will recognize him the right to put forward his arguments.


Marcel Bourbonnais: Yet, last winter, the Liberals of the province of Quebec conducted the widest possible publicity campaign to bring about the transfer of the Soulanges canal. They prepared a model at great cost and displayed huge descriptive panels of their project at the sportmen's show held in the trade mart in Montreal. The minister of game and fisheries, accompanied by his deputy minister, his secretary, the director of fish-breeding for the province of Quebec, his assistant, the chief engineer of highways and his assistant, all of them came here last March in order to urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) to transfer the canal to them immediately. They were even generous enough to give him 15 days to make a decision. This entire delegation, which was typically Liberal, made the trip from Quebec city to Ottawa at great cost, to demand that the Soulanges canal be handed over entirely to the Quebec Liberal government. They insisted that a decision be taken without delay so that fish could be put in the canal to enable fishermen to practise their favourite sport early in the following season.
On July 7, 1961, the Minister of Transport stated in this house that he was willing to

The Address-Mr. Bourbonnais transfer the Soulanges canal to the Quebec Liberal government at the ridiculously low price of $1, and the minister of game and fisheries expressed his satisfaction at this happy solution, as reported in the press. But since that time, that is over a period of 15 months, we have not yet heard from the Liberal government of Quebec, nor from the minister of game and fisheries and we got no reply. Apparently, the ministers of the Lesage cabinet are too busy unravelling the threads of the Shawinigan water and power matter to follow up the projects about which they were raising such a clamour last year. I wonder what the hon. member for Laurier will have to say concerning the Soulanges canal.
Talking about the former member for Stormont, I must congratulate him for having the new member for this constituency elected.
But, Mr. Speaker, do you know how he realized that feat? It was because the hon. member for Laurier talked at only one meeting held by the Liberal candidate.


An hon. Member:: That brought results.


Marcel Bourbonnais: Mr. Lamoureux was
elected with a narrow majority of 60 votes, and if the hon. member for Laurier had talked more often at Cornwall, Mr. Grant Campbell would be member for Stormont now.


Azellus Denis: What majority did the Conservative candidate get?


Marcel Bourbonnais: The hon. member for St. Denis seems completely lost; a Liberal won the victory.
Turning to other matters, Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the government's attention to the question of taxes paid to the federal government by companies producing power for public consumption.
It is urgent for the federal government to amend the Income Tax Act as regards corporations so that such provinces where power systems are privately owned may collect all taxes which power companies pay to the federal treasury. Such provinces would then be placed on an equal footing with those which own the power systems and, therefore, do not pay federal taxes.
This anomaly has become one of the main arguments used by a few socialists who have


forced their way into Quebec's provincial Liberal party and who, through their revolutionary cries, are seeking to divide the French-speaking and English-speaking elements of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, as I do not believe in state ownership, I am against the nationalization of power companies-which Quebec's Liberal party wants to bring about-because in the long run, an enterprise without competition, that is without any counterpart in private enterprise, always ends up by costing more to. the taxpayer. Its employees, having lost all sense of efficiency, initiative and ambition, become slack and remiss in their work. Such an enterprise also tends to increase its personnel at an excessive rate, which makes for higher operating costs.
Mr. Speaker, if the Quebec hydro should take over all the power companies in Quebec and the management of all their personnels, we would then see the greatest network of patronage ever set up in America. At present, senior officials of the Quebec hydro are chief organizers of the provincial Liberal party.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should like to call the hon. member's attention to the observations I made a while ago, although he was then discussing an agreement between the federal government and the provincial governments concerning the imposition of taxes. I think we should not discuss in this house the pros or cons of the nationalization of electric power in any province.


Marcel Bourbonnais: Mr. Speaker, I come back to the subject matter, but I must draw a comparison or point out the facts about a certain empire being built up in Canada, and particularly in the province of Quebec. I should also like to tell the house that if nationalization took place, the Quebec hydro, after the C.B.C., would become the empire, the den of the Liberal party, to spread out the leftist or socialistic Liberal propaganda at the expense of the state.
The empire of the Liberal party would then cover the bungling press as well as the state radio and T.V. to reach finally every Quebec home with an electric shock. Then, a man such as Rene Levesque would only have to become leader of the Liberal party and, inspired by his idol Senor Castro, he could invite him in and hold wide open the doors of the province of Quebec to communist infiltration.

Under the pretext of giving back to the French Canadians the control of natural resources which are rightly theirs, Quebec Liberals will in fact succeed only in stirring up against us all the interests which control over 80 per cent of our industries.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope the hon. member will not persist in that course.


Marcel Bourbonnais: Mr. Speaker, I submit that this matter is absolutely consistent with the spirit which must govern us in this house since we are here to promote national unity and to avoid any shock which could split the ethnic groups composing our nation, in the face of the serious dangers which exist in the province of Quebec at this time. I wish to warn my fellow citizens against this group which is trying to make one section of our people rise against another, and particularly against some separatists or leftists who endeavour to set the Canadians of one group against those of another, and who have only one political purpose in mind, that of being the party in office at any cost.
I wish to denounce such an attitude and such people, and I shall keep on reminding the house that the best interests of all Canadians resides not in being divided but in being united. We have to find a solution to very serious problems, and it is not in trading upon the feelings of a minority that we shall manage to establish that unity we must reach in Canada if we are going to keep prosperity in our country-


Mr. Rouleau:: Conservative prosperity.


Marcel Bourbonnais: and also to maintain our standard of living, which is the second highest in the world.


Azellus Denis: Do not talk against the other parties, then.


Marcel Bourbonnais: Mr. Speaker, what the province of Quebec needs to help the French Canadians recapture the place they long for in the Quebec economy, are men who will be able to lead them and to give them the means to become leaders themselves; it needs an improved education system, more professional and technical schools, of which the federal government pays 75 per cent of the construction costs, more schools of higher learning. The misconception that leads us to believe that we are the slaves of a superior race must disappear.
The Address-Mr. Bourbonnais
Our elite, our leaders will have to convince the French Canadians that success can be reached only through hard work and sustained efforts, rather than make them believe that the government is the only spring-board at their disposal to succeed, and also to remind them that they will have to be qualified enough so that the government will need them, and not the other way around. It is not by coveting another man's wealth that one gets rich, but in improving one's knowledge and working as hard as the other man.
Mr. Speaker, when the politicians, especially those in the Liberal party, stop lying to the people of Quebec and promising them the moon to get votes, when they stop laughing at the French Canadians and setting them against each other in order to come back to power at any price, in order to secure greater benefits from it at our expense, when they become more objective and stop fomenting hatred and, consequently, revenge, the French Canadians, instead of squabbling among themselves about matters of little importance, will stop taking opposite sides in matters of municipal or parochial importance, in sports, and even in business and industry. When the Liberals cease to divide French Canadians, we will stop wasting our time and we will direct our effort towards the improvement of our own business, without trying to blame anyone else for our failure.
What was granted to the Quebec French Canadians in the past five years of Conservative government compares most favourably with what was done over the 22 years of Liberal dictatorship in the Canadian parliament.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the
austerity program.


Marcel Bourbonnais: When I see cartoonists and reporters with a conscience about as straight as a corkscrew, mock the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), I have pity on those would-be leaders of French Canada.


Guy Rouleau: What do you think of Mr. Clement Brown?


Marcel Bourbonnais: The exaggerations and distortions of certain newspapers in the pay of the Liberal party, which are directed against the Conservative government and its leader, show the lack of judgment of their authors and the weakness of their arguments.
Those newspapers render a great disservice to the people of French Canada by distorting the facts and the truth.
Does not Canada enjoy the second highest standard of living in the world? The number

The Address-Mr. Bourbonnais of employed Canadians is constantly increasing, and the social benefits for the aged, the handicapped and the veterans have increased considerably under the Conservative government.
The average worker's salary has increased, the amounts paid to Canadian farmers, in the west as well as in the east, have more than doubled under the Conservative regime, and there has been no increase in federal taxes. On the contrary, some of those taxes were reduced by the Conservative administration.
That is, Mr. Speaker, what the Canadian people should be told and it is the beginning of the work done by a great Canadian, which all those people with small minds who take shelter in certain newspapers of Canada should recognize.
Instead of rousing the population against one of the greatest prime ministers Canada ever had since confederation, those people of small account with perverted minds should rather respect and imitate our Prime Minister who is trying so desperately to improve the fate of all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, last Friday, we heard the member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) batter down the Social Crediters' thesis and attack violently the provincial leader of that party.
I do not intend to defend their theories, but only-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Bourbonnais: Mr. Speaker, listen to the hon. members opposite laughing; they remind me of braying donkeys.
As I say, I hold no brief for the Social Credit philosophy, but I will try to throw some light on a real phenomenon: the election of 26 Quebec Social Credit members to this house. Similar causes led me to enter politics. Being the scion of a Liberal family, raised in a Liberal atmosphere, I was so disgusted by the lies and demagogic doings of the Liberal leaders I knew that I chose to join the Conservative party whose doctrine, in my opinion, was the closest to the Liberal philosophy, but whose leaders showed much more dedication to the people and interests of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals were in office in Ottawa, and more particularly in Quebec, they never stopped exploiting the people's credulity and making the less prosperous people believe that the government could change their fate and settle them in the garden of Eden. During that time they encouraged the development of financial and industrial trusts, they nominated their friends to all the high positions in the federal government and in a great number of private

companies. To stay in office, they resorted to all conceivable means, the most efficient of which were demagogy and promises.
In 1958, the Canadian people rejected them as a whole. And when the member for Laurier refers to the Social Credit group as being isolated at the far corner of the house, it comes to my mind that during the last parliament, the Liberals were not only isolated but wedged in, as in a nut-cracker, between the N.D.P. and the Conservative block. In 1960, another storm of demagogy, abuses and promises swept over the province of Quebec. When the Liberal thunder stopped and the voters realized that they had been submitted to another brainwashing, in addition to a four year Liberal campaign on the radio, on television and in various newspapers, against the Conservatives and their leader, the right hon. Prime Minister, a great number of people in Quebec lost faith in the traditional parties and thought they had nothing to lose by voting Social Credit. If there are now 26 Social Credit members in the house, it is those Liberal gentlemen's doing, and if they go on in the same way there will be 60 after the next election.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that those surviving among the 75 drips mentioned in his paper Le Devoir, by Andre Laurendeau, when speaking of the 75 Liberal candidates in the province of Quebec during the last election, will benefit from that lesson and will not follow in the steps of their leader, the number one demagogue of Canadian politics, the Picasso of politics.
Instead of wasting their time in looking for a bogey and trying to belittle personalities, I would advise them to read a booklet dealing with Frank Buchman's comments on Moral Re-Armament: they certainly would learn some very profitable lessons in doing so.
Mr. Speaker, I said a moment ago that I had no intention of defending Social Credit. I must tell you that I do not share their views in the monetary field. Yet, those people have come here with a far greater sincerity than all our friends in the Liberal opposition. They came here to stand up for what they saw at home, to defend the small people who have been abandoned, flouted, and to whom the Liberals had been telling lies for much too long a time. And those people are criticizing and making fun of Social Credit members, which affects their voters. I myself am affected by such an attitude-


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I never heard anybody on this side of the house ridicule any hon. member. This goes to show-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Prosper Boulanger: -that the hon. member tries to convince the people that we are making fools of certain members in the house while, in fact, he is trying to make them look as martyrs so as to keep them on their side.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Under the circumstances, I suppose a member has the right to say that a certain group has certain attitudes but he cannot ridicule anyone in particular. Anyone who has closely followed the speeches made from both sides of the house has heard criticism of the policies put forward by various members but no one has ridiculed the character of a member of the house. Consequently, I would say that there have been no personalities up to now.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that hon. members opposite cannot accuse us of turning into ridicule any member of the house, be it the Social Credit members or any others.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I very much regret, but I fail to see any point of order in what the hon. member is submitting.


Marcel Bourbonnais: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member representing a Montreal riding, which I do not know, says that he does not jeer at Social Credit, good for him. They have sufficiently upset and ridiculed the Quebec people during 22 years, and again during the last two years, they need not come in this house and try to apologize.


Prosper Boulanger: I am not indulging in personalities as far as the hon. member opposite is concerned, but I raised a point of order in order to prevent Social Credit members from setting themselves up as martyrs, by repeating the statements of the hon. member.
(Text):


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this intervention on my part in this debate may be attributed to the form of the amendment introduced on October 5 by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen) on behalf of the official opposition. This latest contribution to the official opposition's war of attrition on stable government appears in this form:
That the following be added to the address:
"We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that the failure of Your Excellency's advisers to place
The Address-Hon. D. M. Fleming before this house at the earliest opportunity a measure to approve the collection of taxes which have been imposed by order in council, as part of the austerity program, denies to this house the exclusive constitutional right to approve the imposition of additional taxation which is the foundation of our system of responsible government."
The hon. member has chosen, Mr. Speaker, to refer to a program that does not exist. There is no austerity program, but let us not take time on that. Evidently he has chosen to use wrong terms. He seems to be directing his attack against two elements in the exchange program that the government introduced in June. These two elements are the import surcharges and the reduction made in the exemption on tourist purchases. I propose, Mr. Speaker, to deal with this subject in relation to the legal and constitutional questions that are raised.
In relation to these two elements in the government's program may I speak first of all of the legal aspects. My first point is that we have proceeded on the advice of the law officers of the crown in the proper manner, and the advice we have is that the measures which were introduced by orders in council in June, which took effect one minute after midnight on June 25, are proper and legal; that the government had full power to proceed to pass those orders in council, and that those powers so exercised were conferred upon the governor in council by parliament. There can be no question about the validity of those orders in council.
As to the import surcharges-


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: May I ask the
minister a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member please wait until I finish my speech? Then if there is time I shall be glad to answer his question. The import surcharges were created by the use of powers drawn from two statutes, the first the Customs Tariff and the second the Financial Administration Act. As to the provisions in the orders dealing with the reduction in the exemption on tourist purchases, the authority for that action is contained in the Export and Import Permits Act and the Bretton Woods Agreement Act. Those are statutes of parliament. No one can question the propriety of those statutes, and those statutes have conferred upon the governor in council the very powers that were exercised by the governor in council in June when the program to meet the exchange emergency was announced.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on this subject of the validity and legality of these orders in council, let me say that the government has proceeded on the highest advice, and
292	HOUSE OF
The Address-Hon. D. M. Fleming that the legality of these orders is not questioned unless hon. members choose to question the opinion of the deputy attorney general of Canada.
May I remind hon. members, Mr. Speaker, that when this program was announced no issue was raised by any member of the opposition, the Leader of the Opposition or anyone, as to the legality and validity of these orders in council.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There was an objection.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not a question was raised.


Paul Joseph James Martin: An objection was raised.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There was not a question raised as to the validity or legality of those orders.


Murdo William Martin: It was raised in the Cornwall by-election.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was not raised.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we can agree that one hon. member has the floor.


Murdo William Martin: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: And that we cannot continue to have orderly debate in this house if hon. members pop up in their seats from time to time to make gratuitous remarks or interventions. Might I also further indicate-


Murdo William Martin: This is a new rule.


Mr. Speaker:: -that requests for permission to ask a question should be directed through the Chair. There is a tendency to set up a two way communication system which bypasses the Chair, and I do not think that is in keeping with the spirit of the rules of the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I proceed now, Mr. Speaker, to the other question that has been raised, what one might call a constitutional question, as to whether the governor in council has somehow or other imposed taxation here. It is an accepted rule, which no one questions, that taxation can only be imposed by act of parliament. That question was settled early in the seventeenth century. I remind hon. members that in 1628, and again in the bill of rights, the rule was then declared at Westminster, and has been observed since, or should have been, until the time when hon. members opposite were forming the government-and I shall have something to say about what happened in 1947-that no man should be compelled to make any gift, loan,


or pay tax without consent by act of parliament. Therefore there is no question about the principle.
Had parliament not chosen to confer on the governor in council the powers that were exercised in June there would certainly be no right to impose import surcharges or to reduce the exemptions accorded to returning tourists. Those measures depend for their validity upon these enactments of parliament. I have referred to these enactments, and the authority is clear. Therefore there is no constitutional issue raised here, none whatever.
Parliament does not always proceed to impose taxation in a direct manner. There are various examples one could point to in the enactments of parliament where the taxation is not directly imposed or the rate directly established. I take time to mention only several of these. Section 4 of the Customs Tariff authorizes the withdrawal by the governor in council of tariff benefits, resulting in increased tariffs. Section 7 of the Customs Tariff authorizes the governor in council to impose a surcharge in certain cases. The Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act, which was on the statute books of this country for many years, authorized the governor in council to make regulations imposing export duties on power exported from Canada, and this authority was continued by section 4 of the Exportation of Power and Fluids Importation Act which was passed in this parliament in 1955. Perhaps hon. members will remember that year when a tax was, in fact, imposed by the governor in council under the authority of that provision, and this tax was made statutory by section 8 of the Excise Tax Act amendments which I had the privilege to introduce in 1959. The Export Act authorizes the governor in council to declare an export duty chargeable upon logs and pulpwood exported from Canada, and also authorizes the governor in council to impose export duties on certain ores and metals.
Therefore let it not be forgotten that when parliament imposes taxation it does not in all cases do so in direct terms. These are examples where parliament has given power to the governor in council to proceed with the imposition of taxation and the variation of taxation. There is nothing extraordinary about the legislation which parliament passed, or about the powers which were conferred by these parliamentary enactments on the governor in council, and which were exercised in June last.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sorry. I had to refuse a question already because I am not sure I have adequate time. If there is I will answer the question.
I come now to deal with the course we followed. It was a correct and lawful course. Here were powers that parliament had created. We exercised those powers, and we kept completely within the authority conferred upon us by parliament. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, there can be no question as to the constitutionality of this course. If anybody questions it he has the right to go to the courts, but there cannot be any such question raised in parliament. My submission as to the constitutionality of the course that was followed is that parliament had created powers for this purpose, and we kept within those powers. I shall have something to say about the question of confidence before I conclude my remarks. That is another matter.
Now, by way of emphasizing the course we have taken in 1962, I wish to compare it with the course that was followed by the Liberal government in 1947; because there have been some erroneous and misleading references during this debate to what happened in 1947.
Let us look at what happened in that year. First let me observe that there were three elements in the program introduced by orders in council of the government in 1947 to meet the foreign exchange emergency of that time. First, by order in council they reduced the tourist exemptions. Second, by order in council they prohibited the importation of certain goods; and third, they imposed special excise taxes on certain goods.
Those were the three elements in their program. As to the first of these elements, the reduction of the tourist exemptions, there was undoubtedly authority to do this under the Foreign Exchange Control Act of
1946,	which was still in force. I will have occasion to refer to that act further, and also to an undertaking that was given to the house when that legislation was under debate prior to its enactment.
As to the second element, the prohibition that was imposed by order in council on the import of certain goods, this was an order in council passed on November 12, 1947 which was not made public until November 17,
1947.	Under its powers prohibition was imposed upon the entry of certain goods into Canada.
The minister of finance of that day, both in his famous radio speech on the evening of November 17, 1947 and later in his speech in the House of Commons on December 16, 1947, said that the government had obtained legal opinion to the effect that the government had power under the statute I have
The Address

Hon. D. M. Fleming mentioned, namely the Foreign Exchange Control Act, to pass this order in council. Mr. Speaker, we have made diligent search of the records in the Department of Justice, and we have not been able to find any such opinion. I can only conclude, then, that it was an opinion given orally to the minister of justice at that time by the law officers of the crown. But in this regard I do draw attention to a factor of very considerable importance in relation to the use by the government of the powers that they claimed to possess under the Foreign Exchange Control Act of 1946. When that measure, as I have said, was under debate in this house Mr. Ilsley, then minister of finance, gave the house this assurance. It is to be found at page 2547 of Hansard of 1946:
We have no intention of using this exchange control legislation to restrict anything but certain types of capital movements.
In passing the order in council the government of that day just tore to shreds and ribbons that solemn undertaking that it had given to parliament in 1946 when it asked parliament to pass the Foreign Exchange Control Act and confer very wide powers upon the governor in council. So whether there was a legal question or not, a very important question with regard to keeping good faith with parliament certainly was involved in that order in council which gave effect to the second element in the program of the government of that time, in relation to the prohibition of the import of certain goods.
The third element in that program, Mr. Speaker, was the imposition of special excise taxes as from midnight on that night of November 17, following the radio speech delivered by the minister of finance that evening. Those taxes then imposed were without a shred of legal justification; they were illegal.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what
you say.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not simply a question of there being doubts about their legality; they were clearly illegal. Those taxes were collected for weeks and weeks and months before parliament ever validated them by retroactive legislation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Was it ever challenged in the courts?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is a fine example, Mr. Speaker, of what hon. members opposite did, when they make the fictitious claim to be champions of parliament-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what you claimed a few moments ago.

The Address-Hon. D. M. Fleming


Donald Methuen Fleming: -the imposition of taxes by a budget delivered over the radio, when parliament was not even in session.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A shocking derogation from the authority of parliament. A shocking resort to an utterly illegal course. Those were the three elements in the program of the government in 1947. There were very good reasons why they had to bring measures to parliament. With respect to the second element in the program, the prohibition on the import of certain goods, they had to come to parliament and ask parliament to forgive a breach of faith, even if they can have the benefit of the doubt in relation to the question as to the validity of their order in council in that respect. Then as to the third element in their program, the imposition of taxes, they had to ask parliament to validate something that was completely and utterly illegal. That is why they had to come to parliament and ask for enactments at the following session.


An hon. Member:: You are really in trouble, aren't you?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not hear that remark, Mr. Speaker, but I have respect for parliament; I always have. I hope hon. members opposite will-


An hon. Member:: What about the flower?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, under all conditions I have the highest respect for the traditions of parliament, even when hon. members opposite were seeking to degrade those traditions.
Let us examine a little further the record of the government in 1947. Did they come rushing to parliament and say, "In one case we broke faith with you, and in the other case we have arrogated to ourselves powers that we do not possess; we have taken an illegal course. Now please forgive one and validate the other". This happened on November 17. Parliament met on December 5. When do you suppose, Mr. Speaker, they got around to this subject? They went on to other business. It was not delayed by debate on the throne speech. They took only a day on the throne speech. The government had all kinds of other measures to put before parliament, so they did not bring this measure forward then.


John Whitney Pickersgill: At the request of the opposition.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was not at the
request of the opposition.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have the Hansard right here.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And so have I. Mr. King was putting forward measures he said were going to run out. There was the transitional measures act and powers relating to agriculture. So the minister of finance got around to moving second reading of the first of these measures, that respecting foreign exchange conservation, on December 16. There was a two day debate and the debate was adjourned. They were in no rush about this. Then there was a recess over Christmas and New Year's. Debate was resumed on January 26, and as a matter of fact this legislation was not passed until months afterward. The Foreign Exchange Conservation Act received royal assent on March 24, 1948. It came into effect on April 22, 1948.
Then there was the act to amend the Excise Tax Act. It received royal assent on March 24,
1948.	My word, weren't they in a hurry to put this before parliament and ask parliament on the one hand to forgive their breach of faith, and on the other hand to validate acts on their part that were completely illegal?
Som hon. Members: Shame.


