1963-05-24

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon, J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question affecting the privileges of this House of Commons. The NATO council meeting has continued for a couple of days. Parliament has not received any information whatever regarding the stand taken by Canada, yet the press from day to day contains statements. Last night's Canadian Press sets out the following:
The way has been cleared for the creation of an Atlantic alliance with nuclear strike forces with Canada one of the contributing countries. Today NATO foreign ministers switched their attention to world trouble spots. General agreement on the basic idea of the type of force to be built initially around Polaris-firing submarines and British long range bombers was reached.
Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the press is regularly given information by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and by the minister of defence. This information is not made available to parliament. I will say no more at this time except that this constitutes a derogation from the rights of parliament. Controlled news is something which should not exist in this parliament.

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I was asked yesterday if I would give a report on the discussions that took place in London and Geneva in connection with the general agreement on tariffs and trade. I should now like to do so.
As hon. members are aware, the meeting of the economic consultative committee took place in London on May 13 and 14 just before the meeting of trade ministers held in Geneva under the auspices of the general agreement on tariffs and trade from May 16 to 21. I beg leave first to table copies of the communique issued at the conclusion of the commonwealth meeting, and of the resolutions and other conclusions adopted by the trade ministers in Geneva.
28902-5-16J


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the minister have leave to table these documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: At the London meetings, Mr. Speaker, I was impressed by the variety of the modern commonwealth. It seems to me that this is a reflection of the modern world, the free world at least. The whole spectrum of needs and aspirations is represented in the commonwealth. We have Britain, a highly industrialized country, Canada and Australia which are major exporters of agricultural and primary products as well as manufacturers of more limited scale, and New Zealand almost entirely dependant on agriculture. I was impressed with the fact that the modern commonwealth includes a majority now of newly independent countries only recently embarked on the process of development and diversification.
It was a rewarding experience for me to meet the trade ministers of these commonwealth countries, the new as well as the old. In London we were able to discuss in the unique and understanding atmosphere of commonwealth meetings that is familiar to so many of us the interests and approaches of the different members to the major current issues of trade and development.
Three main questions were on the agenda. First, the expansion of the trade of the developing countries; second, world trade in agricultural products, and third the proposal for a further major round of negotiations to reduce tariffs and other barriers to world trade. At the meeting there was also an opportunity to review the situation in Europe and to hear from the British ministers about developments since the termination of the Brussels talks.
All the ministers recognized the continuing significance of commonwealth trade. We were also agreed on the need for a general expansion of world trade and on the importance of this for all commonwealth countries.
As hon. members will see from the text of the communique which I have just tabled, the needs of the less advanced countries of the commonwealth received full recognition, and Canada joined with other members of the commonwealth in promising our support for action to help meet these needs, both at the subsequent GATT ministerial meeting

Report on GATT Conference and at the forthcoming United Nations conference on trade and development, the preparatory committee for which is now meeting in Geneva.
At the GATT meeting in Geneva the purpose was to come to grips on a world wide basis with the three major trade problems discussed in London. These problems are difficult and complex, and many conflicting interests remain to be resolved in the long negotiations that lie ahead. Nevertheless the countries concerned have agreed to come to the negotiating table and a start will be made. This was a tremendous and heartening achievement.
For the developing countries decisions were taken to facilitate expansion of their trade, and machinery had been established to keep their problems in the forefront of the negotiations and of GATT discussions. But on many points views differed as to the best way to proceed, notably between the European economic community and the overseas countries associated with the community on the one hand, and the developing nations in the commonwealth and elsewhere in the world on the other.
These differences are reflected in the documents I have tabled. But there was no disagreement on the urgency and fundamental importance of moving to help all these countries to meet the challenges of their development and the fundamental need to improve the lot of their peoples. Aid is clearly not enough. Financial and technical assistance must be accompanied by better opportunities to trade and other measures to facilitate the expansion and stability of the export earnings of these countries.
The Geneva conference of GATT was the fifth meeting of GATT ministers since the general agreement was signed in 1947, and the chief purpose of this meeting was to initiate a major negotiation for the reduction of tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade. The new United States authority to cut the protection surrounding the United States market made these negotiations possible. The power contained in the trade expansion act to reduce most United States tariffs by half and to remove duties that are 5 per cent or less is both imaginative and far reaching. It provides more scope to reduce American protection than has been available for many, many years.
The proposal for new and substantial negotiations, the so called Kennedy round, was strongly supported by Canada, by Britain and by many other countries whose interest lies in the expansion of world trade. The meeting agreed that negotiations should be

joined and that they should cover trade barriers of all kinds and all sectors of trade.
Agreement was also reached that the negotiation plan should be based on the principle of equal across the board tariff reduction subject to certain exceptions and subject to the working out of procedures to narrow differences in tariff levels between major industrial powers where these have significant effects on trade.
As hon. members will be aware from the newspaper reports that came back from Geneva, many days of negotiations between the United States and the European economic community were necessary before the final formula affecting the principle of negotiation was agreed upon.
I made it clear that for Canada such a formula of tariff reduction would not yield the necessary mutuality of trade and economic benefit. I indicated that for a country like Canada, with its limited domestic market, its patterns of production and trade and its relatively narrow range of exports, it would be difficult to find any single formula that would achieve the necessary balance of advantage. I assured the meeting, however, that Canada would play its part and make concessions in Canadian tariffs commensurate with the benefits we receive.
The conclusions of the meeting cover the position of Canada and certain other countries in a somewhat similar position. I should like to quote these provisions so that members of the house will understand how the negotiations concluded. The conclusions provide that the tariff negotiations committee which was established at our meeting shall deal with, inter alia, and I quote:
The problem for certain countries with a very low average level of tariffs or with a special economic or trade structure such that equal linear tariff reductions may not provide an adequate balance of advantages.
In his statement which forms an integral part of the conclusions of the meeting the chairman of the GATT ministerial meeting stated that pursuant to this paragraph, and I quote:
The committee will deal with the case of certain countries where it is established that their very low average level of tariffs or their economic or trade structure is such that the general application of equal linear tariff reductions would not be appropriate. For such countries the objective shall be the negotiation of a balance of advantages based on trade concessions by them of equivalent value, not excluding equal linear reductions where appropriate.
In addition, the chairman was asked during the concluding meeting whether the words "special economic or trade structure" in the resolution covered the special situation of a country which, it is established, has a very

large dependence on exports of agricultural and other primary products, and the chairman replied that this was the case.
I am satisfied that the United States and our other major trade partners fully understand Canada's position.
World trade in agricultural products presents particularly difficult problems. The normal trade rules have not been applied here, and efficient agricultural exporters like Canada have faced much frustration. It is significant therefore that agreement was reached in Geneva, including agreement by the European economic community, that agriculture shall be included in the negotiations. There is no doubt a settlement will be difficult to find, but with so much at stake, particularly with respect to wheat and other cereals, I can assure hon. members that the representatives of Canada at the forthcoming discussion will make every effort to ensure that these negotiations succeed. There are to be early meetings to discuss cereals and meats and a special group has been set up for dairy products.
These discussions may lead to new or revised international commodity arrangements.
In this connection, I would draw the attention of the house to the statement made Wednesday of this week in the British House of Commons by Mr. Christopher Soames, the minister of agriculture. I should also draw the attention of hon. members to the speech made by Lord Amory, which is on the same subject, reported in the Globe and Mail this morning. Mr. Soames forecast important changes in British agricultural support and import policies, and indicated British willingness to participate in further negotiations of international arrangements for temperate foodstuffs. I had the opportunity to discuss these matters with Mr. Soames, and we look forward to working closely with Britain, other importers and our fellow exporters of cereals and other products in the negotiations which are scheduled to open immediately.
Agreement at Geneva on the major points that I have mentioned was by no means easy. Much remains to be done and many difficulties overcome before there can be confidence that the various negotiations will yield a substantial and positive result. The stage has, however, been set for further progress if there is real willingness to make the negotiations a success. We propose, and I am now speaking in the name of Canada, to play a full and active part.
A busy timetable for negotiations has been agreed. In addition to the agricultural groups
Report on GATT Conference I have mentioned, a tariff negotiations committee will meet with a first task of working out the detailed negotiating rules by August
1.	These preparations are to lead up to a major trade conference opening on May 4 of next year, which will bring together the various elements and carry the negotiations forward toward completion. In preparation for the negotiations the government will wish to consult fully with all Canadian interests which may be affected. Procedures to this end will be announced in due course.
As one of the world's leading trading nations, whose economic well-being heavily depends on trade, Canada has much to gain from the success of the negotiations and the new export opportunities that will be opened up. This is true for our manufacturing as for our agricultural and primary production. Lower trade barriers can contribute in an important way to the efficient development of Canadian industry on the basis of wider markets. Successful negotiations will provide the opportunity to develop an improved pattern of production and trade which would give a stimulus to Canadian growth and employment on a suitable and competitive basis and so contribute to the development of Canada and the prosperity of the Canadian people.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house has listened with a great deal of interest to this report of the two meetings, one in London and one in Geneva, which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has just read to us. I think in some reports on international gatherings there is a tendency to exaggerate the results accomplished and to gloss over or minimize the difficulties which still remain to be resolved. As the minister has said, there are many difficulties in this area which have hardly been touched upon. I think, judging from press reports-and they were unanimous in this respect-that the conference at Geneva nearly broke down. It was not until the last day, and almost the last hour of the last day, that some agreement or some compromise was worked out which permitted the conference to adjourn, while officials carried on in attempting to establish some ground rules.
As I see it, that is about what was done. An agreement is to be reached on the ground rules under which future negotiations could be conducted. Apparently at the moment the officials will be engaged in trying to establish ground rules which would permit future negotiations.
The minister spoke about the complexity of the changing commonwealth which he

Report on GATT Conference found at London. I am sure that is a situation which everyone realizes, the complexity of the commonwealth and its rapidly changing basis, which perhaps explains why it is much more difficult to accomplish concrete objectives in that area when one is faced with this complexity than it is when one is on the outside and can airily suggest the ease with which these things could be accomplished.
In the press which, of course, I have seen this morning, it is reported that three of the commonwealth countries almost refused to concur in this tentative agreement, and with some reluctance they were persuaded to accept it. This is a report from the Wall Street Journal, not necessarily always an authentic and objective source of information, but it is fairly reliable. If it is correct I suppose the commonwealth countries referred to were Australia, New Zealand and Canada, and one must wonder what arguments were finally used to persuade them to accept.
Mr. MacEwan, the deputy premier of Australia, is quoted in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, of yesterday's date by Mr. Eric Dennis, who was in Geneva, as saying that this marked the death knell of the British commonwealth preferential system. If that report is correct-and everyone knows it has been United States policy for many years to bring about the destruction of the preferential system-it is certainly going to add to the problems of agriculture to which my hon. friend the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) referred yesterday. It will not only add to the problems of marketing wheat but also to apples, in which I have more than an academic interest at the moment.
In so far as Geneva is concerned, as the minister has said, he apparently took the position that we could not agree to a universal 50 per cent tariff cut across the board. I think it is fairly obvious why we should not. It must be remembered that throughout the years since the establishment of GATT, as the now Prime Minister said a short time ago in the House of Commons, Canada cooperated fully through all its governments in establishing the GATT principle, and as a result we have a low tariff structure in this country. If, for instance, we have an average tariff structure of 20 per cent and some other country has an average tariff structure of 40 per cent, then in agreeing to a 50 per cent cut we would end up with a 10 per cent average tariff and the other country would still have as high a tariff as we had at the beginning. It is quite obvious
[Mr. Nowlan.l
that some exception will be taken to that, and apparently the minister took such exception.
It is interesting to note, reading back through the discussions which took place in the last few months and years with respect to these negotiations, that there was on the part of the present Prime Minister almost enthusiastic acceptance of the 50 per cent cut across the board. The outcome simply goes to prove what we all know, that on the assumption of responsibility it is much more difficult to carry out airy promises and statements made before one has accepted such responsibility.
The minister has quoted from the chairman's statement at the end as to the compromise arrangement which is to be worked out. That quotation, of course, is reported absolutely objectively and correctly, but he did not quote the interview given by Mr. Christian Herter, who also was in Geneva, and who said these adjustments would only be made-I have forgotten the exact phrase- after proof of tariff and trade imbalances. Everyone knows the difficulty of proving such things. They can go on for years and years, so therefore we can only hope the statement of the chairman is not qualified by the statement made by Mr. Herter at the conclusion of the conference.
So far as we are concerned on this side of the house we of course give full support to any policy which will result in the widening of trade throughout the world, always of course with the reservation that Canada's interests be safeguarded. The Leader of the Opposition took that position when, some time ago, he suggested a conference of like-minded nations to President Kennedy, to accomplish a widening of world trade.
We are appreciative of the statement which the minister has given us this morning. We shall watch with interest the developments and negotiations, and we shall support all logical and proper steps to expand the trade of Canada.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: We in this group have listened with a great deal of interest to the report given by the minister on the two meetings, one in London and the other in Geneva. We endorse the suggestion he has made that we should be looking for a balance of advantage in these tariff negotiations rather than for a straight 50 per cent reduction or any other percentage of reduction.
We hope there will be some follow through of the interest which has been shown rather than paying lip service to the idea of reducing tariffs and then dismissing the subject out of hand, as was done by the previous

government in 1957 when Britain put out a challenge to some of this lip service in favour of tariff reductions. We are pleased to find this emphasis being placed on the development of trade with so-called underdeveloped countries, particularly those within the commonwealth. We in this group believe this is an area where there is the greatest opportunity for trade expansion. We realize that because of the situation which has developed in the United States in the last few days with respect to wheat even more attention will be demanded by this aspect of our agricultural trade.
We wish the minister and his department well in these negotiations and hope they will have the courage to follow through when the items which come up for negotiation reach a point at which some specific action can be taken.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce is to be commended for making a report to parliament so early after his return from attending the two meetings in London and Geneva. I was somewhat disappointed that his report on the commonwealth conference in London dealt with such generalities. I hope we shall have an early opportunity for a fuller discussion of this matter. Certainly the press reports emanating from London gave the impression that the minister, on behalf of Canada, had poured cold water on any idea of a commonwealth trading arrangement. This may not be an accurate report.
We all recognize that a commonwealth trading plan is no substitute for a world trading arrangement. However, it is true that we have very large markets in the commonwealth and particularly in Great Britain, markets which give us a considerable favourable balance in our trading relationships and which help to offset the imbalance in our trade with the United States. It is important that we should retain these markets and, if possible, expand them. While we are waiting for a world trading arrangement, which will undoubtedly take some time to work out, it would seem to the members of this party that no opportunity of strengthening and widening our present trading position within the commonwealth ought to be lost. After all, we cannot keep the commonwealth together merely by airy generalities about a common loyalty to the crown or a common faith in democratic institutions. It will have to be some practical thing which will have meaning particularly for the newly developing nations which have entered the commonwealth and which have serious trading problems at this time.
Report on GATT Conference
With reference to the Geneva conference, it is undoubtedly true that the earlier part of this conference was a great disappointment. The United States insistence on a linear or across the board reduction as against reductions on selected items meant that for a while there was the danger of a complete breakdown. I think the United States position may become less inflexible. If it does not, I am afraid the future prospects for GATT will be considerably dimmed. I hope that at an early date the government will take action to make possible a general debate on this matter so that we may have further information.
I had hoped that in the course of his report to the house the minister would have said something about whether the government is considering the introduction of a trade adjustment act which would set out the kind of compensation to be made available to various segments of our economy which might be adversely affected by tariff adjustments. I think a great deal of uneasiness would be removed if those large areas of our economy which might be affected by tariff adjustments, and other changes which we all recognize will have to be made, knew that legislative and administrative machinery were being provided in order that they might receive some compensation. There would be less uneasiness if they knew there was some period over which the adjustments might be made and that they would be put into effect in an orderly fashion without the dislocation which might follow should action be taken too suddenly.
I think the minister's report has been most useful, but I trust an early opportunity will be presented for fuller discussion so the hon. gentleman might answer questions and give the house further information.
On the orders of the day:


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Arising out of the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in the course of which he said he had had some discussion with Mr. Soames, reference was also made to the fact that in the last couple of days discussions had taken place in the British House of Commons on the question of trade in general.
I would ask the hon. gentleman whether or not he had discussions with Mr. Soames on the question of British imports of agricultural products and, in particular, what Canadian agricultural exports to the United Kingdom are in contemplation by the British government as being subject to potential quotas if applied.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for giving me an opportunity of expanding the remarks I made in my statement.
I look upon the statement made by Mr. Soames as one of the more constructive developments of recent times. The United Kingdom government is reviewing its domestic agricultural policy, and Mr. Soames spoke to me about the relationship this would bear to imports of such things as cereals from Canada. He looked upon this as a means of enlarging markets for Canadian cereals in the United Kingdom, and of giving this market a stability which has not hitherto existed. That is why in my statement I did refer to what Mr. Soames had said, and also to what Lord Amory said yesterday. I think this is a most constructive development, and I trust the Leader of the Opposition will not be unduly concerned by what he reads in the newspapers.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not unduly concerned by what I read in the newspapers. I am concerned with what was said in the British parliament the day before yesterday to the effect that in these discussions "we found a good deal of understanding for our general thesis that if they-" that is, the commonwealth countries among others-"are to obtain a reasonable return from our market there must be control over the conditions under which it is supplied."
I ask the minister this. What were the particular cereals and what is the nature of the controls, among others under discussion, which the minister apparently indicated he was prepared to support?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I could be expected to discuss British domestic policy in answer to this question. I should like to assure the Leader of the Opposition that the reason Mr. Soames spoke to me- indeed, he gave me in advance the text of the remarks from which the Leader of the Opposition quoted-was to assure me that these developments were very constructive from Canada's point of view and were designed to give us a more secure share of the British market for the products, particularly cereals, in which we have a direct interest.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question of urgent importance to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns a situation which seems to be deteriorating

every day. In the absence of the minister perhaps I can address my question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the house what Canada will suggest or what she is prepared to do to meet the critical financial problems of the United Nations now that the Soviet union has again informed the United Nations that she does not intend to pay or to assist in paying any of the $200 million loan or a share of many obligations of the United Nations?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is, of course, most regrettable that the Soviet union or any other member of the United Nations refuses to accept and live up to its financial obligations in respect of the United Nations. Notwithstanding that, the Canadian government, as in the past, will play its full part financially and otherwise to ensure that the work of the United Nations can go on. Proposals have been made by the Canadian delegation at the recent assembly meeting dealing with these financial matters. My hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who will be speaking in the debate on Monday, will have something to say on this matter in greater detail.
(Translation):



MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolietie-L'Assomplion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Could the minister tell the house if he has received from the governments of Quebec and Newfoundland an official request to define the Labrador-New Quebec boundary line?


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for advising me beforehand that he would ask me a question in French today. Would he allow me to answer it in English?
(Text):
Since assuming my portfolio I have not received any communication of the nature referred to by the hon. member.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Could I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? Does the government intend to assume its responsibilities and to bring together the two parties interested in order to define those boundaries?
(Text):


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to call a meeting on this matter in the near future.

Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the premier of British Columbia has disclosed that since the end of last year he has had the free services of Mr. Robert B. Anderson, former United States secretary of the treasury in the Eisenhower government, to assist him in negotiations with United States officials, would the Prime Minister inform the house if the government of Canada has found it necessary to secure the services of any United States official to assist it in negotiations with respect to the Columbia river treaty?


