1963-05-22

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the Canadian Press dispatch is correct when it says, "Canada today committed its eight-squadron air division in Europe to a NATO nuclear command." The article points out that speeches were made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), that the subject was the projected interallied nuclear force, and the commitment of the Canadian air units to NATO was agreed to.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as the interallied nuclear force which is under consideration by NATO has not yet been established, the question of a commitment of the Canadian squadron to that force does not yet arise. This is a matter under discussion at the council meeting which is now going on; it is one matter on the agenda. The Canadian policy in regard to this particular matter will be known when the council meeting finishes.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, whether or not there is an actual commitment until the final decision has been made, did the Canadian representatives undertake that they would commit Canadian forces overseas to this body in the event that such a body was set up?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman knows that it would be quite inappropriate to make public the instructions of the Canadian delegation to the council meeting of NATO while that council meeting is going on. That is a procedure which he followed himself in respect of previous council meetings of NATO when nuclear and other matters were under consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that latter statement is entirely incorrect.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to have the Prime Minister make such a statement
about what stand we took, when it is incorrect. Does he suggest that the people of Canada should be bound by the stand taken by this government without disclosing it to parliament? That is all I want to know.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The right hon. gentleman, when he was head of the government, already committed those eight squadrons to a particular role in NATO and informed the House of Commons about it when he returned from the NATO council.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all.


RUSSIAN PROPOSAL THAT MEDITERRANEAN BE MADE NUCLEAR-FREE ZONE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since, unfortunately, he is not in the house, I wonder if I might direct it to the Prime Minister.
In view of the Soviet proposal yesterday that the Mediterranean area be declared a zone free of nuclear weapons, would the minister inform the house what attitude the Canadian delegation to the NATO conference will adopt toward this proposal, and whether it will be examined in the light of the Eden plan, the Rapacki plan and other proposals aimed at mutual disengagement and disarmament in central Europe?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This, as the hon. member will realize, is a very important proposal indeed, if it turns out to be in the terms which have been made public. It will undoubtedly have to receive careful consideration not only by this government but by all the other members of NATO. In that consideration it will have to be related to the earlier proposals for disengagement in other areas to which the hon. member referred. It will also be interesting to find out whether the Mediterranean area to which the Soviet proposal refers includes, for instance, the Black sea. Until all these matters are considered, and until the question has been discussed with our friends in NATO, perhaps at the current meeting, it would be premature for me to make a statement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could I ask the Prime Minister whether he would make a statement as early as possible when some decision has been reached?

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Pearson: Yes, I shall be glad to make a statement on this matter at an appropriate moment.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I should lpie to ask the Minister of Labour whether during his talks in Washington any decision was reached to end the strife on the great lakes.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Yesterday the United States secretary of labour, Mr. Wirtz, and I met with Mr. George Meany, president of the A.F. of L.-C.I.O. and Mr. Claude Jodoin of the Canadian Labour Congress. This meeting was held following arrangements made by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister at Hyannis Port, at which meeting they asserted the principle that ships and the men who sail them should be free to go about their lawful business without impediment or harassment.
We began with this premise yesterday, and all I can tell the hon. gentleman is that we had a friendly and constructive preliminary meeting. I was satisfied that sufficient momentum had developed at the meeting yesterday in the direction of a settlement to justify further conversations. It is hoped these further conversations will be held either in connection with the report of the Norris commission or at another time which would be opportune. I am satisfied we are moving in the right direction.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: have a question for the Minister of Labour. Has the hon. gentleman any idea how much longer it will be before the federal conciliation board, which for many months has been investigating the dispute between the shipping federation of British Columbia and the international union of longshoremen and warehousemen will finally make its report on this matter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I wish to thank the hon. member for sending me notice of his intention to ask this question. I am advised that the conciliation board dealing with this matter is expected to render its report on some date between May 25 and May 31.



REPORTED LAY-OFFS CAUSED BY STEEL STOCKPILING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) asked whether I would investigate whether any relationship existed between the lay-offs in the shipbuilding industry and the stockpiling of steel. I have investigated this matter and my information is that few, if any, of the current lays-offs in the firm in which he is interested appear to be due to steel shortages.
It is understood that the company in question anticipates June delivery of its current steel orders.



RED CHINA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the statement in this morning's Montreal Gazette by the chairman of the Canadian wheat board that sales of wheat to China will be reduced in the future, and in view of the urgency of the matter now that the United States farmers have rejected the wheat referendum in that country, will the acting minister indicate whether the government intends to send a general trade delegation to meet with representatives of mainland China so that general trade between that country and Canada can be expanded and thereby ensure a continued volume of grain sales in that market?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Acling Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Trade and Commerce will be back tomorrow morning, and may I take this question as notice.
(Translation):



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport.
Could the minister tell us if it is the intention of his department to abandon the C.N.R. train service between the towns of Rouyn-Noranda and Taschereau in northwestern Quebec?
(Text):


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his

Inquiries of the Ministry
question. I should perhaps point out to him that the department does not abandon railway lines, but I have checked up and I And that no application for abandonment of this line has been filed with the board of transport commissioners. I have also referred his question to the management of the Canadian National Railways for any further information they may have on the subject.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. May I ask the minister if his department is making any representations to the board of transport commissioners to suspend those applications which are before them for line abandonment until the government has made a complete review and brought down some legislation to implement the recommendations of the MacPherson commission.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the leader of the New Democratic party deals with a very large and important subject, and to answer his question in the form he asks it is perhaps misleading to the house, in that representation in that form are not the method of handling this subject of rail abandonment, which is very important particularly to the western provinces. He can be quite sure that there will be adequate opportunity for the representations which I think he has in mind being made to the government before the policy is finally determined. In the meantime no action is being taken on the actual abandonment of any of the lines.
(Translation):



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REPORTED REQUEST FOR TERMINATION OF JOINT PLANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolietie-L'Assomplion-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister inform the house whether it is the federal government's intention, upon the request of some provinces, to withdraw from all joint federal-provincial plans?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of important government policy which will be announced at the appropriate time.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? Was the Prime Minister of Canada presented with requests to that effect from the governments of the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick?
(Text):



REPORTED STATEMENT BY QUEBEC MINISTER RESPECTING FISCAL AUTONOMY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Has the hon. gentleman's attention been called to a report in this morning's Montreal Gazette of a statement made by the minister of municipal affairs of the Quebec government, Mr. Laporte, that unless the government of that province achieves complete fiscal autonomy the province may withdraw from confederation and, if his attention has been drawn to this, has he any comment to make on it, or does he consider such a fiscal proposal would be consistent with confederation?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: The answer to the first part of the question is no, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Does this government intend to provide the eastern provinces with feed grain storage facilities? (Text):


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, these things are under consideration at the moment by the government, and the house will be hearing from us later in this regard.



APPROVAL OF PROJECTS AFTER CONSULTATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister assure the house that all ARDA projects approved and to be approved by his government have been or will be so approved only after the provincial governments have consulted local authorities before presenting such projects for final federal approval?


An hon. Member:: Take it as notice.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Put it on the order paper.


Mr. Chevrier:: Order paper.



ENCOURAGEMENT OF DIVERSION TO SPECIALTY CHEESES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to
140	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Agriculture. To follow up the government's program of encouraging the diversion of milk to the production of cheese, would the minister give urgent consideration to the adding of specialty cheeses to the cheddar cheese now promulgated in the order?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the soft cheeses are concerned the government feels that due to the high price of cheese in Canada, soft cheese will well take care of itself and any increases in price, which are negligible-maybe two cents a pound on soft cheese-could be handed down to the consumers without doing any harm.
(Translation):



REPORTED WITHDRAWAL OF SUBSIDY ON MILK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is it true that his department has abolished the subsidy of 25 cents per 100 pounds on milk?
(Text):


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, the 25 cents subsidy on sweet milk and fluid milks has been abolished, with the saving of some $6 million to the taxpayers. We felt that fluid milk did not require that sort of a subsidy.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? Could the Minister of Agriculture tell us why he has repealed that excellent measure passed by the previous government?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a further question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is it for the same reason, that is to save the taxpayers' money, that the Minister of Agriculture has abolished the subsidy on the purchase of lime?
(Text):


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this question as notice.
(Translation):


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he intends to follow the same policy as the Minister of Agriculture, in cancelling the subsidies paid to the Canadian National Railways in order to save money for the taxpayers?
[Mr. Hamilton,!


Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister tell us whether the savings brought about by the cancellation of subsidies to dairy producers will serve to pay for nuclear warheads, or will they serve other purposes?
(Text):



REPORTED REQUEST FOR PARTICIPATION IN CROP INSURANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I would like to address a question in French to the Minister of Agriculture. (Translation):
Could the minister tell the house whether the governments of Quebec and New Brunswick presented him with an official request to take part in the crop insurance plan? (Text):


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge. (Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I should like to put a supplementary question. Is the minister sure of his answer?
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, but first I should like to congratulate him upon his appointment to the cabinet. Would the minister inform the house whether a decision has been reached with regard to the location of a second national park in Nova Scotia and, if so, would he tell the house the names of the counties in which this park will be situated?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been taken but there has been some correspondence with a number of persons, amongst whom has been Premier Stanfield. I have written him that if he will give us the demarcation of the property concerned, then we are prepared to make a recommendation. The matter has gone that far only at the present time. I think the new proposal is in the counties of Queens, Shelburne and Annapolis. We have found that the present national park in that province is making a tremendous contribution to tourism, and every consideration will be given when the submission is made.



REPORTED CANCELLATION OF TENDERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the minister of northern affairs. I understand from information I have regarding Banff national park that in February tenders were called with reference to building motels to take care of the tourists this summer, that tenders were submitted and those tenders, following April 8, were cancelled. I was wondering would the minister answer why those tenders were cancelled after April 8?


Some hon. Members:: Out of order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the minister is going to refuse to answer that question, because it is very important to Banff national park and I would like an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure I appreciate the urgency of the question as well as the hon. member does, as he will know, but the minister is not obliged to answer unless he wants to do so.



INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice of which I have given him notice. Has the government given consideration to following the example of Sweden and New Zealand and appointing a parliamentary commissioner or ombudsman to advise parliament upon interference with political, civil or human rights by government agencies?


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member was kind enough to send me notice of this question several days ago. I would say there are, as the hon. member knows, a number of matters on the order paper concerning this question. First I believe there is a resolution, and next I think there is a question having to do with it. It seems to me that this is a matter for parliament to determine rather than the Minister of Justice. It might well be a matter that could be referred to the committee on procedure that is under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker. If that would be agreeable perhaps it would be an excellent way of bringing the matter to the attention of the house.



REPRESENTATION OF CONSTITUENCY OF NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State what steps are being
Inquiries of the Ministry taken to make possible the immediate representation of the constituency of the Northwest Territories in the House of Commons. Forty four days have elapsed since the election, and this is the 31st day of decision.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre knows as well as I do, and as every other hon. member does, that elections in this country are not conducted by the government but by an officer of this house, the chief electoral officer. I will draw the hon. gentleman's query to the attention of the chief electoral officer, and I think it will be found that the explanation is that the. writ has not yet been returned.



WEST BLOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss Pauline Jeweii (Northumberland):: Mr.. Speaker, having been much impressed by the conference arrangements in the west block, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether his department is contemplating keeping these facilities so they may be of continuing benefit to members of parliament for a conference hall.


Hon. J. P. Deschafelets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to thank the hon. member for having sent me notice of this question. Since my answer must of necessity be lengthy I beg the indulgence of the house. I think this information would be of some interest to all hon. members.
I have visited the conference room and auxiliary services, and I am most impressed with the size and efficiency of the layout. I may say that in the planning of the remodelling of the west block the main room now being used by NATO was always planned as a conference room and will continue to be used for this purpose. The present wall and floor finishes are temporary installations.
Following the conference, the permanent furnishing will be installed, maintaining its present size. However, its appearance will be considerably more lavish, in keeping with the continuing use to which the room will be put; that is, for conferences, parliamentary receptions and, in fact, any parliamentary functions requiring this type of facility. The present table arrangements as well as communications and translation services are removable and will be reinstalled at such times as they are required by any conference taking place in the room. We are also examining the advisability and possibility of maintaining on a permanent basis press communication and translation services.
I would add that in addition to this planned conference room there are to be two large

Inquiries of the Ministry caucus or committee rooms with an approximate capacity of 125, five smaller committee rooms and divorce courts, as well as a members' lounge. There is also provision for a planned recreational area which will be located on the floor above the main conference room.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister gave us a very good description of these areas, but he left out the dimensions. I wonder whether he could give us that information as well.