Mr. Bell (SI. John-Alberl):: Where was Bon-avista then?


Donald Methuen Fleming: He was behind the scenes pulling the strings, I expect. When this measure was placed before parliament, and I am referring now to the measure respecting foreign exchange conservation, the measure under which the government asked parliament to validate-let me make this clear; asked parliament not merely to give them authority to do the sort of thing they had been doing under that order in council of November 12, 1947 but, if you please, to validate everything that had been done under that order in council. They must have had some very uneasy consciences, Mr. Speaker. Section 14 of that bill-


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; respect for parliament.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -provided not only for the powers in this respect but for the validation of what had been done under that order in council passed on November 12, 1947. Uneasy consciences, yes; but, Mr. Speaker, when they brought this measure forward they were still saying "We had the legal power to do what we did". Then we confronted them with this dilemma; "All right, if you had the legal power and you still assert that you had the legal power, why are you bringing this legislation forward? It is superfluous".


Paul Joseph James Martin: Correct constitutional practice.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, this is not a question of constitutional practice. The hon. member for Essex East is wrong, as usual.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Correct constitutional practice.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Here is the dilemma with which we confronted the government that day. I am reading from page 393 of Hansard of December 17, 1947:
If this legislation is valid-


John Whitney Pickersgill: What are you quoting?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I continue:
-there was no occasion to bring the bill here; there was no occasion to bring parliament together to discuss this measure, and therefore the bill we are discussing is entirely unnecessary.
If the government-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, the hon. gentleman has not told us who he is quoting.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member for Eglinton; and you would have done well to have paid some attention in those days to him.


Murdo William Martin: Why discredit your own witness?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Therefore this
dilemma was presented squarely to the government, and squarely to the hon. member for Essex East, who was a member in those days of that despotic government which ran away from that dilemma.
So we have this position, that if the legislation were valid there would be no need to ask parliament to validate what is already valid, none whatever. The constitutional question in such situations arises in this form. Has the government which has exercised powers conferred upon it by parliament done so in circumstances or in a manner which still retains for that government the confidence of parliament? The constitutional issue is not validity of the order; the question is whether the government which has so exercised powers conferred upon it by parliament retains the confidence of the House of Commons. That is the constitutional issue; that is the issue which we welcome, Mr. Speaker, and that is the issue we are happy to face.
But let there be no mistake, Mr. Speaker, about what is respect for parliament, what is respect for parliamentary enactments, and what is respect for parliamentary practice in this regard. I draw attention as clearly as I can to the differences between the course followed by the government of 1947 and the course followed by the government of 1962. In 1962 we confined the measures which we
27507-3-20J
The Address-Hon. D. M. Fleming took entirely within the scope of powers conferred upon us by parliament. There has been no excess on the part of the government of those powers clearly conferred upon it by parliament. Mr. Speaker, in 1947 the government of that day proceeded in a manner that was unconstitutional, because they broke faith with themselves; they broke faith with the parliament, and completely reversed a solemn undertaking given to the House of Commons the year before, and they used that legislation for purposes that in 1946 they said they would never use it for.
Then the third element in their program in 1947 was to take courses which were completely illegal. They tried to defend those illegal courses by saying "Oh, well, we have simply followed the budget practice, because when the minister of finance introduces his budget in the House of Commons with respect to changes in commodity taxes or tariffs, he always says that these will become effective at midnight that night." Then when the bill is introduced later, whether it be the Income Tax, the Excise Tax Act, the Customs Tariff Act, or whatever it might be, in such situations parliament is asked to make the legislation effective from budget night. But though that is a parliamentary practice that applies to announcements in the budget speech made here in parliament, it does not apply to what is announced over the radio by a Liberal minister of finance. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the difference between the course followed in 1947 and the course followed by the government in 1962 is the difference between night and day. It is the difference between the illegality and unconstitutionality of 1947 and clear legality in 1962.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot close this intervention in this debate without comment, with deep regret, on an observation that fell from the lips of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when speaking in this house on October 4. The hon. member has always claimed to have respect for parliament and for the officials of government. Mr. Speaker, he allowed himself to say, as reported at pages 209 and 210 of Hansard last week, some things which are a very clear and regrettable reflection upon a very senior and respected law officer of the crown. He was speaking about the order in council, and at the top of page 210 he is reported to have said:
We have been told in this house that this was done by order in council based on legislative authority and that legal opinion was obtained that the government had power to do this. This legal opinion was obtained from the Department of Justice. We all know what the Department of Justice is doing when it gives a legal opinion.
29$

The Address-Hon. D. M. Fleming
The Department of Justice is under the government, and too often it gives the government the opinion it wants.
Mr. Speaker, I think that is a shameful reflection upon the deputy attorney general of Canada. I deplore with all my heart that any hon. member of this house would stoop so low as to make a reflection of that kind. Let it be realized by all hon. members that unless you ask a law officer for his opinion in a completely untrammelled way, his opinion is not worth anything to the government which asks for it. There has not been at any time, Mr. Speaker, any attempt to tell law officers of the crown what opinion the government wanted from them; and believe me, Mr. Speaker, as long as I have the honour to be Minister of Justice, never will any law officer of the crown be asked to frame or change or colour his opinion to suit the convenience of the government. When I ask law officers for an opinion, Mr. Speaker, whether it be a legal opinion or anything else, I want their honest opinion. That is the way in which those officers have been treated. Their opinion has been treated with respect, there has at no time been interference with their opinion, and there will be none.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot close these remarks today without expressing the deepest regret that the high regard in which the deputy attorney general of Canada deserves to be held by all hon. members of this house should have been qualified, should have been besmirched, in the way it was by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Mr. Speaker, here is our position in a word.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In taking our course we have acted in a legal manner and in a constitutional manner and on the best advice.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice said that he would answer questions at the end of his speech, and I am now rising to put a question.


Mr. Speaker:: I was on my feet as the minister was finishing to advise him that his time had expired.


Mr. Orlikow:: Convenient.


Mr. Speaker:: I would say to the hon. member who made that remark that I trust there is no reflection upon Mr. Speaker, that he stood up deliberately.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: While Mr. Speaker is addressing the house-this has nothing to do with me personally-I wish hon. members who
[Mr. Fleming (Eglinton).l
have anything to say would stand at their seats and say it. The minister's time having expired, he may answer questions provided the house unanimously gives him approval to extend his time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg.


Mr. L. R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to participate in the throne speech debate. My first words will be to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply, the hon. member for Waterloo South and the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska. They have set a standard which all of us would like to emulate, and they are a credit to their constituencies.
I should also like at this time to congratulate you, sir, on your elevation to the highest office we have to offer in this house, that of Mr. Speaker. It is a position that I know you will fill with dignity and with fairness to all hon. members in every part of the house. I should like to congratulate Mr. Deputy Speaker and the newly elected ministers and newly elected parliamentary secretaries, who I am sure will give a good account of themselves when carrying out their new duties.
As I look at the many new faces in this house I believe it is only fitting that I take this opportunity to thank the voters of Queens-Lunenburg who honoured me by re-electing me to the House of Commons. Since the opening of the 25th parliament I have listened to the speech made by our Prime Minister, as well as to the speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Social Credit party and his deputy, and the acting leader of the C.C.F.-N.D.P. party. In my opinion our Prime Minister and his cabinet deserve the praise of all Canadians for the monumental, well planned program enunciated in the speech from the throne. I also believe that our Prime Minister in his remarks gave an outstanding resume of industrial growth and development taking place in Canada that is bound to instil confidence throughout this entire nation.
Unfortunately I cannot say the same for the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition or of the leaders of the other two parties in this house. As I listened to the Leader of the Opposition outline his program I could not help but realize that here is the leader of a party completely devoid of a sense of responsibility to the Canadian people. His program would indicate that Canadian Liberalism has

taken a mighty swing to the left with an impact that has left old line Liberals clinging to the rigging.


An hon. Member:: Let us have an election.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The Liberal ship of state is running into heavy weather, and the new boys on deck will soon wish they had the old compass by which to steer rather than the new chart which I believe has been prepared by the hon. member for Davenport and more lately by the hon. member for Assiniboia, which charts none of them can read and few of them can understand. These new planks will force even the C.C.F. or N.D.P., whatever they choose to call themselves, to seek out more distant horizons of socialism. It was Sir Wilfrid Laurier who, more than 80 years ago, when defining a Liberal stated as follows:
His cravings will always extend far wider than his resources, his actions will never reach the level of his concepts. His completed task is always ready to be done over.
Even Sir Wilfrid would look in wonderment at the proposals of the present Liberal leader, for the big question which must now be asked is whether this nation can at this time stand the extra bill that would come with these new ventures in the realm of state welfarism, state paternalism, or state socialism as enunciated by the Liberal party. It is estimated that these proposals would cost an additional $1 billion or more annually if implemented; and it must be remembered that it is the Canadian taxpayer who must pay this bill and not promising politicians who sit in this House of Commons.
The impact of the socialist from Assiniboia is quite evident. I wonder how long it will be before he will be taking over the leadership of the Liberal party. What did we hear before the election? The Liberals in my constituency were critical of our deficit budgeting. They said we spent too much money on Canadians, that we were going too far too fast.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You are going in the wrong direction.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I will get around to you after you make your speech. What did we hear from the Leader of the Opposition? We heard plans for a program of massive spending, creating even greater deficits. Is this the opinion of the eminent business consultant, the hon. member for Davenport, or of Mr. Sharp, or of Mr. Lamontagne? Is this their assessment of the present state of the Canadian economy? Never in history has this country seen a fear campaign comparable with the one which was conducted during the recent election. My predecessor, a former Liberal cabinet minister, when he came to Nova Scotia, as he had nothing to lose, said
The Address-Mr. Crouse to the people in Lunenburg that Canada is on the verge of bankruptcy and that it would be wrong to mislead the people into thinking a new government can easily balance the country's budget. We observed other types of fear campaigns conducted. When the hon. member who has just taken his seat went to speak in Newfoundland, what did we see on the front page of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald? We saw this headline: Smallwood gave order; Fleming cancels speech.


An hon. Member:: It is a Liberal quotation.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I did not interrupt the hon. member when he made his speech. I would ask him not to interrupt me. In speaking about the interference which the Prime Minister was obliged to undergo when he tried to conduct a meeting in Vancouver, the Leader of the Opposition said that Liberalism does not do that kind of thing, that it staunchly defends the right of any man to be heard. What arrogance that is, and what rot. Socialism under a Liberal banner or a C.C.F.-N.D.P. banner has never gained a strong following in Nova Scotia, and this is especially true among the thrifty, hard working citizens of Queens and Lunenburg counties. Neither will they be fooled by the Social Credit promise of no more debts, interest payments or taxes. We know any government can get along without debts or taxes. This can be done by simply printing the money; and we know what this action would do to our present financial system.
Mr. Speaker, as I contemplate the results of the recent election and look at the four parties in this house, I cannot help but feel concerned for Canada. While it is true that my party did not receive an over-all majority from the Canadian people, indicating over-all confidence in our program, it is equally true that the Canadian people placed less confidence in the program of the Liberal party, and that only small areas elected members of the Social Credit party or of the C.C.F.-N.D.P. party.
Some responsibility for this indecision of the Canadian voter must rest upon the shoulders of all parties, especially upon the shoulders of the two old line parties in this country. With a population of slightly more than 18 million people in Canada, in my opinion we cannot afford the luxury of more than two political parties. Canada has grown to its present state of importance and influence in world affairs under one or the other of the two old line parties which have controlled its destinies since 1867. We would not be faced with another election at the present time if there were only two parties

The Address-Mr. Crouse in Canada. Unless we return to the two party system I have grave doubts for the future of the democratic processes in Canada.
Some responsibility for this situation must also rest upon the Canadian voter. It would appear that some Canadians have lost the spirit, the will to achieve, the desire to accomplish that helped build this nation.


Mr. Berger:: Why blame the people for your own shortcomings?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: When you have a chance to make a speech, we will listen to you. Rather than strive for independence, some people are willing to sacrifice their freedom for promised security, a form of security promised by government. What we need in Canada is a new sense of purpose, a genuine realization that we must work hard, and a realization that we can share only that which is first produced. We have been somewhat local in our thinking without realizing that the world is changing fast. New trading alliances among our friends threaten our traditional markets.
This fact was brought forcefully to my attention during the past few months, when I met with delegates from 17 commonwealth countries at a commonwealth parliamentary conference in London. We were there to discuss the future role of the commonwealth in the modern world. In my opinion, following this conference it was the intention of the United Kingdom to join the European common market as soon as convenient, if at all possible.
This attitude, of course, did not meet with the approval of any of the representatives of the other commonwealth countries. Our Prime Minister, when he recently attended the prime ministers' conference in London, took the same stand. I think it is his responsibility to make representations on behalf of Canadian industry, Canadian farmers, Canadian fishermen and Canadian labour. After all, this is one of the reasons prompting the United Kingdom to join the common market. She is attempting to gain greater economic benefits for her people. Would we expect our Prime Minister to do any less on behalf of Canadian citizens? However, a close study of the European common market indicates that this is a magnificent political achievement, and when you stand at the memorial at Verdun and realize that part of this transformation is the reconciliation of France and Germany, you then have a greater appreciation of the new spirit permeating Europe and of Britain's desire to become a part of this development.
Where does this leave us? We must be prepared, if Britain joins, for some loss of our privileged position in the United Kingdom

market, but Britain will continue to need many of the things we now export to her and trade may be less drastically affected than we might suppose. In fact, with Britain entering the common market it is possible her industries may increase their imports of raw materials from Canada. On the other hand, we must not underestimate our sales prospects in a western Europe enjoying rising prosperity and high living standards. However, our progress in this direction will depend upon the initiative of each and every one of us. We will havetogoafter these markets with well designed products at competitive prices and with vigorous and imaginative salesmanship. Obviously, the more successful we are in holding down our costs and improving our productivity, the more successful we will be in increasing our exports. This also implies progressive and forward thinking on the part of management plus a spirit of cooperation among labour.
This is the challenge faced by all Canadians, management and labour combined, if we are to successfully meet the threat to Canadian jobs posed by intensified foreign competition. This is a problem that not only concerns the government but is the concern of every Canadian; and when we realize we can only improve our living standards not by leaning on the government but by working harder and in greater harmony together, we will then achieve a new sense of national purpose. We must endeavour as a nation to conquer our unemployment problems, and this can only be achieved by providing improved opportunities in our primary and secondary industries.
The speech from the throne offers many incentives that will help bring this about, and it is indicative of the careful thought given to these problems by the Prime Minister and his cabinet. There is not sufficient time for me to comment on all the proposals in the throne speech, but I should like to deal with a few that are important to my province and to my constituency of Queens-Lunen-burg.
I note it is the intention of the government to take positive, constructive measures to strengthen Canada's balance of international payments. The recently stabilized exchange rate for the Canadian dollar has helped producers in all parts of Canada, both in the domestic and export markets, and is contributing as well to a large expansion in the Canadian tourist industry. This fact unfortunately became a political football in the recent election, with Liberal money being printed with caricatures of our Prime Minister and the then minister of finance on either side and showing a value of 92J cents. This Liberal money, Mr. Speaker, was of no more

value to Canadians than the Liberal promises were during the 22 years they were in office, though it was indicative of the childish attitude of the Liberal party toward the Conservative administration. I am certain this juvenile Liberal paper money did not gain any supporters in Queens-Lunenburg, for the voters in my constituency remember only too well the depreciation in the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar under 22 years of Liberal rule.
Inflation ran rampant under the Liberal government; it kept statisticians busy altering the cost of living index until we realized that in 1956 it took $1 to buy what 50 cents would buy 20 years before. However, the stabilized exchange rate has been beneficial to our great and expanding fishing industry, our pulp and paper industry and our tourist industry. It is the tourist industry that offers still greater potential income for Nova Scotians, and as the industry expands it strengthens Canada's balance of payments.
One project that would be helpful to our tourist industry is a second ferry between Nova Scotia and Massachusetts. I am fully aware that such a link has not always been successful in the past. Services once provided between Yarmouth and Boston declined and were withdrawn. However, I believe these connections were casualties of changing times, and that a second ferry service today between Nova Scotia and the United States would be beneficial to both countries. The present service between Yarmouth and Bar Harbor has not been able to accommodate the demands of traffic, especially in the summer months. It is primarily a service to Canada, for it favours drivers from Ontario and Quebec. I find no fault with this, but travellers from Massachusetts find it necessary to stay somewhere overnight in order to proceed to Nova Scotia, and they may as well drive all the way to the maritimes.
I believe a daylight run from Nova Scotia to Gloucester would be a great convenience. It would eliminate the need for costly sleeping accommodation on board the ferry, and it would open up for us the potential tourist market in the greater Gloucester, Boston and New York area, where over 50 million people reside. In addition, the ferry would provide quicker delivery for the products of our expanding fresh fish industry, which are daily gaining in favour and enjoying increasing sales in the United States market. This link is essential to provide an increased flow of trade between these historic trading areas, and I hope the government will give favourable consideration to this proposal.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The Address-Mr. Crouse AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: When the house rose at one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was making a plea on behalf of the tourist industry in Nova Scotia.
I should like now to make a plea on behalf of agriculture. The throne speech points out that the prosperity of agriculture remains essential to the well being of the entire Canadian economy, and the government recognizes that livestock is occupying a position of increasing importance in Canadian agriculture. It is proposed that a program be instituted to assure the availability of storage facilities and the continuity of supplies of feed grain, especially in areas of British Columbia and eastern Canada where supplies of feed grain are normally deficient. This is a program that I heartily endorse, for it will fill a long felt need in eastern Canada, especially in my riding.
In a previous speech I pointed out that approximately 50 per cent of the people in my constituency earn their living by working in primary industries such as agriculture, fishing and lumbering. In Lunenburg county, especially in the areas surrounding the town of Bridgewater, there are a large number of people entirely dependent upon agriculture for a living. This is true also in the Caledonia area of Queens county. In former years many people were engaged in mixed farming, but recently some farmers have become more selective and have specialized in the raising of hogs, cattle or poultry. I believe there is a greater awareness today of the fact that agriculture is no longer a method of earning supplementary income. Our Lunenburg and Queens county farmers are now looking at agriculture in its proper light, as an industry, a big industry, that can provide a way of life with peace of mind and material benefit unsurpassed by any other type of employment.
Gross farm income last year from all agricultural production in Nova Scotia exceeded $60 million. Nova Scotia has long been recognized as a grass country, a province in which grass grows probably as well as it does anywhere in the world. However, a trip through the province will show some neglected farms, with land standing idle, and this is indicative of the fact that we are wasteful of our resources. It is gratifying to note the throne speech indicates that the government recognizes the need for further training in agriculture, with present facilities under review. This is the heart of the problem, and is most commendable; for it is only through proper training that we can further develop the-great potential of our land resources.
Agriculture today offers unlimited opportunity to Nova Scotians. We are a province

The Address-Mr. Crouse deficient in both hog and beef production, At present we consume over 100,000 carcasses of beef annually, while producing less than
70,000	head. We produce approximately 80,000 hogs annually while our requirements are in excess of 250,000, to say nothing of the sales potential in the adopted home of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate or the new market that is opening up in our northern regions, areas opened up by the progressive policies of this Conservative government. There is no reason whatever, Mr. Speaker, why Nova Scotia and the counties of Queens and Lunenburg cannot maintain a much larger production of livestock such as beef and hogs than it does at the present time. We have many factors in our favour, and grass is not the least of these. The figures I have given indicate there is tremendous room for development, expansion and growth in these areas of production.
However, if we are to make the most of our opportunity and use our resources to the best advantage, we must be prepared to produce the pasture, the silage, the hay and other forage crops that a greatly expanded livestock enterprise both requires and demands. Assistance toward this end is now available under ARDA, and community pastures can be developed to provide grazing areas for livestock. However, one of the problems facing farmers in Queens and Lunenburg counties desirous of increasing hog production has been the high cost of feed grains. The new proposal to establish storage facilities for feed grains will go a long way toward alleviating this problem.
I suggest that the federal government give earnest consideration to establishing a feed grain depot at Bridgewater in Lunenburg county. Situated on the beautiful Lahave river, Bridgewater is the centre of a large shopping and agricultural area. It has adequate facilities for docking large ships, and cargoes of grain could be brought directly from the head of the lakes to Bridgewater for dispersal to the agricultural industry on the south shore of Nova Scotia. Facilities for grinding grain are already available at Bridgewater, and distribution could readily be made to New Germany, Chester and Lunenburg, as well as to all points in Lunenburg county and agricultural areas of north Queens and Caledonia.
I am pleased also to note that according to the throne speech amendments will be proposed to the Canada Shipping Act to preserve for Canadian vessels the coasting trade in the St. Lawrence and great lakes area. This, Mr. Speaker, is an endorsement of a proposal I made when speaking in this house on May 22, 1958, and will be welcome news for Canadian ship owners operating out

of Lahave and Lunenburg as well as Queens county. It is gratifying, too, to note that funds will be requested to implement the shipbuilding program announced some months ago, and that plans will be made to establish an Atlantic development board. I hope this board will give earnest consideration to the problem of assisting in the establishment of another fish processing plant at Liverpool.
Since the announcement by the Conservative government of the shipbuilding assistance program a total of 15 new draggers over 86 feet in length have been approved for construction in Nova Scotia. At present nine of these draggers are under construction, and in addition assistance has been provided for 84 smaller fishing craft. Some of these new fishing boats could, I believe, operate out of a new fish plant if it were established in Liverpool.
This federal program has stimulated a spectacular boat and shipbuilding program which will result in the creation of more than 1,000 new jobs for fishermen and fish plant workers within the next two years. Despite this fact, what does the Leader of the Opposition say? He says that no progress is being made in Canada. Well, the nine Conservatives in this house from ridings in Nova Scotia somewhat refute that statement. We in Nova Scotia have certainly seen great changes in the last five years, with new development taking place in our province and with 14 new manufacturing industries established in the past year. In the report of the president of the Halifax board of trade we read this:
Nova Scotia is entering a new era of prosperity, spurred on by stepped-up construction projects in nearly every section of the province.
When we look at the projects and construction going on in every section of the province we believe there is sound basis for our view that this whole area is indeed on the brink of a boom.
It is a boom, Mr. Speaker, generated by Conservative policies not only in Nova Scotia but throughout the entire Dominion of Canada.
In conclusion, as we see our shipbuilding plants, some of them with orders booked ahead for one year and some for two years; when we see our people working; when we see our fishing industry and agricultural industry expanding, and when we see progress on every hand, then I know that the people in my riding and throughout Nova Scotia look to the future with confidence and optimism.
(Translation):


Mr. Yvon Dupuis (St. Jean-Iberville-Na-pierville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to join those who have spoken in praise

of yourself as well as of the Deputy Speaker of the house.
I also wish to associate myself with all those who have congratulated, and properly so, the mover (Mr. Chaplin) and the seconder (Mr. Vincent) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Mr. Speaker, we are back in the House of Commons for the first session of the twenty fifth parliament of the Canadian nation. We notice, with a certain pride, that a change has occurred on this side of the house, since the end of the last session of the 24th parliament. We come back to this house with an increased representation from the Liberal party, which can rely on members ready for the task they will have to fulfil.
We also notice with pride that the Canadian people have indicated very clearly their lack of confidence in the Conservative Tory government headed by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), since they have sent to this house more than twice the Liberal representation they had during the last parliament and they have a majority vote for the Liberals throughout the country, a vote which exceeds that of the Conservative party by a margin of 4,315 votes.
Mr. Speaker, we owe this increased popularity of the Liberal party to the personal popularity of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), who is recognized not only in Canada, but throughout the world, as one of the leading statesmen of our times.
We also owe this popularity to the Liberal platform which has succeeded in securing the attention of the people and in answering the hopes of the majority of Canadians which we are called upon to serve as members of this house.
Now, if we study the position of the Liberal party in Canada, we notice with pleasure that the result of a Gallup poll conducted throughout the country which was published last Saturday gave 47 per cent of the popular vote to the Liberals, 25 per cent to the Conservatives, and the remaining percentage to the other parties.
Is it surprising, Mr. Speaker, that with such a result, a new and weak party should shrink before the prospect of an election? Is it surprising that a party which claims to be a renovating force should unite with the old worn out Tory party to prevent a general election? What has the house witnessed lately? The unholy alliance of a new party with the Conservative party. What a marriage. The children which will come out of it will certainly not be strong.