Lester Bowles Pearson: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, no; certainly not since this government has taken office.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he indicate to the house the nature of the assurances that he has received from Mr. Rusk, the United States secretary of state, in connection with the dispute on the great lakes?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, when the statement appeared yesterday in the press on this matter, issued by the head of the seamen's international union of the United States, I thought the statement was unhelpful, to say the least. Therefore I asked at once to see Mr. Rusk, who was in Ottawa, and I discussed the matter with him. The assurance he gave me last night was the only assurance he could give me, that he would take the matter up at once at a higher level with his own government. He has done that, and I heard from him this morning to the effect that the government of the United States is taking this matter under urgent consideration-that is, the statement which appeared yesterday-and I expect that during the course of the day a statement will be made in Washington on behalf of the government which I hope will be more helpful, to say the least, than the one issued yesterday by the head of the seamen's international union.



STRIKE AT SOLBEC COPPER MINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has he received a report concerning the strike which is still affecting 200 miners of the Solbec Copper Mines in Quebec since March 1?
(Text):


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):
[Later:)



CONTROL OF NON-FERROUS MINING BY NORANDA COMPANY

Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Could he intervene in order to put an end to the feudal system now existing in the mining industry in the province of Quebec, which is under the control of Noranda Mines Incorporated, as far as non-ferrous metals are concerned?
(Text):


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the hon. member's question and look into the matter of the dispute to which he refers.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell the house when we may expect the report of the federal board of conciliation set up to determine the dispute between the longshoremen's union and the B.C. shipping: federation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the expectation is that the report will be delivered between the 25th and the end of May. It should be available very shortly.



SYSTEM FOR DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ON ADVERSE REACTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but

Inquiries of the Ministry before doing so I would, with your permission, congratulate her publicly on heading the best department of government and the department which reaches into the homes of more Canadians than any other department. I am sure that she will find it a rewarding experience.
My question is this. As a result of the adoption by the world health organization of the proposal made by Canada to that body approximately one year ago to the effect that a system of rapid dissemination of information on adverse drug reactions be set up, could the minister tell the house how soon the machinery for the implementation of this proposal will be in operation?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. member for his gracious remarks. I agree with him with respect to the efficacy of the department and the very high quality of all those who are now and have been in the past associated with it. I must, however, ask my hon. friend to permit me to take this question as notice in lieu of written notice.



CROWN CORPORATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister said in his speech that he thought that we should develop a mechanism for selling off crown corporations. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether this is government policy and, if so, would he indicate which crown corporations are likely to be sold off?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter of government policy.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Did any member of his government communicate with Premier Lesage, or any other member of the Quebec government, before the proposal for loans to municipalities was announced?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the policy to which my hon. friend refers has not yet been announced in the house. When we reach this matter, which I hope will be shortly, the house will be given complete information about the discussions leading up to this resolution.
[Mr. Monteith.)



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister state precisely what action the government has taken with regard to the finding of the international north Pacific fisheries commission that certain stocks of fish no longer qualify for abstention under the terms of the North Pacific Fisheries Convention Act?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take that question as notice.



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 wonder whether the minister of mines is now in a position to answer the question I posed on Wednesday.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria asked whether the government was giving consideration to the removal of the tariff on United States coal imported into Canada. In so far as my responsibility is concerned I have seen only some representations from importers like Ontario Hydro, but I am sure this is a matter which would normally be answered by the Minister of Finance at budget time.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting patiently to see whether the Minister of Finance would take over from where his colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys left off with my question. I wonder whether I might now redirect the same question to the Minister of Finance. Is the government giving consideration to the removal of the tariff on United States coal imported into Canada?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, there have been representations on this matter and on many other matters affecting the tariff, all of which are being considered, and any decisions of the government will be announced when the budget is delivered.

(Translation):



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General.
Since lotteries are illegal in Canada and it is publicly known that tremendous quantities of foreign sweepstake tickets are sent by mail in Canada, does the minister intend to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation?


Hon. Azellus Denis (Postmaster General):: First, may I say that I do not have to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question because he failed to do so.
I must say, however, that every time delinquents are uncovered, the correspondence is seized and, in many cases, the hon. member and many others come to see us to request that the law be not applied in certain cases.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Postmaster General alluded to an alleged attempt on my part to obstruct justice in the field of lotteries. I think the minister's answer should be withdrawn since I never made any request to the hon. member for St. Denis or to any other minister to hinder the enforcement of the law. The minister's answer is evasive and undoubtedly caused by his ignorance of what is going on in his own department. I think the minister should withdraw his allegation.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall consider the report later on today.
(Text):


Georges-J. Valade: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the minister has just made a very disloyal remark about me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understood what the hon. member said, and I said I will examine the report later this day.
(Later:]


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have a question of privilege I want to raise. I regret that the Postmaster General is not in the house. This morning I raised a question of privilege to Mr. Speaker which was supposed to be taken into consideration and a ruling made this afternoon. Am I right to raise a question of privilege under article 17, page 10 of the standing orders, which says that a question of privilege should be taken into consideration and discussed
Inquiries of the Ministry immediately it happens? I accepted the point that His Honour was perhaps not ready to consider the matter but I think it is very urgent because of its implications and I think I should be given the right to discuss it right away.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I wonder, sir, if the hon. member would permit me to raise a point of order.


Georges-J. Valade: Well-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it is always permissible to raise a point of order about any matter. My point of order is a very simple one. The hon. gentleman quite correctly raised his question of privilege immediately and His Honour the Speaker took it under advisement and said he would deal with it later this day. At the time the hon. member accepted His Honour's disposition of the matter, which was merely postponement. There have been many other occasions, sir, when a question of privilege has been postponed after having been taken up.
I feel quite sure that when His Honour the Speaker himself is in the chair he will be very glad to hear the hon. member, but it does seem to me that His Honour himself should be here to hear it. The hon. member would just have to make his argument a second time when His Honour was here and I wonder if he would consider, without having any formal disposition of the point of order, waiting until His Honour is personally in the chair.


Mr. Churchill:: On the point of order, the house will have to know whether Mr. Speaker himself is going to be here and at what time. Second, on a matter such as this involving a question of privilege it may be that the Speaker will rule that the words spoken should be withdrawn and this should appear in Hansard very close to the words that are alluded to. If deferment continues until say a quarter to six this afternoon it is too late in the order of proceedings to be effective. Therefore I think the hon. member should have the right to raise his point now and have it decided upon immediately.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could say a word about that. I feel quite sure we might ask His Honour the Speaker to direct that the proceedings relating to this matter be placed together. Mr. Speaker, before Your Honour took the chair the hon. member for St. Mary raised the question of privilege he raised earlier today which Your Honour asked to have deferred until this afternoon. I interrupted the hon. member on a point of order with his consent to suggest that the matter be held over until Your Honour was

Inquiries of the Ministry in the chair. I suggested that without any formal disposition of the point of order we should agree to await the return to the chair of Your Honour. Your Honour has now returned.
Meanwhile the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre raised a point which seems to have a lot of validity, namely that the hon. member for St. Mary would wish to have the proceedings that we are now entering upon at this point appear in Hansard at the same point where he first raised his question of privilege. It seems to me that it would be within the competence of Your Honour to suggest to the Hansard editor that these proceedings, although they are taking place now, be inserted in Hansard immediately after the point at which the hon. gentleman raised his question of privilege. I am not sure whether that can be done, but if it can be it would seem to me that it would be within the competence of the house to so order. It would seem to me that it would be only fair and right that it should be done and it would meet the point that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has raised.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would just add the suggestion that sometimes questions of privilege are involved and the proceedings are lengthy, and it might upset the orderly printing of Hansard to print the full proceedings on this point in the place that is suggested by the Secretary of State. What would be possible perhaps would be to insert at the proper place in Hansard a reference to the proceedings which are now under way which would direct the attention of anyone reading Hansard to the full account.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that is an admirable suggestion. I wonder whether we could have an order of the house that it be done in the way the hon. member suggests.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Georges-J. Valade: On the point of order, may I add that to complete the whole matter it may also be necessary to make an adjustment with regard to the reply of the Postmaster General. The correction asked for by the Speaker or the correction in fact made by the minister involved should also be included at the same point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are being very informal about this, Mr. Speaker. I have asked that a message be sent to the Postmaster General to ask him to come into the house if he is available. I wonder whether the hon. member for St. John's East might be allowed to complete his speech. Then the hon. member for St. Mary could be recognized and raise his

point of order and we would hope that by that time the Postmaster General would be here too.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Royal.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Postmaster General has now returned to the house. Could we continue the point of privilege?
(Translation):


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, this morning, after I had asked the Postmaster General (Mr. Denis) what attitude his department intended to adopt to remedy the situation which exists when persons connected with foreign lotteries are using the mail service to send lottery tickets to Canada, the Postmaster General made the following statement, and I am quoting it as transcribed at 11.55 a.m. on the blues of today's Hansard.
I must say, however, that every time delinquents are uncovered, the correspondence Is seized and, In many cases, the hon. member and many others come to see us to request that the law be not applied in certain cases.
Those remarks, I submit, are unparliamentary, out of order and ought to be withdrawn by the Postmaster General.
This morning I rose on a question of privilege, as I was entitled to under standing order 17 of the house, page 10, which stipulates that whenever a matter of privilege arises it shall be taken into consideration immediately.
I agreed, at Your Honour's request, to wait until we had the official report.
I am of the opinion that the Postmaster General has violated the standing orders of the house, as shown in particular by Bourinot's citation found in Beauchesne, at page 96, citation 105, paragraph 2, which I want to call to your attention.
(Text):
I quote from Beauchesne, page 96:
Bourinot, page 303, quotes an ancient authority as saying: "Whether any question is or is not before the house, and even in the midst of another discussion, if a member should rise to complain of a breach of privileges of the house, they have always instantly heard him."
Now, sir, I should like to refer you to another citation in Beauchesne, page 155, citation 128, in which it is stated that any expression which may be disrespectful to the house,

or painful to the feelings of individual members, may be explained, apologized for, or retracted.
(Translation):
The implication that the hon. member for St. Denis, the present Postmaster General, made this morning to the effect that I or other members of the house intervened in the administration of his department to impede the enforcement of the Post Office Act, is absolutely false and contrary to the facts.
I would therefore ask you, sir, to call on the minister to withdraw unconditionally the statement he made this morning concerning me.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer that serious accusation about a statement which is of no consequence whatsoever. If the hon. member for St. Mary had taken the trouble of assessing the meaning of the words I used, that is "members often come to see me", he would have realized that I meant no insult. People often ask that the application of the law be suspended in certain cases.
Sometimes the Post Office Department is at fault, or someone might post in all good faith a letter that should not be posted because it contains lottery tickets.
I had no intention whatsoever to suggest that the hon. member for St. Mary was breaking the law. I simply told him that hon. members often made representations with a view to restoring the mail service to certain persons because they had inadvertently, but in all good faith, used the mails to send some illegal matter. I am sorry if the hon. member for St. Mary thought he was being singled out. This was not directed to him personally, but to all hon. members in general. If the hon. member were ever to find that the mail of one of his friends or constituents has been seized, either by mistake, or through some misunderstanding, when that person was acting in all good faith, I can assure him that I would gladly do my utmost to oblige him.
(Text):


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the minister has once more evaded this question. The written words that appear in Hansard today are the following, and I quote again from the French-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder, sir, if I might rise on a point of order.


Georges-J. Valade: I am speaking to a point of privilege.
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is seeking to quote what he says are proofs. I understood it was a rule of this house that proofs were not available to any hon. member. The only record available is the printed Hansard. This question has come up many times in the House. It seems to me that if the hon. gentleman recalls from his own recollection what was said, that is permissible in debate. However, the hon. member should not have a privilege which is not accorded to every hon. member, of seeing the Hansard record before it is available to other hon. members.
Since this is a very important point of order, sir, that is apt to arise on many occasions, I think it should be decided. I know the former prime minister raised this matter himself on one occasion in the parliament before the last.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: When?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the right hon. gentleman recalls it, as many other hon. members do. It has arisen on a great many occasions. It seems to me that this point of order should be settled because it is apt to arise again.


Georges-J. Valade: On the point of order raised by the Secretary of State, I should like to say he is in error when he says that these blues are not available. If he had read the correspondence sent to him at the opening of the session he would find we all received a small booklet concerning the rules of the house. In this booklet we were informed that one hour after the notes were taken by the stenographers we could read the transcript. This just indicates that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twisting Gates-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I have a question of privilege here.


Georges-J. Valade: -the hon. member for Bona-vista is twisting again the truth of this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon. member? I think he is quite right in raising his point of privilege. Of course, points of privilege in this house are extremely important; therefore I think he is quite right in raising it. In so far as the question of these notes or proofs are concerned, these are only proofs of what the hon. member has said. As we all know, hon. members have the privilege of seeing what they have said and correcting it if necessary. This is not proof, and the only proof we have is the Hansard record when it is delivered to us, perhaps tomorrow.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Therefore on that particular point I would say that he is not dealing with proof but he is only dealing with the verbatim notes. I have, for example, just received those notes. I said this morning that when I had an opportunity of seeing exactly what was said I could give some attention to the matter. I must say to the hon. member for St. Mary that it seems to me, while he is quite right in raising his matter of privilege immediately, nevertheless the Postmaster General has endeavoured in his humorous way, perhaps not so humorous this afternoon, to give satisfaction if I may put it that way, without resort to arms.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting all hon. members because the Postmaster General, who gave a reply to the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade), implicated all hon. members of the house. He said the hon. member may not have done this or that himself, but the minister also said "I am referring to all hon. members". Then he said "Some hon. members have done this". If he is going to mention some hon. members let him name the hon. members who have contravened the act, as he said this morning. The words he has not denied appear to be "the hon. member and many others have asked that the act not apply in certain cases". I myself have never approached any postmaster general with regard to any problem whatsoever, so here you have the present Postmaster General casting an implication on all hon. members of the house. I think the only course open to him is a complete withdrawal, without any qualification, of the words he has used.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the Postmaster General speaks may I suggest to him now is the moment to give a complete and full statement. I am sure he will realize the full implications.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to comply with the request of the former minister of national defence, so that we can resume the business of the house. I withdraw anything I have said and which might have offended anybody. I had no intention of insulting anybody, but I merely wanted to say that post office officials are sometimes mistaken and that hon. members intervene to suspend the application of the law since it was misinterpreted by the Post Office Department.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise again on a question of privilege. The Postmaster General did not say that he was withdrawing the

words which referred to me personally, to the effect that I had intervened in the affairs of his department.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat this in English so that our friends across the border will grasp more clearly what I said. I said that the Postmaster General has not withdrawn the specific statement he made on my behalf, that I as a member of the house intervened in the application of the law of his department, and this is the phrase I want him to withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not wish to disagree with the hon. member for St. Mary but I certainly did not get that implication and I am sure it was not intended.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that I hoped to address to the Minister of National Defence. Perhaps in his absence I could address it to the Prime Minister.
In view of the published reports that the government of India is requesting more conventional arms aid from the United States and Canada to aid her defence against red China, can the Prime Minister advise the house whether the government of India has requested such conventional arms aid from the government of Canada? If so, will the Prime Minister advise the house as to the Canadian government's response to such request?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the first half of the question, it is true that a few days ago the minister of defence of the government of India was in Ottawa with other Indian officials and did ask the government to look into the question of military assistance to the government of India in defence of its frontiers against the threat of invasion from communist China.
This matter is now under consideration, and I hope my colleague the Minister of National Defence at the appropriate time will be able to report to the house on it. The request, incidentally, was not made in detail; it was merely that the government should give sympathetic consideration to any possibility it might be able to discover of helping India in this regard.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the

Inquiries of the Ministry
Prime Minister. In view of the announce- Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and
ment that Mr. Jack Macbeth has been ap- Commerce): I regret that I cannot answer the pointed executive assistant to the Minister question at the moment, Mr. Speaker. Per-of National Health and Welfare, is this an haps I will be able to obtain some information, indication that the truth squad is being re- which I will give later, assembled?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly understand the interest of my hon. friends in truth.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Defence Production. In view of the report in the Financial Post of May 25 that the dollar squeeze of the United States government will crimp defence orders placed in Canada, I wonder whether the minister would advise the house as to what action he will be taking in this regard; that is, by way of meeting his counterparts in the United States on the matter of joint defence orders, which are so important to many firms and employees in this country.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to say a word on this important question. The government is fully seized of the importance of continuing the highly successful defence sharing program which was initiated some years ago and which is currently in difficulty as a consequence of the currency arrangements in the United States. Perhaps some misunderstanding has arisen in the last year between the Canadian and United States governments on this subject. It is my hope that within the next week it will be possible to continue the conversations already initiated with Mr. McNamara in Ottawa, leading to a satisfactory solution of this problem.



POSSIBILITY OP IMPORTS FROM CUBA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the acute shortage of sugar in this country, and in the light of Cuba's recent statement respecting the availability of a sugar supply from that country, can the minister say what the situation is in regard to importing sugar from Cuba in line with our trade in non-strategic materials?



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Yesterday, in reply to a question I asked, the minister said in part that funds are available in this year's estimates. I presume he was referring to the estimates tabled in the house by the previous government, or was he referring to estimates which have not yet been tabled?


An hon. Member:: Were they tabled?


John Angus MacLean: They were.


William Moore Benidickson: No, that procrastination is of a former government.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, if I was guilty of being premature in disclosing some information to the house I must apologize, but I assure the hon. member that I was not speaking for the last government.


John Angus MacLean: Was the minister speaking for the present one? I presume, Mr. Speaker, that the minister disclosed something that he expects will be in the estimates when they are tabled.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I think the estimates, when they are tabled, will make the hon. member quite happy.



RAILWAY BRANCH LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the great concern on the prairies regarding railway branch line abandonment, could I ask the minister whether the railways are continuing their voluntary moratorium on making applications for abandonment until such time as government legislation is brought down to provide for orderly dealing with this matter. If not, will the minister request the railways so to do?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the hon. member that a committee of cabinet is dealing with this very subject at the present time and is considering the matter very

Inquiries of the Ministry carefully in all its aspects. As to the question of applications before the board of transport commissioners, I noticed that the hon. member used the word "making". I do not want to give him a technical answer, but I would point out that a request has been made to the railways to provide information as to the complete program they envisage so there can be thorough treatment of the whole subject in a responsible way. The subject is under very active consideration at the moment, and he can be quite sure that no abandonments are taking place without the whole matter of policy being considered very carefully and no decisions are being taken, or without an opportunity for an appropriate hearing for those persons in the west who may be concerned.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. I thank the minister for the information, but I still would like the first part of my question answered. Are the railways continuing their voluntary moratorium on making applications for abandonment, or have they resumed the practice of making applications?


George James McIlraith: No, they are continuing their voluntary restraint in this regard. I did want to check the hon. member on the use of the word "making". I have made a request that they advise us as to all possible applications that they might wish to make. That was the point I wanted to clarify for him.



REPRESENTATION OF CONSTITUENCY OF NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he has yet received an answer from the chief electoral officer with regard to the representation of the Northwest Territories in this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I find that my surmise was quite correct, that the writ has not yet been returned, that the official count has only very recently been made, and it will be returned just as soon as it is physically possible for it to be done.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister says it will be returned just as soon as it is physically possible for it to be done. In this age of air travel and rapid communication surely it could be done much more rapidly than the minister suggests.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
gentleman is an old and experienced parliamentarian and knows perfectly well that the

government has no control whatsoever over the machinery of the chief electoral officer; nor should it have, in a free country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Secretary of State, as a supplementary question, whether he will give every assistance to the chief electoral officer, as the government should, to expedite the return of a member of this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be only too pleased to do so, sir. I think the hon. gentleman will find that when vacancies occur in the house this government will expedite the work of the chief electoral officer, which was not done by the previous government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Disorder.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We have now had a reply from the minister which ranges far beyond the answer that should have been given-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -and I suggest that Your Honour direct the attention of the Secretary of State to the rule which you read out yesterday from the rule book and from Beau-chesne.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. gentleman, and in future I will try not to range.