Mr. G. L. Challerlon (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Public Works whether there will be more office space available for members after the NATO council meeting is over.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that these arrangements will not disturb in any way the plan we have for offices for hon. members. I might add that the offices provided for hon. members will be ready for occupancy around the end of the present month, and the whole work in the west block will be completed by September 1.



DISPOSITION OF PORTRAITS OF FORMER PRIME MINISTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works, though first I should like to congratulate him on his appointment.
Will the minister advise the house whether the portraits of Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Charles Tupper, Sir John Thompson and another former prime minister which formerly adorned the west foyer of the centre block have also been moved to the west block and, if so, when they will be returned to their rightful place of honour.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I shall inquire and give the answer to the hon. gentleman in the very near future, and when I say "in the very near future" I mean exactly what I say.



OATS AND BARLEY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the information contained in a pamphlet put out by the Liberal party during the campaign to the effect that the initial prices for oats and barley would be announced during seeding, will the Minister of Agriculture inform this house what
[Mr. Deschatelets.l
the higher prices for oats and barley are this year, since we are already in the midst of seeding?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I will take that one as notice, too.



PRICE AND SUPPLY OF FEED IN EASTERN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Did you say cheer or jeer?']
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that feed grains are the chief single cost item for eastern farmers, will the government be bringing forward legislation this session to stabilize the price and supply of feed grains in eastern Canada?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, these matters are all under consideration by the government.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. During the recent election campaign in western Canada he promised the farmers $2 a bushel for wheat. Can we expect this government to fulfil that promise in the 60 days of action?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the intentions of the government on this important matter of policy will be made known in due course.


PENSIONS
[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 Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the announcement by Premier Lesage that legislation regarding portable pensions will be introduced in the Quebec legislature, and in view of similar legislation in Ontario, may I ask if the federal government is consulting with the provinces concerning this matter to avoid conflict, or will the government introduce its legislation at an early date so that the provinces will know what is in hand at the federal level?


Miss Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The announcement which was made yesterday by the province of Quebec indicated that they are contemplating legislation similar to that enacted by the province of Ontario. It is, I think, of interest to all hon. members of the house, and

particularly to this government, that the failure of communication and lack of cooperation which there has been on the federal-provincial level in the last few years has been overcome.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I should like to advise my hon. friend that consultation will be had between this government and representatives of each of the provincial governments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister take note of the other part of my question, namely, will this government's legislation be introduced at an early date so that all the provinces and the people of Canada will know what is to be before us?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Obviously this is a matter of considerable concern to all provinces, Mr. Speaker. There will be consultation with all provinces and with all possible dispatch the legislation will be forthcoming.


FORESTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Forestry. In view of the importance of the work of the North American forestry commission with respect to the development and conservation of our forests and wildlife, and in view of the proposed meeting of the North American forestry commission in Ottawa from June 17 to June 22, can the minister give the house any information with respect to the arrangements that have been made for the meeting, the names of persons participating and the program?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member indeed for having given me notice of his question. He is quite right; the second session of this commission will be held in Ottawa from the 17th to the 22nd of June. I might say that the North American forestry commission is an agency of the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations and its second meeting is to be held in Ottawa on the dates I have mentioned.
Membership in the organization is confined to the United States, Mexico and Canada. These three governments will all be represented at the meeting, and there will be representatives of most of the provinces of Canada. All the provinces have been invited. Observers will also be invited to participate, and invitations have gone out to the Canadian institute of forestry, the Canadian pulp and
Inquiries of the Ministry paper association and some other bodies. I will be pleased to provide more information to the hon. member or other interested members on request.


UNITED NATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in his absence perhaps the hon. and learned parliamentary secretary will take it as notice. Would the minister report on the progress of the special session of the United Nations general assembly now in progress and let us have information on the initiative of the Canadian delegation in respect of the highly important question of United Nations financing, a matter to which the Canadian delegation made a significant contribution at the regular session?


Mr. J. B. Slewarf (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. gentleman's suggestion and bring his question to the attention of the minister.
(Translation):


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether he is aware that two weeks ago the American government started inviting tenders from Canadian trucking firms regarding the transportation into Canada of nuclear weapons originating in the United States?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have had no such information, and I doubt very much whether the hon. gentleman's information is accurate on this matter.
(Translation):


INQUIRY AS TO COURSES AT ST. JOHNS ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Does the minister intend to recommend to the cabinet that St. Johns Royal Military College give complete courses, as does Kingston Military College?
144	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the departmental high officials intend to recommend that St. Johns Royal Military College be able to give the most complete course that is possible.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister make a statement to the house before the expiration of the 60 days.
(Text):


TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING PURCHASE OF MEDIUM RANGE JETS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he expects to be in a position in the near future to report to the house on the discussions between Trans-Canada Air Lines and various producers of medium range jet planes, and in particular with regard to the possibility of T.C.A. adopting the Caravelle plane built in Montreal by Canadair.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, before answering the question I should like to take this opportunity since it is the first one I have had, to acknowledge the courtesy of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) at the time I was appointed to this office, by his waiting in the office to receive me and extend those small courtesies which do mean so much in public life.
As to his question today, it is quite impossible at the moment to say when I will be in a position to make any statement to the house on the subject of possible purchases of aircraft for T.C.A.


INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Finance and I direct it to him not only in his capacity as such but also because of his known and recorded advocacy of the principle of debt free money. Has the minister any comment to make on the editorial which appears in the Bay Street Journal of May 13, 1963 to the effect that the stock market is at an all-time high in the anticipation of Social Credit co-operation and influence on the new Liberal government, and that Lester Pearson should have little difficulty achieving common ground with Robert Thompson?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I would think that question is completely out of order.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. I wonder whether the Secretary of State has noticed that his friend the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) has, under pressure, changed his seat in this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it does not seem to me that is a proper question for the Secretary of State, but perhaps Your Honour would permit me to make the very respectful submission that certain admonitions made by your predecessors with respect to the character of questions on the orders of the day would appear to apply to many that have been asked today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South
Centre): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I direct Your Honour's attention to page 43 of Hansard for October 1, 1962, where it is reported that these words were used by the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith):
If hon. members putting questions are to be called to order, then surely the rules must be drawn to the attention of the ministers in making answers and those answers must be made properly.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he is at present reviewing the capabilities of the R.C.M.P. security division in view of that division's apparent lack of effectiveness in uncovering the operations of the F.L.Q.?


Lionel Chevrier: In connection with that question, Mr. Speaker,. I think all I need say is that the premier of the province of Quebec has been in communication with me since last Friday in relation to the matter of additional assistance from the federal force, that is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force, and I have assured the premier of the province of Quebec that in so far as the federal forces are concerned they will lend all and every and immediate assistance that they can under the circumstances.


Douglas Mason Fisher: As a supplementary question, could the minister tell us whether in terms of the security division this particular operation,, that is the F.L.Q., is looked upon as a subversive or a security threat to the country?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will immediately appreciate that in so far as the prosecution and the laying of charges are concerned, should they be found necessary in the province of Quebec, they are

the responsibility of the municipal and provincial forces. In that respect 1 am afraid I can go no further at this time. (Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the Minister of Justice has just said that he had a telephone conversation quite recently with the premier of the province of Quebec, would he tell us if the premier of Quebec took that opportunity to discuss the question of his ultimatum concerning the new fiscal arrangements?
(Text):


REMOVAL OF TARIFF ON IMPORTS FROM U.S.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, but in his absence I will direct it to the acting minister. Is the government giving consideration to the removal of the tariff on United States coal imported into Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take that question as notice and draw it to the minister's attention.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON INQUIRY INTO PRICE INCREASES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice, who intimated last week that he was looking into the skyrocketing price of sugar. Having in mind the adverse effects of this increase now reported spreading to the fruit and canning industries, I wonder if he is in a position to report any progress in his investigations.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I did not hear the first part of the hon. member's question, but I think I know what he has reference to. It has to do with the question he asked earlier concerning sugar. I am afraid I cannot report anything further than I did the last time. When there is an opportunity to do so, I shall.


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question
Inquiries of the Ministry to the Minister of Transport. I have not given him notice, and he may wish to take the question as notice. In view of the serious unemployment situation at the Eastern Car Company plant at Trenton, Nova Scotia, which is the largest employer in the area, and in view of the fact that U.I.C. benefits are running out, I wonder whether the minister would look into the matter of providing a railway car order immediately for that plant.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to take the question as notice.


COMBINES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister received a complaint from the city of Winnipeg regarding a possible combine in the field of electrical equipment, and if so, what action is the government taking in respect of this complaint?


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I did not hear the last part of the question. Dealing with what?


David Orlikow: A possible combine in the field of electrical equipment.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I believe I have, and the matter is under study.


WATER RESOURCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Due to the fact that the province of Alberta has recently decided not to participate in the water study asked for by the prairie water conservation board, would the hon. gentleman not use his good offices to try to convince the government in Alberta and, maybe, his counterpart in that government, that this question is of vital importance to the cattle industry in our province and that they should participate in this study of the prairie watershed?


Harry William Hays: We shall be glad to consider this.

The Address-Mr. Knowles (Translation):


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker,
I direct my question to the Minister of Finance.
Can the minister tell the house whether it is true that the present government intends soon to issue a new series of federal government bonds?
(Text):


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It is customary, as I think the hon. gentleman knows, to give notice from time to time when bond issues are contemplated. We did this the other day before the most recent issue was announced. I think the announcement was made to the investment dealers and not in the house. I believe that has been the practice for many years and it is probably the best one to continue.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 21, 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, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Dief-enbaker.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is for me, sir, a very real pleasure to extend to you my heartiest congratulations on your election to be the Speaker of this house. I join with my leader, as well as with others in this group and, indeed, with all groups in this chamber, in extending good wishes to those other hon. members who must, by now, know that we all offer them warmest congratulations.
Mr. Speaker, in the course of the last two or three speeches which I had the privilege of making in the recent campaign, I made an assertion which I feel sure could not be denied, and I made a prediction which I believe may well come true. My assertion was that the last parliament was just about the worst one we ever had. My prediction was that this parliament, which we were electing on April 8, could be one of the best we have ever had. I believed that to be so at the time I made the prediction. I believe it now. As a matter of fact, I believe it even more today than I did yesterday, for I think what happened in this house last night will play a salutory part in bringing my prophecy to reality.
(Mr. Hays.)
When I made the prediction that this parliament could well be one of the best we have had in the history of this country I did so saying at the same time that I thought we would have another minority government. I tried, therefore, to deal with the question: why could I hope that a parliament with a minority government would be a good one whereas the parliament just over, which also had a minority government, was such an awful one? My own answer to that question was this. I believed that no matter what party might be called on to form the government in this parliament it would realize that it should at all costs avoid an election, and that in order to do this it would have to pay some attention to the views of all members in the house. I said, also, that I felt it would have to pay some attention to the views of those of us who represent the New Democratic party.
The government learned yesterday that that is true; that although we, in common with all members of the house, feel that the people of Canada want us to stay here and do the business of the country, on important and crucial issues we shall not shrink from doing what is clearly our duty. I am sure all of us in the house hope that after the experience of yesterday the government of the day will drop its arrogance and realize it has to pay some attention to the wishes of parliament as a whole.
When I said that this parliament could be one of the best we have ever had, I had in mind not that this would just happen because someone predicted it or because a certain party formed the government, but rather because there were certain things which we, as members of this house, would have to do. If we want this to be a good parliament, and one which serves the people of Canada well, there are certain conscious efforts which we as members must make. I intend to speak of these conscious efforts under three main headings.
In the first place, I feel we in this parliament in all corners of this house must with determination practise strict adherence to the rights, privileges and procedures of parliament. I want to emphasize that this means something more than just literal adherence to the rules or standing orders set out in our book. It is easy enough to follow the simple rules which determine how long a member may speak, when the house shall sit, when it shall rise, and so on. Most of the written rules are easy enough to follow. But parliament consists not only of written rules of procedure but of certain rights, practices and traditions which have grown up over the years and over the centuries. If we are going to make this parliament work, if we are

