1963-05-27

Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assompiion-Monlcalm):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member from Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve) on May 22 made a speech in this house and later deleted an important part of it.
And to prove what I have just said, I refer to the Ottawa Citizen of May 25, 1963, and I quote:
(Text):
But he also spoke of the "last chance," and at the height of his oratory threw in a statement, following a list of Quebec complaints, that when "the bombs explode in Montreal, the people are astonished in Ottawa". (He later had that passage struck from the Hansard record, saying it was absolutely contrary to his meaning to indicate that he thought there was a cause and effect relationship) .
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, contrary to the rules of this house, the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Made-leine removed from his speech a passage which was quoted in the Ottawa Citizen.
In accordance with the rules of this house, the hon. member and yourself have to decide whether or not it would be advisable to have that passage included in the official report. (Text):


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: In the absence of the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine I wonder if I might say a word about the alleged question of privilege brought up by the hon. member for the hon. member for Joliette-l'Assomption-Montcalm. The hon. member has made a somewhat serious charge against the hon. member for lles-de-la-Madeleine and he has made it, not immediately after the Hansard appeared, but after the lapse of some time. It seems to me the appropriate course to take in the circumstances would be for Your Honour to take the point as notice and to defer dealing with it until the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine is here to speak for himself.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine is not here. It is not our fault on this side. If it is possible I should appreciate having your comment on this question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: My comment is very simple.
I am taken slightly by surprise, as are others this morning, and I would like to compare the original text with the printed version before rendering any decision. One must obviously get the facts before rendering a decision. So I think the point made by the Secretary of State is well taken, and I would ask the permission of the house to delay any judgment on this matter until we have had a chance to find out what the facts really are.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. The Minister of Agriculture is absent, and it may be that the Prime Minister will want to wait until his return before replying. Does the Prime Minister consider it appropriate for a minister of the crown in charge of the portfolio of agriculture to be engaged in the auctioning of cattle at an auction sale, and is not such a course in his view not in keeping, as I believe it is not, with the proprieties that one expects?


Righi Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I received no notice of this question, and the Minister of Agriculture is not here. I will discuss the matter with the minister and on the basis of the facts I will be glad to reply tomorrow or the next day.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister aware that a final communique in respect of accomplishments at the recent NATO meeting was issued well in advance of the holding of the conference?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Slale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
gentleman is not correct in the statement he has made. The communique that was issued at the end of the ministerial meeting on Friday last was not the communique that was
282	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry originally proposed by certain member states at that ministerial meeting. The final communique represents a drafting effort that was made during the course of the meeting, and in very large measure it represents many of the suggestions made by the Canadian delegation.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On Thursday last, May 23, I directed a question to the Prime Minister relative to newspaper reports of Canadian commitments to NATO. The Prime Minister replied in part as follows, an found at page 171 of Hansard of that date:
The Secretary of State for External Affairs will be reporting to the house on this matter on Monday, when the council meeting is over.
May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is that report going to be made, as promised by the Prime Minister last week?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that commitment too will be observed when I speak in the debate this afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of reports in various United States newspapers last year and recently and in other periodicals that an organization of German industrialists is financing a world wide publicity campaign to promote the hard line in the cold war, and in view of the fact that the United States state department, justice department and senate foreign relations committee are now seeking information about the organization and purpose of this group, has the minister any knowledge concerning the activities of this organization and, if so, has he any information he can give the house?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, until the hon. gentleman sent me notice of his question just before we met this morning I was not aware of the problem. I am not aware that any information has come to the department. However, I shall make the necessary inquiries.


(Translation):


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice, to whom I sent a few days ago a copy of the Quebec premier's ultimatum respecting a new tax sharing arrangement. Could the Minister of Justice tell the house whether he has studied this ultimatum and whether he feels it is important enough to make it known to other cabinet members?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I duly received the press releases the hon. member sent me. I even heard the Quebec premier, Mr. Lesage, on television, when he stated that he considered as an ultimatum the claims or proposals of the province of Quebec.
In the circumstances, I feel there is only one stand to take, that is, both in our discussions and during a federal-provincial conference on fiscal matters, the proposals of the province of Quebec will have to be considered as such.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Quebec premier has delivered his ultimatum, does the Minister of Justice not feel that it would be a waste of time to convene a conference on the matter?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing more to add to the answer I just gave.
(Text):



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the minister received a request from the British Columbia minister of mines for an early meeting to discuss the continental shelf or offshore rights in British Columbia, and if so what arrangements are contemplated in order to prevent this most important matter having to be referred to the supreme court for decision, as originally intended by the British Columbia government?


Hon. Arlhur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I should
like to thank the hon. member for having given me prior notice of his question.
It had been indicated by the attorney general of British Columbia that he was preparing a case for submission to the appeal court of British Columbia under, I think, the constitutional disputes determination act, a measure on the statute books of that province. Later he indicated that that intention was withdrawn. We did receive a letter from Hon. Mr. Kiernan, minister of mines, asking that a meeting be held in Ottawa to discuss this matter with him. He indicated a time after June 15, and we will, of course, make suitable arrangements.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with questions asked me by the hon. member for Queens and the hon. member for Medicine Hat last week concerning the financial situation of the United Nations, and particularly arising out of the problem of the major peace keeping operations of the organization.
These problems have recently been the subject of intensive review by a working group of 21 member states, including Canada. This group was unable, regrettably, to devise an agreed formula for long term financing. Its report suggested elements for an approach which could be adapted to meet the immediate problem of financing these peace keeping operations for the remainder of 1963.
Although other questions such as the payment of arrears and the improvement of budgetary procedures will be considered, the main task of the special assembly of the United Nations is to work out an acceptable method for sharing peace keeping costs on a basis of collective responsibility and a recognition that the less developed countries should be afforded some reduction in their assessments under the regular budgetary scale.
Negotiations to this end are now being vigorously pursued at the United Nations. The Canadian delegation is actually today meeting under its chairmanship with a group of member states to see if some particular formula cannot be devised. The situation is a serious one. The integrity of the United Nations is involved, and Canada is not leaving any effort unexpended in this matter.
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE



INQUIRY AS TO GRANTS TO CITIES FOR HEALTH PROGRAM STUDIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the announcement in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of Saturday, May 25 that a federal government grant of $27,000 has been approved for a study of the administration and health program of the city of Halifax, would the minister tell the house whether grants on a pro rata basis will be made to Lunenburg, Bridgewater and Liverpool, Nova Scotia, and whether similar grants will be made to all the cities in Canada?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I would be pleased if the hon. member would place this question upon the order paper, since it requires detailed information which I am sure would not be of equal interest to all hon. members of the house.



POSSIBLE CHANGES IN REGULATIONS RESPECTING USE OF PESTICIDES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the department considering possible changes in the regulations dealing with the use of pesticides in the light of the report made to President Kennedy by his scientific advisory committee, following which the U.S. government stopped the use of DDT sprays in the forests of the western United States and substituted another pesticide?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. member for giving me notice last week of this question. I would advise him that the regulations regarding the distribution and use of pesticides are the responsibility of my colleague in the Department of Agriculture which administers the Pest Control Products Act.
As far as my department is concerned, we have regulations under the Food and Drugs Act which are considered adequate and satisfactory at the present time. However, I assure the hon. member and the house that these regulations may be changed quickly and effectively should evidence that such a change is necessary come to light.
284	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



NUCLEAR WARHEADS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. I noticed a headline in this morning's Gazette which read, "Bomarc's Nuclear Warheads Due in Fall". Is that decision going to be made by this government without any further consultation in parliament?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That question does not deserve any reply because there has been consultation and there will be consultation on this matter in the defence committee which we propose to set up at once.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to follow that up with a supplementary question. In the same newspaper there is a statement reported to have been made by the president of the exchequer court to the effect that the present government does not have a mandate from the people to accept nuclear weapons. I was wondering if the Prime Minister would care to comment on that statement, particularly in the light of the fact that the president of this court was a friend of this government.



REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO TRAIN CONGOLESE ARMY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence, to ask him whether Canada has been approached to supply military training assistance to the Congolese army, and what response the Congolese government can expect from this request.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has received a request from the Congolese government, and the question is presently under study by the departments of external affairs and national defence.



CANADIAN REPRESENTATION ON LIAISON GROUP AT AIR COMMAND HEADQUARTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the suggestion made by Secretary McNamara of the United States respecting a nine man representation to be attached to the strategic air defence target planning force, are any Canadians to be representatives on this group?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman is referring to the liaison group of the supreme allied commander in Europe assigned to the strategic air command headquarters at Omaha, Nebraska, the question of future representation has not yet been determined.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the announcement in the report of the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited is seeking to purchase the northern Ontario section of this pipe line this year, is the government considering the renegotiation of the contract with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited so that the ownership of this pipe line can be retained by the people of Canada, who paid for it in the first place?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not in the house, as he is in Washington on official business. I would like to take that question as notice, and either he or I will reply to it shortly.



INCREASED EXPORTS DUE TO DOLLAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has his attention been drawn to a Canadian Press report out of Vancouver on Saturday in which his colleague, the Minister of Forestry, is reported to have indicated to a press conference that there has been a greater export volume and greater profits for Canada's multimillion dollar forest industry in the last 15 months, mainly because of this country's pegged dollar? If so, does this now represent government policy?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome a chance to reply to that question. I have not seen the report in the Vancouver newspapers, but the hon. member may know that I was perhaps one of the first people to suggest publicly that the dollar should be reduced in value

back in early 1960 when it was at a high premium. I think it would have been a good thing to have done at that time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As a supplementary question, I wonder has the Minister of Finance convinced his colleagues of this wisdom?
(Translation):



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagol):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. On September 18, 1961, his predecessor, Mr. Davie Fulton announced the erection of a medium security penal institution at St. Pie de Bagot. Can the minister tell the house when the work will start?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, if I remember correctly, several medium and super maximum security institutions are to be built in various parts of Canada. Unfortunately, I do not have all the information in my possession at this time; so I suggest to the hon. member to put his question on the order paper, and then it can be answered.
(Text):


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. I regret that I have not given him notice, but I am sure he will be able to answer it in detail.
Following a report in the Globe and Mail of this morning it would seem that the location of a new federal penitentiary site in Ontario has not been decided. My question is, does the minister know that an announcement was made on May 17, 1962 to the effect that an institution would be built in the Markdale-Dundalk area of Grey-Bruce constituency, and that public moneys have been spent accordingly?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I do know that, in so far as the question raised by the hon. member is concerned, there has been no selection of a site. However, having answered my hon. friend from St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) in the manner in which I did, I think it would be unfair if I did otherwise than say to the hon. member that because of the fact that a number of these institutions 28902-5-19
Inquiries of the Ministry are being constructed in Canada I have not details at my fingertips, and the question might well be put on the order paper.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and it may have to go on the order paper, as the Minister of Justice mentioned. The Globe and Mail report says, "Canada to build four penitentiaries this year". I was wondering whether one of those was the institution planned for Drumheller, Alberta.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that the plans for the construction of the institution in Drumheller did not require it to be built this year.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour, but in his absence perhaps I may address it to the acting minister. My question arises from a report that unemployed married men with families are being required to move from Sudbury, Ontario, to Thompson, Manitoba, or lose their unemployment insurance. What action is the government taking in this situation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to take that question as notice and ask the minister to reply, or have a reply made on his behalf at the earliest possible moment.
(Translation):



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Does he intend to amend the Post Office Act, if need be, so that post offices may close on Saturday, as several institutions, especially banks, are doing now?


Hon. Azellus Denis (Posimaster General):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this question deals with a matter of government policy, a statement to that effect will be made in the house in due course.

(Text):
Inquiries of the Ministry SUGAR



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON INQUIRY INTO PRICE INCREASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Fascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, but apparently he is away busily auctioning cattle so perhaps it can be answered by his parliamentary secretary. It concerns the increases in sugar prices, but it is a little different from earlier questions on the same subject.
The sugar price increases have affected the price of molasses, which is used in preparing feed concentrates, thus increasing the cost of livestock feeding. Has the minister taken this question into consideration, and is he making any recommendation to the government for a possible control on sugar prices as advocated in a Winnipeg newspaper?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the great concern about the increase in the price of sugar and similar commodities, and in view of conflicting reports in the papers some attributing it to speculation and others to a shortage of supplies, would the minister get all the information possible on this situation and make a full report to the house so that it will satisfy the Canadian people?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows I did make a lengthy, fairly general statement on Thursday, and I indicated to the house that the matter was under surveillance by the director of research and investigation of the combines investigation branch. I shall take further notice of my hon. friend's question and make sure that the study with reference to this important matter is kept alive.


John George Diefenbaker: If I may ask a supplementary question in this connection, Mr. Speaker, I have secured the statistics as to the amount of sugar in storage in Canada, and I find that as of March 31 there were 470 million pounds. Does not the minister feel that in view of the tremendous increase in price that has taken place since March 31 more than just a general view of the matter should be taken by him, in view of the unconscionable profit being made and the unfairness to Canadian consumers?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the right hon. gentleman knows, the matter is determined by statute, and I think the statute is quite clear as to the responsibilities
of the director of research and investigation. I shall be glad, of course, to bring this additional information to his attention at once. But from the statement which I made on Thursday last there would certainly appear to have been no profiteering from the point of view of the refiners of sugar.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: I simply add this, that I will ask the director to look at the matter anew in the light of the information given to the house by the right hon. gentleman.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the government yet found a way to provide retroactive pay increases to those former civil servants who retired after the date the pay increases were made effective but before they were actually announced?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, this is a question which is under consideration and I hope to have something to say about it shortly. As the hon. gentleman knows, this matter comes under a statute and is provided for in the statute. The members of my department are giving consideration to this question, and that is all I can say at this time.



INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE AMENDMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the number of ex-senior civil servants currently sitting on the government treasury benches, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he foresees any future changes in the Civil Service Act or regulations.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can see, sir, no connection whatsoever between the preamble and the question.


John George Diefenbaker: And there is no connection between the answer and the question.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister

of northern affairs. Is the minister considering discussions with his counterparts in the provinces with a view to continuing and extending the present roads to resources program, which has proved so successful in the development of the north?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member I would say that a continuing number of applications are coming in from the various provinces. We are in effect extending the programs individually. The hon. member suggests that conference with a provincial group might well be of advantage, and I think I would agree with him; but we are receiving various submissions from the provinces and are giving them every consideration.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question. Are these submissions being dealt with individually, or is consideration being given to a group meeting?


Arthur Laing: At the present time they are being dealt with individually by provinces. The hon. member is suggesting that a nation wide discussion be held, and I think his suggestion has much merit to it.
(Translation):



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENTS TO COMMISSION ON BICULTURALISM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question about the royal commission on biculturalism. Does he intend to appoint to that commission Messrs. Andre Laurendeau and Gerard Pelletier, journalists?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course, Mr. Speaker, it is improper to ask the government who will be appointed to a particular commission. The commission has not yet been set up but will be set up very shortly.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, of which I gave him notice last week, but due to the fact that he was attending the NATO conference I did not put the question. Has the 28902-5-19J
Inquiries of the Ministry attention of the minister been drawn to the Canadian Press article appearing in the Ottawa Citizen of May 21 to the effect that the Royal Canadian Air Force shipped the first CF-104 low level jet bombers to Europe before they were combat-ready in an attempt to force the former prime minister's hand on the nuclear warheads issue? Can the minister inform the house whether this statement is accurate, and whether it is true that the planes required some 40 modifications on their arrival in West Germany?


Mr. Speaker:: Might I interrupt to suggest that this is a question for the order paper.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I suggest that the last part of the question as to whether or not 40 modifications were required may be a matter for the order paper, but the question whether the statement is accurate that these planes were shipped to Canadian forces in Germany before they were combat-ready seems to be a matter of fairly urgent importance.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. In reply I can tell him that I saw the article referred to in the Ottawa Citizen, and there is no truth in the allegation contained in the first part of the question. The aircraft were delivered in accordance with predetermined squadron formation dates, and at no time were any instructions received by the air force to postpone delivery. In this connection I should like to draw attention to a question asked of the former minister of national defence, the hon. member for Calgary North, on September 15, 1961, as to when the first squadrons of CF-104's would be posted overseas. The answer given at that time was "in November 1962".
As to the second part of the question, the agreed schedule of delivery called for the first squadrons to be sent overseas with some modifications still to be done. These have been carried out by R.C.A.F. personnel in Zweibriicken assisted by a mobile repair party from Scottish Aviation Limited. As was pointed out to the writer of the article some time ago, the modifications were not of such a nature as to preclude essential squadron flying training in preparation for the full operational role. I might add that there is nothing unusual about aircraft requiring modifications after their acceptance from a contractor.

Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY



TRENTON, N.S.-REQUEST FOR ORDER FOR RAILWAY CARS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Transport yet able to answer the question I directed to him on Wednesday last?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I had hoped to answer this question last Friday, but at the conclusion of the question hour events moved rather rapidly and I did not want to interrupt.
I have been in touch with Canadian National Railways, and the management advise that tenders, which were called for 100 covered hopper cars and on which this company bid, are now under consideration. The management add that they have no immediate requirements for additional car equipment, but if and when further tenders are invited the Eastern Car plant will be given an opportunity to bid along with other manufacturers.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, last week I directed a question to the Minister of Transport and he promised to bring down an answer. The question was whether the air transport board had refused a licence to British Columbia Airlines to fly a charter flight from Vancouver to Sullivan Bay in order to take loggers to an operation because of the strike of Pacific Western Airlines employees.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the question is correct but the second part of the question is very wrong. The facts are these: The air transport board advise that British Columbia Airlines is licensed by the board to operate a charter service from a base at Vancouver. The board denied an application by British Columbia Airlines to operate charter flights between Vancouver and Sullivan Bay because the operation was considered to circumvent a long standing regulation of the board affording route protection to air carriers who operate scheduled air services. The scheduled carrier in this case was Pacific Western Airlines.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister whether this decision has not in effect banned the international woodworkers from being
[Mr. Hellyer.l
able to fly their members to Sullivan Bay without crossing the picket line set up by the employees of the Pacific Western Airlines. Was not the decision of the air transport board helping, in effect, to break a strike?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker.



OPERATION OF CAFETERIA IN CENTRE BLOCK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State in his capacity as leader of the house. This is not a matter of national urgency, but it is one which affects every member of this house as of today, and believing that a problem should be removed before it becomes an irritant I should like to ask the hon. gentleman whether, in view of the fact that the joint Senate-House of Commons restaurant committee has not yet been appointed, he could find out who issued the regulations which went into effect today regarding the cafeteria in the centre block. I ask him to do this because under the new system, if you want a glass of milk you can get it, but if you want a milkshake you must go to the restaurant in the west block. If you want a sandwich, you may get one between the hours of 12 noon and 2 p.m. but not between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m., the period during which the house takes its recess, or at any other time. I think I am right in calling attention now to this situation which has arisen because of some stupid regulations which were put into effect, and I ask the leader of the house to look into the matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. lady, my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, is one of the commissioners of internal economy, and I am going to ask her to look into this matter.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, May 24, consideration of the motion of Miss Pauline Jewett for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to the speech from the throne delivered by His Excellency the Administrator at the opening of the session.
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: My speech was not intended to be a cliff-hanger or to be delivered in serial form, but in view of the limitation of time on Friday I was obliged to interrupt it. Now I am pleased to deliver part two.
When the house rose on Friday I was speaking about the Atlantic development

board and the government's intention, according to the resolution, to make available $100 million to be divided throughout the tour Atlantic provinces by 11 nominated men. This amounts to $20 million a year for 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968, and a question arises regarding the method to be used for the division of this money. What projects will receive priority? Will political considerations supersede economic need? After all, two of the Atlantic provinces have Liberal premiers and two are blessed with Conservative leadership; and the board, with its six additions, will be top heavy with Grits. I sincerely hope the board will give consideration to those projects which will be of benefit to the entire region. We have to do something with this money, little though it may be in relation to the large area to be serviced.
In my opinion the first item for consideration could be the distribution to our universities of some of these development funds. Serving as I do on the board of Waterloo Lutheran University, I am aware of the tremendous growth taking place in this institution in Ontario. Our maritime universities are faced with a similar need for expansion. For example, it is estimated that enrolment at Dalhousie, St. Francis Xavier and Acadia will be doubled within the next ten years. Funds must be found in order to provide the necessary facilities and professors.
We in the Atlantic provinces, and in Nova Scotia in particular, have laboured under a serious disability in connection with the federal university grants program. Because of our high student enrolment in relation to our provincial population, we haye received grants well below the national average. In fact Nova Scotia stands at the bottom of the list, receiving $214 per student last year compared with $495 in Newfoundland and $360 in Ontario. In an age when men are planning a trip to the moon, we have a duty to provide necessary university facilities for our professional, business and political leaders of tomorrow.
A second project I would suggest to the Atlantic development board for consideration concerns the desirability of providing assistance toward establishing an additional ferry service between Nova Scotia and Gloucester, Massachusetts. This would open up a vast potential tourist market, since some 30 million people live in the Gloucester-Boston area. The present ferry, the Bluenose, is unable to handle all the traffic, especially during the peak period from June 1 to September 30. Once these tourists arrive in Nova Scotia they will no doubt wish to visit other Atlantic provinces, and I need not point out the economic benefits that accrue to all our business people from an expanded tourist
The Address-Mr. Crouse industry. It is quite possible they may wish to travel to Newfoundland, to the province of Prince Edward Island or to the province represented so well in this house by the former minister of forestry (Mr. Flemming), the province of New Brunswick. I would urge the government to do everything possible to bring about this worth-while project, bearing in mind that a second ferry service would also provide new outlets and a faster delivery service for our expanding fishing industry.
Speaking of the fishing industry, I note in the speech from the throne that the government is initiating consultation with the provinces to work out a program for national fishery development. Apparently members and supporters of the present government are oblivious to the fact that during the six years when they sat in opposition we brought in a shipbuilding program which is providing new opportunities for our fishermen. The Liberals, when they were previously in office, put into effect a program whereby subsidies were discontinued in respect of ships over 65 feet in length. Unlike them, we instituted a policy whereby a federal subsidy is paid on ships of any length of over 45 feet. As a result our shipyards are booming from Cape Breton to Yarmouth. In my riding the shipbuilding yards in Mahone Bay, Lunenburg and Dayspring have a year's work booked ahead, while at Liverpool, Nova Scotia, a steel ship is under construction for the first time in history, all as a result of the constructive and far reaching policies worked out and put into operation by a Conservative government. These ships are all of a size which will assure greater safety to our fishermen while assisting them to earn larger incomes. I only wish the former prime minister, the present Leader of the Opposition, could visit Nova Scotia to see the beneficial effects of his shipbuilding program. However, we welcome any program which will be of benefit to our fishing industry, and I will watch with interest the program to be put forward by the present administration.
In the speech from the throne there is a statement indicating that the government intends to establish a 12-mile limit for the benefit of Canadian fishermen. All of us from the Atlantic provinces are interested in the fishing industry in one way or another, and I have placed a resolution on the order paper asking the present government to take immediate action to conserve our marine fishery resources by declaring certain bodies of water adjacent to our coast Canadian national waters. I have suggested that the straight base line method be used to measure the breadth of territorial seas, and that recognition be given by Canada to the historic

The Address-Mr. Crouse fishing rights of France and the United States in Canadian national waters.
This is in keeping with the views I expressed in the house when speaking on the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act on January 30, 1962. A base line drawn from Grand Manan to cape Fourchu would seal off the bay of Fundy, while a base line drawn from cape Sable to Scatari island would seal off St. Margaret bay and Chedabucto bay. A line drawn from cape North to Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, would seal off the gulf of St. Lawrence, and this would then become a territorial sea wherein conservation measures could be carried out on the vast Bradelle bank and Orphan bank.
This action will not solve all our problems, but the rapid increase in world fishing effort and efficiency and the terrific concentration of foreign trawlers off our coast have focused attention on the fact that unless some safeguards are taken the marine resources that have played such a vital role in the development of the Canadian economy will be harvested by foreign fleets. However, in my opinion France and the United States should be given historic rights in Canadian national waters. France owns the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, and along with the United States has historic rights under the treaty of Utrecht of 1713 modified by the convention of 1904 and the treaty of London of 1818. Nations not having historic fishing rights with Canada should be denied access to our marine resources within the areas enclosed by the proposed base line.
I am concerned, however, by a statement made by the present Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill). Speaking during the recent election campaign at Sydney, Nova Scotia he said:
Under a Liberal government foreign fishing ships would not be permitted within the 12-mile limit.
This is reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald.
Mr. Pickersgill, in a quick swing through Cape Breton, said Liberals would call a federal-provincial conference on the fish business. "We are not going to beat around the bush about the 12-mile limit.' He said if other nations would not go along "we will do it alone."
The present Prime Minister, also speaking at Sydney, said:
Because an agreement of a 12-mile limit had not been reached, X think the time has now come for such unilateral action. I am sure that if Norway and Iceland can do this, so can we in a way which will not cause difficulties with our friends.
That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what we are hoping to prevent, namely difficulties with our friends. We do not want a gunboat fisheries policy in the Atlantic provinces similar to the gunboat policy of Iceland in

September, 1958. The export of Canadian fisheries products reached a record in 1962 of $156,615,000, an increase of 9 per cent over 1961. We are the third largest fish exporting nation in the world, and we rank seventh among the fish producing nations. More than 79,000 Canadians are commercial fishermen and, just for the record, the United States imports approximately 70 per cent of Canada's total fish exports. I need not point out to the house the economic havoc that the loss of this market would create in the Atlantic provinces as the result of any rash or hasty action on the part of the present administration.
According to the press, President Kennedy continues to favour the three-mile territorial and fisheries limit. If this is so, we in the Atlantic provinces want to know. We have a right to know, for our very livelihood is at stake, about the government's negotiations with the United States on a 12-mile fishing limit. I believe this 12-mile limit can only be established through international agreement and by giving American fishermen equal rights with Canadian fishermen, thereby assuring continuing friendly relations between our two countries and the continuing expansion of the market for our fishery products.
The United States fishing industry is highly organized. They have the national fisheries institute in Washington as well as an organization called the New Bedford seafood council. With the rapid expansion of our ground-fish industry and our scallop industry, we must have continuing free access to the United States market if we are to avoid a serious marketing problem in the Atlantic provinces. We need to start some measures of conservation such as I have outlined, but we must also maintain our markets, and I cannot urge too strongly upon the present administration the necessity of attaining both these objectives.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to take this opportunity of offering you the customary congratulations upon your appointment to the position of Speaker of this house. I should like to add another motive for these congratulations: there exists now in the house an atmosphere of freedom that we had not known for at least a year. However, I must assure you of our co-operation, for freedom of speech does not necessarily mean libertinism.
Mr. Speaker, since the last session, there was a general election and once more the people again had to choose their representatives in the house. There have been few

changes. Two political parties have changed sides in the house, but since then, I believe that their speeches, whether they sit on the right or on the left, are strangely similar. The members of the present opposition claim that everything was fine when they were in power and those who are presently in power say that they form the best government Canada has ever had, or exactly the opposite of what was taking place last year.
Mr. Speaker, the last election taught us a lesson. Money has been spent during the last campaign, and a kind of brainwashing was performed on a large scale throughout the country. But, in spite of everything, it was apparent that, during the last election, the voters did not fall as they have in the past, for these brainwashing techniques accompanied by high sounding publicity, as well as by heavy expenditures. The Quebec population had enough judgment to give more than 600,000 votes, or 30 per cent of the total in the province of Quebec to a middle party, that is to say the Social Credit party, which carried out its campaign with very little money, relying mostly on the dedication of its benevolent organizers. I believe that the province of Quebec would have sent to Ottawa a majority of Social Credit members had 10 or 12 per cent more voters supported us.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to pay a well-deserved tribute to two persons who have spread wholesome ideas and done a task of political, social and economical education throughout the country. I am thinking, first of all, of our national leader, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), who did not make any false promise, but who was content with putting forward ideas to the Canadian population, explaining the problems that we have to face today. He did not roam about the country decrying people or seeking to prejudice reputations or to spread falsehoods throughout the country. Rather, he tried to propose a solution, a monetary system which would give a new expansion to the Canadian economy, an expansion which the country can enjoy and which it deserves at present.
In second place, I should like to address my congratulations to our national assistant leader, the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) for the manner in which he conducted the election campaign in the province of Quebec. It was also a clean campaign; he outlined ideas and tried to appeal to the common sense of the people, rather than to their lowest instincts.
The Address-Mr. Gregoire
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the speech from the throne that we have before us is somewhat vague, but I suggest that it is like all the other speeches from the throne. It gives indications that there might be some achievements from the legislation that the government will bring forward. Let us hope that the attitude of the government in this field will differ from that it seems to take in the case of the matters that we had been putting forward since the beginning of the session. We get vague replies, or rather, no replies at all. When we put a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), his favourite answers can be summed up in the following manner: "We shall give you a reply in due time. We shall take care of that a little later. We cannot make an announcement right now".
Their answers are most evasive and I hope that in the future members of the cabinet can be more factual and give us the answers we expect to get.
Mr. Speaker, the most serious problem today is still the economic situation. Our people live in a condition of prevailing economic stagnation. In fact, unemployment is developing at a rate a little too high for a country such as Canada. We note that industry finds it difficult to develop, that it cannot advance. At the same time, trade is declining.
We must get our economy moving again and provide for its expansion.
The speech from the throne announced measures aimed at giving expansion to our Canadian economy but it does not contain a paragraph that we find in the Liberal party platform for the 1963 general election. In fact, I have that platform in my hand and on page 11 I find a paragraph which does not appear in the speech from the throne but which would have opened the door to all the solutions that the speech from the throne would like to apply. I think that paragraph is more important than all the rest of the Liberal party policy and even more important than the speech from the throne itself. I quote:
A new Liberal government will see to it that the money supply is large enough to insure that tight money will not paralyse business-
A new Liberal government will see to it that the money supply is large enough-
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the major problem facing Canada at this time is that of the money supply. Our country's possibilities are out of proportion with the amount of currency in circulation.