DISPOSITION OF PORTRAITS OF FORMER PRIME MINISTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minisier of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, two days ago the junior member for Queens asked me a question with reference to several paintings of former prime ministers which have been removed from the centre block. I wish to inform him that these paintings are now being cleaned and repaired, and as soon as the work has been completed they will be put in their usual place.
(Translation):



ARTS. LETTERS AND SCIENCES APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN OF COMMISSION ON BICULTURALISM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapoinle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). Could he tell the house if he has recently been in communication, either by correspondence or

The Address-Mr. Weichel
verbally, with Mr. Jean Louis Gagnon, of
the province of Quebec, for the purpose of	HOUSING
appointing him as chairman of the royal refinancing of n.h.a. mortgages to cover
commission on biculturalism?	improvements


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister assure the house that appointments in that case will not be of a political nature and will not constitute a reward to former supporters? (Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is quite a hypothetical question, and as such is not admissible.



AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
SOYBEANS-request for announcement

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kent, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, and only the urgency of a crop having already been planted prevents me from placing the question on the order paper. Can the minister inform the house when we may expect an announcement by the government of the support price for soybeans under the Agricultural Stabilization Act? Would the minister give consideration to a support price of $2.50 per bushel as requested by the soybean growers, rather than the $2.40 a bushel which the hon. member for Essex East indicated at a meeting in Tilbury, Ontario, on March 25 last?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think this matter can wait until Monday. I have had no notice of the question, and I should like the hon. member to put it on the order paper.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is he giving consideration to the admission of Mr. Weldon Chan to Canada as a landed immigrant?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, although I did not have the privilege of receiving notice of this question may I inform and assure the hon. gentleman that this question is at present under serious consideration by me, and I will be in a position to report to the house about the middle of next week.
On the orders of the day:


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the widespread public interest in the matter, can the minister advise the house if he was interviewed by the Ontario retail lumber dealers association to introduce a plan for refinancing N.H.A. mortgages to cover home improvements? In the event that the minister was so interviewed, can he advise the house as to his response to this request?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest that the hon. member put his question on the order paper. I do not see any urgency. May I also call the attention of hon. members to the fact that it is now considerably after twelve o'clock noon, and unless there are questions of urgency I wonder whether we could get on with orders of the day.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, May 23, 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.
Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to take part in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Before going on with my remarks I should like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, and the Deputy Speaker on your appointments to your important positions. May I also take this opportunity to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply for their very fine presentations.
I was pleased to hear in the speech from the throne that the government plans to continue the fight against unemployment and will not relax the efforts that have been going on to boost production and co-operate closely with industry. Such promises as a department of industry and an economic council will, I am sure, be welcomed by Canadians as further steps in our continuing battle to provide jobs for as many of our citizens as possible, and to help us to compete with other nations in trade. As you all know, Canada's gross national product last year increased by 7 per cent, a record unsurpassed in the western world, and our record of economic stability was better than that of any other free nation.

The Address-Mr. Weichel You are aware also that employment rose and Canada's external trade reached a record $12.5 billion.
But this fine record, made possible only through co-operation between government and industry, is no reason for us to relax our efforts. We will face growing competition from nations behind the iron curtain which have vowed to bury us in an economic war. The common market countries, now just beginning to flex their muscles, will progressively lower their tariffs and make it tougher for us to sell our goods abroad. During the next three or four years the United States, as a result of Mr. Kennedy's trade bill, will be slashing tariffs in order to compete.
What I mean to emphasize is that with protective tariffs steadily falling in this highly competitive world of the next few years, Canadian producers will have to stand more and more on their own feet. We cannot rest on the records we have chalked up. Instead, we will have to bend our efforts toward devising new ways, new ideas to meet this growing trade challenge.
With this thought in mind, Mr. Speaker, I should like to dwell for a few minutes on a move under way in my constituency of Waterloo North, a move that every community in Canada might do well to copy and a move deserving of support from our new government. I am sure most of you have heard something about it because it received extensive press, radio and television coverage in its initial stage. I am referring to the work going ahead leading to the creation of a labour-management forum to bring about a better understanding between both sides and subsequently boost production and sales.
The plan is to enroll the help of the entire community in the bustling industrial area of Kitchener-Waterloo, where the forum will function, in order to insure its success. Both Mayor Hymen and Mayor Bauer of the two cities agreed, immediately following the first public meeting at which the idea was endorsed, to form a steering committee with respresentatives of labour and management. Two of those directly concerned are George Goebel, president of the Kitchener-Waterloo and district labour council, and Dr. R. V. Yohe, president of B.F. Goodrich Canada Limited. These men have been working quietly but diligently with plans for more public meetings this fall and winter in an effort to put the forum's principles into practice.
Representatives of all segments of the community, including churches, service clubs and other associations, will be joining other delegates from labour and management in discussing common problems and possible solu-

tions. It is hoped that in this way an air of understanding of both sides will begin to permeate through the community. The result, it is expected, will be greater mutual trust and a spirit of co-operation such as is found in European countries.
The founding meeting of this forum, believed to be the first of its kind in North America, drew a crowd of some 700 people in Kitchener. The stimulus for such a get together arose from a Conservative government sponsored mission to Europe last summer. Dr. Yohe, a member of this mission, returned to Canada so impressed with the results of similar projects in Europe that he set about laying the groundwork for a labour management forum in his own community. In fact Dr. Yohe sees such action as almost compulsory for the survival of Canada in this world of competitive trade. I do not believe we can stress too strongly the fact that co-operation among labour, management and government has been the major force in the fantastic post-war economic recovery in Europe.
Of course you might say that conditions in Europe in the years following the war were somewhat different from those existing in Canada today. Their economies were at a standstill, on the verge of collapse, whereas our economy is thriving today. You might say, too, that the widespread despair in postwar Europe was a tremendous stimulus to teamwork and did help to remove prejudice. Here in Canada we have no such despair. However, I feel strongly that the threat of competition we face from other trading nations should be great enough to compel us to forget past prejudices and work together. When Dr. Yohe uses the term "survival" I do not think he is exaggerating. As a member of this national productivity council mission he has visited Europe and has seen what has been accomplished and what competition our products will have to face in the years ahead.
Although we have just completed a banner trade year, not enough of our success has been due to labour-management co-operation. This lack of co-operative spirit so far has made it difficult for our products to compete with those of the European nations in quality, design, price and service. I confess, though, that many of our firms have excellent relations between employer and employee. However, I believe you all know that in many of our industries strife and bitterness between these two factions are deeply rooted and strong. This was equally true in Europe, so the results prove that co-operation is possible if it is seen that survival is at stake.
If we cannot submerge these frictions, which in most cases have prevented labour

and management from working together to cut costs and improve quality, we will have to wage the battle for markets under a severe handicap. I think Dr. Yohe and Mr. Goebel, as well as all the others instrumental in promoting this forum in Kitchener, are to be commended. I feel that the crowd of 700 who turned out for the meeting out of which this forum was born are also to be commended for their interest and foresight.
At the risk of being accused of bragging about my home constituency I suggest it might have been expected that Waterloo North would take the lead role in such a project. The area has a record of stability in industry and business. The people of the constituency are a fine blend of many nationalities and are progressive, hard working folk with a fine record of industrial development. Even during our recession of a few years ago the Kitchener-Waterloo area, one of varied industries, was not hard hit and today enjoys the distinction of being one of the lowest areas of unemployment in Canada.
I do feel, Mr. Speaker, that the Kitchener labour-management forum will bear fruit. I think it is taking the right approach that co-operation in industry is not a government responsibility. This co-operation should start with the worker and his employer. Other communities, I understand, are watching the Waterloo North project closely. They might well follow the Kitchener-Waterloo example by starting at the grass roots with similar forums to hammer out an understanding of how effective co-operation can be developed. At first these forums could function independently of government so that no one could suggest there were any political implications in such projects. However, in the long run government co-operation would be necessary, because I believe all possible resources must be pooled in this fight for economic survival.
I strongly believe, Mr. Speaker, that forums of this kind, aided ultimately by the government, can play a major role in meeting trade competition with other countries. If we properly pursue the objectives outlined for the Kitchener-Waterloo forum I feel that we can not only successfully meet this trade threat, but we can also look forward to higher employment throughout the nation and even a higher standard of living for all Canadians.


Mr. Robert Temple (Hastings South):: Mr. Speaker, in opening my remarks today may I first of all offer you my congratulations on your election to your high office. It is obvious to us all, sir, from the manner in which you have conducted yourself that no mistake was made. The fairness and impartiality you have shown have emphasized this.
The Address-Mr. Temple
I come from the riding of Hastings South in the province of Ontario, an old and historic riding in that province. It is a mixed constituency, rural and urban, containing the city of Belleville, the town of Trenton, the villages of Tweed, Deseronto and Frankford, four rural townships and two large R.C.A.F. bases. Being in that part of the country it is, of course, a beautiful riding. As a matter of fact it cannot escape being so because it adjoins the riding of Northumberland, which is a very fine place indeed.
I was born and raised in the city of Belleville. I am very proud of my home and my constituency, which I hope I shall represent well in this house. I am extremely honoured to be a member of the house. In fact for many years I thought, one might almost say dreamed of participating in the deliberations of the House of Commons, and now I am fully conscious of the honour bestowed on me by the voters in my constituency.
I should like to compliment the Prime Minister, the government and the Minister of Trade and Commerce upon the excellent efforts they are making in the field of trade. This is a matter of great consequence to all ridings and most certainly to Hastings South, because there we produce certain articles and items of such high standards that they can be sold and exported.
In Belleville we have what to us is a large manufacturing plant, the Northern Electric Company, employing some 1,000 people. Recently they have designed a switching system for television networks. It is unique of its kind, has already gone into production, and the first order has been received. The Bata Shoe Company in Batawa produces shoe machinery which is exported to the United States, Australia, Iraq and many other free countries in the world. The Central Bridge Company in Trenton manufactures structural steel and the Stephens-Adamson Company in Belleville are experts in conveying machinery and receive orders from many parts of Canada, the United States and other regions of the world. Of the 115 million pounds of cheese produced in Canada last year, eastern and central Ontario produced almost half. This cheese is a quality product; in fact Canadian cheese can compete anywhere in the world.
So I wish to compliment the new government upon its efforts to expand our trade because, as I say, we do have quality products which must be exported. The reason I stress trade is that over the years we have come more and more toward having one economic class in Canada. We do not have a division of great wealth on the one hand and great poverty on the other, but if we do not expand our trade in this rapidly changing world

The Address-Mr. Aiken we shall again be faced with a great division of wealth, a few people having the vast majority of it and the rest of the population having very little. Should that happen then the state of our democratic institutions can and will suffer.
Like so many other hon. members I am of mixed blood, of mixed racial descent. (Translation):
One of my grandmothers was French speaking; her name was Gariepy. She lived in the big and beautiful city of Montreal. I should add that I too live in a beautiful city.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, this government is taking positive and correct steps to improve the economic conditions of Canada, and I look to the day, which I hope is not far off, when we Canadians will consider a university education in the same way we now regard a high school education, as available to all people, based on their ability and application and not on their economic circumstances. We cannot afford to lag behind in this rapidly progressing world, and if we rely on yesterday's knowledge we will end up out of touch with reality.
In conclusion may I say I am certain this government will encourage private initiative. The thing which concerns me more than any other is that as legislation is introduced, both now and over the years to come, it be so carefully scrutinized, as has been the case in this house previously, that no individual liberties will be lost; because if we start losing our individual rights then little by little we shall tend to lose them all and, if we do that, we shall have lost everything.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Before beginning my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend to you my very best wishes and congratulations on assuming the office of our chairman as Speaker, and to congratulate you on the efficient manner in which you have conducted your duties to date. It seems to me that you have not yet had the misfortune to become embroiled in the difficulties your predecessor encountered at the beginning of the last parliament, and I sincerely hope this may continue through the current session.
(Translation):
I present also my congratulations to the chairman of the committees of the whole and Deputy Speaker of the house who has already proved that he knew the rules thoroughly.
The movers of the address in reply to the speech from the throne have discharged their responsibilities with great talent and I congratulate both of them most warmly for their magnificent contribution.


(Text):
Mr. Speaker, I shall have something to say about the contents of one of these speeches later, but I do congratulate the hon. members for their conciseness and the easy delivery they displayed.
The speech from the throne at the beginning of each session of parliament is an important indication of the intentions of the government. However at the beginning of a new parliament, and especially with a new government, it becomes doubly interesting to carefully examine the speech from the throne in order to find the direction in which the government intends to proceed. We consider the document along with the accompanying speeches and actions to see where it is leading.
This is a comparatively short speech from the throne. That would not in any way detract from its importance if it were concise and to the point. But in this case, after the first 15 paragraphs of generalities, in my opinion the operative part of the speech is directed toward the establishment of boards, commissions and councils without giving those bodies any direction or any indication of what they ought to do. It is possible, of course, that bills will be brought down later to give direction to these organizations, but my primary criticism of this speech is that it announces the intention to set up a large number of boards without indicating the direction in which they are to move. No authority is given to them, and parliament itself has no indication of the course they are to pursue.
I notice that a new department of industry is to be set up. Within it there is to be an area development board, or perhaps a number of such boards. There is to be a new municipal development and loan fund. There is to be a new Canadian development corporation. There is to be a new economic council for Canada. There is to be a division of the Department of Agriculture into two parts and provision for an additional minister. Just imagine the tremendous complex of new government agencies, commissions, boards and councils which will spring up within the framework of the government service when these bodies are established. Imagine the host of employees who will be required to man this new bureaucracy. Perhaps this is the government's answer to the problem of unemployment, to put the unemployed into the government service until the workless figures are substantially reduced. Certainly there is nothing else in the speech from the throne which would directly help to reduce unemployment.
I should like to turn for a moment to the remarks of the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) when moving the address in reply. I am glad the hon. lady is in the house. Naturally I do not intend to say any-

thing derogatory about her, but I wish to make some comments on her speech because some of the statements she made relate to certain things I have found in the speech from the throne. The hon. lady's remarks were admirably concise and direct. I think they are even more revealing of the philosophy of the party opposite than is the speech from the throne itself. They reveal to me a desire, on her part at least, for a headlong race toward paternalism under a Canadian government. The hon. lady says, in effect, that people are no longer able to make their own decisions and that government must make these decisions for them. In order that I may not inadvertently he misquoting her I should like to read just one paragraph from her speech which seems to me most interesting and which indicates the point I am making. I am reading now from page 22 of Hansard of May 17:
We still hear people talking about the good old days of self-reliant individualism when all an individual had to do was to get up and go. It is always very pleasant to wish we could return to those days; but the fact of the matter is, and we could see this if sometimes we were not blind, that we have moved from an individualist society to a collectivist society, a society where it is very difficult for a great many of us to make the decisions that affect our own destinies. These decisions are increasingly taken by others on our behalf, particularly by large organizations which exist throughout our whole economy. These decisions are simply beyond our control.
As a Conservative member of this house I naturally believe that to take away from the individual the rights which have been built up by society and by the law over the years is a move in the wrong direction. I believe we have to draw a line at the point where the right of decision making by individuals is taken away. That is all I have to say in connection with this address.
There is, however, another question which relates to this. It is the government's quiet move to add thousands of civil servants to the federal payroll. Some of these employees will undoubtedly be required, but I believe the government service is best met by an adequate staff well paid and well protected, rather than by an overpopulated and underpaid public service. There is already an indication of a great expansion in the public service quite apart from the new boards and commissions to which I have referred. This trend, taken together with the large number of boards and councils to be set up as foreshadowed in the speech from the throne and in the light of the remarks made by the hon. member for Northumberland in moving the address, indicate to my mind the direction we are taking, a move toward the masterpieces of bureaucracy which the Liberals are so fond of creating, without there being anything new for this great bureaucracy to do.
The Address-Mr. Aiken
I should like now to touch on another subject, namely the question of our relationship with other countries. It has seemed to me that the government is moving rapidly away from the United Kingdom and from the European situation in order to tag along behind the United States. I had the good fortune, shortly after the election, to make a trip to the United States lasting about ten days. I needed a holiday at the time as, no doubt, did most of the other members of this house. I had the opportunity of speaking to a large number of United States citizens, including persons in the government service; and whether they are justified or not, United States citizens believe they won the 1963 elections in Canada and they are waiting now for the country to be delivered to them. This impression was confirmed in their minds by the quick trip which our new Prime Minister made to Washington and the amiable, even eager, approach which was made to the President of the United States.
I believe that international and business relations depend a great deal on mental approach, and the belief by the people of the United States is that the present Leader of the Opposition did not give the American people all they wanted but that the new Prime Minister would give it to them. They believe he was elected on this basis. It is therefore my feeling that the Prime Minister and all members of the government must be exceedingly careful in their relations with the United States to see that this impression does not go beyond the point of no return. This is a thing which gradually begins to grow, and we have seen it growing. We have seen the Prime Minister, when answering questions from time to time, eagerly saying "Yes, I went and discussed this with the President of the United States. Yes, our government is taking this up with the United States. Yes, we are doing everything we can". There is a difference between friendly co-operation and being amiable, and there is very often a misunderstanding of this difference.
While we are the best of friends with the United States as a country, and while the Americans as individuals are the best friends we have-we can all testify to this-we are surely competitors in the business, trade and international arenas. Mr. Speaker, when your competitor comes to you and starts patting you on the back, you must begin to wonder what you are doing wrong. I say that if our United States competitors in world trade keep patting us on the back for any extended length of time, I will begin to wonder what is being given away on behalf of Canada. When we begin to hear a few complaints from across the line, that is when I shall feel a little better

The Address-Mr. Aiken about our relationship with that country. I suggest to the government that they must be on guard; that they have started off from a position they may not be able to get out from under, and I think they have to watch it.
We in Canada have been encouraged to believe, as were the electors at the beginning of the last election campaign and throughout, that mutual friendship and respect, both personal and international, depend upon being amiable with others. This is certainly helpful, but it is only one factor in the situation. Being amiable and friendly does not protect the interests of the persons upon whom you rely, in this case the Canadian people, unless it is accompanied by firm declarations that the interests of your country are to be protected, followed by actions to bring about that result. We have heard that the Prime Minister, while being amiable, friendly, and so on, has also been firm about Canadian rights. 1 do not believe this is true. I believe that up to this point he has been nothing more than amiable and friendly, and I believe this is what has come out of the various meetings. There is nothing wrong with a friendship and a friendly relationship with another country but, Mr. Speaker, the people of this country did not elect a government to give away the heritage that Canada has built up over a great many years.
Accompanying this turning toward the United States is an apparent turning away from the commonwealth. At the beginning of the visit of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the commonwealth conference in London, the newspapers came out with some very strong statements. I have one clipping with me which says that the minister delivered a "blockbuster" to the conference and told them that he was not interested in commonwealth trade at all, that he was interested purely in an over-all trade pattern, and that the commonwealth as such was not very much good.
As we have seen today from the statement of the minister and the very direct comments made by the former minister of finance, the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), it is very easy to make these general statements on trade. It is very easy to say that we will cut tariffs 50 per cent across the board. But it is not so easy when you come to consider the individual interests of the Canadian people. We have over the years built up a very unusual complex of industry and agriculture in this country. It is one which is not easy to sell. We have a good standard of living. We have high wages, or at least reasonably high wages. We have difficulty in competing with foreign countries, particularly those countries where the wage standard is very low. Over the years we have

built up a pattern of trade. We have negotiated time and again in GATT and in other international arenas for the protection of these industries which are Canada's and those agricultural commodities which Canada grows and exports.
It is not possible immediately to enter the picture and say that all that is going to be changed; it just cannot be done, Mr. Speaker. While any government comes into power with great ideas and expressions of opinion, I hope the present government will quickly come down to the facts of life which have been learned by governments in the past, and which this government learned before 1957. We find upon our front benches several members of the previous administration. They knew full well what our problems were. They knew full well that the former government was dealing with them effectively. In order to get elected hon. members opposite had to criticize, granted; but I do believe that unless they face reality and get over their desire to be friendly with everybody and give everybody everything they want, we in Canada are going to face some very severe times ahead.