going to make it the valuable democratic institution it could be, we have to pay regard to these rules, practices and traditions. In order to be specific as to some of the things in which I think this parliament must not fail, it will be necessary for me to refer to some of the failures of the past. I would make the plea that they not be repeated in this twenty sixth parliament.
Last year we had the experience of a full fiscal year passing without the people's representatives voting on the estimates of expenditure. A full fiscal year's money was spent, ten months of it on the basis of interim supply and the other two months on the basis of governor general's warrants. If my reading of Canadian history is correct, this is the first time this has happened. This sort of thing does damage to the institution of parliament. I call upon this government which has now taken over not to delay bringing down the estimates. Once they are down, I call upon the government not to delay in arranging for their discussion as early as possible in the fiscal year, so that they can be considered by hon. members of this house and can be passed before that money is almost entirely spent. The whole question of parliamentary control over the purse is one of the most important elements in parliamentary democracy, and it matters not how well we keep the written rules in the book if we fail to adhere to the principle of parliamentary control of the purse.
In the same vein I would mention the question of the budget. There are various definitions which one can give to a budget. Sometimes it is thought of merely as a series of taxation changes that the minister of finance brings before the house. It is that, but it is more than that: it is an accounting by the government to the people's representatives on the state of the nation's finances. It is almost two years since the House of Commons had a full debate on a budget dealing with the finances of this nation, and I urge this government to make sure that this error, this failure, is not repeated during the life of this parliament.
I remind the government also of the position in which it finds itself with regard to the surcharge order in council passed last June. The government now finds itself, according to an announcement made yesterday, in the position of feeling that it must introduce legislation validating an order in council which at one time the members of the government felt, as we felt, was completely invalid. It may be that the government of today has no alternative to the one suggested yesterday, but I am certainly very unhappy about
The Address-Mr. Knowles this proposed course because it seems to suggest that future governments who may feel they want to pass something by way of order in council which is of doubtful validity can say: "Oh well, a subsequent parliament will take care of it by legislation if there is any invalidity". Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of things beyond the actual rules which are written in the books which are of great importance if we are going to maintain the rights and privileges and the importance of parliament.
Another of the errors of the last parliament, and another reason why it was such a poor one, was the great difficulty we had in getting to the floor of that parliament the tremendous issues which were of concern to the Canadian people at that time. I need not enumerate them now because we enumerated them during the course of the last session. We have already had that sort of trouble in this parliament, for it is only because we took advantage through the right of the leader of this group to move a subamendment yesterday that we had a discussion on the important issue of nuclear arms. But even though we had this discussion yesterday, it was virtually ex post facto because the government had already made an announcement which indicated a decision for the Canadian people had been made on this question.
Yesterday we were told by the Prime Minister that we should not be concerned about this; that after all there was an opportunity to vote confidence or non-confidence in the government, and that such action would show approval or disapproval of the government's decision. But I would remind the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill), who is doing me the honour of paying attention to my remarks, that the Liberals in the last house did not agree that the votes of confidence which the government in the last session won gave validity to the surcharge order in council. True it is, in a constitutional sense, that if a government is maintained in power by votes of confidence the day to day things which it does have a kind of approval. But surely you do not stretch that constitutional theory to the point that it is giving approval of government decisions on major issues of policy.
The surcharge order issued last year was such a major issue. It involved the taxation of the Canadian people of hundreds of millions of dollars. It was enacted by order in council without reference to parliament at any point, and without the consent of the government of that day even to refer it to the supreme court. That was a wrong course to take. The nuclear arms issue is an issue of deep concern to all the people of Canada; it is perhaps the most significant issue facing the human race at the present time. I feel,.

The Address-Mr. Knowles as all members of our group feel, that it was improper and that it was a violation of the rights and traditions of parliamentary practice and procedure for the government to take a stand on this question before bringing it before this House of Commons. My plea to the government is to remember how its own members, when sitting on this side of the house last year, felt annoyed and affronted over the things done during that session, and I hope that they will not soon forget their annoyance but that they will realize that if parliament is to work they must pay attention to these niceties of the relationship between the executive and the parliament of Canada.
This is the most important aspect of responsible government. As I say, it depends not just on our being able to follow written rules which spell out some mechanical details; it depends on the government realizing all the time, day and night, week in week out, that it is responsible to parliament and that its proper relationship with parliament is something it must continually maintain.
In the same vein I feel that if parliament is to be seen as a place where democracy is being practised and where the people's representatives are speaking for them, a great deal of thought must go into the organization of the business of this house. I would pay tribute to the action of the Secretary of State for his holding already a meeting of representatives from all four parties, at which it was my privilege to represent this party. I understand he plans to hold other such meetings, and I welcome them and urge him not to let down on this. I urge the government to pay particular attention to the organization of the business of the house so that it will appear to the country that we are doing business, and so that the members of this house will feel this business is being done in an orderly manner.
Again I must mention some things which should not be done. I think it is a mistake to commence debate on a piece of legislation and then, because the government runs into some difficulty, to adjourn the debate and proceed with something else. I think it is a mistake to shuffle around from one piece of business to another. I think it is a mistake to keep the house guessing from day to day as to what is going to happen the next day or next week. I think it makes far more sense in terms of democracy and parliamentary practice for the government through this kind of four-party meeting which the Secretary of State has already held, to take the house into its confidence and to tell us what is being planned. Then once we commence a piece of

legislation we should stay with it until it is completed, and thus do our business in an orderly fashion.
A lot is said about the organization of the business of the house as though the main aim were to get it through and save time. We do not want to waste time, but that is not the main aim of parliamentary reform. The main aim is to make sure that our business is done efficiently and with expedition, and also to make sure that it is done with a sense of participation on the part of all members. I recognize that this is not a city council or a county council but the parliament of Canada. The government is the government, and it has certain responsibilities as the executive. It is also responsible to parliament. But the fact remains that the people in the constituency of Winnipeg North Centre are represented here not by the government but by their member. The people of Burnaby-Coquitlam are represented by their member, and those of other ridings by their members, and there are certain things in which the people of Canada are not really participating unless their members are taking part in these decisions. This is what was wrong with the spending of money last year. It was spent without the approval of the 265 members representing the 18 million people of Canada. It was spent as a result of decisions of the cabinet. I say, therefore, that the whole business of organizing the legislation, the discussions, the debates of this house is important, not just for the convenience of members. It is important that it appear that the whole of the parliament of Canada, all the representatives of the people of Canada, are taking part in the debates and in the legislation in this house.
I think also, Mr. Speaker, attention should be given to the whole question of how questions are answered. I realize, and I assert, that on the opposition side of the house we must not use the question period frivolously. Today's Hansard will show a number of questions which, in my view, should not have been asked. However, when serious questions are asked the government has the responsibility of giving answers as expeditiously as it can. I think we have far too many occasions upon which the answer is that government policy will be made known in due course, or that the question asked is one of which notice will be taken. We should forgive government members for a few days, perhaps, until ministers know their way around their departments. However, I think we should look upon the question period not as so much political warfare but as one of the most important parts of the political democracy we are practising in this country.

One of the things about the parliamentary-system that makes it superior to other legislative systems is precisely the fact that we are members representing our people in 265 constituencies and we are here on the floor of the House of Commons with the members of the government, in a position to ask them questions on behalf of the people we represent. This gives us the right to ask serious questions and to receive serious answers. The importance of asking serious questions and of receiving informative replies cannot be overemphasized.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him a question at this point?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, if it is short.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman think it would be a good idea if we were to follow the British practice and have notice given of questions so that a minister could be informed when he rises to answer questions?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is always difficult to cite British practice and suggest ours should be equated with that of Westminster because there are other differences. I would accept the British practice with regard to questions if we were to adopt the British practice with regard to debates of questions on adjournment. You cannot take one thing out of the British practice that is to the advantage of the ministers and not take something else. I hope I will be a member of the committee on procedure. It might study this matter among others, and I would be glad to take part in a discussion concerning it. I am stressing the things that the government should do, but I have already said there are responsibilities on the opposition side as well, not to make a joke out of parliament, not to ask frivolous questions, and to realize the tremendous importance that this place holds in our parliamentary system. Let us have, by all means, the cut and thrust of debate, sharp argument, but let us realize at all times that we are the representatives of the people of Canada and we are here to do a job.
The second thing into which I think we must put some effort if we are going to make this parliament, as I think it can be, one of the best in our history, is to establish in the public mind confidence in the integrity of their public representatives. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the ordinary people of Canada want to believe in us, want to have confidence in their members of parliament. They look upon us not just as the ordinary people we are but as members of this important institution of parliament. At times this becomes difficult. At times cynicism arises. I suggest one of the reasons that cynicism arises is the tendency of parties, when they move from
The Address-Mr. Knowles one side of the house to the other, to change their position. I have kept particular notes, and I am addressing myself to the government in particular, of the things that the Liberals supported in the last parliament. They supported a bill of mine calling for eight statutory holidays with pay. They supported a bill of mine to have $1.25 per hour established as a minimum wage. They opposed these things when they were on the government side prior to 1957. I hope they will not change their position now they have moved back to the government side of the house.
The Liberals, when they were the government last time introduced a bill to provide for hospitalization but refused to include in it provision for mental and tubercular patients. When the former minister of national health and welfare came over to this side of the house he asked the Conservative government to do what he had refused to do. What is his position now? I could go on with various things. There is the question of the position that the Liberals have taken on nuclear arms. I have some material here and I would have made more use of it last night if I had had an opportunity to participate in the debate at that time. This book is published by McLelland and Stewart Limited, a firm of discriminating publishers, and it is entitled, "The Liberal Party", by J. W. Pickersgill. On page 133 of this book I find a very ringing statement to this effect:
The Liberal party believes that Canada can make a more appropriate and effective contribution to (the joint defence of this continent and to the military alliance of the free world by strengthening the so-called conventional armaments of the Canadian forces than by seeking to become a very junior nuclear power, with a limited supply of nuclear weapons which, in present circumstances, could not be under Canadian custody.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I find, of course, this entire book was given the imprimatur of the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada because he wrote a foreword in which he said:
Mr. Pickersgill's book, to which I am glad to contribute this foreword states the Liberal record and the Liberal purpose in Canada in a clear and convincing way.
I give this now, Mr. Speaker, as an example of the thing I think politicians, members of parliament, should avoid, this business of taking one position when you are on the government side of the house and taking another when you get to the opposition side, then changing again when you get back. It is not good for parliamentary democracy. It does not lead the public to have that kind of confidence in their representatives which the people of Canada want to have. I say the same thing to my friends of the Progressive

The Address-Mr. Knowles Conservative party. It is very interesting to hear some of them now asking from this side of the house for the government of the day to do the things that their government refused to do when they were over there.
Now, Mr. Speaker, is this really necessary? Must we have this kind of human weakness that results in a change in position as we move back and forth? If we persist in it, we cannot be surprised if there is cynicism in the public mind regarding politicians. I think it is unfortunate there is that cynicism. I think it is unfortunate that "politician" is sometimes thought of as a dirty word. I feel that a politician has a tremendously high calling, but it is up to us so to act in this house in our various parties that the people of Canada will come to that realization.
The third heading I have on this list of things I think we must do if we are going to make this parliament one of the best in our "history is that we must work to produce some solid legislation that will be of benefit to the Canadian people. In the first place, without delay, we must get on the statute books of this country legislation, and we must have brought before us government policies, that will get our economy rolling and keep it rolling. We must provide employment. I welcome the statement that was made by the hon. lady who moved the address. I welcome the statement made in this regard the other day by the Prime Minister. However, statements are not enough. We have to keep at this. Unemployment is not something that can be solved with one magic solution. It takes economic planning; it takes fiscal and financial policies that will stimulate the economy. It takes training. It takes all the various things our economists know must be done. This is the session of parliament in which we must do those things to provide employment and provide a thriving economy for our people.
The field of pensions is another in which we must produce a piece of solid legislation. I welcome the announcement in the speech from the throne that something is coming. I welcome the assurances that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss La-Marsh) has given me on a couple of occasions that if I will just contain myself these things will come to pass. But, Mr. Speaker, I insist that there must be no delay and that this legislation must be as good as or better than the Liberals are now proclaiming it to be. Though the indications so far are very good, in the sense that it looks like there will be an increase in the amount of the pension and that there will be a contributory plan and so on, I regret that there seems to be mo suggestion from the Liberal side of the

house that the means test is going to be removed at age 65. In my view this is one of those solid achievements that this session of this parliament ought to produce.
I regret too that in the speech from the throne there is no reference to health insurance or medicare. The year 1919 was the year when the Liberals first started talking in this field. It took them nearly 40 years to get hospitalization on the statute books. But, Mr. Speaker, medicare is one of the prime needs of the people of our time. There is a great deal of interest in it, as is being shown by the platforms of all parties in this country at the present time. This is a piece of legislation that must come out of this session.
Housing is another field in which we must make tremendous progress. Before my time runs out I should like to say that I think too, that in this session of this parliament we must make tremendous steps in the field of increasing our contribution to external aid. We in this corner of the house do not like the only decision that has been made so far in this parliament so far as international relations are concerned, namely, the decision that was taken last night. Over and above whatever defence or diplomatic arrangements have to be made, we think that if we are going to achieve and maintain peace in the world we have got to do something to raise the living standards of mankind the world around, and what we are doing in Canada is not even a drop in the bucket. When you look at that in the light of our unemployment and in the light of our unused capacity and unused resources, I suggest the time has come for the government to give to parliament and to the people of Canada a vision of what we can do as Canadians to help to improve the position of mankind throughout the world.
There are other fields, but I stress these five: the provision of full employment, including the whole question of the economy and economic planning; improvements in pensions, and I suggest that the least that should happen would be $75 a month at 65 right away, with the other things that the government has indicated; then, housing; also medicare, and finally a contribution to the peace of the world. I see you are on the edge of your chair, Mr. Speaker. I am through. I just want to emphasize my belief that the prediction I made before the election was held is one that we can make come true. We can make this parliament one of the best that the people of Canada have ever had. We can do it, if we will adhere strictly to the traditions and practices of parliament, if we will do our best to establish in the

public mind confidence in us as their representatives, and if we will work together to bring down some very solid legislation for the good of the people of Canada.
(Translation):


