1963-05-28

Mr. Maurice Sauve (iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
Yesterday in this house, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) raised a question of privilege about the report of the speech 1 made on Wednesday, May 22, which appears in Hansard beginning at page 151.
He explained to the house that a sentence had been deleted from my speech at my own request. I admit it is true, Mr. Speaker, and here is what happened.
An hour after we have made a speech, a blue copy of it is handed to us which we are asked to look over. As is the custom, I made a few style and vocabulary corrections which in no way altered the meaning of the text. And then I came up against a major difficulty. I felt an important sentence was missing. Since I was not allowed to add that sentence, I decided to delete a few words. I considered that, without that sentence, my text took on a wrong meaning or, at the very least, that the sentence had a significance other than the one I intended it to have. Therefore, I thank the hon. member for having given me this opportunity of making that correction to my text and four others which I also consider important.
On page 4 of the appendix, the words:
-as in Ontario.
should be added to the following sentence:
-while there is only 27 per cent of the labour force and twice as many unemployed people-
And to comply with the request of the hon. member, on page 5, after the sentence beginning as follows:
For instance, on the trains-
And ending with:
-and the stations are called only in English.
the following sentence should be inserted:
And while this is going on in Ottawa and on the trains, bombs are exploding in Montreal.
Finally, at the bottom of the second column of page 5, instead of:
-while paying, at the same time, the federal contribution-
One should read:
-while having the province assume, at the same time, the federal contribution of $75 million to hospital insurance-
1 trust, Mr. Speaker, that with leave of the house, those corrections will be made in the final version of Hansard. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that I apologize if I have unintentionally violated the rules of this house.


Mr. Pigeon:: On the same question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, you realize, of course, that the hon. member has just delivered another speech.
The hon. member has agreed that he struck out that phrase. He did so contrary to the standing orders of the house. I ask therefore that the rules be applied and that those words be put back in the official report. Besides, if you refer back to the blue sheets which never lie, you will see that the hon. member for iles-de-la-Madeleine, on page 5 of the appendix, has made other changes himself, when he said:
In the economic field, where do we stand? We own almost nothing.
When, as a matter of fact, he said:
We have absolutely nothing.
(Text):


Mr. Pickersgill:: May I raise a point of order, sir. The hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine had already asked the house to have the phrase replaced to which the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm referred yesterday. It seems to me, sir, that after that had been done the matter should have been closed. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has no right whatever under the rules to begin to discuss, at this late date, days after the Hansard appeared, other changes that he wishes to have made in the version of the hon. member's speech. The hon. member himself made a number of corrections, and it seems to me the matter should be closed now.


Mr. Speaker:: I have studied this matter and come to a conclusion. May I refer hon. members to page 95 of Beauchesne, citation 104, subsection 5:

Question of Privilege
As a motion taken at the time for matters of privilege is thereby given precedence over the prearranged program of public business, the Speaker requires to be satisfied, both that there is a prima facie case that a breach of privilege has been committed, and also that the matter is being raised at the earliest opportunity.
A certain amount of leeway has been allowed in connection with this matter. We are dealing with a new member who was speaking on the address. He has not added to his remarks, he has simply taken out a sentence which does not alter the context of his remarks. I suggest to hon. members that there is no prima facie case that a breach of privilege has been committed. I suggest that a mistake has been made by an hon. member for which he has apologized and which he has attempted to correct.
(Translation):
Having heard the explanation given by the hon. member for lles-de-la-Madeleine, I am of the opinion that the matter is now closed.
Will the house allow me to add that suggested changes concerning remarks made in the house must be confined to correction of errors and essential minor alterations.
(Text):
In other words, if hon. members will refer to the back cover of Friday's Hansard they will see there a notation by the editor to the effect that suggested changes must be confined to the correction of errors and essential minor alterations.
(Translation):
The same thing is said in French.
(Text):
Under the circumstances, an apology having been given and an explanation having been offered to the house, I think the matter should rest there.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I bow to your decision but I am of the opinion that it would be in the interest of the house if the hon. member for Ilcs-de-la-Madeleine-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; I think the matter has been dealt with sufficiently.



WEST BLOCK


Hon. J. P. Deschaieleis (Minister of Public Works):: I should like to announce, Mr. Speaker, that arrangements have been made

with you to show a group of members interested the accommodation which was used by NATO in the west block. Any members who wish to see these rooms should meet at 2 p.m. this afternoon at the main entrance of the centre block. Officials of the public works department will accompany the group on this occasion.



INQUIRY AS TO AVAILABILITY OF SEATING PLANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Souiham (Moose Mountain):: wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Would the minister advise the house when the queen's printer will have seating plans available in order that hon. members may be able to recognize their new colleagues by name and riding?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe the seating plans are being printed at the present time. I hope they will be available if not today, then tomorrow.



OPERATION OF CAFETERIA IN CENTRE BLOCK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver East directed a question to the house leader which, in my new capacity as housekeeper, was referred to me.
I wish to inform hon. members and those employees of the house who are interested in this matter that I have been advised by the house leader that arrangements have now been made to set up a committee of the house later this day to deal with the matter. In the interim I am pleased to inform the house, as a matter of rapid decision, that effective today arrangements have now been made to serve packaged sandwiches, soup, juices, milk, coffee and chocolate bars between the hours of 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. in the centre block cafeteria. Perhaps I should also point out to all hon. members that of course more complete cafeteria service is available in the west block.



REPRESENTATION OF CONSTITUENCY OF NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the other day the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre inquired about the return of the member for the Northwest Territories. I feel I should let the hon. gentleman know that the four clear days required by the law within which application for a recount may be made will expire at midnight tonight. To the best of my knowledge and

the knowledge of the office of the chief electoral officer there has not been and is not likely to be any such application. If there is none before midnight tonight, the queen's printer is making arrangements to bring out an extra edition of the Canada Gazette tomorrow morning so that the hon. member in that case should be in a position to take his seat tomorrow afternoon. 1 may say there has been no delay whatsoever in this matter beyond that which is required by a statute made by this parliament.



PARLIAMENTARY RESTAURANT


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I have unanimous consent to revert to motions for the purpose of moving a motion with respect to the restaurant committee? I have spoken to the whips about this.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. minister unanimous consent to revert to motions for that purpose?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh):
That Mrs. Konantz and Messrs. Boulanger, Cowan, Cyr, Doucett, Ethier, Forgie, Gelber, Gregoire, Gundlock, Hales, Horner (The Battlefords), Irvine, Laprise, MacRae, Martin (Timmins), Matheson, McNulty, Muir (Lisgar), Noble, Pugh, Rinfret, Tucker, Webster, Whelan be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in the direction of the restaurant, as far as the interests of the Commons are concerned, and to act as members of a joint committee of both houses on the restaurant; and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence a question with regard to an article which I am informed appears in today's Toronto Telegram to the effect that, with some diffidence, upon being asked a question as to whether he had a secret meeting with General Norstad last fall, he admitted he had. Would he tell the house the nature of this secret meeting?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, when I came back last fall I told hon. members in the house, as well as others, that while over there I had been fully briefed by the top military and 28902-5-23
Inquiries of the Ministry political people of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the then prime minister was very much aware of those briefings.


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the hon.
gentleman, did he secretly see General Norstad and did he receive from him information of a variety that satisfied his curiosity?
(Translation):



VALCARTIER RESEARCH CENTRE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monlmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Associate Minister of National Defence whether his department considers that the government should continue to pay transportation expenses of the Valcartier research centre staff?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask that question.
I can tell him that we are making a thorough study of the question and that I shall get in touch with him as soon as possible.
(Text):



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the fact that some 20 Negro United States servicemen from Harmon air force base were denied admission to the Clover club at Stephenville, Newfoundland.
In view of the international implications of such action, what steps does the minister propose to take, in conjunction with the provincial authorities, to prevent a repetition of this unfortunate incident?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the article in question was just brought to my attention on my way into the house, and if my information is correct this club is operated by a United States citizen-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In Canada.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -in Canada, outside of the base area. In that case it would, I believe, under the constitution come under the authority of the provincial government, and if these facts are correct then I am asking my

Inquiries of the Ministry friend the Secretary of State to bring the matter to the attention of the attorney general of that province.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question in French to the Prime Minister.
(Translation):
Is it the Prime Minister's intention to send, on behalf of the people of Canada, to His Holiness Pope John XXIII a telegram extending our wishes for a prompt recovery? (Text):


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, that matter is already under consideration and the telegram is being drafted.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the government of Canada been approached by the government of Manitoba with a view to the sending of a delegation to appear before the government of Canada regarding the retention of the T.C.A. maintenance and overhaul base at Winnipeg? If so, will this delegation be received?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is yes. I may add that no date has been set for receiving the delegation because the minister of industry and commerce for the province of Manitoba in his telegram suggested that he would communicate with the federal government again within the next few days to arrange an appointment.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of reports that Trans-Canada Air Lines will need $200 million worth of new jet liners beginning in 1966, would the minister assure the house that the fullest consideration will be given to working out means by which these planes can be built in Canada?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I wish to direct to the Minister of Labour, but as it affects constituents of the right hon. Prime Minister maybe he would care to answer it. As it is reported by a former Liberal cabinet minister, Hon. Robert Winters, that another uranium mine will shortly be closed at Elliot Lake, what steps does the government propose to take to assist these unfortunate miners?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The government proposes to take every step possible regarding the closure of the mine in question, which my hon. friend has referred to, but this closure is being carried out under the obligations of a contract made by the previous government with the company in question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the alibi of course has no application-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -but I ask the Prime Minister, did Mr. Winters allow him to know in advance that this was going to be done?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it was obvious from the terms of the contract made by my right hon. friend that this had to be done, and he himself knew of it well in advance.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not so. On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, that suggestion is false.


Mr. Marlin (Essex East):: That is not a question of privilege.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition is correct in his statement of privilege it is unfortunate that he does not know the terms of the contract made by his own government.


Hon. Alvin Hamillon (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question in view of the answer he gave to the original question. Will any of these actions that he contemplates result in a reduction in the amount supplied to the uranium market by the mines in Uranium City, Saskatchewan?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, all the uranium producing areas should be treated in the same way in these matters, so no particular area will be given preferential consideration over any other area.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I notice that he is not in his seat; perhaps he is still auctioning cattle. However, would the parliamentary secretary to the minister, or the associate minister, take this question as notice. My question stems from an article in the Financial Post of May 23. The headline is "Anthrax a menace to the west". It goes on to say that this disease can be readily spread through wildlife, foxes, caribou, buffalo, and so on.
Are steps being taken by the Department of Agriculture to guard against or prevent a further outbreak of this dreaded disease, which could do untold harm to the livestock industry and create a serious health hazard with untold social and economic implications?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, this question has been studied by the department and we have taken action in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: What action?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister inform the house at the earliest possible moment what action the department is taking to prevent the spread of this disease?


René Tremblay: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my question to the Minister of Finance. According to figures released by the dominion bureau of statistics there has been a record flow of United States capital into Canada during the first quarter of 1963 due to federal and provincial government borrowing. My question is, would the minister clearly state whether it is his plan to continue the previous government's policy of encouraging the flow of United States capital into Canada through the sale of bond issues in the United States?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of his question. I shall have something to say at the appropriate time about the need for and the role of foreign capital in Canada. All I need say now in answer to the hon. member's question is that a continued inflow of foreign capital will be 28902-5-23i
Inquiries of the Ministry welcomed by this government. Decisions respecting borrowings by the government in the United States market will be made in the light of the circumstances and conditions prevailing from time to time.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, or the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the speech from the throne makes no reference to the setting up of a court of Indian claims, I wonder whether the minister could inform the house of the intentions of the government in this connection for the current session of parliament.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minisier of Ciiizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, this question is under consideration at the present time.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I asked the minister last week whether his department had received complaints from Chinese groups in Vancouver relative to an alleged government crack down or interference with so called illegal Chinese immigrants. The hon. gentleman said at that time, if I understood him rightly, that he would look into the matter and be prepared to make a statement later on. I wonder if he is yet able to answer my question.


Guy Favreau: I am now in a position to answer that question, although I think it is one which should more properly have been placed on the order paper.
As hon. members are aware, this matter has been under investigation since 1960, and Chinese groups have from time to time complained about the investigation. The present policy, which was inherited from the previous administration, is that persons who entered Canada illegally prior to July 6, 1960-which is the date of the declaration of the amnesty- would not be deported or prosecuted for offences committed prior to that date.
These persons were invited to come forward voluntarily and give truthful statements pertaining to the circumstances of their illegal entry. The status in Canada of those

Inquiries of the Ministry coming forward is being adjusted. Persons in Canada who engaged in organizing illegal entries for personal gain were not included in the amnesty.
We are giving careful consideration to the present policy, and if any changes are decided upon they will be made known in due course.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: I have a question to direct to the Minister of Defence Production. Can the minister assure us that the three submarines requested by the Royal Canadian Navy will be built in Canada by Canadian shipyards?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Defence Production):: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. The three submarines to which he made reference were tentatively included in a program drawn up by the previous government. As the hon. member knows, this program is now under review by my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence and his colleagues. Consequently no decision has been taken at the moment as to whether these submarines should be acquired.
In the event that a decision is taken to acquire these submarines, it will be recalled that an announcement was made by the previous government that they would be procured in Britain if suitable reciprocal defence orders could be obtained. It will be the intention of this government to continue to look toward a reciprocal defence order program with the United Kingdom.



INQUIRY AS TO ALLOCATION OF NAVAL REFITS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Defence Production, and I regret that I have not given him notice. It is in regard to naval refit allocations made prior to April 8. Will these refits be allocated now, and I have in mind particularly the refit scheduled for the North Sydney marine railway which was due to enter that yard in the latter part of May or the first part of June?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into this matter and answer tomorrow.
[Mr. Favreau.l

(Translation):



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is it the minister's intention to prescribe the teaching of French as a second language in the Eskimo schools of new Quebec?
(Text):


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I should like to take that question as notice.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he is now in a position to answer the question which the acting minister took as notice last Friday.
Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of
Fisheries): As the question directed to my colleague by the hon. member for Queens referred to regulations concerning the Department of Fisheries, may I be allowed to reply now. The hon. member's question was as follows:
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?
The answer is as follows. The government has accepted the commission's recommendations and has advised the commission accordingly. It has also approved by order in council the amendment to the northern Pacific halibut fisheries regulations as recommended by the commission. The decision was taken on May 7, and the order in council was passed on May 23.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Fisheries for his reply, and I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a related question. Would the minister table the instrument of ratification referred to by the Minister of Fisheries? Could I also ask him whether he found it unnecessary or undesirable to comply with the repeated request of the present minister of northern affairs, as recorded in Hansard, that this matter be referred to the standing committee on marine and fisheries or external affairs?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall be glad to look into that, Mr. Speaker.



OATS AND BARLEY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. On Thursday last I asked a question with reference to what we might expect as far as quotas were concerned in the west. Is he prepared to answer that question today?


Hon. Milchell Sharp (Minisler of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked me whether I could inform the house that there will be an open quota on grain delivery for the present crop year as there was for the last. By way of preliminary to the answer to this question I should like to point out that producer marketings of all grains to May 15 this crop year have been 451 million bushels, as compared to only 277 million bushels at the same date last year.
I am informed by the Canadian wheat board that although a great many producers should be able to deliver all the grain on their farms by the end of the crop year, it is highly unlikely that open quotas will prevail throughout all of western Canada by July 31 next.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the reply given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, will the Prime Minister indicate to the house whether the agriculture committee will be set up and have the Canadian wheat board called before it prior to the summer recess of parliament?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the house would agree to set up that committee at the earliest possible date.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the grave financial crisis involving the very existence of the United Nations itself, does either the Prime Minister, as I believe he promised during the recent election campaign, or the Secretary of State for External Affairs plan to attend
Inquiries of the Ministry at once the current special session of the United Nations to lead the Canadian delegation and lend their experience to doing everything possible to resolve the present difficulties there?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, no such promise was made by me during the election campaign, that I would attend a special session. I said I would attend the regular session in September with my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and that I propose to do.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of this very grave financial crisis at the United Nations, does the Secretary of State for External Affairs intend to go to New York as soon as possible and take charge of the Canadian delegation in its efforts to solve the situation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in answer to my hon. friend he will be interested to learn that I am going to see the secretary general of the United Nations this afternoon at four o'clock.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister received a telegram containing a special resolution passed by the town council of Pictou, Nova Scotia, in special meeting with regard to the urgency of providing adequate rail facilities for the newly completed pier C and asking that the filling in of the area with sand and asphalt be curtailed? If so, what action is the minister taking in this matter?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. Unfortunately it reached me only a few minutes ago. I am going to inquire and I shall answer tomorrow.



WELLAND CANAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the government giving consideration to the early twinning of the single locks on the Welland ship canal?

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Transport):
Yes, Mr. Speaker. The matter is under intensive study at the moment. I think I should point out that there are some very large issues involved, and it may take some time to resolve them.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Has an appointment yet been made to the Ontario vacancy on the Supreme Court of Canada?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: The matter is under consideration, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has he received a telegram from the town of Hanna concerning the reduction in or removal of the car repair depot by the C.N.R. in the month of June, and is he prepared to use his good offices to try and maintain this small industry in this town already abandoned by the C.N.R.?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have received that telegram; I think it came in yesterday. The matter is being looked into.
(Translation):



TEXTILES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Does the minister intend to recommend to the cabinet the setting up of a Canadian textiles board?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, this question does not concern the Minister of Justice. Besides, I think that the hon. member will see immediately that it should be put on the order paper.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister remember that on March 22, 1961, in the House of Commons, he made such a suggestion to the government?



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolei-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister in French. Practically all newspaper reports concerning the changes that your government intends to make in the field of agriculture mention two departments of agriculture.
Could the Prime Minister inform the house as to whether he intends to set up two departments of agriculture, one for western Canada and one for the east, or whether he just proposes to appoint a second minister of agriculture to represent eastern Canada?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is a resolution on the order paper dealing with this matter and it will be before the house in due course, when my hon. friend's very legitimate curiosity will be satisfied.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked a question regarding the announcement that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited is seeking to purchase the northern Ontario section of this pipe line this year. The Prime Minister accepted this question as notice pending my return to the house.
I wish to inform the hon. member that the government of Canada has approved the decision of the national energy board to grant the application of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited to proceed with the purchase of the northern Ontario section of the all-Canadian natural gas pipe line from northern Ontario pipe line crown corporation. It is expected that the actual purchase will be carried out prior to the end of this month.
Following completion the section was leased to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited under a 25 year lease agreement which included the provision that Trans-Canada would have the obligation to purchase the section as soon as that company could arrange the necessary

Inquiries of the Ministry
finances. This obligation is now being ful- Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister): filled. It is expected that it will involve a Mr. Speaker, as far as I know no request of payment of approximately $108 million by that kind has been made by the province of Trans-Canada to the crown corporation. Ac- Ontario. Representatives of the universities cumulative rental payments under the lease called on me yesterday with a view to inagreement are expected to amount to ap- creased financial assistance from the govern-proximately $41 million. When the transaction ment, and that matter is now being considered is completed the Canadian government, in the light of all the other financial obliga-through the crown corporation, will have re- tions that face the government at this time, covered more than its full investment in the
northern Ontario section, plus interest.	NATIONAL PARKS


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in relation to the statement he has just made in reply to the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Was there any discussion with Trans-Canada pipe lines to indicate to them the desire of the government that some of the equity stock and debentures required to purchase this northern Ontario pipe line from the government would be made available to Canadians?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think there must be some misunderstanding on the part of the hon. member about that transaction. This was simply an obligation by which Trans-Canada was required to purchase this Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation as soon as possible. This is now being done. I do not think it has any implications of the kind which are suggested by the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Was any effort made by the present government or by the previous government to renegotiate this contract with a view to the line being retained under public ownership?


Mitchell William Sharp: I cannot speak for the previous government. This transaction was, of course, in the process of being completed when we took office. No effort was made on the part of this administration to retain ownership of the crown section of the line. Under all the circumstances I think it would not be appropriate for the government to own one section of the trans-Canada pipe line indefinitely.


Mr. Peters:: Did you consider buying Trans-Canada?



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES REQUEST FOR INCREASED GRANTS TO UNIVERSITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does his government intend to increase grants to the universities, as seems to have been requested by the province of Ontario?



REPORTED CANCELLATION OF TENDERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, may I make a short correction in Hansard of May 23, page 179, the right hand column, lines 25 and 26, which reads:
Assessment of the 20 tenders has not been completed-
That should read:
-has now been completed-


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the change made by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources I should like to ask him a question. As I understand the change made today by the minister after a week has elapsed, he has changed the word "not" to "now". I take it that tenders were called for. To whom were these contracts awarded with reference to motels in Banff national park?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, within a few days or a week at the most I would expect that an announcement as to the successful tenderers would be made. I think my hon. friend is aware that due to the regulations this matter has to be approved by treasury board, and when that is done an announcement will be made as to the successful tenderers.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can the minister inform the house whether an agreement has yet been reached between the city of Vancouver and the government of Canada to assist in the preservation of the good ship St. Roch? In view of the rapid deterioration of this famous ship the matter assumes some urgency.


Arthur Laing: No, Mr. Speaker, not yet.
356	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
PENITENTIARIES	SPEECH FROM THE THRONE



CONSTRUCTION OF INSTITUTION IN GREY-BRUCE CONSTITUENCY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he has an answer to the question I asked him yesterday.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I suggested to the hon. gentleman that he put his question on the order paper. I do not know that I can add anything other than to say that the matter to which he had reference, namely the construction of a penitentiary institution in the riding of Grey-Bruce, certainly had not been determined by the former government so far as the site is concerned. If the hon. member desires additional information I shall see that he gets it if he will put his question on the order paper.
(Translation):



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY AS TO TERMINATION OF JOINT PLANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Does the Prime Minister intend to abolish the joint programs as called for by the Liberal party during the last federal electoral campaign?
(Text):



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the many representations the government has received from organizations of retired civil servants, is the government giving consideration to legislation to improve the position of retired civil servants similar to that which was brought down about four years ago?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with what was done four years ago, but the government is considering this whole question and I hope I will have something to say about it in the not too distant future.



CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, May 27, consideration of the motion of Miss Pauline Jewitt 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. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, last night at ten o'clock we were discussing some of the problems that face this country and the paucity of solutions in the speech from the throne. At the outset this morning I should like to re-emphasize my warning to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) that we in western Canada are going to be watching him very closely indeed.
I want to turn to the problems of confederation and some of the things that will have to be considered in order to make it really work. I think the first comment one should make is that some of the problems which we have to meet are problems resulting from the old Liberal policy of divide and rule. We are now suffering because of what happened during 20 years of Liberal rule, when they deliberately divided this country. I am hoping they will not do this again, but it is obvious that they are on the same track. We in western Canada are certainly concerned over this fact. As I said last evening, we are firm proponents of confederation. We want to see a whole Canada. We want to see a united Canada. In addition to that, we want to see a Canada run by Canadians without this interference from our neighbours in financial and political matters.
I believe that one of the prime responsibilities of the press in Canada is to take a new look at what they have been doing. I believe that on their doorstep lies the responsibility for some of this division which now exists in Canada. I suggest to some members of the press that they pay more attention to reporting the facts than to building up their own egos or images as Hollywood stars or as interpreters of the news. Most of them do not have the necessary background information to make an accurate interpretation of the news as they continually purport to do. They have a responsibility if they are going to maintain the freedom of the press in Canada, if they are going to do their part in promoting unity within Canada. This unity is necessary in order to make Canada a growing, developing country. If this unity is to be achieved, then the press must become more constructive, more positive in their approach

instead of continuing this negative, destructive approach which we have seen exhibited by some members of the press gallery and the press generally throughout Canada during the last two years.
I believe confederation can only work in Canada if all of us have as our goal a united Canada. The members of the press, having the prime responsibility for communication among the various ethnic groups, among the various regions in Canada, have not met their responsibilities. I am suggesting to them that they should pull up their socks and help us build Canada instead of destroying it.
I should like also to say something with regard to our position in the world. During the last election campaign we heard a lot of nonsense, some of it engendered by our friends in the press and all of it started by the Liberal party, to the effect that Canada's prestige abroad had gone down. This is such utter nonsense that it needs to be commented upon. I suggest to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) that if Canada's prestige does not go down now that we have become a satellite of the United States in connection with nuclear arms, I will be very surprised. One of the things that struck us when we attended the commonwealth conference last fall was the fact that Canada could play a role with these newly developing countries in Africa and Asia. I will always remember the suggestion given to me by the Malayan delegate. He said "You people really are not part of the commonwealth at all; you are an appendage of the United States". If they thought of us in that fashion then, what must they be thinking of us now?
The Liberals talked about loss of prestige. Our prestige was never higher than under the leadership of the former prime minister, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker). Is it loss of prestige if a few newspaper reporters in certain countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom felt we were not doing exactly what they thought we should do? What utter nonsense. What utter irresponsibility by these people. I suggest that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will have to walk with his head bowed when he does return to the United Nations, because Canada will not be able to stand up and take the position she did previously. This situation will result from the decision, which is not final yet as far as I am concerned, regarding nuclear arms and our position in NOEAD.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to reemphasize the importance to Canada of making confederation work, the importance of taking these two languages and two nations and building them into one. Then there is the question of the division between urban and 28902-5-24
The Address-Mr. Olson rural people, which has been fostered by the daily press in Canada. I suggest that the members of the daily press should have a look at some of the things the weekly editors across this country have been saying, and should accept some advice from these people. We need better support from the members of the press if we are going to have a united Canada and a confederation that really works.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: As I rise to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with the many others who have extended to you and the Deputy Speaker, as well as the deputy chairman of committees, their sincere congratulations. If the manner in which the proceedings of this house have been handled so far is any indication of what we can expect in the future, I think all hon. members will be satisfied. I should like also to offer my sincere congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I do not wish to cover a lot of the ground that has been covered by hon. members who preceded me in this debate. In so far as the speech from the throne is concerned, first of all I should like to suggest that the preamble certainly does recognize the bicultural character of Canada. There are, however, one or two commonly held thoughts which I believe are erroneous which are brought out in the speech from the throne. The first is the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada. There is a reference to the French sector, and the other nine provinces seem to be referred to as the English sector.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in the past there existed the same division between eastern and western Canada. At that time the dividing line was somewhere west of lake Superior. We had repetitious references to the fact that there was a division along that line. I feel it would be unfortunate indeed if we were to now continue that line of thinking by moving the border to the Ottawa river. We have French communities in Alberta. We have French communities in many other parts of western Canada. In addition we have large numbers of people, even in my own riding, with French ancestry. I suggest too, Mr. Speaker, that we in western Canada have just as much in common with Montreal as we have with Toronto. For example in the clothing and needle trades I think it is fair to say western Canada buys more of this type of merchandise in Montreal than it does in Toronto. That is to say it buys more from Quebec than it does from Ontario. I shall not labour the matter at length except to point out I would not like to see a division
358	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Olson along the lines of separating Quebec from the rest of Canada in the so-called bicultural nature of our country.
People come from Quebec to western Canada just as young people in particular go to eastern Canada from Alberta, and there are social adjustments that have to be made in each case. I can remember that not so long ago three young fellows from the province of Quebec called at my farm. They had just enough English so that we could get along and communicate with each other, although certainly they were not too proficient in this language. It happened to be a season of the year when we required some additional help so we hired all three of them. That was several years ago. One of the young men proved capable and interested in the work and type of opportunity available there, and by now he has made a huge success of it. He adapted himself to the working conditions in the agricultural sector and now holds one of the best jobs in the area.
I have not followed the progress of the second young lad, but the third one could not adjust and I understand he went back to Quebec rather sadly disillusioned, if I may put it that way, with his experience in western Canada. By the same token young people from western Canada have moved to Toronto and Montreal, drawn by the bright lights and the opportunities they thought were just waiting for them. However, they were strangers in the large cities, and some of them have come back to western Canada pretty disillusioned with what they had thought were greener pastures.
I shall not say more about that at this time, except to state that I do not believe all the problems, in either English or French Canada, are going to be solved by bilingualism. People will learn other languages only when there is an economic need for them to do so. These language differences are not confined solely to Canada. Just a couple of days ago I noticed in the press where 1,500 people were demonstrating in Belgium with a view to separating Belgium into two countries, one for those who speak French and the other for those who speak Flemish. Language difficulties are also present in many other major countries. India and China have a multiplicity of languages which divide them and make communication among their peoples almost impossible.
Even in such a very small country as Nigeria, which we visited last fall, we found three separate languages, three large language groups, besides English. The western region, the eastern region and the northern region each had its own language, and people who


did not have the opportunity to learn the three languages simply could not communicate with one another except by the common language only a few of them had, and that was English. Therefore I do not appreciate the allegation that removing this language barrier in itself will solve the problem. Furthermore I do not believe there will be a determined effort, by those people who only have one or other of these languages, to learn a second language until there is an economic need for them to do so.
Mr. Speaker, the matter of Canada's commitments in international defence and her contribution to the western alliance has received a great deal of attention in this debate. I am happy to see that the government is proposing a resolution to set up a committee of 18 to study this problem. That committee will provide information, perhaps even classified or secret information, to members of all parties so we can have a fairly good idea what Canada's commitments are, and perhaps we can have unanimity as to what she should do to meet those commitments.
The other day I asked the Prime Minister whether he had taken any steps to renegotiate our commitments to the western alliance. His answer was not particularly clear, but I certainly did not ask the question with a view to embarrassing him or reminding him of one of his statements that he perhaps regretted having made; because I think there is some merit in his suggestion that we first of all meet the commitments we have made and then possibly renegotiate them so that we can take on a role more in keeping with Canada's position as a middle power in the world.
The reason I say this is that one of the greatest dangers in the world today is when we have a direct confrontation between the two major powers. The Secretary of State for External Affairs yesterday referred to this briefly, and looking back over the last two or three years I am sure we all agree that the periods of greatest tension were those two occasions when there was direct confrontation between the two major powers.
September, 1961 at Berlin, when Russian and United States tanks were facing each other across the border, was one of those occasions. My own feelings, and those of the community in which I live, were very tense in that situation. Quite frankly, I believe it would have been immeasurably safer had the troops on both sides of that border been troops from middle power nations. This would give the major powers an opportunity to sit back and perhaps referee the situation and allow it to cool off in case someone had accidentally

fired or misinterpreted a command, or something of that nature. Even today I shudder to think what would have happened in that situation had either United States or Russian troops opened fire.
Of course the greatest tension in recent history was when the confrontation of Americans and Russians took place on the high seas off Cuba. I am not suggesting there was a place in that situation where the middle nations could have avoided such a confrontation; nevertheless we can all agree that if there is a place and a role for the middle nations it is in such matters, so that we can keep the major powers from getting into a situation where either one or the other would lose face by backing down a little.
There are a number of other suggestions in the speech from the throne that could be very, very useful if properly implemented. The municipal development fund that is suggested is one of the most far reaching and useful proposals, if it is set up properly and if it becomes active enough to meet the demands that will be made on it. Of course we in this party over the years, and particularly during the last election campaign, suggested that the social capital or social credit necessary for the municipalities to meet their expansion requirements could be supplied far better from a branch of the Bank of Canada, rather than having them go out into the private money market where they must compete, with private industry, thus forcing up interest rates.
So we will have to wait until we have a more specific outline of what this measure is going to do. Certainly if it is set up properly I think it will be very, very useful. We have in Alberta a model, perhaps, that could be used in this regard. Although of course we do not have the resources of the Bank of Canada behind the municipal finance corporation out there, it certainly does give an opportunity for all municipalities in all parts of the province to obtain their social capital requirements at a rate of interest substantially lower than would be obtainable if each of them were to go to the money market individually to get these funds.
Therefore we will leave that for the moment, Mr. Speaker. I think our party will have a great deal to say in the debate that will take place on the setting up of this fund, because we look upon it as something that can be useful. On the other hand, we would not like to see it suffer the same fate as the municipal assistance program that was set up prior to 1940, which program simply disappeared.
Mr. Speaker, there are one or two other suggestions contained in the speech from the throne about which I have something to say.
28902-5-24J
The Address-Mr. Olson There is the proposal for a new department of agriculture act to be placed before parliament with a view to the appointment of a second minister of agriculture. I am a little apprehensive about this. I agree that the problems facing agriculture in eastern Canada are somewhat different than those in western Canada, but only in some aspects. I say this because certain agricultural products are common to both areas. It is just possible that this proposal, if carried out, will cause too much of a division in this department. To my mind this may create more problems than it would solve. On the other hand the proposal that there be an associate minister of agriculture who will give special attention to the problems of farmers in one particular area sounds a very good idea. We know this is a very large department and perhaps special attention should be given to certain areas.
I should like for a few moments, Mr. Speaker, to return to my own constituency. I would inform the house that the greatest problem there today is drought. This is a recurring problem that has been with us in a very severe way for the last four years. I am certainly not going to try to attach any blame for this to either the previous Conservative government or the present Liberal government. However, I want hon. members to know that while some of them speak of the hardships that come with an average income of $1,800 or $1,300, or various other figures, for the farming sectors of their constituencies, for the last four years in my constituency hundreds of farmers have had no income at all because of drought. In fact they have had substantial losses. They are now living on an accumulation of capital, not cash capital but depreciation and other things. Certainly this cannot go on very much longer.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to attach any blame to anyone for this, but I do hope some assistance will be provided by this government which will enable those who are vexed with this problem to get over this very trying period. Certainly when we look back over the weather patterns in this area we are convinced that this is going to change. In spite of the fact that the last drought period was longer and more severe than any in recorded weather history, we still hope that it will change. We hope it will change even this year. But if it does not, it will be necessary for both the provincial and federal governments to come forward with some assistance to at least maintain the breeding stock of the cattle business, and so

The Address-Mr. Olson on, so they will not be completely dissipated when the weather and drought conditions do improve.
One other serious problem in my constituency is the continual decrease in the output of the flour milling industry. Looking back over the records of our exports of flour we find that year after year for the last five or six years there have been decreases in the amount of flour Canada has exported, particularly to some of the nations in the Far East. I think it is fair and safe to say that the flour milling industry in Medicine Hat was established with a view to supplying the flour requirements of the Orient and some of the south Pacific countries. Some of these countries have of course established their own flour milling plants, in the last few years, and this is one of the main reasons for the decline in exports.
However, in Canada we produce in abundance the raw material that goes into this industry. I would urge the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture, when they go into the international markets to sell wheat or other food from Canada's surpluses, to take into consideration the fact that we already have a large, established flour milling industry which produces the highest quality flour. Perhaps in some of the wheat deals we are making part of the content could be made up of the finished product.
The matter of ARDA has been raised a number of times in this debate, and I want to say a word or two on this question. In the southeast corner of Alberta we have set up what is known as the short grass ARDA advisory committee. This committee is composed of a large number of organizations. I believe on the committee there are very competent men representing those organizations, and they have come forward with some very useful, practical and feasible suggestions to make use of what was anticipated in this act. No. 1 on their list of recommendations is the need for more positive information relating to ground water reserves for the southeast corner of Alberta. Many livestock operations are at the moment experiencing the most severe shortage of stock watering facilities in their history. This, of course, is because of the prolonged drought, but it is quite obvious that the most complete system of dams and dugouts is quite inadequate when there is no run-off to fill them. This committee says the immediate answer would appear to be water wells, but farmers are reluctant to dig wells after expensive failures with either dry holes or inadequate supplies of surface ground water.
The need is more widespread than just stock watering, as many small towns, villages and

hamlets are at the present time very short of good drinking water. They recommend- and I think it is a good recommendation- that a systematic ground water survey be undertaken to indicate large aquifers, underground channels or rivers and even supplies of water large enough to permit pump irrigation. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that the ground water division of the Alberta research council has indicated what might be accomplished by its limited operations in this area. This committee also recommends that some additional encouragement and perhaps some financial assistance by way of long term credit be extended for the carrying out of proper and adequate land levelling in the irrigated areas of this part of Canada. I think it is generally agreed by all those who have studied the problems of the irrigated farm that many of the difficulties could be removed if there were adequate land levelling so the best possible use could be made of the acres "under the ditch".
One project which I think it would be appropriate to reassess at this time is the Redcliff-Ronalane irrigation scheme. There is new interest in the potentiality of some specialty crops and, moreover, there is the growing importance of livestock production in the constituency. The reason it is appropriate to reassess this project is because of the severe loss of stock water in the area resulting from the condition of extreme drought which has persisted during the last four years.
These are the suggestions I have to make regarding what could be done to assist as many farmers as possible in this area. I hope the Department of Agriculture or whoever is responsible for the ARDA program will give consideration to the proposals I have made.
There is one other point I have to make, and it concerns the establishment of a veterinary college in Alberta. I wish to urge the Minister of Agriculture in the most sincere way I know to make some financial contribution to this project at an early date. The province of Alberta is prepared to make a large contribution to set up this college in Edmonton, and to get it under way as soon as possible. I hope there will be no undue delay in doing so. It is interesting to note that a few days ago the Globe and Mail carried a story which read as follows:
There is a shortage of veterinarians throughout the world but the need is most acute in the developing countries, says the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.
We have a shortage of veterinarians even in Canada, and we know that the facilities for training them are simply not adequate to meet the needs of our own people. This, I think, is an important consideration. Our exports of livestock to the United States may

at some stage reach a point where they will depend upon the manner in which we can control disease. So we are dependant upon having sufficient veterinarians to keep livestock diseases in check.
The Prime Minister said at the outset of this debate that he hoped some years from now we could all look back with pride on the work of the twenty sixth parliament. I hope this statement comes true. I also hope that when we do look back upon the first session of the twenty sixth parliament we will be able to say we achieved something for the good of Canada generally. In conclusion, may I say there are many details of the proposals set out in the speech from the throne which will be examined as each of these measures is brought to the floor of the House of Commons. I hope the legislation will be brought down as quickly as possible so that we may get on with our work and implement some of them for the well being of the people we represent.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My opening remarks will be characterized by sincerity if not by originality, Mr. Speaker. I should like to congratulate you warmly on your election and appointment as Speaker of this house.
The leader of the New Democratic party has already made it clear in this chamber that the members of this group are ready to give the government a chance to carry out the program outlined in the speech from the throne. To this end we offer hon. members opposite a high measure of co-operation- critical co-operation, but very real co-operation none the less. We shall seek to join with the government and with other parties in this house to make the twenty sixth parliament of Canada an effective instrument for the welfare of the people of Canada.
Perhaps, however, I should give a warning to those members of the government and their supporters who happen to be in the house. We do not suggest, by this offer of co-operation, that the millenium has arrived. We do not believe that politics are entirely banished from this house. Indeed, if the government does anything good we shall take the credit for it; if the government does anything bad, we shall point it out as clearly as we know how. I must say that the lamb- I think hon. members know to whom I refer -is not yet ready to lie down with the lion. We do not relish the thought of being inside that animal.
Seriously speaking, there are some goals of achievement which I believe this parliament should set before it. I know this is repetitive, but I believe, as the speech from the throne indicated, that the first and most urgent task which faces us is to conquer unemployment.
The Address-Mr. Brewin
No modern country can tolerate unemployment on the scale that has become chronic in Canada. The economic waste is obvious and staggering; the human waste is worse. There can be few members of this house who have not had the painful duty of telling numbers of their constituents, eager and anxious to find work, that there is nothing they can do to help immediately. This is particularly tragic when those who seek work are over 40 and are told that by reason of their age there is no place for them in the economic system. If someone were to come into this house and tell each member who is over 40 that he was to be retired for good, there would indeed be wailing and gnashing of teeth; and rightly so, because not many members would be left. There would be only a corporal's guard. Yet this is the experience which happens to hundreds of thousands of our constituents every day, and we must do something about it.
The speech from the throne contains promise of certain economic measures designed to deal with this overriding problem of unemployment. I hope these instruments will be used vigorously and fearlessly for the purpose of the economic planning that is essential. We must not only will the end of unemployment, we must also will the means necessary to end it. These means must include, as up to date economists concede, the large scale infusion of social capital into the economic system. In this connection, in my opinion, the provision of adequate housing has an important part to play.
I trust that the proposed municipal development and loan board will ensure that the projects to be financed include large scale plans for urban renewal, low rental public housing and rehabilitation of existing housing that is threatened with decay. In the metropolitan area of Toronto we are justly proud of the Regent Park development. A three bedroom apartment in Regent Park rents for $50.50 a month. A comparable apartment outside rents for $150 a month. In metropolitan Toronto it is estimated that at least 30,000 people are without a decent place to live. They are members of low income families who cannot afford proper housing. We need more and more Regent Park developments in this country.
It is often said that one of the major problems facing us is the high cost of living. In this problem the rental payments for those who rent, or the mortgage payments for those who have bought their own homes, is a major factor. We worry, and properly so, about small increases in the price of milk or bread or some such other essential commodity; I hear one of my colleagues mention sugar. The greatest pressure on the cost

The Address-Mr. Brewin of living today comes from the extremely high cost of another basic commodity, housing.
In my constituency the major problem of housing is the danger of the gradual depreciation and decay of the existing stock of housing, most of which was built some 50 or 60 years ago. Any housing program should include a plan for encouraging and giving incentive to bringing this existing stock of housing up to date; it should include incentives to improve facilities and the environment of areas which are already built up. The present housing act has done something to provide housing for medium income groups in suburbs, but it has done very little to rehabilitate and renew the existing stock of housing where you already have services, schools, and other things provided in the larger cities. The urban centre requires attention.
Mr. Speaker, I was glad to note that the speech from the throne made reference to amendments to the National Housing Act. These amendments, however useful, will not be enough. More is required. We need vigorous and active leadership from the federal government if we are really to tackle this problem of housing. There are already provisions in the National Housing Act for low rental housing. Again referring to metropolitan Toronto, they adopted a modest program for building 5,000 low rental units in five years. So far in the period they have produced only 550 units. I myself was connected indirectly with a project of the federal government in 1953 which was a partnership project with the government of Ontario under the National Housing Act. They acquired 1,800 acres of high class farming land in the neighbourhood of Toronto. They expropriated the farmers' property and turned them off their farms. It cost them nearly $2 million and interest has no doubt been paid over the last ten years, as this instance occurred some ten years ago. Not one house has been built, not one lot sold, not a single service provided in this area. We will need better planning than that particular effort in housing.
It is our view that by effective leadership in the field of housing the federal government could kill two birds with one stone. It could provide employment and at the same time reduce the cost of living for a basic essential of life, and incidentally improve the environment and living standards of many Canadians. We shall await with a great deal of interest how the government proposes to fill out the bare reference in the speech from the throne to amendments to the National Housing Act, because in our view this field

provides an important weapon to deal with the whole problem of unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, there is another urgent task for this parliament, I suggest, and that is its own revival as a vital institution. Those of us who are frank will have to admit to ourselves that parliament has fallen into disrepute. Very few Canadians look upon parliament with the respect they should. They fail to see in it an instrument to carry out the constructive plans and purposes which are essential. I think one reason for this low esteem of parliament is the inadequacy of the procedure of this house. For that reason I, and I think my colleagues in this party, welcome the proposal in the speech from the throne that a committee on procedure be established with the aim of strengthening parliament and making it more effective. I urge that this committee be taken seriously by all hon. members of this house and that the members of the committee and of this house do not shrink from radical changes where necessary. Such changes can, in my opinion, be brought about without in any way interfering with the basic rights of the members of this house.
I have on the order paper a resolution dealing with this particular subject, and I do not intend to discuss it in detail now. Unfortunately it is well down the order paper and I doubt if it will come up for quite a long time. I would, however, suggest that very high priority be given to making more effective use of the committee system. Unless that system is working the individual members of the house who are not members of the government cannot make the contribution of which they are capable. I was interested to note that exactly the same discussions are taking place on this matter in the British House of Commons, where they too are seeing the revival of parliament through an effective committee system in which all the members of that house have their part to play in gaining expert knowledge, in contributing to the particular subject on which they are qualified to contribute, and in carrying on the business of parliament in that way.
I also suggest that steps can be taken to eliminate repetitive debate, of which my short experience in the last house gave me quite a taste, and to provide for greater brevity in speeches. I am not worried so much about the private members as about the three-hour speeches which we occasionally hear from the leaders. I think we should endeavour to provide machinery, such as is provided in Sweden and New Zealand, to review and bring to the attention of this house invasions of individual rights by governmental or

bureaucratic action. I was very much encouraged by the Minister of Justice the other day when, in answer to a question, he suggested that the appointment of a parliamentary commissioner, known in Sweden as an ombudsman, would be considered by the committee on house procedure.
Amongst the other matters which are of great concern to my constituents as well as to all Canadians is a comprehensive system of contributory portable pensions, mentioned in the speech from the throne; also the subject of national health legislation or medicare, which was not mentioned. I suggest that this parliament will be judged by the people of Canada by the test of whether it is able to move ahead with other modern and civilized nations to effective legislation in both these spheres of contributory portable pensions and medicare. I do not propose to discuss medicare at this stage because my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton South, dealt with it very fully last Thursday.
Mr. Speaker, there is one other subject with which I wish to deal, and that is an aspect of Canada's external policies. I am glad the speech from the throne has recognized that Canada's economic progress is vitally dependant on vigorous economic progress and expansion throughout the world. It also recognizes the importance of pursuing active policies for the economic development of newer nations. The fact of the matter is that there has been a serious lack of balance as between the effort and thought that have gone into traditional aspects of defence, and the effort and thought that have gone into building a world community through a world strategy of economic development. This, I suggest, is equally important to the security of Canada as to the security of the world. This imbalance between the attention given to these two subjects is symbolized by the fact that Canada's contribution to what is known as economic aid is in the order of $70 million a year, in contrast to an expenditure of $1,650 million a year on traditional defence. The proportion therefore is that of one to 23.
I suggest that it is quite impossible to face the challenge of aggressive international communism by traditional methods of defence alone. They may be necessary, but in the field of economic aid the western world is lagging and Canada lags behind other sections of the western world.
Let us take a look for just a moment at the world in which we live. It is a world in which a part, namely the western world, has achieved by and large a dynamic economy which has gone far to abolish poverty and which can be justly described as an affluent
The Address-Mr. Brewin society. There are still many social injustices and much that has to be remedied, but the contrast between this affluent society and the abject poverty of two thirds of humanity is striking, and it has been growing. The sheer physical needs of the vast majority of the human race remain real, desperate and urgent. Much has been done but much more remains to be done.
The Marshall plan succeeded, through the infusion of large scale capital investment and the unparalleled generosity of the United States, in creating a viable and expanding economy in Europe which I suggest contributed as much as, if not more than, military defences, to the containment of communism. The economies of the underdeveloped countries in Asia, Africa and South America have not been devastated by war, but they too require the infusion of capital on a massive scale, on the same scale and with the same spirit that inspired the Marshall plan.
The speech from the throne recognizes this principle, because it says that the principles of Canadian external policy are those of the United Nations charter. The speech from the throne promises the promotion of the welfare of all peoples by international co-operation. I hope these words are not mere lip service as they too often have been in the past. At its fiftieth session the United Nations general assembly passed a resolution which among other things expressed the hope that the flow of international assistance and capital to developing countries would be increased substantially so as to reach as soon as possible approximately 1 per cent of the combined national income of the economically advanced countries. Canada's contribution to date has been in the order of one fifth of 1 per cent of our gross national product, so we are living up to one fifth of our obligations which the speech from the throne said we accept as the principles of Canadian external policy.
I hope this new government is going to do much better in this field, and we are going to keep an eye on what they propose to do. We will be watching very carefully to see whether the present government proposes to live up to the standards suggested in this important field by the United Nations, and to which the government has made reference in the speech from the throne.
I do not propose now to reopen the debate covered by the subamendment which was so narrowly defeated in the house the other day. I must say, though, that to me it is a tragic thing that Canada should not be leading the nations of the world away from the path of

The Address-Mr. Brewin nuclear dispersion which threatens the destruction of humanity. I find this particularly tragic because the decision of the government appears to have been based upon a view as to Canada's commitments which I find it difficult, if not impossible, to share. It certainly seems to me that if any commitment was made by Canada it was a commitment which was subject to review in the light of changing circumstances.
However that may be, I take comfort from the fact that the Prime Minister, in his famous Scarborough speech on January 11, said, and I have quotations from his speech:
How can Canada make her most effective contribution to collective security in order to avoid war?
That, he said, was the simple and basic defence question facing Canada. He then went on to make his own view, I thought, quite clear. He said:
The government should re-examine at once the whole basis ol Canadian defence policy. In particular it should discuss with the United States and with NATO a role for Canada in continental and collective defence, which would be more realistic and effective for Canada than the present one.
The present one is the one which the government is now purporting to carry out. The Prime Minister made it perfectly clear that we should at once, and these are his words, "reconsider that whole role at once". In the light of this the Prime Minister went on to make the following statement in his Scarborough speech:
The greatly increased power and range of nuclear missiles has also, paradoxically, increased the importance of non-nuclear conventional weapons. Cuba showed that. NATO is showing it...Western military thinking is therefore putting more emphasis on the strengthening of conventional forces. For smaller powers-
I take it we are one.
-this is economically the most feasible form of defence.
I call the Prime Minister to witness that even in his Scarborough speech on January 11 he said that the most feasible form of contribution to defence by Canada and by small nations such as Canada lies in the strengthening of conventional forces. I am also gratified that the Minister of National Defence made it clear that once the commitment which he believes was made by the former government is carried out, Canada should be able to pursue a non-nuclear role in the future. He contributed an article to The Varsity, a publication of the University of Toronto, in which he said:
One of the questions which bothers many sincere people is this: Will not the fulfilment of our commitments now make it impossible for us to pursue anything but a nuclear role in the future? The answer in my opinion is a resounding no.