Mr. Joseph P. O'Keefe (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, it is not given to all new members to have the opportunity to speak twice during the course of the throne speech debate. However, I am very gratified that a technicality of procedure allows me to make some further remarks. I should like to express my very deep gratitude to my colleagues who, by allowing me to take their place, have afforded me the opportunity of informing the house and the nation about a situation with regard to which I feel very strongly. I refer to Bell island, which is in my district of St. John's East.
Bell island is a community of 14,000 people, and the tragic fact is that of those 14,000 the staggering number of 5,500 are on relief. They are existing, not living. Their fathers and grandfathers before them made a decent, if frugal, living; but these men and women of today in Canada cannot. Wabana is a one industry town. There are only the great iron mines to provide these people with the jobs they need to support them. These mines have been producing the rich red iron ore ever since 1896, and uncounted millions of tons have been torn from the mines. These mines run three or four miles out under the waters of beautiful Conception bay. The reddish dust which covers every single object on Bell island is famed throughout Newfoundland, and the ore which produces this dust has been the bread and butter of many of our people these 70 years now. However, lately Wabana has fallen on hard times.

I am not an expert in these matters, sir, and I do not pretend to be one. I do not understand why these hard times have come. All I know is that the far flung overseas markets seem to have gone away, and the jobs have gone with them. I fear they have gone forever. But the people have not gone, and only this week it was announced that yet another 150 miners would be laid off. Some 5,500 out of 14,000 are on dole, and there will be still more in this Canadian twentieth century.
The company which employs these men no longer finds it economically feasible to offer work, so they are left to shift for themselves. Bell islanders and their forebears have worked this mine for 70 years. The succession of companies that has employed these men in my opinion did precious little to improve the community that housed them. Their only interest over the years, it would seem to me, was to get the ore out of the ground as cheaply as possible. They spent a mere tuppence on the miners, their families and the town. I would not want to write the epitaph of the companies that operated these mines. They have never felt any real sense of obligation to the community that gave them many years of pecuniary gain. As a result Wabana has bred a fiercely independent type of men, proud men, who are humbled at the thought of what lies ahead.
There is no single community in Newfoundland so deserving of whatever constructive policy this house may have to offer. They have nowhere else to turn. They ask us for a helping hand. In past years when these men were working they made a magnificent contribution to Newfoundland's never too prosperous economy. In war and peace they have stood with the finest men of this country. They have given me the great responsibility of being their spokesman in this house. They look to this house, through me, to offer them something more than mere soothing words.
This government has introduced an imaginative and progressive program which will help Canada generally. I have no doubt of that. But, Mr. Speaker, what will this mean to my people of Bell island? How can these policies be translated into action for Wabana, which is an Indian name for "land of the rising sun"? I am not criticizing anyone and I am not blaming anyone, because it may be that there is no blame. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that this is a national shame which should burn into the heart of every Canadian. Mr. Speaker, you may very well say "Why do these people live on Bell island? Why do they not leave?" But where can they go? Must these people tear themselves away from the homes that have been theirs for generations
The Address-Mr. O'Keefe and go elsewhere? This twentieth century which is Canada's must hold more than this for our people.
What is to be done? I do not know; I wish to God I did. But this I can say, sir, and I say it with all the force I can muster, with all the strength that is in my body and with all the fervour that is in my soul. Something should be done, and I -hope that something will be done.
The fact that governmental expenditure may have avoided actual privation and may have even given a boom aspect to sections of our economy cannot conceal the existence of a very high level of unemployment. This has two effects. First, the provincial economy loses millions of dollars in production through the enforced idleness of thousands of its workers, and second all those who are supported by any form of government aid are adding to the load of the people who are gainfully employed. Our province of fewer than half a million, with the lowest level of per capita income in Canada and an enormous territory to administer, cannot be expected to find easy solutions to all these problems.
I believe that any region of Canada which is at this time afflicted with a high rate of unemployment should join forces with a Canada-wide planning association or organization. This should be set up to assist the provinces. This kind of federal-provincial co-operation is, I suggest, essential to national and regional progress. While certain it is that Newfoundland's needs are great and many, it is just as certain that our prospects for the future are indeed bright. Our dynamic premier's list of projects which he hopes to see achieved, as does every Newfoundlander and every Canadian, is indeed challenging and imaginative.
Were I to mention at this time only one, I would have to choose the dramatic development of the vast hydro potential of the Hamilton watershed in Newfoundland, Labrador. Estimates of what can be produced vary from 4 million to 7 million horsepower. Even at the lowest figure this enterprise is immense; it is gigantic by any standard. It would be clearly advantageous to Quebec, to Newfoundland and indeed to Canada as a whole if this power could be fed into a Quebec grid, when power now utilized in Quebec could be released for delivery to Ontario and for export to the United States.
What is certain is that the resources of the province of Newfoundland are now better known than ever before, and that the wishful thinking about them in the past has been converted into actual developments of great magnitude and into prospects which must in time become the source of new production and employment on a substantial

The Address-Mr. O'Keefe scale. With our rapidly increasing population and costs it will be badly needed in our province.
In that vein, sir, I do not wish to be considered insular or parochial, we are now part of a nation that is great and growing in stature. To us has been committed the destiny of that great nation. It is for us- and I speak particularly to newer members like myself-to realize that in the economic growth and expansion of Canada lies the successful development of all the areas which form its component parts. In that sense may I appeal for a broader outlook in our discussions and an awareness of national problems and their over-all importance. In my opinion, now more than ever before Canada's great need is unity, unity of thought, unity of action and unity of effort.
Perhaps because I am new to the scene I have found great difficulty in accepting or even understanding the dissensions and divisions about which we hear so much.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. O'Keefe:: Mr. Speaker, at one o'clock I had been saying that Newfoundland is now part of the great nation of Canada, that we are no longer, if we ever were, parochial or insular, that in my opinion the great need of Canada more than ever today is unity, that my own province is united now, united under our premier, united too in its dream and confident, if periodically a little anxious too, of a brilliant and prosperous Canadian future. We now have the organization and the men. May a greater Canada be built by all Canadians with courage, imagination and intelligence.
In simple essence, sir, let us work to the full extent of our ability, dedicated in obligation and in conscience to the needs of our constituents, keeping before us always the future of Canada, our country.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: The Address-Mr. Fairweather powers, reduce the likelihood of nuclear war, and prevent the extension of the hazards of fallout." Opponents of concessions at the Geneva conference claim modification means appeasement. In fact, say the scientists, during the time since the test ban discussions began in 1958 detection techniques have improved. It is now possible to detect explosions within a given country by stations outside that country. It should continue to be Canada's objective, to use President Kennedy's expression, "to prevent the genie from getting out of the bottle".
Mr. Speaker, during the last election a good deal of nonsense was indulged in about anti-Americanism. I suppose no part of Canada has closer ties with the United States than have the maritime provinces. A couple of generations ago Harvard trained our lawyers and M.I.T. our engineers. There is hardly a family in the maritimes that cannot visit a relative in what are colloquially know as the "Boston states". It seems almost trite to disclaim anti-Americanism. No nation carrying such harrowing world wide responsibilities as does the United States should be subject to anything but constructive comment and criticism. This does not mean that we help the United States by abjectly accepting all her pronouncements upon world affairs without question. Canada has unique political military and economic problems which should be appreciated by United States politicians. Now that the election is over I presume United States newspapers and periodicals will resume their massive ignoring of Canada, although perhaps a helpful side-effect of the NATO meeting will be that some newspapermen will find us interesting and our affairs worth commenting upon. There is more to Canada than the F.L.Q.
Many Canadians were disappointed by the total disregard in the throne speech of any mention of the problems facing our universities. The previous government has an enviable record in aid to universities-first, by increasing the grants per student enrolled and, second, by including dormitory construction under long term C.M.H.C. loans.
Adjectives and superlatives abound about university problems but in most instances are not used in exaggeration. "Crisis" was the word used in 1961; "staggering" was how the Canadian Universities Foundation described its analysis of financial requirements on operating and capital account for the foreseeable future. Total university expenditure in 1960-1961 was $282 million. That estimated in 1965-1966 is $692 million. The plan for university scholarships is commendable but will only touch half the problem. Flying on one wing, someone has termed the plan. In fact, a scheme for scholarships
[Mr. Fairweather.l

without immediate and generous federal assistance to both capital and current costs of educating the students would be a menace and not a help. I suggest that every dollar for scholarships should be matched by a dollar paid to the university to help with overhead costs. This will not end federal responsibility. Obviously a drastic upward revision in federal grants must be an immediate government decision-60 days will be none too soon to tell our universities that substantial additional help is coming.
Mr. Speaker, both in Britain and Canada attention is being focused on the role of parliament and its members in the contemporary scene. Mr. J. Grimond, leader of the Liberal party in the United Kingdom, says it is not as if the House of Commons had been handed down by God; it should be reformed.
Dean James A. Gibson of Carleton University in an address to the Ottawa chapter of the Canadian public relations society made several suggestions which I will merely list. One of these was mentioned by our leader the other day. The first was a permanent voters list, which would be an obvious advantage and is long overdue. Second, he suggested smaller parliamentary committees with expert staffs. As Dean Gibson says, the opportunities for a backbench private member to become well briefed on subjects of national concern are inadequate and much neglected. Third, he recommended an agreement by the parties as to how much time should be allotted to debates on particular topics. Fourth -and I think this is a very interesting one and should be of concern particularly to government benches-debates on public questions which are the deliberate concern of parliament should take place in the House of Commons and not on television or radio. And last, fuller, more informative and more genuine reporting to the people of Canada by all the official delegations which go abroad, including reporting on their extra-curricular visits. I am told, by the way, that everyone who had an extra-curricular visit to Paris last year was returned, which is a measure of the maturity of Canadian electors.


An hon. Member:: Not only returned; they were re-elected.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where did the hon. gentleman say they were returned to?


Mr. Fairweather:: To this place, sir. I think "re-elected" is a better word and I thank my hon. friend for his editing of my interpolation. Reform must come from within if our

reputation and authority are to be reviewed We should, particularly in view of the minority government, stop treating every vote as a vote of confidence. Sometimes I like to think this house by its collective wisdom should be able to get a minister to concede a point, or change a policy, without bringing down the government.
Mark Bonham Carter, writing in the Guardian of March 14, 1963, said that there are three questions-and I think these questions apply to us-to be answered. Is parliament efficient? Does it control our governors'-* Is it representative of the country as a whole? I am afraid we must share the answer which was given in England and say that the answer is almost certainly no. An hon. member must, in my opinion, have access to information and this should be provided by availability of expert staffs and through specialized committees.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we are being bombarded these days by new and convenient interpretations of the constitution, most of them under the guise of a formula to make confederation work. Some of these statements show a singular lack of appreciation for the objectives of the British North America Act.
I think it will not do us harm if we remind ourselves that Sir John A. Macdonald and his colleagues designed the act of confederation expressly to avoid the narrowness of the states rights provisions of the United States constitution. The statesmen of Sir John's day knew all about the American document and a study of the debates prior to confederation shows the length to which our constitution-makers went to avoid the narrowness of the United States constitution, which is being shown today in the state of Alabama. Canada has been ill-served in the intervening years by narrow and restrictive interpretations of the B.N.A. Act. I suggest that when we here chart a course to help Quebec and her culture reach their undoubted place within the confederation, we recall the days of 100 years ago. Perhaps that could be our contribution to our centenary. It is not so much the document which is at fault, but the spirit with which it has been interpreted since its enactment. Surely there can be no Canada without Quebec; neither can there be Quebec without Canada.
ine /iaaress-Mr. Patterson


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: The Address-Mr. Patterson need for such a committee. The information we have been able to obtain is very sketchy. Very little information has been given when questions have been asked and it seems as though everything has somehow been covered with a dark cloak to obscure it from the view of hon. members. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this committee should be set up immediately so that this important matter of national defence can be taken out of the area of the political football field and considered by the representatives of the people in this house who will be appointed to that committee. We have had an indication, on the one hand, that the government is very hasty in arriving at decisions without reference to the committee which is to be set up. On the other hand we have had a tendency to tie the hands of this committee even before it is established and has had an opportunity of considering the issue of defence in the light of all the available information, the military requirements and the international situation that obtains from time to time. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would urge that this committee be set up and put to work at the very earliest possible moment.
In the speech from the throne we have a very brief reference to agriculture. It has been pointed out that we are now to have two ministers of agriculture, one from the east and one from the west. I do not know whether this is the best policy. I question whether it is. The trouble is that in the past, under the former Liberal administration and the Conservative administration, we have had a patchwork set-up as far as agriculture is concerned. We have had not just two policies but a great many policies. I remember that when I had the opportunity of representing the Fraser Valley a number of years ago I called the attention of the government to the fact that certain overriding policies must be laid down as far as agriculture is concerned. I recognize the fact, of course, that separate areas have separate problems and perhaps special consideration will have to be given to those areas, but I also believe we must have certain policies that apply right across the nation. Unless we have these we are not going to have that unity which has been the subject of so much discussion in this house.
I listened with interest to the hon. member from Wentworth (Mr. Morison) when he was participating in the debate yesterday. He referred to the lucky western farmers. He went on to say that, contrary to the lucky western farmers, the farmers in his area were caught in the cost-price squeeze. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is one problem that applies right across the nation. From coast to coast those in this great primary
IMr. Patterson.]

producing industry, agriculture, are faced with this same problem. It has been pointed out on some occasions that the income of farmers has increased. However, when one takes into consideration the constantly increasing costs of production there is not very much to brag about. This applies to those in eastern Canada as well as those in western Canada. Therefore I would suggest that this matter be given very serious consideration, as I believe it will, in order that agriculture may move up the scale and occupy that place in our economy that it should occupy. I would urge that it receive its fair share of the income of this great nation of ours.
There is a reference in the speech from the throne to the development of a national fisheries policy. This is also a very important matter. The fisheries, as well as agriculture, is a very important matter as far as my own constituency is concerned. Certainly as far as British Columbia is concerned the fisheries is one of our great industries. Those engaged in the fishing industry, and the representatives of the fisheries organizations, are very apprehensive of the trends and developments relating to this industry. I have received through the mail a number of communications with respect to this matter and to the amendments to the international north Pacific fisheries treaty. I think these organizations were perfectly within their rights when they requested that these matters be referred to the parliamentary committee on marine and fisheries before they were given approval by the cabinet. Instead of that however, the cabinet has apparently seen fit to go ahead and approve these amendments without having them taken under advisement by the committee, and without giving these organizations an opportunity of making representations.
In this connection, I wish to refer to a letter from the Hon. Earle C. Westwood, minister of recreation, conservation and fisheries for British Columbia. This letter was addressed to the Hon. J. Angus MacLean, who was then our minister of fisheries. It states:
As minister of fisheries for the province of British Columbia herewith my request that implementation of the recommendations and decisions of the Canadian section of the international north Pacific fisheries commission pertaining to the decisions re abstention zones reached at the commission's 1962 annual meeting held in Seattle, November 17, 1962 be subject to examination by the federal standing committee on marine and fisheries.
Such consideration and hearings before the standing committee on marine and fisheries will permit opportunity for those concerned to submit briefs on the recommendations and decisions of the Canadian section of the commission before these recommendations are brought to the floor of the House of Commons.

Apparently he was rather optimistic when he thought it would go that far. He then proceeds to give the reasons for this particular request. Before the last parliament was dissolved we had a full delegation from the united fishermen and allied workers' union who presented this matter to the various groups in this house for consideration. They asked for the same consideration. In spite of this, the minister of fisheries apparently saw fit to go ahead, without allowing representations to be made to him in this regard, and gave approval to the amendments to the treaty. Mr. Speaker, this is not a very good way to promote public relations. It is not a very good way to promote understanding between the various groups which make up our economy, and the legislative bodies. I trust that with all speed this committee will be set up and will have the opportunity of studying not only those amendments, which consideration may be now too late, but also other suggestions and recommendations which those interested in this industry can present.
The speech from the throne contained reference to municipal financing problems. This is a matter that was given great consideration by the members of this particular group. We have insisted that if we are going to solve our problems we have to solve the problem of municipal financing. We have recommended the establishment of a municipal development bank, as a branch of the Bank of Canada, to make loans to municipalities at the cost of administration. This has been taken up by some of the other foups- They will not follow, of course, the formula that we suggest, but nevertheless we appreciate the fact that recognition is given to the problem and they are willing to consider this particular matter.
I wonder if this proposal will share the same unfortunate fate that befell the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act some years ago. Under the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act of 1938 loans could be made to municipalities at a rate of interest of 2 per cent. In Hansard of October 24, 1957, page 389 we have the record of questions in this connection raised by the late Mr. Tom Irwin of this group. He was advised that all loans were discontinued after December 31, 1940, and no applications have since been entertained. Up to that time 143 applications for loans were received of which 110 were approved. You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that this act was passed in 1938 but after 1940 no further applications for loans were entertained.
I wonder why the Liberal party put a stop to that particular program. I wonder why they ceased to make loans under that act. Quite a few years have lapsed but now they
The Address-Mr. Herridge come along with the suggestion-I do not know whether or not the rate of interest is going to be 2 per cent-that they are going to set up a municipal loan fund of some description. I hope it does not share the fate of the one that was established in 1938.
Another matter to which a number of members have made reference is the question of the Columbia development. We look forward with a great deal of anticipation to an early and favourable conclusion of the negotiations now going on with respect to this project. Liberal governments have not acted with any great degree of alacrity in the past with respect to the development of this great source of power. For many years it was under consideration but that is as far as it got. It was a Liberal government that blocked the plan some years ago to develop this system and it is questionable if any plan considered since that time has been any more advantageous than the one proposed then.
The Prime Minister now promises to renegotiate the treaty, but we hope this will not result in several more decades of delay and frustration. I am not going to say that no changes should be made. The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Fleming) stated today, I believe, that it is difficult for a layman to understand all the ins and outs of this great problem. I simply voice the hope that the negotiations may be concluded speedily and that we will be able to proceed with this great project that will mean so much not only to the province of British Columbia but to the whole nation as well.
There are many matters with which I wish to deal, including quite a number of problems relating to my own constituency, but opportunities will be afforded on future occasions and I will reserve my remarks on them until then.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, as the member representing the Garden of Eden of Canada I am very happy to have the opportunity to make a few remarks in this most important debate where we are able to bring forward those things that directly concern us and our constituents. First of all, Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and my pleasure to congratulate you on your appointment as Speaker for this parliament.
I am sure you have the good will of the whole house. I know that principles of justice and fair play endure throughout the centuries and I want to say, Mr. Speaker that I trust when time steals your years away and you come to the end of your Speaker's day you will be able to use the words of Solon, the father of Athenian democracy, in about the seventh century before Christ and say with him:

The Address-Mr. Herridge I gave the commons their sufficient meed Of strength, nor let them lack, nor yet exceed Those who were mighty and magnificent,
I bade them have their due and be content.
My strong shield guarded both sides equally And gave to neither unjust victory.
I also wish to take the opportunity to congratulate the Deputy Speaker and chairman of committees on his appointment. I cannot proceed with my remarks without congratulating the mover (Miss Jewett) and seconder (Mr. Choquette) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Someone has said that eloquence is the transfer of thought and emotion from one heart to another. I must say that the lady member who moved the motion met that test to the fullest degree. Hers was in every sense of the word a most successful maiden speech. I must say also that I enjoyed the seconder's vehement simplicity of language and verbal thrust.
Before proceeding with my main topic I want to deal with a matter or two that concern me. There is a growing awareness among members of the house of the need for improvement of the machinery of parliament to meet changing circumstances and conditions. This question will be dealt with at much greater length by members of this group and other members of the house, I am quite confident, but I wish to take this opportunity to make a few observations as a result of some recollections in solitude.
With respect to the Senate, I am not going into the question of abolition and reform and that sort of thing. However I do think that good work has been done by committees of the Senate in recent years, particularly by the committee on manpower and the committee on land use, and in my view this good work indicates that the government could use the committees of the Senate to much greater advantage. I suggest that the government give consideration to utilizing the committees of the Senate to carry on certain investigations and inquiries such as are at present given to royal commissions. I think in doing that the government will put these matters in the hands of competent persons and there will be a considerable saving to the public exchequer.
A word or two with respect to the House of Commons. I welcome the reference in the throne speech to the establishment of a committee on procedure under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker to strengthen, as the words read, and make parliament more effective. In my opinion the committee should give consideration to the length of speeches in order to provide an opportunity for as many members as possible to participate in this type of debate and especially in the committee of the whole house. I think that on occasion speeches are too lengthy and we could save time and
[Mr. Herridge.l
provide opportunities for more to participate when the house is in committee.
I think there should be more consideration given to the organization and efficiency of committees, their hours of sitting and so on.
I think the government should give consideration to the necessity of a research staff available to members of parliament. The work of this house, the work of committees and the increasing volume of correspondence make it almost impossible for a member who is attending to his duties to spend much time in research. He is limited largely to cutting pieces out of the newspaper and so on in order to find suitable questions on orders of the day.
I also want to mention something in the nature of a complaint on behalf of the members who sit in this corner of the house. I have received complaints from members on the government side of the house that they are not able to see us very well in this position. I suggest that consideration be given to moving the Sergeant-at-Arms' desk into the centre of the chamber where he can be viewed from all sides in all his magnificence and glory. At the present time, with the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) on one side and the Sergeant-at-Arms on the other, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) and the hon. member for Kootenay West have to look, as it were, through a picket fence at you, Mr. Speaker. We do hope that consideration will be given to this matter in order that other members wifi have the opportunity to see the members in this corner of the house, particularly those who raised this complaint and brought it to my attention. I trust that consideration will be given to this matter. Then, there is another reason for moving the Sergeant-at-Arms to the centre, which I think should even be more convincing. I find that people in the galleries have, on occasion, mistaken the Sergeant-at-Arms for an executive assistant to the New Democratic party. For his sake we should not allow that to happen in the future. I do urge serious consideration of the somewhat personal complaint from this very important corner of the house.
Our leader has very well expressed our response to the items in the throne speech. He has dealt fully with our attitude to the problems that face us today. I am going to confine my remarks from this point on to one very serious and important question, namely, the development of the Columbia river. The Columbia river treaty was signed by the representatives of the governments of Canada and of the United States in Washington on January 17, 1961. Ratification was approved by the United States senate with

only a few minutes of discussion, and with only one dissenting vote, on March 2, 1961. The treaty has not been presented to the Canadian parliament for consideration.
However, Mr. Speaker, the terms of this document have been available to the people of Canada for more than two years, and the result has been a growing understanding of the terms of the treaty as well as the disastrous effect on the rights and vital interests of our country. Many qualified engineers and other persons have given this treaty very careful study from an objective point of view and, as a consequence many organizations and individuals have expressed their opposition to the terms of the treaty. I should like to list some of them briefly in order to indicate to the house the strength of the opposition and the quality of that opposition to this treaty.
First of all, I must mention General Mc-Naughton. I should like to refer hon. members to press reports of his speeches to the Canadian institute of engineering, the Alberta engineering institute and to his articles in magazines and newspapers. Then, there is Mr. F. J. Bartholomew, electrical engineer, Vancouver, B.C., a very well known consulting engineer; Mr. Richard Deane, electrical engineer, for Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, Rossland, B.C.; Larrett Higgins, Toronto, Ontario Hydro-Electric Commission; J. M. Southin, a very well known British Columbia Conservative and registered professional electrical engineer. He said that this is a treaty we could very well do without. Then, I should like to mention the B.C. convention of the New Democratic party, all the trade unions in British Columbia and many unions in other parts of Canada; and the chambers of commerce of southeastern British Columbia.
In that connection, I should like to refer to a recent incident. You know, a very well known gentleman, Dr. Keenleyside, came to Nelson just before the election. He was invited to speak at a public event there. Then, he had a reception afterwards and some of my friends were at that reception. He took the opportunity to discuss the Columbia treaty and to point out that if it were not signed this year there would not be any treaty signed at all because the United States were getting impatient. He expressed some disappointment at the support the hon. member for Kootenay West was receiving for his views. He urged action to promote early ratification of the treaty. As a result the Nelson chamber of commerce, at the annual meeting of the associated chambers of commerce of southeastern British Columbia, on April 5 and 6 presented a resolution urging immediate ratification of the Columbia river
The Address-Mr. Herridge treaty. This was the subject of debate and there were some very qualified engineers and others at that meeting. As a result of that debate, the resolution urging immediate ratification of the present Columbia river treaty was defeated 33 to 15. This indicates the attitude of the chambers of commerce in our district to the present treaty.
The advisory board of the farmers institute of British Columbia have opposed it. The Arrow lakes water resources committee, which represents trade unions, farmers organizations and chambers of commerce as well as rod and gun clubs from Castlegar to Revel-stoke, is opposed. The rod and gun clubs of British Columbia have been concerned about the possible damage to fish and wildlife that could be occasioned by this treaty if the basins are not completely cleared of vegetation. Naturally, these organizations have made their views known to governments and members of opposition parties who have become aware, as a result of this, of the opposition to this treaty as it now stands and the effects of this treaty in general.
The present Prime Minister is fully aware of this. He has received numerous communications and has given evidence of his awareness. I should like to quote from a letter he wrote to Mr. Donald C. Waterfield of the water resources committee, Nakusp chamber of commerce, Nakusp, B.C.
Dear Mr. Waterfield:
Your letter of April 12th has just arrived and I would like to assure you that I agree with you that it is imperative to renegotiate the Columbia river treaty.
May I also assure you that all B.C. interests, particularly those of the water resources committee of Nakusp chamber of commerce, will be consulted by a new Liberal government before a final decision is reached.
I was very pleased to hear the Prime Minister's reply to a question I asked him the other day in that respect. I am very pleased also to record again that the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) has expressed strong criticism of this treaty. He expressed his criticisms and placed them on the record on December 12, 1962. He also wrote a very interesting article in the Vancouver Sun on February 28, 1963, which incidentally is my birthday so I look upon that as a good omen.
During the campaign in Kootenay West the treaty was opposed by the New Democratic party strongly, by the Liberal candidate and was criticized by the Progressive Conservative candidate. The only candidate who supported it without reservations was the Social Credit candidate who came at the bottom of the poll, so you can appreciate the attitude of the people I have the honour to represent, Mr. Speaker.
What about negotiations that led to the present treaty? I am just hurrying through

The Address-Mr. Herridge this history of it for the benefit of new members and in order to refresh the memories of other members to get the subject in proper focus before I fire the parting shot.
1.	Negotiations commenced under favourable conditions on principles for determining and apportioning the benefits from the co-operative use and storage of waters and electrical interconnection within the Columbia river system agreed to by the United States and Canadian members of the international joint commission. They are too lengthy to deal with now.
2.	We had a good plan for Canada in sequence nine of the joint engineering board report.
3.	During the early stages of the negotiations, there was no serious dissent by the United States representatives.
4.	Then, suddenly, Premier Bennett apparently in order to downgrade the Columbia opposed the east Kootenay development as proposed in sequence 9A.
I recall talking to one senator about this when I was away on an official trip. He said to me, "You know, Herridge, we were amazed when they threw General McNaughton's aces away in one throw."
5.	Then, Premier Bennett called in the Sir Alexander Gibb Company to make a report on the Columbia river and Peace river developments. This report showed that Peace river power would cost 4.5 mills and Columbia river power 2.9 mills. It is an interesting thing to note, Mr. Speaker, that this company with a world wide reputation is no longer employed by the government of British Columbia.
6.	As a result of Premier Bennett's demands Canadian rights under the Boundary Waters Treaty Act of 1909 were surrendered in the present treaty.
7.	Shortly after the treaty was signed, Premier Bennett wished the treaty terms altered to provide the sale of downstream benefits on a firm and long term basis. We have witnessed some interesting reversals of policy at high levels with regard to the proposed development of the Columbia river.
8.	During the discussions on the international rivers bill in 1955 attorney general Bonner and water controller Paget expressed strong opposition to the flooding of the Arrow lakes. This policy was reversed when they came to deal with the present Columbia river treaty.
9.	In the years past, the present Leader of the Opposition opposed the idea of the long term export of firm power, then reversed his position according to the throne speech of September last. I want to indicate how completely the hon. gentleman reversed his position, and I quote from page 3

of a statement made by the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of Canada, following the signing of the Columbia river treaty in Washington. This is what he said about the treaty:
So far as Canada is concerned, the most important feature of the treaty is the one I have already referred to-the recognition of the principle of division of downstream benefits. From that principle all the great advantages that are possible for Canada as a result of co-operative development of the Columbia basin flow. Without that principle the entire arrangement would be fruitless for this country.
This is the bedrock upon which the treaty is supposed to stand, but afterwards they hurled that great arrangement overboard.
10.	Mr. Fulton, chief negotiator for Canada, opposed the long term sale of downstream benefits in the most vehement language, and then reversed his position.
11.	It is obvious from these reversals of policy, on the part of those who are supposed to know what they were talking about, that this present treaty was entered into with undue haste without understanding all of its terms and their consequence, or without the facts with respect to problems and costs of construction, rehabilitation, compensation or the unnecessary destruction of natural resources.
However, as the facts have come to light throughout the months, we can view this delay as a blessing in disguise.
I now submit a quotation from the speech of Professor Marts, professor of geography, Washington University, at the Kelowna natural resources conference in August 1962.
Canada should resist pressure to hurry a decision from any group including the United States and make certain that their final decision will be a correct one and not regretted at a later date. Canada would be well advised to make haste slowly on the Columbia river development.
This present delay presents an opportunity to the government for the first time to do some effective planning for the development of the water resources of the Columbia river to the advantage of Canada and with equity for the United States. Therefore, on behalf of this party, I suggest the following, and let me say I am trying to be as non-partisan as possible in this. I admit I have a sentimental interest in this question because I live in that country, know its beauty and love its land, waters and beaches. I make these proposals:
1.	That the Canadian government inform the United States government and the government of British Columbia that the proposed treaty is not satisfactory.

2.	That re-negotiation be commenced on the basis of the adoption of the principles for development adopted by the international joint commission.
3.	That the government proceed on the basis that sequence 9 (a) is the most acceptable plan for Canada.
4.	That we propose a flexible approach for the timing and staging of developments to fit the load curve. That we should begin the building of the Mica creek dam first in order to provide flood control protection to Canada and the United States.
5.	We propose the development of Dorr dam in order to satisfy primary flood control in the United States.
6.	We urge the appointment of General McNaughton as chief adviser to the Canadian government negotiating team.
7.	We urge that, prior to any final decision, public hearings be held in east and west Kootenay by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) according to the powers provided by the terms of the International Rivers Act. There is nothing like having these questions fairly discussed and presented to the people concerned. The hearings should not be held in a courtroom atmosphere where ordinary citizens are made to feel small and cheap, and uninformed. They should be held in the usual way such hearings have been conducted by the federal government throughout the years.
8.	Then the result of the discussions and evidence presented at the public hearings in east and west Kootenay should be referred to the external affairs committee, when it is studying a proposed treaty.
We suggest that this procedure will do the following:
1.	Provide opportunity to obtain advice and opinions from qualified persons.
2.	Provide an opportunity for organizations and persons in the area affected to be informed and their views heard, whether they are farmers, village residents, industrial workers, tourist operators and so on.
3.	Provide the government and members of the external affairs committee with essential information upon which to base any decision.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have hurried through this very complex and very complicated subject, but I have presented it in such a way so that it would be somewhat easy to digest by those who do not live in the area and are not acquainted with all the developments. Before concluding, and in order that they may get all the available information before they deal with this matter in the house, I suggest all hon. members get copies of a statement on the proposed Columbia river treaty made to senators and members of parliament in the
The Address-Mr. Ethier House of Commons on Wednesday, December 12, 1962 at a meeting presided over by joint chairmen, the hon. member for Kootenay East and the hon. member for Kootenay West. This statement was made by General McNaughton. I also suggest they get a copy of an address given by General McNaughton to the association of professional engineers of Alberta held at Calgary on March 23, 1963.
I further suggest they get the latest issue of the International Journal, spring 1963, which costs 75 cents a copy. I see my colleague from Toronto has already got a copy of it, as have other hon. members. They will find a very complete article in it on the proposed Columbia treaty, by General A. G. L. McNaughton, which is very informing, covering the legal, engineering and economic aspects of the treaty. I also suggest they get a copy of the Engineering and Contract Record for September 1962 in which they will find an article on the Columbia treaty. Then too I suggest they would be well advised to get, from the Department of External Affairs, the
report of the international joint commission__
United States and Canada-on principles for determining and apportioning benefits from co-operative use of storage of waters and electrical interconnection within the Columbia river system. This will give them an opportunity to understand what is meant by the principles established by the international joint commission for the development of this great river system.
In conclusion I urge hon. members of all parties to consider this present delay as an opportunity to make a thorough review of every aspect of this problem, so that when we come to make a decision with respect to any treaty presented to the house, they will have all the facts available.
I am confident that when they have that information they will say, with a good many of us: "Thank God for General McNaughton, his services and his advice to this nation."


Mr. Viateur Ethier (Glengarry-Prescott):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to represent the county of Glengarry-Prescott in this house since this was the last riding which one of our great leaders, the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, represented before he retired in 1948.
I should like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your election to the important office you now hold. I extend congratulations also to the Deputy Speaker whom I knew very well, having shared an office with him during the last parliament. I am sure, sir, knowing your good judgment that you will discharge your obligations with impartiality.
I should like also to take this opportunity to congratulate the proposer of the address

The Address-Mr. Ethier in reply to the speech from the throne (Miss Jewett), a newcomer to this house who also represents an agricultural county which might be compared with my own. My congratulations, too, to the seconder, (Mr. Choquette), a very promising young man who proudly represented the French Canadian element in this house. I should like also to congratulate our Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on succeeding so nicely in bringing back to office in this parliament the great Liberal party. Congratulations also to the Prime Minister on having selected men of such high quality to help him in his great task of making a success of this twenty sixth parliament. Sincere congratulations to all the cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, since I represent an important rural riding which is the second largest producer of cheese in Canada, I wish to commend the present government for its intention of giving Canada a second minister of agriculture. I am confident that such a step would greatly improve the lot of eastern farmers. In fact, the farmers of my riding have already started to feel a certain improvement.
I wish to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) for having increased, in the four or five days he had at his disposal, the subsidy on milk used in the manufacturing of cheddar cheese. Contrary to what happened in the past, that will help balance the production of cheese and butter in Canada. Obviously, that will not solve all the problems of our milk producers, but it is a step in the right direction.
Mr. Speaker, as member for an agricultural riding such as Glengarry-Prescott, I can assure the house that I shall press the government unceasingly until milk producers will get at least $3.50 per hundredweight for their milk.
Mr. Speaker, what our eastern farmers are lacking most of all is a greater borrowing power.
I therefore suggest that the Farm Credit Act be amended, as I asked before during the last session of the twenty fifth parliament, so that more farmers may obtain farm loans.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the previous minister of agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) advocated an unimaginative policy in the last parliament. These last few days, we have been criticized by the official opposition for having appointed three men to replace the

former minister of agriculture. I sincerely believe that if he had not relied so much on his own judgment and had sought advice from other members, there would not be so many serious mistakes in the pieces of legislation that he had approved by the Department of Agriculture.
I should like to deal first of all with the Farm Credit Act. Last year, we considered this bill and suggested certain amendments. After having discussed the amendments brought forward by the Minister of Agriculture, we asked that the bill be sent to the committee on agriculture for further consideration, but this request was turned down. And I believe that I would not be wrong in saying that it was the first time in the political history of Canada that a parliament sat without a committee on agriculture being called upon to consider certain measures. Now, the hon. members who were here during the last parliament know very well that that is what happened.
The Farm Credit Act, in its present form, is useful to very few farmers in eastern Canada. On the other hand, in western Canada, where the farms are more extended, it might very well be that the farmers derive more benefits from the provisions of the act. However, in eastern Canada, in order to qualify for a farm loan, one must not be over 45 years old. And even at that, if the government would grant a loan for a period of 29 years under the present provisions of the act, the farmer, upon reaching 65, would still have one third of his loan to pay back to the government.
I think the legislation was drafted without the benefit of a close study.
The Cheese and Cheese Factories Improvement Act was also passed rather inconsiderately, because instead of helping the farmers, it made for their exploitation by certain people. Before the Conservatives took over, and introduced that legislation, we had several small cheese factories in my district which operated on a co-operative basis. Now, all those who are familiar with our farming counties know very well that our little cheese factories now hardly exist. Our farmers have to accept what the large concerns are willing to give for their goods.
Moreover, although cheese has been selling for the past two or three years at a higher price than ever before in Canada, the larger number of our farmers got less than $2.50

a hundredweight tor their milk last year, including the increased bonus.


William Moore Benidickson: That is true.


Mr. Eihier:: For instance, under the Cheese Factories Improvement Act, anybody able to amalgamate a second cheese factory with his own, qualified for a government grant representing 50 per cent of the cost of his business, up to a maximum of $60,000.
Here is what happened in my county. About five years ago, a cheese factory owner having succeeded in buying another small cheese factory qualified for a grant of $60,000. Now, this year, his factory burned down and he lost his business; he does not want to rebuild it and just puts the insurance money in his pocket. It is just as if the government had made that man a present of $60,000.
Now, if the minister of agriculture of the Conservative government at that time had intended to appoint two ministers of agriculture as the present government proposes to do now, we might perhaps have been able to save something. The hon. members for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) and Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) did very little last year to assist their minister of agriculture.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Prove that.


Gilles Grégoire: We saw it in our ridings.


An hon. Member:: That is true.


Denis Éthier: The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska should have given his minister of agriculture a hand and-


Gilles Grégoire: That is true.