Mr. Maurice Sauve (iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment and I associate myself with many of our fellow members who have taken this opportunity of expressing their regard for you.
I also want to tell the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) how much 1 appreciated her speech last Friday and to what extent I subscribe to the principles she expounded at that time.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) proved that worth does not wait for age, and he did very well in carrying out his task.
Mr. Speaker, this morning I attended the opening of the NATO conference. I was very pleased to hear the chairman and the secretary of the NATO council say that they were particularly happy to attend a NATO meeting in Ottawa. Moreover, I was also extremely satisfied to hear those two personalities, Lord Home and Mr. Stikker, pay a special tribute to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). They stated that he had not only been one of the founders of NATO, but one of the main leaders to support this organization during its most difficult moments, that he had been one of the three wise men. In a word, they wanted to pay him a particular tribute in this very house, and I am proud to be a member of a party led by a statesman who has the confidence, not only of his fellow citizens, but also of the whole world and more particularly of the diplomats of other countries with which we maintain diplomatic relations.
Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not point out the fact that I regret the absence today of some of our colleagues in the last parliament. On the other hand, I am happy to welcome the newly-elected members who will share the difficulties of parliamentary life with us. Indeed, election campaigns are much more easy, on the whole, than the work we have to carry out during the sessions.
(Text):
I might take this opportunity to speak for a few minutes about the election campaign in the Magdalen Islands. I do not want to devote too much of my speech to this matter as I intend to discuss the economic content of the speech from the throne and its consequences in terms of employment and so on. But, Mr. Speaker, you might be interested
The Address-Mr. Sauve to know that something very strange happened during the campaign. We had a Conservative candidate by the name of Gerard Mecteau who came to the Magdalen Islands four or five days before nomination day. He was accompanied by Mr. Snyder, former campaign manager of the Union Nationale candidate, Mr. Hormidas Langlais, who was defeated last November after sitting in the Quebec house for 26 years. Mr. Mecteau was an employee of Mr. Snyder. He came there, filed his nomination papers and disappeared. He never showed up during the campaign. We do not know him. We have never seen him.
The surprise is that a week before election day this same Mr. Snyder, the organizer for the Conservative candidate and campaign chairman for the former Union Nationale member, came there and started campaigning on behalf of the Social Credit candidate, Mr. Fernand Turbide. But that is not all. Not only was the Union Nationale linked with the Conservative candidate and the Conservative candidate linked with the Social Credit candidate and the Union Nationale organizer and the Conservative organization supporting the Social Credit candidate, but they were supporting a candidate who was not qualified to stand for election. Probably for the first time since confederation a candidate in a national election ran for office without being 21 years of age. I have his birth certificate which I will send to my friends of the Social Credit party so they can read clearly what is in it and I will read it now for purposes of Hansard.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine a question? Was he aware of those facts before election day? (Text):


Maurice Sauvé: I will read-
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I remind the hon. member that he must address the Chair.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine a question? Is the hon. member aware of the fact that a candidate did not have the required age on election day?


Maurice Sauvé: Yes, sir, we knew about it, but it was impossible to be on the spot in time with the necessary documents to prove the facts to the returning officer.
(Text):
I will read this document now because I
think it is a fascinating one. It proves that the
152	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Sauve Social Credit party did not take this election seriously in the Magdalen islands, and probably elsewhere. How would a national party with standing dare to present a candidate who was not 21 years old?
(Translation):
Parish of Ste. Therese d'Arvida
Joseph Ovide Fernand Turbide, born on December fifth, in the year one thousand nine hundred and forty two, legitimate son of Edmond Turbide and Marie Louise Lafrance. Godfather: Jean Paul Lafrance. Godmother:	Fedia Lafrance Martin.
Christened on December 6, 1942 by the Reverend Maurice Girard. This is a true copy made out on March the 13th, 1963 by Normand Deneault, priest.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow a question? He therefore received this copy on March 13, 1963, that is almost a month before the last election, because as the date on the paper indicates, he asked for this copy of the christening certificate on March 13, 1963.
Now, could the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine explain to us how it could be that he, who is a good and law-abiding citizen, has not tried to rectify the case before the election, instead of doing so later?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, it is true that this document was signed on March 13, but it reached me only on March 17 or 18, and the nomination was on the 25th. It was therefore, because of existing circumstances, impossible to submit this document-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-
(Text):


Maurice Sauvé: In any case the responsibility rests with the Social Credit party, not with me. I was not the one to choose my opponent, and when you see what happened there you can understand why the population of the Magdalen Islands will not vote for many years for any Socred, Conservative or National Union candidate, when they come there to laugh at the people during an election,
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, in any case, I am not here this afternoon to discuss the happenings in Iles-de-la-Madeleine.


An hon. Member:: The member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine is the only one to be aware of those alleged facts.


Maurice Sauvé: I have only one thing to say. The speech from the throne contains the legislative program of this government for the first part of the session. It is very clear that one does not find in the speech from the throne the whole program and all the commitments made by the Liberal party during


the last election campaign. We have a four year program. How could the hon. members of this house expect that in the first part of this session the government would endeavour to solve all the problems? It is physically impossible.


An hon. Member:: You have 60 days.


Maurice Sauvé: Exactly, the government has decided in those 60 days to fulfil some of its most urgent commitments.


An hon. Member:: Like nuclear weapons for Canada?


Maurice Sauvé: And when I compare-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Or the return of taxation powers to the provinces?


Maurice Sauvé: When I compare this 60 day program to the inaction of the 2,140 days of the previous government, I am proud to be a member of the Liberal party.


An hon. Member:: It takes very little to make you proud.


Maurice Sauvé: Now from the legislative program offered in the speech from the throne I would particularly like to dwell on the economic measures mainly meant to remedy unemployment.
I do not have to recall that the government intends to establish a department of industry, that it will add $100 million to the funds at the disposal of the Atlantic development board. The government intends to create a municipal development and loan board. It also intends to create a Canada development corporation and to establish an economic council of Canada.
When the bills are before us we will, I am sure, be able to see exactly what the government has in mind.
The actual wording of the legislation and the way it is to be carried out will enable us to judge more readily whether the government is in earnest or whether it simply wants to fulfil some of its commitments.
As a matter of fact, unless we decide to implement the indicative planning we talked about during the last session, a planning which has brought prosperity to so many European countries, I think we will have very little chance to solve the serious unemployment problems and the serious economic problems of our country.
I hope that all those boards the government intends to set up will have a fair and equitable representation of the labour and farming communities. All elements of our economic life must be represented on those federal agencies.

I am of the opinion that the climate of confidence which surrounds this new government, which is reflected in the papers and the comments made by everybody, will promote the appearance of new capital in Canada and new investments in the most important segments of our economic life.
If I discussed economic problems and solutions contemplated by the government, it is mainly because in our province of Quebec unemployment is and has always been a plague as I shall try to prove it. I think that all members of this house realize that the economic situation in the province of Quebec is difficult, that you find in the province of Quebec 37 per cent of all jobless in the country-


An hon. Member:: Under a Liberal government.


Maurice Sauvé: -while there is only 27 per cent of the labour force and twice as many unemployed people.


Gilles Grégoire: Under a Liberal government.


Maurice Sauvé: That has been going on for a long time. If the hon. member for Lapointe will listen to me, he will understand, like hon. members from other provinces, that the uneasiness felt in the province of Quebec originates from deep economic causes and that by finding a solution to those economic problems, we may do more to maintain national unity in Canada than all the great speeches which are delivered at present on that matter.
That situation has been existing for a long time.
I have here a publication by the dominion bureau of statistics entitled "Unemployment in Canada", catalogue No. 71-503F. On page 12 of that document, you can read "Distribution of unemployment by region". From 1951 to 1955, a period when we had a Liberal government-one must admit that-36 per cent of all jobless in Canada were in the province of Quebec. From 1956 to 1960, when we had a Conservative government for most of the time, 36 per cent of jobless lived in the province of Quebec. In 1961, the proportion is still 35 per cent while we only had 27 per cent of the labour force.
It is obvious that unemployment has particular effects on personal income. I have before me a document which shows that there was $497 difference, in 1961, in the personal income as between a resident of Ontario and a resident of Quebec; this means that in
The Address-Mr. Sauve Ontario, the per capita income was $1,829 while in the province of Quebec it was only $1,382, a difference of 37 per cent.
Well, Mr. Speaker, how can the citizens of the province of Quebec, who consider themselves as full fledged citizens, who want to be considered as equal partners in Canada, be willing to accept a situation where they are at a financial disadvantage compared to the citizens of Ontario?
I believe that the measures set out in the speech from the throne will probably help to find a solution to the problem of unemployment. But what chances have these measures of being successful in the province of Quebec? I suggest that any legislation from the Ottawa government should get the approval of the Quebec people and of the provincial government. The pieces of legislation with which we shall have to deal in this house should facilitate the work already undertaken by the government of Quebec.
In the province of Quebec, we have set up a general investment corporation; we are planning to establish an iron-smelting industry and, unless the central government, which has great responsibilities in the economic field, comes and facilitates the renovation work undertaken by the Liberal government of Quebec, I am afraid that we, in Quebec, shall not be able to achieve the aims which we have set forth and, consequently, we shall continue to have grievances against the rest of Canada.
For the administration of these new laws, when we shall have to recruit civil servants, it will be important to choose employees from the province of Quebec, familiar with the Quebec mentality, who will be on friendly terms with the Quebec government, and with the officials from Quebec. Otherwise, how can we hope for the successful administration of these new laws?
Mr. Speaker, as far as the unemployment problem and the inferior income I have just referred to are concerned, even if the latter situation is, to my way of thinking, the main cause of the uneasiness which is felt, it remains nevertheless that, as a group, our situation is far from brilliant.
When we consider the situation of the French Canadians in the hundred largest corporations in Canada, we find that only two of them are managed by members of our group; there is not a single French Canadian vice president on the executive board of the C.N.R. or of the C.P.R. In fact, until recently, not a single French Canadian was a member of the executive board of the C.N.R. Why did we have to utter shrill protests in this house