An hon. Member:: What nonsense.
The Address-Mr. Dupuis


Yvon Dupuis: If I had your brains, I would keep quiet. This is something to see, this alliance between the Social Crediters and the Conservatives. By voting with the Conservatives, the Social Crediters have shown to the people that they have confidence in the Tories which they fought during the last electoral campaign.


An hon. Member:: That is not what was said.


Yvon Dupuis: Isn't it?


An hon. Member:: No.


Yvon Dupuis: No? Listen to them, Mr. Speaker. They do not even know what a vote in this house means.
Well, tonight, our friends will have to vote once more. They will not support the nonconfidence motion, based on a very sound and democratic principle, which consists in finding out whether a government has the right to impose austerity measures or to increase the tax rate, without previously consulting the House of Commons, the people's only voice, which is elected by the people and for the people.
They will have to vote tonight, Mr. Speaker, and I shall tell you that I much prefer belonging to the Liberal party to finding myself in the phony position in which our Social Credit friends have now been for much too long a time. Yet we heard them say that they are happy about their attitude.
You just have to read once more the statement of the member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), their number one leader-because they have a leader and a deputy leader-* now, the number one leader the hon. member for Red Deer, claims in this House of Commons that more than 25 per cent of the population intimated through their votes that they had no longer any confidence in the old parties. He was not aware that by such a statement he was condemning himself, because if 25 per cent of the population indicated their lack of confidence in the old parties, the remaining 75 per cent indicated their lack of confidence in the new parties.
I think our hon. friends would gain something if they read the magnificent speech delivered by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). I feel our Social Credit friends had better seek information on the role played by their party in Canada's history. I believe they should read the statistical data quoted by the hon. member for Laurier last week.
In the past there were many Social Credit members; nowadays, there are none left, except four in British Columbia. There are those newcomers from Quebec whose leader, I mean the deputy leader, stated that the Social Credit surge was a miracle. In their

The Address-Mr. Dupuis stead, I would be suspicious of a surge. Mr. Speaker, I will quote Corneille, and I am sure my hon. friends the Social Crediters will not say that he was a Liberal. I invite them to meditate on this sentence. Here is what Corneille would think of that surge; if he were living nowadays, he would not say otherwise:
Le Cid by Corneille. Scene 3, Act IV:
The flow brought them in and the ebb took them back.
Such is the present situation of Social Credit in the province.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, have we ever seen so striking an example of the saying that extremes meet and opposites attract each other.
So, we see that marriage to which I referred a moment ago, and so we see that unbelievable party, directed on the one hand by the hon. member for Red Deer, who is supported by Mr. Manning, the premier of Alberta, and on the other hand by the Social Credit deputy leader (Mr. Caouette), who is supported, helped and seconded by the questionable premier of British Columbia.
Here is an example, Mr. Speaker, proving that the status of the deputy leader is not as good as our Quebec friends believe it to be.
According to the Canadian Press of August 25, 1962, Mr. Manning stated the following:
Whoever wishes to know the position ol the Social Credit in all matters has but to interrogate the only person who is competent to speak on behalf of that party, that is. the national leader. Mr. Thompson. The ideas expressed by Mr. Caouette about Hitler and Mussolini are his personal ideas.
They are ashamed of Mr. Caouette in the west.
The premier of Alberta, a Social Crediter, takes the trouble of cautioning all Canadians, all Social Crediters, against the propaganda of the Social Credit deputy leader. Where is he heading to?
Mr. Speaker, on the other hand, the premier of British Columbia has no particular sympathy for the leader, the hon. member for Red Deer. As far as he is concerned, his man is the great Caouette. He describes him as the greatest French Canadian since Sir Georges-Etienne Cartier. What a joke.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be well to remind the present Social Credit leader- the western one, the real one-that the success of his party in Quebec is not miraculous. Everyone knows what happened in Quebec. While, in this house, a group of hardworking members were looking after the interests of Quebec constituencies, there were "door-to-door" people spreading the Social Credit doctrine; and while we were doing our duty here, those people were talking nonsense to the population. We did not know anything

about it. We discovered that too late. But today we can tell them that we know their methods, that we shall fight them and hurl them back into the sea at the next election.
Mr. Speaker, they used television-


An hon. Member:: They also used boats.


Yvon Dupuis: I believe that on the day of reckoning, the boat will be so overcrowded by defeated candidates that it will sink.
The deputy leader of the Social Credit party appeared on television. He stated, after he was elected, that that was his most powerful weapon. He spoke to each constituent, each week, through T.V. He knew full well that no member of this house had the time to see or hear him on television unfolding his tales as he did through that publicity medium. That is how he abused the good faith of the Quebec voters.
Thus, unopposed, he made, on television, statements which were utterly false, con-demnable and amazing.
Today, fortunately, we have come back to the Canadian parliament. Now, instead of being able to make all kinds of statements, unknown to us, these men are before us and we shall call them to order each time they will lie to the people of the province of Quebec.
They tried to show in beautiful words, that a country managed by a Social Credit government would be heaven on earth.


An hon. Member:: Who composed that, a bank manager?


Yvon Dupuis: We were told that all was well in the west under the Social Credit system; it was even stated that debts had been wiped out in British Columbia.


An hon. Member:: That is true.


Yvon Dupuis: And it was even maintained that there was no more direct taxation in Alberta.


An hon. Member:: That is correct.


Yvon Dupuis: What ignorance, Mr. Speaker. We shall give them figures. You are not in the backwoods any more, you are no more among people who have not the statistics.
I do not blame you for lying, and I shall never say that a Social Credit member is a liar, even if he should tell an untruth, because, according to the Christian dogma, to be a liar, you have to fulfil three conditions: You must have sufficient knowledge, fully realize what you are doing, and the matter in question must be grave.
They have such incomplete understanding of the facts that they come and tell us in this house, and repeat it too, that debts have been wiped out in British Columbia.

Well, Mr. Speaker, what do the figures tell us, the official statistics which are now available to members, and which they did not have before the election. That is what official statistics tell us.
In British Columbia, the debt per capita amounting to $738.88 is the highest in Canada. Mr. Speaker, in the province of Ontario, under an administration-


An hon. Member:: On a point of order. (Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Shefford is rising on a point of order.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: I hope it is not a point of disorder.


Mr. Rondeau:: Mr. Speaker, this morning our Liberal friends prevented a Conservative member from speaking on provincial matters, because they said it was not in order. These very matters are being dealt with now.


Yvon Dupuis: The Social Crediters even dared to tell us during the election campaign that there was no debt in British Columbia.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville has the floor.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that our hon. friends feel pain when we point out their lies in this house, but their suffering is not over because, in the name of public honesty and out of respect for the men who make up the Canadian nation, it is our duty to set the facts in their true light, and we will do it.
In Ontario, a province headed by a Conservative government, the per capita debt amounts to $505.05. The debt in the province of Quebec, with $254.59, is the third lowest.
That should give food for thought to the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Bour-bonnais) who praises the Social Crediters in this house.
Mr. Speaker, not only did they lie about statistics, but they stated that there was no direct taxation in Alberta, while they should have known better. I do not say that they knew, for I know they did not, but I say they should have known that in the province of Alberta there was direct taxation, personal income tax, corporation tax and succession duties. If they were not cognizant of those facts, they know them now, they will no longer be able to repeat that on television.
The Address-Mr. Dupuis Now, the people will know that they are lying.
Mr. Speaker, reply has not yet been given to the statements made by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) who, having quoted an extract from the book "Real Caouette vous parle" added that they had even asserted that the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) was a member of the federal cabinet from 1939 to 1945. This is completely false, because the Leader of the Opposition was made a minister in 1948. When the Social Crediters made such a statement, they were lying to the voters in the province of Quebec.
During the election campaign, you asserted in the province of Quebec that the Liberal party had gotten Canada into debt


An hon. Member:: That is true.


Yvon Dupuis: -for $17 billion during the war. If you look at the statistics however, you will see that Canada's debt increased by only $8 billion during the war.
Third, you said at one time that the Bank of Canada could issue money, and at another time that this was done by chartered banks. You cannot even agree with one another, you are confused and lost, you do not know where you are going.


An hon. Member:: Social Credit is hard to take.


Yvon Dupuis: Not at all. I am in a good mood and I only want to put your affairs in order.
Mr. Speaker, I hear the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau). Now, there is a member who stands high for you. Listen for a while to the hon. member for Shefford-


An hon. Member:: Not of the same standing as you.


Yvon Dupuis: Right after the general election, he held a press conference. He had become somebody. He expressed the hope that T.V. would come into this house to show the empty seats, to show members going out in the hall to get drunk and play cards.
And, after that, we are being told that one of the first points of the Social Credit doctrine is respect for the human person. Well, Social Credit no longer respects anything. I hope that it-


Gilbert F. Rondeau: On a point of order. I should like to know where the hon. member held his press conference and if he could please provide me with the text.


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.

The Address-Mr. Dupuis


Yvon Dupuis: If the member for Shefford cannot even remember what he said, let him get La Presse and I shall show him. The poor little boy. The poor little boy.
Mr. Speaker, I must say to the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) that when he comes and says in the province of Quebec that members of the House of Commons are getting intoxicated and are playing cards in the lobbies, when we hear on television that members are drunk because they are not in their seats, I ask the member for Shefford to look at the seat of his deputy leader, for that seat is the one which is the most often empty.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, if the seat of the member for Ville-neuve (Mr. Caouette) is empty it is because the population-
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There is no
point of order. The hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Speaking of publicity, I think it would be a good thing if our Conservative friends, who rely on the support of Social Crediters to remain in office, read this morning's Globe and Mail. I do not have the time to read the article but they should do so, as it might make them think. The article states that the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dumont) takes the same attitude as the fascists did when they decided to abolish human freedom. That should give them something to think about. Obviously, the Conservatives are mad at their leader for degrading their party by joining forces with people like the present Social Credit members.
Mr. Speaker, we proudly remind the house of the Social Credit members' predecessors.
I should like to recall the memory of Mr. Boivin, a member who always did his job with dignity. There is also Mr. Bourget, a great citizen who, for 22 years was a credit to the house, to his constituents and to all Canadians. Mr. Augustin Brassard, the former member for Lapointe, was a first rate and very active member who will return to parliament at the next election; Mr. Jean-Paul Racine, a young man who was active, dedicated, progressive and able to work for his own people; Mr. Roberge, the former vigilant member for Megantic, and Mr. Samuel Boulanger. Those are all worthy men who were replaced by loud-mouths who do not even know what they are doing or saying.
Mr. Speaker, in referring to the respect due to the human being, I wish to remind the


house of what the Social Credit leader said in his maiden speech. He stooped to say that when he heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Leader of the Opposition, the whole proceeding reminded him of a television program from Havana.


An hon. Member:: That is true.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, it does not behoove a party leader, especially in his maiden speech before the nation, to speak nonsense, even though he is the leader of the Social Credit party. I hope that after hearing his deputy leader, he was reminded of the golden era of the Italian government under the Benito Mussolini administration.
Mr. Speaker, I have little time left, but I have enough to keep speaking of my friends.


An hon. Member:: Keep on, we like it.


Yvon Dupuis: They lied to the people during the last election campaign, they lied on television and they are keeping it up. Last week, the deputy leader of the Social Credit party appeared on T.V. with the president of the Canadian Labour Congress.


An hon. Member:: No, the Confederation of National Trade Unions.


Yvon Dupuis: He said he was right to admire Hitler-he always keeps in contact with Germany-he said that he received a letter from Hamburg, from the president of the Reichs-bank, and that he would show it soon. Before he shows it, I shall tell him as a friend, that if I were in his place, I would not mention the president of the Hamburg bank.
Here is what the president of the Reichs-bank, a former finance minister under Hitler, said-


An hon. Member:: You also correspond with him.


Yvon Dupuis: I will tell you where I got my information. This is what Dr. Schacht, a friend of the deputy leader, a former finance minister of Hitler, said of the Social Credit philosophy in his book entitled "Memoirs of a Magician":
When a nation spends more than its revenue and when it tries to meet its financial obligations by increasing the amount of its currency (therefore by printing money), the value of that currency decreases. Such was the situation in which Germany found itself following the first world war. Those who were most affected by inflation were the common people in Germany.
Mr. Speaker, "to issue currency" is what the member for Villeneuve wants to do, and

this is what his friend, the president of the Reichsbank, writes on page 163 of his book.
I quote:
A great concern and a growing bitterness took hold of the labourers, employees, investors, who could not any longer meet even their daily keeping expenses. In vain did they keep on increasing salaries in paper money; it did not change anything. On the contrary, the more paper money was put into circulation, the faster its buying power diminished.
For the guidance of the member for Ville-neuve, he continues on page 164, in the same book. I quote:
In 1923, devaluation of currency progressed at a frightful speed. It was necessary to issue such a volume of paper money that the printing press of the Reichsbank was far behind in meeting the demand. Many private printing presses were required to print more and more paper money. The day came when a street car ticket cost one billion marks.
And if I may continue, on page 165:
The living standard of the common people in 1923 took such a fall that communism grew in disquieting proportions. The magnitude of the political unrest forced the stabilization of the currency to avoid a catastrophe. One must remember that in those years banknotes were shipped in huge bales through towns and provinces, in moving vans, in railway cars, and that the cost of printing exceeded the face value of the bills off the printing press; this may help us fully understand the folly of those times. They were shamefully playing with the most precious capital of our people: its working power.
We condemn Social Credit today, and we remind our hon. friends that such experience gained in Germany should make them take a second look, and so should the experience of France when it printed those famous "consignats" during the revolution. But what can you do? They know nothing of history. Therefore I ask them to take the first page of the "Third Reich", a book they will find in the parliamentary library, and read the following words at the beginning of the book:
Those who do not remember the past are condemned to live it again.
Those are the words of the American author Santayana.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have this to say to the Social Crediters: You have no right to come with your false doctrines, and to try to deceive the population of the province of Quebec. The citizens of the province of Quebec who voted for Social Credit are no fools. No, but the people of the province of Quebec are a proud people, they have believed in your words, but they are now aware of your deceit and they will never forgive you.
Mr. Speaker, I regret that the 30 minutes at my disposal do not allow me to turn back
The Address-Mr. Dupuis


Some hon. Members:: Keep going.


Yvon Dupuis: Do I have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes, yes.


Yvon Dupuis: I will talk about that, if you allow me the time I need, I will accept.
Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit doctrine has been explained in a book. Fortunately we have that book. Social Credit has also been explained on television the other night, and there again, we fortunately have the verbatim text. We have the facts before us today and our Social Credit friends will no longer be able to deny what they said. They will instead have to face the responsibilities that have resulted from such statements.


An hon. Member:: Your 30 minutes are up.


Yvon Dupuis: You remember the debate that was shown on television? Those who saw it are waiting for explanations.
And now the Social Credit deputy leader tells us: How can the population buy a production of $36 billion with an income of $25 billion?


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, our friends know nothing about nothing. They should have a look at the statistics, and that is just what the hon. member for Villeneuve said: "Mr. Marchand, you do not know anything about that. Come to Ottawa, we have the figures. Come and see."
We are in Ottawa now and Mr. Marchand is the one who was right.
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Villeneuve would take the trouble to refer to the monthly publication on statistics in Canada, and particularly to page 506, he will notice-


An hon. Member:: What year?


Yvon Dupuis: What year? 1962, of course.
If the hon. member for Villeneuve will refer to page 506, he will find the tables indicating that our national production has always been purchased in Canada. But, you see they take one part of the thing and compare it with the whole, instead of comparing equivalent figures.


An hon. Member:: Then do the computing yourself.


Yvon Dupuis: Sit down. You will have your turn to talk.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we will remember that Mr. Marchand was right on television because
on-

The Address-Mr. Dupuis it says here, in the first table, that our production amounted to $36,844,000-


An hon. Member:: Million?
Another hon. Member: Do you want me to read it for you?


Yvon Dupuis: No, I shall read it myself. I do not need your assistance. The total production amounted to $36,844,000,000 and that is indicated on page 506 of the statistical accounts.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ville-neuve said, and I have the text in my hands, because I do not want to make up anything-


An hon. Member:: Read what he said.


Yvon Dupuis: Here is what I find in that statement. Listen to the fine picture painted by the hon. member:


Mr. Caouette:: You have only $8 billion or $9 billion something in the money supply circulating in Canada-*
He is in the know. He said something like $8 or $9 billion.
A little later, he said something like $10 or $11 billion. To him, it is all alike, it has the same meaning. Here, again is what Mr. Caouette said:
You have only $8 billion, $9 billion something in the money supply, now in Canada, circulating at a rate of approximately 2.4 per cent. That means a total national income of $24 billion.


Mr. Marchand:: For your information, the money supply stands at $15 billion.


David Réal Caouette: No, no, not at present.


Len Marchand: Find out for yourself.


David Réal Caouette: No, no, write the Minister of Finance-
Naturally, he is his friend.
-at present, it stands at $10 billion 200 million, something like that.
A while ago, it was $8 billion, $9 billion, something like that; then it was $10 billion, $11 billion, something like that.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I ask my hon. friends the Socreds to set these things straight, so that the population-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member's speech, and I know that the hon. members share my feelings, but the hon. member's time has expired.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I have the unanimous consent of the house to continue.


Mr. Speaker:: Permission to continue was asked indirectly by members sitting in one section of the house. Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house to continue his remarks?
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. A l'ordre, a l'ordre. I will give the hon. member a little extra time. I just want to caution hon. memiMr. Dupuis.]
bers in the house about rising to make remarks that are not points of privilege or of order. I would let them know that this makes it difficult for the Chair to hear the debate. I am going to give the hon. member who has the floor a little extra time because of my intercession.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, they know they are out of order, but they want publicity.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the one who occupied the chair before you gave me to understand that the time taken by interruptions to my speech, which totalled about five minutes, would be added to the time allowed to me.


Some hon. Members:: That is true, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Besides, what the hon. member has to say is not important.
Another hon. Member: You will not be here long.


Mr. Speaker:: I am very sorry I was not in the house when the Deputy Speaker was in the chair. In any case, the assistant clerk informs me that the hon. member is still entitled to two minutes to make up for the time he lost because of interruptions.


Yvon Dupuis: Two minutes to balance five minute interruptions, that is not too much.
Mr. Speaker, the population of the province of Quebec has the right to know who was right, Mr. Marchand or Mr. Caouette.
Our friends should examine the statistics issued here in Ottawa. There is no need to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan); besides, he himself might not know. If they would only study the statistics given on page 475 of the summary published in August 1962 by the Bank of Canada, more particularly in the eighth column, they would find that the money supply in Canada has always ranged about $15 billion and that since February 1962 up to now it has always stood at $15 billion. Therefore, Mr. Marchand was right when he said on television that the money supply reached $15 billion, which goes to prove that the member for Villeneuve is misleading the people once again when he says that the money supply stands at about $9 or $10 billion.

The Address-Mr. Martineau


Hon. Paul Mariineau (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, my first words are of congratulations to you. In fact, in appointing you to that position, the house has recognized in you those high qualities which make you a distinguished parliamentarian, who has already had a brilliant legal career, as well as a military one which is an honour to the country as a whole. As a member from the province of Quebec, I am particularly glad that a French Canadian from the west has been appointed because, once again, we have recognized in a practical way the bilingual character of our country, from coast to coast.
Mr. Speaker, I should like also to congratulate the mover (Mr. Chaplin) and seconder (Mr. Vincent) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
First of all, I might recall that the hon. member for Waterloo South is a businessman of great experience, the son of a former government member who sat in this house. He has shown a deep knowledge of our great problems, and explained how the steps taken by the government could offer a solution to our present needs.
As for my colleague, the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent), newly elected in this house, he has fulfilled his task in a masterful manner, as if he had been sitting here for several years. When he spoke about agricultural problems, he did so as a farmer, fully conscious of the needs of that class of people, conscious also of the importance of that industry for the prosperity of Canada as a whole.
To both of them, I am sure, the future reserves the most brilliant career, here in this house as well as elsewhere in the public affairs of our country.
I should like also, Mr. Speaker, to refer to the recent appointment of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. In fact, it's the first time that a minister of agriculture has had a member from the province of Quebec as a parliamentary secretary who is a farmer's son, as well as an agronomist by profession, and who, for many years, has closely studied the needs of the farmers in his province. Such an appointment, Mr. Speaker, is really a valuable acquisition for the government.
I should like also to refer to the appointment of the Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Chown), as well as to the appointment of the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) as deputy chairman of committees. All
those appointments are lending new glamour to the government benches and are strengthening our government, in addition to giving the house an additional buoyancy which will be felt more and more as this session develops. (Text):
If I may, I should now like in a few words to speak about the speech made here last week by the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition saw fit to charge the government with political fraud in respect of the exchange position, alleging both concealment and misrepresentation on the part of the government and its leader. I know that already the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and many others have answered this baseless accusation by giving a complete factual account, step by step, of the events that led up to the situation which confronted this country and affected its foreign currency reserve, even listing, month by month and for the latter part of June day by day, the demands that were made on the reserve position of this country. These charges have been found to be what in effect they are, namely baseless and, I might say, also base. If one requires any further proof let him just consider one action which was taken by this government-and, in my submission, it was an act of great political courage undertaken by the government-in the midst of an election campaign. The government had the courage, when the situation called for it, to take on May 3 last-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It was a case of using the only available life raft or drowning.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Well, he laughs best who laughs last.