Denis Éthier: -I think these members, like myself, represent a rural riding. I was here almost all the time, I seldom stayed away. When I hear some Social Credit members say: "That is true"-


Gilles Grégoire: That is true.


Denis Éthier: -it reminds me that the majority of last year's Social Credit members came from rural ridings; and what solutions did they offer to the minister of agriculture when they discussed that matter?


Gilles Grégoire: You were not here.


Denis Éthier: I sat on the other side of the house. You criticized the Liberal opposition, something seldom witnessed in this house. I think-
28902-5-18J
The Address-Mr. Ethier


Gilles Grégoire: Criticize the opposition?


Denis Éthier: -this year, you can do it, and properly so; you can criticize the Liberal party as much as you like.


Gilles Grégoire: That will not be difficult.


Denis Éthier: At least, you will be doing what you are supposed to do.


Gilles Grégoire: That is true.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Denis Éthier: When I have concluded my remarks.


Gilles Grégoire: The hon. member is afraid.


Viateur Éthier: No, I am not afraid, but the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm can ask his question when I have concluded my remarks.


An hon. Member:: He is afraid.


Denis Éthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the government for having included in the speech from the throne the matter of contributory pension plans.


Gilles Grégoire: More taxes.


Denis Éthier: The Liberal government deserves congratulations for that project and many others. I think it would be saying the truth to state-


Gilles Grégoire: That is not so sure.


Denis Éthier: -that all social security
measures in Canada were brought before this house by a Liberal government.


William Moore Benidickson: That is true.


Gilles Grégoire: So were taxes.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Including the atomic bomb.


Gilles Grégoire: And nuclear weapons.


Denis Éthier: I should like to ask the government to include in that legislation on contributory pensions, a provision to take into consideration people who are 60 years of age and who cannot meet the requirements of their employer, because everyone knows that an individual who has a job requiring a great physical effort cannot give a full day's work after the age of 60.


Gilles Grégoire: We have been saying that for a long time.


Denis Éthier: Furthermore, it is almost impossible for anybody who is 60 to find a job.


An hon. Member:: Even 50.


Denis Éthier: Then those people have to rely on relief. If we added a special clause to this act we would help those people, which would

The Address-Mr. Ethier relieve municipalities of the heavy burden of looking after those needy persons.
Mr. Speaker, taking into account the increase in the cost of living I would also ask the government to give special consideration to family allowances.


Gilles Grégoire: Now you are talking.


Viateur Éthier: Family allowances are another
item introduced in this house by a Liberal administration, but they were submitted to a lot of criticism at that time by the Conservative opposition which only the other day pretended they were the defenders of the small people in Canada. Well, I do not think they were that at the time because they very strenuously criticized the act and they did all they could to prevent its enactment. Family allowances may have had some relation to the cost of living some years ago-


Gilles Grégoire: Twenty years ago.


Viateur Éthier: -but I sincerely feel that a small increase would be most appropriate.


Gilles Grégoire: A large increase.


Viateur Éthier: Mr. Speaker, I believe that if family allowances were paid to the students in the high schools and universities it would encourage parents to keep their children at school.


Gilles Grégoire: Quite true.


Viateur Éthier: We would thus have an increased number of qualified people in the working class-


Gilles Grégoire: Quite true.


Viateur Éthier: -and that would reduce the risk of unemployment.
Before concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the celebrations for the centennial of confederation.


Gilles Grégoire: You were doing well just now.


Viateur Éthier: I sincerely believe that for those celebrations it would be a good idea to recreate the atmosphere of 1867.
In addition, I submit that if we canalized the rapids on the Ottawa river, at Hawkes-bury, it would make the river navigable up to the capital area, and we would then have one of the nicest tourist trips for the confederation celebrations.
The elimination of the Hawkesbury rapids and the reconstruction of all wharves which existed in all the villages before the erection

of the Carillon dam, would cost very little to the federal treasury and would greatly assist the tourist industry in the years to come.


Gilles Grégoire: We should not forget to dredge the Saguenay river.


Viateur Éthier: Mr. Speaker, again about the confederation centennial I must remind the house that in my riding of Glengarry, which is an old Ontario riding, we have in Williams-town the oldest house in Ontario, the old Sir John Johnston manor house. Since that residence is only 25 miles away from Upper Canada Village, I believe that the federal government, in co-operation with the province of Ontario, could acquire the old structure and make it into a very nice historic site for the celebration of the centennial of confederation.
This scheme would cost very little to the government and it would increase the income from the tourist trade in Canada.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the voters of my beautiful riding of Glengarry-Prescott who have put so much confidence in me, and I am sure that the government we now have will give a fair deal to the farmers, as well as to the other groups of our society.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has agreed to answer a question at the end of his remarks. Could the hon. member tell us why the new Minister of Agriculture has completely cut off the 25-cent per hundred pounds subsidy on milk, thus reducing by $6 million the income of the dairy producers?


Viateur Éthier: I am sorry I have not understood the hon. member. Would he mind repeating his question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Could the hon. member tell us why the new Minister of Agriculture has done away with the 25-cent per hundred pounds subsidy on milk, thus taking away from the dairy producers an income of $6 million? Does he find this step beneficial to the farmers?


Viateur Éthier: I believe that the hon. member could find the answer in yesterday's official Hansard, if he would take that trouble. However, I suggest that 25-cent subsidy which was cut off does not take anything away from the farmers, but rather from the capitalists and the dairy plants of the country, for I do not believe that the 25 cents which were supposed to be granted these last three or four years ever reached the farmers; although they were given a bonus of 25 cents this year, they were still getting less than in the past.


Gilles Grégoire: Would the hon. member allow me a question? As far as his suggestion in regard to family allowances is concerned, has the hon. member made representations to his party and can he say that his party will raise the family allowances before long? Is there no answer coming?


Viateur Éthier: I have clearly specified in the course of my remarks that such representations will be made to the government.


Gilles Grégoire: Since his time has not run
out yet, could the hon. member tell us whether he will exert very strong pressure on the government in order that they raise family allowances?


Viateur Éthier: That you will know in due course.
(Text):


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: It is, sir, a pleasure and an honour for me to be able to participate in this very important throne speech debate. I know there is a tendency in the press and elsewhere to denigrate this particular part of our parliamentary proceedings. I hear the expression that the throne speech debate drones on and interest slackens. Actually, the parliament of Canada is not designed for the amusement of the press gallery. It is of the utmost importance that this legislative chamber remain always a representative body and that we have the viewpoints constantly put forward of those members who are elected from various parts of this country. I think it is a vital and highly necessary part of our proceedings.
I would like to begin, as hon. members who preceded me have begun, in congratulating our Speaker and Deputy Speaker. I would like to say a particular word to the deputy chairman of committees. It is some time since one of our chief presiding officers has come from the Atlantic provinces, and I wish the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten) all good wishes in the discharge of his duties.
There are those in this country who are concerned about the permanency of the speakership, and this indeed may be a forward step. But as I have looked back over the record of Canadian history I am not convinced that this high office has been degraded by the hon. gentlemen who have held it through the years. I would like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. This is not only a perfunctory duty; it is a real pleasure. I congratulate especially the mover, who is a fellow political scientist; indeed, a professor of political science. It would probably be ungracious of me to use the expression "egghead" about such a charming lady, although I have been the
The Address-Mr. Macquarrie recipient of the expression many, many times in the house. But it is for me, perhaps, a more appropriate expression. I think we do well to have a few academicians among the hidebound or practical politicians who make up the bulk of those in this chamber. I would like to say that the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) indulged in a bit of poetic licence today when he spoke about his constituency being the Garden of Eden. I speak a straight line when I say that I represent the garden province of Canada, the garden of the gulf or, perhaps, in deference to the Solicitor General (Mr. MacNaught) I should say that I represent the most prosperous and most beautiful and politically perceptive part thereof.
I was impressed, too, by the speech of the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott (Mr. Ethier) and I congratulate him on something I have long sought but have been unable to obtain, his felicity and facility in both languages. If I sought to give him any advice it would not be in languages, but I would say that when it comes to cheese, if he wants to be a gourmet he should try Tyne Valley, Prince Edward Island. I think the mover made a most interesting contribution to the debate and I think my good friend and colleague, the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) followed that approach today, in that he and she before him looked at some of the fundamentals upon which our political system is based and examined some of the organizations and institutions of Canadian politics. She, I believe, pointed out that because of her observations and study of the Liberal party she decided to become a Liberal. I would not want to indulge in too much selfconfession, but I went through a similar performance and I made a somewhat different choice. I had long been convinced of the great contribution made by the political group that was founded by Sir John A. Macdonald over 100 years ago. I knew he had been impressive in his stand for a strong national policy, that he had shown moderation in days of extremism, that he brought a pragmatic and sound approach to problems facing this difficult, challenging and wonderful country. As I looked over our political history I saw the same emphasis on a sound and vigorous nationalism personified by that great Nova Scotian, that great Canadian, Robert Borden, who was the chief architect of Canada's independent nationhood, the man who said, "If you want our aid, call us to your councils"' and who was not unprepared to accept all the responsibilities which were given to this country. Then I thought of one of the series of great Conservatives in the long story of our party, the late Arthur Meighen, who typified forthrightness and a straightforward

The Address-Mr. Macquarrie meeting of even the most thorny issues, and a refusal to deal in the kind of indirect discourse and opinion-reading which sometimes brings success to the shrewd politician but apparent failure to the statesman.
However, the moment of truth came when as a Canadian voter I sat in the gallery of this House of Commons and saw the frightening drama of the pipe line debate. I saw closure brutally applied. I saw our parliamentary institution shaken to its very foundation. Then I decided to put all else aside and give such energy and ability as I might possess to the party which fought against that terrible threat to our democratic institution. I am proud to say-and I am not one of those who believe that one party has a monopoly of all the virtues-that in the six years in which I supported the government never once did I see it resort to such repressive tactics no matter how sustained or fractious the oposition. I cannot but note that some who sat in the seats of power in those days sit there again.
But enough of the past. We hope those days are gone and that those who are now in government will not even be tempted ever to return to that kind of conduct. Perhaps this is what is meant in the throne speech when we find the expression, "Familiar ways of thought and action are becoming less certain guides". We now have, if not the new era at least a new parliament, a government in office but barely in power. We have a large, active, vigorous opposition. These are things from which one can take some comfort. I believe that the April 8 election has done something; it has expressed the Canadian people's preference for the two-party system, and I believe that before too long the third and fourth parties will disappear from our political spectrum. The New Democratic party was something of a marvel in our age. Never was there a party so long aborning, never such elaborate birth rites, and yet it seems to have gone into a decline before it reached its adolescence.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What a surprise you are going to get.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Of the Social Credit party I will say nothing. They, I believe, have troubles enough of their own. But what of the new government, still enjoying a political honeymoon, still basking in the glaring light of favourable publicity? How soon, I ask, will the cracks in its fagade become apparent? How quickly will its great list of tremendous promises and magnificent commitments run it into difficulties, difficulties dire and dreadful, I am afraid?
Much is said of the ability of the new administration, and I hope for Canada that these men who form it are as able as their friends proclaim. Yet I cannot forbear to

feel that in this new government we have seen administrative ability and expertise become the leading virtues. An efficient and effective bureaucracy is essential in the modern state but the bureaucracy is the means of government. It must never itself become the government. Sound judgment, awareness of the needs of all parts of the country and, above all, an ever-present sensitivity to the parliamentary process and the democratic fundamentals are much, much more important. I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister will never allow these priorities to be lost sight of. As an old professor of mine used to say, experts should be on tap but never on top. This man was a good Liberal too, and there are lots of good Liberals in the universities.
However, Mr. Speaker, I am not disposed to be critical. I believe that Canadians as a whole want to see this government given a chance because they may feel its tenure may not be very long. Yet even at this stage I have one disappointment. I had thought that my long time friend, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), would have been a little more prominent in the early 60-day decisive phase of the government. He did not go to London, nor did he go to Hyannis Port. Nor has he in these early decisive days been able to bring about his cherished desire of bringing Canada into the organization of American states. I thought he might be making some tours in Latin America when his Prime Minister was going to Massachusetts and London, but I have not heard that we are moving into the organization of American states.
But I remember what I heard last January. The hon. member who is now Secretary of State for External Affairs said then:
The time was never more urgent for us to accept the longstanding invitation of every member of the O.A.S. and to join this organization.
1 have been looking forward to such a step for many years and I thought he was the man who would finally lead us to accept some of our hemispheric responsibilities. But not even in the speech from the throne do I detect the slightest hint that this step is about to be taken. However, I wish the new Secretary of State for External Affairs well. Never would I accuse him of doing anything to injure Canada's prestige abroad or to lower our standing among the international community. I am equally convinced that the same would be said by every objective Canadian about the two great statesmen who preceded him, the late Sidney Smith and the Hon. Howard Green.
If there was one thing about the last election campaign which I think should soon be forgotten and pass into the limbo of things

which should never be uttered in campaigns, it was the suggestion by spokesmen of the present government that Canada's repute abroad was being lowered. This was positively not the case, and Canada's role in the last six years offers far more eloquent refutation than I could ever give.
I was impressed and pleased with and I congratulate the new member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) upon the remarks he made about the Hon. Howard Green. They were a little in contradiction of some of the things said by some of his political associates during the recent campaign.
But I think this is not a time to dwell on negatives, Mr. Speaker. I think all hon. members will want to assist the new government in its difficult task, and if they do not think they are going to have difficulties they have a rude awakening not far ahead. We are interested in seeing what they will do, in seeing how they will translate into positive and meaningful action the commitments which in such large measure they gave the people of Canada from coast to coast. I should like to presume to assist the new ministers with particular reference to the province of Prince Edward Island.
I think Prince Edward Island makes a good test case. In no province is the question of dominion-provincial relations so important and I think that a dominion government which does well by Prince Edward Island can measure up to discharge its duties properly for the whole of Canada. One fundamental problem in Prince Edward Island is the problem which was germane to the confederation discussions of 1873, that of transportation. We were a bit reluctant to enter confederation-when I say "we" I am speaking historically-and we insisted that efficient and continuous communication with the mainland must be guaranteed by the dominion government.
If you go down through the years you will find that Prince Edward Island members of parliament, whether Liberal or Conservative-we have never had any other kind- have asked about the honouring and the upgrading of this commitment with regard to the question of transportation. It is a vital question. More and more people are showing their good judgment and coming to our island province. They are coming by the thousands and they are welcome. There is room, and the happy thing about it is that those who come return again and again.
Hon. members will recall we have discussed the question of ferries. When the Liberal party came into power in 1935 it found at Borden two ferries, one four years old and one 18 years old. After 22 years in office they left at Borden two ferries, one 10 years old
The Address-Mr. Macquarrie and the other 40 years old. When the last government left office a few weeks ago there were at Borden four ferries on the run or available on the run and plans were under way for yet another new one. So I would say to the new Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith), who is not here, along with most of the members of his party, that this is a fundamental thing for him to consider and that he has quite a challenge to meet if he is going to live up to the record of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) when he was minister of transport.
I was interested when the minister replied to my colleague, the senior member for Queens (Mr. MacLean), the other day in respect of the building of a new ferry for the Borden-Tormentine run and said that plans are going forward. I should like them to go forward at an even faster rate. I very much hope that the decision to build this ferry, coupled with the lack of reference to the causeway in any official announcement by the government, does not mean that the present government will repudiate the commitment of its predecessor in respect of the building of this tremendous land link which will finally join Canada and Prince Edward Island. I should like to make it very clear that we do not consider the causeway to be one of those projects to be decided upon by the Atlantic development board, no matter how many members it is going to have on it. In the first place, $100 million would not build the causeway and, even more important, this is a great project which has already been decided upon and upon which we received a commitment which I expect will be fulfilled.
Then, I should like to deal with the question of fiscal needs. If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) were here, I could point out to him the success story of the last government in the way it dealt with our little province. During the fiscal year 1956-57 Prince Edward Island received $4,870,000 from Ottawa. During the fiscal year 1961-62 the amount was $12,242,000. Total expenditures by Ottawa on behalf of Prince Edward Island were, for the corresponding years, $30,569,000 and $47,394,000. This is the kind of pattern we expect him to emulate because if he does not, to plagiarize the title of a well known book, he will have a sorely troubled Prince Edward Island on his hands.
We recall with appreciation how quickly the former government moved to implement the Atlantic Provinces Adjustment Act. This made great new sources of revenue available to our province and to our sister provinces in the maritimes to extend further the services needed by our people.

The Address-Mr. Macquarrie
II the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) were here, I would say to him that we hope he will emulate his three predecessors in their vigour and their interest in the development of one of the finest national parks in Canada. With one exception, this park had more visitors than any other in this country last year and the year before. We found that previous years of neglect, money voted and not spent, had to be met in 1957 with a vigorous and massive development program which resulted in a tremendous expansion in the use of the park by people from all over North America.
I would say to the same minister that the roads to resources program has meant a great deal to our people and has translated, in a few short years what was at one time the province's poor highway system into one of the most splendid highway networks in the dominion of Canada.
If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) were here I would say that the ARDA program has struck a most generous and appreciative response in Prince Edward Island. Our provincial government, headed by that truly great Canadian the Hon. Walter Shaw, had already embarked upon a program along similar lines which dovetailed magnificently with this program which is known as ARDA. I hope the present Minister of Agriculture or the other one who comes from the east- I suppose we will come under his jurisdiction-will foster and further the development of this magnificent program which is doing so much for the agricultural people of Canada.
I do not know to whom the next item should be directed-perhaps the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh). If she were here, I would say that we expect the payment of $75 per month to all our people over 65 years of age. This will be appreciated, as was the increase of $19 which was made by the previous government. The increase would only be $10, but we will appreciate it. I was impressed the other day as I listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He seemed to be somewhat critical of the Liberal party because, in his view, they had taken a long time to fulfil their promise in respect of hospitalization. I suppose one might say that it was our party that fulfilled that promise for them. However, I would not quibble. The year 1919, to which he referred, happens to be the year of my birth, and therefore I cannot say it is a long time ago.
I am also not prepared to say it is a long time when I recall another promise which was made at another Liberal convention in


the year 1893. This is a most impressive commitment to the people of Canada and was given by the Liberals then assembled. It was that:
-the present constitution of the Senate is inconsistent with federal principles in our system of government and is in other respects defective, as it makes the Senate independent of the people and uncontrolled by the public opinion of the country, and should be so amended as to bring it into harmony with the principles of popular government.
This was a plank in the platform in 1893, in 1896, and I need not ask Mr. Speaker, about the implementation of that plank in an ancient platform. Compared with that, the non-implementation of the hospitalization plank of 1919 may be interpreted as a mere lapse of memory. If there are changes in the Senate, I suspect they will be similar to the changes which have been made throughout the years when the Liberal party was in power.
I would not want to give the impression to the members of the new government that we do not wish them well, that we are not here to assist in any way we can in their policies for the people. I should like, at this time, to compliment the Prime Minister upon having selected one of my Prince Edward Island colleagues for a cabinet post. I will not make any comparisons on the importance of the post formerly held by my colleague, the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) and the post of Solicitor General. I will only say that I am delighted that the Liberal party, after a quarter of a century, has honoured one of the members from Prince Edward Island by giving him a cabinet position. I extend to the Solicitor General (Mr. MacNaught) my good wishes as he takes on his duties. I pledge him such co-operation as I can give in the furtherance of the interests of Prince Edward Island.
I should like to say, too, that I feel similarly about the new member for Kings (Mr. Mul-lally). Naturally, I cannot compliment him upon defeating my former colleague, Mrs. MacDonald. However, I wish him well and I will say to him, through you sir, that as always I stand for province before party. If the new government, during its tenure of office can do as well or half as well for Prince Edward Island and for the maritimes in general as its predecessor, they will exceed my expectations, but they will please me tremendously.
There is nothing more for me to do at this stage, but I hope in future days I may have an opportunity to participate in debate. While I may not have been active in some ways, Mr. Speaker, I think no hon. member who has ever come to the House of Commons has moved about as much as I have. I began by sitting on the Speaker's remote right and