The Address-Mr. Sauve before Mr. Maurice Archer was appointed? What can we infer from this?
You will note that two French Canadians have been prime ministers of Canada; that three have been chief justices of the supreme court and one, Governor General. But why are there no French Canadians to be found to manage more crown corporations as well as the large Canadian banks?
It should nevertheless be appreciated that we have been waiting since 1867. We have been patient. It is difficult to ask a people to keep on waiting, when that people has known, since the month of September 1959, a climate of freedom.
That people who want to develop is creating the instruments of its own freeing and goes on with its emancipation, as it can be seen now.
Things that seem irregular happen too often. For instance, on the trains between Montreal and Ottawa-on both the C.N.R. and the C.P.R.-conductors are practically unilingual and the announcements are called only in English. And while this happens in Ottawa and on the trains, bombs are exploding in Montreal. Even in government buildings, elevator operators do not always understand French. Most of the time, if we want to go to the fourth floor, they take us up to the sixth.
Such is the situation at the present time. It should at least be realized what a climate it creates. We have practically no right to live in French in certain provinces.
In the economic field, where do we stand? We own almost nothing. We have almost nothing, outside the province of Quebec.
As to the civil service in Ottawa, even if they say to French Canadians: "Come, you will be welcome", our civil servants must nevertheless write and discuss in English. In the important international meetings, how many French Canadian officials represent us? Indeed I intend to put this question on the order paper of the house.
There must be a possible solution to that problem. We cannot wait any longer.
The proposed enquiry on biculturalism will soon get under way, but naturally it will not solve all our problems. However, it might increase our awareness of the situation, and enlighten more particularly our English speaking friends. For most French speaking Canadians, the problem is of a psychological order. If we are not really happy outside Quebec, if the education of our children in the other provinces is fraught with difficulties,

if we must fight to snatch mere crumbs from the various provincial governments, how then can we be proud of our country and feel at home everywhere within the Canadian borders? It is high time for all of us to size up the situation.
The commission on biculturalism will only succeed if it secures the co-operation of the provinces. If this co-operation is denied, what could the commission do? We know that most of our problems stem from education, a matter strictly within the jurisdiction of provincial governments. The success of the inquiry rests also in part upon the choice of the commissioners. I hope that the provinces and the federal government will select the best men, and discard every vestige of partisanship.
I think we are all agreed on that point. The success of the inquiry on biculturalism will depend in great part on the excellence of the briefs to be submitted to the commission. If the two main racial groups of our country take advantage of this inquiry to give expression to their spite toward one another, its results will be inconclusive. Briefs must be objective.
I trust that the inquiry will have at its disposal all the means required for objective and scientific research in order to find out what is going on and what is exactly the situation at the present time. Being aware of the situation, we shall be in a better position to find the proper answers to our problems.
Let us not believe, however, that those answers will be found overnight, because even though the federal government were to accept the proposals of Mr. Lesage, the matter would not be entirely settled because it goes beyond the problem of fiscal relations.
I, for one, believe that the federal government could accept the terms of the Quebec government and propose to the other provinces the same arrangements whereby the federal government's share of expenses would be turned over to the provinces in the fields coming under provincial jurisdiction. Let me explain.
Supposing that the fiscal demands of the province of Quebec would amount to $125 million a year, the federal government might very well hand over those $125 million to the province while the province would have to pay, at the same time, the federal contribution of $75 million to hospital insurance and do the same in other fields.
What Quebec wants, is self-administration in its own way. The province does not want to take what rightly belongs to others, but it wants to be able to look after its own, affairs in all fields under its jurisdiction.

You will note, Mr. Speaker, that it we want to be our own masters at home, it does not mean that we want to separate ourselves from the others, though-and here I am weighing my words carefully-we find, more and more, in the province of Quebec, people who do not expect anything either from Ottawa or from the rest of Canada.
Those people are not necessarily separatists. But they have decided to solve their own problems themselves through a government which is nearer to them, i.e. the provincial government of Quebec.
I trust-my speaking time is about up- that all my fellow members will realize the importance of the legislation suggested by the Liberal government in Ottawa. I also hope that they will not tarry in passing economic legislation, which might end part of our troubles, because we of the province of Quebec want to live in the same way as others do. We want to live as others do, as do people in Ontario, and enjoy the same prosperity. We want to feel at home everywhere in Canada. When we get out of the province of Quebec, we want to find ourselves at home too, be it in Vancouver, Winnipeg or St. John's, Newfoundland. For this is our country, the country of all Canadians. And, which is perhaps still more important, we would like the people from the other provinces to want us too.
We want to feel that we are essential to the development of Canada. We want the rest of Canada to like us. If Canadians from all provinces will join with us, we will build in Canada, our land as well as yours, a country where it feels good to live in good understanding and complete equality. We want to be equal partners.
It is probably the last chance the traditional political parties will have in the province of Quebec. No longer can we accept promises from political parties in that field. Now, we need action. We have become politically conscious. We all know what happened last June when the people of Quebec gave a warning to all traditional parties, voting as they did for Social Credit. The province of Quebec gave that warning and they might give more than a warning at the next election, unless we, who are responsible for the government, take courageous and necessary measures. But I think those measures are forecast in the speech from the throne. I am
The Address-Mr. Paul proud to belong to a party with a leader such as the Hon. Lester B. Pearson.


Mr. Marcoux:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


An hon. Member:: His time is up.


Guy Marcoux: I should like to ask the hon. member which section of the election act provides that a candidate in a federal election must be at least 21 years of age?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, there is a specific section on this, but I do not know which one. I think it is section 19 which provides that one must be a Canadian and 21 years of age, and-there are three requirements.


Guy Marcoux: That applies in the case of an elector.


Maurice Sauvé: No. In any case I shall bring you the document.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's time has expired, so he cannot be asked questions.


Mr. Hemi Paul (Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasant duty, first of all, to offer my sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Macnaughton) who has been elected Speaker of the house. It is a great pleasure indeed since the Conservative party was the first to recognize the competence of the hon. member for Mount Royal when he was asked by the leader of the opposition in 1958 to become chairman of the public accounts committee. Fortunately, his party has now recognized his exceptional qualifications and ability. There is no doubt in our mind that he will discharge his responsibilities with tact, diplomacy and justice.
I also offer my sincere congratulations to the chairman of committees. I am sure that you will preside over our proceedings with the necessary diplomacy to ensure that the business of this house always takes into account the welfare of the Canadian people.
It is a tradition also to commend and congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am pleased to offer my most sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett). She discharged her duty with charm and courtesy, but too much optimism because she will be faced soon with the hard reality after she has seen this government in action for a while.

The Address-Mr. Paul
As for the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), the hon. member for lles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve), mentioned that he had proven that youth did not rule out ability. It is a fact that the hon. member for Lotbiniere made a highly enthusiastic election speech full of wonderful assurance which probably indicates a brilliant political future. But he will have to abandon the party he now belongs to because otherwise, in the near future, we will say about him like we said about many other hon. friends who sat across the aisle: "He was only passing through parliament in Ottawa."
I am proud to express my appreciation to the voters in the riding of Berthier-Mas-kinonge-Delanaudiere for the confidence they showed in me when they renewed my term for a third time. I can give them the assurance that I shall continue to place my limited abilities at their service and try to discharge fully my responsibilities as a member of this house. Such responsibilities go beyond patronage and involve a sympathetic consideration of all needs, all problems, with a view to giving assistance where it is needed.
I have already described the geography of the riding of Berthier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere in a speech I made, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that its population is exceedingly clever as can be seen from the results of the last election held on April 8.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Rémi Paul: Our Socred friends did not seem to relish those results; let them not worry, for I will have a few words to say about them in a minute. The debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne gives us an opportunity to deal with just about every subject, provided, however, that the discussion can be constructive, for one should not forget that the present government is a minority government.
Hon. members all remember the enthusiasm shown by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson)-and I take this opportunity to congratulate him for his recent appointment to the privy council of Her Majesty the Queen-when he said the day after the election of June 18, 1962:
We must have an election.
The lust for power was the driving force behind him. It is interesting to read the comments made in this house by the then leader of the opposition on October 1, 1962. I believe that his words are still timely today. This is what we find at page 50 of official Hansard:
The first business of this parliament once the formalities have been completed. .. must be to decide in accordance with our constitutional and demo-

cratic rights whether the minority government now in office has the confidence of this House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, 41 per cent of voters voted for the Liberal party. Therefore, the government which is leading us presently does not have the confidence of the people. In fact, the Prime Minister made a statement in 1962 which can very well apply to the situation we have today. This is what he said:
In the present circumstances, such a motion takes precedence over other business-
The Prime Minister of today was speaking of a non-confidence motion.
-as it has done in the past in similar circumstances. For this purpose it is the duty and the privilege of the official opposition to move a motion which will make that decision possible. That duty is obvious. Indeed, it is inescapable, when nearly 63 per cent of the voters in this country have declared in the recent election that they have no confidence in this government, in its policies and in its leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that there is nothing to be changed in this statement except that 61 per cent must be substituted for 63 per cent.
The then leader of the opposition went on to say:
Will it help Canada if, by voting confidence in this minority government, we reject this verdict of the people, ignore the records, and deny the validity of positions previously taken, and declared by those who took them to be in the national interest? There can be no stability in government when over any substantial period the party in power cannot ordinarily command the majority in the House of Commons.
It was interesting to note the concern shown last night by the hon. members opposite. As a matter of fact, they were pale, which reminded me then of the words of Louis Veuil-lot: "Let us beware of pale faces". They were all nervous, because they remembered no doubt the statement made by their leader on October 1, 1962. But the present situation is a little more complicated and confused.
Mr. Speaker, until Good Friday of this year, the Canadian people were not sure which one of the two main parties would form the next government. But then came a turncoat movement, a sort of political osmosis, the sudden joining of six Social Crediters who were drawn to the Liberal party, either to protest their own interests, or from conviction, or for a sense of security, or for money, I know not what. But the present right hon. Prime Minister had such a lust for power that, on the very day that group of six joined forces with him-later, they had to withdraw-he hastened to express his satisfaction at getting the support brought to him by six Social Credit members.

Well, if the former Conservative government has been taken to task for remaining in power with the help of the Social Credit party, then I would say to my Liberal friends, have no fear, because you were lucky last night.
We hope that the members of the Social Credit party will be true to the statement they made during the election campaign, that is, not to be the servants of another political party, but to remain true to their mandate by working first of all for the welfare of the people, as every member of this house is duty bound to do.
Mr. Speaker, we noted a great contrast between the uncalled for interventions of the present Prime Minister, when he was leader of the opposition, last June, and the calm, the seriousness with which the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) greeted the people of Canada, last April 21 and wished good luck to the new Liberal government, while assuring the people that the opposition would not systematically practice obstruction, as our hon. friends opposite did during the last parliament. That is why, last night, as a national issue was at stake, and not in order to indulge in a systematic opposition, but because we had, at this time, to take a stand on a question in accordance with the Conservative party policy, we did not fear to vote for the subamendment.
And, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult not to mention the lack of interest with which the members of the cabinet seem to listen to the speeches offering solutions to the problems , discussed since the beginning of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. In fact, there is only one minister in the house this afternoon, while the members are dealing with various matters that might interest various departments. But I hope that the Postmaster General (Mr. Denis), who is at his desk right now, will let his fellow cabinet members know about the various recommendations, suggestions and criticisms that are made by the members.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of the house to certain events, not unusual, but somewhat strange, that happened in my riding during the last election campaign. I want to tell you that following some calls that I made in my riding since last April 8, I found that some of my constituents felt that they had lost some of their independence.
How the Canadian people feel outside the limits of my riding, I cannot tell, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that back home, in
The Address-Mr. Paul my constituency of Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere-and the Postmaster General (Mr. Denis), being a native of my riding, is quite familiar with that particular mentality -people are asking themselves whether the President of the United States or the Prime Minister of Canada is now governing our country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Rémi Paul: I realize that does not please some of my friends. But, if I ask that question, Mr. Speaker, it is because in my riding, during the last election campaign, all possible means were used to gain a victory for the Liberal party, and to such an extent that, on voting day itself, American rather than Canadian five and ten dollar bills were distributed from the most generous Liberal coffers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Rémi Paul: That surprises my friends.


Gilles Grégoire: It is true.


Rémi Paul: That will certainly be the only time I shall agree with the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) during the present session.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a shameful patronage going on in the province of Quebec. Everything has been done to bring about the triumph of the Liberal party. There has been blackmail, individuals have been threatened with withdrawal of their welfare pensions and indigent mothers of their allowance, invalids saw their pensions threatened, and the same happened to farmers with regard to farm credit payments if the mother and father would vote or if the grown boys and girls did.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that I shall with great pride render tribute to the people of Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere, who remained unmoved by such threats and promises, who have proved to be above any immediate material gains, and remained faithful to the Conservative party, not because of him who is now speaking to you, but because the Conservative party advocates, and always will advocate political independence.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) said, on January 31, 1963, in this very House of Commons, as can be seen on page 3289 of the official record:
It will, as always, honour its obligations. But it will not be pushed around or accept external domination or interference in the making of its decisions. Canada is determined to remain a firm ally, but that does not mean that she should be a satellite.