This is the present Minister of National Defence speaking.
In the future we will be able to adopt the policy which we think is most in keeping with our national objectives.	_
He made it clear that he thought the policy most in keeping with our national objectives was one which would forgo the nuclear role and concentrate on conventional weapons. It is for this reason that we welcome the setting up of the committee to examine defence problems, and we hope it will proceed at once, as the Prime Minister has suggested, with a reappraisal of Canada's role in the light of up to date, strategic understanding and the needs of the western alliance. If this is done we are convinced that it will indicate a non-nuclear role for Canada and, indeed, a basic change in NATO's strategic policy.
May I summarize what I have endeavoured to say to the house in these remarks. I say this parliament can be noted for effective steps to modernize Canada's provisions for social security by medicare and a contributory portable pension. It can take the necessary steps to conquer mass unemployment. It can turn away from the path of nuclear involvement. It can make real and effective efforts to build a world community through a generous world strategy of economic aid and expanding trade.
Last but not least, this parliament can revive the fading prestige of parliament itself by businesslike and efficient procedure. This, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, is an inspiring time, and we in this party, and I am sure all other members of the house will contribute all we can to make this parliament effective in this way.
(Translation):


Mr. Ian Watson (Chaieauguay-Hunlingdon-Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to congratulate you for having been unanimously chosen for the high position of Speaker of the house.
I trust that during this twenty sixth parliament, our conduct, as members of parliament, will not put an extra burden on your already heavy task.
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to find out about the scope that is allowed in a speech on a motion for an address to His Excellency in reply to the speech from the throne delivered by His Excellency the Administrator, a motion which, I believe everybody will agree, has been extremely well presented and supported by the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette). On account of this scope, you will have to put up with a somewhat varied menu during the next few minutes.
My home town as well as the town where I now reside, are situated in the historical

county of Chateauguay, one of the three counties which make up the federal riding of Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie. I say it is a historical county because it is there that, exactly a century and a half ago this year, a small group of Canadian soldiers under Colonel de Salaberry, distinguished themselves in a military operation considered today by our military historians as the most important of the 1812-14 war. It was a military operation that definitely put an end to the efforts of the Americans who were trying to capture what was then the heart of Canada, the city of Montreal. If they had been successful in their efforts, the whole of Canada, after the capture of Montreal, would have surely and rapidly passed into American hands. Colonel de Salaberry, at the head of a military detachment mostly made up of French Canadians, drove back a much stronger American force in the main operation of the battle of Chateauguay. It gives me pleasure to point out here that several government departments have offered their co-operation so as to ensure a commemoration worthy of this important historical event.
As they had done when they helped England push back the army of Benedict Arnold several years before, the French Canadians at the time of the 1812-14 war recognized that it was to their mutual interest to help England to protect Canada against the forces from the south. It was unquestionably French Canada's loyalty which on October 26, 1813 prevented Canada from falling to the Americans. A hundred and fifty years later, I am convinced that it will precisely be the bicultural character of this country which will prevent Canada from losing its identity and simply becoming another state of our southern neighbours.
It was indeed comforting to learn from the speech from the throne that new and positive measures would be considered and introduced in order to preserve that alliance. The principles of freedom and equality which I think are endorsed by most Canadians must not be applied in a superficial manner or be simply ignored, but must rather make up the basis on which our two main groups, the French and the English, will find refuge, comfort and justice. If we want that status of equal partnership between the two mother races of our nation to be recognized and practised everywhere, terms and conditions will have to be brought into our constitutional regime.
But on the other hand we from Quebec must realize that the idea of an active bilingualism and biculturalism at the national level is something completely new for most
The Address-Mr. Ian Watson people in western Canada. I am sure that English speaking Canada will accept the changes which are necessary to maintain our nation as such, but the application of those changes will meet with difficulties unless they are presented with sound and reasonable conviction, free from any kind of ill-feeling or ultimatum.
It also gives me pleasure to note that our Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has announced that within two years, the project of a distinctive flag for Canada will be brought before this house for approval. I hope that when we adopt such a flag for our country, we will at the same time accept "O Canada" as our national anthem.
While the Chateauguay-Huntingdon-La-prairie riding is renowned for its apple orchards, its herds of pure bred milch cows and for the fact that it is the main milk supplier of the Montreal metropolitan area, that region, in view of its favourable geographic situation between the seaway and the American border, is bound to know a major industrial development. I am happy to note in the speech from the throne that this government is preparing legislation on regional planning and development. I want to stress that the area composed of St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville, Chambly-Rouville, Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie and Beauharnois counties have a potential for industrial development unsurpassed anywhere else in Canada. The American region south of our area, made up of northern New England and New York states, is a rather undeveloped or underdeveloped area as compared with the American area which lies right to the south of industrialized Ontario. I think that it would be possible with adequate planning and a skillful use of our assets, such as our surplus power, for the triangle composed of the southwestern part of the province of Quebec to become, in a more or less distant future, a major industrial centre serving a large portion of the northern part of the New England and New York states, with the help perhaps of some tariff agreements.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, since the southwest triangle of Quebec, in which my constituency is located, is destined for industrial and population growth simply because of its strategic location, long term regional planning is especially important, to us. We are happy that there is an indication in the speech from the throne that legislation will be introduced to encourage long term regional planning for industrial development by the setting up of regional development areas. I hope that

The Address-Mr. Ian Watson eventually the government may create a special wing of the national research council which would concern itself with long term plans for cultural, recreational and industrial development in Canada 25 or 50 years hence.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Watson (Chaieauguay-Huntingdon-La-prairie):: Mr. Speaker, when I left off this morning I had just completed saying that I hope the government will eventually decide to establish a special wing of the national research council, staffed with planning scientists who will be able to plan for all our needs 25 to 50 years hence.
We realize that most of the area in which this planning will be involved comes within provincial jurisdiction, but I suggest that this special wing of the national research council should have on its staff at least one or two town planners and architects of world wide reputation and that, at the request of municipalities and regional bodies, they should be able to supply plans for the long range development of a particular region with regard to industry, culture, recreation, health and accommodation. I am convinced that Canada needs such a group of theoretical planners if we are to avoid in the future the mistakes resulting from the lack of regional planning which have so characterized our past.
The constituency of Chateauguay-Hunting-don-Laprairie is approximately two thirds agricultural, with dairying predominant as the major farm industry. This dairy industry is faced with two immediate and serious problems. The first is the campaign of the Montreal dairies and the refrigeration industry to force all milk producers in the Montreal milkshed to adopt bulk refrigeration units at a cost of at least $2,000 per farm. As I have heard rumours that some United States areas which have adopted these units are not satisfied with the results, 1 feel that our Department of Agriculture should launch an immediate, impartial inquiry into the economic benefits resulting from the introduction of these bulk units, and I have sent a letter to the Minister of Agriculture asking him to do just that.
The second problem is the removal of the 25 cents per hundredweight subsidy on fluid milk shipped to butter factories. This has adversely affected many farmers in my constituency. Although the subsidy on milk shipped to cheese factories has been increased by 30 cents per hundredweight, few 
cheese factories exist; and although the theory behind this move, which is that of switching milk from the production of butter, which we cannot sell, to the production of cheese which we can sell, is correct, unnecessary hardship is being caused.
I suggest that the Department of Agriculture aid butter factories that wish to change to cheese production, by providing through other government agencies the necessary credit for such changeovers. This would go a long way toward alleviating the immediate hardship and toward achieving the end result desired, which is decreased butter production and increased cheese production.
Mr. Speaker, there are approximately 10,000 Mohawk Indians living on two reservations, Caughnawaga and St. Regis, located within my constituency. These people are extremely dissatisfied with the present Indian Act, to the extent that less than a dozen voted in the last general election. The application of the same rules and regulations to Indians living in Montreal suburbia and to Indians living in the Hudson bay marshlands is absurd and antiquated. I shall go into this subject in greater detail at a later date, but let it suffice for the moment for me to state it is to be hoped the government will undertake a complete revision and modernization of the Indian Act.
The question of nuclear arms has special significance to the population of the counties of Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie. At Champlain, New York, 1,000 feet from my constituency; at Mooers Forks, one and a half miles from my constituency; at Ellenburg Depot, one and a half miles from my constituency, and at Chateauguay, New York, two miles from my constituency are located four hard site offensive Atlas missile sites. The location of these sites, 300 feet underground and within 35 miles of approximately 2 million Canadians living in the Montreal region, guarantees the immediate total destruction of those counties, together with the population of the Montreal area, within the first few minutes of a nuclear conflict regardless of whether Canada remains neutral or otherwise.
To the population of my constituency it makes absolutely no sense to be complaining about defensive Bomarc missiles 300 and 400 miles away from population centres when offensive missiles exist on their very doorstep, guaranteeing their annihilation in the first minutes of any war. Because we sit in the very shadow of those offensive weapons I think we realize better than many Canadians why Canada must co-operate completely in any defensive measures which will make war less likely.
The members of the New Democratic party have argued that Canada can only have an

effective voice in the world, especially among the so-called uncommitted nations, if we refuse to have anything to do with nuclear arms, but surely is it not our special relationship with our southern neighbour which gives the voice of Canada a special position in the world chorus? If this special relationship deteriorates because of our unwillingness to co-operate in the defence of this continent which we share with the United States, then surely the voice of Canada becomes less effective, whether it be in the councils of disarmament or in expounding the view of the uncommitted nations on a particular subject.
This parliament is facing many difficult problems. The right hon. Prime Minister has already indicated that he is tackling these problems energetically and decisively. I would hope that in solving these problems we would not fear taking good advice from our adversaries, and that our guiding formula will be that for each problem a solution exists which is better than any other. This best solution can be found if we gather adequate facts and undertake proper analysis.
Finally, I would hope that once this best solution is determined it will be put into effect without fear-should it mean more government control or planning-of the myth that all government control and planning is evil; and if the particular solution should lie in less government interference and the encouragement of private capital, I hope it will be effected without fear of hurting the feelings of our socialistic friends.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, as is customary I wish to say it is a pleasure for me to extend my felicitations to you and the other hon. gentlemen who have the privilege of occupying the chair. I express these words with a sincerity which is no less than when I conveyed my congratulations personally. I know that the judgment from that quarter is in good hands. I also wish to compliment the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Although I cannot agree with everything they said, they did justice to the task that was given them.
I notice, Mr. Speaker, that on the list of speakers for today we have the hon. lady from Winnipeg South (Mrs. Konantz), whom I certainly look forward to hearing. Although it may not be evident to the hon. lady, I have noticed that she is a very distinguished person and has deported herself well since her arrival in this house. I might say that she bears a certain resemblance to the first hon. lady to sit in this House of Commons, one of my predecessors. I think the opportunity that awaits the hon. lady from Winnipeg South is much greater than awaited my
The Address-Mr. Winkler predecessor-although she will do well to equal her performance-because I recall very well that when the Liberal party decided that Miss Agnes Macphail had occupied her seat for too long, at the time of redistribution the stroke of a pen eliminated her for all time from this house.
As other hon. members have stated in their maiden speeches, I too, after my fourth election to this house, appreciate the honour bestowed upon one so humble as myself in being sent here as a representative of my constituency and of Canada. I hope the hon. members who have made such eloquent addresses will not be disillusioned in the years to come by their participation in this chamber. Certainly this has not been the case so far with myself, and I hope this attitude will not change. I came here in 1957 to represent the people of my constituency and, indeed, all Canadians. I came here to represent all those in my constituency regardless of their political affiliations. I have endeavoured to do this justly, wisely and to the best of my ability. I hope this will remain in the minds of hon. gentlemen who have delivered addresses in this chamber for the first time.
I note, however, regrettably that the old signs of patronage are already becoming evident. This is regrettable when we realize that this is the machine which ran our country prior to 1957. Indeed, just the other day-and I regret that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is not here-we noted the first of these acts in the removal of Brigadier John H. Price from his position at the United Nations, where he had served Canada well and in a distinguished manner. I can only suggest to the members of the government that this will do nothing but harm to our status in that world federation. I regret this. I do not hesitate to suggest that this type of action is becoming evident within the limits of my constituency. Since my entry into this chamber there has never at any time been any member in the government service from my constituency who has not had my support. This applies to any institution of or any position in the government which is within the boundaries of Grey-Bruce.
However, I have now noticed so early in the life of this government that it is becoming evident that the old machine that was very creaky from disuse is getting some oil at the necessary joints. I regret to see this. Not only is it happening in my constituency, but we have had evidence of this in other quarters. I warn hon. gentlemen opposite, particularly those who occupy the back benches, that they would do well to see that such practices are not again put into effect as they were prior to 1957.

The Address-Mr. Winkler
It may be that the new era of Liberal control suggested in the Globe and Mail of May 23 is becoming a reality. The article in this newspaper is headed "A tighter rein on the Liberals". I believe that such a tight rein ruled prior to 1957, and as I have said, this is once again becoming evident. I do not believe that the Prime Minister himself is responsible for this, but it is under the direction of his chief lieutenant, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill). Under his control all these things will be enforced. I also believe that the program and strategy that was used to bring the Prime Minister to his present high office was directed and controlled by the Secretary of State. I shall attempt to prove this in a very few minutes.
Before I get into the area of that argument, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the constituency I represent is probably the hub of the furniture industry in the Dominion of Canada. I recall that in the days prior to 1957, even with the protection of a 22i per cent tariff these people had a very difficult time competing with the big industrial machine of our neighbour to the south. The 22J per cent protection was not enough to discourage imports into this country, and as a result this industry was placed in a very depressed condition. Through the actions of the Conservative government these people realized full employment and prosperity. They had never seen such prosperity. When I hear of the free trade program which is likely to come into being, the slashing of tariffs, I can only say to my constituents "Beware", because this is the warning I put forward during the election campaign. Even with this tariff this industry does not compete very well now, even though they have spent millions of dollars to bring themselves in line with automation and current day production methods It will be an even more difficult thing if this tariff is tampered with for these people to stay in business, as was the case prior to 1957.
However, there is one glimmer of hope which I would extend to the people of my constituency and any other constituency which has this industry within its bounds. That is that the Prime Minister has made a statement -and I have it here-to the effect that we do want some exceptions. I will hang my hat on that very small nail, hoping that when this new program becomes effective the Prime Minister and his government will see that this industry does not pass into oblivion, as we expect will be the case with other smaller secondary industries.
My constituency is also partly rural, and this causes me to consider the activities of the government in regard to that smaller agricultural industry. They are taking a great


deal of joy out of the fact that they are now saving $6 million from the payment of subsidies to milk producers. We all realized that something had to be done, but I do believe this has been done to the disadvantage of the small farmer, the man we decided we would support. These people, too, come into the same category as the industrial furniture workers to whom I have referred. My job since I came here has been to stand up for these people in the smaller income categories, and I will continue to fight for them until they say they do not want me any longer. But at the present rate it will be a long, long time before they say that.
As I suggested earlier, the days of patronage seem to be returning. After what was said prior to and during the election campaign I believe this may be a necessary area for the government to move into, but if they return to their former practices they will be put into the street in short order, because I do not think the people of this country will stand for it very long. One thing I know definitely is that the people of Grey-Bruce will stand behind me with regard to the attitude I have taken toward public institutions and for the efforts I have made on behalf of those in the lower income brackets. That is the way I intend to continue, and I suggest my seat will be very secure if present indications of what might happen do come to pass. I cannot be more specific than that; the ministers concerned will know whereof I speak.
It is necessary for me to say a few things, first of all, as to the economy of the country prior to the change of government. I do not think there is anyone in this country, even in the Liberal party, who would suggest we were having anything but prosperity and good times. Yet the hon. lady from Northumberland suggested we must do something to get the economy rolling. That is a fine thing, of course. I can recall one occasion, last New Year's I think it was, when the present Prime Minister told us that one of his New Year's resolution, if he were returned to power, would be to get rid of unemployment. Canadians, he said, could expect something better out of the economy. Well, he may be right, but he had better check with the Minister of Trade and Commerce; because, speaking in Vancouver on February 20, that hon. gentleman said Canada could never eliminate unemployment. There are a number of other contradictory statements with which the right hon. gentleman will have to deal.
As for the Prime Minister himself, he and his whole party planned to kill the last parliament; they planned to destroy it and bring to an end any co-operation which existed in that twenty fifth parliament. All we have to

do to confirm this is look at what he said in the house on October 1, 1962, as reported on page 74 of Hansard of that date. Listen to this:
We have heard a good deal in recent weeks- a good deal more in recent days-of the necessity of putting the national interests above the playing of politics.
We all know what went on. We know what the circumstances were. Members opposite say there was no obstruction, but we know better. Anyone who sat in this house knows this to be the case. The right hon. gentleman went on to say:
That talk does not come very convincingly to me at least, from those whose concern to avoid an appeal to the people could preserve a state of political weakness and uncertainty such as we have in this parliament today.
In other words he blamed us, in that brief parliament of 1962, because we would not go to the people. I will tell you why he wanted us to go, Mr. Speaker. It was because of a direct design on the part of the present Secretary of State and his minions to destroy the prime minister of the day, discredit parliament and go back to the people on bogus charges. During the campaign the people were told up and down the country that the Conservative government had been spending too much money and was putting Canada into bankruptcy. This statement was repeated time and time again. Yet here is a statement which appared in the Globe and Mail of April 18, 1961, shortly after the Liberal party convention at the Chateau Laurier. It begins:
In promising a miraculous cure for Canada's economic ills, the Liberal party appears to be basing its seven point program of pre-election lures on the assumption that people not only can, but actually want to be fooled.
Well, if the Liberal party ever invoke the promises made at that convention they will see what a broke country looks like in comparison with the good order and high degree of prosperity which existed when the former government left office.
Certainly the former government was ready to spend money. What government with half a brain in its head would not have spent money on coming to office in 1957? There was no one happier to get rid of the responsibility of office at that time than the leader of the Liberal party and those associated with him, and no one more capable to restore conditions of prosperity than we on this side of the house.
Let us look to the United States to see what the situation is there. In the United States, with unemployment numbering 5 million, President Kennedy has proposed to budget for a deficit of $10.3 billion. I think hon. members opposite would be well advised to
The Address-Mr. Winkler realize this, because in view of the promises they have made some definite action will be necessary. The people of this country will probably be looking to a balanced budget. We shall await action by hon. members opposite and see what their magic will be as this program gets rolling.
It will not be for us on this side to obstruct the business before us. I think we have deported ourselves very well already. Certainly the government will have my co-operation in this regard though it is a difficult thing for them, after what they did last year, to realize that anyone in this house can be responsible. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, and the people of this country, precisely what happened. Let us go back to February 24, 1962. When commenting on a speech by the present Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cardin), one of the Toronto newspapers said the activities of the house had reached "a new low level". I do not have to repeat for the benefit of hon. members what was said on that occasion, but it was one of the most despicable speeches I have ever heard. I can recall another occasion when we read the report of a speech delivered in Toronto by the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), in which he called the then prime minister dishonest. I think, too, of December 19 last when the present Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet) was responsible for shouting down the prime minister of the day.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what the plan was. It was a deliberate plan, made years before April 8, to destroy the product, which is Canada, to destroy the nerve centre, which is parliament, and then buy it back cheaply. This was the plan of hon. members who now support the government. I shall wait to see the operation of this patronage pattern take effect in order to have verified exactly what I have said. The people of my riding will get the words of this address, and I am the first to say I will back everything I have said. The government and its supporters may disagree, but we are all too well aware of what happened.
I travel now closer to the present day. I think the Liberal party is indeed fortunate to be manning the government benches on that side of the house. I say this in the light of newspaper articles predicting that the next boom will be bigger than the last one regardless of what government sits in Ottawa. This, I believe, is a *well known fact among economists who have made predictions in the last few weeks. But somebody had to bring our affairs to this point, and it was a government under the direction of the Conservative party which did it. They certainly took into hand the circumstances which

The Address-Mr. Winkler existed in 1957 and brought us out of a recession which the Grits were proud to wash their hands of.
Then I think, Mr. Speaker, of the charges which were made with regard to obstructionism in the last parliament, and how they continued them on the hustings. I suggest that we read the words of an editorial in the Globe and Mail of April 15, 1963. This is the Globe and Mail after the election campaign-and I repeat the Globe and Mail, Mr. Speaker:
But the opposition-
They are referring to the Liberal party.
-did waste some time and did interfere with the orderly conduct of parliament. The country will be in no mood for a similar performance during the coming parliament.
We believe this, and as a result we will certainly not put on the display that these people put on in the last parliament. If parliament reached a low, Mr. Speaker, we all know who was responsible for it, and there is certainly no question about that statement.
Then I think of a few other things which happened in the course of the election campaign. I think of the words of the present Prime Minister when he said on February 6 that he did not expect to see the election result in no party having a very clear majority in the house, but that if it did all leaders would have to search their conscience and come to the aid of their country. That is what he said in answer to a question from a newsman.
Mr. Speaker, after all the instances I have quoted I should think that the report by Mr. Lubor Zink of the Toronto Telegram, would be more apt in this regard. Mr. Zink reported that the present Prime Minister did not win a clear majority, when he and the present leader of the government-that is the prime minister of that day-
-should resign to let the two parties work together for the good of the country.
I have heard nothing of that one, although I realize that the present Prime Minister denied that statement later on. Then Mr. Zink, who is no particular friend of this party, went on to say down the line that one or two more lies would not matter anyway. I do not know what he was referring to, but it was in direct relation to that particular question.
Mr. Speaker, it has become evident that we are not going to be terribly concerned about the economic level of this country unless this situation is tampered with. Therefore, if there is any increase in the number of undesirable areas with which we have to deal in this house, we will also be able to put the responsibility for them directly on

the shoulders of this government; and, as I said, they will have my support so far as this parliament is concerned.
Because the speech from the throne is always couched in generalities we cannot refer to very many specific points. That is the purpose of a debate like this, so that we can deal with a wide range of subjects. The subject which interested me was the reference to a municipal loan fund. I am all in favour of such a fund, and I would support it. But the way the Liberal party has projected this idea is, I believe, somewhat different from what the country would expect. I do not for one moment think the country would expect the Liberal government to stay within their support of Social Credit's interest free money, such as the Minister of Finance suggested last year. I do not think that will be the case. But until I see the terms of this bill I will possess my soul in patience and wait for the bill to come forward.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you why. The winter works program which was projected by the previous minister of labour I believe was superior to the municipal loan fund which is to come forward. The interest rate will have to be extremely low or the municipalities will not be in any different position than they are today. Mr. Speaker, look at the winter works program which was under the administration of the former minister of labour. It contributed directly to the financial support of the communities through the support which we offered to the municipalities if their projects were accepted.
In the final analysis, Mr. Speaker, we will wait and see what the legislative program will be. I am satisfied that as the days go by this party on this side of the house will deport itself and discharge its responsibilities in accordance with what I have stated. We will wait for the legislative program and do our utmost to see that the responsibility of opposition so far as the country is concerned is maintained to a much higher degree in this parliament than it was in the twenty fifth parliament of Canada.
(Translation):


Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin (Drummond-Artha-baska):: Mr. Speaker, last week the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard) and the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) made some rather crafty remarks concerning me. That is why I am participating in this debate. I shall be as brief, concise and calm as hon. members on this side of the house have been in the past few days when they have addressed the house.

However, as I would not want to break well established traditions, it is most natural that I should congratulate all those whom the house has honoured lately.
My riding is one of the most typical and, at the same time, one of the most beautiful in the province of Quebec and in Canada. As everybody knows, it is partly urban and partly rural; it is also typical of the whole of Canada in that it is becoming increasingly industrial and urban.
An American sociologist, Mr. Hughes, looking for the most representative city in the province of Quebec for the purpose of his book entitled "French Canada in Transition", chose the city of Drummondville.
Drummond-Arthabaska is a county where secondary industry, based on the textile and furniture industries, is experiencing all the ups and downs to which it is subjected throughout Canada, and where agriculture, dependant on milk production to a very great extent, is in almost permanent difficulties.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is a county which contains a sprinkling of Anglo-Saxons among a mainly French speaking population. Therefore, the problems raised by the relations between French speaking and English speaking Canadians and by federal-provincial relations take on in this riding an unusual meaning. There is a tremendous interest in those problems.
During the recent election campaign it was even said: as goes Drummond-Arthabaska, so will the whole of Quebec go. Mr. Speaker, you will admit that such a typical riding, such a representative riding must have an excellent representation here and that is what I intend to give in the years to come.
Mr. Speaker, for the next 25 years I intend to frequently talk about the problems most dear to my heart, problems which interest me passionately, problems of international relations, of constitutional law, and economic, social and farm problems.
At this stage of my remarks, I should like to say by the way that I am not an economist. I have the greatest respect and admiration for the economists, but I am not one of them,
I belong to this new category of sociologists called "politologists". This could be a word to add to the vocabulary of this house where the future of politologists is bright because they are already represented in this house by the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett), whom I wish to commend for
The Address-Mr. Pepin her excellent contribution to this debate, and also by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie).
Politologists are interested in everything. Their eagerness to find out things is uncommon, as I hope to show you in the years to come.
In England, we find in the letters to the editors the phrase "student of politics". Well, Mr. Speaker, I shall be, in this house, a "student of politics".
I intend today to talk about things I may know the least, which will give my hon. friend from St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) an opportunity to say, like so many others, that I am talking through my hat.
There is a danger for me in doing this, but it may be the wise thing to do because the quality of my remarks cannot but improve as compared to my effort of today, and the press will be able to say: the young member for Drummond-Arthabaska is improving daily.
I shall refer therefore to an agricultural matter, especially that of the dairy industry, because it is an important problem for all of Canada, for the whole province of Quebec and particularly for my constituency, an important problem also for my party. In the months and years to come, the Liberal party will absolutely have to improve the agricultural situation in the east. That is a must, if we are to establish the equality we hope for and want between eastern and western farmers, that equality which did not exist in the past, as can be easily demonstrated. We shall try to remedy the situation. That is why, in the speech from the throne, great importance is given to the appointment of a minister of agriculture for eastern Canada. And yet some members of the opposition have ridiculed the idea.
There is no question of impoverishing western farmers but simply to better the lot of eastern farmers. A formula used recently by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) about GATT can be taken up again here: a balance of advantages is imperative.
Here is something the hon. members for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot and Nicolet-Yamaska could do, they could convince their own colleagues of the importance of that matter, instead of wasting their time laughing at those who, like me, consider it very important.