An hon. Member:: They pretended to have courage.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have a few observations to make and I hope I shall be able to make them, even though it does hurt members of the opposition.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They will have to be more sensible than that.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The government did go ahead and peg the dollar at 92J cents on May 3. I ask you, was there ever an act of greater political courage-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: "Desperation" is the word.


Paul Raymond Martineau: -because no matter what may be said, if the government had been in the throes of trying to conceal anything from the Canadian people, the very first step they would have taken would have been to refuse to peg the dollar in the midst of a campaign,

The Address-Mr. Martineau and the Liberals know that very well themselves. I do not doubt at all that privately among themselves they rejoiced at the action, though they may have qualified it as one of political naivete.
In pegging the dollar the government obtained the warm and full approval of the authorities of the international monetary fund, and the Minister of Justice last week stated that this action on the part of the government stopped completely, stopped cold, to use his word, the run on the Canadian dollar and the accompanying pressure that had developed in late April of this year. Where, I ask you, is there any concealment in all this? The government by pegging the dollar publicly, despite the campaign that was in progress, revealed for all to know that it intended to deal firmly with the situation that had arisen, and it did so.
If I need any further backing for my words I need only examine the words that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate poured forth last week. They can be found at page 218 of Hansard, where he is recorded as having said:
In fact, it was perfectly obvious that the dollar was pegged on May 3 as a desperate measure to stop the drain.
If it was perfectly obvious, Mr. Speaker, where then is the concealment?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The concealment was that it was not stopped.


Paul Raymond Martineau: It was stopped. The hon. member then went on to use these words: "Facts that were known to everybody about the situation". That in itself is a complete admission coming from the opposition benches, coming from those who are making these charges, that there was no concealment, no misrepresentation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How silly can you be?


Paul Raymond Martineau: The hon. member says "how silly can you be?" I ask the hon. member, how silly can he be when he says that facts that were known and obvious to everyone were facts of concealment and misrepresentation? Either there was no misrepresentation and no concealment, or else words do not have the meaning generally given to them in the English language and in the English dictionary I have here.
But, Mr. Speaker, we were in the midst of an election campaign. As it developed, the Liberal opposition saw a very unique opportunity to turn the tides that were far from running in their favour, and this act of great political courage was ridiculed and turned into an object of derision. Almost all economists in our country have for many years favoured devaluation, and I should like to

quote from a certain economist, one among many in this country who have held this view. Here is what this gentleman said:
The high exchange rate for the Canadian dollar made it easier for imported goods to compete successfully with goods produced in Canada; they could be sold for lower prices in Canadian dollars than would have been possible if the Canadian dollar had been at par or at a discount. It meant also that Canadian exporters received lower prices for their sales in other countries, when converted into Canadian dollars, than they would otherwise have done. Thus the premium on the Canadian dollar worked to the disadvantage of both our export industries and our domestic manufacturers.
Summing up his case in favour of devaluation, this noted economist stated:
It is probably true to say, however, that the increased costs or losses of this nature-
He was speaking about the small increase that might be produced in the cost of living.
-would be far outweighed by the economic and psychological gains to be derived from increased activity in Canadian industry and a reduction in the number of people employed.
Hon. members may be interested to know from whom I have quoted.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We know who it is.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Nevertheless all members may not be as well informed as the hon. member for Trinity. It happens to be from a certain pamphlet written by none other than the member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon). The pamphlet is entitled "Troubled Canada", that "timely, inclusive and forthright follow-up", or so the flyleaf states, to the 1956 royal commission report on Canada's economic prospects, otherwise known as the Liberal bible, authorized version.
So I submit, Mr. Speaker, that here is where the baselessness of these charges appears in all its full light. Here is where it also appears that the Liberal party, the Liberal high command, engaged in a campaign that was not going according to their wishes no matter what they say-the results prove it was not going according to their wishes-staged one of the greatest mystification campaigns ever put on in the annals of public affairs in this country. I will give the elements of that campaign of mystification if you want them.
As I have said, all were agreed, and the Liberals had been agreed for five years, that devaluation would be a good thing for Canada, but all of a sudden it became a ridiculous act; it became a sort of psychological humiliation for the people of Canada, and Liberal spokesmen throughout this country forgot all the beneficial effects that such a move could have and in fact did have, as I will prove in a few minutes, with regard to

Canada's export trade, Canada's tourist trade, Canada's manufacturing industries and Canada's agriculture, to mention but a few.
It was suggested that Canadians had been hurt by the dollar devaluation. Somehow it was put over that the Canadian dollar had been intrinsically degraded, that it had become an object of contempt and that even in Canada it was worth less than the dollar it appeared to be. Phony bills, as phony as the Liberal program they were going to put across to the people, appeared all over the country, to such an extent that they became standard equipment in the kit of every Liberal candidate. Where is the mystification, where is the contempt for the people, the contempt for the real welfare of Canada? It is there in the high Liberal command, in the Liberal campaign. Last week they again renewed their charges. They thought they would take the offensive, and they thought the people of Canada were not wise enough to unveil the treachery that lay underneath their charges. Liberal spokesmen decried the country's financial structure, its financial integrity and its ability to meet its commitments. Statements such as have been made by Hon. Robert Winters, mentioned earlier in the debate-


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton).


Paul Raymond Martineau: -that this country was on the verge of bankruptcy were the ordinary stock in trade of every Liberal spokesman on every public platform in Canada. There is the great mystification. Then they spilled crocodile tears because a run against the Canadian dollar did develop in the latter part of June. It is small wonder that it did not develop before, and it was a run that they had no small part in provoking.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Agriculture.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Then, to continue dealing with the illogic of the Liberal party, we find them now saying that the finances of the country are in a terrible state, that we are on the verge of bankruptcy. However, let us consider this Liberal program that is going to cost many hundreds of millions of dollars in expenditures by the public treasury-and these suggestions are being made at a time when they say this country is on the verge of bankruptcy. I should like to enumerate a few of the proposals which involve either the expenditure of public funds or a reduction of government income. They are a national medical plan, extension of present hospital insurance services to include optical, dental and nursing services; free education at all levels, despite encroachment on provincial
The Address-Mr. Martineau rights in this matter; 10,000 university scholarships worth $10,000 each; increased aid for urban renewal; benefits to persons in training; a municipal loans fund; increased pensions; increased foreign aid; increased depletion allowances; reduced corporate tax rates; extension of several insurable categories under the Unemployment Insurance Act; greater agricultural aids and subsidies and a host of other odds and ends.
Many of these measures would be of benefit to the country, and many of them this government has already implemented to the benefit of Canadians everywhere. The point I am trying to bring out is the ridiculous nature of the charges which were laid when they said that this government, by its mismanagement, had brought the country to the edge of bankruptcy and yet, on the other hand, they say we can still spend millions more without reaching that stage of bankruptcy. There is illogic in that kind of situation. These statements were made in the heat of an election campaign; but then the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) the other day quite coolly again proposed measures involving the training of workers, a health plan, contributory pensions and increased family allowances. All of these measures would again involve increased expenditures of several hundreds of millions of dollars.
The great economist from Davenport (Mr. Gordon) likewise, in his speech, said that there was a need now for a national health plan, more adequate provision for our older citizens, and so on. Well, Mr. Speaker, where is the logic in all this? On the one hand they would tell you that this government is composed of spendthrifts, and on the other hand not only do they not propose any reduction in the present expenditure but they propose to add hundreds of millions of dollars of new expenditure.
Then, they decry excessive taxation, and indeed we all do. However, their own proposals would mean that the government would have to impose and collect these additional amounts from the Canadian people in order to implement their program. As the Prime Minister noted last week, this program would mean an increase of 40 to 50 per cent in income tax alone. The Liberals declare themselves appalled by deficits that have been incurred, and yet, irresponsibly they propose measures that would at least double any existing deficit. Finally, they clamour irresponsibly for a new election without waiting to see the government unfold its legislative program and without considering for one minute whether or not an election at this time would or would not be in the general interest of the country.

The Address-Mr. Martineau
There is the real situation, Mr. Speaker. They talk of bankruptcy, lacking complete evidence of the charges they have hurled forth, and there, I believe, is the answer to those who still believe the Liberal party in this country warrants any measure of support from any important sector of our country. I may say here that not all the prophets are as good as the hon. member for Davenport. In his report on Canada's economic prospects a few years ago, the hon. member indicated certain projects to which he referred again in that pamphlet entitled "Troubled Canada". In "Troubled Canada" he refers to predictions made in the preliminary report and points out that the final report contains a note of caution to the effect that the probability is therefore overwhelming that the future will not be obliging enough to conform to what we have predicted. On page 26 of the book he says:
The prophecy that was ventured in the last sentence has already proven to be true.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Davenport prophesied that he would not be a good prophet and this is the only one of his prophecies that has proven to be true.
What have been the effects of the devaluation of the Canadian dollar, Mr. Speaker? Since I am now Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, I should like to refer to a recent edition of the Northern Miner dated September 27, 1962. This is what the editorial writer in that paper states:
Altogether, devaluation has been a good thing for Canada, not, in truth, for everyone, but for the overwhelming majority. Business was in a state of stagnation prior to the Fleming action. Now it has a glowing spark of life, and mining, as we can say out of close associations, is enjoying very good times whereas under world conditions it might have fallen on evil days if the currency had not been altered.
This editorial eloquently sets out the situation in a very important sector of the Canadian economy. Now, sir, I was reading the Financial Post last week, the edition of October 6, 1962. In the column entitled "The Outlook" I found the following:
From all indications, general business activity still was rising through the third quarter just ended-as it should be in the pre-peak period of the business cycle.
Preliminary evidence suggests that gross national product probably ran close to $39,800 million for a 1 per cent increase over the second quarter. Recently released figures for the April-May-June period showed gross national product at an annual rate of $39,424 million, up 1.5 per cent in the quarter.
The implication: A full year 1962 gross national product of $39,600 million for a healthy 7 per cent, or greater, advance over 1961.
Here is a report from another publication of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association

for the month of September, 1962, entitled, "Forging Ahead". I quote:
How fares the Canadian economy as summer gives way to fall in this year 1962? The answer is that it is faring very well indeed. Most of the mid-year statistics relating to business and industrial activity are now available and they make impressive reading.
Industrial production in the first six months of this year was up more than 9 per cent on the same period as 1961. Likewise manufacturers' shipments. Retail sales were higher by more than 5 per cent. Output of passenger cars and passenger trucks climbed by more than 30 per cent in the first half of the year, sales by more than 20 per cent. The number of new residential dwellings under construction at the end of July was 9 per cent greater than the year earlier, while the number of completions in the first six months of this year was 11 per cent greater than in the first half of 1961.
The buoyancy of the economy in general and of manufacturing industry in particular was the reason why there were a record number of Canadians at work at the end of July-180,000 more than a year earlier-and why nearly 50,000 fewer were without employment.
That is from an organ published by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, an association which should know how Canada's economy fares. It is a performance by a country which, should we listen to the benches opposite, was on the verge of bankruptcy.
The predictions that were made earlier by the then minister of finance, now the Minister of Justice, estimated a rise of 7 to 8 per cent in gross national product. The Liberals speak about the great years of prosperity during the entire post-war period, but from 1945 to 1961, in constant dollars, that annual increase was only exceeded twice in all the years of Liberal rule.


An hon. Member:: What about 1961?


Paul Raymond Martineau: They are all there. You can have them if you want them. This should suffice to debunk the baseless charges of the opposition. It should also suffice to convince all impartially minded Canadians that our economy is not going through a period of deep stagnation, that we are not on the road to bankruptcy but that given industry, effort and proper direction, the country will forge ahead as this industrial publication says we are now doing.
I submit that the speech from the throne, and the legislation announced in it, are an act of faith in Canada, an act of faith in the ability of the country to compete. They are an act of faith in Canada's ability to provide high standards and rich rewards to those who want to work. The government, on its part, will do its full share, as it has done in years past, to solve the problems of the hour. None will deny that these are many but it is not by baseless accusations, irresponsible statements and charges unsupported by evidence that confidence will be restored.

(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude my remarks by simply saying that the legislation advocated in the speech from the throne answers the real needs of our confederation. We find there some measures which are to apply the concept of Canadian confederation. There is some legislation tending to give our country national symbols, which the people have been demanding for a number of years, but which have also been laughed at by none other than the people who are now trying to pose as the champions of Canadian nationalism.
During the many years they were in power, they did nothing but talk about it. Measures mentioned in the speech from the throne indicate definite action, and I believe this will greatly help make this country a truly united nation when we celebrate its centenary.
The other day I had the privilege to attend the official inauguration of the trans-Canada highway. There, we have a Canadian achievement, a 4,600 miles long road. All along that road we could see the great Canadian panorama in all its diversity and, in spite of the diversity unfurling all along that distance, the unity of a single highway was noticeable, which seemed to me a true symbol for Canada, where unity is found in diversity.
That principle forms the basis of our confederation and it is also the principle, Mr. Speaker, which our party, and our government, in short which we all on this side of the house shall, now and always, protect and defend with every effort.
(Text):


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I should like to join those who preceded me in offering you my congratulations on being in the exalted position for which you have been chosen. To say this is more than a formality on my part, because I have a genuine respect for the extraordinary qualities required in the discharge of your duties. I am also pleased with the choice of Deputy Speaker, a man I have had occasion to admire as committee chairman during the last session of parliament. To him and the other presiding officers of the house I wish a successful tenure of office, be it short or long. The mover and seconder of the address in reply also deserve congratulations for having performed a very creditable job.
The speech from the throne has been described in various terms. One hon. member has described it as a speech to fit the times. Some call it a bold speech; others regard it as a very cautious one. We on this side of the house claim it was inadequate to meet the problems confronting the nation. However,
The Address-Mr. Badanai it did contain a few constructive suggestions such as enlargement of the industrial development bank and the provision of more funds for the Farm Credit Corporation. The establishment of an Indian claims commission and a national medical council are proposals which will not find any opposition from us, but the suggestion to call a dominion-provincial conference on the choice of a national flag does not commend itself. In view of our critical financial situation and other matters of vital importance, time should not be wasted in debating such a proposal, time which can be used to better advantage in finding ways and means to correct the many ills of the nation.
So far as I am concerned there is no time to waste on awakening old animosities and wrangling about the merits of designs for a distinctive flag. As a matter of fact I believe we already have a flag which is recognized everywhere throughout the world. I am referring to the old red ensign. Nations are moving towards the idea of a unified world in which the importance of national flags is diminishing.
The idea of dividing the Northwest Territories may be sound but I doubt the wisdom of prematurely preparing the territories for provincial status until they have sufficiently large populations to justify such a move. Otherwise additional governments could only mean additional burdens which the taxpayers of the country would have to meet.
We can all agree that the speech was long and replete with generalities and hints of measures which had a familiar ring, but it contained nothing of a definite nature outlining a program designed to inspire the Canadian people with a call for action, to which every adult Canadian could respond, in order to ensure a return of confidence in an economy badly shaken by the revelations made by the Prime Minister only a few days after the election last June.
The speech contained many items, some of which are of a rehashed nature and some new, intended to provide some vehicle that will bring back order out of the chaotic conditions for which the present government must accept responsibility. Gone are the days when it was convenient for the Prime Minister and his supporters to blame the former Liberal administration for everything that went wrong. It is surprising-indeed, it was surprising to me-that in the long list of intended legislation the question of immigration was completely ignored. Reform of the immigration laws of our country should be one of the items of consideration by this twenty fifth parliament, if it is allowed to proceed for any length of time.

The Address-Mr. Badanai
The present policy, based on the unemployment situation, is unrealistic. It perpetuates a state of fear, a lack of confidence, and general disintegration of the idea that the twentieth century belongs to Canada The high sounding words with which the new regulations were announced during the last parliament, such as "no more discrimination against prospective immigrants on grounds of race, colour, creed or country of origin" were soon discovered to be nothing more than a smoke screen to conceal the substitution of one form of discrimination for another.
Under the new regulations, which went into effect on February 1, 1962, an unsponsored person can qualify for entry into Canada on his own merit. But this is the real catch. Unless the applicant can qualify under the regulations, which spell out certain skills, and unless he or she is a doctor, nurse, medical laboratory technician, dietician, teacher, accountant, qualified social worker, priest, minister or a lawyer, he or she need not apply. As I look around this chamber-I do not have to look very far-1 fail to see a shortage in the legal profession.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think immigration should be restricted to people of particular trades or professions. We should be willing to admit to our shores people of enterprise and imagination who will continue to build Canada in the spirit of the early pioneers. At least, I thought that was what the Prime Minister wanted when he was in opposition. To suggest that only immigrants with certain skills need apply, under Canada's long term immigration policy, is to cripple the future growth of this country for generations to come. The present regulations can only succeed in keeping people out. The very idea, Mr. Speaker, of the grading of applicants for admission to Canada, as cattle are graded for the purpose of exhibition, will not encourage anyone to seek entry into our country.
Countless people in Canada-and I venture to say that some may be now sitting in this parliament-who have succeeded and have made good Canadian citizens might not have got into the country if they had been subjected to the test which this government has applied to all prospective immigrants.
The Prime Minister and most of his supporters were in favour of a generous immigration policy before they were elected to form a government. They had nothing but condemnation for the Liberal government for not allowing more people into the country. As far back as February 25, 1953, the Prime Minister said, as reported in the Globe and Mail, that complete disintegration of Canada's economic structure was predicted unless its population jumped to 40 million in the next 25


years. He said, "We cannot sit on the storehouse of the world with a population of 15 million without inviting disaster."
Mr. Speaker, at the rate we are admitting immigrants into this country, and allowing for a generous birth rate, it will be, not 25 years before we reach a population of 40 million, but even 50 years will not do it.
On April 27, 1957, the Toronto Telegram reports the Prime Minister saying that increased population was required if Canada's development was to keep pace with her vast resources; that a Conservative government would apply a vigorous immigration policy in co-operation with the provinces, and that the Immigration Act would be overhauled. "Canada must populate or perish."
Well, Mr. Speaker, a Conservative government has been in power for more than five years but no change of policy designed to encourage more immigrants has taken place. The actual policy which has been in operation for five years can hardly fit the statement the Prime Minister made when addressing a gathering in London, Ontario, on May 7, 1961. He then said:
Unless we populate and use the God-given resources of ours, we stand in peril of perishing under communism.
Mr. Speaker, because of high unemployment there has developed in some quarters doubt as to the advantages of immigration, this despite the fact that Canada's domestic market is more than a million consumers greater because of the former Liberal government's immigration policy in the decade between 1947 and 1957.
Those who question the benefits of immigration would do well to consider the opinion of the eminent British economist, Colin Clark. Professor Clark holds the view that population growth, far from being something to be feared, should be welcomed. His reasoning is that pressure of population has proved a beneficial force, stimulating nations into creating a more productive economy, improving their cultural patterns and in many cases moving toward the direction of a freer market. In other words, immigration pays off.
Every immigrant coming to Canada has a certain value and is an asset of merit. Our entire future is concerned with this. We must have immigration to prosper. The Immigration Act, which was to receive an overhaul, as I have already indicated, is still intact. What has been added to it is a set of restrictive measures based on the hypocritical statement that racial discrimination has been eliminated, when in fact the end result proves that the device was designed to keep people out. The government must bear responsibility

for the unenlightened performance of the department. It is to be hoped that under the direction of the new minister a more realistic attitude toward immigration will be adopted.
It is hard to believe, but figures speak for themselves and indicate that this government, while professing to be in favour, appears to be set against an increase or a growth in population. Every action taken so far during the past four years has given ample cause to suspect an unwarranted reluctance to formulate a policy which would allow more people into the country. No one can successfully deny that present regulations as administered at the discretion of the minister are such as can be turned on and off like a water hose in one's garden. There has never been a time when arguments could not be raised against immigration. Some hold the view that immigrants are, in effect, job takers and that the more immigrants allowed in the greater the threat to employment and living standards. Extensive studies made by responsible persons have shown the opposite to be true. One of these studies revealed that in 1961 some 50 per cent of a group of 6,969 immigrants applying for citizenship in Toronto and Montreal had become employers and were themselves providing work for no less than 3,070 people. Mr. Speaker, these facts deserve to be made more widely known if the misconceptions which are so prevalent are to be corrected.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to the attention of the new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Bell) an editorial which appeared in the Fort William daily Times Journal of August 4, 1962. It says:
During the 12 months ending June 1 of this year,
70.000	immigrants entered Canada. During the same twelve months 72,000 people emigrated from Canada to the United States and other countries. Roughly two thirds of our loss of 72,000 went to the United States. The situation calls for sober study by national administrators at Ottawa.
Since the close of the last war, those prospects brightened considerably. Year after year around
200.000	people arrived annually from overseas to join us in the development of the country.


Mr. Roxburgh:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. Because of the noise across the line, including noise from a number of ministers, I cannot hear the hon. member who is giving his speech.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member feels he is experiencing some difficulty, there is provided for his personal use an amplifier which can give him the speech in either of the two official languages of this house.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It is very confusing for the person who is speaking, who is unable to keep an earphone to his ear, or perhaps does not find it
The Address-Mr. Badanai necessary; but the noise from the other side is, I am sure, distracting the speaker.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, I was just quoting before the intervention, from the editorial in the Fort William daily Times Journal. I continue:
Some of them brought money, others were able to contribute great talents of workmanship and business sense. All of them provided a brand new market for shoes, clothing, food, and the manufactured products which go into new homes.
Due to pressures from those who cannot see the tremendous value of heavy immigration in the creation of new jobs and the betterment of our domestic market, the powers-that-be have restricted the inflow of new citizens to the low total of
70,000	in the last 12 months.
That could be an important factor in a general explanation of the industrial slowdown we have experienced in the past five years. At a time when competition for export business has been increasing, we have chosen to throttle vital domestic trade by reducing the number of buyers at home.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the editor of the daily Times Journal has provided an excellent text for the new minister to guide him in his decisions when confronted with applications from prospective immigrants. A systematic campaign to attract and encourage immigration should be a target of the new minister. General peacetime prosperity and full employment have all coincided with a high immigration rate. I submit to the new minister that he should give serious consideration to the introduction of a bill on immigration reform and give a parliamentary committee an opportunity to examine and discuss it. Members would then have something to work on. It would enable them to give this important subject maximum consideration and avoid a hasty, wrong decision which may well affect and retard the growth and development of Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is one other omission in the speech from the throne. While not in the same category, it is a matter which, if not overlooked, would have generated satisfaction among the men and women who are the employees of the government. It is the failure to make any reference to the need for the revision of certain sections of the Civil Service Act. During the last parliament an effort was made to amend section 7 of the Civil Service Act to include a provision for negotiation, conciliation and arbitration of disputes, similar to that enjoyed by crown corporations, and which would cover all civil servants in Canada. The government rejected the suggestion that we made on this side of the house, and the government majority proceeded to approve the anaemic proposal which, in substance, gave civil servants the right to initiate negotiations but which denied them
314	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Badanai the right to negotiate. We should all be concerned with the fundamental rights of employees to negotiate with their employers in a manner recognized as a standard practice by the trades and labour movement of our country. The decision of the government to delay indefinitely the approval of recommendations of salary increases made by the civil service commission last April is also to be deplored. I urge the government to give consideration to these important matters, which are vital to the cause of good government, thus ending an era of discontent and misunderstanding between the government and its employees. The civil servants who are employed under the provisions of the Civil Service Act regulations are the only organized group in Canada who do not have the right to negotiation, conciliation or arbitration. A Liberal government will not hesitate to grant our civil servants these fundamental rights.
Mr. Speaker, any changes in freight rate legislation, which will have the effect of removing the need for across the board rate increases, a vicious method which in the past has been responsible for the inequalities in freight rates in certain regions across Canada, such as northwestern Ontario, will be indeed welcomed. At the same time some of the changes recommended by the MacPherson royal commission on transportation should be approached with great caution. The committee should be given ample opportunity to study and discuss proposed changes in order that services provided by the railways for the convenience and development of Canada be protected.
We cannot be too complacent or smug if we are to recover our former enviable place occupied five years ago. We cannot therefore vote confidence in this government which has dissipated the best opportunities to attain what it hopes to achieve with a program which does not bear the resemblance of anything like what we on this side believe to be necessary to emerge from a situation about which a United States economist has recently said this: "Canada has the largest percentage of unemployment of any industrial nation".
It is a view shared by all three opposition parties. Such being the case one would have expected unanimity in voting against the government. However, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), the leader of his party, notwithstanding his accusation against the government which he described as "one of the most dismal failures of a public administration in Canada's history", has seen fit to vote confidence in this government.