The Address-Mr. Paul
It is interesting to note developments in my riding since the Liberal gentlemen came into power. First of all, there is the matter of the Associated Textiles of Canada Limited. We can remember the distress and depression in which the textile industry had fallen when the Conservatives took over in June 1957. The employees of that industry were facing chronic unemployment; working hours had fallen to 30 or 35 a week; there was overproduction. The minister of finance and the minister of trade and commerce of the day worked together in order to improve that national production and find markets for it, and so successfully that the chairman of the manufacturing branch of the Associated Textiles of Canada Limited sent a letter to all the workers in that plant, dated December 18, 1962, in which he said:
In the year that is drawing to a close activity in the textile industry in Canada increased considerably. This is mainly due to the changes made in the value of the Canadian dollar, and to the higher tariff wall designed to protect goods manufactured in this country, which brought about a decrease of imports, while a great number of Canadian workers in the textile industry are now benefiting from this increase in production.
That was on December 18, 1962. And I hope that my hon. friends opposite will not attribute a political character to that document, as it preceded the last federal election by nearly four months. But, oddly enough, the situation is deteriorating to the point that on May 3 last, the company had to dismiss 75 employees in its textile industry at Louise-ville and the same thing is happening in St. Gabriel de Brandon and Berthierville. We have good reason to ask what new life the present government has given to the textile industry. What steps have they taken, upon assuming power, that have so paralysed that important industry of the province of Quebec.
That is not all. In my home town, Louise-ville, there is another industry, the Laminated Structures Company Limited. Every spring that company used to increase its staff and, in May, it had something like 150 to 175 employees. This year, on May 3 last, the company had to fire 29 workers. How can you explain such a situation? How is it that several labourers or tradesmen like bricklayers, plasterers, carpenters and electricians can no longer find work in Montreal, a situation which has not occurred in the past five years. That has happened in the last two or three weeks, or in the past month.

But what measures does the government intend to take to get the Canadian production and economy moving? We shall come to that in a moment.
But there is another much more serious question and that is the intolerable lot imposed on the eastern farmers in the province of Quebec and in the Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere riding by the new Liberal government. This afternoon, we heard the new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays), with an inexplicable candour, state that the 25 cents subsidy per 100 pounds of milk would not be paid out anymore and that this meant a saving of $6 million for the taxpayers. Let the Liberals go and explain that statement by the Minister of Agriculture in the province of Quebec where they travelled around during the last election making believe that the Liberal party would stimulate agriculture. And what about imports of American pork arriving in Montreal by truck loads and car loads to such a point that nowadays, the farmer is not getting the price he was receiving under the Conservative administration. Is that Liberal stability?
I think some measures are necessary to cope with the situation which is becoming alarming not only for labourers, but also for textile workers and farmers. I do not intend to dwell any longer on this matter of agriculture. I know that the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) will discuss the matter in a much more capable manner than I could.
Now let us take a look at the speech from the throne-which is supposed to be the corner stone of the legislation to be introduced by the government. There are some excellent measures in the speech from the throne but others are dangerous.
First of all there is the establishment of a royal commission on bilingualism and bicul-turalism. That measure is excellent. It has been a must for a very long time and I should commend the government for having understood a problem which transcends the interests of political parties because it involves the very future of confederation and the peaceful co-existence of English speaking Canadians and French speaking Canadians throughout Canada.
The former administration under the present leader of the official opposition also had an excellent idea, that of a federal-provincial conference. In my opinion, Mr. MAY 22. 1963
Speaker, we should not put that idea aside because if we want Canada to be a bilingual country, we must go to the very heart of the problem which is a problem of education. And since education is a provincial matter under the constitution, the provinces must subscribe to the principle of bilingual education right across the country if our youth is to grow up with such a mental attitude and culture, so that when they attain maturity they may continue to practice bilingualism and biculturalism which are so necessary to the greatness and prosperity of Canada and particularly to the survival of this Canadian confederation. This matter supersedes political interests, as the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve) stated a moment ago. One must not ignore all that has been accomplished in the past, because governments have always been half aware of this fact. The Liberals have adopted measures which have been satisfactory to French Canadians and so have the Conservatives with measures which have been called "mere concessions' and I am not using these words lightly when I say "mere concessions". We are not Canadian citizens who want more than others. We only want to be treated like the English speaking citizens.
And I would remind the Anglo-Saxon Canadians that the French Canadians were never vanquished on the Plains of Abraham, in Quebec city. They were just defeated. There is a difference. Yes. We kept our civil code, our courts of justice. We had, at that time, aspirations and rights that were recognized by various measures, constitutional or otherwise. But those measures were defined in and sanctioned by an act called the British North America Act, after meetings held in Charlottetown and Quebec city, in order to treat with fairness and equity those two great pioneer nations of Canada. Well, we have no right today to remain unconcerned regarding this serious problem of biculturalism and bilingualism. We must consider a situation which has become alarming and, unfortunately, can have dire consequences for the future of the Canadian confederation.
Personally, I am in favour of calling together the French Canadian states general.
I support the measure passed last week in the legislative assembly of Quebec, both by the Liberals and the National Union party, so that that meeting can enable French Canadians to become conscious of an actual situation, study steps and means to correct it, participate in the drafting of briefs to be sub-28902-5-Hi
The Address-Mr. Deachman mitted later to the commission set up by the present government. Let us hope that it will be possible later on to call a federal-provincial conference to facilitate the solution of that problem, as I said earlier, not to give special treatment to French Canadians, but so that they may be treated as equal partners who have fought, worked and suffered for the greatness and prosperity of the whole of Canada.


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


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I join the many voices in this house that have offered their congratulations and their good wishes to you on your election to this historic chair which Speaker James Cockbum first took in the old House of Commons to open the session of 1867 about 96 years ago. I join too with many other members in congratulating the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the members of his cabinet on their appointments and wish them success in the great task which they have undertaken.
I was touched by the eloquent words of the mover (Miss Jewett) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne as she described the beautiful villages and the fertile valleys of her own Northumberland, and I wondered as I listened how I would be received in this house when I came to describe how my own constituency of Vancouver Quadra lies between 16th avenue on the one hand and 37th avenue on the other. I admired too the brief and cogent words of the seconder (Mr. Choquette) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne and I congratulate him upon setting an excellent precedent for the new members of this house to follow.
I wish to say a few words about my distinguished opponent in the past election. Few persons in Canadian public life have achieved such a reputation as the Hon. Howard Green for unswerving loyalty and integrity. He first entered the house in 1935, the same year as my late father, who entered parliament in that year as the Liberal member for North Huron. He reminded me of this on election night when the battle was over and he came to our committee rooms and told us that if he had to be defeated he preferred to be defeated by the son of a man whom he had personally known and had respected in this house. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members on this side of the house will grant me a few moments

The Address-Mr. Deachman
to salute this great Canadian, soldier and parliamentarian, who served his country for a lifetime, as few are given to serve it, in war and peace.
I deem it a high honour to follow him as the second member of parliament to be elected for Vancouver Quadra and the first to serve it as a member of the Liberal party. I return to this beautiful city of Ottawa after an absence of over 20 years during which I have seen it only fleetingly. Not much has changed. There was a May blizzard terrifying the tulips when I arrived, but the next day the sun blazed and the whole city was defrosted in a few hours. The old pavement along Rideau street is still the same and it jarred my memory and my spine. But the new government buildings, the tall apartment buildings and the burgeoning suburbs around the periphery of Ottawa reminded me that this capital has kept pace year by year with the growth of the nation.
I was astonished a little to see the new art gallery which looks like our post office in Vancouver. I remember that a distinguished visitor from this city to Vancouver told us on one occasion that we should put a slipcover over our post office. Here in Ottawa the quiet, old, stone convents, shuttered and curtained, the green patina of copper roofs and the gingerbread topping on the old east block still link us with our historic past and with the city of Laurier.
On the coast, and I know I will be understood by easterners who come from the "island" or from the "bay" if I just refer to it as the coast, we have no long history. In 1842 Henry Goulburn, British chancellor of the exchequer, said:
These territories are bounded by frost and wrapped in fog, and woe betide any unfortunate individual who might be so far diverted from the path of prudence to settle in these parts.
But by 1908 Rudyard Kipling had come by. He thought a little better of it and said:
Such a land is good for an energetic man. It is also not so bad for a loafer.
Not very long ago I met Greg Clark in Victoria and he said to me:
Anybody who can live on the coast and doesn't is an idiot.
So we are improving.
The constituency which I have the honour to serve was named after two gallant seamen, Captain Vancouver, who first mapped the inland waters of the coast and whose maps were so very good that they are still in use in parts today, and Admiral Quadra, a Spanish sailor who knew those waters in the days when the coast was claimed by Spain.
There are no great factories, office buildings, forests or farms in my constituency. It lies in the heart of residential Vancouver and

is the home of many men and women who daily earn their living in the city.
The University of British Columbia, which now enrolls 13,000 students in its degree courses and instructs almost as many more in its post-graduate and summer courses, is located in Vancouver Quadra. On a spacious promontory overlooking the sea it faces on the west towards the strait of Georgia and the waters of the Pacific, and on the north and east towards the coastal mountains, rising dramatically and abruptly from the sea to heights of 5,000 feet. We make no boast when we say there is no other university in the world more beautifully situated than this.
Millions of dollars of provincial money and private contributions are involved in the building program now under way at our university. Funds from the Canada Council have also contributed to the extension of the library, the building of dormitories and the construction of the new fine arts theatre and centre, which is now reaching completion on that campus to make it one of the finest in north America. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation loans also assist in dormitory construction, so that the federal government has a considerable role in the improvement of that university.
It is in the field of operating costs that universities find their greatest troubles. There seems to be ample desire to build buildings, provide equipment, grant scholarships and bursaries and finance research projects. But no one, provincial or federal, private or public, has any real enthusiasm for paying the operating costs. How to pay for the daily operating charges of universities is becoming an acute provincial problem and one in which the federal government must find ways to play an increasingly important part, if our universities are to expand in keeping with the expansion of the country.
A military district headquarters is located in Vancouver Quadra. The Department of National Defence keeps a faultlessly neat establishment there and its military personnel are good neighbours. But it is situated on a choice beach property which impedes the development of Vancouver's scenic Marine drive and public beaches. Proud as we are of this establishment and the fine Canadian soldiers who operate it, we residents of Vancouver look to the day, not too distant I hope, when this property can be released for the completion of the parks and drives and beaches which will make the littoral of English bay one of the finest anywhere.
I believe I sensed last night that there are more vital issues than this pressing the Minister of National Defence. But I can assure

him that there is none which he could solve more easily and which would give him more pleasure in doing it.
There is one other federal institute of size in Vancouver Quadra. Shaughnessy military hospital, with a thousand beds, is one of the great general hospitals in Canada built to serve our veterans. At one time its beds were filled with veterans undergoing treatment for service wounds and disabilities. Its patients were young. The hospital's cases were acute. The staff doctors who walked its corridors were the best of the civilian specialists in the city of Vancouver. Nowhere in Canada could a man obtain more superlative treatment and care than in Shaughnessy.
Today, circumstances have changed. Service wounds and disabilities form only a small fraction of present cases. Many beds are filled with aging veterans. They present problems of chronic care, and single patients tend to occupy beds for periods of weeks and even months. The specialists who gave Shaughnessy its enviable reputation have tended to drift away. So have many of the acute, non-service cases which formerly were treated there.
Thus, a magnificent general hospital of 1,000 beds, which would cost $20,000 to $25,000 a bed to build today, has become, for the greater part, an institute for the terminal care of the aged. We owe such care to our aging veterans, Mr. Speaker, but is it necessary that chronic care be administered in the highest priced, best equipped, most modern general hospital beds in the land?
As medicare plans are developed, the number of acute hospital cases will rise simply because people will be given the opportunity for the first time to obtain long deferred elective treatment. Existing general beds will, in all probability, not be able to accommodate the flood of new cases.
The time is not too far distant when we must find the means to accommodate our aging veterans in adequate, but in less expensive quarters, and release these costly beds for the care of acute general cases in medicine and surgery.
These, then, are the institutions in my riding most affected by federal policy. But its people, many of whom are the business, industrial, cultural and civic leaders of the coast, are interested in all matters affecting the economy and welfare of British Columbia and, in fact, of Canada. In particular they are interested in its trade because we in British Columbia are a trading people.
In 1961 the value of all exports through B.C. custom ports was almost $1 billion, out of total national exports of approximately $6 billion. In the same year, 1961, the population of British Columbia was 1,630,000 out of the total Canadian population of 18,240,000,
The Address-Mr. Coates so that with less than 9 per cent of the population, British Columbia accounted for more than 17 per cent of the value of Canada's export trade.
At the same time imports into British Columbia from commonwealth, United States and foreign countries are estimated to run in current years at roughly half the level of our exports. In other words British Columbia today is a net exporter on behalf of the whole of Canada of approximately half a billion dollars of goods a year. In the five year period 1956 to 1960 exports from B.C. exceeded imports into the province, for consumption locally, by approximately $1,400,000. While exports of grain to red China have accounted for a substantial portion of this total in recent years, it must be remembered that British Columbia is a producer of 70 per cent of Canada's sawn lumber, 12 per cent of its pulpwood and approximately 80 per cent of its plywood, virtually all of which is produced for the export trade. In addition, of course, we are major exporters of minerals, metals, natural gas, fish, agricultural products, and so on. Shipping is a major industry up and down the coast of British Columbia and between Canada and the United States in its coastal waters. The aviation industry connects us with the far east, with Australasia and across the world into Europe, and southward to South America. Aviation is the second largest secondary industry in the whole of British Columbia, and one of great importance to us on the coast in providing connections on short hops throughout the whole of British Columbia's indented and serrated coast.
I hope, therefore, as my knowledge and experience grows in these matters, to take a larger part in the debates in this house and in the work of its committees, so that I may make some worthy contribution to public affairs while I am a member of parliament.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be taking part in this debate. I should like first of all to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) on his maiden speech in the House of Commons. I can assure him that they come easier as you make them, and no doubt, in view of the ability he displayed today, he will make more as time goes on and will do very well. I should also like to compliment him for his very fine remarks about the former member for Vancouver Quadra, the Hon. Howard Green, who was a wonderful man and a wonderful friend to members of parliament on both sides of the house. He made a

The Address-Mr. Coates tremendous contribution to Canada. All Canadians should feel proud of him for the contribution he made.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate you, the chairman of committees of the whole house and the deputy chairman, who comes from the Atlantic provinces, upon your appointment. I look forward to your work, which I know will be impartial and on the fairest possible basis. Let us hope that we work well together and have an effective and efficient parliament. I should also like to offer my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Mr. Speaker, my first remarks must be directed to one section of the speech from the throne with regard to the Atlantic development board. This section reads as follows:
Amendments to the Atlantic Development Board Act will be proposed, to strengthen the board and to provide for a capital assistance fund through which it can promote basic projects in the Atlantic region.
Mr. Speaker, I say that I must first direct my remarks to that particular section because it is the only section in the speech from the throne that has any special application to the Atlantic provinces.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about the trans-Canada highway?