The Address-Mr. Pepin


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska is putting into my mouth words that I never said. I did not deal with that matter concerning the Minister of Agriculture in my remarks on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. In all fairness, the hon. member should withdraw his remarks.


An hon. Member:: Prove your allegations.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The concept of absurdity that I was emphasizing stems from the manner in which the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) asked something from me. (Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I do not think the hon. member has a real question of privilege, and I would wish that the hon. member now speaking might continue. (Translation):


Jean-Luc Pepin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Clément Vincent: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska said that the member for Nicolet-Yamaska was trying to ridicule the members of the government.
(Text):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I do not think the hon. member has a question of privilege.
(Translation):


Jean-Luc Pepin: The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska tried to ridicule me because during the last election campaign, I asserted that I would be the first to knock on the door of the new department of agriculture for eastern Canada. I did so even before the appointment of the minister; furthermore, not only was I at the door, but I was actually inside the office.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I never stated that the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska said these things during the last election campaign. It is rather after the campaign, once he was elected, that he asserted he was going to sit on the doorstep of the new department of agriculture for eastern Canada. La Parole printed his words 15 days after the April 8 elections.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. If I may say a word on the point of order, it seems that certain hon. members opposite feel that they are entitled to interrupt an hon. member who has been elected to this house for the first time merely because they differ with things he has been saying in his speech. As Your Honour knows, that is not according to our rules. If an hon. member feels that anything said in a speech

is contrary to facts relating to him, he has the privilege of getting up and making a correction at the end of the speech but he has no right whatever to Interrupt an hon. member without the consent of the hon. member concerned. I would hope that all hon. members would recall this, and that Your Honour would not be put to the inconvenience of rising constantly to remind hon. members of it.
(Translation):


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is what we call a tempest in a teapot.
So I intend to deal with the decision made by the government on April 29 last to cancel the 25-cent per 100 pounds subsidy on milk that is paid to processing plants. Why this decision? Why the cancellation of that subsidy? To fight the very detrimental effects of the subsidy policy of the previous government, that led to the stockpiling of 200 million pounds of butter in warehouses. This when the federal government had the opportunity to sell cheese, powdered milk and casein, when it could have sold on the foreign market between 5 and 6 million pounds of cheese, when half our consumption of fancy cheese was imported. So we had to give this policy a new direction.
The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska- you will excuse me if I refer to him-says that he is in favour of planning, but as soon as action in that direction is contemplated, he condemns it, probably because he is selfassertive. In my opinion, he has not yet discovered the meaning of that word.
Our purpose was therefore to guide production, to discourage butter production without weakening it, to stimulate cheese and casein production because there was a market for those products.
Why did we act so fast? Why was a decision taken in four days? I wondered myself. The answer is that the Agricultural Stabilization Act required a yearly revision, otherwise we would have gone on producing butter and, adding to the 200 million pounds I mentioned before.
If we had pursued the policy of the previous administration, at the end of the year the members of the opposition could have told us: "Where is the planning the Liberal party was talking about?" And they would have blamed us for not taking that decision at that time.
It is also important, Mr. Speaker, to point out that such a decision was taken with the agreement of the representative dairy producers' organizations, the Catholic Farmers'

Union, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the National Dairy Council, the Canadian Milk Producers Association. All those organizations supported that step. This is giving a commendable importance to intermediate bodies, to representative organizations, in matters concerning them.
Now, what have we done on April 29 to promote cheese production? We maintained the support price for cheese at 32J cents and we raised stabilization grants from 25 to 30 cents per hundredweight of milk going into Cheddar production. Then, as far as cheese production is concerned, we thought that fancy cheeses were able to move along and find their own way to the domestic and foreign markets.
On the other hand, so that butter production might not be unduly affected, the government deemed it proper to increase the 12 cent subsidy paid previously on every pound of butter to 14J cents per pound of butter fat.
That is a point on which the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska disagrees with the experts other than himself. He claimed that such a decision would result in a loss of $817 for every parish in his riding. And everybody knows now that there are 32.
It seems that the calculations made so carefully by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska is erroneous. He makes his calculations on the basis that 100 pounds of fat are equivalent to 122J pounds of butter. Now, according to experts from the Department of Agriculture, this is not so. There are 100 pounds of fat on an average for 121 pounds of butter. In my riding, some even say 117.
I do not think it is necessary to appoint a royal commission to determine which experts are right. If you multiply 100 pounds of fat by 14J cents, you get $14.50 whereas 121 pounds of butter at 12 cents gives $14.52. Therefore, it comes to the same thing.
As far as powdered milk is concerned, it is true that the 25 cents stabilization subsidy has been abolished but the government will buy large quantities of powdered milk with the result that prices will go up. It will pay 11 cents a pound for it instead of the current price of 8 cents or 8J cents a pound.
Such a step should bring about a price hike as the newspaper La Presse stated on May 24, 1963:
It follows that while producers will lose the subsidy on processed milk, they will benefit from the rise on the price of powdered milk and the companies and co-operatives will increase the price of processed milk accordingly. Experts feel that
The Address-Mr. Pepin this increase will compensate for the loss of the subsidy.
As far as casein is concerned, a product used for the manufacturing of plastics, we export it to the extent of 90 per cent. Therefore, a subsidy of 10 cents a pound will work to the advantage of the producers.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the butter, cheese and milk producers will have to let their suppliers share in the advantages they get. I am glad to be able to quote from a letter I received this morning from the Granby farm cooperative:
If you compare the price paid in the last two weeks of April to the price members will get for the first two weeks of May, you will see that for those periods there is no difference in our case. The price for milk has not changed-
Mr. Speaker, is that a good policy? It is held to be good by the experts and the organizations concerned. At least, it is better than what was going on before, when the heap of butter was left to grow and grow.
I honestly believe it is too early to judge. The days to come will tell us what the results of that policy will be. No doubt there is room for improvement. We are the first to deplore the fact that this initial step the Department of Agriculture had to take for eastern Canada cannot please everybody.
But what does that prove? Well, it proves the need for a minister of agriculture for eastern Canada, to look after the interests of eastern farmers.
It also proves the need for a global policy, a comprehensive policy for eastern agriculture.
It also proves the need to find new uses for milk, whether it be the fattening up of school children or the fattening up of livestock. I apologize for putting both in the same category.
It proves among other things, as the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott (Mr. Ethier) said, the need to improve agricultural conditions.
It proves the necessity of an over-all agricultural policy, a rational one, and especially of a policy concerning feed grains.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, it is not enough to have vision, or visions, we sometimes need prevision. Sometimes we must do some planning, and we just inherited the situation created by the lack of agricultural planning of the previous government.
374	HOUSE OF
The Address-Hon. H. J. Flemming
I would have liked very much to talk about other questions which have been dealt with in this house. I would have liked to express my personal ideas on constitutional problems and the importance ol a bicultural commission, and above all on the importance of bilingualism in the federal administration.
I would also have liked to talk about that administration school which was mentioned by us Liberals during the election campaign. I would have liked to say that this school should be a non-government university school, a federal-provincial school, that it should not only be joint but also bilingual. I would have liked to discuss also nuclear weapons.
This being my first speech in the house, I felt that it was more important to contribute to a reform of parliamentary procedure by being brief.


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


Jean-Luc Pepin: Go ahead.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Does the hon. member think that the abolition of the subsidy of 25 cents per hundredweight of milk will be detrimental to the farmers, especially in districts like mine where there are very few cheese factories.


Jean-Luc Pepin: According to my information, the "Co-operative agricole de Granby" also takes its milk in the Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm area.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Not all of it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The facts I have put on the record also apply to the hon. member's riding.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Not a large quantity of milk.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I did not inquire from all cooperatives.


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. member from Drummond-Arthabaska. The hon. member has just mentioned a surplus of 200 million pounds of butter. Could he tell us whether his constituents have a surplus of butter or whether they run short of it sometimes?
(Text):


Hon. H. J. Flemming (Victoria-Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate I assure you it is more than just an amenity to congratulate you on having been chosen for the high position which you presently occupy and to wish you the greatest degree of satisfaction in that position, because I am sure those are the sentiments of your many friends in this chamber. May I say also


that those sentiments apply equally to the Speaker and the chairman of committees.
At this stage I should like also to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. This is the first opportunity that I have had to congratulate them. I feel that they performed their duties in a way that would bring satisfaction to their constituents, and I am sure they brought credit to themselves in this house in the process.
I would like now to mention that the speech delivered by His Excellency the Administrator, contains many suggestions which are thought provoking to all in this chamber. But Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who believe that a nation is only as great as the people who compose its citizenship. I am one who believes in the development of the individual. I believe in the encouragement of his creative instincts and his desire to accomplish things. I believe in the encouragement of his desire to work, and his ambition to acquire a stake in his country, his native land, as a result of effort, long hours of work, and determination.
The talented hon. lady who moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne stated categorically that we have moved from an individualistic society to a collectivist society, and then she proceeded to state that the Liberal party is quite prepared to accept that proposition. I shall quote her own very words:
I think the party, or most members within the party at any rate, are prepared to accept this growth toward a collectivist society that we have witnessed and furthermore-and this is even more important-are prepared to accept the argument that such a society can simply not be selfregulated, that such a society does require direction and guidance from the main institutions that the people have to help them, namely governments at all levels, municipal, provincial and federal.
I submit that the question can properly be asked, where does this put the Liberal party? How far to the left does it bring it? In my opinion it brings it close to the socialist camp because I assume the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) expresses the policy of the Liberal party.
It is my opinion that direction and guidance should go from individuals to government, and not from government to individuals. I am unable to agree that we have completely moved to a collectivist society, but I am prepared to acknowledge that the throne speech contains indications of future action by this government which may lead to the condition she envisages as having arrived. Let me first state that governments by their action and by their emphasis can contribute to the development of the individual, or otherwise

but I believe that the individual, by his or her accomplishments, should be the foundation of our society.
The function of government is not to make people happy, but to create the opportunity by which they may make themselves happy. In several places in the first part of the throne speech there appears the word "opportunity". It refers to new opportunities and expanding opportunities, and I like those words. It is good for people to consider that it is opportunity which is important to all of us, to our society, to our young people, indeed to all our people. In this connection I wish to quote two paragraphs from the throne speech:
You are deliberating the course of our country in times of great change throughout the world. These are times that test old virtues. They are times that open up new opportunities. Familiar ways of thought and action are becoming less certain guides. The task before us is to seek out. with wisdom and imagination, those new paths that will lead us surely forward.
No one in this chamber could disagree with that paragraph. The next paragraph reads:
As Canadians we can work with hope. Our country has a proud history. Now there are expanding opportunities open to us. But they depend on our overcoming serious problems. It is only with courage and perseverance and hard work that we will achieve the better life 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.
Mr. Speaker, in seeking out the new paths which the throne speech states will surely lead us forward, it is my contention that we cannot discard the old virtues and the old attributes which have contributed to our progress, both individually and as a nation over the years.
There is much in the new which we should acquire. This is in fact the Conservative philosophy-the preservation of all that is useful of the past, and the acquisition of the new ideas that make for progress. Those were the guiding principles of the Conservative government from June 1957 to April 1963, a period of nearly six years. Let us look and see what happened during that period of time.
I have before me a condensation of what took place under various general headings. Dealing first with the gross national product, under the Conservative government it increased from $30,500,000,000 to $40,400,000,000, an increase of 32.74 per cent in those six years. Labour income increased from $14,800,000,000 to $20,300,000,000, an increase of 36.72 per cent. Personal income in 1956 stood at $21,800,000,000, and by 1962 it had risen to $30,700,000,000, an increase of 40.70 per cent. Retail trade in 1956 totalled $1,192,000,000,
The Address-Hon. H. J. Flemming and in 1962 it was $1,455,000,000, an increase of 22.06 per cent. Steel production, which is sometimes used as a measuring stick for development in any nation, rose from 5,301,000 tons to 7,174,000 tons in the same period, an increase of 35.33 per cent. United States tourist expenditure in Canada rose from $309,000,000 in 1956 to $510,000,000 in 1962, an increase of 65.04 per cent. Overseas tourists spent $28 million in 1956 as compared with $50 million in 1962, an increase of 78.57 per cent, and the number of U.S. tourists who came to Canada increased from 27,700,000 to 31,700,000, an increase of 14.44 per cent.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are the accomplishments of a government working with the philosophy I have just mentioned, the philosophy of keeping what is good of the old and picking up what is useful of the new for progress in the future. The results which I have read are tremendously impressive and, as I say, they are the results of Conservative government.
The speech from the throne also states that the ministers will expand Canada's export trade. I can tell them how to do it. Let them just consult the Leader of the Opposition as to how to accomplish this since, under his government, the excess of imports over exports prevailing when the Liberals left office was completely eliminated. From a figure of $713 million unfavourable balance on merchandise account in 1957, the position was changed to a favourable balance for 1961 of $173 million, and for 1962 of $155 million. If you add the two figures together you will find the net difference was close to a billion dollars in that period of time.
I suggest to the government that the intention of setting up more departments, more boards and the establishment of more ministries and councils is something which is not acceptable to the people of Canada who have the responsibility of paying the bills. The proliferation of bureaucracy is something which in my opinion should be frowned upon and not encouraged. The funds for the payment of much needless duplication must come from taxes and the apparently forgotten man, the taxpayer. There is in Canada today an opinion that there is more volume of bureaucracy than is necessary. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) might tell the house what the annual cost will be of the various departments, boards, councils, etc. forecast in the speech from the throne. In his budget speech he will be obliged to tell the house where he expects to find the money to pay the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I now wish to refer to unemployment for a few minutes. All hon. members will agree, I am sure, with the speech from the throne when it states that this is
37$

The Address-Hon. H. J. Flemming the most urgent of our domestic problems. Much has been said about it in this debate, and we are all concerned about this problem. I am convinced that in the final analysis there is only one method of attacking this problem which has any chance of being successful; that is, for government and industry to tackle the problem by working together at it. A solution will not be found by setting up more and more government departments. A solution may be found by encouraging industry to create employment. A man who works for industry is a producer. In this connection may I say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe quite impressive progress was made between the years 1961 and 1962. I find that the labour force in Canada between those two years increased from 6.5 million, in round figures, to 6.7 million, which is an increase of 2.8 per cent. I also find that during this same period employment for all months on the average increased by 4.1 per cent. This is the comment which Canadian Business Service Limited makes in this connection:
Reflecting the sharp increase in national output, employment rose by 4.1 per cent to 6.3 million thus exceeding the 2.8 per cent increase in the labour force by a considerable margin, with the result that the number of unemployed dropped appreciably from an average rate of 7.2 per cent of the labour force in 1961 to 6.4 per cent in 1962.
Mr. Speaker, the minister of labour of the previous government is in his seat, and I think he deserves a major portion of the credit for that improved result. This government has announced its intention of expanding its bureaucracy. It is my opinion that they should make more use of the many splendid men and women now available in the public service, rather than adding to it. There is too much tendency in government to establish entities which compete with private enterprise, too much application of Parkinson's law, too little use of services which could be performed by private industry, too much tendency to be competitive with industry, too little tendency to be co-operative.
I find that among some influential people in government service there seems to be impatience sometimes almost bordering on contempt of free enterprise and private industry. Where there should be a tendency to encourage, there sometimes seems to be a desire to hinder. Where there should be a tendency to be conciliatory, it sometimes seems there is a desire to be tough. Where there should be a tendency to co-operate, it seems to me there is very often a tendency to compete. I consider that the private enterpriser is entitled to the respect of the government, who is his partner and in many


cases receives about 50 per cent of his profits. While on the subject of profits, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that in my opinion it is profits which are responsible for the payment of bills for the many things which we consider important. None of us would ever receive a cheque for services were it not for taxes resulting from profits. I think the word "profit" should be one of the most highly respected words in the English language. Moreover, it is the measuring stick of an efficient performance. It takes no ability to spend government money. It takes no ability to spend any kind of money, for that matter. Anyone can do it; I can do it. But it does take ability to conduct a successful business, make profits and pay a large percentage as a contribution to general public expenditure, welfare costs and other activities. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said regarding unemployment, that it is by co-operation and not competition with private industry that governments can have any hope of grappling successfully with the existing situation.
But what do we find this government proposing in the speech from the throne? We find them proposing two ministers of agriculture, and the transfer of the administration of the wheat board to the Department of Trade and Commerce. Are we to assume that this means a tremendous increase in personnel, with the substantial costs resulting from it? They propose to augment the Atlantic development board, already set up with a representative of each Atlantic province, with six extra members. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this is a definite political gimmick designed to clip the wings of the existing personnel when it comes to a vote. I wonder how the Atlantic provinces Liberal members can possibly favour this, because if they do it represents their acceptance of the principle of divide and conquer, which was in operation as long as I can remember until the coming into office of the Diefenbaker government in 1957. I will have a little more to say about that when the resolution is before the house.
I take exception to the use of the word "strengthen" in the speech from the throne referring to the Atlantic development board. They should have used the word "lengthen" because that is all they are doing; they are just going to lengthen it to a membership of 11. So far as the capital fund is concerned, I submit that this compares most unfavourably with the plan envisaged by the original act. I submit that the government has no right to delegate the spending of $100 million or any other amount without coming before parliament for approval. The act as originally constituted and passed contemplated that all the resources of Canada would be at the disposal

The Address-Hon. H. J. Flemming and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Des-ehatelets) had confirmed that federal assistance would be available for trunk roads.
My comment is this: it appears strange that announcements as important as these and having such extensive financial implications would not be made in the House of Commons rather than in the Saint John Telegraph-Journal, even though the latter is an excellent newspaper. Perhaps the Prime Minister will explain.
The speech states that the ministers have undertaken to establish a comprehensive system of contributory pensions. This is simply carrying out an expressed intention of the previous government and I have no hesitation whatever in saying that I favour it strongly, as I did when our government was considering it. I favoured it strongly then. The very fact that the present government is carrying out .our expressed intention is most satisfactory and pleasing. The plan suggests contributions by people at an early age, contributions which would continue until the retirement of those concerned. I would point out that this is an encouragement of thrift and saving, two of the old virtues mentioned in the speech from the throne. We shall await with anticipation the submission of the details.
In conclusion, may I submit to this government the admonition that they will do extremely well if, in future, they maintain the progress made by their predecessors. They might well adopt the slogan, "Continue to go forward" as we were going forward prior to April 8.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the honourable and amiable member for Victoria-Carleton would permit me to ask him one question. The question is this: the hon. member drew attention to the possibility of a new department being set up. Has he forgotten that the previous government asked this parliament to set up a new department expressly that he might be appointed to it, and appointed him to it before he had been elected to this house?


Hugh John Flemming: It is easy to answer that question. Usually the Secretary of State confines himself reasonably closely to the truth, but this time he is nowhere near the truth. That was not done. I made no request and, as my leader knows, there is no basis for the assertion which has been made. There is no foundation for it whatever.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman mean there is still no basis for the Department of Forestry?


Hugh John Flemming: I do not
mind answering these foolish questions, though I am surprised a minister of the crown should be asking them. Of course there is a need for a ministry of forestry. But the hon. gentleman implied I had asked the prime minister of that day to set up a department, and that is absolutely untrue.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know the hon. gentleman very well and I am sure he does not want to misrepresent my words. I did not suggest the hon. member asked for it at all. I am sure he did not. I asked him whether he had forgotten that the previous government had set up a department expressly for him and appointed him to it before he was elected to this parliament. I know that the hon. gentleman, like myself, is far too modest to have asked for it.


Mr. Marvin Gelber (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in making my first speech in this house, I do not feel among strangers, having been associated with many members in public endeavours for some years. The historic role of this house must impress all who sit here, and particularly those of us who are most junior resolve to use its privileges and perform its duties with responsibility. May I add my word of congratulation to you, Mr. Speaker, upon your election to high office, and to the Deputy Speaker, and to the deputy chairman of committees. For her thoughtful speech in moving this motion, and for her skilful presentation, I would like to say a word of congratulation to the member from Northumberland (Miss Jewett) as well as to the member from Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) for his able speech of seconding.
The riding of York South is marked by many things, but none more intriguing than the list of those who have been defeated for election to this house. I speak from experience. A right hon. gentleman, twice prime minister of this country and leader of his party, made his last stand for public office here. Brilliant parliamentarian, centre of many a national storm, Mr. Arthur Meighen did not pass the testing ground of York South. The victor of that day was to meet defeat, when the much beloved Mr. Joseph Noseworthy came, left and came again to this house. With a record over many years, Mr. William Beech has given much service and matched his two wins now with two losses. My immediate predecessor, my friend, Mr. David Lewis, a leading trade union lawyer, made his mark as a debater in this house and now adds York South to his losses. This is one of the anomalies of the party system. Elected, but never defeated, the Hon. J. Earl Lawson served as minister of national revenue.