In the Financial Times of October 8, there appear a few paragraphs I wish to quote and which have a close relation to what I am talking about:
The prevarications of the Social Credit members who sustained the government last week defeated the Liberals' no confidence motion. But they do not prove that Mr. Diefenbaker has the confidence of the country.
On the contrary, his performance last week did more than all his opponents could do to destroy the trust and respect of responsible Canadians. His audacious claim that the exchange crisis developed unexpectedly after his pre-election telecast on June 14 admits of only two explanations.
One is that Mr. Diefenbaker regards the Canadian people as almost infinitely gullible. The other is that he did not then, and still does not now, know enough about the business and financial world to understand what every citizen of economic literacy has known since early last spring.
That was last Thursday. Today we are offering the gentlemen on our left another opportunity to redeem themselves and to vote for the Liberal amendment moved by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen) and to put an end to the deception and incompetence of this government.


Mr. Horace A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, in my first words as I take part in this debate I wish to perform a very pleasant duty indeed and to offer my congratulations to the Speaker and to you, sir, on your election to the high office you occupy in this session of parliament as Deputy Speaker.
To the mover and the seconder of the motion now under debate I also wish to offer my congratulations for their commendable contributions.
I have two and possibly three objectives to gain in the time that is available to me. First, I wish to make a comment or two on the debate thus far. We in this group have noticed that several of the Liberal members, particularly those from the province of Quebec, have spent nearly all of their time acting as though the Social Credit party now forms the government. It seems to us that they are indicating that some members in the party they represent have hurt them in recent days. I suggest that their attempts to move in this house one amendment after another indicate that they seem to be in a tremendous hurry to have this parliament dissolved and to be getting on with the business of another election. This attitude may change in the next few days after the culmination of an event that is now taking place in the province of Quebec and is occupying the attention of their colleagues there. There must be some reason for this rush to get back to the hustings.
Certainly we in this party have taken the attitude that we were elected as members of this parliament, as representatives of our constituencies, to carry on the business of

government to the best of our abilities. We recognize the fact that during this past summer we were not elected in sufficient numbers to form the government and therefore we do not assume responsibility for the policies followed by this government. At the same time charges have been made that we are betraying our mandate. I suggest that the greatest betrayal of our mandate would be to support the Liberals in advancing any of their policies in this parliament. The Liberal party did not receive a mandate to administer the affairs of the country. As has been mentioned on numerous occasions, this entire house is made up of minorities. If we were to accept their contention that the time is now ripe to seek dissolution and to go back to the country, I suggest that we would not be doing the responsible thing at this time. We in this party have assumed the responsible position of giving the government an opportunity to bring on their legislative program. At the same time we have reserved the right to examine that program. At some future time, if they do not attempt to correct some of the mistakes and mismanagement we have seen over the past four years, we would join with other opposition groups if they choose to bring on an election and to change the composition of this house. At the present time, however, there are 264 members elected in this house. If another election were called immediately, that is all we could elect. The people of Canada could elect only 265 members. We take the position that it is the responsibility of members who are now here to settle down, to give the government an opportunity, and to see what they have to offer. In addition to that, each one of the members of this group was elected primarily to give effect to the policies of the Social Credit party. Previously in this debate we moved an amendment designed to give effect to them. Our subamendment was lost. However, as I say, we were committed to advocating those policies and we did so.
I should now like to turn to one or two things that have been said respecting these policies we have been advocating. As I mentioned a few minutes ago, some of the Liberal members have spent all of their time denouncing those policies. In fact, it looks as though they have given a great deal of attention to the study of Social Credit policies. We appreciate this effort. Certainly one cannot come up with the right answers unless one does some studying of the problems. But I would say in answer to the hon. member for Laurier's accusation of faulty accounting on our part that he missed the most important point in the Social Credit policy when he was discussing the difference between the value of the goods available and
The Address-Mr. Olson the purchasing power found to purchase those goods. He talked about the velocity of purchasing power accounting for some of this difference and with that I agree; but he failed to mention anything about the additional increase in debt that has taken place in the country for the people of Canada to buy the goods that they themselves have already produced. If he does not take this factor into consideration he loses the entire point of the Social Credit policy.
I noticed too that the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) had a few words to say about the laws of accounting and the laws of finance as they apply to the Canadian economy. From the point of view of unemployment and the other problems that Canada has at this time, if the Conservative government's interpretation of the laws of accounting and finance confines them to the limits of the economic activity that we have in Canada today, then I think it is the first responsibility of this parliament to change some of these laws of accounting and finance.
It was rather interesting to note in the course of this debate that the Liberal party in their great plan, their great program for the future, have taken some of the planks from Social Credit policy. For example, their great plan of making capital available to the municipalities has been advocated by Social Credit spokesmen all across Canada for the last six to eight years that I know of and perhaps even before that. We would do this a little differently from what they have advocated. We have said that it is now and should be the responsibility of the Bank of Canada to set up a branch for the purpose of making long range capital available to the municipalities for the social structures that most municipalities need. We believe that if this were done long range social capital could be provided at a lower rate of interest and, further, that this kind of expansion at the municipal level, in the form of schools, hospitals, roads and all the responsibilities of municipal government, could be one of the greatest moves in alleviating the unemployment situation that could be taken in Canada today.
We are not advocating that the federal government should make this capital available on the basis of straight grants because we have had experience in this regard in the province of Alberta. We set up a municipal finance corporation in the last two or three years but previous to that large scale loans and grants were made directly through the department of municipal affairs, and the problem in making direct grants for these purposes is that there is not an equitable
316	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Olson distribution of the funds. It boils down to a position of those municipalities that ask the most actually receiving the most.
We believe that the assets of the federal government through the Bank of Canada belong to all of the people and if in one given year or cycle one municipality or one area of Canada asks for more and it is considered prudent to give them more the money should be made available by way of an interest bearing loan so it will be recoverable. Then at some future date other municipalities could make the same request. I think too that we have to recognize that this is one of the greatest problems facing municipalities. Certainly the success of the municipal finance corporation in the province of Alberta could now be a pattern for the federal government in setting up a similar organization at the federal level, and in addition the enormous resources of the Bank of Canada would be available to them, whereas at the present time the municipal finance corporation of Alberta must go to the money market to borrow its requirements over and above the money available from the provincial treasury.
I have one other very important matter that I should like to bring before the house. I refer to the concept of agriculture and what has been received by agriculture from the government during the past four or five years. I want to quote one or two passages from Hansard to give some background to the point I wish to make. As found on page 75 of Hansard the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) had this to say:
I saw the Leader of the Opposition on election nipht, Mr. Speaker, when he believed he was going to be occupying this seat. That is before the western farmer came in.
It is perhaps the prerogative of the Prime Minister and other members of the Conservative party to take as much credit for their political activities as they wish. I believe though that there is a misconception in the minds of most Canadians not engaged in agriculture to the extent that they believe that agriculture has received a far larger share of the funds of the federal treasury than they are entitled to. I think the Conservative party should be deeply indebted to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) for getting so much mileage out of so little fuel; but that is not what concerns me. What concerns me at the moment is that in the future the position of the Minister of Agriculture is, I think, going to be jeopardized to some extent because of the widespread feeling that farmers are already getting too much. I quote now from an editorial headed "Let's Get This Straight" in the Western Producer of August 2, 1962:


We are completely fed up with some of the glib assumptions made by the people who. before, during and after the election campaign undertook to size up the prairie vote situation by implying the Conservatives "bought" the farmers' vote with large and unwarranted government "handouts".
Readers may remember some of the "funny" men on election night remarking that you couldn't get in the door of the average prairie farm house without kicking aside the pile of government cheques. Another wisecrack-at least we think this is what was intended-was to the effect that every time a farmer opened his mail box at the post office a few more "handout" cheques tumbled out-[DOT]
But as lately as last week-
The reference is to the last week of July.
-we read in an eastern newspaper a "learned" dissertation on how much government money it cost to buy the prairie farm vote.
I know that a great deal was said during the election campaign about the fact that the government of the day was passing out large amounts of money and that in fact they had established agricultural policies that were giving the farmers a larger share of the national income than at any time in history.
For example, on page 98 of Hansard I find the Prime Minister had this to say:
Prices have increased to such an extent that in every part of Canada farmers are receiving more for their production than they could have hoped for a matter of a few years ago.
In the next column on the same page, I find he says this:
I believe that everywhere across this country people are deeply indebted to the Minister of Agriculture for the effort he has made.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I looked at some of the statistics with respect to the actual cash income of farmers in Canada for the period that was under consideration during the election campaign. This is what I found. For example, from the sale of wheat during the first three months of this year, January to March 1962, farmers received $66,026,000 as opposed to $82,336 for the same period in 1961. In the matter of Canadian wheat board payments, during the period of January to March 1961, there was distributed to farmers $37,-
750,000	to the farmers, and in the corresponding period in 1962 this figure of $37,750,000 had been reduced to only $17,000. I want to say that there was $3,853,000 paid out in wheat board payments on oats in 1961. During the same period in 1962 there were no payments at all. The total cash income from the sale of farm products in Canada for that group under the heading of "Crops" for the period 1962 was $189,042,000 as opposed to $270 million for the same period in 1961.
I think it is abundantly clear, therefore, that the farmers have not received a disproportionately high share of the national income during this year, 1962.
I want to be fair in this to the Minister of Agriculture because it is my hope that in

setting this record straight I will be able to assist him in his avowed purpose, indeed in his obligation, to pursue policies beneficial to agricultural producers in all parts of Canada. I want to say, to be perfectly fair, that during the next quarter, from April 1 to June 1, the statistics which have been made available to us recently indicate a substantial increase in these Canadian wheat board payments. I suppose some hon. members opposite in the Conservative party will disagree, but it appears to me that there may have been a deliberate withholding of these payments during the early months of this year so that they could have great effect immediately preceding the election. There is a note attached to these later statistics for the three month period April to June, 1962, to the effect that the greatest contributing factor in raising the cash income to farmers was these payments out of the Canadian wheat board fund. I believe that this gives to Canadians generally, other than farmers, the erroneous concept that the farmer got more than his share.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It was his own money.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Address-Mr. Bigg not denied it-that when several cargoes of wheat were shipped from Vancouver they were transshipped on the high seas to places like Cuba, Albania and East Germany.
If there were starving millions on the Chinese mainland who needed this wheat then there can be only one reason why they transshipped it or changed the bills of lading to send it to these other countries, and that is to advance the political objectives and ideology of international communism. Perhaps the government of Canada had no control over what happened to the wheat after it left Canadian shores, but I just want to correct the erroneous statements attributed to us, that we objected to the sale of Canadian wheat to the Chinese or anyone else. What we do object to is the use that was made of it.
Dealing with the international field I wish to refer briefly to a statement made by a United States senator. I quote from the Winnipeg Free Press of June 21, 1962:
At a time when the free world looks to Canada for strength and leadership in the development of the free world's economic, political and military resources, it is tragic that Canadian leadership will be subject to dictation of the irresponsible Social Credit party which now holds the balance of power.
All I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, is that we are interested in advancing understanding between the United States and Canada, and perhaps I should offer a word of advice to the honourable senator-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has more than slightly expired. The reason I permitted him to go on for a few seconds was that I felt he should close his remarks with some comment on the quotation he used.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: I had hoped that Mr. Speaker would be present at this time because I would like to start my remarks by congratulating him, both on behalf of myself and the fair province of Alberta, on being elevated to his high position. I would also like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and I compliment them on the very able way in which they have made their first contributions to debates in this house.
Now, having put away the compliments I have a very serious objection to make. For well over a thousand years democracy has been well served by the parliamentary system, but of recent months, recent weeks and recent days I have come to worry a little bit about the future of this system. This chamber is not a circus. This is a place where I trust


able men, dedicated men, come to present a program for maintaining democracy in an able, conscientious and decorous way.
Democracy is not perfect; it never will be. We as members are not perfect and never will be; but surely we can try to maintain the high standards which our ancestors and our fathers, and which many present members of the house have maintained up to this time. I beg of hon. members to keep this in front of them. There is something going on here more than the mere arguing about the price of hogs and interest rates, or the advancement of new ideas on the way in which we run the country. Our very freedom depends on the way we run this house, and unless we maintain the confidence of the people of Canada it is better that we should stay at home.
I carried on a positive campaign in order to be re-elected to this house. I believe it is somewhat of a surprise to some that I still sit here, but I think the reason I was reelected is that what I preach I practise. I do not criticize for criticism's sake; but now I am going to go round this chamber a little and do what I rarely do, and that is criticize the critics.
The hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh) said the other night, at page 227 of Hansard for October 4, as it is reported- and these were not her exact words as I heard them, but I take them as they were recorded-
All members of the opposition were elected for one purpose, and that was in opposition to the government.
I say to the electorate, to the people of Canada and to every hon. member in the house that this is a very negative approach to politics. I suggest there is a need for an opposition. We need at least two parties so that we can file down the legislation which we present, or which we intend to present, and make it work for the good of the whole country. No such policy of pure opposition can do that.
I believe there are hon. members opposite who have a contribution to make. I think there are hon. members in all four parties who have a contribution to make. I want them to have an opportunity to make it and when they make that contribution I will vote for it. I am no narrow party man. I was not born a Tory. I was born a Canadian and it is from reading the history of our country and this party that I still stand on this side of the house and give my allegiance to our great leader and the party he leads. When this party fails to-run the country the way it should, I will cross the floor of the house and I will sit

alone because at the present time I see no alternative to the leadership or to the policies of this party which I support.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That is a hopeless outlook.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: With regard to the Social Credit party which has returned to the corner of the house, what do they offer and what can we expect them to offer as long as this parliament sits? They are going to criticize our monetary policy. They think we can live like an island in the western world with new, phony monetary policies. We know we cannot. Our monetary policies are not perfect; our capitalistic system is not perfect. But it has produced the finest opportunity for ordinary, working Canadian boys or girls to develop their own personality and to make their own way in the world. I see no alternative to this.
I am surprised to see a great party, such as was the Liberal party when led by Gladstone in England and Laurier in Canada, descend to any kind of a working agreement with avowed socialists. I am, most seriously surprised, ladies and gentlemen, because-


Mr. Habel:: "Mr. Speaker".


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I am, most seriously surprised, Mr. Speaker, because it does not offer me free choice with my time and talents. If hon. members do not think that socialism is nothing but a white horse of Troy and inside are red soldiers, read your history. Read the past and present history of socialism and then ask these people in the corner what they intend to do from here on in.
I wish their leader were here to answer this question. I wish he were here to tell me whether he adheres to the same old avowed stand of the socialists in Canada. I refer hon. members back to that great spiritual leader of theirs, Mr. Woodsworth-and this has never been refuted or denied-when he was asked whether force would be necessary. He said, "I hope not, but it may well be necessary". If any hon. members in the corner of the chamber want the quotation, I have it here and I can give them the date, time and place. It was in this house. However, I have not the time to give it now; I have some things to say which are even more positive than the things I have said already. But those words are there.
Therefore I say that we want something besides mere criticism from those hon. members or I will never cross the floor of the house to sit with them; that is quite certain. I do not have to. But I promise those hon. members that I will, if they can come up with a better program, better leadership and better service to the Canadian people. If they can do that, I will join them, when I have lost confidence in this government-which I have 27507-3-21i
The Address-Mr. Bigg not. Then I will sit alone in this house, and I believe that as long as I take this stand, as long as I am at least one of those people who came here to do a positive job, I will be here until I am ready to retire.
Have we a positive program? We have. What is this positive program? It is a go-ahead program along the same lines as we have had in the last five years. I speak principally of agriculture because this is a matter about which I know something. I suggest hon. members in this house would do better if they talked about matters they knew something about. If you do not know anything about farming, keep quiet about it. I know that is why some hon. members opposite have kept quiet in recent days, because they have no agricultural policy and they have never had one satisfactory to the people of Canada. They are strangely silent about this fact. But the farmers of Canada know they have never had the attention paid to their problems that they have received from this government. We have given that attention to their problems. It is suggested that we have overdone it, but I do not think we have.
There are many small farmers, family farmers in Canada today who have new hope. They have not a cinch. You still have to work on the farm; you still have to milk the cows, raise the pigs and bring in the crops-and they know it. We are not offering these people something for nothing, and they know it. We are offering them hope for some kind of square deal. Western Canada is getting on its feet-I can assure hon. members that it is-and we are proud of that record. If eastern farmers are not as much ahead as they should be, I for one will do all I can to give them the same deal as the western farmers, and a better deal if it is needed. I do not think we have done everything for the farmers of Canada that could be done, but we are going to do as much as we can.
I can go through my campaign speech. It consisted of one sheet of paper. That was because I come from a farming district where agriculture is the lifeblood of the people. I campaigned from one sheet, the promises of our Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker)-that no longer would the farmers of Canada be the orphans of this country; that we would try to give them a fair share of the national income.
You can take figures and juggle them; you can make them prove anything you like. I am not going to talk about figures; I am going to talk about human values. The small farmer of western Canada today is not ashamed to hand his farm over to his son. Four years ago you could have bought land from one end of

The Address-Mr. Bigg this country to the other; they were glad to let you take it. Today, try and get them off the farm.
The answer is there. Their sons are coming home from the oil fields, the bonanzas and the gold creeks and want to stay home with dad. They want to take advantage of our agricultural policies. Today a young man in western Canada can stay on the farm and make a living. We are going to see that we do all we can to make that living even better. We are proud of selling their wheat; we are proud of giving them stabilized prices, and we are going to do more and more to improve world markets.
I am not afraid to criticize this government at any time. As I have said, if they do not do the things I want them to do, I let them know it. They will tell you that. I have been in the Prime Minister's office and have spoken to him about things of which I did not approve. Yes, little, human errors, creep in. What kind of a reception did I get? Was I pushed out? No, I was listened to. On one or two occasions I think I had something to offer, and my suggestions were acted upon.
I am not going to bore hon. members with repeating them today, but the people of western Canada know; the small farmer in my district knows, and he is going to keep on sending me back here just as long as I give him this kind of service. These people are not going to turn me out for any member of any one of the other three parties until they can come up with something different. They are not going to get me out by slurring my personal character, and attempts were made to do this. They are not going to get me out by slurring the Prime Minister's character, and those attempts were made. They are not going to get me out by slurring the Conservative party, because the people of Canada know we are the only party offering a positive program for agriculture. They may be disappointed that we did not give them perfection or a bonanza. There is no such thing. There is no short cut to a higher standard of living and security. It takes hard work. You cannot do it by turning a crank; you cannot do it by taxing the rich. We can only do it by each and every one of us getting back to good, hard work.
We have an unemployment problem and there is a great onus upon this government, as there is on all governments, to find employment for every man and woman in Canada who wants to work. I suggest that today we have been lax. We have been too paternal. We have legislated people into idleness. One of our main jobs-and here I am throwing the ball right to our own quarterback and

his team in front of us-is to do something to avoid legislating people into idleness.
Let us take the Unemployment Insurance Act and look at it again. Let us make it an insurance act, and not a welfare fund. Where welfare is needed, let us have it; but let us not legislate people into idleness. How are we going to do it? I can suggest one or two improvements. Let us make it an incentive to stay at work. Let us make a man's contribution less if he is not always dipping into the fund. Let us make it tough to draw on the fund for those who are just milking the people of Canada and lying down on the job. We are going to tackle that problem. We are going to do what we can.
The next thing is, what can business do to employ more people? They can become more efficient. They can show leadership in this matter. Again I throw the ball to the government and say, give incentives to small business, to medium business and even to big business to encourage better production in Canada.
How are we going to do this? I am not an expert on taxes. I know that we have to raise taxes and raise incentives. But I suggest that the tax structure of the country could be tailored to encourage Canadian investment in Canadian companies, and to encourage our own businesses to improve production and put more Canadians to work. I think this should be encouraged by tax concessions. I suggest that if this is done and if the tax concessions which we give lead to investment in our own factories, and in turn provide jobs, it will all come back on the payrolls.
I will have to hand this to the opposition. I do not usually give them many compliments, but after the war they did send the veterans back to school; and I am sure that if you were to look at the records of those veterans, they paid back in income tax over and over again the very cost of this schooling. I suggest that we take a page out of their book and give tax concessions and tax incentives to the young businesses of Canada, the growing baby industries, and give them a chance to get on their feet. In this way, when they are employing more Canadians and making more money, the country will get it back, and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Flemming) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan) will see that it has been a good investment.
Hon. members ask us to take bold steps. Well, they are the members of this house. When we take bold steps, they must have the courage to be Canadians first and Liberals, Social Crediters or N.D.P.'s second, and vote for these bold steps. I promise them today that I will do this thing. When my leader and his cabinet are bold, I am right in there for

them. I know sometimes these bold steps are gambles. If you build railroads into the north, if you build a trans-Canada highway through the northern part of the country, and take a chance that Canada will really be as wide as she is long, this takes foresight and vision, and it is partly a gamble. It cannot be done by a minority government alone; it would require statesmanship from everyone in this house. I pledge myself to do this. I promise hon. members that I will do it, and I expect them to do it. I am not cynical in politics.
I know that the great Liberal party has been a great Liberal party in the past, and I want it to be a great Liberal party in the future. To the Social Crediters I say this. If they are really Conservatives, as they say they are on the hustings, then join our party and be Conservatives. I ask them to forget the "funny money" policies which they know cannot work in the present structure of our country's economy. But they sit in the corner in smug complacency and know that they can criticize without fear, that they can never form a government but will sit here as long as they like and take advantage of the Conservative leadership in our country. If they are Conservatives let them be Conservatives, cut out the "funny money" policies and stand with us, if we ask them to, on principle.
It is a strange thing for me to sit in this house and listen to members of the "junker class" voting socialist. For what? Nobody can believe but that it is for pure political advantage of the day. I suggest that political advantage of the day will not last long, and the eggs you hatch may pick your carcass. Think that one over. They are strange bedfellows, the industrial leaders of our country and the gentlemen on my right, the socialists.
It is also strange to hear the policies put forward by our party criticized by those who have no such policies of their own. It is strange to hear about fears being spread across the world about our loyalty to the British crown. By whom? By those who in 1938 refused to allow empire airfields; by those who allowed only the volunteers of Canada to risk their lives and shed their blood. I was one of them. Do not talk about solidarity of the empire unless you are willing to stand alongside the flag under which I served; and until we get another one, one which is recognized in solemn parliament assembled, the red ensign is good enough for me. We buried my pals in it in the last war. We buried my uncles and my friends of another generation in another war. It is an honoured flag, and though we may not agree with the design of a new flag, the design is not all for which the flag stands. The flag is a symbol of our purpose in sacrifice and loyalty. It is red bunting which has been nobly served, and
The Address-Hon. P. Martin the sacrifices have been great. Until this parliament decides that that flag should be changed, I will be ready again to stand alongside it and give it anything which is needed.
How about others? Let us have no hypocrisy. Let us have no maudlin sentiments spelled out for political reasons. I will go further and say that whatever the flag is, let it be quartered with the fleur-de-lis, the sheaves of Saskatchewan, the fish of the mari-times or the timber of British Columbia. I do not say that I do not care what that flag is, but I do say that if this parliament, or the next parliament, or any parliament of Canada, ratifies that flag as a symbol of unity and service, I will be there to serve it whenever I am needed. And I will writhe in my seat when I think that anybody is using our flag as a spade or a club of disunity.
People out west where I come from know this. They know that I will never use it as a dividing line.
The promises that we have made in the past we have kept. The promises we make now in the throne speech hon. members can be assured will be kept. We cannot offer an easy way out, but we can offer hard work and a square deal.
(Translation):