now I am on the Speaker's immediate left. Who knows where I will end. In the parliaments of Europe they used to interpret and correlate a position in the chamber with one's political views. To date I have been an extreme rightist and an extreme leftist. Possibly my position merely indicates my party whip wanted to get me as far away as possible, or perhaps it was just an accident of seating arrangements.
We will have a big event in Prince Edward Island in 1964, the place where Canada was born and which is the cradle of confederation. At this early stage I would like to extend an invitation to all hon. members to join with the thousands and thousands of others who are coming to our shores to celebrate that inaugural event. I think we will give you a real eye opener and a worthy prelude to the national celebrations which will take place in 1967.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have enjoyed listening to the last remarks of the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie), particularly with regard to closure. I find them a little surprising coming from one who is a supporter of the right hon. gentleman opposite, the former prime minister, who undertook to do away with closure and then immediately imposed his own form of closure by governing the country, or trying to govern the country, by refusing to allow parliament to discuss a budget for two years and by imposing taxation and surcharges by order in council, again without allowing parliament the opportunity of discussing them.
I should like to congratulate you, sir, on your election as chairman of committees and Deputy Speaker, and I ask you to convey to the hon. member for Mount Royal my congratulations on his election as Speaker, which I add to the many already offered him. I am sure Mr. Speaker's conduct in his high office will be such that it will lend to the increasing demand that his appointment be permanent.
I also want to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on his election as Prime Minister, and his cabinet colleagues on their appointments. I am sure the trust that millions of Canadians have placed in him will be fully justified. I further want to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne on the creditable manner in which they performed their task, which has brought honour and distinction to their respective ridings.
I would like to thank the people of my own riding, particularly those who voted for me and worked so hard on my behalf, for
The Address-Mr. Basford giving to me the opportunity, at a fairly early age, of serving in this house and working with other hon. members in making this country a better place for all of us. I would also like to thank my fellow Liberal party members from British Columbia in doing me the honour of selecting me as chairman of the British Columbia caucus.
I think I speak on behalf of all new members on both sides of the house in thanking those hon. members re-elected in the last election for the very warm and gracious way in which they have welcomed us to the house, and for the very helpful way in which they have endeavoured to get us going on our parliamentary duties.
I have not had the opportunity of talking with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), but I am sure when I do his welcome will be tinged with a certain regret because, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour- or at least I regard it as an honour-of belonging to a very select group on this side of the house who defeated New Democratic party members of parliament in the recent election. The N.D.P. group in the house has grown smaller as a result of the April 8 election, and I predict that in the years and the elections to come they will grow smaller still.
If the government is allowed by hon. gentlemen opposite to get on with the job of governing Canada and carrying out its program, of which the speech from the throne is only a first instalment, we will be able to show that this party and this government are the really effective element of reform in Canada, and that the New Democratic party, by fighting or refighting the class wars of 50 years ago, is becoming increasingly old fashioned and out of touch with Canada's twentieth century problems. In passing, I would say to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), because I know the N.D.P. well, that I think the Sergeant-at-Arms should be left where he is rather than put in the centre of the aisle.
It is traditional in maiden speeches to describe in some detail the beauties of one's own riding. I -would like to describe the beauties of my riding and of the west coast of Canada, but the beauties of the west coast are so great that they are indescribable. Rather than describe them I would like to invite all hon. members to come out to the west coast of Canada to see the sort of very beautiful country we have there.
To hon. members who do not know my riding I point out that it is purely urban, situated in the central part of Vancouver and having both residential and industrial sections. While I hope to speak from time to time in the
270	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Basford house with regard to problems of special concern to my riding, such as waterfront development, False Creek harbour development and the Kitsilano air force station which is located in it, at the present I just want to mention it is a purely urban and downtown riding.
Because it is situated right in the city of Vancouver, the general prosperity and welfare of the people of my riding, like that of all people in Vancouver, are dependant largely upon the success of Vancouver becoming the major trading port that it can become. At the present time to handle the people and commodities arriving at our international airport and through our harbour, 24 consulates, five trade commissioners, 21 customs house brokers, 15 shipping agents, 47 shipping company representatives and 26 freight forwarders now make Vancouver their operational base. Because of the importance of trade to Vancouver, and because of the importance of Vancouver becoming the trading centre that it can and must become, I welcome the references in the speech from the throne to the fact that the government will pursue an active and expansionist policy with regard to trade. The welfare of Vancouver and the west coast generally depends on Canada having the freest possible degree of trade. In this particular connection I would like to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister and his colleagues the application of the city of Vancouver for a centennial Pacific trade centre. I shall quote briefly from the application of the city of Vancouver with regard to this trade centre:
There is reason to expect Canada's exports to northeast and southeast Asia, Australasia and the west coast of the Americas will flow through British Columbia ports at the rate of more than $2 billion a year a decade from now.
To secure this trebled increase and to improve upon it, and in so doing help correct Canada's urgent imbalance in world trade, requires bold, new-fashioned formulas to withstand competition from the aggressive new Europe and the United States.
The Pacific centennial trade centre is proposed as one such bold, new-fashioned formula.
It is the contention of the city of Vancouver that the centennial Pacific trade centre, bringing together under a common roof all traders with Pacific interests, not only will meet the foreseeable demand but, more, will be the prime agent creating it.
It seeks the impetus of the senior government.
This is an application by the city for the construction of a huge trading centre in Vancouver. I would urge upon the Prime Minister that at the appropriate time he give this application the attention it deserves so that we may have constructed in Vancouver a monument not so much to what has been done as to what the port of Vancouver can become.


My riding of Vancouver-Burrard is wholly urban. Vancouver, like every major city in Canada, has at its centre areas of blight, decay, ruin and slum. While there are many charming residences in my riding, there are also accommodations in which no human being should be expected to live. I am sure some of the agriculturists opposite would refuse to put some of their animals in such accommodation. For this reason I welcome the announcement in the speech from the throne foreshadowing the establishment of a municipal development and loan board as well as changes in the National Housing Act which, I am sure, will provide cities and municipalities with increased financial assistance in respect of slum clearance and urban redevelopment. I would hope that the mayor and aldermen of my city, as well as those of all other Canadian cities, are farsighted and imaginative enough to take full advantage of this municipal program when it is established.
There are those in our cities who regard slum clearance and urban redevelopment as a luxury which municipal taxpayers can ill afford. On the contrary, slum clearance makes good economic sense. Apart entirely from the social and human values involved-and these should not be minimized-it is of real advantage to municipal taxpayers to redevelop their blighted and slum areas. A decayed area brings little or no revenue to a city, yet the major part of every city's police costs, fire costs, welfare and other costs is spent in these non-revenue producing areas. The largest burden for servicing these blighted and decayed areas falls not on those areas but on the non-slum areas. It therefore makes good economic sense for cities to redevelop these areas and bring them back into active and proper use producing tax revenues for their municipalities.
I had not intended to mention anything about the fishing industry but the subject was raised this afternoon by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson). I wish to say only that I welcome the statement in the speech from the throne with regard to the establishment of a 12-mile territorial limit recognizing the treaty rights and historic rights of others. I am sure that in the atmosphere which now prevails under a government which is dealing with our friends as friends and not as enemies, we shall shortly be able to establish a 12-mile limit and thus give to our fisheries on both coasts the protection they need.
I should like to compliment the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) for having come to British Columbia only a few days after

his appointment and sat down with representatives of our fishing industry, our vessel owners, the union and the native brotherhood to discuss the problems of the industry and to hear the representations, made to him with regard to changes in the international north Pacific fisheries convention. I compliment the hon. gentleman on having taken quick and decisive action in this regard and on saving the NORPAC treaty and the international control of fishing in international waters when it was in great danger of collapse. I disagree with what was said by the hon. member for Fraser Valley and compliment the Minister of Fisheries on his conduct.
I welcome the statement in the speech from the throne that the government will be establishing a commission to study biculturalism. There are those who may wonder why people in British Columbia are concerned about this subject when we are so far removed from the scene of action but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we as Canadians are as concerned as anyone else about the present stresses and strains within our confederation. I hope this royal commission will produce at least some of the answers to the problem. I hope that all Canadians, whether we be English speaking or French speaking, will act with understanding and maturity because, if we do, we can surely provide a system by which the rights and privileges of all Canadians are protected and recognized within confederation.
However, in this discussion of biculturalism let us not forget another group of Canadians, those who have come from afar to make their homes in Canada. I ask the indulgence of the house before reading part of a letter which was delivered to me on election day. I might add that it made the afternoon of election day a little more pleasant.
I am authorized by a few dozen naturalized new Canadians to address myself to you on behalf of all of us.
Having discussed thoroughly the question of voting today, we have decided all to vote for the Liberal party on April 8, 1963.
The motives of our unanimous decision were:
We have full confidence as working people and as members of an ethnic group that the Liberal party government will secure for us more jobs, and that the new Liberal government will have also more understanding for our own, as well as for all Canadian ethnic groups, their cultural, social and political needs and aspirations.
Please convey this our feeling of confidence directly to the hon. Lester B. Pearson with the expression of our highest esteem for him.
I urge the house not to forget in our consideration of biculturalism that there are thousands of people, those of whom the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) spoke so eloquently, who have come to Canada to build new homes and new lives. In some cases the countries from which they came have been
The Address-Mr. J. H. Horner destroyed or have disappeared. These people want to play their part, and an important part, in helping to build this country into the great nation which I am sure it can become.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: In rising to take part in this debate I should like to congratulate the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and you, sir, the deputy chairman of committees of the house. I should also like to extend the customary congratulations to the mover (Miss Jewett) and seconder (Mr. Cho-quette) of the address.
I think, too, it would be fitting for me to pay tribute to my hon. friend, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Watson) who defeated the once famous member who represented that constituency in this house, none other than Mr. Argue.


An hon. Member:: A good man.


Mr.   Homer@Acadia: Yes, in your eyes. As another socialist you can agree with him. I think the hon. member who now sits for that constituency did a great service to farmers and Canadians everywhere by defeating that once socialist member who represented the constituency of Assiniboia.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Because if he had been elected he would have been made minister of agriculture in the Liberal government we now have.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Someone says that is right. Hon. members over on that side were faced with a very difficult choice. They had a possible left-wing minister of agriculture, but he was defeated so they chose the very opposite, a right-wing minister of agriculture, and they say they were right with either one of them. They do not know their fellowmen very well. I think the whole house should pay tribute to the result of the election in Assiniboia, and I hope we will reap the benefits from that election for many years to come.
Being a farmer, I may deal to quite some extent with agriculture during my talk. I read the speech from the throne carefully to determine what it meant to me and to all farmers in western Canada. I wanted to know whether there was anything we could grasp upon. Was there anything in it hon. members opposite could grasp upon? They seem to want to grasp upon something. I say, grasp upon it, and then tell me what any farmer concerned about agriculture could grasp upon. I followed very closely the vote taken in the United States with regard to farm problems there whereby a guaranteed support price for wheat was rejected by the farmers of that country.

The Address-Mr. J. H. Horner I ask hon. members on the other side of the house, what does that mean to Canadian agriculture? Where does it place their $2 per bushel guaranteed price they campaigned about so vigorously? What assurance can they give me as a representative of the farmers in my constituency that the bottom will not fall out of the price of wheat? I looked at the speech from the throne for some assurance but found none.
Mr. Speaker, I did find a high-sounding paragraph with regard to a program for agriculture, but there was absolutely nothing in it. Then I read a little further and saw reference to a division in the department, the establishment of a second minister. I should like to point out at once that it may take two ministers to do the job as successfully as the former minister of agriculture.


An hon. Member:: It may take three.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It may even take three, as is suggested. Are they trying to scale down the job to fit the man? I do not think so. I think they are doing this for political reasons, and very poor reasons at that. Are they going to set up two separate departments with two deputy ministers, each of which would have a certain amount of control over the stabilization board? Which one would control the stabilization board or other departments like the ARDA program which will be functioning for many years to come all across Canada?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It has not functioned yet.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The brilliant comment from a neighbouring constituent in Alberta is that it has not functioned yet. I would inform him that the minister in that province asked for $6 million under ARDA for development in Alberta.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, if we get it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would hope you would get it with the co-operation of the Secretary of State (Mr. Piekersgill), who is listening carefully to this debate. You would have got it a year ago if the Alberta government had been prepared to act; and on that subject I will say more later on so I hope the hon. member remains in his seat to hear me out.
Mr. Speaker, at the moment I am dealing with the question of whether the farmers of western Canada can look at the Department of Agriculture and expect jurisdiction, advice and counsel with regard to any particular product we may be producing. The speech from the throne refers to an eastern minister and a western minister. We have livestock industries and feed cattle flourishing in both areas. I think that whatever legislation in agriculture is brought in it must have


a basic concept which will apply all across Canada, treating all parts of Canada equally alike. ARDA is a very good example of this. The stabilization board is a very good example of this, as is the Farm Credit Corporation and many others which can quickly be cited. I would question very much whether the Department of Agriculture needs two ministers actually to increase efficiency in that department. I would like to point out that this step does nothing for any particular part of Canada but it may do something for a particular political party which has been trying to favour itself at the expense of all Canada over the last five years.
We in western Canada heard a lot about this $2 per bushel of wheat, so perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will bear with me if I come back to it for a moment. I might say that No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 wheat are all supposed to be scaled below $2 a bushel. What of barley and oats? What of Durum wheat? Does there not have to be a relationship between your crops in the acreages allotted? We do not want to have western Canada growing nothing but wheat and no oats or barley. We have seen during the last year or two a shortage of oats in western Canada. A year ago oats had to be imported from the United States. If wheat is priced at $2 a bushel and oats at only 50 cents a bushel, what will the farmer grow? Of course he will grow more wheat than formerly. He will take acres out of oats and put them into wheat, and we will have again to import feed grains into the country, which is likely to occur in years ahead with a Liberal government, and have a surplus of grain.
We in western Canada paid particular note also to the fact that the wheat board and board of grain commissioners were taken out of the Department of Agriculture and placed once again into the Department of Trade and Commerce. Many farmers have asked me why this was done. I am a person of nonpartisan views in many cases. I had a number of Liberals and a tremendous number of N.D.P. people supporting me and voting for me, but the only true answer I could give them was that there was a political reason for the government taking this step. It was taken a day or two after the government took office. I ask, why would a minister from Toronto sell more wheat and feel more responsible to sell wheat than one who had grown up and been raised in the wheat growing areas of western Canada? It has no real logic to it, and I doubt whether it will work as efficiently as the former one.
It is interesting to note that taking the wheat board and the board of grain commissioners out of the Department of Agriculture means that they now fall under the

responsibility of a former deputy minister of trade and commerce. A few years ago when farmers had a surplus of grain and wanted an advance on the grain they had stored in the granaries on their farms, the department said no. Farm unions and representatives came to Ottawa and asked for cash advances several times. This is an old story to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp). He determinedly said no in those days, and I suppose that western farmers in particular can look forward to being told no in the future.


An hon. Member:: That is the Liberal answer.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: As my colleague says, that is the Liberal answer.
Western farmers enjoyed a reasonably good year in 1962 while many areas were still plagued with drought. Grasshoppers were still a problem in other areas. The cattle industry enjoyed a relatively good year. Farm income was high. Farmers are now asking themselves, "What will a change in government in Ottawa do to the money in our pockets?" They are asking themselves whether they will have more or less money. After all, this is the way in which farmers usually judge governments. I think farmers are concerned today. They were concerned about the political shifts in the Department of Agriculture as soon as there was a change of government. They immediately looked to the speech from the throne to see if they could find any reassurance there. They found none. We will be watching agricultural legislation very, very closely in the weeks ahead. We will be looking for this assurance in the hope that it will be forthcoming.
We hear talk about trade missions and wheat exports. We know wheat exports are down a little in relation to what they were in the past. We want assurance in this regard. As a representative of an agricultural constituency I will be working hard trying to obtain some assurance for the farmers I represent and farmers generally across western Canada.
As a member from the province of Alberta I had the idea that a veterinary college should be established in that province. Alberta has been hanging back. At one time the premier of Alberta said that a veterinary college would be a white elephant. He has come off that to some extent; he now says, no, it would not be a white elephant; but he has not proposed any actual expenditure in this connection. I hope the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) who is a colleague, one might say, from Alberta, will use his good offices to try to encourage the somewhat slow department
The Address-Mr. J. H. Horner in Alberta to promote and create a veterinary college for that province, in which most of the livestock in western Canada are raised.
There is one other thing I should like to point out. The constituency which I represent is sometimes plagued with drought and is commonly called the short grass country. Many community boards have been set up to promote water studies and feed resources in the southern part of that riding. I was interested the other day in a report to the effect that the prairie water conservation board wanted to go ahead with a very thorough study of what might be called the eastern Rocky mountains watershed. This whole concept springs from the resources conference which we had a couple of years ago. Alberta once again said no.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We have already had such a study.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Alberta once again said no, they would not contribute and would not enter into a study of the potential water resources of the prairie provinces. Because Manitoba and Saskatchewan said they would, Alberta said they would not. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to use his good offices to urge Alberta, that wealthy province of Alberta that we hear so much about, to move on this suggestion, because in many parts of that province we are still forgotten on this question of water. Many parts of Alberta could use greater feed resources for a greater intensification of the livestock industry.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would be glad to do so.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wonder whether the hon. member has read the very exhaustive study that was undertaken in about 1952 respecting this whole area about which he now speaks, prior to the arrangements for the south Saskatchewan river dam.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not know that I have read the particular report to which the hon. member refers. He failed to give it a title. I might have read it, but I might not. I would rather not deal with that question now. I have read many studies with regard to the watershed and the water resources with which we are so blessed in the prairie provinces, particularly in Alberta. I am vitally interested in this question, and I would once again urge the hon. member who is particularly interested in my speech to get in touch with his party in Alberta on this question. Perhaps when there is an election out there he could urge them to make some promises in an election campaign which would give