And now that the subamendment and the amendment to this motion have been lost, redistribution, as mentioned in the speech from the throne, will probably see a rearrangement of this constituency, which runs from Oriole parkway at its easternmost tip to Jane street on the west. Its 63,000 voters represent an important cross section of achievement, not only in the two municipalities but in the wider metropolitan Toronto, in the affairs of the province of Ontario and in many things across this broad country. In government, industry, commerce, trade unionism, banking, the professions, the arts and education, the people of York South are well represented.
This electoral district consists of the village of Forest Hill and most of the township of York. At one time the township included the area between Scarborough and the Humber river. To attend a council meeting involved almost an entire day of travel. The fragmenting of this area into a series of municipalities has helped create the problems of metropolitan administration. The present township within the boundaries of York South is largely residential, while the main roadways afford extensive retail shopping facilities. Some important industries are located along its northern fringe. The village of Forest Hill constitutes about one fifth of the riding, and has been carefully planned to maintain its special character for residential living. It is well known for the high standard of its public educational system.
This government has given notice that it will introduce a number of important bills with a view to increasing the rate of economic growth. In order to achieve this result we must deliberately plan to reach ascending economic plateaus. Forward economic planning of such comprehensive proportions can only be the responsibility of government.
In the past we have lived with certain national illusions. For one, it was assumed that no matter who was in power we would automatically receive good government. With the ins or outs the prospects were equally good, it was said. The future of Canada was assured no matter how well we did our part. This optimistic illusion is now exposed. We must work hard with wisdom, patience, courage and imagination, to meet the many problems which confront us and assure for Canada days of more fruitful prospects and better realization. Economic myths have been no less embedded in our national being. Somehow we would always achieve that rate of growth which would take care of our many problems. A passionate controversy over responsibility for monetary and fiscal policy destroyed one illusion in recent years that bewitched those charged with high office.
The Address-Mr. Gelber
At the heart of our economic problem is the rate of capital investment, and the speech from the throne lists measures which show that this government will accept, as it should, responsibility for ensuring a sufficient flow of investment to maintain an adequate rate of growth. But the private sector remains the largest, and in some ways the most important area of investment. I was interested in the criteria outlined by the hon. member from Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) in this house the other day. I agreed with him as far as he went, but has he not oversimplified the problem? Our objectives must certainly be towards full employment and towards a higher standard of living for our people. But these two do not necessarily go together. In order to achieve both, we must improve and develop the productive capacity of this country through more efficient plant capacity and we must increase the capability of our labour force by investing in those skills that a developing economy will require. We must be particularly mindful of all these things since we, more than others, work in an open economy. The rate of growth here is intimately and directly associated with our international trading relationships. It seems to me that we must add to the criteria of the hon. gentleman in formulating an economic program for Canada.
To ensure a sufficient rate of growth we must maintain a climate of investment congenial to those whose capital commitment is necessary. This cannot be based on caprice or on short-run objectives. The investor has his choices, and we must so provide a framework of profitability and confidence that we attract an adequate flow of capital. But we are much concerned not only about the quantum of investment, but also about its quality. We must offer greater inducements for greater productivity. We want an adequate rate of growth, but not a lopsided one. The problem of inflation must also continue to be of concern.
In the over-all planning for Canadian economic expansion the budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) will be watched with special interest. The remarkable recovery of western Europe underscores both the importance of planning and the agreeable acceptance by the private investment sector of reasonable goals set out in a national program. The success of the European common market has set up special problems for Canada. A strong and prosperous western Europe is certainly a Canadian interest. I was particularly interested in the statement made in this house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) upon his return from the commonwealth meetings and those of GATT. The possible polarization of trade in the

The Address-Mr. Gelber Atlantic community around separate European and American axes would set up a threat to the leadership which the west must give to the whole tree world. The proposals of the Kennedy administration which are aimed at turning the European common market outwards are of great concern to us here.
Historically we have sought in European markets, principally British, to build a sufficient surplus of payments to meet our deficit with the United States. What happens to the other two sides of this triangle is vital to us. We must seek a place in the accommodations which are made. Certainly our present imbalance cannot persist. It is our labour which is being discriminated against, because the more we process our materials the greater are the obstacles of the U.S. tariff. Will the new patterns of trade be adequate to our needs? Will they provide avenues for the emerging states of Asia and Africa? The struggle for Atlantic trade patterns is also a political struggle and much of what we have taken for granted in our relations with our allies will have to be examined critically. There are new challenges, new issues, new opportunities for statesmanship and this government is particularly rich in the needed skills and endowments.
In the ceaseless search for world peace, Canada must maintain the friendliest association with her allies and must maintain the most cordial relations with all nations which seek to secure the international rule of law. This has not always been so. We particularly prize our association through the commonwealth with new states, which give us special approaches in Asia and Africa. Support for the United Nations is the touchstone of our foreign policy, and we give what aid we can to settle international differences by conciliation. Our diplomats are in the forefront of this struggle for peace and understanding.
In a world where starvation is the primary fact of life for more than half the human race, we cannot be unmindful of the needs of underdeveloped countries. We can assist them to solve their problems, and we have contributed to all the multilateral programs of the United Nations. Our major effort has been through the Colombo plan, and it seems to me that such bilateral programs provide the basis on which Canada's international economic assistance plans can be most readily increased. The argument is often made that defence appropriations impoverish foreign aid in competition for the national dollar. This view is too easily spoken and the problem not examined sufficiently closely. There is much that we can do within the existing economic context. A most likely field is in

the export of know-how. The new nations are most deficient in technical skills, and this aspect of assistance can be expanded if we offer reasonable inducements to Canadians who might be prepared to make careers in this new field of foreign service.
Addressing the international law association at McGill University some years ago, Mr. Dag Hammarskjold suggested that the United Nations should establish a corps of international civil servants. Men and women prepared to serve the underdeveloped countries would have the security and the career prospects which such a corps could offer with the support of the contributing national governments.
International careers are not opening up; they are becoming more restricted for Canadians. With the increase in membership at the United Nations, which we welcome, the number of jobs available to Canadians is becoming less and less. By opening this additional avenue the United Nations itself can become the vehicle for a full career of international service.
In lieu of this forward looking action by the United Nations, Canada might consider providing within its civil service specially recruited and specially trained people who would be available for posting abroad on attachment to governments needing their assistance and where such aid has been specifically requested. A portion of the cost must be paid by the recipient countries in counterpart funds. The great record of the Indian civil service and similar administrative agencies suggests that a role, now sought by newly independent governments, could be provided for Canadians to serve as others have served with great distinction, people proud in their traditions but modest in administrative and technical skills.
Our commitment to NATO is our most binding international engagement. As a signatory of the NATO pact we were undertaking to play a role in the affairs of Europe in peacetime which in two world wars we had shown to be our national interest. But Europe itself has not stood still. The entente between France and West Germany, which would have been considered impossible earlier, provides opportunities for new co-operation. The coal and steel community foreshadowed a successful trading association with Italy, France and West Germany together with the Benelux countries. This poses a problem for Britain and for those like Canada who have an important stake in British trading prospects.
The rebuff to Britain administered by France is of wider import than trade bargaining. It is political, and political in the most

serious meaning of that term. Nuclear power, not agriculture, is the issue.
Events are moving swiftly and we must be continually examining and re-examining our relationships. American nuclear supremacy is almost too easy an answer for giving military strength to NATO. Britain's special relationship to the United States, particularly in matters of nuclear policy, makes her specially suspect to General de Gaulle. When he says Britain is not sufficiently mature he means she is specially favoured.
NATO is tested by the struggle to establish three centres of nuclear power and nuclear technology within the alliance. The decentralization of control over some of the elements does not satisfy the demands with regard to the command problems of the alliance. German participation raises special anxieties.
Just as NATO itself intimately associated Canada with the defence of Europe, the new struggle is opening the door to an even more closely knit political relationship of Canada to western Europe. A new Europe has emerged and we must ensure that it unites us and does not set us apart. We may look to wider Atlantic horizons to find in some larger constellation a solution to our problems which arise in part from the very success of our efforts. In this developing Atlantic community we may yet look to resolve some of our present problems of trade and defence. But this does not diminish our concern for our wider trade relationships and our support for the United Nations. The struggle for disarmament as well must be persistent and be pursued with wisdom, tenacity and great patience. The stakes are the highest and our best efforts must be engaged.
Canada is moving because we choose to move. But the world about us is moving even more quickly. The optimistic, the automatic, the easy roles were illusory in any case, and we have been carried forward in a bound of good fortune. We have to assess our position critically and wisely. We have to conserve our forces of strength, of which national harmony and economic prosperity are among the most important. In association with our friends and allies we must seek without pause to resolve these problems of the greatest perplexity to advance the interests of Canada and of all mankind.


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforf-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Speaker, Deputy Speaker and deputy chairman of committees on their election to their high offices. In congratulating the Speaker may I say that I was indeed very pleased that he was the one who received the call. In his 28902-5-25
The Address-Mr. Rapp previous experience as chairman of the public accounts committee, of which I had the honour to be a member, I know that he did a magnificent and impartial job. I should also like to congratulate the mover (Miss Jewett) and seconder (Mr. Choquette) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I wish them well, with but one reservation, only during this parliament.
In taking part in the debate on the speech from the throne I should like to say from the outset that it is not my intention today to speak so much on what was mentioned in the speech from the throne but rather on what was not mentioned, and in particular a matter that received such great publicity during the election campaign. I refer to the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag.
As a preliminary I should like to say that at times I feel I should be the last man in the house to speak on a Canadian flag or, more specifically, on the red ensign. To me a flag is not just a piece of cloth on a pole. To my mind it is a symbol of what the country stands for.
I may be the only one in this house who has had the misfortune to live under more than one flag and I also realize I may be the only one here who has ever had to live under the flag of the hammer and sickle. I recall one sunny day in November, 1929, when I looked for the last time on that flag and, as is always the case when one comes to the end of a road or a span in life comes to a close, all the past appeared before me. All the things that happened under that flag, the revolution, one of the bloodiest in human history, all unfolded before my eyes. Under that flag there was to be built a community where democracy was supposed to be restored, where freedom, liberty and, above all, equality, would be given to all the people of that country.
I lived through those times but I also lived to see later times when millions sought to flee from this so-called democracy. I also lived to see the time when under that flag the revolution subsided and the so-called newly restored freedom, liberty and equality turned out to be farther from the grasp of the people than ever before. I also lived to see the day when under that flag dictatorship reached the highest point of despotism ever experienced anywhere in the world.
Human rights and freedom disappeared under that, flag while, at the same time, millions of lives were sacrificed to uphold the flag and all it stood for. As a result of this revolution millions of people looked for refuge under other flags in other countries such as Canada, and other freedom loving countries in the world.

The Address-Mr. Rapp
I was one of the more fortunate ones who succeeded in emigrating to another country, in my case to Canada, and I well recall stepping on Canadian soil and being able to see for the first time the Canadian flag which stood for principles quite contrary to those experienced under the flag of the hammer and sickle. I was also aware of the fact that under this Canadian flag thousands of Canadians had fought and given their lives to preserve freedom and democracy as we know them today, all symbolized in the Canadian flag.
The question arose in my mind: Will we now as new citizens achieve our desire for freedom and the democratic rights which are so dear to our hearts? Will we be allowed to become Canadian citizens? After 34 years in Canada I must say, Mr. Speaker, that Canada has lived up to all our expectations. I will always be grateful to this country for what it has done for me and my family. Canada has earned high respect and esteem throughout the world under this Canadian flag. Canada is a country to which many would like to come if they were only allowed to do so.
An incident which I will never forget happened only a couple of years after we came to Canada. This was the time when our first child had to attend school. Coming from a country where the schools not only served the purpose of education but also served the ends of indoctrination with the communist idea, it was a great satisfaction to us to see the union jack flying over our country school. I knew then and there that this was not going to be a place where our children would be indoctrinated with the ideologies of communism, fascism, or nazism. I can only speak with the highest regard and esteem of the Canadian educational system. It is available to all who have the ability, the will and some means. It was available to my family in abundance.
When we hear so much about the free education the people of the communist countries are supposed to enjoy, I often wonder if people are aware of the other side of the coin. I refer to the fact that you are nothing more or less than a tool of the state, and after the state has given you your education, it takes possession of you. This is not the case in Canada, as everybody knows. When the question comes up concerning a new distinctive Canadian flag, I will always recall the first time I looked upon the union jack and realized the things for which it stood. Latterly, of course, the red ensign, which was adopted on September 5, 1945, stood for all these things.
I am not the only one who is concerned with this issue of the flag. Many new Canadians will also be concerned with the question

of a new, distinctive Canadian flag, since all of them at one time or another lived under another flag. Undoubtedly the question will arise in their minds as to whether this new flag will be one which will stand for the same high principles, the same rights and privileges that have been afforded to Canadians of whatever race, creed or colour, as those which were available under the old flag, a flag under which Canada grew to the position of high esteem in which she is held by all the countries of the world. As a result of this national issue before us, all Canadians will search their hearts and souls in an attempt to find the right answer to the question of whether or not Canada should have a distinctive Canadian flag or retain the red ensign. An answer must be found and a decision must be made.
As I said at the outset, perhaps I should have been the last man to speak about the Canadian flag. My purpose in speaking, however, is only to enumerate the high principles for which Canada stands now, and for which she stood in the past, all symbolized in our Canadian flag. However, should the time ever come when this house decides to adopt a new Canadian flag then, as one who believes in democratic majority rule I would accept this decision and swear my loyalty to Canada under this new, distinctive Canadian flag of whatever design. At the same time, however, I should like to be around when the old flag, the red ensign, which to me is the free flag, is lowered for the last time. I should like to pay my last tribute to it, to touch it for the last time and then wipe away a tear or two because of my affection for the old Canadian flag, the only free flag I ever knew in my life and the flag by which Canada is known all over the world.
(Translation):


Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate you on the occasion of your appointment and to deliver my speech as if the Speaker himself were in the chair, because that is how it was prepared.
I am pleased to join with all those who have spoken before me in this debate to offer you the habitual congratulations upon your appointment to the office of Speaker of the House of Commons. I do so with pleasure and sincerity, the more so as I have had the privilege of knowing you outside the house and of appreciating your qualities of heart and mind.
I do not intend to compete with Demosthenes, in a flight of oratory, first because I would be hard put to do it and then because I see no point to it.
The debate on the speech from the throne will soon reach its eighth day and I doubt

that the administration of the affairs of the country, which has been entrusted to us, is further advanced than on the second day. I shall therefore refrain from giving my cooperation to this chronic standstill which paralyses us lawmakers. I know that one must suffer great pains to give birth to great ideas but heroism must not be extended to the point where one gets to be fond of those pains.
I could spend much time analysing the speech from the throne to bring out its flaws for the delight of the opposition and the confusion of government members, but previous speakers have done it for me during the first days, and I think that the government has suffered enough while the opposition has rejoiced enough.
I could also speak in praise of my con-situency and of my political heroes, but the Sherbrooke riding cannot be described; you have to know it to appreciate it and I heartily invite all hon. members of this house and their friends to come to see us. The tourist industry in my region would be thankful forever.
As for my heroes, I will not even mention their names because you would not accept them and it might make some people laugh.
To make sure that this brief contribution on my part does not sink into negativism, I should like to repeat a suggestion I made in the last parliament to the effect that this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne should be made shorter. My first thought would be to do completely away with the whole debate following that speech since the same topics have to come up again in our discussions on bills. But I think such a change would be too drastic, because we must provide some opportunities for politicians to show off their talents.
But so as not to break away from traditions too abruptly, I feel sure that we could set a maximum of three or four spokesmen for each party represented in this house and no one would suffer from that, certainly not our electors. Those speeches could take the form of a legal debate and the speakers taking part after the leaders would discuss only new developments instead of going back over the same stories all the time.
That way, Mr. Speaker, I am sure this debate would have come to an end several days ago and we would now be discussing legislation instead of just quibbling.
I thank you for bearing with me, and I apologize to the hon. members for monopolizing such precious minutes.
28902-5-254
The Address-Mr. Prittie
(Text):


Mr. R. W. Priilie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, may I join the others who have spoken in this debate in congratulating you and your deputy upon your election to your high office. I should like also to congratulate the members from British Columbia who were appointed to the cabinet, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Nicholson) and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing). The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources represents the riding immediately adjacent to mine and is a native of Richmond. I congratulate him upon his appointment.
I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) on her speech in moving the address in reply. I was very interested in the content of that speech, and it seems to me that the tiny group of liberals in the Liberal party have a new recruit. I would be very interested to know her reaction to the speech made last Thursday by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) in which he advocated the sale of crown corporations and expressed some fear about the growth of the collectivist society. I should also like to know the reaction of the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Nicholson) to that speech as he remembers, with understandable pride, his part in the creation and operation of the Polymer Corporation.
I would remind the hon. member for Northumberland that when she becomes disillusioned with the role of a liberal in the Liberal party that we have room-in fact lots of room-in the New Democratic party for liberally minded people. She can just keep that in mind.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Lots of room-period.


Robert William Prittie: Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few hundred words to the many thousands which have been spoken on the subject of bilingualism and biculturalism. I am not sure that the term biculturalism has been defined in precise terms as it relates to Canada today, but I think it means that the French speaking citizens of Canada demand that the French fact be recognized in Canada, as it is in the province of Quebec at the present time, and to a limited extent throughout the federal legislature, federal courts and civil service.
It is stated in the speech from the throne that the government will foster the spirit of co-operative federalism. I believe that term "co-operative federalism" was publicly used for the first time at the founding convention of the New Democratic party in 1961. Both the program and the constitution of our party recognize the bicultural and bilingual character of all Canada. I do not think this recognition in our party program and constitution is

The Address-Mr. Prittie the result of the wisdom and foresight of the English speaking delegates to that founding convention. Rather, as I recall it, it was the Quebec delegation which forced the issue, and I remember one Ontario delegate remarking, when the matter came up for voting, "What the devil; let us vote for it if it makes them happy". I think that remark typifies the thinking of many English speaking Canadians. They bear no ill towards French Canadians. Quite the contrary; but they wonder what the fuss is all about. They simply do not understand why French Canada is angry at the present time, but the discussion which has been taking place during the past year has helped to inform them on the subject.
I suggest that to condemn all English speaking Canadians for the dissatisfaction of Quebec and the French speaking residents of other provinces, is a mistake. The average English speaking Canadian who lives in Halifax, Toronto, Brandon, Calgary or Vancouver is not responsible for whatever economic exploitation there has been in Quebec. He did not write the British North America Act. He is not responsible for the composition of the federal civil service, so do not blame him for all these things.
It may have been necessary on the part of the people of Quebec to overstate the case in order to be heard, but I think they have now achieved a result in that the rest of Canada is listening. I suggest the average English speaking Canadian is willing to listen, and he will listen much more readily to those who speak in moderate terms than to those who speak in extreme terms on this subject. It seems to me it serves no useful purpose to speak of ultimatums, a last chance for confederation or even, as the premier of Quebec did, of the state of Quebec.
I may say quite frankly I am critical of the press, but in this particular case I think they have done a fairly good job in recent months in reporting this subject. In my own area the Vancouver Sun sent one of its editorial writers to Quebec, and he has written a good series of articles on this subject, trying to explain to readers away out on the Pacific coast just what is the root of the controversy. Having said that, I can state the New Democratic party endorses the proposed royal commission on biculturalism.
More than that we agree there should be a reconsideration of the tax sharing agreements between the federal government and the provincial governments, but here I would add a word of caution and say that, while we believe the provinces do need sufficient revenues to carry out their proper functions of government, we do not want this carried to the extent that the federal government will be seriously weakened, because it too has very

serious and heavy responsibilities. We will also want to see the continuation of the equalization formula which has been in existence for a number of years.
If we are to remain a united country, and not just a collection of almost-autonomous provinces, it is essential that some of the revenues collected in the richer provinces be distributed to some of those provinces which have less than an average income. There has to be a great deal of compromise on this question of the allocation of revenues.
Mr. Speaker, while we endorse the proposed royal commission and believe it can serve a very useful purpose, we think there are a number of steps which could be immediately taken by the federal government without waiting for the report of the commission, particularly in the case of bilingualism. I should like to make a few personal comments on that point. None of us expect that Canada will be completely bilingual at any time. Far from it; but we want it to be more bilingual than it is now. In most cases this means that the efficient teaching of French should be encouraged, and we feel more use could be made of instruments now available to serve this purpose.
For example, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has done quite a good job in this field in a rather limited way, and I imagine the reason was that it was limited by funds. I refer particularly to the series of programs carried for the last several years under the direction of Professor Vinay of the University of Montreal, the series called "Speaking French." It is an excellent form of instruction and I would like to see more of it both on C.B.C. television and radio.
I would also like to see some C.B.C. French outlets in parts of Canada which are not now served by the French network. Last year I made a plea for a French language outlet on the lower mainland of B.C. I suggested a low power relay station, a relatively inexpensive type of installation. In the lower mainland of B.C. there are approximately 50,000 people of French speaking origin, some of them Canadians, and some who come from France, Belgium and Switzerland, but at the present time they have no radio service in the French language. The establishment of low power relay stations in several parts of the country could carry the French network to places where it is not now heard. This is something which could be done without waiting for a royal commission. It just requires the allocation of funds to the C.B.C. and then it can do the job.
As one who has been on both the receiving and the giving end of language instruction in Canadian schools I know just how bad

38S
and tedious it has been. In past years students in the English speaking provinces have had to suffer through a great many French lessons that were very dull and overly bookish, but there are now available modern techniques which can make language instruction much more efficient and interesting. I refer in particular to the installation of language laboratories in schools. They can do this kind of job much better than it has ever been done in the past, and this is one type of federal assistance to education which might be quite acceptable. Special funds might be made available to the various departments of education, which in turn could allocate them to school boards for the installation of language laboratories, not only for the teaching of French where that is necessary but also for the teaching of English in parts of the province of Quebec. This is a practical measure and I know that many school boards would like to do it, but they hesitate because the cost of these laboratories is quite high.
Apart from the measures which the federal government can take on its own to promote bilingualism and biculturalism in Canada there are certain actions which can only be taken by the provinces, particularly in the field of education. I understand that one of the demands of French Canada is that instruction in the French language be available in provinces other than Quebec. Personally I agree that this should be done wherever there is a sizeable group of people to receive this instruction. But I would suggest to those who are advocating this step that they be patient and prepared to go slow on it. It is one for which they will have to wait, I think, until public opinion in the provinces changes somewhat. Even in the province of Ontario I noticed last fall a sharp reaction, I believe it was in Scarborough, when demands were made to the separate school board-a board which one would think would be quite sympathetic-for more bilingual instruction. I think this will come, but its advocates should be prepared to be rather patient. Finally, Mr. Speaker, on this particular topic of bilingualism and biculturalism I think the point has been made and English speaking Canada is now becoming aware of the problem. They want to see an improvement, but there are those who think as I do-and I think my views are shared by many in English speaking Canada-in wishing to retain Canada as a unified country. We do not want a collection of, as I said, almost autonomous states in a very loose confederation. I think we can achieve a more bicultural nation and still retain a strong Canada.
I was rather disappointed that there was no mention in the speech from the throne of
The Address-Mr. Prittie aid in education, and particularly for universities in Canada. This subject has come to the fore in the last day or so while the Canadian universities federation have been in Ottawa presenting a brief to the Prime Minister. They have asked for federal grants of $300 million in the next three years. These grants amount to a great deal of money. I know that the hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches are besieged with requests for help, all of which call for the spending of money, but some things are more important than others. Certainly the financing of university education is one of the most important considerations at the present time. The funds available through the Canada Council in the form of university capital grants are certainly not sufficient. There was only $50 million to begin with and that sum has been considerably reduced. I think this is a matter upon which the federal government will have to take a stand very soon. They do pay certain operating costs, but what is required are capital grants for the construction of new colleges and universities.
I have a general and a particular interest in this topic. My particular interest arises because it was announced recently that a new university, to be called the Simon Fraser university, would be built in Burnaby, specifically in Burnaby-Coquitlam. This university will be on a magnificent site. It will be the third provincial university in British Columbia, and it will be a very expensive undertaking. The provincial government will have to do their part. I would agree right away that the present government of British Columbia does not do the part it should in the financing of universities. I hope we can expect more help from them. Certainly, unfortunately, the students will have to meet part of the cost, but if the university is to be built, federal assistance will be necessary. We do not ask for any special consideration but we hope we may share increased support in the form of capital grants for all universities.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I noted with pleasure that in the speech from the throne there was reference to the establishment of a municipal development and loan board. This has long been advocated. It was advocated by members of this party as far back as the early 1950's and possibly before that. However, we are not concerned with who advocated it but we are very pleased that something is to be done about it. As one who spent several years in municipal life on a municipal council I can appreciate the problems facing people in local government trying to meet the costs of urban expansion. Therefore I shall look with great interest at the detailed legislation on this particular topic. There were a number of

The Address-Mrs. Konantz other proposals in the speech from the throne which I think show promise but with regard to which we must await the detailed legislation in order to pass final judgment upon them.