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I be allowed to offer you my warmest congratulations on your appointment as Speaker of this house. I know that you will be the guardian of the rights and of the prerogatives of each and everyone of us in this house and that you will watch over the dignity of our debates.
Impartiality, patience and good will are the qualities required of a good Speaker. I am sure that you will show, to a high degree, those qualities by which your predecessors have deserved the commendation and the admiration of all.
(Text):
I should also like to congratulate the chairman of committees on his nomination, and to offer my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the speech from the throne for the very creditable way in which they performed their tasks.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I hope that no one who follows me, particularly from the far corner of the house, will complain if in what I have to say today I do not preface my observations by agreeing with them that we are faced as a country in our contemporary world with some very serious problems involving peace or war. But under our rules we are limited to 30 minutes at this particular juncture in our proceedings. Accordingly we have to allocate our time in order to observe the rule of relevancy and deal with matters im-

The Address-Hon. P. Martin mediately before us. But I take it there will be an opportunity, and I hope it will be soon, when we can discuss important aspects of the government's foreign policy and when we can take up some of the observations made, notably by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green). At the moment, however, we are dealing with an amendment moved by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen) on Friday last in a memorable speech. I should like to recall to the house the wording of that amendment. It strikes at the very fundamentals of parliament, an institution which the hon. member who preceded me said now stood in jeopardy in this country. The terms of the amendment read as follows:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that the failure of Your Excellency's advisers to place before this house at the earliest opportunity a measure to approve the collection of taxes which have been imposed by order in council, as part of the austerity program, denies to this house the exclusive constitutional right to approve the imposition of additional taxation which is the foundation of our system of responsible government.
That is an amendment of the greatest importance. It is one that must be observed in its implications if we are to support the view that parliament indeed is an important institution in our national life, and that we must take every step to see that its strength and its integrity are protected. In this amendment the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond has done that. To any hon. member of this house who is disposed to vote against this amendment I suggest that a vote against the amendment will be a vote in favour of the government's austerity program which was brought about, not by a decision of this parliament but by process of an order in council.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fleming), who is the former minister of finance, this morning asserted that the government's austerity program had a legal basis. He did not offer any proof for that statement. He simply said that he had consulted with the law officers of the crown and that the three aspects of the government's austerity program met the requirements of the law as interpreted by the law officers of the crown. I wish to submit first of all to you, Mr. Speaker and to the house, that there is a contrary view.
What I wish to say today will be divided under two headings. First of all I question the legality of the government's austerity program under the two acts mentioned by the Minister of Justice this morning. Not only do I question the legality of a policy based on those acts but I say that, whether they were legal or not, under our constitutional practice there was an obligation on the government to come here at the earliest possible moment and


obtain from this parliament either rejection of the policy on which it had embarked or ratification of it.
First, as to the legality, may I say this. There can be no doubt that the argument by assertion made this morning by the Minister of Justice with regard to the incidents of 1947 does not in any way bolster the case which he sought to make. I say that section 4(1) of the Customs Tariff and section 22 of the Financial Administration Act do not contain authority from parliament to the governor in council enabling the governor in council to make the two orders which make up the surcharge on imports order. The Minister of Justice did not even allow for the possibility of difference of opinion in this regard. In that modest, humane way of his he simply said, "There is no doubt about the legality of what the government has done, take it from me". The minister of finance of another day, the present Minister of Justice, said, "Accept my word that there is no doubt about the legal basis of the action the government has taken".
Hon. members should recall that while parliament has delegated to the governor in council authority to reduce or to eliminate taxes under prescribed conditions, parliament has, by and large, retained unto itself the power to impose taxes. It must also be borne in mind that the Minister of Finance has the responsibility to parliament in the matter of raising or lowering the incidence of taxation; and the means by which this is done, Mr. Speaker, as you so well know, is a budget.
The Customs Tariff, I argue, is in no way concerned with Canada's balance of payments, notwithstanding the fact that it may contribute to what that balance may be. In section 4(1) of the Customs Tariff, parliament has delegated to the governor in council certain powers necessary to promoting Canada's trade with other countries. Raising duties against all countries will not in any way promote trade. Moreover, the language of section 4(1), as I see it, makes clear that the country to which preferred rates are extended or from which preferred rates are withdrawn must, under that section, be specifically named. The words employed are "extend to any"-which means any one-"country" and "withdraw from any country or all countries". Also, the benefits are spoken of as having been extended to or withdrawn from, "such country", not "such country or countries". I therefore say that the exercise of the authority conferred by section 4(1) requires the naming of a country or countries. Hence if no country is named, that section 4(1) does not give the sanction of parliament for the action taken.

I ask the Minister of Justice to produce, as indeed his leader asked the minister of finance of the day in 1947, the opinion of the law officers of the crown which states that section 4(1) gives this government the authority to impose surcharges as it did when parliament was not in session and when indeed as the government of this country it occupied an extremely tenuous position with only a minority support in this house.
With regard to section 22 of the other act, namely the Financial Administration Act, on which the minister and the government base their case, may I observe that the statute was enacted by parliament in order to give authority to the governor in council to deal with a comparatively few special cases involving a comparatively few individual importers and a comparatively small range of imported goods for a comparatively few special purposes, as stated in the act. If parliament had intended to delegate broad powers of extensive application to customs duties on imported goods, it would have done so in the Customs Tariff and the Customs Act. However, that was not done.
So I say that section 22 of the Financial Administration Act, on which the government relies as one of the two supporting measures, was not intended by parliament to delegate to the governor in council authority over a large portion of the customs tariff involving a large range of goods and all importers of those goods in a single case, which is not essentially one of the customs tariff itself but is a case of balance of payments. This, in a general statement, is my answer to the alleged legality of the measures on which the government relies for the course it has taken in a matter so seriously affecting the economy of our country, because of the austerity program which it has seen fit to adopt to meet the emergency created by our balance of payments position.
Having said that the course taken by the government is illegal, I now address myself to the other ground in the amendment before us, namely, that parliament should have been called together at the earliest possible moment so that the government could have laid before the house its proposals for taxation, its proposals by way of an austerity program to meet the serious situation that arose out of our balance of payments position. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fleming) says, compare what we did with what the minister of finance did in 1947. I do not want to base my case only on what was done, then, but I do now, because the Minister of Justice has invited it, want to compare in one very important respect the difference between what his government and he did and what Mr. Abbott did in 1947.
The Address-Hon. P. Martin
I have before me Hansard for December 16, 1947, page 359, and I wish to refer to an interjection by the then minister of finance explaining to the then hon. member for Calgary West what course the government was taking with regard to imposing taxes on the Canadian people. To hear the Minister of Justice one would think that what the Canadian government had done was to impose on the Canadian people taxation by radio and then to have come into the house later and have sought confirmation of that course. That is not what was done at all. There were three aspects in the emergency program of 1947. There was first of all the prohibition of imported goods from the United States. That did not involve any imposition of taxes. Second, there was the imposition of excise taxes and restrictions on the amount of money that tourists were allowed to expend in the United States when out of the country. The then minister of finance did not impose excise taxes by radio. Those taxes were imposed as part of the emergency program of that day as the result of a recommendation made by the minister of finance in this house. That is the difference. The minister of finance said at that time:
I say I am not claiming the right to tax the Canadian people.
The Prime Minister cannot take that position today because he has taxed the Canadian people, and taxed them without first of all obtaining approval or receiving from this house the necessary parliamentary sanction. Mr. Abbott went on to say:
It is nothing more than a notice that that tax will be imposed if parliament approves, and if parliament refuses to impose it nobody is under legal obligation to pay the tax today until parliament does approve. But I have notified the Canadian people, as is done when the budget resolutions are tabled, that I shall ask parliament to make this tax retroactive to the 17th day of November, when I gave the notice.
So I say to the Minister of Justice, there is no analogy in the two positions at all. If I had time I would remind the Prime Minister of what he said in that debate. I think perhaps what he did say is so relevant to the present situation that I should remind him of some things that he told the government of that day and which now have special relevancy to the very act about which we complain in this amendment. The Prime Minister said, as found on page 408 of Hansard for December 17, 1947:
Did the law officers of the crown in any way advise that it was possible for a minister of the crown, two or three weeks before the opening of parliament, to impose taxation from that date? I say to my hon. friends in the government of this country, that by that action they committed a crime against constitutional government in this

The Address-Hon. P. Martin country. And they wish us to act as rubberstamps and be accessories after the fact, by our vote now given, for conduct illegal to begin with.
Of course, as I have just indicated, his argument was faulty, but the recommendations that he made to the ministry apply to him today. We are not even rubberstamps. We are not given the opportunity of even passing on the illegal course which this government pursued in an unconstitutional way before parliament was called together on the 27th of September last. I will say for the record that no one has as commendable a record clearly establishing his love of parliament and all its institutions as the present Prime Minister, but I say to him with the greatest respect that since he became Prime Minister no one has initiated measures that are more inconsistent with this affection and this love of parliament than the right hon. gentleman himself. That is so at every turn. Here is what Mr. Abbott said as found on page 331 of Hansard for December 16, 1947:
I consulted the law officers of the crown, the deputy minister of justice, and I was advised that under the Foreign Exchange Control Act the governor in council had power to designate the currencies which could be used for imports and that that act was available for the purpose of imposing such restrictions. As I said a moment ago, it was never believed that the act contained those powers, and certainly the foreign exchange control board never had those powers and never wanted to have them.
But when it came to the matter of taxes, and hon. members will want to look at the exact provisions as contained in Hansard, they will find that on December 19, 1947, as found on page 535 of Hansard, Mr. Abbott moved certain amendments to the Excise Tax Act. These were debated by parliament. Many hon. gentlemen opposed those taxes. Parliament, however, approved of the government's policy and the imposition was made retroactive to November 17. Is the record not clear then that the government did no more than announce taxes outside of this house? There was an emergency. There was no other course open to the government at that time than the action taken by the then minister of finance. But at the earliest possible moment he came into this house and asked parliament to observe its traditional practice of giving its sanction to a proposal that would involve further taxes on the Canadian people.
That is the point. That is the point at issue in this amendment. That is the reason for the particular provision in the bill of rights to which the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen) called our attention on Friday last. That is implicit in the bill of rights passed in this house at the instance of the right hon. gentleman two years ago and now so flagrantly being flouted


and violated by him in this particular instance. We say that parliament is a valuable institution. I certainly believe it is. I have spent more than 27 years in this house and I believe in this institution. But I know of no incident in the history of our country where parliament's rights have been more seriously violated-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Miller Bell: The pipe line.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -than in this particular form of taxation involving over $200 million by way of additional taxes imposed as the result of executive action without first of all having received the prior approval of parliament. This is bad in itself; this is wrong in every way. But in spite of this amendment, in spite of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and others who have complained about the failure of the government to take parliament into its confidence at the earliest possible moment, even now we are not given any assurance by members sitting in the ministry that before this session has terminated they will have placed before us their program of taxation. Surely, we are not going to be denied this.
There are five ministers sitting in this house now. The leader of the house has just entered. They can tell us now whether or not parliament is going to be given the opportunity of passing on this particular program of taxes imposed on the Canadian people as part of the government's austerity program. I say to hon. gentlemen sitting at the extreme left on this side of the house, that they have been properly critical of the government's austerity program. They have said, through one of their leaders, that they will not stand for a program of austerity; that they believe such a program of a non-expansionist character is not in the interest of the economic welfare of Canadians at this time. I repeat that by voting against this amendment they are voting for this program of austerity. They are also denying to themselves and to other hon. members, the opportunity of passing judgment on the merits of these proposals.
It is not only that the government has acted illegally, it is not only that the government has not taken parliament into its confidence on a matter of vital concern to this house, it is something that goes even deeper than that, something that is involved in the historic conflict, over the centuries, between the crown and parliament. I refer to the right that was finally established, that of the House of Commons to assert authority over the government of the day in the matter of imposing taxes on the people who are subject to the direction and to the laws of parliament. This is what

is involved. Are we going to take the position that, notwithstanding the violation of this principle, something for which our ancestors have fought, we are not going to allow ourselves to be inconvenienced because of what might eventuate if we were to condemn the government by supporting this particular amendment? Of course it would be inconvenient. Of course the nation would have a period of suspense. However, I would much prefer to see this period of suspense than to allow this government to get away with having violated the fundamental principle which is involved, the purpose for which the institution of parliament has been created.
I could very well understand if I felt that Mussolini and Hitler were men to be idolized, I would not take this position. But I do not take that position. I believe that, unlike their treatment of the deliberative assembly, the right of the people to assert their final and ultimate authority in the matter of the dispensation of public funds is an inalienable right and must be preserved, recognized and cherished in any free country. We will regret the day if this government does not bring forward its program, if we are not given an opportunity to pass on this program, as the government of the day did in 1947 with regard to the particular suggestions for the imposition of taxation in 1947. Not only has this government failed to take parliament into account with regard to this particular matter upon which I have been dwelling, but the Prime Minister went further.
It is true that there was no legal way by which his actions could be arrested. As a result of the election of June 18, the Prime Minister no longer commanded a majority of this house. Notwithstanding that, although it involved a matter that might affect the character of the economic life of the western world for many years to come, the Prime Minister of this country not only failed to take into account the interest of the Canadian people in this problem but he went to the prime ministers conference and took an important position with regard to the common market and all that implies in terms of the economic welfare of the west, perhaps the peace of the world. He asserted, on his own, what the position of Canada should be. I say parliament has been flouted by the Prime Minister and by his government by his failure to bring these tax proposals to parliament, by the failure to call parliament together at the earliest possible moment, by the failure to call parliament together before he went to the prime ministers' conference.
I say what authority, under our parliamentary system, did the Prime Minister of a minority government have to go to a prime 27507-3-22
The Address-Mr. Enns ministers' conference and say, without some direction by this house, what course this country should pursue in a matter of such fundamental importance? We may not be able to impress every member in this house, Mr. Speaker, with the validity of the claim that is made in the amendment presented. I still hope that every hon. member in the opposition, regardless of party, will condemn this government for the reasons I have stated. During this debate every opposition party has expressed agreement on the immoral position of this government because it did not disclose during the election, the true financial situation that confronted Canada, on the constitutional requirement of parliament being taken into the confidence of the government at the earliest possible moment, and the obligation of a prime minister to consult with parliament before going to the prime ministers conference. For these reasons, let us uphold the dignity of this parliament and defeat this government.


Mr. S. J. Enns (Poriage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to speak for the first time in this house I do so with a deep sense of humility. Having been accorded such a privilege by the electors of Portage-Neepawa, I feel very honoured indeed.
First of all, I must mention the growing admiration which is steadily being accorded to you, Mr. Speaker, as we observe your sagacious discharge of the duties of your difficult office. May I give a further salute to our Deputy Speaker, not only for the capable manner in which he is filling that office but because, of course, he is a fellow Manitoban. I need only mention that I am happy to endorse the tributes already paid to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne for their very creditable performances a few days ago.
No one can deny that the ceremonial opening, with all its pageantry and emphasis on traditions, is the kind of spectacle that is unequalled in Canada. From the 21 gun salute as the horsedrawn carriage brings the Governor General to parliament hill, and his inspection of the impeccable guard of honour, to the taking of his place in the Senate chamber and delivering the traditional speech from the throne thereby introducing measures of legislation to be considered during the session, one cannot but be impressed. I for one rate the fact that I have been part of the opening of this first session of the 25th parliament as among the most significant events of my lifetime. There is inherent in such an event a profound sense of history.
As I observed the close attention paid to tradition in the carrying out of the business in this house I began to wonder why there could not be the same respect for a high level of

The Address-Mr. Enns conduct and speech in this chamber. Having witnessed the ceremonial opening one hardly expects to hear remarks from hon. members opposite more fitting for school boys on street corners than those attributable to the distinguished parliamentarians we might be. If it is a mark of distinction to be elected to the House of Commons, why are some hon. members not constrained to speak at all times with that kind of distinction this high office demands. If we believe in free speech and the democratic process of government why are some hon. members so virulent in their criticism? And if by this democratic process a prime minister is elected, why cannot this highest of positions in the realm be accorded the respect, the dignity and decorum which has befallen only 13 men since confederation. No matter by what minority the Conservatives now form the government it should be remembered that the Right Hon. J. G. Diefen-baker held the office in an earlier parliament with a majority never before equalled in history.
I quote from the September 22 issue of the daily Packet and Times:
Whatever his limitations, and they are not nearly so marked as his critics would have us believe, history will show Mr. Diefenbaker to have been one of this young nation's ablest leaders. He took office at a time when the Liberals openly admitted they were pleased to get out from under, at a time of apparent economic crisis. His government has introduced a host of measures which have improved the condition of most Canadians, and when the economy was again threatened, he did not hesitate to adopt measures which are proving themselves completely successful. On his record he merits the respect of Canadians of all political persuasions. The bitter and unwarranted campaign of hatred and ridicule to which he is currently being subjected d^es not reflect credit on many of Canada's politico, commentators.
I am certain that the residents of Portage-Neepawa and Canadians generally have received with favour and wide acceptance the proposed legislation contained in the speech from the throne. I am proud to sit with a government that in the throne speech has offered to introduce measures to create more jobs, to stimulate trade, to give greater advances to agriculture, to initiate economic planning and tax reform, to create a national power grid, to encourage action on a national flag, to initiate tax reform and the rest.
Mr. Speaker, I feel proud to be in such very distinguished company. As I have observed the Prime Minister, the ministers of the crown and the manner in which they carry out their responsibility of office, I feel proud to be associated with them.
My constituency of Portage-Neepawa has the signal distinction of being one of only 13 constituencies throughout this great nation that has been represented in this house by a prime minister. Because of this, the residents

of Portage-Neepawa are cognizant of their place in history. I refer, of course, to the fact that the late Right Hon. Arthur Meighen was elected to the House of Commons in 1908 by this constituency, which seat he held until the general election of 1921 and regained in 1925. In the various portfolios he held in the cabinet he was prominently identified with many important measures of national significance. You will understand, therefore, that I felt highly privileged indeed that in this auspicious parliament I should have the honour to represent such an historic seat.
In my first speech in the House of Commons I mentioned that a reading of Hansard would indicate that this riding has on numerous occasions been well described to this house. I will therefore forgo a traditional practice of giving some details of my riding except to remind the house that the city of Portage la Prairie is the hub of the finest agricultural areas in the plains; that the town of Neepawa as well as Carberry and McCreary and all the communities in that riding, and especially Kirkfield Park a suburb of Winnipeg, are most progressive communities. This area has produced in more recent times a long time premier of Manitoba, the Hon. D. L. Campbell, a chief justice for the province of Manitoba in the person of the Hon. Mr. Justice C. C. Miller, and in their turn a series of cabinet ministers for the provincial legislature. Presently the Hon. John Christianson of Portage la Prairie is very ably manning the portfolio of Manitoba's first minister of welfare.
The previous member for Portage-Neepawa was Dr. George C. Fairfield who so successfully represented this seat in the 1957 and 1958 elections. In 1958 he won this seat by the greatest majority ever polled by any member in this riding. Many of my colleagues have inquired about him. I have assured them that he will be following the outcome of this session with keen interest.
As I mentioned earlier, the residents of this constituency are progressive folk with high purpose in their actions and expressions. They are responsible, and mindful of their civic duties; they are above all good Canadians. These are people who hold high expectations from this 25th parliament. I am quite certain that my constituents, no matter what their political persuasion, do not want to see another election at this time. They would show great impatience at the continuation of hon. members who gnaw doggedly at the same bare bone of contention. The possibility of several provincial elections being held in the next few months added to the fact that no new alternatives since the June 18 election to the present government are arising, is further argument against a hasty return to the country.