The Address-Mr. Gregoire
It is proposed to help create new industries at a time when existing industries are marking time and several of them have to close down or reduce production. Why is that? Because the available money supply is not sufficient for Canadian consumers to purchase all our production.
And by Canadian consumers, I mean the federal government, the provincial governments, the municipalities and the school boards as well as the individuals.
This morning questions were addressed to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) about construction of penitentiaries. Everybody in this house will agree that there is a scarcity of penitentiaries, but the Minister of Justice stated: "We cannot build any because our budget does not enable us to". So this is a matter of budget not a matter of our country's productive capacity.
People ask for the erection of post offices. The erection of those buildings is acknowledged to be imperative, but our budget is such that we cannot afford it.
For many long years, the voters in my riding have requested the erection of an armoury building. It will not be built because our budget does not allow it.
Yet the capacity for building those structures is there. But the money supply, the credit which would enable us to erect those buildings and thus reduce unemployment, is not there. Why? Simply because the government has no control over the money supply, over the credit which would enable this country to expand.
The present Liberal administration is fully aware of that because they said in their program:
A new Liberal government will see to it that the money supply is large enough to ensure that tight money will not paralyse business-
And it is precisely a tight money situation which is paralysing business today.
Consider for instance the government of the province of Quebec facing all sorts of difficulties because they do not have available to them the credit that would be necessary for a full expansion of industry, as well as of the education, health and highway facilities. Since they do not have the necessary credit, the government of the province of Quebec are now serving an ultimatum-this is the word used by the premier of the province of Quebec himself-asking a better tax-sharing arrangement from the federal government in order

that the provinces may develop by themselves, and this ultimatum from the province of Quebec is based on the need to obtain new credit to successfully implement their program, because the province of Quebec has roads to build but no money to do it.
On the other hand, the federal government are in a sort of disastrous situation. They find themselves in hot water because this request comes from one of the main supporters of the federal Liberal party in the last general election, none other than the premier of the province of Quebec.
But, the present administration know very well that they cannot return to the province its sources of revenue because they are themselves in a disastrous financial situation at the present time and they must face unbalanced budgeting and accumulated deficits. This government must face the problem of health insurance and they must replenish the unemployment insurance fund. How can we expect the federal government to do away with its sources of revenue when it needs them itself.
We can feel at the present time that there is dissension between the two levels of government and it is due not only to the fact that the money is not there for those who need it but also that the governments try to grab for themselves the little there is. In fact, it is as if there were on a plate a single piece of pie over which the federal government and the provincial governments were fighting.
The best suggestion we can make to the government at the present time is to read over carefully that section on page 11 of the Liberal platform for the 1963 general election. If the government applied that section, it would realize that all the other pledges that they made or which are contained in that booklet can be readily implemented.
In fact, this booklet contains statements concerning old age pensions and assistance for the construction of houses. But nothing can be done now because, as it happens, no money is available for that purpose.
I wish to point out to the house many problems which are ignored in our country at the present time, especially the role assigned to the industrial development bank. That institution was established to help the existing small industries, but it now refuses about 90 per cent of the loans' applications,

precisely because it does not have the necessary money to help small industry to develop. There is no co-ordination between the various departments who could help to solve the industry's problems. In this connection, I should like to mention a striking example of what took place in my riding.
Some time ago, that is immediately after the holiday period, a manufacturer in my riding, who owned a small mattress industry, was hiring ten employees at the time, but had orders on hand which exceeded ten times the number of mattresses he was able to put out, i.e., from 800 to 900 mattresses a year. Now, I accompanied that business man who wanted to obtain a loan from the industrial development bank. After having submitted his request, he was told: "We cannot grant you a loan, your business is not large enough." Now, mind you, Mr. Speaker, this man is anxious to enlarge his business, and it was for that very purpose that he was asking for a loan of $40,000, which would have enabled him to hire 50 new employees, and to reduce the number of Canadian unemployed proportionately, and more particularly in my riding.
After he had exhausted all arguments, I said to the manager. "But if you grant him a loan of $40,000, this means that there will be 50 fewer unemployed in the county of Jon-quiere, who will then have no need for social benefits or unemployment insurance payments-each of them receives an average of $100 a month in unemployment insurance benefits. This would therefore, mean a saving of $60,000 a year for the unemployment insurance fund, for this is the amount now paid in benefits to the 50 unemployed who would then have found work. If the government had granted a loan of $40,000 to this small business man, it would, in a year, have saved $60,000 for the unemployment insurance fund; moreover the federal government would receive taxes from those former unemployed who would be working and realize a profit even if the loan were not immediately repaid.
But the manager answered: "I understand those needs very well; however, this is no concern of mine. It comes under the unemployment insurance branch."
And if you try to explain that problem to the unemployment insurance commission officials, they will not understand it either.
As you see, Mr. Speaker, there is no coordination between the various government 28902-5-20
The Address-Mr. Gregoire departments. The unemployment insurance commission is interested only in paying allowances to the unemployed, without requiring the latter to work. On the other hand the industrial development bank is not interested at all in helping reduce unemployment in Canada.
Rather than keep on creating a lot of boards, economic councils and so on, the services of all government departments should be co-ordinated in order that the taxpayers' money be spent wisely.
Mr. Speaker, last year, amendments were made by this house to the federal Farm Credit Corporation Act, so that farmers of the province of Quebec, like those of eastern Canada, could derive greater profit from it. We hoped it would be a good piece of legislation.
Well, in my riding, hundreds of requests were made, but barely 2 per cent were accepted.
Legislation is adopted to help the farmer, but when the farmer asks for any assistance, it is refused, so that the act becomes almost inoperative. What good is it then to pass legislation in this House of Commons if it is not put to some use, and inspectors or managers in the various government departments see to it that it is not.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to deal with another problem. There has been talk in the house lately about problems raised by the coexistence of the two great nations making up our country. Mention is made of the establishment of a royal commission on bicul-turalism or the study of that problem.
I read in a newspaper this morning that a government member has made a suggestion which I feel is very sensible. He said: "In the forthcoming days and months, we should concentrate in obtaining bilingualism in the federal civil service without further delay." And the member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin) expresses fear that the holding of a royal commission on biculturalism might well lead French Canada to miss the boat once again.
It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that because of the delays which will ensue from the inquiry, we may lose sight of our objective. As the hon. member for iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve) stated the other day, there are many things which should be improved in our own house; the structures of the federal government, of parliament itself, should be revised. Even in the parliament buildings, in Ottawa, there are serious gaps as far as bilingualism is concerned.

The Address-Mr. Gregoire
In my opinion, the present government should not wait until the royal commission on biculturalism submits a report to put its own house in order. It should ensure that throughout Canada, full recognition is given to bilingualism not only in all fields pertaining to federal jurisdiction but also in matters which come under the provinces. Lately I received two pamphlets. One is a C.N.R. publication called "C.N. Keeps Track" which deals with a certain number of promotions. That was the issue of May 1963, written in English. Out of 24 promotions given lately at the C.N.R., only three went to French Canadians. That is what is happening in May 1963, only five or six months after the repentant president of the C.N.R. assured us that there would be no recurrence of such situations.
I have also before me the Canadian Travel News, written in English.
(Text):
T.C.A. holds staff Instructional courses for personnel.
(Translation):
Courses, that is, to prepare its personnel for promotions. Out of the 29 employees who follow those courses there is not a single French Canadian.
It is my contention, sir, that the government should look more closely into the matter; it should institute reforms right now instead of waiting for the establishment of a commission of inquiry.
But I think that a still more serious problem exists. Language is not the only difficulty in Canada today. My grandfather and my father spoke French in the province of Quebec; I speak French and my seven-year-old son speaks French very well. I am convinced that we will keep on speaking our language, and we have proved it for 200 years.
However, the heart of the problem lies somewhere else. It is rather that at the present time, among French speaking Canadians, especially in the province of Quebec, the idea of "decolonization" is spreading, as it is throughout the world, but in our province it is more a matter of "economic decolonization".
We feel that, in the economic field, Canadians from coast to coast are more or less "economically colonized" by foreign countries. We do not control our own economy. We do not control our own industry. And the French

Canadians, feeling this much more deeply than the English Canadians at the present time- I am sure of that-would like to break those chains, those economic ties that bind us too closely to other countries.
Now, in this economic decolonization effort the French Canadians lack the support of the English Canadians to walk in line with them. They feel that, in this decolonization effort, they have to drag the English Canadians along with them, and the burden they have to carry becomes too heavy. They say: we might as well go it alone and let the other provinces sink into foreign economic control, if that is what they wish.
Proofs of this are to be seen everywhere. A few days ago, I received-and all hon. members must have received it too-a report on small loan companies from the superintendent of insurance for Canada. I always go through these reports for I find them interesting. For instance, take the two largest of these small finance companies operating in Canada. The largest one, Beneficial Finance Company of Canada, has an authorized and issued capital of $10 million. Out of these $10 million, $9,980,000 have been issued to Beneficial Finance Company of Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A., and only $20,000 were issued to Canadians. Twenty thousand dollars, out of $10 million, were issued to Canadians and $9,980,000 to an American company. Last year, with this authorized and issued capital of $10 million, this company had a surplus of $9,188,738.01. Making $9,188,000 with an authorized capital of $10 million is what I would call a paying proposition. But profits do not go to Canadians; they go to an American company that comes here to get our money. This is what I feel is important: they come in our country to get our money.
The second finance company mentioned in the report, Household Finance Corporation of Canada, has an authorized capital of $5 million, but with $3,075,000 issued and paid up. The president, Mr. F. A. McDonald of Chicago, Illinois, has subscribed $3,052,000 out of $3,075,000 which leaves about $17,000 subscribed by Canadians. That gives you an idea of the situation, Mr. Speaker.
And you can look into all the other branches of our economy. Not so long ago, two important Canadian chartered banks, the Imperial Bank of Canada and the Canadian Bank of Commerce, merged under the name

of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. According to the Canada Gazette a British bank is the major stockholder in the merger.
Foreign capital controls our economy in such sectors as financial companies, industrial concerns, banks and many others. From the economic viewpoint, Canada is a colony, under the control of foreign enterprises, and our country has become a sort of private hunting ground, where these enterprises become rich at our expense.
In the field of insurance, how many Canadian companies sell insurance in France, Great Britain, the United States or Belgium? On the other hand, innumerable foreign insurance companies come over here, collect Canadian money and pocket their profits. The same situation prevails in all other areas.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I say that we feel we are not the masters of our own country. And industry in the province of Quebec does not belong to English speaking Canadians.
No, it is not the citizens in the province of Ontario who are to blame if we are not masters of our own industries in our province of Quebec. It is rather the result of a whole set of circumstances if our industries today are owned, not by Canadians but by foreigners.
Like the citizens of other countries who in the last few years, had felt the same need, the French Canadian people want to throw off the foreign yoke. If they cannot get the co-operation and collaboration of the English speaking Canadians in order to share in this struggle for economic liberation and that of their province, then the French Canadians are prepared to go ahead alone, because the Canadians from the other parts of the country do not seem ready to participate in the same effort in order to free themselves from the economic foreign hold which controls our economy today.
Mr. Speaker, I think that it is a very sensible feeling.
How is it that every year our minister of finance tells us: "We have a tremendous trade deficit". Last year, in reply to a question, the then minister of finance, who is now in the opposition, said this:
There was an outflow of $1,100 million in Canadian money last year in payment of dividends, interest and profits to foreign companies operating our Canadian industries.
28902-5-20i
The Address-Mr. Gregoire
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, because while Canadian labour unions in the nine other provinces are all branches of international unions, in the province of Quebec we have a Canadian union, the confederation of labour unions, which is the only important independent union in the province of Quebec and in all Canada.
Even the labour leaders in the other provinces accept such a situation, that is being under the control of international unions. It is amazing, all the same, to find that money is leaving Canada under the form of labour contributions paid to international labour unions. It is amazing also that English speaking workers do not realize that they are themselves under the economic domination of foreigners.
I am sure our workers in Quebec are intelligent enough to look after their own. They have set up their own trade unions, like the C.S.N., which is in a much better position today than the unions which have to take orders from outside.
I have touched upon only a few points relating to finance companies, trade unions and Canadian industries. However, I could give many other instances.
If we wish to realize national unity, we will have to get together and become masters in our own house.
Mr. Speaker, we do not even have a distinctive Canadian flag. Is that not a sufficient proof of our immaturity? How then can we hope to shake off the last remnants of foreign political domination? But such is indeed our present state of mind.
Some of my constituents sometimes tell me: "We have the Queen's picture on our dollar bills; does it mean that if these dollars are scarce, it is because the Queen of England does not wish to give us more?"
Mr. Speaker, French Canadians want to throw off the last traces of foreign sway. Their claim appears to be just and reasonable. I think, as they do, that if all Canadians throughout the country worked together to abolish foreign control of their economy, they would be masters in their own home, freed from the control of foreign enterprises whose head offices are on foreign soil.
A truly Canadian flag is naturally very important, but not quite as important as to be master of one's own castle. Perhaps the

The Address-Mr. Mather English speaking Canadians are not too concerned about their freedom, but French Canadians are very attached to it. If the English speaking provinces do not wish to help us to free ourselves in every respect, we would be ready to mark off the boundaries of our own province.
When we are promised a flag within two years, I cannot but recall that the French Canadians had to fight for 20 years in order to obtain at last bilingual cheques and the right to conduct bank transactions in both languages. The former minister of finance settled the matter in five seconds. He merely said to the printer: "Print the cheques in both languages".
The same thing should be done as regards the choice of a flag. The question would be settled as quickly as the other one if the Prime Minister just gave to the employee appointed to hoist the flag on the parliament buildings the order to hoist some distinctive national flag, whatever its design. It is useless to spend two years trying to find a proper design, for there will always be people who are not satisfied. There are 4,000 designs of flags at present in the files of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill). However, it would be possible to select a distinctive flag within the space of ten seconds.
You may find I am simplifying the problem. In fact, it has to be simplified if it is to be settled. The important thing is to be free from all traces of ties and domination such as we have had in the past.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that all the problems Canada now has to face in the economic field can be solved.
I have mentioned but one point taken in a brief paragraph of the Liberal program. I do not wish to be unduly critical of the new government, for I do want it to prove itself, especially concerning the questions I raised earlier.
I shall end here, since my time has expired. Let the suggestion contained in this short paragraph be put in practice, and many problems will be solved, which is what all Canadians wish. Then we shall reach a lasting understanding in our country.
(Text):


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, the compliments which previous speakers have paid to yourself and your deputy on your appointments have been so well worded that I think it unnecessary for me to further take up the time of the house by repeating them. However, I would like to say just this, that in my opinion if the government only shows the same good judgment

in other matters during this session as it did in your appointments, the work and responsibility of the opposition would be very greatly reduced.
Mr. Speaker, I come from the riding of New Westminster, which is the deep southwest of Canada. This riding has more people in it than has the province of Prince Edward Island. It is the largest riding, as regards population, west of Toronto. As I say, we have more people in our riding than there are in the province of Prince Edward Island. That province, however, as you know, has at all times four members in this house and four members in the other place, whereas our riding of New Westminster, with its larger population, has only Senator Reid and myself to carry on all its work. So you can see how busy we must be, sir.
In many respects New Westminster is, I think, a good cross section representation of many other ridings of Canada. We have many large developments in agriculture, dairying, fruit and vegetable growing. We have a large fishing fleet based there, many lumbering and saw mill operations, plus a growing number of secondary industrial manufacturing concerns. In addition, many people who work in the larger city of Vancouver make their home in the three municipalities and three cities of New Westminster riding.
I think the people who live in our riding are very much like the people who reside in other parts of Canada. They have the same basic needs. They want health, education, employment and peace. They have sent me here again, sir, to do what I can to get these elementary things for them and make them possible for their children. In my view I can only succeed to the degree that this nation, and indeed the whole world, proceeds on the basis of planning and co-operation for the welfare of the majority.
Mr. Speaker, we in the New Democratic party have very little hope of the present administration achieving very much along that line. As the previous prime minister said, I think last session, "We hope but with little hope". We know, like the official opposition whose members are mostly still dedicated to the ideals of outmoded laissez faire capitalism, that the government has the same general ideas, and that it has only reluctantly and out of economic necessity begun to speak now of economic planning and collective collaboration. We know there are serious omissions in the throne speech. There are many subjects which have not been gone into. For example, I think a very serious problem in this country which we should face up to is the fact that we are spending something like 40

cents of each federal tax dollar on the nonconstructive items of armaments and debt interest. Can we afford to do this?
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, our party sees in the throne speech, after all these years, a few of the things which we in this party, and in the C.C.F. before us and in the Progressives before them, a few of the things which we worked to bring about. We see that the throne speech promises action on planning and on economic boards for the better production and distribution of goods and services. Second, we welcome in the throne speech an intimation that there is to be a beginning of contributory pensions and an increase in the present pension. We hope again that these matters will be undertaken in very short order, and that it will not be proved to be a move which will be too little and too late. It might be considered that for the past 15 or 20 years in this country approximately 25 per cent of the value of pensions has been consumed by the constant inflation which has taken place over that period.
The subject of redistribution is mentioned in the throne speech, and we are all for that. There is a pressing need for Canada to redress the present unfair basis of representation in parliament which gives such legislative power into the hands of rural minorities. As you know, in the United States citizens in urban and suburban communities have recently taken action in the courts to secure a better form of representation for themselves in the councils of their nation. In Canada, Mr. Speaker, we in the New Democratic party have consistently polled over one million votes, which should entitle us on a numerical basis to something like 35 to 40 seats in this house. Yet the system of representation which we have-or should I say "misrepresentation"-limits us to about half that number. We are glad to see that the government intends to redistribute our electoral units. We would also favour action to bring in absentee voting. At the present time scores of thousands of industrial workers are disfranchised at every election.
The 12-mile fishing limit is also mentioned in the throne speech and is a matter which has been fought for by those of us in this part of the house for many years. Indeed, I have a bill calling for the 12-mile limit on the order paper at this time, and I had it there last session. While I am not from Missouri but from British Columbia, where the people long ago learned to distinguish between promises and performances, I intend to leave my bill on the order paper until I see the legislation the government is speaking of bringing in.
Mr. Speaker, we in this part of the house consider that our function is not to block but
The Address-Mr. Mather to push, not to drag but to drive, not to slow down but to speed up. We in this party are here to oppose delay. We are not here to defeat this government; we are here to get the best and quickest possible results for the people of Canada. But, Mr. Speaker, we can do little or nothing to achieve a better Canada unless or until we have a better world. We have some terrible contrasts and maladjustments in our present world. It is a very small world now; we can fly around it in minutes and send messages around it in seconds. We are now trying to get to other worlds and will very likely succeed, unless in the meantime we succeed in blowing up and destroying our present world. At the same time over half the people in the world are said to go to bed hungry at night. Millions are suffering from disease. Hundreds of millions cannot communicate with each other, cannot read or write.
For our part, we in this part of the world have to deal not with shortages but with surpluses. It strikes me that nearly all the problems which come before us in this house arise from problems of surpluses, having their roots in production or in the deployment of our manpower. Our problem is one of distributing the vast wealth which we have produced, and this is an impossibility under private enterprise alone. These are some of the problems and maladjustments which exist.
Mankind is further divided by our political creeds. We here call for increased support of United Nations agencies, and we mean to exert every effort we can to see that this is done. In my view, Mr. Speaker, the first essential is to work for peace. Without that we have nothing. In that connection I should like to compliment the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) on her recognition of the changes which are taking place in the international scene and for what I took to be her personal opinion that the time is drawing near when this country should recognize China.
Mr. Speaker, in that regard I have a proposal to make to the government. If we can have two ministers of agriculture, could we not have two ministers of external affairs? It seems to me that if the government would appoint the hon. member for Northumberland as the minister of external affairs for the Pacific region it would be a very good thing. I can promise her the warmest support from this quarter of the house.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is well for us at this time to consider the historical fact that the differences that we in the western world have with those of the east, considering all the divisions and the bitterness existing

The Address-Mr. Mather between us, are yet less than those which a few centuries ago plunged the world into religious wars which plagued Europe for centuries. As someone has written, if those who had been involved in the religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries could return to earth today, they would be astonished to find the old hatreds gone and that the old antagonists, instead of burning each other at the stake, are able to live together peaceably and discuss things in a rational manner.
I should like to urge upon the government, and particularly on the Prime Minister, that they do not isolate Canada or lessen her power for peace by perpetually and automatically turning a deaf ear and a blind eye, as some do, to offers or actions of a conciliatory nature which may be made by the other side. We on our side of this world dispute are not all white, and those on the other side are not all black. I think there is meaning in the words of the former president of the United States, President Eisenhower, when he said that the people of the world want peace so much that unless their leaders get it for them they will somehow push them out of the way and unite for peace of their own accord.
Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister has recently visited the United States. I understand that he intends to go again. Still more recently we have had the NATO conference here. I suggest to the Prime Minister that he consider-perhaps he has already done so- the possibility of making a visit to Russia to see if he cannot use some of those powers of his which once won him the peace prize of the world toward securing at least a better feeling and an easing of tensions between that country and our neighbour to the south. We would have nothing to lose by this. Ultimately we are either going to live together or die together; there is no other alternative.
Turning now to our internal affairs, I should like to put forward a few of my own proposals. One of the growing services of our nation is transportation. It is something which affects us all. I think a great deal more federal attention should be given to transportation; because whether it be air, sea, train or bus, transportation is now subsidized by the taxpayer. In many instances a subsidized part of the industry is competing on its subsidy with another subsidized part of the industry. I believe the time is here when we should set up a comprehensive, all-embracing transportation authority in Canada which will have power to plan and regulate the expenditure of public money on

transportation, so that the best result could be achieved for all and particularly for the public.
Another point I should like to put forward is that there is a need for a very much stepped up and more imaginative program for our rapidly approaching centennial celebrations. These take place, Mr. Speaker, in 1967, and speaking as one who had something to do with the initiation and organization of the 1958 centennial celebrations in British Columbia, I think it should be pointed out that we are behind time with our national celebration preparations. These will take place in 1967, and plans for them must be completed by the end of 1966. We are now almost half way through 1963, so there are approximately 43 months left to prepare for these celebrations and ensure that they are of the magnitude which a country of Canada's size should expect.
We still seem to be lagging. Is it because we have not got the right kind of organization? Is it because we are not providing enough money? Is it because we lack the imagination to see what this birthday celebration can do for Canada at home and abroad? For one thing, I would like to think that on the morning of January 1, 1967 not only across Canada but around the world the new flag of Canada, which the government promises, should be unfurled in simultaneous demonstration.
An additional proposal I want to make concerns taxation. In the United States municipal taxes and mortgage interest payments on homes are deductible from federal taxes. They should be here, too. This would encourage home building, home owning and family stability, to say nothing of stimulating increased business in the construction industry and in all the many related businesses.
Second, I call for the levying of a capital gains tax on stock market profits. Canada is one of the very few countries which does not have such a tax. Millions could be secured from it and put to work to reduce either the public debt or the level of other taxation.
In the field of citizenship and unity, I feel that whether we are English speaking Canadians, French speaking Canadians or members of that other great group, the new Canadians, the important thing is that we are Canadians. In this connection I make a modest suggestion. We use the translation hearing aids, but for the people who visit us and sit in the galleries there are no such aids. If they are English speaking Canadians, without French, they must listen to 20 minutes of oratory of which they can understand nothing. If they are French speaking Canadians without English, they must hear a speech in

English, such as my own, without comprehending any of it. I think it only right that we should install in the galleries translation hearing aids which would enable our visitors to tune in on all of us. And when they do so they will find, I am sure, that though we are speaking in different ways, in our ideas we speak the same language. I put forward as a serious suggestion the provision of translation hearing aids for the galleries.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, there are the local issues or problems of my own constituency. I hope this new government will go ahead at once with matters which have been on the books, so to speak, for years, including the reorganization of the present New Westminster port authority into an enlarged Fraser river authority, giving representation to the municipalities along the banks of that great stream. I will have more to say on these and other matters as we progress in this session. I resume my seat now so that other members will have an opportunity to speak.