Mrs. Margaret Konantz (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, as a new member of this house I have been sitting here for eight days listening to other hon. members telling about their constituencies. Most of these constituencies have been either in Ontario, Quebec, the maritimes or British Columbia. For this reason I thought it was my duty to let hon. members know about the area I come from, Winnipeg South, Manitoba.
First, sir, through you I would like to congratulate the Speaker on his appointment. I know, from what I have heard in these last eight days, that he will always show great fairness and clear judgment in all our debates. We are indeed fortunate to have you, sir, as our Deputy Speaker, as we are the deputy chairman of committees. The appointments have been excellent. I would like to take this opportunity of thanking the hon. member from Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) for the very kind things he said about me in this house earlier this afternoon. I only hope I can live up to his expectations. I want to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. As I listened to the hon. member from Northumberland (Miss Jewett) I was reminded that I, too, had connections in her constituency for, sir, my great grandmother first settled there when she came from Scotland. She and her husband had been given a beautiful farm by her father. Then, too, I thought of my grandmother who, as a bride leaving a lovely part of Ontario, travelled across lakes and up rivers by canoe with her husband, a Hudson's Bay factor, to Norway House which is situated at the most northerly end of lake Winnipeg. I have her diary, and in it she describes the skill of the Indians as they handled their cargoes through the rapids and over the portages into this rugged territory. Those were truly pioneering days.
Mr. Speaker, there are only two of us with the government to represent Manitoba. I must admit we Liberals had hoped during the campaign that there would be more and I can assure you there will be after the next election. However, I can guarantee that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet) and I will do our best to hold the fort, so to speak. And I believe we shall be capable of doing this, for I must remind you, sir, that the minister is a descendant of a great man who held the territory which is now Manitoba for Canada back in the years of 1869 and 1870, while I myself, as a descendant of the first
[Mr. Prittie.l
governor of the Hudson's Bay Company, a man who developed the tremendous area of Rupert's Land, feel that my roots go deep. Our pride in our ancestors has made us both determined, and we will always fight to a finish. It seems extraordinary that we two, coming from such a background, should be representing the territory where years ago French and English stood side by side to defend Fort Garry and the little community across the Red river against the penetration of the fur traders from the south. Today we two, French and English, stand together to work for our people. I am sure my hon. friend and I will prove to other hon. members that French and English can work together with great harmony and understanding.
My constituency of Winnipeg South is a large one in which 114,000 people live. It is primarily an urban area. It might be interesting to hon. members to know that in this one federal constituency there are five provincial ridings. All these provincial seats are held by Conservative members of our Manitoba government; three are cabinet ministers-our attorney general, our minister of trade and commerce and the minister of labour. I can assure you, sir, that it took all my courage, a woman, to go into this territory to try to win this seat for the Liberal party. It was achieved only because of the magnificent job that was done by over 2,000 workers under the excellent guidance of a brilliant campaign committee. Here, I must pay tribute to my opponent Mr. Gordon Chown who was the hon. member for Winnipeg South for the last two sessions and deputy speaker of this house last year. My family and his family have been friends for many, many years. It was indeed unfortunate that the two of us should be candidates in this constituency of Winnipeg South, but then I was trying with my people to take this seat once again for the Liberals. I have been told that Mr. Chown through the years gave excellent service to his party. I know he was very well liked in this house, and that he will be missed by his many friends.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to say much about my constituency but I do wish to say a little about the people I represent. Their ancestors came first out of ships from Hudson's Bay, then by the long river route of the fur traders and as Selkirk settlers. These people knew the hardships of frontier life-wars between fur traders, floods on the Red river, massacres, cold, hunger, loneliness. Being so isolated they developed their own ways of life, their own thoughts, their own independence.
With the C.P.R. railroad reaching this frontier town of Winnipeg in 1881 came the

great surge of settlement. People from all over Europe brought their skills, their culture, their experience. These people were so far away from any other centre in Canada they were forced to make their own amusement, develop their own interests in music, dramatics, art.
The growing of grain brought the first wealth to this part of Canada and I believe that this made everyone very conscious about business in other countries. World wide interests were developed, so today you find among the people of my constituency the fierce energy of the pioneer, a kind of informality that was first found at our early forts, a gaiety that has come down through the years, a people with a forward look, and with a world wide feeling. I am proud to represent these people. I am not bilingual, but 1 found that as I went around the constituency during this last campaign, I was able to meet new friends in three languages- but with an appalling accent-simply by saying "bonjour", "au revoir", "buon giorno", "arrivederci", "slava esusu khristu".
I can assure hon. members that the people of south Winnipeg will welcome the proposals set out in the speech from the throne. They will be particularly interested in the municipal development and loan board which is to finance municipal works projects; in the Canada development corporation which will channel savings into industrial growth, and in the economic council to be set up to develop more employment and more efficient production. In addition, they will be interested in the proposal to set up a new department of industry because, like so many other parts of Canada we, too, have suffered from the ills and causes of unemployment.
The people of Winnipeg South will welcome the proposed amendments to the National Housing Act and the setting up of a national contributory pension plan. The establishment of a commission for the redistribution of commons seats will definitely affect Winnipeg South, for here it takes three to four city votes to equal one rural vote. As one who was thrown into an election campaign without any political experience I welcome the review of the Canada Elections Act which is foreshadowed. We of the west are a practical people and I believe our elections are too expensive and the campaigns too long. They try the patience of the voter, and in my opinion our election machinery could be modernized.
The setting up of a new committee on parliamentary procedure is an excellent course to follow. This committee would, I realize, be one of many which have been named in the past but I would like to think that our present members will be strong enough to
The Address-Mrs. Konantz see that the findings will be put into effect. Surely the time has come when the business of this house can be streamlined.
A study of biculturalism by a federal-provincial commission set up for that purpose is obviously needed. All French Canadians should feel at home anywhere in Canada.
Plans for the Canadian centennial celebration will give every Canadian a chance to work together for projects that will have real and lasting value. I urge our government to give the leadership that has been so badly needed at the federal level during these last two years.
There is one problem which concerns not only my own constituency but constituencies all over Manitoba, and I feel I should draw it to the attention of all hon. members.
That is the proposed move of the Trans-Canada Air Lines maintenance and overhaul base from Winnipeg to Dorval. There is a long history behind this proposal, and it would seem that through the last five years the government and T.C.A. while saying one thing did another. I do not intend to discuss the details here but I urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcllraith) and his department to delve into every angle of this problem before any decisions are made. One thousand of our most highly skilled craftsmen and mechanics and their families would be involved in such a move. Did anyone in the previous government think twice of how such a move would affect these people? It would involve the giving up of their homes, their environment with their friends and relatives they know so well, uprooting their children in the midst of their education, transferring them all into an area so different in every way to what they have known. Surely these people must be given some consideration. T.C.A. is recognized as a good air line but it does not operate on the same terms as a privately-owned venture. It is government-owned and supported by public funds. Surely the federal government should have a definite say in its policies. The Minister of Transport knows that there will be a delegation to protest once again, with representation from our provincial government, the municipalities, business and industry and the trade unions and workers, indeed I could say our whole community. I am confident that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) will carry out the pledge he made to the Liberal candidate for Winnipeg South Centre during the election campaign, that "a new Liberal government will immediately clarify the position of T.C.A. in the light of the full facts which up to now the government has obscured or suppressed."
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) for the statement he made before this house

The Address-Mrs. Konantz last Friday on the two meetings that he attended in London and Geneva. I was particularly interested in what he had to say about expansion of trade to developing countries. You may not know, sir, but I have been closely associated with the United Nations association in Canada for the last seven years. In order to learn more about the work of the United Nations beyond the general assembly I have had the privilege of being able to travel, first through the Asia region of the children's fund under the auspices of UNICEF. This took me to Japan, Formosa, Hong Kong, the Phillipines, Thailand, Cambodia, India and Pakistan. I continued on from there and made brief visits in Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. A few years later, with the co-operation of my friends at the United Nations, I travelled for three months through nine countries in Africa, Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa, Rhodesia, Tanganyika, Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia and the United Arab Republic. Quite frankly, it was the result of these two intensive trips that made me decide to enter politics. Between the years 1956 and 1961 I had found that our image abroad had deteriorated to such an extent that I was anxious to do anything that I could to serve my country. This was the time that we needed the leadership of our great Canadian, one who has given this country such service, who is known so well in so many world capitals for his outstanding ability in international affairs. I speak, of course, of the Prime Minister, a man who is so highly regarded at the United Nations, indeed all around the world. He is a man of peace and understanding, a man who already during his short term of office as Prime Minister has brought credit to our country by visiting both Britain and the United States to cement old friendships. I am proud to be associated with a friend that I have known for many years.
There is not time here today for me to go into the many questions relating to foreign aid. However, I want to say I am one of those Canadians who believes that Canada is not giving enough money, enough technical assistance or enough leadership. But I am one of those people who believes that foreign aid must be carefully planned, co-ordinated with other nations and followed through so that the main objectives can be achieved. I have seen the value of the simple community development schemes in the villages of central Africa. I was told that the women of the Masai tribe could never be trained. But I will never forget the day that I saw these women doing a feeding project for the children of their greatest enemy, the Kikuyu, who were starving as a result of the drought.


Again I was privileged to witness the opening of an aluminum plant in Lagos, Nigeria, financing of which had been arranged for between Britain, Canada and Nigeria. After watching the way cargoes were taken from the great ships off the coast of Ghana by outrigger canoes, I understood so well the need for the great new harbour at Tema. Foreign aid is not charity. It is more than good business, it represents a true partnership with those less fortunate nations of the world whose living standards must be raised if the free world is to bring a better life for everyone. I pay tribute, Mr. Speaker, to the Canadian students who have gone to Africa and Asia under the auspices of the Canadian university services overseas. These young people are serving our country and learning at the same time, and I am sure that what the sponsor of this program had to say is true, that when these young people come back from a year or two of living and working in these countries they will be far more valuable citizens at home.
It would seem, sir, that there never was a time when there must be greater understanding between young and old, between all our people, between communities and provinces and well beyond our Canadian shores-an understanding between nations. I pray that I will be worthy of the trust that the people of Winnipeg South have placed in me. (Translation):


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I should like at the outset to congratulate you on your new appointment. I should like also, through you, to congratulate the new Speaker of the house. The new Speaker came here at the same time as I did in 1949. We have always been fond of each other. I have especially noticed his first names: Alan Aylesworth. I remember that, as a child, I had the opportunity, at Pointe du Lac, in my county of Three Rivers, to see every summer the great and very influential politician that was Sir Alan Aylesworth, Sir Wilfrid Laurier's right hand. I remember that Sir Alan Aylesworth used to tell us about his political memories. I am convinced that if he were still alive, he would be proud of the new Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I should like also to extend my congratulations to the mover and seconder (Miss Jewett and Mr. Choquette) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. (Text):
I should like to congratulate the mover not so much for what she said but for the way she said it.
(Translation):
As for the hon. member who supported the motion, I wish to congratulate him for having performed his task with great dignity.

Mr. Speaker, it is not easy, these days, to deal with Quebec and the French Canadians, and to explain what is going on in the province of Quebec.
I know that the bombings by the madmen of the F.L.Q. have spread confusion, but I should like to assure the house as well as all those who are listening that these bombings are the work of only a few who have been condemned by all the associations, by all the people of the province of Quebec endowed with a sound judgment, and even by the most fiery separatists.
There is surely a revolution boiling up in many fields right now in the province of Quebec, but it is a perfectly peaceful revolution, and it can be summed up this way.
The French Canadians want to play a greater part in the economy of the province of Quebec. Nobody can find any fault with that, it is a perfectly natural aspiration. It must even be encouraged by all possible means. There is unquestionably in the province of Quebec a movement, especially amongst the young people, according to which our young French Canadians should play a more active part in the economic, social and political life of the province.
To begin with, there has been changes in the field of education. Under the Hon. Paul Sauve, great steps were made in this field. Under the government led by Mr. Barrette, nine marking pieces of legislation were enacted, while since Mr. Lesage came into power, inquiry commissions have been set up and a real effort has been made in this direction.
There is something quite noticeable right now in the province of Quebec, in the streets or everywhere. When one talks with young people, they show a very real desire to learn, to qualify themselves, and this desire is sometimes reflected in outbursts of impatience.
I wish to point out to the house that this is a very invigorating atmosphere, and one that we shall not be able to destroy.
There has also been great changes in the church in Quebec; perhaps the church was somewhat too traditionalist. But today, there is an extreme liberalism boiling up in this same church. There is a modernism with which we were not familiar before. There is also a certain secularization taking place in the Catholic religion in the province of Quebec.
All this has contributed to create a new mentality among our people.
Unfortunately, that trend which reflects that great desire on the part of the French Canadians to play an even more important role in the province of Quebec gives rise 28902-5-26
The Address-Mr. Balcer along the way to a wave of separatism, a wave powerful enough to warrant our attention.
Two or three years ago, people did not take that separatist movement seriously and, for my part, I felt it was but another one of those short-lived movements which come up about every 20 years. I thought it was politically weak, that is weak in numbers and not homogeneous enough. But today, the movement has become more homogeneous and even turned into a political party.
I must tell you that it is quite strong among the youth of the province of Quebec. That even surprised me. I made a survey among the young people of my beautiful city of Three Rivers and was able to find that, not only among the university students, but also among those in our convents and colleges, that separatist feeling is real.
If we look for an example of that force, we simply have to notice the outbidding which is done at the provincial level towards the separatists. I can give further evidence of the seriousness of the situation. We just have to read the article under Peter Newman's byline which appeared last week in Maclean's magazine, which makes us wonder if, in fact, Mr. Lesage, the premier of Quebec, would not become Canada's prime minister or the president of the Quebec republic. I know that this article by Peter Newman contains a flash of wit but there is also quite a bit of seriousness.
Anyway, it is obvious that Quebec is going to sink more deeply into separatism.
As for me, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the only way we can provide for such an eventuality is to ensure that the young French Canadians who have a great desire to play their part in the economy and in the political life of the province of Quebec, be able to participate as well in the economic, political and social life of the whole of Canada.
And to do that, ladies and gentlemen-I beg your pardon, that was left over from the last election campaign-sacrifices will have to be made on both sides. Besides we are somewhat used to that because it must be remembered that, in the last hundred years, living as we do next door to the American giant, we have had to make sacrifices in order to keep our independence and our sovereignty. We have had to accept a standard of living lower than our southern neighbour's, only to be part of that sovereign Canada.

The Address-Mr. Balcer
If we want to keep our country whole and united, we will have to make still more sacrifices. There is no doubt that our English speaking friends in the other provinces, as well as in the province of Quebec, will also have to make sacrifices. Why? Because they have the upper hand in our country's business and especially in the central state.
The royal commission on biculturalism or bilingualism will undoubtedly do some good since it has been approved. However, it will take two years to present its report. And it is much too long considering the turmoil in which the province of Quebec finds itself at the present time.
Canadians must realize without delay that we, French Canadians, want a change as soon as possible. First of all, Canada must have a distinctive flag without further delay. Even though we urge French Canadians of the province of Quebec to believe in a great and united Canada and to be Canadians first of all and Quebeckers after, they always reply along the same lines: "How can we believe such a state of things, how can we have a national feeling strong enough to believe in a united Canada when we do not have a distinctive flag or a national anthem such as 'O Canada'?" I ask then all Canadians to sincerely weigh the arguments I have just outlined concerning this problem.
At this time, it would be appropriate to make an effort in the field of federal services. As you know, the old question remains to be dealt with. What French Canadians consider most insulting, is to see that they are not proportionately represented in the central administration.
French Canadians do not hold as many senior posts as they should. I think that the best way of rectifying the situation now is to grant to each bilingual person, that is to anybody who has taken the trouble to learn both this country's languages, a supplement of 5 per cent in every civil service examination.
I want to call the attention of the house to a particular point. I would like the cities of Ottawa and Hull to become an essentially bilingual federal district which would really represent the union of both cultures and of both ethnic groups in this country. First of all, there is the needed number of people. All that is required is to create a federal district comprising Hull and Ottawa under a commission where both ethnic groups would be represented in equal numbers. French Canadians from the province of Quebec will then really feel that this is their

country's true capital and will really feel at home here. Such a suggestion would, of course, require some sacrifice, and a great deal of consideration on the part of our English speaking friends.
However, 1 hope that they realize what the situation is at present in the province of Quebec, because it is really a rather difficult one.
Further, our Anglo-Saxon friends, mainly in the province of Quebec, could make true friends among French Canadians by helping to create the impression that the latter may live as successfully in our confederate system as English Canadians.
I now come to the industrial field. I know that some laudable efforts have been made in that direction. However, if we look around us, for instance in the beautiful town of Three Rivers, which, incidentally, besides being certainly the finest city in Canada is also the greatest paper manufacturing centre in the world, where paper is made from pulp-wood taken from crown lands in the district of Mauricia, and where five or six large paper mills have been operating for the last 40 years, we would see that, unfortunately, French Canadians working in those paper mills, who thoroughly know their trade, as they have been employed there all that time, seldom rise above the rank of foreman.
In the last few years, something has been done along these lines, but our effort should be increased. Of course, there are people who say: "Perhaps they did not have all the necessary education and technical preparation." However in that same period, at St. Jerome and Mont Rolland, a French Canadian firm set up a paper mill that was as successful as those in Three Rivers. So I think that in that field, big corporations will have to make sacrifices.
Indeed some people say that these big industries had the necessary capital for that purpose, but I feel that this argument is slightly exaggerated. In fact, I could mention the example of one company that came to Canada with a capital of $1.5 million at the very beginning of world war II; today it has a capital of more than $350 million, because it received financial help from the governments.
As a matter of fact, I am of the opinion that the argument put forward by the French Canadians: "We do not have capital" also has some flaws.
On the other hand French Canadians must be prepared for sacrifices and they must consent to make a serious effort to save and

strengthen confederation. We should not forget that confederation, which has been in existence for 100 years, constitutes a formula which has been of some service to the French Canadians, which enabled our group to develop, maybe not as fast as we would have liked to, but it nevertheless rendered immeasurable services. I am not one of those who pretend that we should destroy confederation, because it does not serve any purpose any longer. Confederation made Canada the great modern country it is today.
When French Canadians ask for changes, they should not forget that we have retained our ethnical individuality through confederation.
Let us remember that while we might feel we face serious problems today as far as saving confederation is concerned, those problems are very minute ones compared to the problems faced by Cartier and Macdonald in 1867.
This is why I believe that the ultimatum delivered by Mr. Lesage, the premier of the province of Quebec, was out of place. In my opinion, it was Mr. Lesage's duty to use that bit of common sense which would have been expected from the present leader of the province of Quebec. Quebec undoubtedly needs increased revenues and there are undoubtedly improvements to be made in the field of taxation, but did not our government increase equalization payments from 10 to 16 per cent in the short years we were in office? It would have been possible to discuss those problems around a conference table, and that is why I am asking the federal government to call a meeting of the representatives of the various provinces to discuss the problem of taxation.
I think everyone can expect Mr. Lesage to come to the conference table, as the representative for the province of Quebec, to get a better tax-sharing arrangement. That ultimatum of Mr. Lesage to the effect that the province of Quebec would get out of confederation if it did not get 25 per cent of taxes, should not have been delivered.
French Canadians have a right to make claims but their requests must retain a sense of measure. We must not forget that confederation was very beneficial to us and that it still is today.
I do not think that the statement made by the minister for municipal affairs, Mr. La-porte, to the effect that provinces had to be sovereign states united into a confederation, is likely to improve relations between the various provinces in Canada or between the two ethnic groups.
Nowadays, we see the European countries, age-long enemies, stand shoulder to shoulder to form the common market.
28902-5-26i
The Address-Mr. Kelly
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely think that if we so wish Canada will live another hundred years as a great country. Sacrifices will have to be made on both sides and federal as well as provincial representatives of the people will have to show great statesmanship. We all want Canada to be a great country. We want both ethnic groups to be able to develop according to their aspirations. That can be done if we go hand in hand, shoulder to shoulder. I am certain that Canada will be a strong country, a great country and that a bright future lies before us.
(Text):


Mr. Leonard P. (Red) Kelly (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether or not it is because I do not have on my skates, but it feels much more slippery here than it does on the ice. I should like to offer my congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, and also to the Deputy Speaker on your election to these offices. I had occasion to get to know the Deputy Speaker a little bit during his first election campaign when I visited his constituency in order to help him in my own small way. I am certainly greatly pleased with the honour he has received in this appointment.
I should like also to congratulate the mover (Miss Jewett) and the seconder (Mr. Cho-quette) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They certainly set a good example and I know that it is one with which I shall not be able to keep up; but I will certainly give it a good try. The position of the Speaker in this house reminds me a little bit of the referee in a hockey game. He has to know the rules of the house and he has to be able to set them out. Some Speakers are a little more rigid than others, and some are a little lenient. Sometimes they have-to hang on a misconduct penalty, as happened in the last parliament to one of the Social Credit members. As a matter of fact the Speaker had to call on the Sergeant-at-Arms to make sure the hon. member went to the penalty box, but I am confident that we will have a little better conduct in this parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I have been a little slow in rising to make my maiden speech. I was not sure whether I should speak right away or wait for a while, but I received so much publicity in the last parliament by not speaking that I could not hope to achieve that much again.
Speaking for the first time in the House of Commons is a rather awesome feeling for a new member. It is not like speaking before an ordinary crowd. We have hon. members who are reading their newspapers, some doing

The Address-Mr. Kelly their correspondence and others get up and leave just before one begins to speak. Then there is the odd one who is catching up on a little sleep that he missed. But seriously, sir, I would like to thank all hon. members of this and the previous house, and all the government staff who have been so kind in offering me their assistance. As a rookie in the house I was pretty green. I still am; but all the people I mentioned have been very kind to me and I would like to extend my thanks to them.
When it comes right down to it, the House of Commons reminds one of an amphitheatre in the days of the Romans when, having concluded your efforts, you look up to the gallery to see whether you get the thumbs up sign.
I first became acquainted with my riding of York West during my school days at St. Michael's College. I used to take the girls out from St. Joseph's and ride the streetcar down to the end of the line where we went dancing at the Old Mill. As a matter of fact we had to walk the last 500 yards or so because money was a little scarce in those days. Since then however the riding has changed greatly. It has become one of the fastest growing areas in the country.
It is bounded on the eastern side by the historic Humber river, on the south by lake Ontario, on the west by the new international airport and on the north by Thistletown and the Albion road. It is really a melting pot in a melting pot, and its population consists of pretty nearly every type of nationality conceivable. It has industries both large and small, approximately 800 in all. Some are Canadian owned and some are subsidiaries of United States firms.
One company in York West with a sales promotion of about $6,500,000 has just expanded into the United States, setting up a branch in Manhattan, New York, right in the heart of the American competition, but with no fear of not coming out on top. I think this is remarkable at a time when we are worried about how U.S. companies are taking over Canadian firms, and when we are worried about how Canadians will fare as we decrease tariffs on exports and imports. I feel this company deserves a great deal of credit. Also in York West we have a first in Canada, and that is pay T.V. I am happy about this, Mr. Speaker, because it gives me an opportunity to appear before my constituents every Sunday night.
As I have said, York West is one of the fastest growing areas in the country. Between the last two elections it showed an increase in eligible voters of approximately 6,000. My constituency is about 116 square miles in area

and holds 100,000 voters. I may say that to represent so many people is a big job.
Because it is a fast growing community we have an influx of many families with a lot of young children, and these children have to have an education. We are pretty proud of the educational system we have in York West, both academic and physical. Academic education comes under provincial jurisdiction, but the physical education is a concern of all Canada, and comes under both federal and provincial jurisdiction. I feel that in the past few years we have become rather lax in regard to our physical fitness, probably because of the many modem conveniences we have which we never had 50 or 60 years ago. It boils down to the fact that we do not get enough physical exercise, and I believe a physical fitness program should be carried out to the fullest possible degree. I might point out, sir, that we suffer from a lack of physical exercise in this house. The only exercise some hon. members get is rising to speak often, but that is not a well balanced program.
I have some comments to make with regard to a Canadian flag and a national anthem. I was raised by my father and mother to honour and respect the Queen and the flag, but I am one of the younger generation and maybe this is why I have some of the feelings I do. In my career I have had the opportunity of travelling a little bit around the world and of appearing before crowds in foreign countries. When my team appeared in public, before our performance we stood in the spotlight and they used to play "God Save the Queen." Of course we stood at attention and we were very proud to do so. But during the last few years "O Canada" has been played the odd time. As I have stood before these people in a foreign country and they started to play and sing "O Canada, our home and native land" I have felt great pride and my chest stood out a little more. They were singing about our land, our home.
All this made me feel we should have a flag and a national anthem. This Canada of ours is young. It is a young land. People are coming to it from many different countries to settle here and be Canadians, and we should have our own national anthem and a flag that is representative of all of Canada.


An hon. Member:: The maple leaf?