The government is repeatedly being reminded of the "rights of parliament". Hon. members opposite are accusing us of proceeding in haste on certain measures and taking steps that are altogether unconstitutional- they say. We keep hearing that the time has come when the Conservative government should have regard to the people's wishes; there should be an immediate election, is the cry.
I have stated that members of parliament on both sides of this house should be reminded that the people have spoken. They have said we are the government and Mr. Diefenbaker is the Prime Minister. This debate is becoming tedious because of the repetition of the same remarks uttered by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) as well as by many of his followers. Congratulations of hon. gentlemen on this side of the house are due however to the Leader of the Opposition by reason of the very manifest evidence of the determination on the part of his followers to show fidelity to his leadership, evidence that came frequently to our ears in the way of applause and which was all the more pronounced and impressive when we recall the long succession of platitudes that evoked that applause.
The speech from the throne contains many measures that, when implemented, will add to the very real dimension of progress of our nation. Surely the members opposite can see some considerable merit in each of the numerous proposals in this speech; or is it, Mr. Speaker, that none of them can be persuaded by reason?
Many of the proposed measures in the speech from the throne have already been put forward by ministers of the crown and other colleagues and I feel well advised to leave further debate to my more experienced colleagues. I wish to remind hon. members of a most reliable yardstick or measure that should once and for all cause all this talk of austerity to cease. This measure, I suggest, is tourism of Canada. Surely if there were any real austerity in this country, tourism in this summer of 1962 should have shown a severe decline. Instead, what do we see? We see a marked increase, an increase well in line with the growth in the previous five years, to the extent that in some areas it has become a major industry. I ask hon. members, would this be the case if there were real austerity?
There has also been much criticism of the Prime Minister's stand on the commonwealth. I feel that the world needs more of the spirit of the commonwealth unless peace in the world is to depend on the balance of terror. The commonwealth exists, for the help of its members and as an encouragement to 27507-3-22J
The Address-Mr. Cantin all who want political freedom and friendship with their fellow men. This spirit has been fostered by our Prime Minister at all times.
Mr. Speaker, if each one of us puts forth that kind of effort that has as its goal the best interest of our nation, then in spite of a rather delicate balance of power, in spite of pressing and serious problems not only within the country but throughout the world, we could come through this period and history would record some of the best legislation ever produced in this house.
Quoting from an article in Canadian Business, the September issue, page 14, I read:
Barring unforeseen eventualities there is no reason to expect an election before 1964.
Just because we have become accustomed to house majorities in recent years is no reason why this need continue. A review of the record would show that this situation is far from normal in this country or in other countries. I need only quickly refer to Australia or to some of the European countries.
In the past there were times when the governing party ruled with a small margin over the opposition. These governments were by no means weak and indecisive by reason of their lack of overall majority. Crises of some magnitude were surmounted then, and there is no reason why the present government cannot do the same now.
I am confident that we as Canadians have a prosperous future before us and that full employment will go hand in hand with increased prosperity. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would submit it is vitally important that parliament continue without further interruption so that effective and much needed legislation as outlined in the speech from the throne can be implemented.
(Translation):


Mr. J. C. Cantin (Quebec South):: Mr. Speaker, I am truly moved in speaking before the house for the first time.
First of all, I wish to congratulate you on your unanimous election to your present office. I have no doubt that, thanks to your fairness, the house will smoothly expedite its business and that each member will be treated by you as fairly as he expects.
Mr. Speaker, I wish also to join with the other members who spoke before me in congratulating the mover (Mr. Chaplin) and the seconder (Mr. Vincent) of the speech from the throne for their remarkable speeches.
Indeed, it is not an easy job to present so splendidly the policy of the present minority government, a policy which has been condemned last June by the great majority of the Canadian people. Both members deserve even greater congratulations for their feat.

The Address-Mr. Cantin Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
(Text):


An hon. Member:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
(Translation):
Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, it gives me pleasure to thank and congratulate the national leader of the Liberal party (Mr. Pearson) for the message of hope he addressed to the Canadian people in his speech during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Never in our history has a Leader of the Opposition been so endowed with so many qualities that would make him an ideal prime minister. His objective criticism of the policies of a minority government is only equalled by the positive value of his views on national and international politics.
He combines the wisdom of the ancients and the vitality of contemporary statesmen. This man is the living symbol of the international brotherhood for which he has rightly deserved the Nobel peace prize.
I am especially proud, thanks to the voters of my riding of Quebec South, to serve my country under the guidance of such a leader, in whom a future great prime minister is already recognized. His influence which spreads throughout the world, will serve the internal as well as external interests of our country.
Mr. Speaker, since my arrival in the national capital, I felt sometimes like a rescued person. On the electoral map, you will find my riding in the centre of that eastern region of the province of Quebec, which experienced a western wind last June; however it is a wind that dies down very fast. Let us wait for a little while yet and this little storm will hardly deserve the name of "Socred".
Mr. Speaker, my riding's history is as old as that of Canada. Old Quebec expounds its history at every step, from the recollections of the foundation of Champlain's city, through those of French colonization, to the English conquest. In order to survive, the French Canadian became a nationalist for fear of English assimilation; and, in order to survive also the English Canadian became a nationalist for fear of U.S. assimilation.

Then, North America witnessed the faithfulness of the French Canadian people toward their one and only country, Canada, at the time of the American war of independence.
Without that loyalty of our ancestors, today Canada would form as many U.S. states as there are provinces. History had seen that conquerors and the conquered be united by a common interest. Then, there was the Act of Union and the confederation act, giving all Canadians a framework to attempt the development of a common ideal. Unfortunately, it seems we have not gone any further, or at least our progress has been very slow, because our pursuit of national unity has often been misunderstood.
At the time of the invasion of Paris, a French lady stood on the sidewalk watching the German troops marching down the Champs Elysees. One of the soldiers shouted at her: "Do you not hate us Germans?" The lady replied: "You are wrong, soldier. We love Beethoven."
In Quebec, one has sometimes the feeling of having been left on the sidewalk, each time the Conservative party has been in power. To give a recent example, last June, right in the middle of the election campaign, Mr. Guy Hudon and Dr. Forsey, two eminent Canadian citizens whose political affiliations are well known, created quite a stir when they resigned from the board of broadcast governors in protest against the injustice this agency, established by the Conservative government, was about to commit towards the population of Quebec by denying the C.B.C. the right to open a French T.V. station in our area.
A few days ago, Mr. Speaker, when I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Halpenny) what was the government's decision in this regard, the answer was that none had been taken.
I would have liked the Secretary of State to reassure our people by telling them that this permit would be issued to none but the C.B.C., and on the other hand, I would have understood that the austerity program established by the present minority government perhaps did not allow them to provide immediately for the establishment of that station.
And then, what will happen if, because of this austerity program, the C.B.C. does not renew its application to the board of governors? Will the latter feel justified in recommending to the government to grant the only available licence to another applicant whose alarming shadow haunts the halls of this parliament?
And I wonder why our region still has to maintain a state of alarm on that matter, when 102 public organizations intervened to

support the application of the C.B.C. to the board of governors, when it is not only normal but in the national interest that the only French capital in America be at last provided with a French state-owned television station.
Besides, the evidence collected by the board of broadcast governors during its public investigation proves without a doubt that such a station would be a great asset to the cultural life of our country. How much longer will the government defer its reply?
Mr. Speaker, in 1958, my province had placed great confidence in the Conservative party by electing a great number of its members, that is more than 50. In 1962, there are only a few left-14 exactly. In the province of Quebec alone, the Conservative party lost
285,000	votes in the last election. Therefore, the notorious unpopularity of the Conservative party made possible the election of several Social Crediters in eastern Quebec.
In my opinion, that is the main cause of that party's partial success in the last election.


An hon. Member:: What about yours?


Jean-Charles Cantin: But make no mistake. Quebec has in no way voted or approved the confused and utopian economic philosophy of that party. The hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency (Mr. Marcoux) admitted in this house-


An hon. Member:: They are the only angry men.


Jean-Charles Cantin: -that his constituents liked to change their member once in a while, and I truly believe that the present member would be quite acceptable if it were not for the fantastic monetary theories he advocates. Quebec has too much confidence in its institutions, its trade unions, its credit unions, its co-operatives-


An hon. Member:: Its chartered banks.


Jean-Charles Cantin: Yes, its banks, its insurance companies, its industries, and its business community to risk undermining their foundations through the establishment of a regime which is only clever as far as the mind that created it was, and as far as it succeeded in deceiving some part of our population with its repetitions, its redundancies, its arguments based on approximations and unrealistic undertakings.
Mr. Speaker, in Quebec-


An hon. Member:: Hurrah for taxes.
The Address-Mr. Cantin


Jean-Charles Cantin: It is only a matter of resuming the dialogue first engaged by Cartier, Macdonald, continued by Laurier, resumed by Lapointe, Cardin and Power and, nearer to us, by St. Laurent, and today by Lester B. Pearson and Lionel Chevrier.


Mr. Pigeon:: And Maurice Sauve.


Jean-Charles Cantin: And through this dialogue, Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to teach the development and the exercise of a national spirit. A great Frenchman, General Lyautey, said: "I am national-minded, not a nationalist." Nationalism is a doctrine that divides while national-mindedness is a fact, a source not of civil war but of union.


An hon. Member:: L'Union Nationale.


Jean-Charles Cantin: Furthermore, he who is
national-minded by instinct never fears that he will not look like a nationalist.
The practice of bilingualism, the confirmation of our civil and constitutional rights, the search, by one or the other of our groups, for economic freedom, are, in brief, only so many manifestations of that same national spirit, and the pursuit of those objectives will help us realize our common ideal, which is national unity in the best interest of an economically strong Canada.
(Text):
What is the Liberal program on national unity?
Strengthening national unity and fostering national purposes are the constant aims of the Liberal policies.
French speaking Canadians must have the fullest opportunity to share completely in every phase of our national growth. Both English and French must feel that they are able to work out their special destinies inside confederation, through a full partnership that is appreciated by both, as a national asset and not an imposed requirement.
There should be scrupulous acceptance of the full equality of French and English language and culture, which should find expression in such things as documents issued by the federal government. These are, however, only the evidence of a partnership -which must be instinctive and inviolable, something of the spirit, rather than documents and words.
On the basis of this partnership of English and French, Canadians of other origins must be brought fully into the common national life, not through assimilation but through integration.
Liberal policies seek to develop our homeland as the common heritage of all Canadians, new and old, and to achieve equality of opportunity for all Canadians regardless of their origin, their language or the region of Canada in which they live. (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, if I did not believe in the possibility of seeing the two great intellectual families in this country united in a single common effort to build together a Canada stronger for being served by two great civilizations, I would have declined the honour of serving it in this parliament.

The Address-Mr. Brewin
In this Telstar age, when man has found this marvellous means of being seen and heard simultaneously and instantaneously in all parts of our globe, at a time when those who had been enemies for centuries unite to open up their frontiers to common markets, at a time when people and nations gain their freedom, at this historical hour when we have begun the conquest of space, we are no more entitled to picayune behaviour, and it is our duty to be ourselves while respecting others. That is the ideal set by the Liberal party in order to accomplish national unity.
The Quebec area, Mr. Speaker, expects a great deal of the Liberal party, and it will not be disappointed.
If, inside its ancient walls, the old city of Quebec needs restoring, certain sections, decayed and devoid of historical interest, would have to be cleared of slums, as is sadly evidenced by the Martin report. However, the present facilities of the act remain too heavy to allow the city of Quebec to continue this radical transformation. With due respect to constitutional rights, our party, as soon as it comes to power, intends to amend the act as it now stands in the following manner:
For the slum clearing stage, the federal aid to municipalities will be increased from 50 to 75 per cent.
For the reconstruction stage, the federal assistance will remain at 75 per cent of the cost, but will be extended in the same proportion as the cost of establishment of public services, such as waterworks and sewer projects, street reconstruction, and other services to which the federal government does not at present contribute.
Besides this new form of assistance, the Liberal party will set up, with the help of the provinces, a municipal loan fund for the development of municipal services. Having been a mayor for nearly 12 years, I am in a position to state that our municipalities, especially in the Quebec suburbs cannot implement essential projects for lack of capital.
These initiatives on the part of the Liberal party, in addition to others mentioned in its dynamic program which is constantly brought up to date, will open an era of prosperity which all Canadians hope for, prosperity which will be given to them very soon by the only party capable of bringing this about, the Canadian Liberal party.
(Text):


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all congratulate you, sir, on your unanimous selection for a difficult but most important post. Next, I extend the traditional but none the less sincere congratulations to the hon. members who moved

and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I should also like to refer to my predecessor as member for Greenwood, Mr. J. M. Macdonnell, and pay a tribute to him. Mr. Macdonnell is a very fine gentleman and a great Canadian. I should like the house to know that he is held in high regard and affection by many who like myself do not happen to share his political views.
I propose in this speech, Mr. Speaker, to deal with problems affecting the constitution of Canada and international affairs raised in the speech from the throne, and the attitude of this group to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen). First of all, however, I should like to make a few general remarks. At a moment like this when one speaks for the first time in this historic parliament one naturally thinks of the people of one's own constituency. I think of the people of Greenwood, as I am sure other hon. members think of their constituents, as the salt of the earth and I hope I can justify the confidence they have placed in me as their representative.
I think particularly, Mr. Speaker, of the people I met during the election campaign, as I called from house to house, who have experienced and are experiencing the bitterness and frustration of prolonged unemployment. I think particularly of the fathers of families, fathers over 50 who are told that they are too old to work. I think of youngsters getting out of school and having the keen edge of their enthusiasm for life dulled by finding themselves unwanted and unused in the labour market.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that primarily unemployment is a moral problem. Have we the imagination to realize the wastefulness and the wickedness of the enforced idleness of our fellow citizens? If we do realize this, have we the will to organize society so that our human resources shall be fully employed and unemployment in fact brought to an end? The reason that I am proud to be a member of this party is that I believe this party has recognized and accepted the only means that can end unemployment, the means of economic planning and expansion of the public sector of the economy to the extent required to give everyone willing and able to work a job.
I think also of those in my constituency who are crushed and defeated by the burden of debt and anxiety caused by expensive operations and medical bills. Again, I am proud to be a member of a party dedicated to solving these problems in the only satisfactory way they can be solved, by a complete national health plan.
However, Mr. Speaker, it is my task today to call attention to what we believe are some

serious gaps in the program presented in the speech from the throne on other than economic matters. The speech from the throne refers to the proposed repatriation of the Canadian constitution. With this proposal we warmly agree. With the hundredth birthday of this country a few years away, it is indeed a strange anomaly that the control over the constitution of Canada rests, in form at least, with the imperial parliament of Great Britain long after Canada's full sovereignty was recognized by the Statute of Westminster.
But it is not enough to say that the Canadian constitution should be repatriated. The outlines at least of the proposed method of repatriation must be given. The constitution sets out the basis of our Canadian confederation and the relationship between the people of this country and their governments. It is of the utmost importance, therefore, that the constitution should entrench beyond the possibility of change the basic rights with respect to language, religion and education and should recognize fully the two nations and the two cultures that are the main streams of our existence. It is also our view that the amended constitution, to be made in Canada and by Canadians, should embody a genuine and constitutional bill of rights setting out the fundamental freedoms inherent in our parliamentary system. These freedoms, as members of the house know, are freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of association. The present bill of rights, and I call the attention of the government members to this, is merely a declaratory statute capable of being overruled by this or subsequent parliaments and totally inoperative so far as provincial legislatures are concerned. If these fundamental rights and freedoms are contained in the solemn compact of our constitution, neither subsequent acts of parliament or the legislatures nor any subordinate authorities can invade them, and the courts will be able to act as the effective safeguard of our liberties to a degree that they cannot now.
I should like to employ this occasion, Mr. Speaker, to point out to our friends of the Social Credit party across the chamber, who sometimes seem to have so strangely perverted a view of history and politics, that so far from democratic socialism being the enemy of freedom, as they appear to believe, democratic socialists in Canada and throughout the world have been foremost in the struggle against every form of totalitarianism and bureaucratic oppression, whether from the right or the left, whether communist or fascist. Indeed, the most mature and successful democracies in the world are democracies such as Sweden and Norway which have had
The Address-Mr. Brewin or have democratic socialist governments that successfully combine economic planning and individual liberty.
We in this group intend to carry on the battle in this parliament for the fullest respect for parliament and democratic institutions. That is why this group will vote tonight for the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond. This matter, I would point out, Mr. Speaker, was first raised in the house by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The facts of this matter are clear. I do not propose to repeat the observations of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), although I must say I agree fully with them. The government has imposed a surtax on imports by order in council or decree and no one but parliament has the right to impose taxation on the people of this country.
There is no more fundamental or historic right vested in parliament than control over taxation. Our ancestors shed their blood to establish this right. The attempt to justify this action under the provisions of the Customs Tariff Act and the Financial Administration Act is specious and unsound. The unsupported assertions of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fleming) cannot remove the facts, and in my judgment it is not good enough to tell this house that it has no right to consider the legality of the government's action. What do these two acts contemplate? The first contemplates the removal of certain articles of import from one class or schedule to another and the goods so named attracting the appropriate fixed rate of duty in the class to which they are transferred. The Financial Administration Act contemplates the remission of taxation in the proper case, and in individual cases as the terms of the act make clear. Particularly, I should like to call the attention of the minister to section 22, subsection 8 of the act which makes the matter quite clear. The Financial Administration Act was never intended for a moment to justify the action taken by this government. Neither statute contemplates what was done here, namely the simultaneous transfer of class of article to a particular schedule and the remission of a part of the new rate of duty to the whole class so transferred. This is an indirect way to impose a direct tax or duty without calling parliament together to approve it. We in this group do not think it of importance that some previous administration may or may not have acted improperly before. I cannot follow the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fleming) in his suggestion that the sins of some former administration somehow blot out or condone the present sins of this administration.
332	HOUSE OF
The Address

Mr. Brewin
What we are concerned with is that this government has, for its own convenience, usurped the rights of parliament because it did not see fit to call parliament to meet the emergency that developed soon after the election. The government was more anxious to allow passions to cool after the election, as the Prime Minister put it; or, as I would prefer to put it, the government was anxious to cling to power by taking steps to secure the support of a particular minority group. I call on all members of this house, Mr. Speaker, who believe that it is important to maintain the supremacy of parliament to vote for the amendment. I suppose it is too much to hope that the members of the government party will pay much attention to my suggestion, but I do most seriously suggest to the members of the Social Credit group that their vote on this amendment will be a test of the genuineness of their concern for parliamentary institutions, a test, moreover, of their faithfulness to their duties as a loyal opposition in this house.
May I make one last reference to the repatriation of the constitution? Much as we believe such repatriation to be desirable, it must not be done in such a way as to fasten a rigid and practically unamendable constitutional structure on this country or to give the power of veto to any one province in matters other than basic minority rights. In the proposals put before the in camera conferences of the attorneys general called by this government, such rigidity and such a veto were included.
The absurdity of such a veto power over any change whatever in constitutional provisions is made evident by a suggestion in the speech from the throne itself. The speech from the throne indicates an intention to put before parliament a resolution seeking an amendment to the British North America Act enabling parliament to legislate for contributory pensions. We in this group welcome this proposal. Supposing, however, all the provinces agreed to this change except one- and taking as an example the province of Newfoundland-would it be reasonable that one province, representing perhaps a small fraction of the people of Canada, could frustrate the will of the people of Canada as a whole in a matter in no way affecting basic provincial rights? Would it be reasonable to confer on the government of Prince Edward Island the right to veto the transfer to federal control of labour relations in nationwide industries such as steel and meat packing, which many believe can only be effectively handled at the national level?
The proposal for repatriation is a good one, but its method should provide for proper flexibility when required. There must also


be a full opportunity for public discussion and scrutiny of anything so vital to the good government of this country as the form of a fully Canadian constitution.
There was one other aspect of the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, that we in this group found gravely disappointing. I refer to the references to international affairs. The complacency of this government about international affairs and this country's role is, in our view, totally unwarranted. In the rapidly changing world of today, we have become an interdependent part of one world. All the people of the world are united by a common fear of nearly universal destruction. From day to day, the B-52's of the strategic air command fly an airborne alert over the United States and Canada, carrying, on the average, 25 megatons or 25 million tons of explosive power, more than 12 times the amount of explosive dropped by all the bombers in world war II, including the two atomic weapons.
The stockpile of nuclear weapons in the United States is, we are told by responsible authorities, equal to ten tons of explosive for everyone in the world, and the U.S.S.R. presumably does not lag far behind. We live in an explosive world. We in this group respect, as all Canadians do, the persistent efforts of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) to get the major nations of the world at least started on the road to disarmament. But there is no room for complacency. A striking gap in the speech from the throne is the complete omission of any reference to Canada's own part in the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Is the government still in the mist of indecision or has it made up its collective mind but is unwilling to tell the people of Canada of its decision?
We in this group believe that any addition to the security of the western alliance that Canada could bring by becoming, even to a limited extent, one of the nuclear club is far outweighed by the disastrous consequences involved in the further spread of the control of nuclear weapons to other nations. We regret that Canada did not take up clearly and unequivocally the Swedish initiative in the United Nations for the formation of a club, as it were, of non-nuclear nations pledging themselves to refrain from manufacturing or acquiring nuclear weapons and to refuse to receive them in their territory. The present degree of stability in the balance of deterrence may afford the human race a breathing spell when nuclear power to a significant degree is confined to two nations. The spread of nuclear weapons will quickly undermine any such stability of deterrence and make a nuclear holocaust set off by accident more probable than now. In any