Mr. J. E. Lloyd (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, on May 16 I took my seat for the first time in this House of Commons as one of the elected members from the dual constituency of Halifax. It is a constituency in which 225,000 Nova Scotians reside.
Within its boundaries are two cities; Halifax, the historic capital of Nova Scotia, and Dartmouth, one of the most rapidly expanding cities in Canada. Outside its urban area it includes the beautiful farming district of the Musquodoboit valley. Along its Atlantic coast boundary are found picturesque fishing villages such as Peggy's Cove, Little Harbour and many others, the home of the hardy inshore fishermen, unique places of interest to artists, relaxing vacation spots for those who enjoy Nova Scotia's rugged coast line.
My constituency includes that world famous east coast port from which convoys sailed during both world wars to maintain vital supply line to the allied forces overseas. The port of Halifax, one of Canada's year round ice free Atlantic ocean ports, is a major base for Canada's armed forces. Around its shores are found nationally recognized universities and colleges-Dalhousie, St. Mary's, Kings and Pine Hill-as well as the offices of departments and crown corporations of this federal government. For example, there are armed forces establishments, the national harbours board, the Bedford institute of oceanography, C.N.R., T.C.A., central mortgage and housing, the Department of National Revenue and the Bank of Canada.
The extensive facilities of the Halifax shipyards, including floating and dry docks for
The Address-Mr. Lloyd new ship construction and ship repairs, provide a key industry. Expanding oil refineries and secondary manufacturing plants are located on the Dartmouth side of the harbour. In short, my constituency is a metropolitan urban growth area, the seat of provincial government and a centre of banking, trade and commerce. According to economic base and other studies, the population could rise to 300,000 in the next ten to 15 years.
For many years I have enjoyed the privilege of service in the Halifax city council, and was its mayor when elected to this house. I am most pleased to have associated with me, as a Liberal member from our dual constituency, a young energetic member of the bar of Nova Scotia. He has to his credit many accomplishments in the field of labour management relations.
My colleague has brought to your attention the serious threat to the volume of winter port traffic at Halifax with advent of extensive icebreaker operations in the upper reaches of the St. Lawrence. We shall seek the co-operation of the government and this house to adopt constructive proposals that will stop the gradual erosion of our winter port business, a vital and substantial element in the economic base of the port region around Halifax harbour.
We shall also seek the co-operation of the government and parliament in correcting a serious injustice in the policy of grants in lieu of municipal taxation of crown properties. For example, in Montreal-and I should like my colleagues from Quebec to note this-the C.N.R. is liable for, and pays to that city, 100 per cent of municipal real property taxes, business taxes and water taxes. In Halifax a privy council order limits such grants to 50 per cent of the real property tax. The Nova Scotian hotel enjoys a ten year tax agreement limiting its tax payment to $60,000 per year. In the city of Montreal the Queen Elizabeth hotel is liable for 100 per cent of all city taxes. For 1963 that tax bill ran close to $1 million.
The national harbours board grants in lieu of taxation are confined to the equivalent of rated police and fire protection taxation on its properties throughout Canada. The board contends its operating deficits prohibit it from meeting the liability for grants equal to 100 per cent of real property taxation. On the other hand, like the C.N.R. the national harbours board continues to accumulate interest charges on outstanding loans and advances from the national treasury, its only source of capital funds. Only part of that interest accrual is actually paid. Its 1962 balance sheet shows $71,290,474 in interest arrears. It also continues to make provision for depreciation of its fixed assets. At December 31, 1962, it

The Address-Mr. Lloyd held approximately $60 million in treasury bills and government bonds tor replacement of capital assets.
The board has been unable to supply us with any consistent definitive policy with respect to the disposal of replacement reserve funds. In fact they have been employed as working capital funds. In short, the board's contention that it cannot afford to meet local taxation is indefensible. Grants in lieu of taxation on crown property do more than relieve the pressure on the local ratepayer. They provide an import dollar quotient to our port region, with its beneficial multiplier effects in our marginal economy.
Until we improve on our present office arrangement, my colleague and I run the risk of being distinguished in this house as the centre block speaking and the west block speaking members for Halifax. With that temporary disability overcome, we look forward to more effective teamwork in this house. Despite our professional backgrounds, we readily admit our need for experience with the unfamiliar procedural rules and the general modus operandi of this national parliament. During orientation to my duties I have gone through the usual initial periods of frustration and bewilderment that confront all new members. Setting up a small office in share quarters is an example. I share with the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Mul-lally) a splendid view of the excellent masonry at the back of the peace tower. On the other hand, I have enjoyed many moments of enlightenment afforded to me by understanding, co-operative and experienced hon. members and civil staff members.
Despite that willing co-operation, for which I am most grateful, I have continued in orbit around Ottawa to such an extent that I believe I vie with the accomplishment of astronaut Cooper. At this moment, my first speech in this house, I begin the re-entry program, with procedural controls in your hands, Mr. Speaker. I trust that I shall successfully land on my feet from cloud nine without unscheduled stops on the clouds in between. Now I turn to my re-entry rockets.
I share with all hon. members, Mr. Speaker, a deep sense of appreciation that you were available and willing, with the customary display of traditional reluctance, to undertake the onerous duties of Speaker. Your wide experience and highly respected service as a member of previous parliaments should greatly expedite the urgent work to be performed by this house.
I now turn to my specific comments on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The right hon. leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) spoke in derogatory terms of the decisions made by the new


Liberal ministry. It is my purpose to show that the right hon. member has made assertions about the throne speech that are unsupported by any foundation in fact. Indeed, the right hon. member in his former capacity as prime minister of Canada is now on the opposite side of the house because he failed to make the very decisions Canadians urgently needed and wanted and which are now the decisions of the new Liberal ministry, notice of which is set forth in the throne speech.
May I first commend the government for its decision to present legislation to the house to establish a municipal loan fund. This is good news for the mayors' federation of Canada, which sought in vain for such a fund from the previous government. They made representations on this matter in 1961 to the Senate committee on manpower and employment. Extensive justification in support of the federation's carefully drawn conclusions is set forth in report No. 10 of the Senate committee proceedings dated February 15, 1961.
Subsequent thereto the federation urged the then minister of finance, the former member for Eglinton, to recognize the urgent need for national government action to implement the proposed fund. No decision was made at that time. Following the June 18, 1962 election no action was taken on this matter so vitally essential to any comprehensive plan to increase the opportunities for national employment and at the same time overtake the backlog of much needed municipal services and urban renewal programs. It could provide a potential alternative to foreign sources of funds and thus help to improve the nation's external payments position.
The government of the right hon. gentleman who now leads the official opposition further delayed a decision on this urgently needed policy by referring the question to the royal commission on banking and finance. On October 29, 1962 the mayors' federation submitted to that commission another extensive brief fully outlining the many economic advantages to be derived from a federal government municipal loan fund.
The Leader of the Opposition had much to say about the throne speech. On page 43 of Hansard for May 20 he is reported as follows:
I intend to deal with this speech from the throne, because in every part of Canada there is national disappointment. It is full of platitudes spaced out among economic generalities which indicate that the planners and the bureaucrats know best.
I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that the mayors of Canada, who submitted their brief on the need for a municipal loan fund to the royal commission on banking and finance, are not

disappointed with the Liberal ministry's decision to ask the house to establish a municipal loan fund. I am equally certain that the brief submitted by the mayors' federation on this matter is neither platitudinous nor the product of bureaucrats.
At this point it may be well to contrast the previous government's vacillation on this vital and urgent matter with the performance of the new Liberal ministry. On April 22 the right hon. gentleman from Algoma East (Mr. Pearson), who so capably leads the Liberal party, became Prime Minister. He proceeded with the appointment of his cabinet ministers and then went to work. On May 16, the day the house was opened, the throne speech reflected the decisions which had been made in the first 24 days of the new ministry. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the expression "60 days of decision" as "shifty days". The record of performance of this house on the specific recommendations of the new Liberal ministry will determine to which hon. member and to which party the term "shifty" should apply in the context used by the Leader of the Opposition.
I reiterate that the throne speech reflects the decision of the new ministry to establish a municipal loan fund, a decision taken within 24 days contrasted to over two years of established shiftiness on this subject by the former government, which then ducked the issue by waiting for the report of the royal commission on banking and finance.
The throne speech also provides other conclusive evidence of decisive action on the part of the new Liberal ministry within the 24-day period from April 22 to May 16. During those 24 days of decision the government decided to introduce measures at the current session of this twenty sixth parliament to establish a new department of industry to foster industrial expansion throughout Canada.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
John Edward Lloyd: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned at one o'clock I had been describing the events of the 24 days of decision under the new Liberal ministry from the date they took office on April 22 to the date of the opening of this session on May 16. I reiterate my closing remark at one o'clock that the speech from the throne gives further evidence of ministry decisions during this 24-day period. The speech from the throne, for example, reflects the decision of the new min-
The Address-Mr. Lloyd istry to establish a municipal loan fund, a decision taken within 24 days in contrast to the two years of shiftiness on this subject by the former government, who then ducked the issue by awaiting the report of the royal commission on banking and finance.
The speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, provides other conclusive evidence of decisive action on the part of the new Liberal ministry within this 24-day period from April 22 to May 16. During those 24 days decisions were taken to introduce measures during this twenty sixth parliament to establish a new department of industry to foster industrial expansion throughout Canada; to establish an area development agency within the new department of industry to work in co-operation with provincial governments in areas of chronic unemployment such as we have in a number of districts in Nova Scotia, particularly the Cape Breton-Pictou area and other areas where coal mines have been closed down.
During these 24 days, Mr. Speaker, the new Liberal ministry decided to strengthen the obvious weaknesses in the Atlantic development board and to provide it with a national assistance fund for projects essential to a revitalized Atlantic economy. During those 24 days the new Liberal ministry decided to recommend to this house amendments to the National Housing Act designed, I believe, to promote dwelling construction and home ownership and to advance urban renewal programs. Within these 24 days the new Liberal ministry decided to establish a national economic council to assist government, industry and labour in obtaining the maximum use of the nation's human and material resources through co-operative effort. In my opinion this means not more and more planning but more effective and better organized economic planning by government in co-operation with private management, labour and provincial and municipal governments.
The speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, gives further evidence of ministerial decisions within the 24-day period. For example, I cite the proposal to establish a royal commission on biculturalism; the actions taken to meet our commitments under the NATO alliance; the establishment of eastern and western divisions within the Department of Agriculture; the establishment of a system of contributory pensions; the redistribution of seats; the appointment of a special committee to examine defence problems.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that no ministry of this parliament since confederation has moved with greater dispatch and with such a responsible sense of urgency, with such proven skill and ability, to attend to the nation's.

The Address-Mr. Willoughby business. The government's program is before us. It is up to us, in this parliament of minorities, to co-operate with this decisionmaking cabinet, leaving history to record this parliament as the parliament of decision.


Mr. Charles J. M. Willoughby (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my congratulations to those of hon. members who have spoken ahead of me in this debate to yourself and to your deputy upon appointment to these high offices. I understand from those who have been in this house for years that the choices are excellent. I should like also to congratulate the Prime Minister and the members of the cabinet upon their appointments to posts of high responsibility. I hope they may discharge their responsibilities with due regard to the welfare of all our country. I should like to congratulate also the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) upon the excellent manner in which they discharged their duties in moving and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I know it is unusual for a man of my years to make a maiden speech. I happen to be one of the few medical men in this house, and I am much more accustomed to delivering babies than I am to delivering speeches. However, I do feel that such an undertaking in this house would probably be inappropriate at this time. I do, however, wish to remind hon. members that great men like Pitt, Churchill, Burke, Gladstone, Macdonald, Laurier and even our present Prime Minister began life with a feeble cry. If what I have to say this afternoon sounds in any way like a feeble cry, then at least I have the consolation and satisfaction of knowing that I am not alone in this house, because I have heard many feeble cries from the benches opposite. This is not the time to worry about the plight of hon. members opposite. This is a time when we should be concerned with the continuing good government of our country.
I am here, Mr. Speaker, representing the constituency of Kamloops. I know that during the last 18 years the hon. member for Kamloops has had a special and honourable place amongst the members of this house. "Kamloops" has always meant Davie Fulton. I come to praise him, not to bury him. I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that every member of this house wishes him well in his new endeavour. I have heard it said that in his new field of operation he is tilting at windmills. Let me say that this is not so. Our friends Mr. Bennett and Mr. Gaglardi in British Columbia are not windmills; they are all wind and no mills. If the present government of British Columbia continues as it has in connection with the Columbia river
[Mr. Lloyd. 1
treaty, the chance of getting mills grows smaller and smaller and eventually there will be no power and no mills left.


Mr, Patterson:: That government will be there for a long, long time.


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: That remains to be seen. I am here, as Davie Fulton always was, to represent the people of Kamloops with the vigour and integrity for which he was so well known. Hon. members will recall the many ways in which he has rendered service to his country, both in opposition and as a minister of the crown. An outstanding example was the part he played in the enactment of the Canadian Bill of Rights, under the right hon. Leader of the Opposition; extensive amendments to the Criminal Code revising the provisions dealing with capital murder; general penal reform; legislation dealing with obscene literature, and also as chairman of the Canadian team which negotiated the Columbia river treaty.
It is a great honour for me, Mr. Speaker, to follow in the tradition which Davie Fulton has established, and to be a member of the twenty sixth parliament. It was an honour for me 18 years ago to nominate him as a candidate in Kamloops riding, and it was an equally great honour for me to have him return the compliment and nominate me in that riding three months ago. Needless to say it is also an honour for me to have him as a guest in the gallery today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: Mr. Speaker, although I was sad to leave Kamloops at this time, the loveliest time of the year, I must admit I had a most enjoyable trip on the C.N.R. I did not hit a Liberal constituency until nearing northern Ontario.
As I look across the house at that attractive horizon over there, I regret I cannot agree with the charming and hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) who, in moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne, said we should get the economy rolling. What we must do is keep the economy rolling as it is now. If there is anyone here who has any doubt about that, I issue an invitation to visit my constituency of Kamloops. Never has there been such activity and feeling of well being there as that experienced during the past few years.


Gilles Grégoire: Because you have a Social Credit government in the province.


Charles James McNeil Willoughby: It did not give us a 92 cent dollar. The ranching, mining, lumber, building and tourist industries are all thriving

and I am confident this is the general situation throughout Canada. Therefore I reject the suggestion that our economy is not already rolling. What I do suggest is that we keep it rolling, by co-operation in this house of minorities.
While I was listening to the speech from the throne I was gratified to note what a high regard the Liberal government has for Conservative party policies and principles. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and when it is done on this scale it borders on adulation. I was delighted to discover how much the government learned during its years in opposition. Therefore, on our part, and speaking particularly on my own behalf, I say that in the days to come we will no doubt be able to support many of the policies outlined in the speech from the throne because so many of them are directly derived from the policies of the previous government.
However, there were some omissions from that speech, one example of which was that there was no proposed action regarding a national medicare plan, in which I, as a member of the medical profession, am deeply interested. Many items were conspicuous by their absence, but I hope this may be corrected as the session proceeds. While I came to the house to be critical in a constructive way of the government's action and legislation which I may consider lacking, I also come in a spirit of co-operation, a spirit which the last parliament so sadly lacked. I stand to support strong legislation introduced by the government. Indeed it is our responsibility to do so, but in turn we expect the government to be responsive to constructive and indulgent criticism, and to ensure that the legislation proposed is respected in every detail. There should be no need to remind the government that every member of the house is a legislator, and that their views should be given proper and fair consideration.
I should like to deal now with four items about which I am particularly concerned, and which were dealt with inadequately or not at all in the speech from the throne. Brief mention was made about assistance for the completion of the trans-Canada highway. This, of course, is a continuation of the policy of previous governments, but there was no mention of any move to establish a national highway system or to bring about the formation of a national highways policy. This, Mr. Speaker, you will recall is something which the Conservative government had included in its program for Canada, and I would urge the present government not to hesitate to follow that lead, having done so in so many other ways.
The Address-Mr. Willoughby
It was a Conservative government which completed the first railroad across Canada and a Conservative government which ensured that this country would have a trans-Canada highway as a link from the Pacific to the Atlantic. I hope the new government will learn from such examples and begin working on the formulation of a national highways policy, recognizing the primary jurisdiction of the provinces over highway construction. It is going to become more and more necessary to establish some procedure of coordination among the various highway programs in order to bring about a proper system as soon as possible. As Canada grows, and as the provinces continue to build more and more highways, it is important that we should soon decide on co-ordination of the provincial highway programs, and that consideration be given to completion of a second trans-Canada highway.
Highways are not only the heart, arteries and lifeblood of modern transportation, but they are like a roll of beautiful ribbon; as they unravel they carry with them new populations, new industry, new employment and new prosperity. Never was this better demonstrated than since the opening of the Rogers pass route last year. As a specific proposal I would urge this government to include the Yellowhead highway pass in the scheme I have suggested for a national highway system. Its benefits would equal those already realized by the completion of the Rogers pass route. I am not suggesting, of course, that the federal government try to do this alone, but I do suggest that at the earliest possible time the federal government call together a conference of provincial highway ministers under the chairmanship of the federal Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) to discuss this very important question.
There was mention of the Columbia river treaty. I listened with great interest to the hon. member from Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge) when he spoke on this important subject on May 24. He would suggest that radical changes are necessary to make this agreement acceptable. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not an engineer, but I am prepared to accept the reports and agreements devised by the best engineers of both Canada and the United States who, after 17 years of negotiations, arrived at the most acceptable solution to all concerned. In any such negotiations one side cannot have it all its own way, but the treaty as outlined today is the most acceptable to all parties. I feel it is vital that parliament ratify the treaty in its present form, and as soon as possible.
I note that the Prime Minister is to meet the premier of British Columbia to discuss this matter. I wish him luck at this meeting,

The Address-Mr. Willoughby and I fervently hope that it takes place. The premier has already demonstrated a distressing habit of forgetting appointments. At this meeting these should be no backing down before the connivances of Mr. Bennett, and connivances there will be. It is the first responsibility of the government to protect Canadian resources, and any suggestion of bowing to the pressure of Mr. Bennett would be an abrogation of that responsibility.
May I urge, therefore, that the federal government stand firm on the Columbia river treaty as it was signed, because it is vital to the future development of British Columbia. I understand from a radio news broadcast the other evening that the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Nicholson), whose opinion I respect, stated in Vancouver on Friday last that no radical change in the treaty is anticipated or necessary. At least these words are encouraging.
Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the government the absence of any reference to a policy regarding feed grain assistance for British Columbia. This, you may recall, was included in the program devised by the former minister of agriculture. This is important to the ranchers and farmers of British Columbia. At the present time beef ranchers in our part of the country are compelled to ship their range cattle to the prairies for market processing, instead of bringing the grain from the prairies to the interior of British Columbia, because of the high cost of feed grain purchased through the wheat board. I therefore want to impress upon this house the need for the introduction of a proper policy in this regard in the immediate future.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the government the complete lack in the throne speech of any indication that the government recognizes the need for forward looking policies to deal with the problems of our Indian citizens. I hope that the Indian claims commission proposed by the Conservative government will be established even though there was no reference to it in the throne speech. Our Indian citizens need our help so they can share fully in Canada's growth and development.
I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I do appreciate the opportunity provided for me to speak, and I hope the suggestions I have had to offer and will offer in the future will not be considered as frivolous or unjustified but that they may be of assistance to good government in our country. As I attempt to follow my predecessor's example, I feel it is my duty to speak out fearlessly in the interests of Kamloops riding and the interests of Canada. In return I anticipate just and courteous consideration from all departments of this great national assembly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all congratulate you on your elevation to the office of Speaker. By long training and your own natural imperturbability we are all agreed that you will discharge your responsible functions judicially and with a sense of fairness and impartiality.
We have had two outstanding speeches, by the mover, the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) and the seconder, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette). To these hon. members I would add my words of praise and congratulation. Also, I am sure we all enjoyed the speech to which we have just listened, and particularly the fine sense of humour which the hon. gentleman displayed as he made his argument. He referred to the presence in the gallery of the former minister of justice and now the leader of the Conservative party in British Columbia.
I join with him in the tribute he has paid and to the welcome he has extended to this former hon. member of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I may perhaps be permitted to note that in the opposite gallery is sitting another former minister of the crown, a distinguished and gallant gentleman, Hon. Milton Gregg, former minister of labour.
Mr. Speaker, I now wish to make a report on the ministerial meeting of NATO which was held in Ottawa last week. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) and I had the responsibility of representing the government of Canada at that meeting. Because of the importance of the subject matter, and in accordance with the convention which attends the delivery of a statement of this importance by a minister of the crown, I propose to follow closely what I have prepared for this particular occasion.
May I say at the outset that it was an excellent idea, in my judgment, to have Canada play host to this meeting. Thanks to the superb physical arrangements made through the co-operative efforts of various departments of government under the able chairmanship of General Fin Clark, chairman of the national capital commission, a most favourable impression, I am sure, has been made upon our distinguished visitors.
I cannot too highly commend those who were associated with this preparatory work over ' a period of some four months.

In addition, of course, the Minister of National Defence and I were afforded an opportunity to meet our opposite numbers both during and before the ministerial meeting itself. I had valuable talks in my office in the four days preceding the meeting with secretary of state Rusk, foreign minister Lord Home, and with the foreign ministers of France, M. Couve de Murville, and of Germany, Mr. Schroeder; that is, with the leading members and representatives at this meeting of those countries with which we have the most intimate relations. Of course I should add, so that I would not in any way discriminate, that I was privileged to have important and useful talks with the foreign ministers of Holland, Belgium, Portugal, Turkey, Greece and Denmark. We were able to review not only matters which would be brought before the meeting, but also questions of bilateral concern. In ordinary circumstances it might have taken many months to establish direct personal contact with these foreign ministers or, in the case of the Minister of National Defence, with ministers of national defence from the 14 countries which attended the ministerial meeting along with Canada. All this, 1 must say, is due to the forethought of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) in having invited the conference to Ottawa last December.
(Translation):
During the private talks I had with our distinguished visitors, I felt that they were deeply conscious of the fact that the success of the alliance would in the end depend on our being able to combine the efforts of western Europe, and North America.
In years gone by, such a partnership could exist only through mutual understanding between Great Britain and the U.S.A. Canada has played a useful role in that field at various times. The happy relations between London and Washington are the results of such steps.
Now that Europe has recovered from war devastation, the Atlantic community must be given a broader basis.
As a North American country which has received a precious inheritance and two cultures from its motherlands, Canada can once more be useful in exerting a discreet influence to promote even greater understanding among the members of the Atlantic alliance.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, this meeting was timely in another sense. It gave the government an opportunity to remove the doubts which continued to linger in the minds of our allies concerning the position of Canada with regard to the commitments undertaken on be-
The Address-Hon. P. Martin half of our armed forces by the former government. To that end the Minister of National Defence took the opportunity on the first day of the conference to set the record straight by confirming to the council in ministerial session the information which had already been given to parliament two days before by the Prime Minister, namely that negotiations had been resumed with the United States relating to defensive nuclear weapons systems which had been the subject of previous discussions with the United States.
I want to make perfectly clear that Canada has undertaken no new commitments at the meeting just concluded. It is, however, the policy of this government to take the steps needed to make it possible for the Canadian forces to discharge the role accepted for them by the previous government. This was as long ago as 1959. That role would not disappear if Canada failed to carry it out; all that would happen would be that some other member or members of the alliance would have to shoulder the obligation in our place.
The kind of forces Canada agreed to contribute were to meet part of an established NATO military requirement, and I am sure that no hon. member of this house would wish Canada to be placed in the position where it would be foisting upon others a task voluntarily assumed by Canada through the former government as part of the collective defence effort of the alliance. I stress the word "voluntarily" because the military contributions to meet agreed force requirements were assumed as a result of bilateral discussions between the NATO military authorities and individual member states, and not all of them saw fit to undertake a nuclear role. I will have more to say a little later in connection with this aspect of the NATO meeting.
Now, sir, the spring ministerial meeting of the NATO council is normally attended by foreign ministers to review international developments and appraise the state of the alliance. Defence ministers also participated at this time because there were on the agenda items affecting the organization of the deterrent forces at the disposal of the alliance. Hon. members will doubtless have seen the communique issued at the conclusion of the meeting last Friday noon, but for the permanent record I would ask, Mr. Speaker, for leave of the house to have printed in Hansard the text of the communique as released in both French and English.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to accept this suggestion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The Address-Hon. P. Martin
[Editor's note: For communique referred to above see appendix.]


Paul Joseph James Martin: The decisions on defence matters taken at the meeting have attracted a great deal of public notice, virtually to the exclusion of all else. I do not wish to underrate the significance of those decisions, for they represented a further step in the integration of elements of the deterrent forces which should go some distance toward improving their co-ordination and control. But I would also draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the emphasis in the communique was on peace. The communique opened and closed on that note. This is as it should be, for ours is a defensive alliance, the military activities of which are maintained solely in the interests of the integrity of the member states and therefore of the peace of the world. The whole underlying concept of NATO is the prevention of war, and there is full realization within the alliance that peace cannot be ensured by military power alone. So the council has reasserted its desire to seek equitable solutions by negotiation, and it is hoped that the communist world will come to see that they too have no less an interest in such settlements.
Some of the areas of continuing concern- Berlin, Cuba and Laos-are named in the communique and were indeed thoroughly discussed in the private sessions of the council. I reported to the council on the unsatisfactory situation in Laos from the viewpoint of one of the members of the three-nation international supervisory commission. I expressed our determination to continue to press for greater freedom of action and movement for the commission, and I am happy to know that the three members of the commission have joined together in their most recent report.
Too often in the past the council has met in the shadow of crisis. Last December it met in the immediate aftermath of Cuba. The preceding year it was the wall in Berlin. This year we were faced with no immediate threat of armed aggression affecting the treaty area directly, and this fact was noted in our review of the international situation. On the other hand the absence of war or the threat of war is a long way from the kind of peace we seek, and we were also forced to recognize that long standing issues such as were named in the communique remain unresolved and are a continuing source of grave concern. The causes of the present lull well may lie within the Sino-Soviet bloc itself, although no one can predict how long this state of immobility in east-west relations may continue.