Robert Carman Coates: What about the trans-Canada highway? You are not doing anything for the Atlantic provinces; you are not doing something for everybody in Canada. Mr. Speaker, from what I have seen on the order paper in the way of resolutions which will amend the Atlantic development board it is obvious that the Liberal government of today have informed the people of the Atlantic area that they are going to provide them with the most expensive funeral the Atlantic provinces have ever seen. They have even informed us that they are going to provide six Grit pall bearers to go with it. What are they going to do for us? They are going to give us $100 million. Well, isn't that wonderful. They are going to give it to us over a six year period. They are going to amend the board so they can get six Grits on there in order to eliminate the worry about the five present members. That must be the very logical and obvious reason for the appointment of these people. Yes, they are going to change it. They are going to kill it. They have put into the resolution the date it is going to die. They have provided its obituary. This is the great promise made to our people by this Liberal government of today. Mr. Speaker, as time goes on and the people of the Atlantic provinces will have an opportunity to look the Liberal candidates in the face again and assess what they have

done, they will be sure they were led down the garden path by this Liberal government and will do something to change it.
What do these amendments mean, Mr. Speaker? To me, as one who played an active part in making the Atlantic development board a reality, I see them as a pay-off to the Atlantic provinces in order that we can be forgotten for as long as the Liberal party again remains in power.


An hon. Member:: Another 22 years.


Robert Carman Coates: It will not be 22 years this time. They will be lucky if it is two. On that basis it would not be a bad pay-off.


Douglas Mason Fisher: What about Newfoundland?


Robert Carman Coates: The Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) says that Mr. Smallwood has given us all he can, and he has not as yet given them much back. He will have to do better than that or he will probably be looking to another part of Canada for a seat.


Mr. Winkler:: That would not surprise anybody.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Don't send him back to Manitoba.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Are you frightened?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, I am not. Come and run against me.


Robert Carman Coates: I do not think anybody else wants him either. Let us look at this development fund realistically. Let us see exactly what it gives us. The resolution says we will be given $100 million over a period of six years. Well, there are four provinces down there, in case the Secretary of State does not know. There are four provinces between which this $100 million has to be divided over a period of six years. It does not even come near the Atlantic adjustment grants. We were good enough, when we came into office, to recognize the problems of the Atlantic area and we did something about them. We immediately provided $100 million in special grants, with no attachments, no special board, no set up such as will be the case with this government, bringing six Grits in to look after the five appointees who are already there. There was nothing like that. We did not say to the Liberal government in Newfoundland, "You cannot have the money because you are a Liberal government". We distributed the money and let them work out the manner in which it should be distributed within the four provinces.
Very well; they will give us $100 million over a six year period, and they say, "We are going to kill the board. We are going to bury it on January 24, 1969." What right has this government to say they are going to bury the

board in 1969? Do they think they are going to be here in 1969? If they do, it will not be the votes from the Atlantic provinces that will keep them in office. What constitutional right has this government to say that the board is going to die in 1969? It is certainly well beyond the scope of this parliament even if it were to continue for five years. No, there is little hope for the Atlantic provinces in the amendments as they appear in the speech from the throne and on the order paper.
I should like to quote from an editorial which has something to say about a fund for the Atlantic development board. It appeared in the Daily Gleaner of January 25, 1963. The title of the editorial is "On to Prosperity"- it was referring to the Atlantic provinces, and had this to say:
It would be both unrealistic and self-defeating to bind the Atlantic development board with a fixed fund. Such a fund would at once prove inadequate. We need massive developments in this region, and massive developments call for massive investments. A single project could deplete the fund.
Perhaps I could digress here for a moment to point out that the Prince Edward Island causeway project alone would cost more than $100 millions.


An hon. Member:: What happened to it?


Robert Carman Coates: I don't know what will happen to it now, with you people over there. I know what would have happened to it had we been there. We would have built it. Certainly, the Atlantic development board is not going to build it. Come to that, it is not going to do anything about the Chignecto complex either, because the dams alone would cost $350 millions.
To continue:
A single project could deplete the fund and leave our other requirements exactly where they are now-on the shelf or drawing board.
That is where most of them sat when the Liberal government was in power earlier.
Moreover, curbed by a fixed fund, the Atlantic development board would be unable to judge between the urgent needs of the separate provinces. It would be put in the untenable position of having to decide, for example, whether a specific New Brunswick project was more urgent than one for Nova Scotia.
The Atlantic development board is just what its name implies. It is an agency concerned solely with the development of the Atlantic provinces. It has no funds to spend. It is no super-government, no intercessor between federal and provincial administrations, no buffer between Ottawa and the just demands of the region. Its objective is to raise the standards of living in the Atlantic provinces, and bring them to parity with the rest of the nation. And, in this, it has the blessing and the support of the government of Canada which created it and which is now putting it to work.
Well, it is not going to have much money with which to do this work if the amendments which are proposed are passed by this
The Address-Mr. Coates house. Let us hope the government comes to its senses and removes the amendment with regard to the date of its death, and makes that $100 millions into a billion dollars-a realistic sum in comparison with the needs of our area.
Let me read another editorial. This one appeared in the Daily Gleaner on May 17, 1963, and it also had application to this subject. The heading is "The Battle-Cry"-an allusion to the twenty sixth parliament. It says:
Jobs for maritimers should be the battle-cry of Canada's twenty sixth parliament. No conscientious parliamentarian who reads the latest unemployment statistics can miss the shocking discrepancy between job opportunity in this region and the rest of Canada.
To be sure, unemployment here dipped from 15.3 per cent in mid-March to 14.1 per cent in mid-April. But that was a national trend. The fact remains that this 14.1 per cent when compared with the 6.4 per cent representative of the other six provinces is a sobering indictment of a country that enjoys relative prosperity in its central and western areas and permits out-and-out depression in its eastern extremity.
But statistics are cold and insensate things. The hard fact is that the 82,000 people in the Atlantic provinces without jobs face the humiliation of charity and the dole, their immense productive capacity lost to the region and to Canada, their support a drain on the resources of those fortunate enough to have jobs. In the national interest, the new government in Ottawa should not be long in facing up to this fearful problem.
What were our people told during the election campaign when they were asked to vote for this Liberal party, this Liberal government of today which has all the answers? At least, they said they had all the answers. What is their answer to these 82,000 people who are unemployed? An expensive dismissal of the Atlantic development board? Is that their answer?
I have in my hand an advertisement put out by the gentleman who ran against me as Liberal candidate during the election campaign. Here is what he had to say:
The Liberal "Hundred Day Crash" program. This is a plan designed to create new jobs quickly.


An hon. Member:: Wasn't he operating on the 60-day deal?


Robert Carman Coates: I gather he had extended it by 40 days. Anyway, he said a Liberal government would put this crash program into effect immediately after May 5. May 5-that is a long time ago, now. I have not heard anything about this 100-day crash program. Maybe it got lost in these 60 days of decision. I don't know what happened to it; I have heard nothing about it. The government have been making a few decisions it is true, mostly connected with doing something about the unemployment situation by appointing their friends to the various boards they are bringing into existence. Perhaps this is the way in which they intend to eliminate this unemployment

The Address-Mr. Coates problem-by setting up government boards, making bureaucracy the order of the day and placing enough people on these boards to cure unemployment. Well, the advertisement continued:
In areas of high unemployment as in Cumberland special measures will be taken.
I do not know of any special measures that have been taken yet.
There will be-
1.	Grants to establish new industries.
I have not heard of anyone in Cumberland county getting any yet, and 17 days have passed since May 5.
2.	Special tax incentives to expand present industries and for new industries.
I have not heard of anything being done yet.
3.	Special industrial loans at low interest.
I have not heard anything of this either.


An hon. Member:: Coming.


Robert Carman Coates: Coming? How long do we have to wait? We are 17 days late now. May 5 is the date he gives here. Of course, he was very clever. He did not say whether it was 1963 or 1983; I suppose that is the loophole. There must be a loophole.
No, Mr. Speaker. These have been very disappointing days for the people of the Atlantic provinces, these days of decision by the Liberal government, and if the speech from the throne is any example of what we have to look forward to in the future there will continue to be disappointing days.
What about agriculture? This is an important subject for the people of the Atlantic provinces. There are some significant statements about agriculture in the speech from the throne. The party opposite pay what is probably the greatest tribute to my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) that any party could pay to a single individual. They say it takes three Grits to do the job of one Conservative cabinet minister. They are to have a two-headed department and they have given back the wheat board to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp). I am not sure whether they do not trust the present ministers with the wheat board or whether they think they are not fully competent to deal with the selling aspect of our products. I do not know why they decided to shift this responsibility back from where it would logically seem to belong and where we got results. Where are they going to build this iron curtain? What part of Canada is one minister to look after and what will be the responsibilty of the other? Is there a place somewhere in the constituency of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) where they can arrange to have this curtain built so

that the eastern minister cannot go beyond it in one direction and the western minister cannot go beyond it in another. Is this the scheme? Are the dairy farmers of eastern Canada going to be told: You are a dairy farmer in eastern Canada. It does not make any difference what is done for the western dairy farmer, but things will be done differently for the eastern farmer. Or is the complete absence of anything about agricultural policy in the speech from the throne an indication that the government has no agricultural policy at all?


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Robert Carman Coates: I am afraid that is right. What is happening to agriculture in this country? I read in Macleans magazine where the Prime Minister's wife was very upset with the farmers of western Canada. She said they were dirty dogs because they did not vote Liberal. I suppose this is a way of punishing the farmers of western Canada for not voting Liberal. Is the government going to cut them off? Are they to look forward to receiving nothing by way of agricultural assistance because they happened to have a different attitude than the Liberals about the sale of wheat, or the lack of sales of wheat? I am very mixed up about this agricultural program since the Liberals have come into power, and I afraid that the agricultural people in this country are also mixed up. I should like to have some clarification from the government. We keep asking questions of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) each and every day in this house, but we do not seem to get much further. He is more mixed up than we are. What is going on? It must be very upsetting, having had such a stable industry in this field for the last five years, to see what is happening to it today. In the remaining days of decision there is a lot we are going to have to find out from the party which has all the answers. The people of Canada are also going to have to find out a lot before they can have any confidence in what has been going on today. I asked the Minister of Agriculture a question today. I asked him what he was going to do about the price of feed grains for eastern farmers. He said that the matter was under consideration. It is nice to hear that the matter is under consideration by gentlemen with all the answers in these days of decision. It is nice to know that we were indecisive and that they are men of decision. Because what in effect has happened is that they have not made up their minds about something we had already decided to make into law.

Mr. Speaker, I have an article in front of me which appeared in the Amherst Daily News of January 24, 1963.


An hon. Member:: Where is Amherst?


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, the present Prime Minister made a speech in the town of Amherst, but you would get a better appreciation of the town of Amherst if the Grits had never gone there.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Has he ever gone back?