event, what the western alliance lacks is not so much tactical or strategic nuclear weapons. What it lacks are highly mobile conventional forces. Canada's contribution to her own security and that of her allies will be far more significant if it takes the form of strengthening conventional forces for nonnuclear purposes.
We have to build, while we can, a world community so that we can eventually establish a rule of law over the nations. This is the task of this generation and it will tax our efforts and our imagination. Can Canada claim she is doing all that she can to create this world community? In an appeal issued by the World Council of Churches at New Delhi to all governments and people of the world, the following statement appears:
There is a great opportunity for constructive action in the struggle for world development. To share the benefits of civilization with the whole of humanity is a noble, attainable objective. To press the war against poverty, disease, exploitation and ignorance calls for greater sacrifice and for a far greater commitment of scientific, educational and material resources than hitherto. In this common task let the peoples find a positive program for peace, a moral equivalent for war.
In the Globe and Mail of May 31 of this year a reference appears to the testimony before a United States congressional committee by the United States aid chief, Mr. Frank Coffin. He said that Canada is far behind the leaders in the field of providing aid to underdeveloped nations. Canada, according to Mr. Coffin, gave .21 per cent of its gross national product, compared with .6 per cent by Britain and the United States, and .56 per cent by West Germany.
The New Democratic party at its founding convention said a reasonable standard for the amount of grants and long term interest free loans for economic aid was an expenditure equal to 2 per cent of the national income. We are convinced that with an expanding economy and full employment such a contribution is possible. Furthermore Canada might make a decisive contribution to the economic breakthrough of countries like India.
We live in days of challenge and we must make a creative response to it. That creative response will involve changing some of our traditional thinking and practices. Petty partisan bickering in this house, which unfortunately characterized the contributions to this debate by the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, are not good enough in the world in which we live today.
I shall conclude my remarks by quoting some words of Barbara Ward, or Lady Jackson as she is also known, whose works have already been quoted in this debate. She uses these words:
The Address-Mr. Nowlan
The western citizen of today, if he is to face the world's crisis of freedom, cannot ignore the deepest ideals of his own free tradition. He must wish to recreate the face of the earth. He must see the human race as one brotherhood. He must set his abundance to work to end other people's misery and want. In this spirit freedom will conquer. Without it freedom hardly deserves the name.
I commend those words to this house.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, when rising to take part in this debate I of course want to pay the conventional, indeed more than the conventional tribute to the mover and seconder of the address on this occasion. I also, sir, want to pay my tribute to you for having achieved the position which you are occupying right now as Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, and to the Speaker of the house who, for three or four years, was associated with me as parliamentary secretary. I hope that some of the lessons which we learned together in discipline and in working out the problems of national revenue may be of some assistance to him and to you in presiding over what the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) calls this house of minorities.
We are speaking strictly on the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen). I am sorry to say that much as I welcome him personally to this house I deplore the fact politically that he happens to be here. But, if we have to have a Liberal from Nova Scotia, there is no one I would rather see here than the hon. member. He will pardon me if I do not propose to comment on the amendment further than was done today by my colleague the Minister of Justice because I am quite sure the hon. member, with his educational background, coming from that province where some people excel in that area, will realize that his arguments were somewhat phony and unrealistic, and that when the Minister of Justice got through with them today he should know there is nothing more I should say about them at this time.
This, Mr. Speaker, is one of the great milestones in the life of a parliament. During our regular sessions of parliament we have this debate on the address which, according to tradition, is always hard fought. It enables hon. members to speak about almost everything under the sun before finally the address is passed and the executive receives the confidence of the house. We are working towards that end at the moment. I am not anticipating what the votes may be, but at least on this occasion we are treading along one of the parliamentary highways which have made great the history of parliamentary procedure within the commonwealth.
334	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Nowlan
As I say, one can speak on almost anything dealing with the affairs of the nation, and in a few moments I shall refer to some of the specific problems with which the Minister of Finance is perhaps more directly associated than any other minister; but I would like to make one or two casual references as I proceed along the way. Recently there has been a great deal of controversy and discussion about the entry of the United Kingdom into the common market. My friend-and I say that advisedly-my friend, the Leader of the Opposition has sometimes spoken caustically about the position that the Prime Minister of Canada has taken with respect to the problems with which this government was confronted in that matter.
Recently the Prime Minister attended the prime ministers' conference in London and, without attempting to read into the record a large number of quotations which one might read because one's time is very limited in this debate, I think it is fair to say that the Leader of the Opposition has criticized the Prime Minister for having taken a position in opposition to the United Kingdom going into the common market, suggesting that he was rather crying about the problems with which we were faced, and altogether belittling the efforts which the Prime Minister was making in defending and protecting the interests of Canada in the event of the possible entry of the United Kingdom into the common market.
This government, of course, has taken the position that it is a problem for the United Kingdom and none other; but I hope the Leader of the Opposition has read the speech made by the Hon. Hugh Gaitskell at the labour conference in Brighton on Wednesday last. One does not have to subscribe to the political tenets of that gentleman-and I do not-to recognize the fact that he is a distinguished leader in the parliament of the United Kingdom and one who some day may possibly be the prime minister of Britain. Although the resolution which was passed by the conference, as of course with all resolutions, had escape valves and escape hatches-and some of us in this parliament are not entirely unfamiliar with that process-certainly the leader of the Labour party came down four square on that occasion in opposition to the United Kingdom going into the common market, because he said it threatened the existence of the commonwealth as such.
We in this party attach a great deal of importance to the common market and to the entry of the United Kingdom into it. We believe it presents problems to us at the moment, but we believe they can be solved. We are also concerned about the future of the commonwealth as such, and I just wonder


if the Leader of the Opposition when he was criticizing the Prime Minister, during those days and weeks when the Prime Minister was overseas, and before and since, knew what he would have the Prime Minister of this country do with the Hon. Hugh Gaitskell, whether he should take the Hon. Hugh Gaitskell by the hair and pull him into the common market or put his shoulder behind him and push him in. But certainly there was a wide divergence of opinion between the two at that time.
With respect to the balance of payments crises which followed after the election, I am not going into the details of that at the moment because we have had a great deal of talk with respect to this, but it has been suggested that the Prime Minister misled the country and deceived the electorate with respect to the position which we took in not going more fully into this matter before the election.
I think the Prime Minister dealt with this matter very effectively the other day, and I am not going to say anything more about it at the moment except to recall the figures which he put before us at that time. I think perhaps I should interpolate this. The Leader of the Opposition I think with a slightly twisted sense of humour, suggested that the reason this crisis developed was because of the lack of confidence in this government. I thought he made that fairly pointed. If that is the case, I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition how he reconciles the figures, because as the Prime Minister pointed out the other day, between June 1 and June 14 there was a substantial loss in our foreign exchange. There is no question about that.
In fact, there was a loss of $128 million between June 1 and June 14. Then came June 15, which was a Friday, the last day of trading for that week. June 16 was a Saturday; June 17 was a Sunday. Then came June 18. Possibly some people may call that the Black Monday; that was election day. Then you get the balance of exchange for that week. We find that between the 15th and the 22nd, only five trading days, the fund lost $270 million, $142 million more in those five trading days than in the two previous weeks when people in Canada were hoping that this government would still be in power. But when they found that we were in a minority position, when they found that so many Liberals had been elected, there then came a run on foreign exchange control. So, as I say, we lost $142 million more in five days with the dire threat of the hon. gentleman opposite as a possible prime minister than we lost in the two weeks before when the people were hoping the Prime Minister would be returned with his government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Anyway, you have not lost your sense of humour.


George Clyde Nowlan: An hon. member opposite says we deceived the electorate, that the Prime Minister deceived the electorate. I have dealt with these two matters, the common market, in the light of Mr. Gaitskell's statement last Wednesday, and the foreign exchange crisis. As I said earlier, the Leader of the Opposition is a good friend of mine, a good personal friend. We happened to come into the House of Commons on the same day more years ago than perhaps we would like to recall. Five of us came in on that day. Only two of us are left. The Leader of the Opposition was then secretary of state for external affairs; he is now the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. I was a junior backbencher in the House of Commons at that time, and I happen to be standing where I am tonight.
During all these years we have been very, very good friends, and I want to express my appreciation for what the hon. gentleman did when he was a minister and I was a private member. But in view of these misstatements which have been made, the misleading misstatements which have been made with respect to both these matters, and knowing the hon. gentleman as I do, I would hope that before this debate were over he would rise in his place and apologize to this house and the country for the charges he has made.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: That is an old cliche.


George Clyde Nowlan: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that as a private member it was much simpler to enter this chamber with an envelope stuck in your pocket which you could look at, than it is, as Minister of Finance, to come in with a text, the pages of which I invariably get mixed up.
Perhaps a word should be said with respect to the political complexion of this house. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) said the other night that this is a house of minorities. Naturally our friends in the press gallery are having a lot of fun speculating as to who is supporting who and what machinations or deals are going on behind the scenes. As I think one of the Social Credit party said the other day-at least, he is reported to have said this-perhaps they were a little bit unsophisticated in stating honestly their opinion that this country did not want an election at this time and that it was not the intention of that party to defeat the government for purely political purposes.
This has given a great deal of false courage to our friends on the extreme right and to our friends opposite, each of whom I would
The Address-Mr. Nowlan say are more afraid of an election than I think is the Social Credit party, and they are certainly more afraid of it than we are. So again we see the strange association between the one-time great Liberal party and the socialists now on my right.
The other day the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis)-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us about your own bedfellows.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am glad to hear that voice. It reminds me of days when we walked up the aisle together confronting the Liberal party when the pipe line debate was on.
However, Mr. Speaker, the other day the hon. member for York South, one of the new members of the House of Commons whose reputation preceded him, in a very able speech expounding socialistic philosophies said, among other things, of this government that we persisted in maintaining a policy of tight money. I will deal with that in a moment, perhaps, if time permits. Then the hon. gentleman continued that the government insisted on reducing expenditures and on chasing that will-o'-the-wisp of a balanced budget willy-nilly, with fingers crossed. A will-o'-the-wisp of a balanced budget-and they went to bed together. Shades of the great Liberal party. It is no wonder that there is some confusion in the gallery above as to who is supporting whom, which deals are made, and why. But in any event, when the division bells ring tonight, because perhaps of the forthrightness, or at least the sincere and honest declarations of our friends of the Social Credit party-I say "our friends" because I am very glad to see people in this house being honest enough to stand up and say what they believe in, instead of hiding behind statements made for their own purposes-or at least when they rang the other night, because far be it from me to say what will happen tonight when the division bells ring-


An hon. Member:: You know.


George Clyde Nowlan: -the pronounced socialists down on my right and the pseudo-socialists sitting opposite me climbed under the same blanket, shivering and shaking and hoping the lightning would be deflected, because they hoped that the Social Credit party would act as a lightning rod and deflect the lightning so they would not have to face the electorate in the near future. Mr. Speaker, this should be said, and I think it should be said seriously of all party divisions in this house. The government does not agree with the theory of monetary control, the theory of monetary expansion, which is espoused by the Social Credit party. As a matter of fact, I suppose I might say-I hope I will not be
336	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Nowlan misunderstood in saying this as Minister of Finance-that it any of us can find any three people in any place in the country who agree on monetary theory, then we are accomplishing a miracle. But be that as it may, we do not think that the theory espoused by the Social Credit party bears this out, but this also should be said. The Social Credit party, according to its pronouncements, stands fairly and squarely on its principle of supporting the maintenance of private enterprise in this country. This government does likewise, Mr. Speaker. In the division which this house saw the other evening you saw a division on principle. You saw parties supporting private enterprise on the one hand, and the socialists and pseudo-socialists divided against them on the other. Mr. Speaker, a very distinguished leader of the Liberal party, the prime minister when I had the opportunity of sitting in this house in opposition, once said that the C.C.F.-at that time there was only the C.C.F. with us-were "Liberals in a hurry". Now I suspect that my hon. friend for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and others who were here in those days when we sat more or less together on the far side of the house, would say that they had witnessed a conversion which was greater than that witnessed by Saul of Tarsus when he was on the road to Damascus, and now we see that it is the Liberals, not the socialists, who are "socialists in a hurry".
Mr. Speaker, having indulged, as I said, in this parliamentary road block when one can cover everything under the sun, and which is one of the great traditions of our parliamentary system, perhaps you would expect me in the very short time which is left to me to deal with some of the financial problems with which we are faced. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that there will be many other opportunities, as 1 am sure there will be if this house has the intelligence which I think it has, for hon. members to raise these points and I will be able to develop further some of the matters which were referred to at this time.
There have been many good speeches made here during this debate. The newspapers have paid tribute, columnists have paid tribute, and I think we all will pay tribute, to the quality of the debate which has taken place so far in this chamber. Not that we agree with all that has been said, but perhaps it does have some merit in having competing groups more closely allied than they were heretofore and you get an expression of views which is refreshing and which is interesting.
The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon) is one of the new members of this house whose reputation preceded him as a sort of deus ex machina of the Liberal party, and who I presume can assume to himself some


credit for the rather substantial gains which it made in the last election. He talked the other day about tight money. I could go into this complex subject for a long while, but I am not going to do it at this time. However, I do want to say right now that I deny categorically and absolutely that there is any policy of tight money in this country. The hon. gentleman, as my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) pointed out the other day, has written at least two books, and he may have to write another one on this matter.
I	am sure he, with his knowledge of economic problems, would be the first to admit, as I know he does, that the needs of our monetary policy must satisfy the needs of our balance of payments position, as well as the needs of our domestic economy. Interest rates did rise. On June 24 the Bank of Canada rate went up to 6 per cent, but on September 7 it was reduced to 5J per cent. Interest rates have eased accordingly.
One could go on and on dealing with the theoretical question of interest rates, but the interest rate of the bank itself is not the only criterion by which this government should be judged. It is not the only criterion by which the people of this country are going to judge this government when the time comes.
There are various mechanisms which we have to which I think some attention should be paid. Let us take the industrial development bank, for instance, for the moment. We talk of tight money. The loans in 1961 amounted to $71 million, which is 85 per cent more than in 1960. You could go down through the various classifications covered. In the retail trade you find that loans were up 150 per cent. Loans to the construction industry increased by 140 per cent. Manufacturing loans in some fields were up over 100 per cent- over 200 per cent in some cases-and in the
II	months of this year, and we are not through this year yet, including the period of the alleged austerity program-and I would like to take half an hour on that, but time does not permit-they are up over 31 per cent. The loans issued by the industrial development bank are up 31 per cent over last year at this time. If that is tight money, Mr. Speaker, then give us more of it.
Then let us take the loans under the Farm Credit Act. In the fiscal year ending March 31, 1962, loans totalled $68.6 million, an increase of $8 million over 1960. In the first six months of this year there has been an increase of 22 per cent over the loans made in the same period last year.
Let us take the Small Businesses Loans Act, which, Mr. Speaker, you and I have good reason to know, having worked on the bill in days gone by. Loans up to December 31, 1961 totalled $25.6 million, and they were

made to various classes of business. Loans for the second quarter of this year are running at an annual rate 21 per cent over last year. Mr. Speaker, is that tight money? With regard to home improvement loans, in 1961 they rose to a record level of $42.8 million compared to $30 million the year before. For the first seven months of this year the report of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation shows although the figures are not definite and conclusive, a definite improvement and an increase in loans over the same period last year. And one could go on.
Those are the principal lending agencies which this government is operating and which are being developed, and have been developed, under the aegis of this government. Then, of course, you have the Export Credits Insurance Act, amendments to which are being brought forward in the near future. I am not sure what business has been set forth for the rest of the week, but I think very shortly the house will be asked to deal with those matters. Section 21, the long term credit section which provides for exports of our products to the world, was absolutely inoperative under the preceding administration. Under this government we have loaned $100 million, almost $200 million, and we are going to ask for an increase of that amount so that we can continue our export sales program which has been instituted and carried on so well by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees). And that is only one measure, Mr. Speaker.
I am warned that my time is running very short, Mr. Speaker, but I might also mention the substantial purchase of bonds which has taken place, and I am sure the hon. member for Davenport will appreciate that. A large number of bonds have been sold in the last few months following the problems that we faced. The bonds have all been taken up on the domestic market, and that of itself shows the confidence of the Canadian people in government bonds. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been made available from the banking system. I am not saying at the moment what tight money is. At the moment I am not trying to define what the level of the currency should be in this nation. That is a matter for determination and for government policy from time to time. However, I say this without hesitation or without fear. If the policy which this government is following is that of tight money, then Mr. Scrooge who is referred to by Dickens in his work, was a Santa Claus. There can be no question whatsoever about that matter. I think we have proven fairly well that substantial funds are available for various media of employment and development in this country. Having said all those things, and there are many more
The Address-Mr. Pearson that I could say but my time is running very rapidly to an end, I do not wish anyone to assume for one minute that we feel we have solved all the problems of this country. There are many difficult problems ahead of us, including the balance of payments problem with respect to the over $1 billion a year that we pay out for services, dividends, interest and goods. Only once in the last 10 years under the aegis of this government have we had a surplus of goods, and that was last year.


An hon. Member:: How about this year?


George Clyde Nowlan: I hope that the figures will show that there has been an improvement this year. The hon. member for Davenport pointed that out. If I had the time, and I have not, I should like to read the speech of my distinguished predecessor, now Mr. Justice Abbott, back in 1947, when he pointed out the long term solution they were going to take to solve this problem. He said it would be solved by GATT, by gold subsidies and some of those things, all of which failed. The hon. member for Davenport referred to it in his report on economic conditions. A very distinguished commentator who is not very friendly to this government and who spoke at Queen's University a while ago said the record of the Liberal government from 1950 to 195657 on this matter was such that millstones should be hung around their neck and they should be drowned. That is the situation.
I am not professing for one moment that all these problems can be solved overnight. Their solution is going to take time. It is going to take a long while before they all can be solved. In the speech from the throne we have said-and I believe it is a factual statement- what we will do in the first five years of this revolutionary period. The whole world is going through a revolution, and a substantial one. The other day what happened? Our United States friend brought his spacecraft down within a few feet or a few miles of an allocated point in the Pacific ocean. That is a much more important scientific development probably than was Columbus' discovery of America. I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether this is a scientific problem which you are trying to overcome-


Mr. Speaker:: While the discussion at this moment has taken an extremely interesting turn, I regret that we must postpone further discussion. The minister's time has expired.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If I venture to intervene in this debate, Mr. Speaker, it is because of the

The Address~Mr. Pearson extremely friendly invitation or indeed challenge, issued to me by the Minister of Finance a moment ago. An invitation or challenge, if you like, couched in such friendly terms by one whom I admire personally so much is one that I think I should not turn down. This also gives me an opportunity to congratulate the minister on his new portfolio. I rejoice in his steady promotion on the ministerial ladder as a member of the class of '48. I thank him for his friendly references to myself and I most warmly reciprocate them as he knows.
The Minister of Finance spoke for one half hour and when he had ten minutes left he said, "It is time now for me to deal with finance". The minister should be more careful to speak as Minister of Finance at every opportunity. In this debate this is the first time we have heard from the Minister of Finance when so many financial subjects were being discussed and dealt with on the other side by the former minister of finance, now the Minister of Justice, who is still minister of finance so far as international financial affairs seem to be concerned and who is still the Canadian member of the international monetary fund and the bank of international settlements. I therefore suggest in a friendly way to the Minister of Finance that he take every opportunity to prove that he is the Minister of Finance, especially as there seems to be lurking in the other house someone who has aspirations in that field as well. We do not wish to see our old friend the Minister of Finance crushed between the upper and the lower millstones.
I am delighted that the minister has kept his sense of humour, which has stood him in such good stead over the years and which I hope will do so in the future. Perhaps he has never given a better illustration of his possession of that sense of humour than he has given tonight in the remarks which he has just made, especially when he said that we have nothing like tight money in this country at the present time. Then he went on to say, however, that he was not quite sure what tight money was, that he was not going to define it tonight. But whatever it is, we have not got it.
I ask him to inquire of any small businessman who is trying to get a loan whether we have tight money. I ask him to go to a bank and try to arrange a small overdraft and to find out whether we have tight money. The minister will no doubt on some other occasion tell us what he means by tight money. However, I tell him tonight that we certainly have tight money in this country at the present time.


Another example of the minister's sense of humour was given when he invited me to rise in my place at once in this debate before it was brought to a conclusion on this amendment and apologize.


George Clyde Nowlan: I gave you two days.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Presumably it was to apologize to the Prime Minister for what I have said about the attitude of the Prime Minister and his government on the common market and the attitude of the Prime Minister and the government in the election campaign to what we considered to be, with a great deal of evidence to support it, concealing vital financial facts from the electorate. If any apology is due to this house, Mr. Speaker, it is due from the other side. I do not accept the minister's invitation on this occasion.


George Clyde Nowlan: I will repeat it later on.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister said, "Our attitude toward the common market and Great Britain's entry into the common market must have been right because it was supported by the leader of the Labour party in Great Britain". He asked me whether I had read Mr. Gaitskell's statement. Of course I have read it. I have also read Mr. Macmillan's statement on the same subject. Our criticism of the government in this matter is a simple one. It is not that they are not trying to protect Canadian interests, and I hope I made this position clear in my first speech.
The criticism is that they do not know how to protect Canadian interests; and that in their efforts to protect Canadian interests, by adopting a shortsighted, narrow minded policy they have made Canada's reputation in this particular field lower than it should have been. Our criticism is that they have no understanding of the implications of this great move of Great Britain across the channel in the interests of the political and economic unification of Europe and the Atlantic world, something that may stand between us and destruction in the years ahead. We can have that and the commonwealth too, Mr. Speaker, but hon. gentlemen opposite do not seem to understand that fact.
The other subject for apology is the concealment of the financial facts during the election. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Nowlan) proved how right they were and how wrong we were and that they had concealed nothing because there was no crisis until two days after the election. That was the argument. He brought forward the figures that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) had brought forward before to show that we had lost, how much, in those two days? One hundred and

The Address-Mr. Pearson
eighty million dollars or $200 million in a couple of days. According to him, and this is a magnificent example of the minister's sense of humour, the reason for that loss of dollars which reflected lack of confidence was that the people, presumably in Canada and outside of Canada, who are concerned with these international financial transactions had suddenly realized that the Liberals had elected 100 members in the new house. The reason for it, Mr. Speaker, is that the people who are concerned in these matters suddenly realized that the Liberals had not elected enough to take charge of the government at once.
The morning after the election, Mr. Speaker, the international and the national financial communities suddenly realized that this government had not been replaced, and on that knowledge dollars fled the country.


George Clyde Nowlan: You have the sense of humour.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Minister of Finance had something to say about the amendment on which we are voting in a few moments. It is a very simple one, Mr. Speaker. It condemns the government for taxation without representation. It is a historic and age-old principle of British constitutional law and propriety that there shall be no taxes levied on the people without the people's representatives having a chance to express their will in respect of such taxes.
What have we got now? We have a government that has put into effect taxation by order in council. We on this side challenge the legality of that order in council. That is a matter for legal dispute. They say it is legal; but saying it is legal does not necessarily make it legal. Even if you assume it is legal, even if you assume that there is a legal basis for this action, the government having taken the action now refuses to give the people's representatives a chance to pass on the action they took by order in council.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nonsense. That is what we are going to do right now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the issue. The Minister of Justice says that we are doing it now because we are voting on a motion of confidence in the speech from the throne. In this motion is that particular action of the government under consideration? Is it to be decided on any motion of confidence? The Minister of Justice knows it is a fantastic argument that if we vote the address in reply to the speech from the throne we confirm and ratify all the actions of the government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You have raised it yourself in this amendment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: But, Mr. Speaker, taxation without representation and refusing to let the representatives of the people even discuss the matter-


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is perfectly ridiculous.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -that is what is being done now. The Minister of Justice tries to support this, the Minister of Justice who once draped himself in a Canadian flag and walked out of this house because he said parliament's and the people's rights were being debased.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They were too. You were a party to that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I ask the Prime Minister once again, as the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) did this afternoon, is he going to give this parliament a chance to decide and to express its opinion on the austerity program of the government?


Donald Methuen Fleming: You have been doing it for ten days now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is going to be no opportunity given for us to discuss and decide on the taxation measures put into effect by the government by order in council and covering over $200 million of the people's money. That is the position that the government has taken. That is the issue in the amendment. It is as simple as that. We condemn the government. We have no confidence in a government that will take action of that kind, taxation on the basis of very doubtful legality at best, and then refusal to let the representatives of the people even discuss what they, the government, have done. How can any member of this House of Commons-


Donald Methuen Fleming: What have you been doing all these days?


Lester Bowles Pearson: -who believes in parliamentary government vote against an amendment of this kind?


Donald Methuen Fleming: What have you been doing for the past two weeks?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We put this subamendment before the house confident that every member of the house who really believes in parliamentary rights, parliamentary privileges and parliamentary government will vote for it and, Mr. Speaker, if the subamendment carries, if it means a general election, who are we to run away from a general election at this time?
It is very hard indeed, Mr. Speaker, to understand that a government, headed by my right hon. friend who once talked so much about the rights and privileges of parliament, will come into this house and tell us: We have done this by order in council and that

Division
is the last you are going to hear about it; you will be given no chance even to discuss it, let alone decide on it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You have been doing it for two weeks.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the very negation of parliamentary government-


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is a negation of the facts.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and that is only one reason why we have no confidence of any kind in this minority government at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am informed that it is 9.30, Mr. Speaker, and the vote is to be taken at 9.30. Therefore-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being 9.30 o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to section 4 of standing order 38, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question on any amendment or amendments before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: It now being ten o'clock this house stands adjourned until 2.30 o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At ten o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Wednesday, October 10, 1962