There was complete agreement upon the importance of maintaining continuous contact with the Soviet union in an effort to resolve issues which might lead to war and ensure, at the very least, that neither side should misunderstand the intentions of the other.
In this connection the decision in principle which has been reached at Geneva between the United States and the Soviet union to establish direct communication between Washington and Moscow was welcomed by the Canadian delegation as one which should help to reduce the risk of war by miscalculation.
That agreement was one of the useful by-products of the 18-nation disarmament conference now meeting in Geneva. As I had occasion to say in one of my interventions before the council, the outlook at the Geneva disarmament conference and the test ban talks is so far from encouraging that it would be unrealistic to slacken our defence efforts. But I noted at the same time that the implications in both military and financial terms of an unrestricted arms race are such that we simply could not relax our efforts to negotiate a balanced reduction of armaments and armed forces provided we can secure the proper safeguards. To abandon this search would be a counsel of despair, although I have no illusions about either the ease or the speed with which results may be achieved.
There was unanimous support for the continuation of efforts at Geneva to bring about general and complete disarmament by stages under effective international control and international safeguards. Even though real progress in the scaling down of arms may be some distance away-and I believe this is the case-there are related areas such as the communications link which can substantially reduce the risk of war by accident or miscalculation and thereby contribute to the maintenance of peace and security. Similarly, on the subject of the nuclear test ban, I welcomed on behalf of the Canadian delegation and the government of Canada the recent Anglo-American approach in Moscow in an attempt to break the current deadlock. I made clear the Canadian view that there must be unremitting effort to bridge the narrow gap between east and west on this issue. Verification is, as it has so often been, the root of the trouble.
In our appraisal at the council meeting of the state of the alliance a good deal of attention was paid to the improvement and intensification of timely consultation on political developments. This is a subject on which members of this government have had a good deal of experience, in that the Prime Minister was intimately associated in 1955

with the specially appointed group which originally set up the procedures and basic rules which have been followed in the alliance ever since. Since taking over my responsibilities I have found that impressive strides have been made in this field in the intervening years, but in that same period there has been a corresponding growth in the scope and complexity of the problems facing the members of the alliance which demands an even more intensive effort in this direction. I took the occasion, in reviewing this question as seen from the Canadian viewpoint, to make clear that any shortcomings there may have been on the Canadian side would be removed.
I should like to make clear to the house, as I did to our NATO colleagues, that the Canadian government looks upon its contribution to NATO, and indeed regards the military role of the alliance itself, as part of a broad international network of peace keeping activities. As the Prime Minister indicated in his remarks at the opening ceremony, the interdependence of all nations is a distinctive characteristic of our era. It has come to be recognized that a local war, whether in Indo-China or Africa, if not contained, can have as grave consequences as any outbreak of hostilities in the more familiar trouble spots of direct concern to NATO. Moreover, participation in many of these peace keeping responsibilities outside the NATO area is, by tacit consent, denied to the major powers since one of the primary objects is to prevent fighting without inviting the even greater danger of a great power confrontation. For this reason it has been and continues to be Canadian policy to assume international peace keeping obligations both inside the United Nations, as in Gaza or the Congo, and outside, as in the Indo-China commissions. Through these activities we have a constant reminder that the NATO alliance has to be seen in a broad world perspective.
To place NATO in global context in this way, is not, however, in any way to deny that the central challenge to today's world is between the closed totalitarian regimes of the communist bloc and the free societies of the west, and that NATO is the instrument on which we all rely to meet that challenge. One of the principal subjects with which we were concerned at this meeting was the possible nature of that challenge, and to ensure that NATO forces should be so equipped as to be able to offer a range of responses appropriate to any aggression affecting the treaty area. In this connection two decisions of importance to Canada and to the alliance were taken, both of which were noted in the communique.
The first was concerned with the ability of the alliance to deal with the obvious threat
The Address-Hon. P. Martin posed by the Soviet union's mounting arsenal of nuclear weapons. Paragraph 8 of the communique described decisions taken by the council to regroup and organize certain elements of the nuclear deterrent forces under the command of the supreme allied commander Europe. These forces will henceforth include the whole of the United Kingdom V-bomber force and three United States Polaris submarines. This formidable new strength to be at the disposal of SACEUR will be added to certain tactical nuclear forces already in being or programmed and already assigned to him. This decision was of direct relevance to Canadian forces in Europe for, by indicating our willingness to arm the Canadian air division with the weapons which will enable it to discharge the strike role to which it was committed by the previous government, the way has been opened to permit Canada to play its part in the new arrangements.
Let me make it perfectly clear this decision in no way makes Canada a member of the nuclear club in the sense of owning or manufacturing nuclear warheads. Indeed, the decisions taken at this meeting affecting the organization of the alliance's existing nuclear forces are entirely consistent with resolutions unanimously adopted by the United Nations to avoid the further spread of nuclear weapons under independent national control. Custody of the nuclear armament of all the forces involved, with the exception of the United Kingdom bombers, will remain as before with the United States. I also want to make it clear that there is no new assignment involved for Canadian forces, as they were already assigned by the previous government to SACEUR's command. These arrangements were welcomed by the Canadian delegation as steps which, through the greater sharing of knowledge and responsibility for nuclear defence, will help to knit the alliance together and, in the words of the communique, "improve co-ordination and control of its nuclear deterrent forces".


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister allow a question at this stage? Without in any way admitting this question of commitment, I ask the hon. gentleman was Mr. Justice Thorson right in the statement he made two days ago that this government has arranged, or has agreed, to the arming of the F-104's with one megaton bombs, in other words bombs equivalent to one million tons of t.n.t. each?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition says that Mr. Justice Thorson has made this statement, which I have not seen. He is entitled to his opinion, of course. This is a free country.


John George Diefenbaker: Your former colleague.

The Address-Hon. P. Martin


Paul Joseph James Martin: All I can say is that the nuclear club does not warrant the interpretation which critics of the present government's policy suggest. All I can say is that this government has merely acted in respect of a commitment which was made by a government headed by the right hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not accepting that at all. Repetition does not make it factual, because it has been denied more than once. I am asking the simple question. Is it the intention of this government, and was it so made clear to its allies in NATO at this conference, that the 200 Canadian F-104's will be armed with one megaton bombs? That is all I am asking.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman has listened to my statement. He will follow what I am going to say, and then he will have to draw his own conclusion. All I can say is that the government proposes to live up to a commitment made by Canada-


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -a commitment established by a government of which my hon. friend was the leading figure. That is the fact. We recognize the desirability of making NATO an effective instrument, in connection with which we propose at this time to see to it that that commitment is lived up to.


John George Diefenbaker: There was no such commitment.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: The steps I mentioned earlier should be seen as part of the democratization of the alliance with respect to the exercise of its heavy responsibilities in the nuclear field.
The second decision of importance is recorded in paragraph 9 of the communique, where the need to achieve a satisfactory balance between nuclear and conventional forces was recognized. To this end the permanent council has been instructed to undertake, with the advice of the NATO military authorities, a comprehensive review of the interrelated questions of strategy, force requirements and the resources available to meet them. I have already mentioned that NATO must be able to offer a range of responses to any challenge, and this means that if that challenge is conventional then the conventional means must be available to meet it without premature recourse to nuclear weapons. At the same time the nuclear strength must be there to deter any possibility of a direct challenge with nuclear weapons.
The cost of maintaining the correct balance must be shared equitably amongst the members of the alliance and must be geared to the capabilities of each, having regard to its resources and its other military obligations.

For example, Canada has heavy responsibilities in North American defence, in NATO and in the United Nations and in other peace keeping activities. Our contribution too must take into account these responsibilities and the resources we have to meet them, and our planning must be projected as far as possible into the future if we are to make the most useful contribution to world peace in all these fields.
As members of the house know, the Prime Minister has announced in the house, as the Minister of National Defence did in the council, the government's intention to conduct a national review of defence policy and to set up without delay a parliamentary committee as part of that process, and a motion to that end will shortly be introduced. Our national review will thus go forward in parallel with the NATO review, a fact which will be helpful in considering the full range of our defence obligations. The outcome of these two reviews should enable the government to form considered judgments on the extent to which the present allocation of the Canadian defence effort should be continued or adjusted.
There has been a good deal of public speculation, Mr. Speaker, as to why there was no mention in the communique of another project in the nuclear field which is known to have been under active consideration in the alliance. I refer to the so-called multilateral force and, in particular, that aspect of it which would consist of a mixed-manned fleet of Polaris carrying vessels. This question was not on the agenda because the special mission headed by United States Ambassador Livingston Merchant has not yet completed its visits to all the capitals of the alliance. I wish to say no more at this stage than that the Canadian government hopes to receive Ambassador Merchant's group and himself in Ottawa some time during the first week in June in order to inform itself better of all the ramifications of this proposal.
By any reasonable test, Mr. Speaker, the Ottawa meeting was one of the most successful the alliance has had.


An hon. Member:: That is not what the Ottawa Citizen said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I noticed what the Ottawa Citizen said, but unfortunately that distinguished journalist was not present at the meeting. It is easy, and I regret to say fashionable, to emphasize the centrifugal tendencies in NATO, tendencies which are bound to manifest themselves in any organization of free and sovereign states whose cooperation has so succeeded as to bring a measure of relief from external pressures. It is precisely because NATO has succeeded in

deterring aggression and promoting the security of its members that they can afford to indulge in the luxury of some dissent, precisely inherent in the fact that NATO is made up of freedom loving states.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will just be a moment. I thank the house. But this dissent does not extend to the basic purposes of our alliance, nor does it diminish in any way the collective determination to preserve the common heritage.
This meeting of the council had before it certain matters for decision designed to reinforce the enduring character of the partnership between western Europe and North America. It took those decisions unanimously and in a spirit of harmony. It is wrong to say NATO is in a state of disarray. The assembled ministers were responding in a tangible way to the keynote address of one who has from the beginning lent inspiration to the alliance. I refer to the Prime Minister of Canada. The wise counsel he gave in opening the meeting, his assessment of NATO's achievements, his warning of the perils that lie ahead and his plea for unity created the climate for a meeting that will be recorded, I believe, in the history of the alliance as another milestone in Atlantic partnership.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question. Now that he has been in office for a number of weeks and has had access to some information that I am sure he did not have access to before, may I ask him whether in his opinion the expenditure for the Starfighters, Voodoos, Bomarcs and Honest Johns would be wasted or useless without nuclear devices?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend surely has answered his own question. In the event of conflict, which we all hope will never eventuate, what good would an airplane be that carried no weapons at all?


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: I should like to ask the minister a question. Now that he has made his report upon the meeting, would he care to tell us what happened at the NATO conference?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will be glad to tell my hon. friend what happened. The NATO meeting represents the only way by which this country, in concert with other freedom-loving nations of the world, challenged by the greatest peril in human history, can defend itself. It seems to me that it is not within propriety that an hon. gentleman should use the form of interrogation which was used, seeking to belittle an organization
The Address*-Mr. Smallwood designed to preserve the freedom of this country and the freedom of the world.


Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I should like, first of all, to congratulate you and the Deputy Speaker as well as the chairman of committees on your appointment to your high posts. I am sure that you will all fill these posts with sincerity and fairness to all members of this house. I should like also to congratulate the mover (Miss Jewett) and seconder (Mr. Cho-quette) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I did not intend to get into an argument with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin). However, after listening to him split hairs for the last 30 minutes regarding nuclear weapons, and refusing to answer the questions of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), I am reminded of a quotation I should like to put on the record. There are a great many quotations I could put on the record, but none is better than the one I have in my hand to illustrate to the people of Canada how the Liberals have changed their mind about nuclear weapons. This is a quotation attributed to the Nobel peace prize recipient, the Right Hon. L. B. Pearson, and it appeared in the United Church Observer for October, 1961. It reads as follows:
We should not join the nuclear club by acceptance of nuclear weapons under national or so-called joint control. This would add little security to Canada or to the alliance and would be an abandonment of the stand we have taken at the United Nations and elsewhere, that the number of states possessing nuclear weapons should be limited rather than extended. Canada, if she became a nuclear power, would have far less influence and authority at the United Nations than she has had in the past-
This was the stand taken in 1961. Now, the big-wigs of the party have changed their minds. They keep changing their minds so often that we do not know where we are, and I do not believe they do either.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the election resulted in a new government taking office. I do not feel there was any need for that election because we had a good government in power. If you go back and look at the record you will find, as the Ottawa Journal did, that national production in 1962 had climbed 8 per cent to a peak of $40,400 million, the greatest increase in any western country during this time. After years of trade deficits, we achieved a favourable trade balance. Foreign exchange reserves in U.S. currency reached a total of $2,700 million, the greatest reached in years.

The Address-Mr. Smallwood Trade had reached an all-time high; manufacturing had jumped by 8 per cent, construction by 8.2 per cent and capital investment by 4.8 per cent. This editorial concludes by saying:
We must all hope that Mr. Pearson does well; to wish him well is but to wish well for Canada. But for truth's sake, if for nothing else, let Mr. Pearson and his friends stop trying to give the impression that they took over a broken down Canadian economy.
They did nothing of the kind. They wanted to obtain power. X could refer you to an editorial that appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail which reads:
The Liberals went into opposition in 1957 after 22 years in power. They had in their ranks a number of former cabinet ministers who had the opportunity to offer informed and instructive criticism; who had the opportunity over the past four years to devise detailed alternative policies to those proclaimed by the government.
The Liberal leaders chose not to use their opportunities in a serious or responsible manner. Instead, they chose to offer negative and destructive criticism, to cry gloom and doom for the country, and to spend the rest of their time fashioning new planks to fasten on the shaky structure of the Liberal welfare state.
The Liberals came here after the 1962 election with one objective in mind and that was to force an election as soon as they could. They could not do this themselves, but needed the support of the other two groups we have in the corner. During the campaign, we heard the Social Credit members talking about Canada being ruled by the Liberals and the Conservatives. The other day in this chamber I heard one of the New Democratic members stand up and chant the same old cry that for 90 years Canada had been ruled by the Liberals and the Conservatives.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I am not ashamed of this because Canada is the best country in this world and I am proud to be a Canadian. This is the reason I am here today, because I do not like this poppycock. These idealists do not know what they are talking about. We have no room in our country today for splinter parties. What we need is a stable government.


An hon. Member:: You mean like we have in British Columbia.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: You will have your chance to talk. If you do not say any more than you are saying now, you won't say very much. We hear these little Social Credit boys interjecting. They do not like to hear the truth, but they are going to be told the truth in a few minutes.


An hon. Member:: That is good.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I turn now to this Social Credit government. If they want to listen, I will talk to them. The members of this party do not know who is leading them. They do not know where they are going.


Gilles Grégoire: We are going somewhere.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: You are going downhill, that is where you are going.
I recall that on February 4 the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) stood up in this house at six o'clock and said we could not stand an election in this country. He went out and had his supper. I do not know what he ate or what happened, but evidently he decided we should have an election. I will tell you what I think happened. I think the leader from Quebec said, "I will bring back 60 seats". The leader from the west said, "I will bring back 40 seats". They thought they were going to bring back so many they were going some place, but they went downhill. They brought back fewer seats from Quebec, and the few from the west just managed to hold on.


Mr. Patterson:: You are now in the opposition, yourself.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: They went out on the campaign trail and referred to the fact we had not had a budget. This was the reason the situation could not continue. They went out on the campaign trail, and they talked about the debt of the country. A few minutes ago I heard an interjection about Alberta and British Columbia. If they want to know the truth, they might as well have it right now. This oil boom poured more than a billion and a half dollars into Alberta's treasury. Anybody could run a country-I am sorry to see the hon. member for Red Deer leaving because I am not through yet. Anybody could run a country if the money from oil wells poured in like that.


Gilles Grégoire: You speak too fast.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: You are like a little duck. You are either squawking or running around looking for some place to lay an egg.
Let us look at British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, under the Social Credit government in B.C. provincial debt rose from $218 million in 1952 to $1,260,000,000 today. That is what Social Credit is doing in British Columbia.


Mr. Leboe:: Look at their budget. It says no debt, no interest.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Why, you Social Crediters can make figures read any way you like. During the election campaign the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) visited my home town. About 400 or 500 people attended his meeting, and he went back to Red Deer

and told his constituents that he had the constituency of Battle River-Camrose won. One of my friends attended that meeting, and I asked him what the Social Credit leader had to say. He replied "I listened for 40 minutes; when I left I was still waiting for him to say something." Only last week the hon. member for Red Deer treated the house to one of his old, warmed over speeches.
During the election campaign the hon. member for Red Deer went out to Vancouver and said something about Premier Manning being included in the federal cabinet if Social Credit won the election, but on March 26, 1963, there was this report in the Edmonton Journal:
Thompson claim said unfounded-Premier E. C. Manning termed a report by national Social Credit Leader Robert Thompson as "wholly unwarranted and without foundation."
Mr. Thompson said Sunday in Vancouver at a press conference that Premier Manning would likely be in the cabinet if his party won the April 8 federal election.
Mr. Manning told the Journal Monday: "I am certain Mr. Thompson had no intention of conveying the impression taken from his comments at Vancouver, as we have had no discussion on this matter."
Such was the irresponsibility of these people going around and making remarks like that, but this time the people of Canada showed that we have no place for splinter group parties in Canadian politics. I say to those on the left, move over with the Liberals, and to those on the right, move in with the Conservatives, and let us get ahead with the business of government.


An hon. Member:: Look at your own party and the splinters in it.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Don't scratch your head, you may get some slivers. Mr. Speaker, the throne speech was nothing more than a warmed over edition of the policies introduced by the Conservative government. We heard an awful lot about the devaluation of the dollar, and I remember the hue and cry in 1962 on the part of Liberal front benchers when we devalued the dollar. They said it was a terrible thing; but on looking back I find that on September 16, 1939 and July 5, 1946 the Canadian dollar was devalued to 90.5 cents under the Liberal government. It was the same from 1949 to 1950.
Devaluation of the Canadian dollar helped the economy of our country, but it is interesting note in the Canadian Liberal Challenge, the newspaper put out by the Liberal party headquarters in December 1962, there was a question from the New York Times magazine which reads as follows:
The ultimate humiliation came this summer when the government was forced to devalue the Canadian dollar. It was pegged at 921 United States cents.
The Address-Mr. Smallwood
However I notice the Minister of Finance realizes now that it was a good move, and I am glad he is content to leave the dollar pegged where it is. That quotation from the New York Times magazine also said this:
With winter, their hardest season, coming close, Canadians now wait to see how deep the economic crisis will cut and how severe austerity will be. They are resigned to higher prices as a result of the import surtax.
What happened, Mr. Speaker? The price of living in Canada rose slightly over 1.6 per cent since last fall, the smallest increase in the western world. They talk about the economic conditions of the country, but on February 13 last the Ottawa Journal had this to say:
Mr. Pearson and his much-vaunted economic wizard, Mr. Walter Gordon used to talk about the decline of our gross national product. They are not talking that way now. The gross national product is on its way up now; for 1962 it is estimated at 8.2 per cent over 1961.
Elsewhere in the article it says:
Well, only a few days ago President Kennedy produced facts to show that in the matter of economic stability Canada's 1962 record was better than "any other western industrial nation"-common market countries included.
When these people talked about doom and gloom they had no desire but to get back into power, regardless of the truth and regardless of what they put before the Canadian people.
They talked about unemployment. Well, Mr. Speaker, there was unemployment under the previous Liberal government. In fact I can quote from the "Western Canadian Lumber Worker" of November 1951 in which a Social Credit supporter said "5 per cent unemployment good for Canada".
An unemployed level of 5 per cent of the working force would be a good thing for the Canadian economy, says E. W. Hinman, Alberta's provincial treasurer.
That is just one more example of irresponsibility on the part of those people. We have helped the unemployment situation and I only hope the Liberal government will bring in amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, because it is grossly unfair that people who do not wish to work can get unemployment insurance. However, the government has to have the support of the cities and municipalities in order to help clear up unemployment, and when I speak of cities and municipalities no better example comes to my mind than the city of Ottawa, where they hire women on the traffic squad. They putt up and down the streets on their scooters checking the meters and they stand out on the streets directing traffic. This is certainly no job for a woman. It does not add any dignity to the city of Ottawa and, above all, it is taking work from men; there are many

The Address-Mr. Smallwood family men who could do this work and I am sure these women could find work more suitable to them than out directing traffic.
I am sorry the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) has left the chamber because I wish to say I am a little concerned about the displacement of many people in government service. I am speaking of Liberal patronage, because that party has a great system for passing out patronage. We can remember how the only commissioner from western Canada on the veterans pension board was displaced not very long ago, but shortly after we came into power the inspector on the ships in Montreal was known to be in possession of contraband spirits and tobacco and I can remember all the fight we had from across the floor then.
Last year the former member for Assini-boia got up in this house and made a big speech about the P.F.A. political machine which the Conservative minister of agriculture was supposed to have. The hon. member must not have known very much about political machines. He should have seen the one the Liberals had before we got into power. I happen to know a man who attended a P.F.A. school in a town in Alberta. He said there were about 90 men there and the man in charge told them "You people are all good Liberals or you would not be here today." He told them to go out and take up the P.F.A. claims, but not to take more than eight, and to preach Liberal policies to the farmers when they were doing it. I hope the present government will not return to such low standards as that. They should be able to spread Liberal propaganda across western Canada without that and without using treasury money. In my constituency I have Liberals, Social Crediters and-no, I do not think I have any Social Crediters.


An hon. Member:: Don't discriminate.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I am not discriminating; I want ability. I have Liberals and Conservatives taking up P.F.A., and if the Liberals try to fire all those people they will be firing all the people who used to support them.
My time is limited, Mr. Speaker, and I want to come now to agriculture. The minister is unfortunately not here today. I have with me a pamphlet entitled "Prosperity on the farm" and another entitled "Time for action", both published by the national Liberal federation. These are handy little pamphlets to carry around. The first one says, with regard to wheat, oats and barley, that a Liberal government will immediately bring in a price of $2 a bushel for No. 1 northern. They went across the country saying this and the Prime Minister promised the farmer $2 a bushel for his wheat. Now the 60 days of action have almost gone and I do not see any move


toward keeping the promise they made. They promised a two price system under the unit quota. Before they go into that I hope they will give it a little study, because if they start paying out money under the unit quota they will see 25 per cent of the farmers getting 75 per cent of the money, and they will be neglecting the little farmer whose friend they are supposed to be. Therefore I hope they give these matters a little consideration before they go too far with some of their new ideas. This pamphlet also says that a new Liberal government would establish a higher initial price for oats and barley, which would be announced well before seeding. Well, they have not many members here from western Canada but I will tell them that a lot of oats and barley are going into the ground today. When is this going to happen? Probably five years from now. They will not be in power then.
We also see that they are going to appoint an associate minister of agriculture. I agree that they should appoint an associate minister of agriculture, but this idea of appointing a minister of agriculture for western Canada and one for eastern Canada is nothing more than trying to split the country down the middle. It just will not work. It is fine to have one minister of agriculture for Canada and an associate minister to work with him, but if they are going to try and split Canada down the' middle by having a minister of agriculture in the west and one in the east, it is just not going to work.
I know the west was neglected for 22 years by the Liberals. Sometimes I blame them and sometimes I do not, because I look back and see that we sent C.C.F'ers and Social Crediters from western Canada for 22 years, and I wonder whether I should blame them. Today western Canada has sent some farmers to put through a good farm policy. That is what the people of this country want. We have to get back to a stable government. We went out and sold our wheat when the Liberals were in power. The minister of trade and commerce in the Liberal government had the attitude, "We have the wheat. If you want it, come and get it". That was the attitude of the Liberals, but our attitude was to get out and sell the wheat. We passed the Export Credits Insurance Act which put money into the hands of the department and enabled them to sell our wheat. We got out and sold wheat to China. We were condemned by some hon. members who said it was immoral to sell wheat to China. It is not immoral to sell food to any country that is starving.
I say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp), send your delegations out and sell our wheat. If you keep prosperity

in western agriculture, this will bring prosperity to the manufacturing communities in the east, because the western farmer will go out and buy expensive machinery, every piece of machinery that he requires for his farm in western Canada. This will in turn bring more employment to eastern Canada. Therefore I hope that in the next few weeks we will see some good agricultural legislation come before this house. If it is good for the welfare of the farmers of Canada, I will be one of the first to support it.


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, it is traditional, of course, that I should join the other hon. members who have spoken in this debate on the speech from the throne in offering you my congratulations. I do so with the knowledge of the help, guidance and assistance which you so kindly accorded to me when I came into the house for the first time last June. I would like, also, to take this opportunity of congratulating the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I was happy to see them continue in the same fine tradition that characterized the speech of the mover last session, the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Chaplin).
If I may be excused, Mr. Speaker, I would like to cross the line of party politics for the moment and voice my regret at the absence from this hallowed chamber of many of the fine speakers who contributed so ably to the debates last year. I think I perhaps listened to more speeches than the average member. I miss the gentle responses of the former secretary of state for external affairs, and I miss more than anything, I think, the clear logic and to-the-point speeches of the then hon. member for York South. If I in no way share the political philosophy of that hon. member who is no longer in the house, I at least admired his contribution to the House of Commons in the short time he was here.
Mr. Speaker, may I also draw the attention of all hon. members of this house to the remarks made the other evening by the hon. member from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pertaining to the conservation of the rights and privileges which we have acquired in this House of Commons through so many years of trial and tribulation. I hope that in our haste for parliamentary reform we do not substitute speed for efficiency.
I think there is one thing this parliament can do without. That is a continuation of the vicious anti-American campaign that characterized Tory efforts in the last election. I think many of the speeches from that side of the chamber so far have indicated that they intend to carry that anti-American campaign into the house. I think this type of action is
The Address-Mr. Mackasey but a reflection upon the integrity of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), and the constant references to his trip to Hyannis Port and to the United States press, radio and television is also an insult to the people of Canada, who showed clearly in the last election that they want no part of any anti-Americanism in this house.
Mr. Speaker, there has also been more than a little reference to the 60 days of decision. I think this is no doubt the role of the opposition. But I think, the very fact that we are here so soon after the election should be taken as some indication of good faith on the part of the Prime Minister. Certainly if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) succeeds in bringing down a budget within 60 days, as he has already promised, he will have done more than the previous minister of finance was able to do in two years.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be permitted for just a moment, before discussing the speech from the throne, to say a few words on behalf of the community which I represent. Like so many others represented here in the house, my community could, I suppose, be labelled bilingual. We have no agricultural content and no industrial complex, but we rank in population with a third of the province of Quebec. We have acquired the reputation, Mr. Speaker, of being perhaps the most community-minded city in Canada. Certainly the No. 4 Legion branch has carried on in that tradition, and as I mentioned in the address in reply to the speech from the throne last year we are very proud of the fact that we in the city of Verdun can boast that we had the highest rate of voluntary enlistment in the Canadian army of any city of comparable size during the last war. Just a few weeks ago we were one of the few cities across Canada to mark the commemoration of the battles of Ypres in appropriate style.
I may say that I, like other hon. members who have already spoken, would like to see medicare introduced, and introduced soon. I should like to see the Liberals maintain their promise of university grants to leading students. I am aware of the fact, however, that all cannot be accomplished at the first session, but I am sure that we will be constantly reminded of this vital social legislation which we need so badly.
In my own community, Mr. Speaker, there is one piece of legislation sadly needed, and that is some federal program to provide housing for our senior citizens. I like to use the term "senior citizens" when talking of our aged, for they are precisely that. They are the people who have made their contribution to this country of ours. They are not looking for handouts but simply for some

The Address-Mr. Mackasey way to exist, at the same time retaining their dignity and pride. I think that in my community at least private industry has failed in regard to providing housing for our senior citizens.
Mr. Speaker, there is another item in the speech from the throne which is of concern to me. I am referring, of course, to the establishment of a commission on bicul-turalism and bilingualism. The hon. member for iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve), whom I admire and respect greatly, made a very fine and moving speech on this subject last week. I would urge all hon. members who were not present to read Hansard and his interpretation of the problems that are confronting the province of Quebec. He made no attempt to assess the blame for this unhappy situation; rather he simply emphasized the facts as they existed. He has suggested, and rightly so I think, that the economic plight of the average citizen of Quebec as compared with that of, for example, Ontario was one of the underlying factors in the unrest in Quebec today. I do not attempt to place the blame for the unrest in Quebec on the shoulders of any particular party represented in this house; I think we are all to blame.
Mr. Speaker, I was therefore quite happy when the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) lived up to his promise made last fall of establishing such a royal commission. I think it was the first and the most logical step suggested in this house to recognize the problems of French Canada. I was hoping, Mr. Speaker, that such a commission might bring to the surface some of the subtle differences which have caused friction in that province; and I speak with some little concern and knowledge of the matter for I am one of the many hundreds of thousands of English speaking Canadians who dwell in the province of Quebec. I was born, as a matter of fact, in the cradle of this country, the city of Quebec, and at an early age I moved to a village known as Sillery, which produced the famous Chubby Power, who graced this House of Commons for many years.
Mr. Speaker, there are many differences which are separating Quebec from the rest of the country, and certainly with the time at my disposal I could name but few of them. But I should like hon. members to remember that the rights which the French Canadians are asking for themselves across the country are the rights that I, as a representative of the English minority, have always enjoyed in the province of Quebec. I can remember, Mr. Speaker, going to school for the first time 35 years ago. I was entitled to attend an