The Address-Mr. J. H. Horner some ray of hope to that area which is so badly in need of water as a guaranteed feed resource. This is very important to the people and the livestock industry there.
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to leave the subject of agriculture and deal with another question. Many of my constituents looked to the speech from the throne to find a ray of hope or an assurance that they may have a job tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. I refer in this connection particularly to the operations of the C.N.R. railroad and transportation by rail generally. I read the speech from the throne and found very little reference to rail transportation, railway line abandonment, and so on. I found no guarantee that any significant legislation would be forthcoming in this regard. The other day questions were asked in this house with regard to the discontinuance of railway services from Winnipeg to Calgary. These questions were asked because the people in those areas are concerned about this matter. I refer to the people who are receiving benefits from these services and the people operating the trains. This is just one more step in the operations of the C.N.R. The policy of the C.N.R. is to continually take away services and eventually abandon the line if possible. The policy laid down by the president of the C.N.R. is that the railroad should become bulk haulers and they should do away with all other types of traffic. It is strange to me, Mr. Speaker, that a bus can run along a highway and carry passengers, when its maintenance costs are higher and fuel consumption, and so on, are higher than is the case with many railway lines. On the railway you have smaller inclines and no breaking up of roads which causes wear on tires, or anything of this sort. The question was asked the other day about trains Nos. 9 and 10 being discontinued. There is no regular bus route to replace these trains. No other means of passenger service will be implemented or could be implemented. Since the change of government the railway have failed to take into consideration the needs of this area in what might be called the south central part of the prairies.
We know the railroad operations will come up for review in the sessional committee which will be set up very soon, I hope. This committee will study the yearly operations of the C.N.R. This house knows my feelings with regard to the management of the C.N.R. A fellow by the name of Coyne entered into saving Mr. Gordon's neck a few years ago. In any case, I hope that sessional committee will study the expenditures and operations of the C.N.R. very, very closely. This railroad did away with firemen. They are now trying to lengthen their runs; they are trying to run


through divisional points and lengthen the runs so they may last, particularly in winter, from six to 16 hours. No man can stay on the job day in and day out for 16 hours without its having some effect upon his health or the proper fulfilment of his duties. We have already increased the operational duties of the sectionmen, while at the same time cutting down on the help. To me and my constituents this appears to be nothing more than a matter of increasing the hazards of railway travel. One can only note that the accident rate on the railways has gone up and is going up and this emphasizes the fact that the direction of movement of railway management can only lead to an increase in the accident rate.
I do not want to go into the question of railway deficits. We all know that the C.N.R. took over many uneconomic lines. We all know that in some cases some lines may perhaps have to be abandoned in all parts of Canada. But I do think we all agree that in most cases the C.N.R. has a duty to provide a service and a means of transportation for the goods and commodities produced by the people of Canada.
My constituency along with several others is going to be affected a great deal by any changes in transportation policy that may result from the MacPherson report. I was vitally interested in the legislation proposed by the former government and I looked in the speech from the throne for some assurance of the continuation of jobs in the field of railway transportation. We find little assurance. We will once again watch for any legislative development on the part of the government to provide assurance to railway workers all across Canada that their jobs will be secure and that the trains and trackage will remain as a prominent part of Canada and the movement of Canadian goods.
(Translation):


Mr. Jean-Pierre  Cole@Longueuil: Mr. Speaker, allow me to add my own congratulations to the many you have already received on the occasion of your appointment to the high office of Speaker of the house. I wish to pay homage also to the Deputy Speaker. I take this opportunity to congratulate the new ministers who have been called to the cabinet and to encourage them in the hard task that awaits them in order to put our economy back on its feet. I feel sorry for them when I think of the problems their predecessors have saddled them with.
I am very proud to represent in this house the beautiful riding of Longueuil. I take this opportunity to thank my electors who had to choose between the former associate minister

of national defence, a Social Crediter, a member of the New Democratic party and myself. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I have nothing but praise for my opponents who put up a clean fight, without personalities. I would like to mention in particular the Hon. Pierre Sevigny, a veteran, a colonel, a very sociable man, who has many friends and who had been the member for Longueuil since 1958.
Mr. Speaker, it gives a newcomer in politics a great thrill to have defeated a minister at the polls even though certain people try to play down that victory by saying that my opponent's resignation from the cabinet before the election definitely contributed to his defeat. Yet, I can see from my seat one of the ministers who resigned before last April 8; he is still in the house and even goes so far as to vote with the government. The riding of Longueuil is comprised of seven municipalities situated alongside the St. Lawrence seaway, on the very location where the world fair will be held.
During the post-war years, my riding which is at the foot of both the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges, was invaded by an exodus of Montrealers, mostly people who wanted to build themselves a house surrounded by a lawn and garden. There is a wide variety of houses and the price of properties ranges from $5,000 to $150,000. Some municipalities have set up industrial parks that offer many advantages and where industries will be welcome. In fact, we plan to establish an industrial committee that will encourage industries to settle in our area and will show them the benefits that would accrue to them.
I am very much impressed by the speech from the throne which makes known the great decisions the government intends to take, in spite of the fact that the house was convened so quickly after the election.
My first term in the house gives me the great pleasure to witness how tactful, quickwitted and vigorous is the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson) and what a great fighter he is.
Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to hear the remarks made by some members of the Social Credit party about the requests directed during the election campaign by the premier of Quebec to the government that was to be elected.
I find their attitude strange, the more so since, during the election campaign, they gave the premier of Quebec-rather coarsely, some people thought-this ultimatum: Mind your own business, otherwise we will fight you in the next provincial election.
The Address-Mr. J. P. Cote
Another thing I have found out in the short time I have been here is that the Union Nationale party has its representatives right here in this house, who repeat the speeches made by the leader of the opposition in Quebec. It would be unfortunate that the interruptions of these hon. members, by their arrogant tone and their partisan spirit, should harm the harmonious discussions that might otherwise take place.
I must also point out, Mr. Speaker, all the admiration I have for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) who has I believe, all the qualities of a born opposition leader. As this job is very important in an efficient government, I hope, for the welfare of the country, that he stays in his present position for many years to come.
The province of Quebec has elected more members from the Liberal party than from any other party, for it feels confident that the government of Canada, headed by the Liberal party, will be able to uplift the national economy, to curtail the plague of unemployment which is with us at present, by taking appropriate steps to create new jobs, to give to the country a flag and a national anthem, to set up an inquiry on biculturalism and to bring back order in the public service, so as to make it compulsory for certain civil servants or officials of crown corporations to be bilingual, so that bilingual government employees get a higher salary, and that French Canadians can pass tests in their own language, according to their culture and their education.
The province of Quebec has voted Liberal, for it knows that the Liberal party understands its financial problems as well as its claims in this field, and that it will give it its fair share.
In my capacity as chairman of the school board of Longueuil, I can easily understand the financial problems now facing school boards.
To make up for the time lag in the field of education, the Quebec government must take early steps. And these steps, of course, are very expensive. Under the old regime, the salaries of teachers and day labourers were equal, which created a shortage of teachers. But for the last few years, teachers' salaries have doubled in some cases, and we realize now that we are short of normal schools to train potential teachers. It is essential that the Quebec school system be as good as any in the world.

The Address-Mr. J. P. Cote
The people of Quebec have become aware of certain weaknesses in the field of education. But the reforms they have already initiated are very costly and are proving too heavy a burden for the taxpayers. That is why the government of that province claims from the central government its taxation rights as well as authority to establish a national lottery, which seems to me most justified.
Joint programs have not always been favourable to the province of Quebec. A striking example of this is the program for the building of technical and vocational schools. That five year program, which was established in 1957, aimed at giving the provinces 75 per cent of the construction costs of such schools. Well, schools are not built for the sole purpose of taking advantage of a grant; sites had to be chosen and the schools built according to the local needs and in compliance with the new program for technical training.
In 1962, when that joint program came to an end, the province of Quebec was just beginning to carry out the construction of certain technical and vocational schools. When the youth minister asked the federal government to extend the joint program in order that Quebec might be able to take advantage of it, he was informed that the program might be extended for another six months.
How many schools can be built in six months? Can you imagine the millions of dollars the province of Quebec is going to lose because of such a stand? I am convinced that the new government will treat Quebec with fairness in that matter.
Mr. Speaker, the strength of Quebec stems from its financial independence within confederation. When the province has to beg, it loses its pride. The more autonomous Quebec will become, the weaker the separatist tendencies.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that my insistence on that point shall be forgiven; but I am convinced that a just and well-balanced distribution of taxation would unite strongly together, in one confederative state, all our Canadian provinces.
My very presence in this house proves my faith in confederation, but we must all admit that Quebec has an important part to play within confederation, and that is to assert the French fact throughout Canada. And the other provinces should understand that the French language in Canada must not be restricted to the Quebec boundaries, no more than the French Canadians should think that the English language must stop at the Quebec boundaries. When a Canadian from another


province goes to Quebec, he has the right to expect that he may be spoken to in English but when a French Canadian leaves his province, is he not entitled to be answered in his own tongue? It is the same country, Mr. Speaker, and in a bilingual country, must only the French Canadians be bilingual?
In the province of Quebec, there is no problem between the different ethnic groups. You must not think that barricades separate neighbours of different races. A large number of people in Quebec are English speaking; we are proud to have them among us, and I am sure that they are also proud to be from Quebec.
If we can get along wonderfully on the provincial level, why could we not do the same on the federal level? The province of Quebec wants to be acknowledged as an integral part of confederation. French Canadians want to feel at home from Halifax to Vancouver. But to achieve this, we would have to be welcomed in other provinces, and be able to find there advertisements and directions written in French in public places. But alas, outside Quebec, French no longer exists.
I urge Canadians of all racial origins to visit the province of Quebec so that we can show them fine Quebec hospitality and to what extent we are bilingual.
Mr. Speaker, one cannot expect the problem of biculturalism and bilingualism to be settled in a few months, but if all Canadians do their share, it will disappear with time, and all Canadians will benefit from greater understanding and love of each other.
(Text):


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be words of congratulation to you upon your elevation to your high office. It is a position that I know you will fill with dignity and with fairness to members in all parts of this house. I extend congratulations also to the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Lamoureux) upon his appointment to the post of Deputy Speaker, and to my fellow maritimer in his capacity as deputy chairman of committees. I should like to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) for the capable manner in which they discharged their duties in moving and seconding the address. To the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and his colleagues in office, I extend congratulations. They have inherited a house and a country left in good order.

This is indicated by a report in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald under date of April 19, which reads as follows:
Canada's economy registered an 8 per cent gain last year in the value of its total production. The gross national product, the value of all goods and services produced, rose to $40,401 million from the revised 1961 figure of $37,421 million. In volume terms output rose 6.2 per cent. It was the largest economic advance since 1956.
In April of the past year our foreign reserves of gold in U.S. dollars had risen to $2,671,400,000. A reserve of this magnitude is no mean inheritance for our new finance minister. This situation was brought about by the sound policies adopted by the former Conservative administration.
In the field of trade, Canada had reached an all-time high in 1962. Our merchandise trade surplus amounted to $80 million following upon a surplus of $124 million in 1961. These are the only two years of surplus in the last decade and they reflect the substantial improvement which has taken place in Canada's trade position since 1956 when our merchandise trade deficit was in excess of $700 million. The financial newspapers of this country indicate that in 1962 manufacturing, construction and outlays for new machinery and equipment jumped by 8 per cent. Canadians were producing more, were selling more, were earning more and saving more than ever before in our history.
Now, during the recent election campaign we heard from the present Prime Minister during a visit to Milford, Nova Scotia, that we in the Atlantic provinces have been left far behind in terms of the national economy. He asked for support so that he could get the economy going again and restore confidence. Well, Mr. Speaker, his assertion must have been based on the assumption that the economy had stopped. When you say you want to get something going again, it must have stopped. If the present administration can get the economy going to the extent there is an increase of more than 8 per cent in the gross national product in a single year, all of Canada will be grateful to them and we will not judge them too harshly on their performance with regard to the first 60 days of decision, in office.
The speech from the throne is a fascinating document not only for the policies it contains but also for those which it neglects to mention. When speaking in Milford, the present Prime Minister said, with reference to unemployment, that 250,000 new jobs must be provided in each of the four years a government should last. He said there was also a problem in relation to those unemployed by automation and the Liberal plan called for supplementary retraining benefits to assist the long term unemployed. Where are these
The Address-Mr. Crouse benefits listed in the throne speech? He also called for a revival of the West Indian trade and a policy calculated to make the Atlantic provinces full partners in confederation. In so far as West Indian trade is concerned he said:
-the Liberals wanted to get that going again. This may require special Canadian aid to the West Indies, especially since the current $10 million aid program expires on March 31.
The Conservative administration, Mr. Speaker, provided aid to the West Indies and early in January 1963 the first fruit shipment from Jamaica in 25 years arrived in Halifax for distribution to the maritime provinces. According to the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, this was a shipment of 13,000 cases of citrus fruit valued at $100,000. We are selling to Jamaica seed and table potatoes, Nova Scotia apples, eggs and balsam Christmas trees. However, I see no mention in the throne speech that will further assist in promoting and extending this new trading pattern.
We in Nova Scotia well remember the economic benefits that accrued to our province when trade between the maritimes and the West Indies was flourishing, and we would urge the present administration to carry out its promise, and do everything possible to expand the West Indies trade in keeping with a start already made by the Conservative administration. Our agricultural economies complement one another and industries can be developed in our coastal provinces using Canadian skills and Canadian materials to service the Caribbean market.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister outlined a plan to award 10,000 annual scholarships of $1,000 each to send needy students to university, and on tax sharing he called for the restoration of the principle of equalization payments to ensure poorer provinces would get per capita revenues from personal and corporation taxes equal to the income of the richer ones. What happened to these promises, listed as items we cannot afford not to do? There is no mention of these in the throne speech.
Perhaps these will be done later, along with the other unfilled promises, to provide legislation to establish national marketing boards for farmers, payment of family allowances for children past the age 16 if they remain in school, a special committee to study the problem of railway branch line abandonments, amendments to the federal labour code to provide a $1.25 hourly minimum wage, 40 hour work week, a distinctive national flag, free milk for school children, improved livestock grading, and continued freight assistance for the movement of feed grains to

The Address-Mr. Crouse our eastern farmers. What happened to those promises, Mr. Speaker? They are not listed in the throne speech.
During the election campaign we heard many promises. But the Canadian people have become accustomed to action under the Conservative government and they will expect performance, not platitudes from the Liberal administration.
There is one chapter in the throne speech that has a special appeal to me, and I quote:
It is only with courage and perseverance and hard work that we will achieve the better lile that is within our power, for ourselves and for our children.
Our progress is the work of all the people. In a free country we are all responsible.
This is the basic ideal of the truly free enterprise spirit that made Canada great, and for which my constituency of Queens-Lunenburg is well known. The people of my riding are strongly independent, believing in the capitalistic free enterprise system. Predominantly farmers, lumbermen and fishermen they make their living from primary industries and they must work long hours to provide for their families. A visit to the riding will show the fruits of their efforts, for Queens-Lunenburg is one of the prosperous beauty spots in Nova Scotia.
It is interesting to talk to these people. In their view there has been too much emphasis placed upon the importance of the government, at all levels. As a result governments have grown in size, and the expenditures of all levels of government and the taxation which they necessitate, are at levels which tend to put brakes on our economy. Government featherbedding adds to costs, and increases the inclination to import from other countries, thus contributing to our international balance of payments problem.
In the opinion of my constituents, taxation, especially direct taxation, has the effect of choking off business recovery and stifling expansion. This is understandable when we realize expenditure by our governments represent about 33 per cent of the gross national product of this country. In the United States government expenditures represent about 29 per cent of the gross national product, and Canada today is in the unhappy position of offering less reward for enterprise and initiative than our friendly neighbour to the south. It should be the other way around when we consider some of the handicaps under which we operate.
Competition for the tax dollar between the federal government on the one hand, and the provinces and municipalities on the other, gives rise to more acute difficulties than are found elsewhere. Expenditures of the provinces and municipalities are now estimated

to represent 16 per cent of the gross national product, compared with only 9 per cent ten years ago. The present figure is close to the requirements of the federal government. Provinces and municipalities are constantly under pressure to increase their spending and many proposals are prefaced with the statement "Canada is rich enough to afford these improvements." There is apparently no feeling of responsibility for the national interest, which is regarded as the concern of the federal government. It was this scramble for taxes by the three levels of government which was one of the reasons for the appointment of the Rowell-Sirois commission 26 years ago.
With some provinces now asking for an even greater share of federal revenues, I would urge the government to give careful consideration to our present taxation problem. Some method must be found whereby individuals and corporations can retain a greater share of their earnings for investment in Canadian companies, for it is only through the expansion of our secondary industries under private enterprise that we can overcome some of our unemployment problems.
The government's stated intention to establish a department of industry to work with provincial governments and provide a special thrust for industrial development in areas of chronic unemployment, is a good move. However, I would like to ask the government if this has to be discussed and approved by provincial authorities? There will be some overlapping with provincial departments, but no doubt this can be worked out. However, I believe the taxation problem should first be examined, so that individual Canadians can more fully participate in their country's development.
I note with interest the government's intention to bring in amendments to the Atlantic development board, and its plan to make $100 million available to initiate projects and help lift up the economy of the region. This of course will be welcome news to all those living in the Atlantic provinces, for Canadians generally cannot expect our region to remain economically depressed forever. We deserve equality of opportunity because of our historic past and our contribution to Canada as a nation. However, it is evident the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) had nothing to do with this legislation because in his royal commission on economic prospects, as recorded at page 99 of his report, he stated he did not believe in ad hoc projects and handouts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit a question?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: If I may have a little extension of time I will be glad to do so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was going to ask the hon. gentleman if he would read a little further on in that report and he would find the blueprint of the Atlantic provinces development board?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I have read the entire report. It is not too encouraging. It is interesting to note that it took a Conservative government to lead the way in a much more generous manner than the present administration, in keeping with the Atlantic resolutions made by the Conservative candidates at that famous conference in Moncton in the spring of 1957. The Conservative government, on Saturday, January 25, 1958, in keeping with those resolutions announced special adjustment grants for the Atlantic provinces of nearly $100 million to be paid over a four year period. At the expiration of this time the grants were increased to $175 million to be paid over the next five years and, Mr. Speaker, there were no strings attached. The provincial premiers and their ministers were free to spend this money wherever they thought it would do the most good.
These grants could well be considered the forerunner to the Atlantic development board for they enabled the provincial governments in the Atlantic provinces to establish industrial estates, to expand their fishermen's loan boards, and promote much needed industry for the benefit of our citizens. According to the resolution, this act will die on January 24, 1969. However, from now until that date, we will have $100 million to be divided by 11 nominated men, throughout the four Atlantic provinces. This boils down to $20 million a year for each of the five years, and the question arises regarding the method to be used for the division of this money.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, may I complete my speech or should I leave that until Monday?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Has the
hon. member unanimous consent to continue?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like very much to agree, but a great many of us have rather pressing engagements, and if the hon. gentleman would not mind calling it six o'clock it would facilitate us.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will call it six o'clock.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder if the house leader could give us a forecast of the business for next week.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be very happy indeed to do that. We know of course that this debate can go on until the close of the sitting on Wednesday, when under the rules it would come to an end. I may say it would be gratifying to the government and would, I think, be in accord with what has been said by many hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house about the desirability of getting on with the business of the country, if there were any possibility of ending the debate a little earlier than that. I am not seeking to suggest that any of the freedom of speech of any hon. member be abridged in any way, but there will be many other opportunities for debate, and the government will be glad to try to bring on a supply motion as early as possible. But if that cannot be done, the government's business will start on Thursday. If it is done earlier, the program I am about to suggest can start that much earlier.
It is the intention of the government to ask the house to consider the motion in the Prime Minister's name for setting up a defence committee, as the first item of business as soon as this debate is ended, whenever it is concluded and, in any event, if it has not been concluded before then, on Thursday. If that does not take the whole time on Thursday we shall go on with the resolution stage of the economic council measure. I imagine those two items will take all of the time. But should there be any further time we would like to go on with the measure dealing with the department of industry and the amendments to the Department of Agriculture Act.
In any event, since we are rapidly approaching the end of May it is the intention of the Minister of Finance to ask on Friday, May 31st, for interim supply. The government would like to ask the house to provide interim supply for the months of June and July. We would then come back some time in July to ask for further interim supply because I do not seriously anticipate that all the estimates will have been passed in time to enable us to do without a second stage of interim supply.
I think that will take all of next week, but if it does not there are some other government items on the order paper and we will be glad to give as much notice as possible of the order in which they would be taken.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 27, 1963