Robert Carman Coates: No, he has not. He apparently thought it a waste of time coming to Amherst. He did come in 1961 and some of his supporters went around my constituency for eight or nine months, but it didn't seem to help them very much.
When the former minister of agriculture went to Windsor, Ontario, on January 24 last, the Canadian Press headlined him as saying that maritime and Quebec farmers would be first in line for federal help. Here is part of what he said:
Part of federal policy would be made public during the present session of parliament, he said, with the introduction of a feed grain and assistance bill to try to achieve stability of feed grain supply to eastern farmers, equalization of price, stability of price and "protection of the interests of eastern producers of feed grain".
Well, let us hope that before these 60 days are out the new Liberal government will get as far as we got on January 24 last. They still have a long way to go even though they have all the answers. The only answers we seem to be able to get today are that they are thinking about it, that they are considering it, or that they will take it as notice. As far as indecision is concerned, they are past masters at that.
Now I want to turn to another subject very important to all Canadians, namely what is going to be done by the government to see that we get the proper type of segregation at the earliest possible date of inmates in our penal institutions. People in this country are pretty disturbed about the recent riots which took place in many institutions. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) has stated that he is going to step up the program. I should just like to point out that if the former Conservative government had not been elected in 1957, there would not even be a program to step up. Mr. Speaker, let me give you some figures to back up this statement. In 1951-52 the estimates for that year showed that $1.8 million was spent by the penitentiaries branch of the Department of Justice on construction, improvement and equipment of our penal institutions. In 1952-53 $1.5 million was spent. In 1953-1954 $1.4 million was spent. In 1954-55 $1.6 million was spent. In 1955-56 $1.7 million was spent. In 1956-57 28902-5-12
The Address-Mr. Coates $1.7 million was spent. Now, that is hardly any indication that anything very significant was happening in the Department of Justice with regard to inmates or institutions, or that there was any great improvement in old, or construction of new institutions to look after the increasing number of inmates.
In 1957 the Hon. E. Davie Fulton became minister of justice, and from that date forward we had one of the most progressive penal and correctional programs in the country, or as far as I am concerned in the world. To give an example of just how different the approach was from 1957 until we left office, the estimates show that in 1957-58 $1.3 million was spent, which I agree does not indicate any significant change. But in 1958-59 $4.3 million was spent. In 1959-60 $6.6 million was spent. In 1960-61 $3.8 million was spent. In 1961-62 $6.7 million was spent; and the estimated expenditure for 1962-63 was $11,813,000. With the expenditure of these funds we saw two new large institutions built in Canada. In 1959 Joyceville was opened, and in 1961 the Leclerc institution in Quebec was opened. Since 1959 there have been 15 new minimum-security institutions constructed in this country, one of them in my constituency. This is an example of the progressive penal program instituted by the former government. If this government in its days of decision will move forward and get new institutions constructed, and expand the old institutions and segregate the inmates, we will have less of a problem in this country in our penitentiaries than is apparent today. But they have to get a move on.
I was very pleased to note that the Minister of Labour recently announced that the institution, which it was forecast would be built at Springhill, will be built. This is probably a very good thing not only for the economy of Cumberland but for the penal situation that is developing in the Atlantic provinces. The Dorchester penitentiary is overcrowded and has been overcrowded for some time. We have constructed three minimum security institutions in the maritime provinces, one at Springhill, one at Dorchester and one at Blue Mountain. We still need a young offenders' institution, one which will allow us to take the young men who have a chance of rehabilitation out of the maximum security institution at Dorchester and place them in a separate institution where we can work with them to make better citizens of them.
The Minister of Labour stated that construction of the young offenders' institution at Springhill would be commenced in the fall. In view of the situation that is very apparent at St. Vincent de Paul, at New Westminster and other places, I would urge him to try to step up this program, to try

The Address-Mr. Ryan to get it under way as soon as possible. Certainly, we should be able to get a site clearing program under way immediately. The land has been purchased and that portion of it which has not been purchased is to be expropriated so there is no reason for not starting immediately on site clearing. Perhaps we could have the site prepared so that construction of the institution could take place as soon as the architects have prepared the plan.
I hope the government will look at this program again to determine if they cannot undertake construction of that young offenders' institution in Springhill at an earlier date.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman but I must inform him that his time has expired.


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the words of the leaders of the parties concerning their personal esteem for you are, I am sure, shared by all who know you. To the many sincere congratulations you have already received upon your appointment as Speaker, I should like to add my own. I should like also to congratulate the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Lamoureux) upon his appointment as Deputy Speaker of this house. I am certain the house will be well served both by yourself, Mr. Speaker, and your clear spoken bilingual deputy from Ontario. I should like also to congratulate the hon. members on this side of the house who moved and seconded the address in reply. They are a credit to their constituencies and to this party. Everywhere in this country, women as well as men, are today voicing their pride in the performance in this house of the hon. and charming member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett).
As the member for Spadina, Mr. Speaker, the most cosmopolitan riding in Canada, I should like to say a word of tribute at the outset to the former member for Spadina, Mr. Charles Ted Rea, who has been seriously ill and has recovered to a limited extent only. I know from meeting many people in my riding and from meeting members here who knew him, particularly members on the opposite side, that he is a well liked and respected man. He was the able deputy of committees in the twenty fourth parliament, when he suffered a stroke. He made a decision against his own interests that he could not in fairness stand for re-election. On your behalf, and on my own, I wish him well.
Mr. Rea was first elected in Spadina in a by-election in 1955 after Colonel David Croll resigned his seat. Colonel Croll, of course, was elevated to the Senate. Senator Croll, as you know, is equally as active in the Senate

as he was in the house. As the Liberal senator for Spadina, he continues to bring honour to my constituency. As a speaker in demand during the last election campaign, Senator Croll's activities were the toast of this party and the scourge of the opposition. I am pleased to follow both of these fine men and I hope to emulate their good work.
My riding is one of the central ones in the city of Toronto. It is known for its infinite variety of nationality, race and creed, as well as for its extremes of wealth and poverty. Particularly since the last war the southern part has been a reception area for landed immigrants from different nations. Succeeding groups settle closely together under crowded housing conditions and then, as they adjust themselves, tend to settle throughout the metropolitan area. However, each group always seems to leave at least a small core behind, and this gives the business streets of Spadina, particularly the famous Kensington market a distinct international flavour. Symbolic of this is the widespread use of the espresso coffee percolator.
There are more than the usual number of retail and wholesale stores, the best known one being the ecstatic establishment of that prince of discounters, Honest Ed. There are many multistoried manufacturing plants in the southern industrial area of the riding, large railway yards and a new expressway. Spadina avenue itself is still the Ontario centre of the garment industry and great numbers from both within and without the riding are employed in the needle trades, usually on a piecework basis.
Although the work of making cloth, fur coats and other articles of wearing apparel is wonderfully satisfying, it is a trade that has a high, early lay-off rate as aging fingers become less and less nimble. There is some need, therefore, to plan and carry out retraining of not only the unemployed but also of those who may become so.
Spadina is bounded on the north by the south limit of Forest Hill village and on the south by the waterfront of lake Ontario. It includes Toronto island. Although the map of Spadina resembles a Christmas stocking, all within its boundaries is not always Christmasy.
The main problem is lack of sufficient steady work, both for willing immigrants and for willing Canadians from depressed areas who migrate to Toronto. For Spadina, the loans and grants of the municipal development and loan board to the city of Toronto, with the approval of the province, should prove to be a godsend. It is true that there are many existing statutes offering aid to municipalities, but they mostly require a sharing agreement between the three levels

of government and pertain to one class or object of construction, or else have a higher interest rate. The existing aids are not used as often as they might be because municipalities are unwilling to take the initiative in fields selected by the federal government. In the main, they found that if they did go ahead the construction program often created an accompanying problem. Now, under the proposed legislation municipalities will be able to pick their own projects, obtain the necessary loan or grant and proceed on their own plan. Thus, subways, clearances, redevelopments, public housing, sewers and water works projects, together with other urban and suburban service renewals should be eligible, under this proposed plan, for low interest loans.
The central part of my riding is densely populated. Many are not yet citizens. Some are political refugees who hide acute feelings but who struggle and succeed in this strange but wonderful new land. Those who acquire the language quickly are the happiest and usually the most successful. Many have brought new skills with them to Canada and have made new fortunes in a surprisingly short time.
Unless she goes to business, the wife of .an immigrant has great difficulty in learning English. She longs for her native land and occasionally becomes so homesick that she and her whole family will return; but most desire to remain to provide their children with the great opportunities that they readily see this country affords.
There are an unusual number of well attended churches and synagogues in my riding and, of course, the famous Scott mission with its sad lineups of hungry men stretching along the sidewalks of Spadina avenue. Another structure well known to the unemployed is the ancient unemployment insurance commission office on Spadina avenue, where men and women ride up and down in rickety elevators and stand in line for hours and hours. They hope, as I do, for increased benefits, less waiting and less need to be there.
Other buildings of note are Casa Loma, perched in the north end on the shore line of ancient glacial lake Iroquois, the Primrose club on St. Clair avenue west, the medical arts building on Bloor street west, the Toronto reference library on College street, the Toronto Western hospital on Bathurst street and the fine new publishing plant of the evening Telegram on Front street west, designed specifically to be heated by a new and independent principle to complement, no doubt, its new, independent policy. While I am on the subject of the evening Telegram, let me 28902-5-12i
The Address-Mr. Ryan add a compliment for the good sportsmanship of its publisher after the hard battle in June of 1962.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And his good sense.


Mr. Aiken:: When you can't beat 'em, join 'em.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Well, he used his head in any event. We have some lovely high-rise apartments in the riding which are replacing many grand old homes that are now too hard to carry even as guest homes. The University of Toronto has expropriated many blocks of houses and stores west of St. George street- I know many of you know Toronto very well -torn them down and already erected several fine new university buildings.
The Toronto islands boast of the Royal Canadian and Island yacht clubs, an airport, a beautiful municipal park and many year-round homes built on lands leased from the city on Ward's, Algonquin and Centre islands.
The islands are at present reached by ferries from the foot of Bay street. These are a pleasant means of transportation in the summertime but in this day and age they are somewhat anachronistic. Certainly they are slow and costly to maintain. A tunnel or other satisfactory modern means of access to these islands is badly needed, particularly to give the working man and his family access to a delightfully restful place where they can go in their leisure time at little expense. Indeed, a former federal government had at one time planned to provide such a tunnel at its entire expense but it was prevented from doing so when it met the same fate as did the last government a few weeks ago.
Responsibility for access to these islands should again be recognized, I submit, as primarily the responsibility of the federal government because the dredging of the eastern and western channels prevents the islands from becoming naturally accessible by fill sands drifting from Scarborough bluffs. The beds of both channels lead into Toronto harbour. As most hon. members probably well know, these beds and the bed of the harbour are federal property.
Since the opening of the seaway colourful ships from all over the world enter Toronto harbour, usually by the western channel or western gap as it is more familiarly called. Lightly loaded or shallow draught vessels usually leave by the eastern gap where a dredging problem arises more frequently. Because of the great increase of traffic in the harbour a lift bridge across either of the channels would not be too feasible. I understand that the Toronto harbour commission has redrafted a plan for a tunnel from the foot of Bathurst street under the western gap to the island airport, and it is my hope that this
168	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Ryan government together with the commission and the city of Toronto will shortly move in this matter. It is not only of importance to Spadina but to the whole metropolitan area.
I would estimate that the two largest national groups in my riding are the Italian and the Hungarian. The section of College street between Bathurst and Grace is affectionately called "Little Italy" and on the side streets north and south of College many immigrants make their own "vino" as they did back home. For this purpose they import grapes from California by the carload. After visiting many of these hospitable homes one becomes impressed with the money and effort that has been put into improving their interiors and their furnishings. In many homes and backyards there are plants and gardens that are reminiscent of the walled estates of Italy, only on a smaller scale.

Spadina has since the year 1956 probably been the largest reception area in Canada for immigrating Hungarians, Serbs, Slovenians and Croatians. The freedom fighters and those who followed them have taken to their adopted land with enthusiasm and are noticeably eager to acquire citizenship. For them the most popular man in this country is the former minister of citizenship and immigration who is now the Secretary of State for Canada (Mr. Pickersgill). They are most appreciative of his efforts on their behalf when he went to Austria in 1956 to assist their entry here. In fact, if I want to raise a cheer in some audiences I find I simply have to mention the name of the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill. May I call it six o'clock?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Did you say cheer or jeer?


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 23, 1963