English speaking school with English speaking teachers, and with a curriculum acceptable to the religious beliefs of my parents. This privilege has always been recognized in the province of Quebec. Certainly French Canadians, in asking for this privilege in other parts of Canada, are simply asking for things which they have always extended to the minority in our province. The use of English in the provincial buildings, in civic administration, even in road signs, periodicals and annual reports, has always been encouraged and fully recognized. The maintenance of the rights and privileges of the minority in our province, even in the dark days of Mr. Duplessis, has always been protected. Personally, as one who is considered reasonably bilingual, I cannot visualize the day when every Canadian will be fully bilingual, but I do think the day has come when every Canadian should have more than a passing interest in French or English; and I might add, Mr. Speaker, that my remarks apply equally to my French Canadian friends.
Rather than wait for the full implementation of the royal commission report, I think steps can be taken immediately to further the cause of bilingualism, at least in our senior civil service departments. I do not subscribe to the theory that all must be rectified by 1967. Certainly there is no magic date when all these differences of opinion must disappear. But I do think that confederation should at least mark the date of stocktaking, when we can look back with pride to some improvement in the question of bilingualism and biculturalism. I think, Mr. Speaker, that every Canadian is duty bound to acquaint himself a little more with French Canada. Prominent Canadians found to their delight many years ago that a deep knowledge of French Canada, its culture, its language and its traditions is an exciting and fulfilling experience. The province of Quebec is our birthplace, and it was from here that the hardy settlers first braved the tough winters and journeyed on to make Canada, and indeed the United States, known to our European friends.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be permitted for just a moment to outline some of the facts which have led to the rejuvenation of the province of Quebec. The fact that in 1960 our province was finally freed from the yoke of a very corrupt administration is, I think, well known to all of us, and certainly if the province of Quebec has not expanded as well as it should have economically, the blame must not be laid entirely at the feet of English Canadians. French Canadians must take a second look at the yoke of tyranny which men like Duplessis placed around their own necks. Today our province is on the

move. The institution of a hospital insurance plan, for example, brought it into line with the rest of the country. Our universities are flourishing, thanks to statutory grants. High school education is now free up to and including grade 11, and the province is embarking upon a vast building program for secondary and technical schools. Crown prosecutors are being named on a permanent basis.
Antiquated electoral laws have been brought up to date and Quebecers for the first time in history are putting their savings to use for the benefit of the province through their general finance corporation. Meanwhile, the council for economic orientation is endeavouring to spread industry beyond the confines of the upper St. Lawrence valley.
In short, I feel the province of Quebec is rapidly closing the economic gap which separates it from the rest of the country. Its culture is flourishing. Its literature and art are finding a ready audience not only in the United States but in English speaking Canada. Its French television programming is vigorous and alive; French technicians have been responsible for the finest of the documentary films made by the national film board.
I remain one of the optimists as far as the future of confederation is concerned. However, I believe confederation must be reviewed and its contents more clearly defined. It is important for us to remember that the terms of confederation will mean very little if there is not a desire to make them work, motivated by mutual respect and understanding. The desire for equality of opportunity, equality of language, must be earnestly desired by all Canadians and for all Canadians. Certainly I think we must realize that the spirit of confederation, as it was envisaged, has never been fully realized. The time has come for us to realize that what is good and proper for Quebec is good and proper for Canada. By the same token, French Canadians and the people of Quebec should realize that what is good for Canada is good for Quebec. It is not by isolation that Quebec will fulfil its destiny. It is not by retiring from confederation that Quebecers will realize the fulfilment of their economic dreams. The eventual and logical development of Quebec to the full richness of which Quebec is capable must come from within confederation. The time is now.
Canada is ready and willing to view the French Canadian position in its right perspective. It is not by loose talk of ten federations, of separatism or of reducing the role of the federal government to nothing that Quebec will flourish. It will flourish when Canadians right across this great dominion realize that the ultimate greatness of this country depends on a vigorous and lusty Quebec, and that our greatest protection against further inroads
The Address-Mr. Churchill into our culture by friendly allies is the extension of French Canadian culture across the country. I believe this fact has now been recognized across the nation. Responsible Canadians everywhere feel French Canada has been ignored to some extent. I believe Quebec has served notice in the last two years that it is fully capable of managing its own affairs. If the province is to achieve the greatness of which it is capable, her leaders must now be prepared to permit the rest of Canada to help rectify the situation.
In closing, may I say that if certain leaders in the field of politics and in the world of letters adopt the attitude that nothing can be done, that Quebec has no role to play in confederation, then the long struggle for equality will have been in vain. If, on the other hand, the commission on biculturalism is given an opportunity to function, if its report is analysed with an open mind, if the differences separating French Canada and English Canada are acted upon, then I feel Canada will eventually reach the greatness predicted for it by Sir Wilfrid Laurier.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish I had time to deal extensively with the speech made this afternoon by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), but I have certain other topics to deal with, so I cannot do more than comment briefly on the remarks he made.
The minister, who had an opportunity to give us a full statement with regard to the NATO conference, satisfied himself with a rough and ready summary of what happened at those meetings. He forgot to mention that most of it had been decided in advance and that the communique had been prepared and agreed upon by most of the leading nations in NATO long before the business was concluded. The hon. gentleman did point out, though, that he had met in advance with various foreign ministers, starting off with Secretary Rusk, thus reversing the order followed a couple of weeks ago when the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) started off with the prime minister of the United Kingdom. Here, perhaps, we have the proposed pattern. The hon. gentleman began by meeting the secretary of state and followed by meeting Lord Home of the United Kingdom.
The minister of external affairs indicated to us that the debate on nuclear arms is far from finished. He opened up new vistas for us to examine. He indicated, as did the Prime Minister earlier, that the question of defence policy would be taken up when the committee is appointed to discuss that matter. The Prime Minister said it would be a committee to consider defence policy and the Secretary

The Address-Mr. Churchill of State for External Affairs said almost the same thing this afternoon. Consequently we shall have, to use his words, a review of national defence policy as soon as we get around to setting up the committee. It is essential we should do this because there is certainly great misunderstanding in regard to this subject, above all, in the mind of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He had the effrontery to say that in the discussions prior to the meeting he took it upon himself to remove what he called doubts in the minds of our allies with regard to Canada's role in NATO. Mr. Speaker, there has never been any doubt in the minds of those in any country as to Canada's role in any crisis. There is no country in the world which has exceeded Canada's efforts in time of international crisis. Except for some of our own Canadian politicians, no person has ever expressed doubt about this country meeting its obligations in time of international crisis. Yet we find the minister of external affairs continuing this practice of downgrading Canada and leaving an impression in the minds of his listeners that in the past there have been doubts created in the minds of our allies-he means, of course, by the previous government. None of this happened during the days of the Eisenhower administration, and I am surprised that the minister of external affairs should use an expression like that in this house.
The hon. gentleman also indicated that Canada was now about to take steps to discharge the role to be played by our forces. There has never been any dispute or misunderstanding on the part of anyone suggesting that Canada would not discharge its role effectively. The hon. gentleman went on to say that the NATO meeting had direct relevance-those were his words because I took them down-to Canadian forces in Europe. Yet a few months ago gentlemen opposite were saying throughout this country that the NATO council to be assembled in Ottawa would have nothing whatever to do with Canada's role in defence. They told us earlier that only the foreign ministers would come. We discovered-and the Canadian people now realize-that the defence ministers came along as well, because the major item to be discussed at this meeting was the subject of defence. So the hon. gentleman had to admit that the NATO meeting last week had direct relevance to the employment of Canadian forces in Europe, as we said from the beginning. Then he went on to say -and it has been announced in the press- that the government had committed our forces to SACEUR and that they would now be a part of its deterrent force. I point out that

this new force which has been put together is a deterrent force comprised of the bomber fleet of the United Kingdom, three Polaris submarines and the tactical nuclear force available in Europe of which Canada's force comprises part. The government has taken action of this kind without reference to parliament and has committed our force in Europe to undertaking a deterrent role. It is not just a defensive force. The range of the planes is not very great but it is enough to enable them to reach into the iron curtain countries. The size of the bomb carried is such that it is not just a defensive bomb to be used in support of an army on the battlefield. It is a megaton bomb and there will be 144 planes each armed with a megaton bomb, which we are told is equivalent to the explosive power of a million tons of explosive. Canada itself will have enough explosive power virtually to destroy civilization.
So this government, without having a national review of Canada's defence policy, without referring the matter to parliament, has committed Canada now to a position in the deterrent force under NATO. I would have thought that this matter should be carefully considered by parliament and carefully considered by the people of Canada before precipitate action such as was taken. Here was the chance-the NATO meeting, proposals put forward there and then a full discussion by the Canadian parliament with regard to what Canada should do in the future. But that has not been accorded to us. We are going to be able to discuss this afterwards in a defence committee which the Prime Minister is quoted as saying in one of the papers might take a year to complete its work. But the decision has already been made by the government and, strangely enough, we have not heard from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer).


Paul Joseph James Martin: You will.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He is travelling around in the shadow of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like the Minister of National Defence to assert himself. He is the man who is responsible to the house for Canada's armed forces. He has an associate minister who claims equal authority with him. Why do we not hear from the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cardin)? But no, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who has no particular knowledge of defence matters, is telling us what to do and telling the two ministers of national defence what their role will be, a role which is obviously an inferior one. They are tagging along behind the Martin comet.


Murdo William Martin: I assure my hon. friend that he will be hearing from the Minister of National Defence.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I can hardly wait. I hope what I hear will be more interesting, more objective and more informative than what we heard this afternoon from the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Murdo William Martin: You are not too
generous today, Gordon.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have only just started and I have already wasted ten minutes on the minister's very bad speech. What I had intended dealing with, and I have a chance to deal with them now, are some of the commitments which the government has failed to keep. This government has been talking and its members were talking during the election campaign about keeping commitments. Let us examine their record.
Within 30 days of assuming office they have already declined to keep a commitment which was made during the election campaign. Last week in the House of Commons I put the following question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith), as found at page 33 of Hansard:
Does the government intend to honour the commitment made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign to retain in Winnipeg and St. James the T.C.A. overhaul and maintenance base?
The answer given by the Minister of Transport reads in part as follows:
I can find no such commitment having been made.
Subsequently in answer to a supplementary question by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who I am sure will pursue this subject, the Prime Minister used the following words:
[DOT]-there was no commitment in that statement in the terms put forward by the hon. member who asked the question in the first instance.
I want to draw to the attention of the house an article which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of Saturday, March 30, just in the heat of the election campaign. The article reads as follows:
Fred Douglas, the Liberal candidate in Winnipeg South Centre, said Saturday that if a Liberal government is elected the Trans-Canada Air Lines maintenance and overhaul base will remain in greater Winnipeg. At a press conference Mr. Douglas showed a policy statement contained in a telegram from Liberal Lester Pearson. Mr. Douglas said Mr. Pearson's statement "ensures that the T.C.A. maintenance and overhaul base will continue in Winnipeg."
I do not have the time to elaborate on this matter but no doubt other members from Winnipeg will do so. I quote again from the Free Press:
The Address-Mr. Churchill
If the base moves about 1,000 employees would be affected and a gross pay packet of from $8 to $13 million.
This is of great importance to the city of Winnipeg and to individuals. The Winnipeg Tribune of May 21, commenting on the question and answer in the House of Commons, had this to say:
Questioned in the Commons on Monday, Prime Minister Lester Pearson denied that he had made any commitment to keep the overhaul base here. From the standpoint of semantics, Mr. Pearson could argue that he has made no specific pledge concerning the overhaul base. But certainly it could have been read into his election message that Mr. Pearson was prepared to fight to keep the base here. That was the conclusion made by his own candidate and no move was made to dissuade the electorate otherwise.
It is indeed regrettable that the present government should have so badly misled the residents of Winnipeg and St. James during the course of the election campaign. I call upon them to honour their commitments, expressed or implied, that were used during the election campaign to influence the voters of greater Winnipeg and to attempt to affect the vote in that city. It was understood by the people that there was a commitment.
An equally bad error was made within four days of the government assuming office. That was the callous and ruthless treatment meted out to a first world war infantryman who served in the trenches and at Pas-schendaele. I will spare the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet) any comment on this matter today but I will be referring to it subsequently and I will show the complete indifference of the Prime Minister when this matter was drawn to his attention, as it was drawn to his attention by myself by cable and by telegram. He had every opportunity to take immediate action on behalf of the veterans of this country and to protect the pension commission, and he failed to do so. He wrote it off. He gave his complete and unqualified approval of the action of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It is a subject that will be reviewed again in the House of Commons.
The other day, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) in speaking in this debate indicated that after the election was over he had paid a visit to the United States. I was struck by this sentence of his speech that is recorded on page 249 of Hansard. He said:
I had the opportunity of speaking to a large number of United States citizens, including persons in the government service; and whether they are justified or not, United States citizens believe they won the 1963 elections in Canada and they are waiting now for the country to be delivered to them.
That is an extraordinary experience, but I think that the election campaign which ended just a few weeks ago will be recorded

The Address-Mr. Churchill in history as one in which United States interests played a larger part than at any time for at least 50 years. I think it is important to set down on the record a summary, for Canadians of the present and for the historian of the future, of some of the main factors that loomed so large during the 1963 election. A great part of the interest shown by the United States administration in Canadian affairs centered on the question of nuclear weapons. The controversy was started by a visit to Canada by General Norstad after he had vacated his command as supreme allied commander, Europe. Ostensibly he had come to bid farewell to his Canadian friends. Whether he did the same in all of the other countries of the NATO alliance has not been disclosed. His parting words to his Canadian friends were actually a sharp attack on Canada and an unexpected and unwarranted interference in Canadian affairs. That happened on January 3.
On January 12 at a Liberal association meeting in Toronto the then leader of the opposition, now the Prime Minister, executed the very difficult acrobatic feat of reversing himself while balanced on a tightrope. For several years he had proclaimed the policy of no expansion of the nuclear club and no nuclear arms for Canada.
On January 12, however, he explained his change of position, and these are his words:
The experience and information in recent months, even recent weeks, have influenced that position.
He has yet to tell us what was the experience in those recent weeks which were the weeks of the parliamentary recess in December and January. Where was he during that period? With whom did he consult? Who caused him to change his mind? He based his January 12 speech in the house on a statement made by General Norstad on January 3. These are the words he used:
These are the facts about our nuclear defence situation today. If there are any doubts about these facts, those doubts were removed the other day by a man who should know, General Norstad. the man who for years was Supreme NATO Commander.
Mr. Pierre Elliott-Trudeau, writing in the May issue of Cite Libre poses several questions that have been in the minds of many people. Here are two of them:
Do you believe it was as a tourist that General Norstad ... came to Ottawa on January 3 to demand publicly of the Canadian government that it respect Its pledge? Do you think it is by pure chance that Mr. Pearson in his speech on the 12th January rested on the authority of General Norstad?
To continue the chronological summary, I may say that the next event was the notorious press release by the department of state in Washington, issued on January 30. Then,

on February 6, the Globe and Mail carried a dispatch from Washington which referred to that press release. The article reads as follows:
Doris Fleison writing in the Washington Star says, "It could just be that some well-meaning friend here decided to give Mr. Pearson a hand. Precisely that suggestion is going the rounds with a rather important name attached."
The Chicago Sun Times of February 3 commented:
The issue is political in Canada. The American press release seemed to correspond with the position of Diefenbaker's political opposition, Liberal Leader Lester Pearson... For our part we hope Washington hasn't committed a diplomatic bay of pigs with our friends the Canadians.
Mr. Walter Lippmann in the Washington
Post wrote:
American dealings with the Canadian government have no doubt been complicated. But the crucial issue is the same one which has disrupted American relations with France and shaken the whole western alliance and has alienated the U.S. from General de Gaulle.
It was a thoughtless decision to embroil the U.S. with Ottawa in a relatively minor aspect of the great issue which is posed from Paris.
This is a quotation taken from an article reprinted in the Calgary Albertan on February 12, 1963. Then, Mr. Pierre Elliott-Trudeau poses these questions:
Do you think that it was by mistake that the State Department sent to the press, on the 30th of January, a release reinforcing Mr. Pearson's position and bluntly calling Mr. Diefenbaker a liar? Do you believe it was by pure chance that this communique furnished to the Leader of the Opposition the argument with which he literally stuffed his speech to parliament on the 31st of January? Do you believe that it was a mere coincidence that this series of events culminated in the fall of the government on the 5th of February?
There followed during the election campaign various other incidents of which I will mention only two-the Newsweek, article in February characterized by the Toronto Star as a disgraceful attack on the then prime minister, and the Buffalo radio station, WYSL, broadcasting an editorial urging its Canadian listeners to vote Liberal as recorded in the Toronto Telegram of April 4.
After the campaign came the gloating from Washington as reported in an editorial of the Globe and Mail of May 2, and a news story in the Toronto Telegram of April 24. Mr. Richard Starnes of the Scripps-Howard chain wrote as follows:
Adroit statecraft by the American State Department brought down the bungling, crypto-antiYankee government of Prime Minister John Diefenbaker and replaced it with a regime which promises to be faithful to the concept of Canadian-American interdependence ... American intervention was coldly calculated to do precisely what it did, and it was a brilliant success.

How coldly calculated was it by the state department? In the brief chronological summary that I have given, there should be inserted a letter dated January 14, a copy of which I received in the mail. The letter reads as follows:
Please accept my sincere congratulations on the excellent and logical speech you made at the Liberal party conference on nuclear weapons on January 12th.
We appreciated your statement which indicated that the points of view expressed by the Liberal party and my government are identical. As a result of your address.-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: - no other Canadian politician on record has gained as many devoted friends in my country as you have.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman is reading from a letter. Would he identify the letter in accordance with the rules of the house?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I always identify every document to which I refer in this house. I can assure the hon. gentleman that I will. I continue:
I was delighted with the timing, which I considered perfect, announcing the stand taken by the party. The Conservatives will be forced to repeat what you have already stated. It will be quite evident to the electorate that the policy of the Conservatives is narrow-minded and that they are unfit to continue governing the country.
At the first opportune moment, I would like to discuss with you how we could be useful to you in the future. You can always count on our support.
The Address-Mr. Churchill the name of the person to whom the letter is sent and who wrote it. I well suspect that he will be reading a letter which is a forgery.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) would want to identify the letter which he is reading now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am surprised at the intervention of the minister for external affairs. I said to the house that I would identify it as I always do every document that I present. I was on the point of identifying this document when he interrupted me quite unfairly with an accusation which he is going to find very difficult to substantiate.
The letter opens with the salutation, "Dear Mr. Pearson" and closes, "Sincerely yours, W. W. Butter worth". It is addressed on the lower left-hand corner of the letter to the Honourable L. B. Pearson, 541 Acacia avenue, Rockcliffe Park. In the top left-hand corner it bears the crest of the United States and on the top right-hand corner embossed are the words, "Embassy of the United States of America".


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. gentleman not aware that a newspaper in his own city, and I am not now referring to the Winnipeg Free Press, thought this letter was of such a character, of doubtful authenticity bordering on forgery, that they would not stoop to do what the hon. gentleman has done in this house this afternoon.
The letter opens with the salutation-


Murdo William Martin: On the point of order with respect to the rules; the hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that the practice is, when an hon. member is about to read from a letter, he identifies the correspondent. He identifies to whom the letter is sent and he identifies the letter writer. I greatly suspect that what the hon. gentleman is now doing, and he is doing it with knowledge, is that he is reading a letter which he knows to be an absolute forgery.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is a most unusual interference by the minister of external affairs and the accusation which he has made against me is something which will have to be considered very seriously by parliament. He has accused me now in a way which he will regret in the future. I will continue, Mr. Speaker, and I will identify, as I say-


Paul Joseph James Martin: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker; the hon. gentleman will observe the rules of the house and give us 28902-5-2IJ


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister of external affairs is arrogating to himself authority which he does not possess. He is making accusations here which are derogatory to the position of a minister of the crown and an insult to the members of the House of Commons. I stand here, sir, in the right of the free speech which is the heritage we have had in this parliament for generations, and for centuries, and I am entitled to draw the attention of the house to documents that I have received, such as this; and the Secretary of State for External Affairs has no right, no authority and no justification for any of the statements he has made.


Murdo William Martin: We shall see.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre would permit me to ask him one question. Would the hon. gentleman say where he got that letter and from whom, and what effort he has made to find out whether or not it was ever written by the purported author?


An hon. Member:: No answer.

The Address-Mr. Churchill


John Whitney Pickersgill: Shame.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is it not customary when a document is referred to and noted in the record that the person so doing so tables that document?


Mr. Baldwin:: No, only if it is a public document.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: I understand it was not a public document, and there is no obligation on the hon. member to table it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do raise a point of order. I think Your Honour, on consulting the rules, will find that it is not a rule of the house that a private member must table a document, and that only members of the government can table documents, and then only official documents; but every hon. member of the house who quotes a document has to vouch for the authenticity of the document he quotes. That is a rule of the house and I would ask Your Honour to enforce that rule with respect to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill).
He has quoted what purports to be a letter written by the United States ambassador here in Ottawa, to the present Prime Minister. Under the rules he has to take the responsibility, and the full responsibility for the authenticity of that document which my hon. friend, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, says he believes to be a forgery and which he believes the hon. gentleman knew to be a forgery when he quoted it. I must say, sir, I share that belief.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have already drawn Your Honour's attention to statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, now repeated by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State for External Affairs just recently made a statement which I will ask Your Honour to insist be withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: What I understand the minister to have said is simply that he believed the document is a forgery. I did not understand him to say he believed that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre was under that impression, or knew it was a forgery.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, that is what he said.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not what I gathered, and I am sure that is not the implication of the words spoken by the minister.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, as I understand the minister-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I believe the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam got up on a point of order first.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise two matters. The first is that the rules of the house do not require an hon. member to vouch for the authenticity, but to accept responsibility. There is a slight difference. Second,
I certainly contend that for an hon. member to say of another hon. member that a document he has produced is a forgery, and that the hon. member reading it knows it to be a forgery is surely an imputation contrary to the rules of the house and should be withdrawn.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Deputy Speaker, with the greatest respect to you my understanding was that the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that the hon. member speaking knew it to be a forgery. There is the privilege and there is the reason why that statement by both ministers should be withdrawn.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I raised a point of order, and my point of order I think was quite properly corrected by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas). I said that the hon. member quoting the document was expected to vouch for its authenticity, but I am sure the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is quite correct in saying he must take responsibility for it. To me the two things are the same. To me no hon. member, no gentleman, would quote from a document that he did not believe and have every reason to believe was authentic, so that while I was paraphrasing the rule I do not think I was changing its spirit in any way.
The hon. gentleman presumably takes the responsibility for the authenticity of this letter which I, and my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs, have said we believe to be forgery, and which we said we believed the hon. gentleman knew was a forgery. Now, if the hon. gentleman made so little effort to find out whether or not a document that he says was written by the ambassador of the United States to the present Prime Minister was authentic, if he was so careless that he did not take the trouble to find out-which he could easily have done by asking either of the parties-if he brought that document in without making any effort to find out whether it was authentic, then if that is the way he behaves, if that is his idea of responsibility all I can say is that that is not my idea of the way an hon. member of this house should behave.
It seems to me that before any extraneous question, such as was raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) is settled, Your Honour should

The Address-Mr. Churchill
first settle the point of order I raised; that is hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. to say we should be assured by the hon. Churchill) knew it was a forgery when he member for Winnipeg South Centre that he was quoting it. That is a direct imputation takes the responsibility for that document, against the integrity and honour of my hon. If the hon. gentleman is willing to do that friend. It is absolutely contrary to the rules then I am quite prepared to withdraw any and, as you have already ruled, it should be words^ I may have said that may have been withdrawn unconditionally, and other exoffensive to the hon. member.	traneous matters can be raised later.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is a question before you that affects the privileges of the house. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, repeated in turn by the Secretary of State, has made an imputation that must be withdrawn under the rules of the house. There is no question about that, and no smokescreen can get over that. The statement made by each of these hon. ministers was that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) knew this document to be a forgery. That, sir, must be withdrawn or the day of debate between gentlemen, under the rules of the house, will indeed have passed.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: It is my opinion that if this was actually what was said by both hon. ministers, that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre in reading this letter knew it was a forgery, then these are the words which should be withdrawn or explained by the ministers.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I must ask you to excuse me. I was talking to another hon. member and I did not hear what you said.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: What I said was simply this, that if what was said by the hon. ministers was that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre knew that the letter he quoted from was a forgery, these are words that should be withdrawn.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, with great respect I would suggest that the rule encompasses an act on the part of the hon. gentleman which he has not yet taken. If the hon. member says that what I have said does not represent the situation, then I have no other alternative under the rules than to accept that; but the hon. gentleman has not yet denied what I did say, and if he denies it and says it is not the case, then under the rules I have no alternative but to withdraw.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State has just said we should settle one question first and not bring in extraneous matters, but with all due respect that is what the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Secretary of State are trying to do. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said (a) this letter was a forgery, or words to that effect, and (b), that my colleague the


John Whitney Pickersgill: Your Honour, I understand-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -that you did not make any such unequivocal ruling at all.


Some hon. Members:: Yes, he did.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What Your Honour said was that the minister, if he did say what he was alleged to have said, should either withdraw it or explain it. My hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs has pointed out, quite correctly, that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has not denied that he knew this was a forgery. If the hon. gentleman denies that, then, as my hon. friend has said, he would of course have no choice but to accept the hon. member's word, and I am sure he would do it without delay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not believe the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has to deny anything. The statement has been made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I think that if those were actually the words spoken, and the intent of the minister was that when the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre made that statement and read those words he knew they were a. forgery, those words should be withdrawn.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I say first of all, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first time I have seen you in the chair and I must congratulate you and say that we all admire the way you are handling a difficult situation. If that is your ruling, of course I accept it and I act upon it at once.


An hon. Member:: Obey it.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. May I suggest that the minister has had the courtesy to withdraw his words.


Some hon. Members:: He has not.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: It is my understanding that he has withdrawn his words. He has said that if this is my ruling, he abides by my ruling. It is the ruling of the Chair. The words have been withdrawn, and I would urge hon. members to consider the matter closed.

The Address-Mr. Latulippe


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the matter to which reference has been made-and I am sorry I was not in the house when the reference was made-is a letter, I take it, that was supposed to have been sent to me by the United States ambassador. When this letter was brought to my attention, or the report of it, during the election campaign I let it be known then that I had received no such letter, and the United States ambassador let it be known that he had sent me no such letter. My hon. friend opposite must have known that, and therefore the letter was a forgery; of course it was a forgery.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear. (Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The letter deals with an important matter, and I should like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) whether he has made an investigation, since he has become the head of the government, to determine who has thus been using his name and that of the American ambassador to write such a letter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The matter is closed.
A point of order was made and the minister concerned gave an explanation. Therefore, I consider that the matter is closed; I now recognize the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Latulippe).


Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compion-Fronlenac):: May I first of all congratulate the Speaker on his nomination to the high position to which he was appointed and also the Deputy Speaker and the deputy chairman of the committees. I should also like to congratulate the mover (Miss Jewett) and the seconder (Mr. Choquette) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
It is with pride that I thank my electors of Compton-Frontenac for the confidence they have placed in me in renewing my mandate for a second time.
I can assure them that I will continue to put my humble knowledge at their service in order to fully discharge my duties as a member of parliament, which are not to be confined to patronage but should also involve all the needs and problems of my constituents in order to help those who are in need.
It is with anxiety that I listened to the speech read by the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General.
Fine words and many flowers or rhetoric can be found in it, but I note that it is always the same kind of speech we have since confederation-a lot of meaningless words and few practical suggestions for the uplift of the

unbalanced economy facing the Canadian people and against which they have been struggling all across Canada.
I had expected to see the Liberals, for once in history, tackle the problems of the Canadian economy head on and apply beneficial and true solutions, appropriate and vital cures to the glaring economic unrest as, for instance the host of the outcasts of fortune, the homeless, the numerous unfortunate victims of the oppression of the many by the few.
The Liberals did delude those poor people and tossed them in a blanket by presenting themselves as completely new men during the last election campaign of last April 8, and pretending they had a rejuvenated party with a new spirit, strengthened by new ideas, a party with new policies, and contending that under its leadership the Canadian people would have a brand new economy and unprecedented stability.
I find that the speech from the throne is meaningless and, as I said earlier, it is almost identical to all those made since confederation, except that this time there is something new in the field of nuclear weapons. The Liberals are in orbit. They are thinking about the moon. They are getting away from earth and from worldly concerns. They know nothing about the problems of needy families, they no longer think of the unemployed. They want us to swallow the matter of nuclear weapons, they want peace, but they prepare for war.
In the Friday, November 16, 1962 issue of the Montreal daily Le Devoir, Hugh MacLen-nan stated the following:
In universities throughout the world and, I believe, even in universities behind the iron curtain, everyone agrees that an international policy based on nuclear fear must normally lead to an inconceivable disaster.
What do we of our generation want, whether we be old or young, men or women? War or peace? Life or death? If we want to live, we undoubtedly want peace.
Now, the question is, what sort of peace do we want? A confused peace, in which we shall rot away miserably, facing a hopeless future for our young people, in homes too poor to have children and to bring them up decently.
That is the sort of peace which this unsettled government offers us, whose administration deprives the poor in order to pay war debts, unemployment debts to "money makers", expenses for guns, aircraft and nuclear arms.
No, that is not the kind of peace we want, what we want is an orderly, settled peace. Peace with all the other countries, but, first

and foremost, peace among ourselves, in our own country, peace between capital and labour, between management and labour, between unemployment and technical advance, between this country's wealth and the living standard of our people. That is the peace we want. It is obvious that we know what we aim at: As much money as there are products, a constant balance between our buying power and the goods offered for consumption.
Let us have a showdown: People are dissatisfied with the present government. In this our Canada, as well as throughout the world, there is general discontent and grumbling, discontent due to constant fear, chronic insecurity, and groundless destitution. One crisis breeds another, so that, on the one hand, great quantities of essential assets and efforts are lost, while on the other hand, half the people in the world suffer from the pangs of hunger. Here, Canadians are fighting unemployment crowded and crammed in slums.
Farming is in a state of depression. Gerard Filion, the columnist of Le Devoir, wrote on November 7 last, and I quote:
The farmers are up in arms and it is serious. Political parties ought to have the problem of agricultural economy thoroughly examined once more by experts, so as to offer something else than panaceas. It is serious, because the agricultural class is entitled to a decent living.
A fact remains which nobody can deny: it is that the present economic system praised so much by the two old line parties, works badly, leads to credit restrictions, unemployment, misery and to the inconsistencies of privation amidst plenty.
It is precisely because economists of the two old line parties did not want to see the facts that they proclaimed for a long time that the Social Credit theory was a utopia. But is the present system that our economists persist in defending so consistent with reality? Has it proved so great a success? Does it bring the necessary solutions? Will they be the last and only ones to defend it?
What is so utopian in Social Credit? Is it utopia to turn our country's wealth to the benefit of our families, to put within the reach of everyone that which everyone contributes to produce?
People do not eat according to the food produced in the country; people do not dress according to the clothes manufactured in the country; people do not stay in houses according to the lumber and building materials of the country. The basic criterion remains the sum of money the system allows us.
Popes have denounced such a state of affairs, but it goes on. Every human being is
The Address-Mr. Latulippe entitled to the necessaries of life. Money must be geared to production, not production to money. Systems are made for men, not men for systems. Money must not limit human freedom and self-achievement. Here is an extract from the financial column of La Patrie signed by Marcel Ouimet on November 21, 1962, and I quote:
Any economic system is subject to continuous change, and capitalism is no exception to the rule. At the present time, the contribution made by the enterprise economy will therefore be appreciated to the extent it will succeed in enlisting every one's support, said Mr. Kierans, and in adapting itself to people's needs and in presenting itself to the still uncommitted countries as an acceptable system of social organization which can best combine material progress and complete respect for human values.
Today's economic system is based on money, and so it starts at the wrong end. Finance controls and governs production, production governs consumption, man must get along with what he is offered and what he is allowed to get. Why must our province of Quebec account alone for almost half the unemployed in Canada, or more exactly 36 per cent of them? Is our well known patience to be pushed to the limit?
In fact, a booklet entitled "Unemployment in Canada" and published by the dominion bureau of statistics under catalogue no. 71-503F, shows that between 1951 and 1955, years during which we lived under a Liberal administration, the unemployment figures by region give Quebec 36 per cent of all the unemployed in Canada. The same situation prevails during the Conservative administration between 1956 and 1960.
Our work force being only 27 per cent, a sharp difference of 35 to 40 per cent between the per capita income in Quebec and Ontario is the lot of the population in the province of Quebec.
Would not that be reason enough to provoke those poor people, forced to live in slums because they have no purchasing power, because they cannot get the money that is so cheap to produce, because, try as they may, they cannot sell the strength and production of their arms?
And injustice does not strike only the unemployed or the small wage earners in our cities. Because a great number of people lack enough purchasing power, the farmers are forced to sell their products below cost, even if they evaluate their work at only 50 cents per day.
Personally, I have come to the conclusion that there is a fifth column at work to drive the Canadians away from the system that

The Address-Mr. Latulippe prevails in Canada, to kill all ideals in their hearts and thus to hurt our economy.
You can not stand up in defence of a given regime if you do not really care for it. I feel it is high time for the authorities to pay some attention to this fifth column of ours.
Bankers reject the idea of a well-balanced economy and try to postpone its advent. They do not mind seeing people with empty pockets, and would much rather control mortgages and increase our national debt than help the state give the people wholesome and proper food and lodgings, capable of maintaining a decent army of workers and of warriors.
It is generally recognized that the family is the main cell of the national body. If we do not have a truly patriotic legislation, taking into account the elementary needs of large families, we shall see on the home front, long before enemy bombs might start falling-our families dispersed, our birth rate disrupted, our population drained of its lifeblood-and all this for what reason? In deference to figures and regulations which place money above human capital.
Hitler was blamed because of his disregard for human life. Does our tight money system have regard for human life? Has not the time come to redress and rectify a disorder which weakens our cause?
In order to support my argument, I shall quote a paragraph printed black on white on page 878 of the 1954 decennial review of the Bank Act.
At this time the chartered banks have accumulated securities of every kind, representing a total of about ten billion dollars. As strange as this may seem, they have acquired all these assets from the people and the government of Canada for practically nothing. That has been possible because, first of all, the banks have stocked up securities without spending so much as a cent. They obtained everything by resorting to trickery. It is high time that they give back their ill-acquired securities or that they be made to pay for them.
The banks are pretending that they have paid or lent ten times the amount they now hold or have collected; that they have issued money to acquire their holdings, or that they bought them with their customers' money. That is as false as can be: it is a despicable way of cheating people. This is what they really did: instead of using their own capital for constituting their holding, they simply credited their customers' accounts with the amounts owed. If those liabilities to their clients had been paid by the banks, there would have been no reason to complain. But, strange as it may seem, all was cancelled, rescinded or repudiated later on, so that the securities making up the holding remained in the hands of the banks without ever being paid for.
Why not start by paying allowances in proportion to the cost of living. I don't mean a

fortune for everybody, but at least what the humane society would ask for the average pedigreed dog. It would be less expensive and would bring in more for the nation than the interest paid to the bankers.
In view of the great dangers that have been mentioned, would it not be proper to put all our forces into the service of the nation, even the banking force. The bankers might do much better that way, because, about a week after they have been made out, all cheques come back to them perfectly safe and in good order.
Let us hope that our leaders will soon open up their eyes and bring to reason the fifth columnists supplying credit a drop at a time and paralysing the traditional family organization, promoting higher taxes, to such a point John Doe is beginning to wonder who is the boss.
Just think: the citizens choose candidates who are already selected; the politicians deceive their electors, promote political prejudice, make speeches stuffed with distortions of the truth and half truth, strive to repay their fund subscribers and faithfully serve those who have the money. I could name several of them here in this house.
Think also of the system of political patronage used to hand out the right to live for the price of degradation, abuse and delation. Think of the civil power, which should govern from above, as a sovereign and supreme judge, in all fairness and only in the interest of the common good and of justice. It has fallen to the level of a slave and has become the manageable instrument of all passions and ambitions of private interest.
The inability shown by statesmen throughout the world to solve the problems facing them is the underlying cause of crisis and wars which have been suceeding each other for several decades.
Why should the province of Quebec alone have almost half the jobless in Canada, or more precisely 36 per cent of them? Do they want to aggravate the virtue of patience which characterizes us?
If the democratic nations had succeeded in distributing the products of industry to the people, they would never have had to face the terrible threat of totalitarian states.
We, in America, are at present going through a crisis, we have to spend billions of dollars, we have to abandon our traditional occupations, and to support the staggering burden of taxatidn and indebtedness simply

because democracies did not have in the past enough social awareness to give the essentials of life to every element of the community.
They ignored the fact that if they neglected to operate the system equitably for all, they would bring about indirectly destruction of democratic capitalism.
The only thing for us to do is to take the necessary means which Social Crediters have been advocating for years and years:	a
national dividend to all members of the community, supplemented by compensated discounts.
If, after such evidence, people still want to close their eyes to reality, we repeat that the true enemies of democracy are within and the day will certainly come when public opinion will send them one by one to its merciless tribunal.
Error cannot always win over truth.
But there is in this world, no intelligent being who after having pondered the matter at any length who would not admit the truth of my repeated statements. That may have been why Henry Ford said:
If the American public knew of the corruption of their money system, there would be a revolution tomorrow morning.
The basic evil is that the leaders of all our democracies refuse to admit the current reality or do not want to realize that humanity has reached a stage in its development where productivity is so enormous that the whole system of wage payment and other similar forms of remuneration or distribution have become entirely obsolete and must make way before a system based on an accurate assessment of the facts.
Well understood Social Credit is genuine enough not to be against anything in a negative manner; it is simply for the complete truth, in order to take its place in a well balanced community.
We are wondering what the old governments have done to build up a debt-free system, a monetary system based on existing production and on production potential. What have our two old governments done to guarantee to everybody, out of our gigantic production, the vital minimum required? What pieces of legislation have they enacted in order to protect large families? What legislation have they passed to protect farmers and settlers, apart from the system of debts that we have now?
Social Crediters have been shouting for 35 years now: since the store-houses are full, it is possible to put something on the tables; since the warehouses are bulging, we can also
The Address-Mr. Webster fill the houses; since merchandises are piling up in the stores, we can put some in the homes so that each and everyone receives the share which is his through progress and science transmitted from generation to generation.
(Text):


Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to be associated with the congratulations and expressions of appreciation that have been extended to all presiding officers of the house during this debate. Anyone who values our parliamentary institutions must recognize the necessity of orderly procedure based on self-discipline and respect for the authority of the Speaker. The alternative is anarchy.
Since the opening days of the twenty sixth parliament I have frequently thought of two former Vancouver members with long records of service in this house. One is Angus Mac-Innis who represented Vancouver East and later Vancouver-Kingsway continuously from 1930 until 1957, and the other is Howard Green who sat for Vancouver Quadra from 1935 until 1963. Although Mr. Maclnnis is a Prince Edward Island socialist and Mr. Green a British Columbia Conservative, these gentlemen have much in common-humility, integrity, courage and dedication to the public good. I am sure that all members who knew them will join with me in wishing them good health and many happy years of retirement on the Pacific coast.
The speech from the throne reminds us of our association with the commonwealth, of the meeting of prime ministers last year and of the brief visit of our present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to the British Isles early this month.
There have been many meetings in London since the first conference in 1887. In the beginning they were called colonial conferences, then imperial conferences and later commonwealth conferences. It is significant too that in 1887 those who attended were not even members of parliament but government officials who met under the chairmanship of the British colonial secretary. Now the prime ministers of the autonomous states meet as equals.
From 1897 until 1911 Sir Wilfrid Laurier constantly opposed the Chamberlain policy of political federation with a central parliament in London, and from 1915 until 1919 Sir Robert Borden insisted that the time had passed when the British prime minister could speak for the whole empire, and successfully urged that each dominion could be bound only by its own ministers in the imperial war cabinet, at the Versailles peace confer-

The Address-Mr. Webster ence and later at the league oi nations. Canadians should remember with gratitude the leadership of Laurier and Borden at a critical time in our national life. They spoke out frankly on behalf of this young nation. What Sir Wilfrid referred to as a "galaxy of nations under the British crown" Sir Robert described as "autonomous nations of an imperial commonwealth". Had their vision been less clear and their courage less strong, the course of this country and of the commonwealth would have been very different.
The commonwealth has no parallel in history. Centralized empires there have been, colonies there have been which have become independent states, but there have been no other instances of colonies becoming free and then turning to co-operative association with one another and with the mother country. This political evolution has been the result, not of breaking sharply with the past nor of standing by and allowing matters to drift, but of developing and extending proven institutions to fit new circumstances.
Once again the British genius for government, for adaptation and compromise, is being tested as she considers a new relationship with her neighbours on the continent of Europe. The attitudes of men all over the world are changing. A few years ago who would have thought that western Europe would be bringing itself together in a dynamic economic and political association where old traditional rivalries and state sovereignties are being submerged in a new pattern of public administration that can only be described as revolutionary? Dissolution of a centuries old empire has been accepted, even accelerated by Britain herself. So, too, all over the world we have this greater conception of human brotherhood, of a common humanity which defies our old ideas of a static world and demands a new dimension in our thinking.
In Canada only men of little faith and narrow vision fear this historic development. This must be Britain's decision. It remains for the Canadian government to respond with good grace and with energy and resourcefulness in taking advantage of new trading opportunities wherever they may appear. I have no doubt that the commonwealth will continue to grow in strength as a unique instrument for peace and progress throughout the world. To this end the Canadian government should play a leading role in improving the means of communication between the component parts of the commonwealth and in promoting co-operative measures at the world trade conference to be sponsored by the United Nations in 1964. I was pleased to read the following comment of Lord Home, British

foreign minister, in the Ottawa Citizen last week:
It is an excellent thing to see Canada playing an active part in the political councils and economic activities of the commonwealth as she approaches her centenary.
The speech from the throne implies quite correctly that the most vital question before mankind today is to learn how to live together without plotting to destroy one another, in brief, to avoid nuclear war. To this end Canadians should associate themselves with others to create a world climate that is conducive to peace everywhere. Scientists and artists do it in their areas of interest and activity, as demonstrated at the UNESCO festival in Ottawa last week. Why not politicians? We must be humble enough to adjust our attitudes to other people who may have coloured skins, speak strange tongues and worship foreign gods. We must learn to understand and trust people, all kinds of people, if we wish to survive the twentieth century.
If an individual claimed for himself the self-righteous moral values that public men and writers attribute to our nation, he would be considered beneath contempt. But to talk of the foreign policies and attitudes of our own country in anything less than superlatives which pay solemn tribute to our nobility and high moral purpose is to be unpatriotic. In very truth, according to our present standards humility and patriotism are incompatible.
When Oliver Wendell Holmes was over 80 years of age he once declared that he had spent the first 70 years of his life learning that he was not God.
In the United Nations assembly delegates speak with respect of one another in discussing the most controversial subjects. But in national parliaments like our own House of Commons we are inclined to refer in derogatory terms to countries with whom we are not aligned in the cold war. We should stop thinking in absolute terms of black and white, good and evil, slave and free.
I wish to present four witnesses who remind us that we have a responsibility to examine our own minds in relation to other people. Sydney Harris in a column last week in an Ottawa paper said this:
None of us should listen to a man giving a lecture or preaching a sermon on his philosophy of life until we know how he treats his wife, his children, his neighbours, his subordinates and his enemies.
Raymond B. Fosdick, in a recent article in the New York Times commenting on a statement of Admiral Radford's that "we cannot trust the Russians", said this:
It may be true, but that is also what the Russians profess to think of us. That is what the Athenians under Pericles said about the Spartans. It is what the Romans said about the Carthagenians. It is

what both Catholics and Protestants said about each other in the 16th century as they began a hundred years of reciprocal slaughter. It is what many modern nations have said about one another in two recent world wars. It is what the north and south charged a century ago here in the United States as they plunged into a fratricidal mania from which even today we have not fully Recovered.
My third witness is Prime Minister Harold Macmillan who, on November 6, 1962, said in the British House of Commons, and I quote:
We must not be cynical and believe nothing but ill of certain classes of our fellow men-much as we may dislike the doctrines they follow. One cannot live in a world which is just nothing but suspicion and fear or life becomes intolerable.
My next witness is U Thant, secretary general of the United Nations. In closing his acceptance speech to the assembly on November 30, 1962, he spoke very earnestly as follows:
These problems can be solved only by good will and mutual understanding and by a spirit of give and take.
When the future of mankind itself is at stake no country or interest group can afford to take a rigid stand or claim that its position is the only right one and that others must take it or leave it. No difficult problem can be solved to the complete satisfaction of all sides. We live in an imperfect world and have to accept imperfect solutions which become more acceptable as we learn to live with them and as time passes by.
The speech from the throne reminds us that Canadian unity is being threatened at the very time we are preparing to celebrate 100 years of confederation, and at the very time when we need to be strong to play our full part as a young and vigorous democracy in world affairs. In Quebec, the advocates of withdrawal from confederation repudiate 200 years of nation-building, including the glorious periods of Papineau and Mackenzie, Laurier and Borden and more recently King and St. Laurent.
Let us not forget, too, that every province has been strengthened and enriched by thousands of industrious and gifted French Canadian families who have made their homes in all sections of this country from the mari-times to British Columbia. Their contributions to Canada and their interests must be considered in any future plans designed to strengthen confederation. Ignorance on both sides is our greatest danger, a continual source of misunderstanding and irritation between English speaking and French speaking Canadians. In spite of modern means of communication and travel, Canadians in the west and Canadians in the east remain strangers in many ways. A reporter in the Globe and Mail a few days ago advised us to plan a do-it-yourself birthday party for 1967. This is an excellent suggestion. However, I would urge that we expand the idea and call it a get-acquainted party.
28902-5-22i
The Address-Mr. Webster
To this end, I recommend that we stop thinking of Canada as a melting pot. This conception of nation building is outdated, unrealistic, unimaginative and destructive of important values. We should seek unity through variety not similarity; unity through mutual appreciation, not through dull conformity; unity through justice, not through discrimination. At all costs, let us avoid becoming a nation of sheep. Mahatma Gandhi once said, "I like to think of the winds of time blowing the cultures of all lands around my doorstep".
We must build greater respect and understanding for one another in the fields of education, culture and sports, as well as commerce and industry. Exchange of language teachers at the secondary school level and of university students should be encouraged between Quebec and the western provinces. Furthermore, there should be an immediate speeding up of plans to teach the French language to more and more elementary school classes across the nation. In this connection, I recommend that all hon. members read the challenging article by Pierre Berton in the latest issue of Maclean's magazine.
A democratic society calls for a maximum development of every individual as a worker and as a citizen. No Canadian, regardless of the poverty or isolation of his home, should be neglected. In order to provide instruction and training for all who can benefit from it, governments must give high priority to school and university budgets. The local taxpayers cannot be expected to carry the major burden. The federal government should support higher education and research on a new and imaginative scale as recommended in scores of recent reports on this subject. I hope that the absence of any reference to this subject in the speech from the throne does not mean that this government contemplates a backward step in this department.
Canada will become a second-rate nation if we do not recognize education as a major social enterprise of national importance. If we do less we will make a farce of the boast that we believe in equality of opportunity for Canadian youth.
A study of biculturalism is to be commended. However, much can be done now by public spirited leaders in every community. Let us encourage the wider use of our present means of communication and travel. Let us remind our fellow Canadians that we own a Canadian broadcasting system with both radio and television in both English and French; trans-Canada railway and telegraph service; an air line, and a trans-Canada highway which permits one to motor at top speed

The Address-Mr. Webster across this nation. Let us encourage more people to use their own facilities to move east and west instead of north and south. It would be good for all of us.
Thousands of our friends go south every summer from force of habit. The same situation prevails in British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia. Let us change the direction of our holiday migrants for the good of Canada. "Let's get acquainted" should be a major objective of the centennial committee.
However, if we are to have a strong, united Canada, this parliament should be content with nothing less than full employment long before 1967. Nothing contributes more to frustration and bitterness or loss of confidence in one's country and its social system than long periods of unemployment. The relatively poor economic conditions in Quebec provide a major source of discontent among the working people and farmers in that province. To a lesser degree, this is true in all areas across the dominion.
Bold measures must be taken to expand production and distribute goods to both domestic and foreign markets on an enlarged scale. This is the challenge to those who have the responsibility for introducing and administering the various planning bills foreshadowed in the speech from the throne. Unemployment is the most outstanding weakness in our Canadian economy today. Both the public and private sectors must co-operate with the government, management and labour to develop means of working in concert towards the objective of full employment.
The Vancouver Sun, a staunch Liberal paper, in commenting on unemployment demonstrations in England said this in an editorial, and I quote:
Here in Canada few if any delegations plague our M.P.'s in the corridors of the house. Here, even in the midst of a federal election campaign, unemployment is little stressed as a major national issue.
The Englishman becomes agitated, indignant and mildly violent when less than 5 per cent of the national labour force is unemployed. Canadians, with 8 per cent of the labour force idle, show no similar trepidation.
Does this show that we are qualified to instruct the emotional Englishman in respectable restraint and political propriety? Or are we just hardened to unemployment?
Thirty years ago this July, in London, I heard a Scottish miner by the name of David Kirkwood cry out from his seat in the House of Commons, "Mr. Speaker, the work is all done". This is an exaggeration, of course. However, his remark contained an important truth which we are just beginning to appreciate in this age of automation as revealed, for instance, in many of the recommendations of the Glassco commission.

Is it true that we have become hardened to unemployment? Last Monday, after speaking for almost two hours, the leader of the official opposition made an offhand reference to unemployment. He said that one of his lieutenants would no doubt deal with the matter later in the debate. Apparently the subject was of no great importance. It would be interesting to know if the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) is still of the opinion that 2 per cent or 3 per cent unemployment must be expected in this country as a matter of course. In a citizen's forum debate with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) last winter the minister, then plain Mr. Sharp, said:
I should think this is about the sort of minimum level of unemployment that is compatible with the free working of the system.
In answer to this statement Mr. Knowles remarked:
I think Mr. Sharp let the Liberal cat right out of the bag. He said the level of unemployment should be as low as is possible being compatible with the system. There is the Liberal approach-keep the system that we've got. That is more of a god than getting rid of unemployment. We say if necessary change the system to get rid of unemployment completely.
If medical scientists had accepted diphtheria, tuberculosis, small pox or diabetes as incapable of treatment, would we ever have found the means of preserving the health of countless thousands of people in the past 50 years?
If the current illness in our economy requires new procedures, new controls- "human direction" to quote Lewis Mumford -they should be undertaken in the interests of a strong, healthy, happy Canada. A few weeks ago the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) responded in a matter of hours when flood conditions in the Northwest Territories endangered the lives of our fellow citizens. We applaud him quite properly for his initiative, energy and compassion, but why do we not display the same kind of concern for the families of the half million men and women who are without work across the country? Intelligent people know that this depressed condition will be ignored at our peril.
If Canada is to be united and strong as it approaches its centennial, the government must take bold and decisive action to place legislation before us in this session that will prove effective in meeting this human tragedy.
In closing, I wish to quote a statement by the late Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. William Temple:
If a bridge is to be built, the church may remind the engineer that it is his obligation to provide a really safe bridge but it is not entitled to tell him whether, in fact, his design meets this require-

ment. Similarly, when the church is asked to provide the Christian remedy for unemployment it must answer, 'No, I cannot tell you what is the remedy, but I can tell you that a society in which unemployment is a chronic feature is a diseased society and if you are not going to do all you can to find and administer a remedy you are guilty before God.'
I thank the house for its attention.


Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I also, in the time honoured tradition of the house, congratulate you on your appointment to the high position which you hold, and may I congratulate the Deputy Speaker on his appointment. I would also like to take this opportunity of following my colleagues on both sides of the house in congratulating both the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from throne, the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette). May I say too that I am proud to be a member of the party which is now in government, and especially proud to be led by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson).
I am most happy and proud to have been elected by the people in my riding of Hamilton West as their representative in this house. My predecessors have represented the riding with distinction, and I pray and trust I shall follow in their footsteps. Hamilton West is composed of many diverse peoples of diverse occupations-the labourer, steelworker, small businessman, executive, industrialist and financier. Within its electoral boundaries are to be found industry, McMaster University with its nuclear reactor, the business, commercial and financial centre of the city of Hamilton, the new city hall of which all Hamiltonians are justifiably proud, and the new county court house of the county of Wentworth, which is the finest court house not only in the province of Ontario but in all of Canada at the present time. Also within its electoral boundaries is the port of Hamilton, one of the most important ports on the great lakes and St. Lawrence waterways system, and it also contains some very fine residential areas, both old and new.
In the speech from the throne there are proposals which, when translated into legislation and approved by the house, which I fully expect they will be, will be of great benefit to the people of my riding and to all other Canadians. I will not touch upon all of the proposals, as previous speakers have adequately done so. Instead I shall restrict my comments to a few, those which are of the utmost importance to my riding and the people of Hamilton generally.
The city of Hamilton is justifiably known as the "ambitious city." It is the industrial
The Address-Mr. Macaluso and steel centre of Canada. Industry is the lifeblood of this country, and the steel industry is the lifeblood of the people in Hamilton, not only of the steelworker but of those in all fields of enterprise within the city. Therefore the immediate establishment of a department of industry to foster industrial expansion and provide the many new jobs that are so badly needed, in order to check the large scale unemployment of recent years, will be anxiously looked forward to by the people in my riding.
As an alderman in the Hamilton city council for ward 2, a ward wholly situated within the electoral boundaries of Hamilton West, and which seat I will soon resign, I can say that the intention of the government to establish a municipal development and loan fund is a great step forward in the long awaited additional assistance from the federal government to the over burdened budgets of our municipalities, in order that capital projects can be commenced and completed, not only to provide and improve services but also to provide further means of employment.
My constituents in Hamilton West will be especially and particularly interested in the proposed amendments to the National Housing Act. Hamilton, as I have said, is known as the ambitious city, but it is also a gracious city. Its hand is extended in friendship to all who come there for a visit, or to make the city their home. Hamilton West has much to offer-good business opportunities, complete shopping facilities, pleasant residential areas and an excellent school system from kindergarten to postgraduate university level. However, parts of our city are getting old; some are well over 100 years old. Many of the original buildings still remain, and the street pattern has been virtually unchanged since it was first laid down.
Urban renewal and development is a reality in our city. Already there has been acquired and cleared in the Van Wagner-Crescent Beach area some 72 acres of waterfront property on lake Ontario, which consisted of blighted and low density residential homes. This area has been cleared and is presently being developed as a public park and recreational area. Further, a plan of urban renewal and redevelopment has been prepared by the city of Hamilton for the northeasterly section of my riding, encompassing an area of some six blocks, which plan has been approved by the city council and is awaiting the approval of the Ontario municipal board.
Much has been said, a great deal has been written, and not too much has been done about urban renewal in Canada. Urban renewal is a city-wide program in which all available federal, provincial, municipal and

The Address-Mr. Macaluso private resources should be applied to eliminate blight, slums, and to prevent their formation. Urban renewal has four main purposes so far in this country-clearance, redevelopment, rehabilitation and conservation.
Public acceptance of urban renewal as a concept has advanced further in the United States than in Canada, and particularly so, as it relates to assistance from the federal government. The present urban renewal program in Canada has been too narrow to cope effectively with the basic problems facing our cities. If our cities are to recapture their economic health they must offer better opportunities to commercial, industrial and residential developments and strengthen the cultural and recreational facilities of their cores.
The extent to which a federal government should be a direct participant in the financing of urban renewal is a matter which leaves room for a difference of opinion. In the United States the federal government enters into a direct contract with the municipality concerned. Under part 5 of the National Housing Act of Canada arrangements may now be made with a province or with a municipality with the approval of the province to conduct studies of the condition of housing and urban areas. Federal contributions may be up to 75 per cent of the cost of such studies. There is further provision for clearance grants in the amount of one half of the difference between the cost of clearance and the economic value of the land when cleared. The remaining 50 per cent of subsidy is financed by the province and/or the municipality as determined by the province. The important thing to note here is that clearance grants have only been made available for the purpose of clearing land which is substantially residential and which is to be redeveloped substantially in a residential form. At one time in the United States the same was true, but there has been progressive widening of use of their clearance legislation to a point that urban renewal funds may now be used for non-residential renewal projects deemed necessary for sound community development.
It is in this aspect, Mr. Speaker, that we should turn our attention to the proposed amendments to the National Housing Act, that is, in the area of providing funds for non-residential renewal projects, which is so badly lacking at the present time in our legislation; in other words, for the renewal and redevelopment of the commercial core of our cities. All in all, quite a job is being done in Hamilton, and particularly in Hamilton West, where new high-rise apartments are being erected almost monthly. This is

changing the character of the southern section of my riding from clearly a residential to a more commercial area. However, the funds provided for these projects are coming mainly from private investors. The targets of those interested in urban renewal in Hamilton are considerably higher than even the accomplishments to date.
Renewal and redevelopment of the central core of Hamilton, which is situated wholly within my riding, would have three parts, I suggest-commercial, public building and residential accommodation. With respect to commercial redevelopment and public buildings, Mr. Speaker, there is no lack in Hamilton West of vacant land in the areas suitable for those developments. All along our downtown streets we find vacant land which has been created by the demolition of obsolete buildings, demolished because these structures created rentals insufficient to pay the taxes on them and the expense of operating them. Vacant land for parking gives a better net return. Our taxation system has been an important clearance tool in the commercial but not the residential field. The city of Hamilton is concerned, as are many other municipalities, about its downtown core because it feels that development must take place in that location but finds that it does not have funds to carry on the project itself. Municipal government finds itself in the position of being obliged to finance and provide public services to a scattered population in the maximum use areas and simultaneously trying to extend public service to a scattered population in the farflung new fringe areas. Inadequate city living started the rush to the city limits and beyond to the urban fringe and the suburbs.
City living can be made as desirable and satisfying as life in the suburbs. To attain this goal, however, requires more than cleaning of backyards and of painting of houses or any aspect of the "clean up, paint up, fix up" campaigns. The problem is complex and so is also the solution. Urban renewal is a continuing process and in the final analysis it will be up to the federal government to see to it that a workable program is adopted and put into practice in the field of commercial redevelopment.
I would like to quote a few excerpts from the Hamilton Spectator of Saturday, May 25, 1963, which to a certain degree shows the extent of the problem in Hamilton and Hamilton West in the redevelopment of commercial areas. I quote from an editorial by Tom F. Mills:
Before the inferiority complex becomes too complex, it should be said that good planning has gone into the north-end urban renewal area, and much work done on it by city planners. But people who come here from out of town know what they

see and feel. Just about a year ago, William Zeckendorf, Jr., president of Webb and Knapp, Inc., leading redevelopers, made a controversial assessment: "Hamilton is in need of complete revitalization of its downtown core." Without immediate action, he said, there could be complete deterioration, and he urged efforts to have Hamilton industries build office buildings downtown.
This to date has not been very successful, Mr. Speaker. He goes on:
-we think perhaps the most significant comment about Hamilton was made here only in March by Mr. John James, planning chief for Great Britain's ministry of housing and local development.
Mr. James said, according to this article:
There is a loose fabric in Hamilton which is very odd ... I would like to see more heartbeat in the downtown area.
Mr. Mills then goes on to say:
A favourable sign is renewed talk of an auditorium and of other proposals stirring in the downtown sector; there are indications that the graph of civic spirit is rising. And of course there is more to town planning than the creation of zoning areas and the drawing of land use maps, basic as these are in a properly planned city. But we must also have the stimulus of optimistic architects' sketches of pedestrian malls, public parks and buildings downtown.
The "loose fabric" sensed by Mr. James must be drawn tight; the heartbeat made stronger so Hamilton can restore itself to a proud position among the great and progressive cities of Canada.
I do not wish to show by these comments, Mr. Speaker, that Hamilton is not progressive and is not advanced but I merely put this forward to show that the problem which exists in Hamilton also exists at this time in many of our municipalities and cities, for example, the metropolitan area of Toronto. In order to revitalize our downtown cores the federal government must take steps in moving forward with amendments to the National Housing Act to extend grants for urban renewal, not only for urban renewal in residential areas but also urban renewal in the commercial field. Urban renewal and development has another aspect in that it is more calculated to stimulate our economic recovery, provide more jobs and create further employment.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock recess I had just completed discussing the proposed amendments to the National Housing Act which were set out in the speech from the throne, and I had completed stating my view that the government must take into
The Address-Mr. Macaluso
consideration amendments to the National Housing Act dealing with grants for urban renewal and extend them from the clearance field of residential areas and development of residential areas to grants for commercial redevelopment in the downtown core of our municipalities.
Mr. Speaker, I should like at this time to refer to the following words which appear in the speech from the throne:
Immigration policy will be reviewed.
In an earlier section the speech says:
The character and strength of our nation are drawn from the diverse cultures of people who came from the many lands to create the Canada that is ours today.
I should like at this time to quote from an editorial in the Globe and Mail of May 9, 1963, where it states:
Immigration was up by 1,648 during the first three months of 1963 over the first three months of 1962; but Canada can take no credit for this microscopic gain. Most of the increase in the flow of new residents came from the United Kingdom, and the Britons were not so much coming to Canada as getting away from the rigours of the worst winter Britain has known this century.
A revision of the Immigration Act, Mr. Speaker, has been long overdue. The core of Canada's immigration policy is contained in section 31 of the immigration regulations. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker), when prime minister, devoted much of his oratorical talents to the cause of civil rights for all, but he and his government procrastinated about amending the Immigration Act. This is not hard to understand, for immigration policy offers a test of a government's convictions. The Immigration Act of 1952 is and remains an anachronism. The former government brought about reform through changes in the regulations, but one might become suspicious of flexible and seemingly liberal regulations because the effect of these regulations depends upon interpretation and administration, and leads one to question whether they will be administered in a liberal manner, or will they be a mask for selection by race?
There is room in Canada for skilled workers; we all know this. However, prosperity in Europe is making it more difficult to find skilled immigrants and to encourage them to come to Canada. Again quoting from the same editorial it says:
Canada is a large, rich, empty country that needs immigrants as much as, if not more than, any country in the world. We need their skills to make new industries to make new jobs. We need their consumption to increase the size of our domestic market, reduce our per unit cost of production and make us more competitive at home and abroad. We need their presence to fill up the empty holes and make it passible for us to become a nation.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with all those who spoke before me in congratulating the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Macnaughton) who, because of his fairness and sense of justice, will perform his high duties with a great deal of tact and to the general satisfaction.
As for your own nomination to the office of Deputy Speaker of the house I am happy to tell you that you too have all the required qualifications to carry out satisfactorily the duties of your office. I know that you will see to it that every member is treated fairly in all circumstances.
I should also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the worthy member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) on the manner in which they performed their task. Frankly, when one considers what little there is in the speech from the throne, it must be admitted that those two members, newly elected to this house, have accomplished a tremendous task in attempting to analyse its contents.
[Mr. Macaluso.l

The Address-Mr. Ricard 3,600 votes, and I think that the hon. member tor Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay) must be glad of the treatment he received this year at the Liberal convention, since it was "packed" so as to eliminate him completely-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I see that my hon. friend from Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes shakes his head. I know what I am talking about, because unlike what the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes did last year -and I shall probably come back to this later-I am not given to talking through my hat.
Mr. Lemoyne, who was discussed here this year, was cast aside by the Liberals as were also at a certain convention, some 15 farmers who were competing for the honour of being chosen as official candidates of the Liberal party throughout the province.
But since the Liberals do not want to give too much importance to the farmers, they devised means to eliminate them all, one after the other.
Mr. Speaker, we of the Conservative party have been accused, during the last two election campaigns, of remaining idle and leading the economy into stagnation. In the few minutes left to me, I would like to compare some concrete achievements of ours with what was done before us by the Liberals.
We passed several pieces of legislation the immediate result of which was to help particularly our working class, such as vocational training, special training courses for the unemployed, winter works and municipal loans.
To help the little people, we reduced the personal income tax and increased the personal exemptions.
All those measures benefited factory employees, average employees, in short the rich and the poor or those who have to work for a living.
With your kind permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to compare, for instance, the position as it is now with that of the year 1956. Canadian sales to other countries have shown an increase of 31.3 per cent from 1956 to 1962. As far as personal income is concerned, Canada has even outstripped the United States by 7 per cent from 1956 to 1962. As a matter of fact, the increase in personal income from 1956 to 1962 climbed by 39 per cent while the increase in corporations' benefits rose by 32 per cent from 1956 to 1962.
IMr. Ricard.l

During the same period, industrial production increased by 19 per cent while employment in the manufacturing industry showed an increase of 15.7 per cent.
Day after day in the house, and particularly during the last two sessions, hon. members opposite, who were in the opposition at that time, talked about unemployment. They said repeatedly that they had the solutions that would settle that problem overnight. But now, after 40 days of decision, I think, we still have unemployment and our hon. friends still have to apply their magic formula. Not only do they find it hard to agree on the steps to be taken but they contradict each other.
In the Ottawa Citizen of April 15, 1961, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) was quoted as saying:
Full employment will be the main objective of a new Liberal government.
According to the Ottawa Citizen of February 27, 1963, this is what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) said:
Considering our harsh winter weather and our general economic set-up, there will always be a large group of unemployed in Canada.
And, as reported in the Vancouver Province, he stated the following on February 28:
Those who claim that we will put an end to unemployment know nothing about Canada.
It seems to me that the Minister of Trade and Commerce should try to make his colleague the Minister of Finance understand that his evaluation of the situation is not true to facts.
It was also said, sir, that everything was in a bad way, that the country was going to the dogs under the Conservative government. Let us see what progress was made by the textile industry, the construction industry and the manufacturing industry in general. In 1956, the average weekly salary of the textile workers was $45.20, in November 1962, it was up to $68.70. The construction worker was getting an average salary of $72.10 in 1956, as compared to $87.60 in November 1962. With regards to the manufacturing industry in general, the Canadian worker was getting $68.50 in November 1956, while his weekly salary amounted to $84.50 in November 1962.
However, during that time, our hon. friends opposite did not miss a single opportunity of pointing out over and over again in this

bouse, and even outside this house, that the country was doomed, that it was heading towards bankruptcy.
I should like to deal with social justice for a few seconds. Here again, we were charged with doing nothing or practically nothing; but we have statistics to show that nothing could be farther from the truth. However, before giving statistics, I should like to put on the official record a statement made by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) on old age pensions, as reported in La Presse on January 31, 1962. This is how the report goes:
In the field of social security measures, the Liberals have promised yesterday, through Mr. Paul Martin, to raise old age pensions to $75 a month as soon as they take over.
Well, I see nothing in the speech from the throne to the effect that the old age pensions are going to be raised. But still more interesting is this other statement published in the Ottawa Journal, on May 8, 1956, and which was made by the same member, that is the hon. member for Essex East. I quote:
(Text):
Health minister Martin has told city council the federal government cannot afford to raise old age pensions to $50 from $40 a month.
In a letter made public yesterday answering council's request for higher pensions, Mr. Martin said the raise would cost an additional $100 million a year. This year the pension bill would be $400 million.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, those are the people who in so little time have changed their views to such an extent in so many different circumstances that one wonders whether they are sincere. I do not hesitate to say, as other members suggested in this house, that their only concern, since they are eager for power, is to use all means at their disposal to secure power. They are obsessed by power and they are ready for anything in order to get votes.
Again according to an item published in La Presse-as you will see for yourself, Mr. Speaker-there is an obvious lack of sincerity. This is what I find in the February 1, 1962 issue of that newspaper under the heading:
Ottawa cannot afford to increase old age pensions.
And that was at a time when hon. members in this house were promising an increase in the old age pension. In the other place, a distinguished senator said he was opposed to the increase of the old age pension from $55 to $65 a month. I say this to prove that we are justified to doubt the sincerity of those hon. members who now sit on the treasury benches.
The Address-Mr. Otto
Let us now compare the amounts paid out for social security by the government which preceded us, that is for the fiscal year 1956-57, with the amounts paid out under the Conservative administration for the fiscal year
1961-	62.
Under the heading of payments made by the federal government to the provinces for health and social welfare, it is noted that in 1956-57, an amount of $75 million was paid to the provinces, while under the Conservative government the amount is of the order of $527 million, an increase of 603 per cent.
In regard to the increase in the benefits to disabled persons, in 1956-57, the Liberal government paid out $5 million, while under the Conservative government, an amount of $20 million was paid out during the fiscal year
1962-	63, that is approximately-


Azellus Denis: You are talking about two different centuries.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The Postmaster General has just made his annual contribution.
The sums allotted to family allowances, under the Liberal government, amounted to $398 million, while in 1962-63 under the Conservative administration, they amounted to $536 million, that is an increase of 35 per cent.
And now, Mr. Speaker, what about increases-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.
(Text) :


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: After some 40 years, Mr. Speaker, during which the riding of York East has been heard from seldom in this house, I am very honoured and York East is very honoured to present its maiden speech *-if after a period of 40 years it could still be called a maiden speech. I am sure that hon. gentlemen will indulge me for a moment in order that I may put on the record some remarks about the riding. In this way, at least this generation of hon. members will know that it exists.
There are about 80,000 souls in this constituency. We are jammed in between the staid old city of Toronto, represented here by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hahn), and the sprawling suburb of Scarborough. We have the characteristics of both, part city and part suburb. We have very few large industries in our riding and very few men of considerable wealth. We have mostly small industries and small businesses. Most of us earn our daily bread by the sweat of our brow receiving, I would say, somewhat less than $60 per week upon which we try

The Address-Mr. Otto very hard to feed, clothe and shelter ourselves and almost three children. This is no easy task as most hon. gentlemen here will agree.
We hope for better things. We hope that in time we shall be able to share in the bounty of this country, along with other Canadians, and we do not agree that we have never had it so good. We have to have it better, and we will have it soon.
I heartily agree with the policy set down by the government which states that unemployment is our most pressing domestic problem, and I am pleased the government intends to take every possible step to help encourage industrial growth. At all times we are saddled with the fear of unemployment and other problems besetting the country, but the problem which recurs time in and time out is that of unemployment. I am confident the government will do everything possible to set things right.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Follow the pattern of the Conservative government.


Steven Otto: I regret, Mr. Speaker, I have not got my ear phone on and cannot hear the hon. gentleman.


An hon. Member:: It wasn't worth hearing.


Steven Otto: Mr. Speaker, I now join with all the other hon. members who have spoken in extending my congratulations to you on your election as Speaker. You will have the respect of every member of the house as of right, but sir, you will have an opportunity very few Speakers have had in this house, that of presiding over a committee which will consider a reform of the procedures of the house. By the manner in which you do that you can earn the highest respect of every hon. member here and of everyone in Canada.
As you preside over that committee I know you will acknowledge that this is a most able house. If the twenty fifth parliament was considered to be one of the most able we ever had, I am sure you will agree hon. gentlemen here make this one even more so. None of us sought election to this house merely for the sake of prestige, if there is any prestige left in being a member of parliament. Most of the hon. gentlemen here have been highly successful in their private careers and have received the highest of accolades from their fellowmen in their own communities. I sincerely believe we all came here to contribute our ideas, imagination, and the value of our experience to the government of our country. But, sir, do you wonder at times that there is a sense of frustration?
If a lot of hon. members had not sought election but had stayed at home and looked

after their careers, it is quite possible, in fact likely, they would be appointed to many of the commissions and boards which are formed from time to time, but being members of the house it seems to me a great part of their job boils down to a matter of voting yea or nay.
With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that this committee over which you will have the honour to preside should consider whether or not some of the hon. gentlemen here could be appointed as members of these boards or committees, if the powers of parliament have to be delegated to such bodies. I am sure most hon. gentlemen opposite will agree that when they occupied the government benches, they found that the distance from here to the seats of the mighty is no shorter on this side of the house than it is from any other corner of the house, and that it is sometimes difficult to express the individual talent which each member brings with him. I believe that if it is a fact that the government of Canada has to rely more and more on the senior civil service for both administration and legislation, then the committee over which you will preside should consider whether it would be a good thing for the country to merge the two powers into one.
Surely, sir, there should be some consideration given to an expansion or extension of the committee system of parliament so that hon. members could have much closer contact with various problems, and contribute more to government and to the administration? I seriously suggest that the expansion and strengthening of the committee system in the house would be beneficial to all Canadians, and would allow most hon. gentlemen here to contribute more of their talents and ideas to the government, so that the measure of a man will not be taken as his conformity or his acquiescence, but will be based on his ideas, work, talent, reputation and the courage of his convictions.
During most of the last session of the twenty fifth parliament a great deal of work went into the preparation and presentation of private members' bills, but what comes out of that? When the hour comes up for debate on private members' bills each speaker very seriously protests that he does not want to talk out the particular bill under discussion, but invariably it gets talked out. I do not say everything should be radically changed but, sir, as you preside over this committee I suggest you give some consideration to the matter of private bills.
There are many important matters in this country which are not necessarily a policy of one party or another, nor does the government

have to assume responsibility for certain matters that are raised. However surely some system, some new procedure, could be devised so that certain private bills, on approval by the government, could be debated in a free house and voted into law. I am sure that exercising our lungs between five and six o'clock every day is not the thing we ought to be doing at this time, in this century.
I agree with the sentiments expressed in the speech from the throne that we have to find new paths and assist in the strengthening of parliament. In that connection I am trying to recall a caution given by an author to a prince some 500 years ago. He said there is probably nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct and more uncertain of its future than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things, for the innovator will have as his enemies those who have done very well under the old system, and only lukewarm support from those who may do well under the new. But if you, sir, as the guiding hand of this committee are the instrument of deep, worth-while reforms you shall earn the laurels of this house and the nation.


James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Speaker, first I want to endorse the congratulations and best wishes addressed to you and the Deputy Speaker by earlier speakers in this debate. I trust that although these congratulations may have become somewhat repetitious, you will consider that they are no less sincere. We look forward to a well ordered session with you in the chair enforcing the rules of parliament. You proved this afternoon, sir, that you will see the rules are properly observed. I also congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne for their first efforts in this house. I wish to thank the fine people of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre for again supporting me with their vote on April 8 and affording me the honour and privilege of taking part in this debate.
In my maiden speech in 1958 I fully outlined the virtues and economic strength of my constituency. I shall not repeat my earlier account of the riding at this time, but would point out and emphasize most strongly that it is a constituency closely associated with our leader and strongly in support of the national development policies he adopted when he was prime minister. The constituency includes the city of Moose Jaw, a large part of the city of Regina, 48 towns and villages and a fine agricultural area of big and smaller family farms. Farmers, city and town residents, labour and business are almost equally represented. This means that
The Address-Mr. Pascoe
every action, or lack of action, by the present government will be of direct concern to one or more segments of the riding's economy. Therefore I can assure the members of the government front benches, especially the so-called inner cabinet of economic planners, that their decisions and policies will be carefully scrutinized and very carefully compared with the achievements of the former government since 1957. Those I represent know full well what was accomplished in national development in the past six years. They were not confused or misled by Liberal propaganda and a biased press, as was eastern Canada.
In 1957 just over 23 per cent of the electors of Saskatchewan voted Progressive Conservative; in 1958 the vote was 50.7 per cent Progressive Conservative; in 1962 it was 51.6 per cent, and in the April 8 vote this was increased to 53.9 per cent Progressive Conservative. So, Mr. Speaker, nearly 54 per cent of Saskatchewan voters endorsed the national development program of the Diefen-baker government and certainly will not be satisfied with anything less. However, from indications in the speech from the throne they are going to get much less from the new government.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I must take strong exception to the words used in high Liberal circles on election night when Saskatchewan returned a full slate of 17 Progressive Conservative members. The Saskatchewan voters were called dirty dogs because they did not vote Liberal. Saskatchewan voters are not dirty dogs. I can assure the government, however, that they will be watchdogs; they will watch very carefully what the government does in the next two years, particularly the policies of what the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchin-ski) called the two-headed Department of Agriculture. I say two years, Mr. Speaker, because there is almost bound to be an election in two years when the opposition becomes convinced that the great Liberal election promises, promises that were not included in the speech from the throne, will also be missing from the government's program. In two years the public will have time to contrast the country's economy with the 1962 record.
Other speakers have outlined Canada's economic gains, but we are going to emphasize this record again and again, Mr. Speaker, because the facts are a stinging repudiation of the apostles of gloom and doom now on the government side. As has been indicated, the gross national product in 1962 increased by 8 per cent to over $40 million. There was a trade balance of Canadian exports over

The Address-Mr. Pascoe
imports for the second year in succession. There were gains in total employment each month as compared with the same months in 1961. The total number of Canadian workers now stands at 6,660,000, an increase of 878,000 workers over the 5,782,000 employed in 1956, the last year of the former Liberal government. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, 878,000 more people are working now than were working under the Liberals in 1956.
Steel production is a good indication of economic strength. In 1962 our steel production increased by 10 per cent to almost 8 million tons, with each month's output from Canadian mills breaking the previous month's record. It has been described as the greatest year in the history of steel in Canada. These economic gains are a challenge to the new government. They are placed on record as a mark by which to measure the accomplishments this year of the Liberal regime. But they are not the only yardstick. Consumer prices were maintained by the former government at a level described by President Kennedy of the United States as the most stable in the western world. With the increase in sugar prices in the past three weeks, where will the consumer price level be in the next dominion bureau of statistics report, because these increased sugar prices affect many other prices.
Last Saturday I visited in Wakefield, Quebec, an old mill which is still operated by waterpower. It is an interesting old mill and I was pleased to learn that the government has acquired it for restoration and preservation. The miller was grinding feed concentrates for livestock. He said that the higher sugar prices and the sugar cane situation resulted in higher prices for molasses, and as a consequence prices for feed concentrates were higher. As I drew to the attention of the one Minister of Agriculture in office (Mr. Hays), that will increase the cost of livestock feeding and I think he should urge the government to do something about it. I would also draw to his attention the report in the Winnipeg paper that the government is being asked to control prices while the matter is being investigated.
Then there is the indicated increase in bread prices resulting from the removal by the government of the subsidy on whole milk to save the federal treasury $6 million. Coffee is going to cost 15 cents a cup. Rents appear to be going up. I have exactly the same accommodation I had when the last parliament closed in February, but the rent has been increased $22 a month for this session. In the space of four weeks it appears that this is going to be a high-price government.
There is another measure, Mr. Speaker, by which to judge the government a year

from now. This is a measurement of particular interest to prairie farmers whom I represent. It is the statement of the Canadian wheat board on wheat delivery quotas as at May 21. There are now 232 points on a 7-bushel quota, 259 points on an 8-bushel quota, and 929 points on 10 bushels. Farmers' wheat marketings for the 1962-63 crop year have set an all-time record of 300 million bushels as at the end of March. That is right here in the official d.b.s. report which I hold in my hand: 300 million bushels delivered by western farmers by the end of March, with four months still to go in this crop year. It will take great effort by the new government to match this wheat marketing effort. I think there might have been a better chance for this if the Canadian wheat board had been left with the Department of Agriculture, even with a two-headed department. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) in my opinion got off to a poor start on a television appearance shortly after taking over control of the wheat board when he said he did not need or want any help or advice on China wheat sales from the former minister of agriculture who is now sitting on the front benches of the official opposition. I suggest that the trade minister change his attitude towards the former minister of agriculture and accept all the help and advice he can get. We have come down here to play a positive opposition role, but this will have to change if our criticisms and advice are rejected out of hand.
The prairie farmers are worried about the possible loss of the wheat market in mainland China. Comments I have received on the situation present two views. One is that President Kennedy may have influenced the Canadian government to reduce its trade with China in line with American policy. The other is that China may reduce its purchases because of Canada's acceptance of nuclear arms. I pass on these farm views for the information of the government and particularly of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. At the risk of a curt reply such as he gave to the former minister of agriculture, I suggest that he make a public statement on the China wheat situation as soon as possible.
There is another worry Saskatchewan has, Mr. Speaker, this time over possible views of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon). In his report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, the so-called Gordon report, the present Minister of Finance stated at page 172:
We would be hard to convince that Canadian agriculture as a whole is likely to benefit from the investment of large amounts of capital in monumental irrigation schemes.