Mr. Kelly:: There was a little criticism about the length of the speech from the throne but I feel it is not the form but the quality that counts; and the legislation outlined in that speech, if put into effect, will be good for the country. In addition it stated that more legislation will be introduced later. I

think this is all that can be asked for. If these measures are put into effect the country will be in good shape and Canada will be put where she should be.
One paragraph in the speech from the throne referred to a municipal development and loan board which would provide loans to municipalities for the carrying out of projects to increase employment and improve services. I have talked with the municipal representatives in my riding and those in the surrounding districts. These people are interested in this legislation and are very anxious to receive the assistance provided by it when it is passed by the house.
During the election campaign and after I was elected I was asked, as I imagine most members of parliament have been asked, why I decided to run as a member of parliament. I know that all hon. members feel the same way as myself in thinking so much of Canada and her future, wanting to be part of that future and helping this country grow. I know this is the feeling of all hon. members. However, there was one reason in particular which I should like to mention. I had the opportunity of meeting our Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on several occasions and I admired and respected him a great deal. The more I talked to him, the more I read of his past political history, the more I thought this man could be the tonic Canada needs. I felt he could do a whale of a job for the future of Canada. That was one reason for my running as a member of parliament. Then after I had been in the house for a short time and had more occasion to be closer to him and see him at work, my respect and admiration grew. I think that this government, with its legislation put forward under the leadership of our Prime Minister, will put Canada where she should be.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should first of all like to add my congratulations to those of previous speakers upon your appointment. I should also like to congratulate the Speaker of the house and the other officers upon their appointment. May I also congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I thought they made an excellent contribution to the debate. Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate the hon. member for York West (Mr. Kelly) upon the very interesting speech he made this afternoon. If this is an augury of the speeches he will make in the future, introducing a little humour as he did today, I am sure we will all be very grateful.
As a representative of Simcoe East and a member of this parliament and of the previous Conservative regime I should like to say that
The Address-Mr. Rynard I am more than proud to be a Canadian. I am more than proud to have been a member of previous parliaments, when so much was achieved under a Conservative government.
I think it is well for us all to remember that this is a great country which has done great things. I do not think I can do better than quote from the Ottawa Journal of May 1, wherein appeared an article entitled "A house left in good order". I think that after the election all of us should be proud of the position we occupy and have attained as Canadians. This article in the Ottawa Journal says:
He left-
This is referring to Mr. Diefenbaker:
-a country whose national production in 1962 had climbed 8 per cent to a peak of $40.4 billion-
Mr. Speaker, that is the first time in the history of the western world that any country of less than 20 million people has achieved such a great increase in gross national product. The article continues:
He left him with a country which, after years of trade deficits, had at last achieved a favourable trade balance.
I think all of us, no matter what our political affiliations are, can be proud of the achievement Canada has made in this regard. The article then says:
He left him with a country which, on the testimony of President Kennedy, had achieved a greater price stability than any other western industrial nation.
He left him with a country whose reserves of gold and U.S. currency had been brought to $2,700,000,000-the greatest reached in years.
He left him with a country in which, during 1962, trade had reached an all-time high; in which manufacturing had jumped by 8 per cent, construction by 8.2 per cent, business capital investment by 4.8 per cent, outlays for new machinery and equipment by 8.6 per cent, and consumer spending by 5 per cent.
In short, Mr. Diefenbaker left Mr. Pearson with a country whose people were producing more, selling more, earning more and saving more than ever before in their history.
Mr. Speaker, I do not say this as a matter of politics, but as a Canadian I am proud of what has been achieved. The article continues:
Mr. Pearson has said that he will "get the economy going", "restore confidence".
If Mr. Pearson can "get the economy going" beyond an increase of 8 per cent in the gross national product in a single year, we shall all be grateful to him-
I for one, Mr. Speaker, hope that he can.
The article continues:
But what many must wonder about, in the light of the facts we have cited, is what Mr. Pearson can have in his mind when he talks of "restoring confidence". Was there really any lack of confidence, or reason for lack of confidence, in a

The Address-Mr. Rynard
country which in trade and income and price stability surpassed every other western nation in 1962?
Again, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a Canadian and a member oi this parliament:
We must all hope that Mr. Pearson does well; to wish him well is but to wish well for Canada. But for truth's sake, if for nothing else, let Mr. Pearson and his friends stop trying to give the impression that they took over a broken-down Canadian economy.
Mr. Speaker, there are a few points to which I wish to refer. During the last election, in the campaign promises and statements of the Liberal party were to be found items referring to early tax reforms, a balanced budget, municipal aid and many other things. I should first of all like to deal with the promise made to establish a municipal bank where this meets, of course, with provincial approval, from whom money could be borrowed at favourable rates on the advice of the province concerned. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the previous government had been doing this through the winter works program and by providing money at low rates of interest for the building of sewage plants, waterwork establishments, and so on. The municipalities were also given the incentive that if the work was completed in a certain length of time some of the debt was written off.
The municipal taxpayer is hard pressed at the moment by taxes that are needed to pay for local needs and I am surprised at the archaic way in which we are collecting money from taxpayers at the municipal level, then giving money back to the provinces, which is in turn given by the provinces to the municipalities in the form of grants. I would ask hon. members to consider the cost and the machinery involved in collecting this money at the federal level, giving it back to the provinces, going through all the machinery again and all the people necessary to handle it, then the provinces giving it back to the municipalities after the amount necessary for handling has been deducted.
Today in most municipalities 50 per cent or more of the tax dollar is spent on education. This is very necessary but it occurs to me that the federal government should be making larger grants to the provinces in this area. As we all know, they administer the Unemployment Insurance Act and are responsible for dealing with the effects of unemployment. We also know it has been found in surveys that the ranks of the unemployed are largely made up of those who are uneducated. It seems to me, therefore, that we should use our best efforts in educating people to a higher level, especially if
[Mr. Kynard.l
this will help ease the unemployment situation, as we know from these studies it will. It seems to me the federal government should be accepting a greater responsibility with regard to helping the municipalities meet their education costs. It occurs to me that the federal government did in effect accept this principle when it went across Canada building hundreds of technical schools and accepting 75 per cent of the cost. We should go on from there and help the municipalities cover their education needs.
The Canadian Tax Foundation has published a book called "The Burden of Canadian Taxation" by I. J. Goffman. It divides the people according to three levels of income -those earning less than $4,000, those earning between $4,000 and $7,000 and those earning over $7,000. It is estimated that more than $6 billion a year is collected as taxation by the three levels of government-this survey, by the way, was made in 1957. The federal government takes over $4 billion of this amount while the provincial governments and the municipal governments take just under $1 billion each. Roughly 57 per cent of the five million taxpayers covered by this survey paid 25 per cent of the total taxes collected. They are in the $4,000 and under group. I do not think we should lose sight of this. It is interesting to note that these people contributed about 23 per cent of the federal revenue and 26 per cent of provincial revenue, but that at the municipal level they contributed no less than 34 per cent. This would indicate that the people in the lower income group, the little people, pay more to government at municipal level than they do to either of the other two levels of government. It is also interesting to note on reading this survey that people in the group $7,000 and over pay 40 per cent of the aggregate of all taxes. But this time the pattern is reversed. They pay almost 43 per cent to the federal government, 40 per cent to the provincial government and 30 per cent to the municipalities.
Let us put it in another way. Seventy per cent of all municipal taxes in Canada are collected from those with incomes of $4,000 or less, so any relief in respect of municipal taxes helps the lower income groups first- the labouring man, the farmer, the low income worker with a small family, people who need more help than any other group. These are the men we must be interested in; we must see that their families, their children, are looked after.
It seems to me somewhat archaic that we should not allow any exemptions in income tax in respect of municipal taxation. I think a change in this respect is long overdue.

Similarly, we do not allow income tax deductions in respect of interest paid by a home owner on a mortgage, this is a situation which I believe needs attention right away. In the United States, both municipal taxes and mortgage interest are allowable deductions. Action on these lines would do a good deal to help the small fellow to own his own home and to have a stake in his country.
To follow this theme further, it would seem to me that even without the aid of a municipal bank the chartered banks should, on a well secured loan-the security being, for instance, taxes which are to be paid or government grants due to be received-be able to lend money at a preferred rate of interest. I say this because such loans are virtually guaranteed.
I should like to touch on two other matters briefly. The first is the cancellation of the free testing for brucellosis by the federal authorities. Surely, this is a federal health campaign and in any public health venture the federal government as well as provincial governments should carry a share of the responsibility. Work of this nature for the health of animals has always been under the jurisdiction of the federal government. I need hardly point out that we export cattle to almost every country in the world and that our cattle are considered to be of the highest quality wherever they are sold. I hope the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) will be able to give this matter his attention very shortly so that farmers can have their cattle tested free of charge.
May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, to recapitulate on brucellosis testing, about which I was speaking at the supper recess, this is in my opinion a public health measure designed originally to protect the people from developing the disease, and second, to keep cattle from developing it. Once they developed it breeding programs became severely hampered, and human beings who contracted the disease underwent a long period of illness and convalescence. The loss of young cattle was crippling financially to many farmers. The federal government carried on this testing successfully over the years. Now, at the fruition of this long campaign, it appears that they want to give it up; they want to drop it. I feel that as a health measure this is completely wrong, that the public health
The Address-Mr. Rynard should be protected, and the health of animals branch should continue testing cattle, where possible employing local veterinarians which would cut down the cost of travel and expense. Canada has made great strides over the years in listed and certified cattle. Our cattle have been sold in many parts of the world and have always given a good account of themselves. As a matter of fact, Canada holds an enviable position in this particular field, a fact to which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) will testify. I would hope that he will give this matter his very earliest reconsideration.
I should now like to turn to another matter and to mention briefly the link between cigarette smoking and cancer of the lung. I mentioned this matter some years ago in the house, and since that time mounting evidence has come to light to prove the existence of this link between cigarette smoking and cancer of the lung. The British College of Physicians and Surgeons came out flatfooted last year and stated that cigarette smoking and lung cancer are definitely linked. This year the Canadian Medical Association and the cancer committee of that association have started war on smoking and lung cancer. Surely our federal health department will wait no longer to inform our school children and adults of the dangers of smoking. It has already been stated in an excellent article, I believe by Mr. Burton of the Toronto Star Weekly, that cancer of the lung kills more people than any other single disease. It kills more people than all the traffic accidents and drownings occurring across Canada each year. And once you have contracted this disease your chances of cure are pretty slim indeed. The president of the Canadian Medical Association has stated that this disease has reached epidemic proportions. This suffering and wastage of human life must be stopped. Each day 500 of our young boys and girls in our schools across the land, it is said, commence smoking and many will be condemned to premature death and suffering unless something is done to stop this epidemic of lung cancer.
Mr. Speaker, this is one of the diseases to which we have the answer. It is one of the diseases which starts largely in our schools. To recapitulate, I believe the figure quoted in one of our papers was that 500 boys and girls across Canada start smoking each and every day of the school year. About 100,000 of those children will probably be condemned to death by this disease. Many authors are writing good articles about this disease. There was an excellent article in the Star Weekly and another in the Consumers Digest pointing out the risks and dangers entailed

The Address-Mr. Laniel when one commences to smoke. It is high time that the federal Department of National Health and Welfare joined hands with associations and groups to help bring to the people of Canada not only what is their right to know, but something that may save them from sickness, suffering and probable death.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that it is my sincere hope, and 1 know it is the hope of all Canadians, that the Prime Minister, at the end of his tenure of office, will be able to hand over the affairs of this country in as buoyant a condition as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) handed them over to him.
(Translation) :


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment and would beg you to convey my heartiest congratulations to the Speaker of the house for the honour bestowed upon him.
All members of the House of Commons are happy with the manner in which you have presided over the debates until now. Your sense of justice and integrity are in keeping with your high function and a credit to the constituency of Stormont.
I pay tribute also to the movers of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Miss Jewett and Mr. Choquette), who discharged their duties with ease and spirit.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take part in this debate, because I too wished to express in this chamber the feelings of confidence I have had since the change of government. Moreover, those feelings are shared by all the Canadian people, who for many months had wanted to get out of this period of insecurity and indecision brought upon us by the Conservative regime.
There are two ways to examine the present situation and, consequently, the legislative program of the government, as outlined in the speech from the throne. We can enumerate the legislative measures mentioned, comment upon them and show to what extent they measure up to the expectations of the Canadian people, or we can compare the present situation with the one that prevailed at the opening of the twenty fifth parliament. I will adopt the latter procedure and go back to the 1962 election campaign when the party in power then was on the defensive, trying to justify itself and hoping for even half a victory, wishing to keep enough seats to form a government, even a minority government. They had to cling to power at all costs, forgetting that the people had the right to know about our economic situation and our relations with the rest of the world. I will not
[Mr. Rynard.l

go over all the events but the facts prove that our leaders had failed to assume their responsibilities.
A second party which had been selling soap on television for two years, Social Credit, had certainly built up a clientele in part of the province of Quebec. During the election campaign, they kept on being as constructive and they hammered into the people's minds that they had nothing to lose, that they did not have to understand the Social Credit doctrine and, surprisingly enough, some people believed them. However, they forgot one thing. You cannot forever take a negative attitude and the last election proved it.
The "anti" this and "anti" that campaign lost a lot of speed since last April 8.
Mr. Speaker, it is fun to go to the circus but being part of one is another thing.
As for the New Democratic party, the grandson of the C.C.F. and the last offspring of the P.S.D., it remains as always conscious of its role as a watchdog. There are good men in that party but do they really believe that they will one day form the government of Canada?
As for our party, and here I am still referring to the election campaign of 1962, after a keen contest with the Conservatives, showing their mistakes and their irresolution, as compared to the program that we were offering them, the leader of the Liberal party demanded immediate action and requested a quick convening of the chambers.
We were defending parliament's rights to study urgent problems and we questioned some of the things done by government members.
All those people, Mr. Speaker, came to the opening of parliament on September 27, to listen to a speech from the throne that offered nothing new and a Prime Minister who was often arrogant. Before this Conservative intransigence, we, the Liberals, deemed it our duty to defend the people and we came to the conclusion that at that time the only weapon available to us was to overthrow that government which was considering only its own political interests.
The three other parties have accused us of engaging in petty politics, of refusing to give a chance to the Conservatives, who had not been able to accomplish, with more than 200 members-the strongest majority in the house since confederation-what they claimed

they could accomplish successfully with a minority government, but without even wanting to discuss matters with the opposition.
While the N.D.P. members were seeking to have their leader elected in a by-election and in a province that was not even his, the Social Credit members, saviours of the French Canadian race, were discovering that they had a nationalist mission, among all the contradictions and the endless sermons on a mock money system. They always tried to hold up to ridicule our institutions and our qualified authorities. All the speeches delivered by the member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) during the last election campaign had already been given in the house during that short session. In fact, a journalist wrote in La Presse on January 30, 1963 and I quote:
To have the Social Crediters in the house is too high a price to pay for what we are gaining in terms of bilingualism.
We, Liberals, might not have been in the headlines as often as those who were shouting; we have had perhaps a little more than our share of criticisms, but this does not mean that we have been inactive, on the contrary.
We had taken a decision in the face of the inefficiency of the Conservative government, and, during that period we were preparing ourselves to replace them. Our action was much more positive than certain people believed it was, and today the record shows that we have sought long term solutions to our problems. This can be seen from our program during the last election campaign and from the speech from the throne. It is all very well to be shocked by a unilingual menu at the cafeteria; it is still better to ask that Beauchesne be translated, if this is possible; but what can be gained by claiming Donald Gordon's head? Especially if the system is not changed, or if such an individual is replaced by his like.
Can we infer that a joint Liberal action, even if it is unnoticed, is worthless?
Some people have claimed that Social Credit is positive nationalism; it might seem that way to the Quebec voters, who elected 26 Crediters out of a total of 30. Yet is the speech delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on biculturalism on December 17 not really positive action? And who could have brought about such a broad outlook among the leaders of the Liberal party but the team of our members, people who know how to dialogue, who are trying to understand each other and to act accordingly?
The Address-Mr. Laniel
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to serve my country on such a team under the leadership of such a competent and understanding leader as the present Prime Minister. Besides, several Conservatives are envious of us or have been in the past.
We have all examined the speech from the throne in which we find promising legislation for the future. Let the Conservatives make fun of the 60 days of decision promised by our party. They cannot understand such a thing, it is new to them. They are amazed to realize that the best way to solve a problem is to face it without delay. This is what the Liberal party intends to do within the next four years. Moreover, the Prime Minister clearly stated on many occasions that those 60 days are the first 60 days of decision suggesting thereby that this is only the beginning. We can feel already an atmosphere of confidence, we treat our friends as such, we call things by their names, the word "unemployment" is spoken once again and we are not afraid to use it while seeking the means to check it, especially if we consider that the Leader of the Opposition has finally managed to take a definite stand on the matter of nuclear weapons.
We repeat in this house what we have preached during the election campaign and a part of it has even been mentioned in the speech from the throne. We are ready to assume our responsibilities although it is obvious that we have many problems to solve and that many questions will require much tact.
Mr. Speaker, I admit frankly that there is no magic way of solving the problem of biculturalism but this government has resolved to create an equal partnership between the English speaking and the French speaking people. In the speech he delivered on May 20 in this house, the Prime Minister has shown his firm intention regarding this question and has said that the Canadian entity would progress only through the co-ordinated efforts of each and every one of us.
But you cannot have a bicultural country without having a country. So Quebec, to be Quebec, must be Quebec in Canada.
Such are the words spoken by the present Prime Minister.
As far as I am concerned, I am ready to negotiate and most Canadians feel the same. I am confident in Canada's future, I believe in the possibility of a truly bilingual country where citizens of both major racial groups would have equal opportunities without infringing upon the rights of other minorities.
,398


Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London):: The Address-Mr. Irvine order labour to accept specific jobs in specific communities and at specific rates of pay.
That is what a planned economy means in its extreme form and this is what the Liberal economic council may mean. No government can plan for full employment with any real hope of implementing that plan unless it has some power to order and direct. It might further be contended that even this ultimate form of state planning and state control cannot be wholly effective, for the simple reason that Canada cannot live in isolation; for the simple reason that this country, however the government might seek to direct its economy, will remain vulnerable to economic influences from beyond her own borders.
I am not alone in this thought. The financial community is disturbed by the vague generality of the information contained in the throne speech. Labour too is showing signs of concern. Just as no businessman is willing to abdicate in favour of management by bureaucracy, so it is that no worker in Canada with an investment in home and family life in any community is prepared to sell, to move and to start anew in another part of the country at the dictates of this or any other government.
The throne speech indicates that the government proposes to establish a national development fund. Here again the vague general statement of intention has caused concern in the business community and among financial institutions. For a government that made a campaign boast of restoring national stability, the administration appears to be doing its utmost to accomplish just exactly the reverse.
What is this development fund to be? Is it to be a gigantic government mutual fund, with its resources drawn from the major financial institutions and the small investor? Will this government sponsored agency divert investment funds, again by some form of compulsion? Or, if it offers inducements to big and small investors, then will it in fact compete with its own bond issues? Will it compete with provincial and municipal governments for investment capital? These are questions we would be well advised to ask ourselves and dwell on before we make a fatal step.
The third element in the government's economic program is that of calling for the establishment of a municipal loan fund. Municipalities naturally would welcome an ever ready, ever available source of low cost financing for local projects, and I would like to add here that I am sure the London council would be very pleased with something like that. I have had some experience with them on this subject.

I gather that the government has in mind a revolving fund of perhaps some $400 million, with a forgiveness clause applicable to municipalities that complete works within specific time limits. This at first glance might appear attractive. Indeed municipal governments have long advocated such a federal program. However it should be noticed that the proposed plan appears to be merely an extension of the present government's system of loans, but with the added feature of making a new board the central clearing house for all applications.
It will be interesting to see if the legislation confers any greater benefit upon the municipalities than does the winter works program of the previous government. This was a virtually all embracing program, and it should be remembered that under it municipalities derived a substantial benefit in the federal government's share of the labour costs involved. It remains to be seen if the municipalities will be happier with interest bearing loans than with the shared cost arrangement of the previous government.
Mr. Speaker, the government party's stolen slogan of "60 days of decision" has in fact provided a 60 day honeymoon for the new administration, but the honeymoon is just about over. The government must soon face the harsh realities of living with the inflated promises to which it was wedded in the zeal of an extravagant election campaign. How extravagant it was we already have had some intimation in the throne speech, with its forecast of a multiplicity of boards, funds and bureaucrats. Just how costly all this may be we will, I presume, learn in the budget next month.
The government is committed to effecting a closer balance between revenues and expenditures, and to moving towards a balanced budget.
The Prime Minister in his 1962 campaign promised a balanced budget within two years of assuming office. Presumably this means that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) will go half way in his 1963-64 budget toward striking the promised balance. With the current tempo of the economy he has a favourable tide flowing his way. The house will await the budget as a measure of not only government responsibility in office, but of Liberal responsibility when out of office.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that with the present composition of the House of Commons we are in a position where, if we get down to the task at hand, we should and could have good, sound administration. The members on the opposition side of the house will see to it that this happens. Over the period of the last six years we have enjoyed an economic growth

never before experienced in Canada in peacetime. We are turning the country over to the new government in an extremely sound condition, and I would say that now is the time for us, whether we sit on the east or the west side of the chamber, to put nation first and party second. Let us get together in a spirit of progress and co-operation and get on with the business of running the country. (Translation):


Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with custom and tradition, 1 must first offer my congratulations to the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and also to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Miss Jewett and Mr. Choquette), who have performed their duties so well.
We are undertaking here a task which is most serious. From the start this first session of the twenty sixth parliament has new horizons to contemplate concerning our country's economy.
During the last election campaign, a great many projects were brought up for the benefit of Canadians from coast to coast.
The fact that the responsibility for administering the affairs of the state has been handed over to those who were so pessimistic, as we found out during the previous session, which lasted but 71 days and ended last February, seems to have stimulated them so much that they have become as optimistic as it is possible to be.
Canada's future and the future of Canadians must be considered from an angle which is sufficiently idealistic, even if the speech from the throne is rather vague with regard to the announcements and matters we will have to discuss during this brief session, to give us great hopes for Canada and all our fellow citizens from sea to sea.
Evidently, some things may be more pressing than others. I realize that, following an election, which, like the last one we had, consisted in a rapid attack, where all sorts of arrows were aimed against us in Quebec, who had to take more than we could absorb, we might tend to retaliate. I shall not waste my time pointing out all those barbed and pointed attacks against us. However, let me mention a few allusions made by the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel), who, a few moments ago, mentioned the "funny free money" of the Social Crediters.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that it has been more or less seriously tried to cast discredit upon what the Social Credit party has been advocating throughout the country for many years, i.e. the essential need to revise this country's
The Address-Mr. Perron Bank Act so that money might become an instrument of service in the hands of the shareholders, that is our society as a whole. I submit that nobody in this house has the right to try casting a slight upon us by speaking of "free money", when it is known that, among the many economists who, today, are sitting on the government benches nobody has yet been able to find a formula for reviving our economy. I hope we will be submitted other things than magic formulas, to amuse Canadians in general, and the whole country from coast to coast-formulas which are nothing but a waste of time-to solve this country's problems, which are great and many.
As the member for Beauce, which I have again the privilege of representing in this house, I can speak on behalf of French Canadians, and more particularly those of my own province. I also speak on my own behalf. I do not want to commit the group to which I belong, but I believe that, after the unfortunate events which recently took place in my province, it is high time that we consider, from all possible angles, the various problems which our Canadian society will have to face.
Speaking as a patriotic Canadian, I wish to be well understood by all, tonight.
It is all very well during an election campaign, to try to discredit an opponent, but the day has come now, I feel, to assume our responsibilities as right-minded Canadians and look seriously to the future of our country.
Much has been said about the state of Quebec. There has been much talk about it. In some Quebec circles, people have talked about the magic formula of Social Credit.
But will economists, at least those who are now among the fighting wing of the government party, be able to find something besides the formulas of indebtedness which we have known.
The speech from the throne mentions the setting up of a municipal development board. Will this be done according to the concept of conventional economists, that is by borrowing at 5 per cent to lend to municipalities at 1 per cent? That would only displace the uneasiness, since they should tax indirectly to pay the heavy burden of interest that we already have to repay on the huge amount of indebtedness we have all over Canada: federal, provincial, municipal and school debts.
As a Quebecer, I know something of the problems of our beautiful province. The indebtedness has no end. The critical economic

The Address-Mr. Perron situation in which they struggle at all levels of administration of public affairs is unimaginable.
As far as our school boards are concerned, the parent commission in the province of Quebec claims that an amount between $4 and $5 million should be used in the next few years to prepare plans enabling us to develop the talents of our people in the intellectual field as well as in the technical and scientific fields.
We have also been talking of steel mills for over ten or 15 years in the province of Quebec. What is preventing the establishment of those secondary industries which would convert our own raw material on our own soil and put to work a great part of our manpower and, consequently, would help to curb the unemployment evil which exists at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, this beautiful province of Quebec, for the past three or four years, had held the unemployment record. In January only, there were 200,000 unemployed in the beautiful province of Quebec, while at the same time many hundreds of persons could not keep their arms busy throughout the country. It was impossible to build factories on our own soil in order to bring wealth to the whole Canadian community, yet, during that time, under the cover of social security, what was happening? One hundred and thirty two million dollars were being spent on social welfare, while numerous inquiries were being made to try, not to find means to end dire poverty, but rather to deprive thousands of people from the benefits of legislation which could have afforded them the opportunity of providing their families with the bread and butter they lacked.
What is offered to us? A municipal development and loan board, and an area development agency. All these boards exist already at the provincial level and we have many of them. A corporation to finance the tremendous works which must be undertaken in the province of Quebec has also been established as we did here last year when we considered the Atlantic development board, discussing the matter for days.
What prevents the carrying out of all these things, even if it has been said that it will require lots of imagination to get the economy moving again?
I believe that we have in our province as well as in the other provinces, businessmen who think big and who have enough im-

agination to assess the needs of the people and our own processing and manufacturing capabilities according to our people's wishes and needs.
Is there today in the country a shortage of the basic things needed by the consumer?
I am not talking about food and clothing. Of course I do not mention housing because I feel that it is time to find solutions to take out of the slums of Montreal, Quebec city and other cities in Canada, large families who must live there.
How many families worry about tomorrow, not because there is a shortage of goods but rather because the consumer does not have the means to buy what we could produce.
How many things could we produce ourselves to meet the demand if the consumers could pay for what they need?
Chambers of commerce, study groups and all kinds of commissions try to find solutions to those economic problems and a policy that would create new jobs. But, in the meantime, while talking about industrialization, we do nothing for some people who are underfed because they are unable to find work in their own country.
This state of affairs exists in my own constituency because we do not have the possibility of establishing secondary plants that could employ most of the manpower in Beauce. In that riding which has been in existence for 250 years, these North American pioneers even had to go into exile in other provinces and even out of Canada to find work.
Last fall some people talked here-and we will hear it again-of the protection we must give our workers who must go and earn their living in the state of Maine, south of the border. Why is it not possible to use some imagination and get the economy moving again inasmuch as money will not interfere with the plans of our administrators, at the municipal or school board level as well as at the provincial level?
It is all very well to laugh at the Social Crediters' "free money", but I think that the people are rather entitled to laugh at the lack of serious solutions by our economists to the many problems which at present face our society. It is not easy to find formulas to solve these problems. It is not by blaming formulas that problems can be solved.