If this statement can be taken to foreshadow any slowing down of work on the south Saskatchewan dam, the new government can expect terrific and immediate reaction.
That dam, started in 1958 by the Diefen-baker government, holds the key to realizing the full industrial potential of Saskatchewan. The signing of the agreement was one of the early accomplishments of the former prime minister. Completion of the dam will bring great benefit to the constituency of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and other neighbouring constituencies in maintaining lake levels and assuring adequate domestic and industrial water supplies. So I hope the Minister of Finance has changed his earlier views on such projects and will not delay any contracts necessary for completion of the dam by 1966, the target date set by the present leader of the official opposition when he signed the agreement as prime minister.
There is concern in the west, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure there is similar concern in farming areas in other parts of Canada, regarding redistribution of constituencies. The speech from the throne merely states that a commission will be established to make the constituency changes. I hope this commission will realize that there is more involved in redistribution than boundary changes on a population basis. There is a need to assure each segment of the economy that it will have a fair representation in parliament. We know that there are more people living in the cities now and fewer on farms. City problems have increased, but so have farm problems. When population figures are considered by the redistribution committee, I suggest that there must be some form of weighted index to equalize farm and city representation. I hope to have more to say on this when legislation establishing the redistribution commission is introduced.
On this question of farm representation I join with other Saskatchewan members in objecting to the published statement by the Saskatchewan Liberal leader that a cabinet minister is being assigned to work with a sort of "shadow cabinet" of Saskatchewan Liberals back home. As I pointed out earlier, the full slate of 17 Progressive Conservative members were elected with the support of nearly 54 per cent of the voters. We were elected to represent our constituents and we intend to express their views in their interests. We hope the government will listen to our representations. I am sure we understand western views better than any Liberal shadow cabinet in Saskatchewan, especially if they include the Liberal organizer who has stated that the family farms cannot be maintained in modern agriculture. We believe they can. I have been an advocate of family farms, and
The Address-Mr. Pascoe
I am sure other hon. members have, too. I think that any farm legislation brought down by the government should bear in mind the need to preserve family farms.
There is one other item in the speech from the throne on which I should like to make a brief comment representing my personal views. It is in regard to the proposed commission on biculturalism. I agree with the statement that the bicultural character of Canada must be recognized. I agree as to the need for a basic partnership between Canadian speaking and French speaking people. I agree that the governments of the provinces must be consulted and that their views must form the basis for any commission study. As a matter of fact I consider the question could be better resolved by a dominion-provincial conference as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) when he was prime minister than by the proposed commission, which at best could only make recommendations before final acceptance or rejection by the federal and provincial governments.
The comment I have to make is this: I wish to draw attention to the results of a Gallup poll which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on May 22, 1963, under the heading "Quebec Not Gloomy on Ties to Canada". The article says in part:
Although Quebec has a few angry separatists who want to secede from the rest of Canada, the people of that province are not pessimistic about feelings between themselves and English speaking Canada.
Thirty seven per cent in Quebec claim that relations between French and English speaking Canadians are better than they were five years ago.
I just wanted to put that on the record.
In conclusion, may I say that I agree with earlier speakers from this side who described the speech from the throne as a disappointing outline of what the government hopes to do-for Canada. As our leader has emphasized, it is not a question of getting the economy moving, as supporters of the government claimed during the election campaign. On the other hand a very definite responsibility rests on the government to keep the economy moving forward at the 1962 rate. Other speakers have pointed out the government's responsibility in this regard by quoting from an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Journal. I should like to repeat the closing words of that editorial.
Let Mr. Pearson and his friends stop trying to give the impression that they took over a broken down Canadian economy. They took over a house in good order-a strong and going concern.
There is also a statement which appeared in the Letter-Review of April 29, and which, it seems to me, is deserving of being placed

The Address-Mr. Greene [DOT]on record. Referring to the economic state of this nation in 1962, the Letter-Review comments:
The increase has been steady, almost spectacular, and suggests that while further advances are desirable it is hardly optimistic to utter the thought that 'the economy should be got going again', it has not stopped for many years.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, the 1962 achievements of the former government in national developments are on the record. We challenge the present government to match this record. They will be answerable to the public in about two years if they fail.
(Translation):


Mr. J. J. Greene (Renfrew South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join previous speakers in *congratulating you	on	your	election	as
Speaker of this house. I am sure that you will fill with distinction the office that has in the past been occupied by so many distinguished men.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is amusing that we should congratulate	the	Speaker	especiallyin view of the efforts	made	to	force	thenominee to occupy	the	chair.	It	was	said
that Speakers used to be executed when they did not hand down the desired rulings. It is just like congratulating a supporter of Louis XIV who would be marched off to the guillotine. But this is how we do in this house and I wish to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker.
May I also congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I wish both of them success in their career both in the house and in the service of the public, commensurate with the brilliance of their effort.
Like everybody else, I support this part of the speech from the throne concerned with the establishment of a royal commission on biculturalism and bilingualism. There is only [DOT]one aspect of this general and positive endorsation of biculturalism which concerns me. Every politician today seems bent on vehemently supporting biculturalism. However, statements made by politicians on this subject have about the same weight and the same value as the admonishments of those who preach against sin. It is the right attitude but it does not bring results. Instead of stating at length our support of biculturalism I feel that this house should tackle the undoubtedly difficult task of establishing practical and realistic biculturalism. This cannot be done within the hour, overnight or even in the life of one legislature. However, any legislature which would devote itself in all sincerity to that task might, no doubt, set up the basis for biculturalism.
(Mr. Pascoe.]
I think it was comforting indeed to hear that part of the speech from the throne and the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), where he said that Canadians will be better able to realize that dual culture which confederation had in mind if they manage, in a general way, as a nation, to make fluent use of both the official languages of our federal state.
Minor details, like bilingual cheques, bilingual publicity slogans and claims with regard to the fair distribution of federal jobs, just stress the deficiencies in our confederation. If all Canadian citizens were bilingual, such details would be of no importance.
If, as I think, our leaders are honest and sincere when they publicly call for biculturalism, how shall we manage to get a Canadian citizen who speaks both mother tongues fluently. That is an aim which neither the tired men of our generation nor even the much younger and much more gifted ladies who sit in this house will scarcely attain or be able to hope for. Our aim should therefore be to blaze the trail, which tomorrow's truly bilingual citizens and leaders, will be able to follow.
Mr. Speaker, I think that, in spite of all we say, we still have not made the first step in that direction. Dr. Wilder Penfield, who analysed our Canadian brain so well tells us that ability to learn another language decreases very rapidly after the age of 13. It therefore seems that we should apply ourselves to give our young children under 13 the means and incentives to acquire a second language.
The methods to be employed to this end, if there are any, are very rare today. The direct method, which enables boys and girls of an age where they still have the best ability and aptitude, to acquire not only the other language but also some elements of the second culture, is the exchange of school children or pupils for one or two years, according to the needs. A timid start has been made in that direction, but, ordinarily, in the case of pupils of more advanced age, where the acquiring of a second language has become more difficult.
As far as I am concerned, I should have liked to send my eldest to Quebec to help him acquire a second culture. But at that time I could not afford it.
Now that I am in this house and that my income is higher, it would be easier.

But most Canadians do not have enough money to send their boys and girls to private schools.
Mr. Speaker, if we are sincere in what we say on that matter, I think we can play a great part right here in the field of biculturalism without infringing in any way on the constitution and this, simply by allotting federal funds for that so important and even vital objective. Evidently, it is the only way for our nation to work out true biculturalism.
(Text):
I represent in this house the historic and renowned riding of Renfrew South. That riding stretches from Arnprior on the east at the junction of the mighty Ottawa and the roaring Madawaska rivers, to the newly incorporated municipality of Whitney at the gateway to Algonquin park on the west. The riding consists of people of varied ethnic origin-British, Scottish, Irish, Polish and German-and as such it is a pretty good crosssection of Canada as a whole, to such an extent that the newspaper pundits from time to time during an election campaign say that as Renfrew South goes so goes Canada. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, this is a great burden for a candidate to bear in the riding of Renfrew South.
Having so realized, I was somewhat taken aback when I came to the conclusion that I had brought this party in here on my back, and I was somewhat dismayed to hear our hon. friends opposite tell of how many hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars were available to my party in the winning of the election. As my hon. friends opposite have been so expert in finding out the state of the finances of the Liberal party, I would appreciate it very much if they would find out for me who got my share. I assure you that with the grave responsibility I have it would have been far easier to buy my way in than do it by footslogging, the way I had to do across the 130 miles of Renfrew South. Also, Mr. Speaker, having brought the Liberal party to this house on the back of Renfrew South I must say I was rather surprised when I arrived here to find that if I had been any farther back I would have been sitting in the Ottawa river.
The beautiful town of Arnprior, which is my home town, is one of the earliest settled communities of Ontario. At the centre of my riding we have the town of Renfrew, which bears the name of the county represented here by the constituencies of Renfrew South and Renfrew North. I would say this of the town of Arnprior, that, by reason of the active and vibrant municipal organization led by its former mayor, Robert M. Simpson, who brought secondary industry to our town, we
The Address-Mr. Greene have probably shared some of the fruits of the economy of Ontario.
In the town of Renfrew the employment situation at this time is very grave. By reason of the cancellation of the Avro contracts the aircraft industries there were put in a very poor plight and to this date nothing has been done to remedy that situation. Going farther west in my riding we come to the storied town of Eganville, an Irish settlement which is politically known as the home of the Maloneys. From Eganville came the Hon. Dr. Maloney who sat with distinction and honour on the opposite side of the house, his son, Arthur Maloney, who also, I am sad to state, sat on the opposite side of the house, and the late James Maloney who sat as minister of mines in the legislature at Toronto and with whom for many years I did battle on the hustings of Renfrew South. He is gone, and I wish to pay him my respects in this house at this time as a valiant, doughty warrior on the hustings of a fighting riding.
I would point out also, Mr. Speaker, that apart from these English, Scottish and Irish people we have in my riding in the township of McNabb the descendants of the original Laird McNabb who still bear proudly that Scottish name. We have in the townships of South Algoma and Gratton citizens of German descent who are now first class and have been first class citizens of Canada both in war and peace. There are families who bear names such as Verch but who still pronounce that name in the German fashion, Ferch. No better citizens are there in Canada than these people of German descent.
Going farther west in my riding we come to the lovely village of Killaloe and beautiful Brudenell where the Irish stock is still predominant but where help is again needed economically as the lumber industry has died out and nothing has come to take its place.
Moving farther west again we come to the grandiose land around Wilno, bounteous Barrys Bay and the summer paradise of Combermere. Here are wonderful people of Polish origin. These people of Polish origin were great friends of my predecessor on this side of the house, the late Dr. J. J. McCann, who held them very dearly in his heart. It has been one of the pleasant things in public life, so far as I am concerned, to come to know these smiling and happy Polish people who live in my riding of Renfrew South. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that here we are sometimes concerned with two languages and two races in Canada. Let us not forget the Polish people, the Scottish people, the Irish people and the many other

The Address-Mr. Greene ethnic groups that go to make up this great land of ours which, along with the English and French, make Canada unique.
Now, Mr. Speaker, having gone over the geographical aspect of my constituency, I should like to point out that economic conditions in this beautiful and lovely riding are not as they should be. I have heard some of our friends from the province of Quebec referring to the economic shortcomings that exist in Quebec. They say that Quebec has not shared in the economic bounties of this country as has the province of Ontario. This is what troubles them most. I should like to assure this honourable house that Quebec is not alone in this area of drought. I heard an hon. member state that the average income in Ontario was $1,800, while the average income in Quebec was some $1,300. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that in my riding, and in particular in the west end of my riding where no secondary industry has ever located, the average income is far below that $1,300. Ontario, therefore, is not an economic utopia. There are hills in the metropolitan areas but there are valleys and swamps in the economy of Ontario as well as in other parts of Canada.
I do not ask that these mountains of economic prosperity such as exist in the metropolitan areas and in western Ontario be dragged down. We are not asking to pull anybody down from his lofty pinnacle. However, we do believe that those economic quagmires which exist in areas such as the west end of south Renfrew should be drained a little. We should fill in those hollows a little bit, so that my people will share in the bounties of this very rich province. I assure you that while we profess so often and so loudly that there is equality of opportunity in this land, a boy or a girl from the south end of Renfrew does not have the same opportunity for advancement, for education and for prosperity in the future, as does a boy or girl from one of the metropolitan areas. I know of many cases where boys and girls just could not go to high school because there was no high school. There was no economic foundation on which a high school could be built. The only way they could go to high school was by taxicab some 10 or 15 miles, if their mother or father could pay for it, and this in an area where there was no industry in which the mother or father could get a job to take care of this expense.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that one of the great tasks before this house is to assure that there will be equalization in this wealthy land. I believe that the spirit of the Pearson plan, as envisaged in this speech from the

throne, is that we will not add to these growing cities, these new abodes of the cave-dwellers who are more and more residing in apartment houses in the great metropolitan area. Surely, it is inherent in the speech from the throne that the economic powers of the government should be used for social purposes. What finer social purpose is there than the diversification of industry in order to enable our people to live where there are green hills, fresh air and lakes, beauty and sunshine? This would avoid the continued growth of the cities as has occurred in the past few years.
If I am correct, Mr. Speaker, in interpreting the speech from the throne in this light, then I know of no place where the diversification of industry is so badly needed, I know of no area in which industry may be located to better advantage so that the people will enjoy a better way of life, than in my own riding of Renfrew South, particularly the west end of that riding.
The whip on this side of the house, Mr. Speaker, has very kindly given priority to the new members on this side of the house in this debate. As a result of this, my colleague from Renfrew North (Mr. Forgie) may not have an opportunity to speak. With this in mind, I should like to state that I shall at all times support him in his endeavours on behalf of the town of Pembroke and the surrounding area where the problems are similar to those in my riding, since it is in the other half of the county of Renfrew. I shall be very pleased also, and proud, to support him in his continuing efforts, by which he has distinguished himself in the past, on behalf of the armed forces at Camp Petawawa. I wish to align myself, as I know the hon. member for Renfrew North has many times before, with the proposition that these men and women serving in our armed forces should receive comparable emoluments to those received by people in comparable jobs in civilian life. Without these men and women, our country would soon grow weak and the very things for which we profess to stand would be but a farce.
There is one other group of people I should like to support in conjunction with my hon. friend from Renfrew North. I refer to the employees at Deep River who are engaged in atomic research and production in Canada. We have lost too many of our most able men, of our best trained technicians, because apparently in this land we do not appreciate the contribution these people are able to make to the future of Canada. I believe that in the future we should look after these

people as best we can so that the scientific age, the atomic age, will in fact belong to Canada.
On the broader national aspect of the measures contained in the speech from the throne, I shall say very little. Other speakers from this side of the house, much better informed, much more knowledgeable and experienced than I, have gone over the variety of commitments contained in this document. I support them to the hilt in their stand on the measures therein contained. Hon. gentlemen opposite have, however, raised one point with which I shall deal briefly, namely the fear that by reason of the measures contained in the speech from the throne which involve a new use of the executive power for social purposes, there will be lost that freedom of the individual which is the very nub of our system, as compared to those systems which use control but which forego that freedom of the individual. I was very pleased, therefore, Mr. Speaker, to see that passage in the speech from the throne with regard to the committee on procedure. It clearly indicates that this side of the house is just as concerned with the rights of the individual, which are inherent in the supremacy of parliament, as are our friends on the opposite side of the house. They have attempted to perpetuate and promulgate the myth that in their own fashion they are the champions of parliament and the champions of the supremacy of parliament, but I do not believe this is the case. That the committee on procedure is to be set up is witness to the fact that this side of the house is just as concerned in this regard as any other hon. members of the house.
I may make a suggestion in a very humble fashion as a new member, Mr. Speaker, that this house can only be as strong as its individual members, and I have found in the very short time I have been here that the facilities given to the ordinary hon. member make it very difficult for him to carry out his job. We have been given horse and buggy tools in a jet age. If a man is doing the important job of representing some 30,000 to 60,000 people, and is doing that job conscientiously, then he must have far better facilities than are given to the ordinary member here.
I do not wish to appear as a precocious member, Mr. Speaker. I know I have a great deal to learn but I do think that every hon. member should at least be given a private office, with separate quarters for his staff. I do believe every hon. member should at least be given stenographic help, not just during the session but during his entire tenure, at Ottawa or in his constituency as
The Address-Mr. Greene he deems advisable. The people of Canada would be shocked if they knew the limited facilities given to their representatives in their job of representing them here in Ottawa, and I hope the house will take it under advisement, and that hon. members on the front benches on this side will give consideration to providing better equipment and better tools.
I found that even a dictaphone was something foreign to the office of a private member, and in the twentieth century surely this is something to be deplored. We have heard a great deal of talk that being a member of the house is a full time job. In the little I have seen of it, it is more than a full time job, and if we are going to do a full time job, we should have the facilities, the equipment and the help to do an adequate full time job. If we are ever going to discuss the matter of raising the emoluments of hon. members, then let us be sure we are in a position to do an adequate, 100 per cent full time job for our constituents, and that means we must have the necessary tools.
In conclusion I wish to say I am sure the measures which will be brought forth in the committee on procedure will ensure the continuing supremacy of parliament over the executive and administrative areas of government. To me the great challenge of today is this: can free peoples use the power, controls and direction which are necessary to provide full employment, and at the same time retain that freedom and supremacy of the individual which we deem essential?
I think it is correct to state that in any community or any country where the supremacy of the legislature has been subjugated, then that supremacy of the individual has been lost, from the days of the Star Chamber to the Bundestag and the Kremlin. Only if we maintain the supremacy of this house over all elements of government is the sanctity of the individual on the best and surest foundation.
I do not know how long I will be a member of the house, because in my riding it is mighty tough to stay an elected representative. Political longevity however is not my only aspiration. I hope to do something of benefit for my people and for the country while I am here, whether it be for two years as my hon. friend opposite has stated, or for 22 years; and may I say it is my fondest hope that my political epitaph, whenever it is written, will say "he served well in the House of Commons", because I believe that is the greatest challenge of our times.

The Address-Mr. H. M. Horner


Mr. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, it may be only just and right that I should follow the hon. member who has spoken so eloquently on behalf of the constituency of Renfrew South. I do not agree with all he said but I certainly appreciate the very eloquent manner in which he said it. My forefathers came from the Ottawa valley and I may say I can appreciate the natural ability and oratory he acquired from his Irish ancestors in that area.
As I have said, I cannot agree with all he said. Certainly when he talked so glowingly about the speech from the throne, he must have had his hand in his pocket. There was nothing in it. We heard all the promises of the Liberal party, but where are they now? I shall deal with them one by one, but prior to doing that I want to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your elevation to the speakership. I also want to congratulate the Deputy Speaker on his appointment, and the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Now I wish to deal with the nub of the problem in Canada today, as I see it. There are several problems which are facing us as Canadians, but the most important one depends on whether or not we remain a country. I do not subscribe to the bumbling aspirations of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer). I do not subscribe to the bumbling aspirations of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and I want to say why, and say it clearly.
With regard first to the question of bi-culturalism I want to say this sincerely and put it on the line. I represent 2,000 French Canadians, people who took their courage in their hands and migrated to Alberta where they homesteaded. I represent these people not only in fact but by their votes. What is their message to this house, to Quebec and to Canada? Their message is simply this, that we must have a Canada first; that we want to maintain our culture but we have to have a Canada.
What about our culture? What about this thing called culture that the C.B.C. on occasion tries to shove down our throats? You do not develop culture because a minister says this, that, or something else. You develop culture by living a life, by your family living a life, and by creating and doing things different in this country, with the help of what your forefathers gave you. There is a lot of nonsense about this, and I shall speak about the press in that regard in a moment. We develop culture as we work, build and develop a country. We do not develop a culture because of United States influence. If we do, we are not a country. If this culture that we


are trying to develop and if this country that we are trying to develop does not take into cognizance this essential fact, then we are not a country. If the Liberal party persists in accepting United States money to run their campaigns-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: -and to control our industry-


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: All right,
nonsense, old boy. I have some industries in my riding controlled by United States companies. What did they do? They financed the Liberal candidate, and he lost his deposit. They provided him with a campaign manager free, gratis. Why? I asked the manager. He said, "We did not like your writing to our head office in New York and suggesting to them that they should look beyond the United States for markets"-for the only pulp mill in Alberta. They did not like this. I should not have done this, as a member of parliament for Jasper-Edson.
Is this the only reason they ran? Certainly they had no farm policy, so they did not make any votes there. I am glad to see that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) is in the house this evening, because the Liberals over the years have had no policy in national parks, so they could not make any votes there. I hope, when they talk so promisingly of the things they are going to do, that we will not return to that policy in national parks where the best Liberal got the job. When they talk about patronage, I challenge the minister to find any trace where patronage has been used in Jasper since 1958. I challenge him to do the things that are required to be done in this regard. I challenge him to look over his civil servants. I challenge him particularly to have some discussion with his director, because I do not agree with his director. I challenge him to put forward policies for our national parks which are in the best interests not only of maintaining these parks in their natural beauty but of making them available to all Canadians. This is the challenge in regard to that department.
I know that my time is limited, Mr. Speaker, but I want to say a word with regard to some of my friends in the press gallery. I have nothing to hide, nothing to be afraid of them for. But I say to them this, and I say it sincerely. If they want to maintain the freedom of the press in Canada they had better pull up their socks; they had better start reporting the facts. We in northern Alberta particularly are concerned about this. We have one newspaper there which has not reported the facts, and I am not afraid

to say this outside the house in any court of law. They have not reported the facts. I would like my friends in the government now to say what kind of a deal they have made with the Southam Press. Are they going to make this fellow Basil Dean a senator? I challenged him to run against me and he did not even bother answering.
If these people have any convictions, if these people can do any other job, which I doubt-and I am talking primarily about the people who are writing politically in the Edmonton Journal-I say to them this, you are reporting in the Edmonton Journal because you have not found any other job which would give you a livelihood. I challenge them to come forward. We have been subjected in northern Alberta to the most vicious attack by this press, the most biased, the most absolutely irresponsible attack. We want to see the freedom of the press maintained. We want to see the press in Canada strong and virile. But we want to see the truth. Very simply I say to them this, if they want to see how a paper should be run they should look about them; they should look at some of the weekly newspapers which are published in the province of Alberta and they will see what I mean, not this nonsense that we see from Basil Dean and his cohorts who-and I have this on good authority-do exactly what they are told by officials of the Southam Press. I say to the people in the government, have you an agreement with the Southam Press? Are these people United States controlled? Are these people going to get a big deal out of your government? We in Alberta think they are.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: These are the things we want to know. I am sorry that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet) has now removed himself from the chamber because I want to say something to him in regard to the removal of Mr. McKay. I want to say this to him, that we in northern Alberta have a number of French Canadians and that Mr. McKay was a good friend of theirs, he served their purpose, he served them as he did everybody else in Alberta. I suggest to the minister that he must have had some pangs when he took the orders from the hierarchy of the Liberal party that this man must go. This was obviously the situation.


An hon. Member:: A terrible thing.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: I am glad to see that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) is here because I have something to say to him as well. In the speech from the throne we have a great big paragraph about which I want to say something. I could also
The Address-Mr. H. M. Horner say' something to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh), but my time is going to preclude that. But I want to say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that we are concerned in western Canada. We know him as the guy who said he could not do anything for us. We will be watching him with a great deal of interest because we in Alberta are primarily concerned with markets, not only for grain but for our minerals, in the far east. This concerns not only China but Japan. We want to trade with these countries. We want to expand our markets in these areas. We do not want any more of this nonsense which he propagated before us as a senior civil servant, when he said, "We have the grain. If you want to buy it, come and get it". We want none of that for our grain; we want none of that for our coke and coal; we want none of that for our copper and iron ore. We want him to get up off his fanny and get to work.
These are the things that we require in western Canada. There has been some talk with regard to the session, and all this type of thing. There is the suggestion out around Fort William that the people of Canada must realize that we believe in confederation, that we are willing to go more than halfway to make it work. We want to see these things done by these ministers in particular-I have mentioned the ministers of trade and commerce-and the other ministers. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith) is away at the moment, but I want to say something in regard to him.


George James McIlraith: No, he is not; he is here.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: I want to say something about the policy of the C.N.R.


An hon. Member:: He is sitting in another seat.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: I am glad to see him because I have a delegation coming to see him tomorrow. We want to see if you, sir, can convince the president of the C.N.R. that he should pay more attention to selling its services than selling his men off. We want you to do something about this, sir. Think about it.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: After six years.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: "After six
years", the good lady says. As I said before, I could say something with regard to health and welfare, but I am saving that.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Go ahead.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: I want to go back-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order;
ten o'clock.


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


[Stage Direction]
The north Atlantic council met in ministerial session in Ottawa from 22nd to 24th May, 1963.
2.	In their review of the international situation, ministers emphasized that in the world of today peace is indivisible. The enduring character of the north Atlantic alliance, founded on the principles of interdependence and common defence, constitutes a basic guarantee for the maintenance of peace.
3.	The council noted with regret that the Soviet union had so far shown little interest in seeking equitable solutions for outstanding problems.
4.	With regard to Germany and Berlin, the threat has not disappeared. Thanks to the firm attitude maintained by the west, however, developments detrimental to the interests of Berlin and the alliance have been effectively discouraged. In this connection, the alliance abides by the terms of its declaration of 16th December, 1958, on Berlin.
5.	Outside the treaty area too, tensions and difficulties continue to exist which have a profound effect on the alliance. Soviet military personnel remain in Cuba; and the situation there, with its repercussions in the region generally, still gives cause for concern. Ministers also expressed their disquiet over recent events in Laos, and stressed the importance of sustained efforts to secure respect for the Geneva agreements.
6.	Ministers reaffirmed the importance, in building a peaceful world, of progress toward general and complete disarmament by stages and under effective international control. In this connection, they noted that agreement in principle had been reached between the United States and the U.S.S.R. on measures to improve communications designed to reduce the risk of war by accident or miscalculation. They expressed the hope that the Soviet union's attitude would evolve sufficiently to permit genuine progress to be made on key disarmament questions.
7.	The growing scope and complexity of the problems facing the alliance make it imperative for the council to ensure that its political consultations are as prompt and effective as they can be made. Ministers noted the progress already achieved in this direction and expressed their determination to secure still further improvements.
8.	Ministers discussed NATO defence policy and approved the steps taken to organize the nuclear forces assigned or to be assigned to the supreme allied commander Europe (SACEUR).
These include notably:
(a)	assignment of the United Kingdom V-bomber force and three U.S. Polaris submarines to SACEUR;
(b)	establishment by SACEUR on his staff of a deputy responsible to him for nuclear affairs;
(c)	arrangements for broader participation by officers of NATO member countries in nuclear activities in allied command Europe and in co-ordination of operational planning at Omaha;
(d)	fuller information to national authorities, both political and military.
Ministers welcomed these measures to increase the effectiveness of the nuclear capability at the disposal of the alliance and to improve co-ordination and control of its nuclear deterrent forces.
9.	Ministers recognized the need to achieve a satisfactory balance between nuclear and conventional arms. They directed the council in permanent session to undertake, with the advice of the NATO military authorities, further studies of the interrelated questions of strategy, force requirements and the resources available to meet them.
10.	The council noted progress made in the implementation of earlier resolutions concerning the defence problems of Greece and reaffirmed its interest in the effective application of these resolutions.
11.	The north Atlantic alliance seeks peace. It deplores the diversion into the military field of resources which might be used for the betterment of mankind, and in particular for increased efforts to raise living standards in developing countries. But the free world remains faced with a continuing threat and the members of the north Atlantic alliance have both the right and the duty to protect their freedom and independence.
12.	The next ministerial meeting will be held in Paris in December 1963.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 28, 1963