The state of Quebec is on the march. We do not ask for more than our fair share but we want French Canadians to feel at home within the Canadian confederation so that they may march forward as equal partners in this twentieth century.
As a great leader of the Liberal party once said, the twentieth century belongs to Canada. If we want that to become a reality, Mr. Speaker, our own financial institutions will have to start working in the interest of the Canadian people instead of against them as they always did in the past.
At present, the processing of our raw materials is done outside of Canada, thus giving work to foreigners, after which the finished product is sold back to us at a profit. During the election campaign, the Liberal candidates often quoted from page 11 of their official propaganda booklet which reads as follows:
A new Liberal government will fully ensure that the money supply is adequate and that business is not crippled through a lack of credit.
What then is preventing our province from undertaking without delay, like the other nine Canadian provinces, a great number of projects, since plans have already been made at the provincial or municipal level to develop our economy?
What is preventing the carrying out of these many projects, if not the lack of funds or credit facilities available to those organizations willing to undertake those projects in order to give a new start to the Canadian economy?
The speech from the throne also mentions the matter of biculturalism and great emphasis was placed on the subject during the election campaign. The matter has been entrusted to the worthy representative for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Lamontagne) who will set up the commission appointed to look fully into the matter.
I wonder if the people of Quebec will have confidence in that commission when they realize who is responsible for it? After reading his works, one finds that provincial governments become branches of the central power, and such a stand is taken on the authority of the Rowell-Sirois report, which is perhaps the most centralizing of all royal inquiries.
Following that commission's report, centralization was put into effect by the Liberals
The Address-Mr. Perron who held office at the time and who, between 1940 and 1945, took away bit by bit, piece by piece, from the province of Quebec, the resources which would have enabled her to assume her responsibilities in the field of social security.
Unfortunately, we still meet Canadians who claim that it is the French Canadians' fault if they do not hold in confederation the place they should but that they had to relinquish in certain fields. Why? What prevented the provinces from availing themselves of the advantages offered in the field of social security, if not the financial impossibility of meeting objectives which the twentieth century has set throughout the world?
So, as a French Canadian from Quebec, I sincerely hope that the commission on biculturalism will be something more than a toy good for a couple of years, that is until we celebrate the confederation centennial in 1967, at the time the world fair is to be held in the province of Quebec.
As the hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska (Mr. Pepin) was saying, I do hope that this will not be another opportunity to have us miss the boat. We would not want to miss the boat once again. We are now in full "evolution" and, please note, I do not say "revolution". We want Quebec to have its share in confederation. We wish to have our say, economically and politically, on a national basis and even on a world wide basis. We want a Canada where we shall be able to live in accordance with the legitimate aspirations of human beings who lack security but still hold the greatest respect for freedom.
Security and freedom are exemplary things to be carried very high today, because, under the cover of freedom and security, whole nations have been crushed under the boots of dictators. The economic dictatorship to which we are subjected at the present time may not be for our fellow Canadians as crushing as the political dictatorship some peoples have had to live under. While, in the name of authority, dictators have reduced peoples to slavery, I do not believe that we have the right, in the name of freedom, to allow democracy to take advantage of the masses, as it happens in this Canada of ours.
Many family heads, farmers and factory workers, citizens from large cities and small towns, had put their confidence in the future of our country. How many businessmen now

The Address-Mr. Perron realize that everything is not running smoothly in their country?
Let us talk now about contradictions. The speech from the throne mentions the appointment of a second minister of agriculture, a French Canadian representing the Atlantic provinces and better acquainted with the problems of the eastern farmers, and at the same time the present Minister of Agriculture announces the abolition of the milk subsidy. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if this is a policy likely to give new confidence to the French Canadian people of Quebec and I wonder if our Canadian confederation does not still operate to our disadvantage because I represent a group of people composed of large French Canadian families who had to leave home and go here and there, due to the lack of job opportunities in their native place, in their own county.
We have had imaginative people who succeeded in building firms with a national and international reputation. I could give as an example the "Vachon" cakes from Ste. Marie de Beauce. There are still in Canada businessmen with imagination in our twentieth century. If only loans were made available to them through an industrial financing bank. At the present time we have an industrial development bank which refuses to grant 75 per cent of the loans requested. If money were more readily available, if it were within the reach of these businessmen, we would see the industrial situation change in our country and there would be created additional jobs. I wish the province of Quebec would nc longer hold this notorious unemployment record in Canada.
During the last election campaign, and generally, much has been said about the fact that the province of Quebec has delivered an ultimatum. And it is still being repeated. According to that ultimatum, there are only ten months left to give back to the province of Quebec part of its tax rights, that is 25 per cent of individual income tax, 25 per cent of corporate income tax and 100 per cent of the estate tax. How many of us have realized that two months have already gone by since that 12-month ultimatum was given? It seems that some would like to forget it.
It was said during the last election campaign that our magic formulas had no value at all. Maybe they prefer to keep bowing tc the financiers in this country, those who control money and finance everywhere, under the banking system we have in Canada. Canadians are being paralysed and prevented from making this country a place where people

would smile more often instead of being concerned about the future.
We have witnessed a radical change in the speeches made in the house. Last year, the Liberal party took pleasure in blaming the Conservative party in a most pessimistic way, sometimes to the point of preventing businessmen from being confident about our industries, because they feared the financial future of the country. This same party is now most optimistic. Is this the justification of what we had been advocating for several years already? Are the good parties good only when they sit on the opposition benches?
Mr. Speaker, I hope we will find out the worth of some who, today, assume administrative responsibilities in the affairs of Canada. The party in power must stop acting like the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel) who tried to hold us up to ridicule. He should not forget that as the representative of a riding in a minority government, he must also, like myself, represent the interests of all Canadians, and it is with the sincerity of a politician that we must strive toward that objective, and not by running down the splinter parties or by predicting that there is no future for them.
Social Credit has contributed its own pinpricks. Today, in Quebec, things are moving since June 18, even though nobody will give us the credit of having awakened the nationalist feelings of French Canada.
I do not feel obliged to say that it is not only by insisting on a bilingual menu in the cafeteria that we will reach our objective, because we have seen behind that something besides bilingualism. We have seen something else there and, moreover, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) said himself, a few months before the election campaign, that the French Canadians in Quebec will no longer be satisfied with bilingual cheques. We have also seen something besides bilingualism. We have seen two great nations, the very foundation of that confederation, which want to go forward together. It has been repeated that the best thing was to make Canada from coast to coast a country where it is good to live, a country able to give security and freedom to each and every one of its citizens.
We do not call for magic formulas which would free us from economic servitude but we ask that a sound monetary system based on mathematical data be set up to bring about a constant balance between production and

consumption, under which money would not stand in the way of those who can make our country richer and more productive and who want to show the whole world that people of various nationalities can live together in a country where bilingualism is recognized by the constitution itself.
Mr. Speaker, my opinion concerning the French fact may be different from that of your predecessor who feels that French Canadians should be on the same footing as newly arrived Canadians in this country. In my opinion, there is quite a difference between one's right to be educated in one's mother tongue and to speak it and the right of equal partnership in this fine and great country of America which is recognized by the constitution.
That is why, on behalf of all Canadians, I would ask those who are entrusted with the government of our country to provide, not the magic formulas they claimed to have, but at least down to earth solutions. The numerous economists who are members of the government should find means to restore the confidence of the people in a political climate where we could rightly expect the fulfilment of the predictions that the twentieth century would belong to Canada.
(Text):


Mr. Fred T. Armstrong (Shelburne-Yar-mouih-Clare):: Mr. Speaker, may I in this my maiden speech in this house join with other hon. members in congratulating you on your election to your very high office, a position which I know you are very worthy of holding. I should also like to congratulate the Deputy Speaker, who is also chairman of committees, and to join with other hon. members who spoke earlier in complimenting the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. These speeches were two of the finest I have heard this session.
My riding of Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare is one of the finest in Canada and is in the finest province, Nova Scotia. This riding consists of three provincial ridings: Shelburne, being a single riding; Yarmouth, a dual riding; and Clare, a single riding. Shelburne county is nearly 100 per cent English speaking. Yarmouth is about 50 per cent French speaking and 50 per cent English speaking and Clare is about 100 per cent French speaking. Most of the people of Shelburne
The Address-Mr. Armstrong county are fishermen, depending for their livelihood mainly on the sea. The town of Lockeport, which is part of Shelburne county, has three fishing plants employing approximately 350 people, both men and women, as fish cutters, packers, and so forth. The fish are brought in by draggers and long-liners, and people from the surrounding area are employed there. In the town of Shelburne the same thing applies as in Lockeport, but the fishing plants are not as large. Another industry in Shelburne is the manufacture of office and school furniture from moulded plywood by Ven-Rez Products Company. Shelburne is also noted for its fine granite stone from which is manufactured in the town tombstones and granite stone sidings for buildings.
The people in the remaining area of Shelburne county are engaged in fishing or in fish plants, with the exception of the areas of Clyde river, Upper Clyde and Ohio, where they are engaged for the most part in lumbering. There are also boat shops in the Shelburne, Shag Harbour and Woods Harbour areas, where they build Cape island lobster boats, which are sold both locally and in the United States.
(Translation):
The people of Clare county depend a great deal on fishing, some on farming, lumbering and boat construction for their livelihood, but families in that part of my riding derive most of their income from fishing. There are several small businesses that build boats from 35 to 50 feet long, many of which are exported to the United States. There are also two large shipyards, each employing about a hundred workers. Those shipyards build boats up to 125 feet long, which are mostly used for scallop fishing and other types of deep sea fishing. Those businesses were set up during the war by the numerous French speaking Acadians who live in that part of my county.
Allow me to say, Mr. Speaker, that the French speaking people of Yarmouth and Clare counties expect to enjoy one day television programs on the French network of the C.B.C. Since you all know the story of the Acadian people, I need not repeat it tonight. You can appreciate as well as I do the importance of French culture and French language media to my Acadian constituents. I read in the papers recently that the C.B.C. was planning to build shortly a satellite station at Cheticamp, in Cape Breton, and in

The Address-Mr. Armstrong the Magdalen islands. I am not familiar with technical problems, but I expect that it would probably be just as easy to build a rebroadcasting station at Digby Neck in order to comply with the rightful demands of our French speaking population.
I trust that my colleagues from the province of Quebec will use their influence with the departmental authorities to help me obtain this satellite station.
There is also in my county the St. Anne college at Pointe de l'Eglise. This college is well known to all Acadians and it has surely helped them to preserve and develop their French culture. The Reverend Eudist Fathers direct the college which is attended by over 300 students. Two months ago, works at a cost of $300,000 were undertaken to receive an additional 150 students. As you see, my French Canadian constituents are active and the French people of my riding are trying to develop with all modern means available.
(Text):
The people of Yarmouth county also depend a lot on fishing, some lumbering and farming. The chief industry we have in the town of Yarmouth is the manufacturing of cotton duck by Cosmos Imperial Mills Limited, who employ approximately 400 people. The other industry is the manufacturing of sweaters and tartan plaids by Thistle Knitwear Company Limited. Then there is in the town of Yarmouth the Yarmouth Ice Cream and Dairy Company Limited, large milk suppliers and manufacturers of butter, cheese, ice cream and various frozen foods.
The communities of Wedgeport and West Pubnico are large fishing areas with their own fish plants. Boats 35 to 50 feet long for lobster fishing and pleasure are also built there and sold in the United States. We also have in West Pubnico a firm engaged in the manufacturing of school buses. In these two areas almost all the people are French speaking.
We also have our problems in Yarmouth. One is the television supplied by the satellite station bringing in a channel from Halifax. Our people are pleased to have this service but are dissatisfied with its extent and have asked me to try to obtain another channel.
Another problem is our local airport which Is becoming outdated and not large enough for the planes that are now being used. We were told before the election of 1962 that $1,600,000 was set aside for an extension to the airport, but since that time nothing has been said or done about it. This apparently is another project affected by the austerity program. If the existing airport in Yarmouth is not enlarged and improved it will mean we will have a feeder service from Halifax or Saint
[Mr. Armstrong.!
John, New Brunswick, possibly two or three times a week, resulting in the worst setback western Nova Scotia has ever had.
For instance, the lobster buyers are working up trade with other countries to ship live lobsters or fresh lobster meat to other parts of Canada and to all parts of the United States. Our tourist trade will also be greatly affected if the project is not carried out. I believe that after this government has looked into the matter something will be done to improve the situation.
We also have the motor vessel Bluenose plying from Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, to Bar Harbor, Maine, making a round trip daily during the summer months and the tourist season. This service began in 1956. We are all delighted to have the Bluenose plying between these two ports, but hotel and motel operators as well as the merchants in Yarmouth believe that the vessel, being Canadian owned and operated by Canadian National Railways with a Canadian crew, should lay over at night at Yarmouth and not at Bar Harbor, Maine. If she did this, tourists would then be in our town during the late afternoon for shopping and would patronize our hotels and motels in Yarmouth overnight. I also intend to bring this matter to the attention of the government.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, my riding is essentially a district of primary industries. With regard to the primary industries of fishing and the gathering of Irish moss, in going around the area I find that the requirements for these have been neglected in the past three years. More and improved facilities are needed because each year more boats are being built and more people are entering the fishing. In most cases throughout the area the wharves and breakwaters, which were barely adequate 10 years ago, have not been improved or enlarged, making the facilities completely inadequate for the increased number of boats being used each year. Our fishermen do not want handouts but are seeking decent facilities to protect their boats and equipment.
It is gratifying to know, Mr. Speaker, that our Prime Minister, who has been in office such a short time, has already visited the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the President of the United States of America, and has had friendly and constructive discussions with them. In my opinion there is no better way to live and prosper than to be friendly with one's neighbours.
I am pleased to see included in the throne speech the item to reduce barriers limiting trade. This is a step in the right direction, especially with regard to trade with the

United States, as our people in Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare are almost totally dependant on the United States for markets for their fish, Irish moss and other products.
The establishment of a 12-mile limit is something that has been talked about for years but nothing has ever been done. I am pleased to see that the present government is endeavouring to implement this undertaking which, if brought into being, will be so beneficial to our Canadian fishermen.
The people of Canada, I am sure, will be pleased with the establishment of a comprehensive contributory pension plan, and I do expect the government to increase as soon as possible existing old age pensions and old age assistance payments as well as pensions for the blind and disabled to $75 a month, and also to extend the provisions to single women and widows at the age of 60.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am proud to be a member of this house and to be associated with such a fine group of people from all parties. I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister upon having selected a very capable group of cabinet ministers. My aim now is to endeavour to do the job the voters of Shelburne-Yarmouth -Clare expect me to do.


Mr. Joseph Slogan (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to add my congratulations to the many you have already received upon your election to the high position of presiding over the debates of this house. I am sure that you will continue to enjoy the confidence of the members on all sides of the house for many years to come. I should like also to extend my congratulations to the mover (Miss Jewett) and the seconder (Mr. Choquette) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I should like to extend my congratulations to all those members who have been returned to this parliament. It is said that the battle of opinions is the true dialogue of democracy. We are all believers in democracy in this house. I think all of us form friendships with members of all parties. It is one of the great pleasures of being re-elected to renew those friendships.
For a moment, I should like to make some observations about the composition of this house. I have been very amused during the last few days to watch the Liberal backbenchers and see member after member in the back row get up and make his maiden speech. I think this is a very fine thing. Indeed, this privilege is not easily won, because in the last parliament one of the members sitting in the back benches complained very bitterly over the fact that a small group of frontbenchers prevented him from speaking, asked that speeches be
The Address-Mr. Slogan censored, and so forth. I sometimes wonder how altruistic this freedom of the backbenchers in the Liberal party is. I have waited to hear some of the members on the front benches speak. I thought that after all of this talk about action and decision, one by one the ministers would get up and say: This is the policy of action for Canada. They have been very mute indeed. It seems to me that they are merely using the backbenchers to hide their own lack of policy. In fact, their policy seems ephemeral indeed, because it seems to dissolve day by day as the 60-day period dissolves.
I should like to make a brief comment on the composition of the cabinet. A few days ago I was in Toronto attending the Canadian Dental Association convention. During that time I took the opportunity of visiting some of my friends who belong to different ethnic groups. I must say that these days they all seem to be Liberals. They expressed very keen disappointment in this government because the very able member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) who, on the basis of seniority should have been appointed to the cabinet, had been overlooked. I believe the Prime Minister was asked to put him in the cabinet. He would have made a very wonderful minister of health, but instead of that the Prime Minister relegated him to the position of caddy to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh). There are other fine members on the other side of the house. There is the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso). These are members who represent that third force in Canadian life about which the other side of the house has been so mute. I refer to the one quarter of the Canadian people who are not of Anglo-Saxon or French descent. For 22 years, the Liberals ignored them. The very able member for Vegreville sat here for eight years but received no recognition at all.
How different it was when the Conservative party came to power. The former minister of labour was appointed immediately, and he was one of the finest ministers of labour this country has ever had. We now have an Indian senator and there are two Ukrainian senators, one representing each faith. We are all waiting to see what this government is going to do about this third force to which they pay such great lip service. The present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) were so loudly indignant. They said the Conservatives always talked about this third force in Canadian life. They said they were the ones who really represented these people. Well, these people are waiting. I am sorry that I have to be the one to speak for those who are

The Address-Mr. Slogan in Toronto, but obviously the present members from Toronto are not looking after them.
In any'event, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Liberal frontbenchers will pay a great deal of attention to the backbenchers and also the opposition, because they ought to do so. You know, the backbenchers are an indis-pensible lot these days and their price comes rather high as the Liberals have found out. They are not easily bought. It is a fact that the opposition represents the opinions of 57 per cent of the people of Canada. The government, therefore, should pay more attention to the opposition than to their own policies, policies that were rejected by the majority of the Canadian people, as were the majority of the Liberal candidates.
I do not want to be so negative all the time. I want to tell you a little bit about that great Conservative party and the policies that party has followed. These policies have, all too often, been misunderstood by our friends and misrepresented by those who are opposed to us. The Conservative party was born long before Canada. In 1854 a young lawyer by the name of John A. Macdonald united a group of progressive young men behind his dynamic leadership. This was a group of men with differing views but a common purpose. That purpose was to unite the existing colonies which were disorganized and were being threatened externally. He set about bringing confederation into effect and creating the nation of Canada. Thirteen years later that nation was created, largely on the initiative of the Conservative party. Sir John A. Macdonald, the first prime minister of Canada, did not rest then. He had another vision, a vision of extending and uniting this Canada from sea to sea. In order to accomplish this, the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway was undertaken.
This was the greatest single feat in Canadian history. It dwarfs the St. Lawrence seaway. Almost 100 years later we are just opening the trans-Canada highway. The defeatist Grit opposition of the day said we were building railways from tepee to tepee. I have just introduced this little bit of history in order to show that the policy of the Conservative party has always been a Canada first policy, a policy of national purpose and national unity.
I am not going to give you a history lesson tonight, but I should like to refer to 1957. After 22 years of Liberal government, confederation was beginning to split at the seams. The leader of the Conservative party said to the people of Canada: This party wants to provide equality of opportunity for all parts of the country, to all segments of the people and to all segments of the economy. He said


that there were certain parts of the country which had fallen behind and he named those parts. He referred to the maritimes, the west and the north. He said that there were certain segments of the people who had fallen behind, and he named them. These were the people on fixed income. They were falling behind because the cost of living index was going up at a rate of 3.7 per cent per year over the last 10 years of the Liberal regime, and their meagre pensions were being eaten up. These were the old age pensioners, the blind, the disabled, the veterans, the Indian population and so forth. He said there were certain segments of the economy falling behind, and he mentioned small business and agriculture.
Then we said what we would do about it, and when we were elected in 1957 we started to do something about it. We immediately raised old age pensions by a further $9 a month. Mr. Speaker, you have heard about the six buck boys. It might be interesting for hon. members on the other side of the house to realize that the Liberal government was defeated on June 10 of that year, and the increase of $6 did not come into effect until July 1, so that we paid for that six bucks, and immediately afterwards increased old age pensions by a further $9 a month, and later still by a further $10 a month. This has meant well over $1 million in the pockets of old age pensioners in my riding alone annually.
Old age assistance, together with the blind, disabled and veterans pensions were also raised, and we did something for the Indian people. We appointed an Indian senator and we gave the Indians the vote. They had the vote in eastern Canada at one time, but in 1898 the Liberal government took it away from them.
We improved their housing, and if one doubts what I am saying all he has to do is go through any Indian reserve in my riding where there are 3,500 Indians, to see the improvements in education, in new schools, new houses, new roads being built, and in the new self-help projects such as pulp wood cooperatives. We adopted a progressive attitude towards these people who had fallen behind. We have heard a lot about the Glassco report and integration of Indian schools and hospitals. This is already taking place in my riding. These are some of the things I just want to mention in passing.
Then we dealt with the segments of the economy which had fallen behind. This included small business, and for the first time the government introduced small business loans, to help small businessmen get loans of up to $25,000 to improve their premises and assist them compete in modern society.
With regard to agriculture we displayed the same basic approach to it as we brought

to bear on all the problems of Canada. What are the problems in agriculture? Mr. Speaker, you know what they are. The unpredictability of the weather is one of them, and so we broadened the eligibility for P.F.A.A. and increased the payments. We brought in crop insurance. To cope with the problem of surpluses we introduced the accelerated sales program. There was a shortage of credit, and so we scrapped the old farm loan board and set up the Farm Credit Corporation. Under the old board an average of $4 million a year was lent to farmers during the Liberal regime, but under the Farm Credit Corporation loans to farmers last year alone amounted to $90 million more. These are the kind of things we did to extend credit to farmers; yet the Liberal party says it is going to extend credit to farmers.
There was instability of prices and to deal with that we brought in the Prices Stabilization Act. We also introduced ARDA. I could tell you the story of wheat-the greatest story ever told. When we signed the Chinese wheat agreement the then hon. member for Assini-boia said "This is not a deal because there is no fixed price." Do hon. members not remember the British wheat deal signed by the Liberal government, which robbed western farmers of $600 million? Well, we were not going to make that mistake; we did not want a fixed price.
The price of wheat was $1.67 a bushel when the Chinese agreement was signed. Afterwards it went up to over $2 a bushel, and that meant millions of dollars more in the pockets of the western farmers without costing the taxpayers a cent. When the farmers marched on Ottawa they asked for a subsidy of 30 cents a bushel. In the end result they got more and it did not cost the taxpayers a cent.
Liberal spokesmen have talked about a minimum price of $2 a bushel. Mr. Argue, when he came into Springfield, went one better. He said $3 a bushel for wheat under the two price system for the first 300 bushels, and a guaranteed minimum of $2 a bushel for the rest. Mr. Speaker, I am all for that, and I am just waiting for it to be implemented.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister promised free milk for school children. We have a big milk surplus and so he said they would give free milk to all the children in schools. We are still waiting for that. All sorts of promises were made to agriculture. One of the promises was a higher initial payment on oats and barley to be announced before seeding time. Well, seeding time is here but the announcement is not. It just goes to show this government is not
The Address-Mr. Slogan a government of decision or action. It is a government of inaction and a government that is trying to forget its promises.
I am not going to talk much about agriculture because many able agricultural spokesmen have spoken before me, but it is a sad story indeed that we have to have two ministers of agriculture. In fact the one minister we have has nothing to do now because he is going to auction sales. The government has not enough activity to keep one minister occupied. The farmers of western and eastern Canada are not looking forward to the fragmentation of the national policies for agriculture brought in by the previous government.
We said that certain parts of the country had fallen behind and we would do something about them. I am not going to talk about the maritimes as they have many able representatives to speak on their behalf, but I am going to say something about what is going on in my own province of Manitoba. There was the south Saskatchewan dam, promised for years and years by the Liberals, but it took a Conservative government to bring it into being. The Columbia river project would be under way if it were not for one provincial government that cannot make up its mind.
What about Manitoba? I see the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickers-gill) smiling. For a long time I felt he was the spokesman for Manitoba, and it was a sorry day indeed when this government came to power. I expected as a good Manitoban with great ability, that the Prime Minister would instantly recognize this man and place the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate in the seat immediately beside him. This, Mr. Speaker, was the man picked to be prime minister once before. It is a sorry thing that a man of such great ability was put in such position as house leader and Secretary of State. I feel I must speak up for him because he is much more deserving of a higher position than that which he received.
In Manitoba we have the Winnipeg floodway. We have an associated system of dams and water conservation projects, and the biggest thing to come to Manitoba has been the Whiteshell nuclear research establishment in my own constituency of Springfield. What does that mean to us? I first entered politics as a young student in 1953 because of the fact that 90 per cent of the young people were leaving Springfield on account of lack of opportunities. What is Springfield today? It has been described as the jewel in the crown of Manitoba, and one of the greatest projects in it has been this Whiteshell nuclear research establishment. It was brought there under the

The Address-Mr. Slogan national development policy of the Conservative government to stimulate those parts of the country that were falling behind. I hope all hon. members of the house will have the opportunity of coming to see it.
There are some 600 men working there at present, and in a few months there will be some 500 people living in the new townsite there. Well over $20 million has been spent, and I think eventually the expenditure will probably be well over $200 million. What does it mean? It is not just the construction jobs that it provides for the people from Manitoba and elsewhere, but it is the jobs it is going to provide for the brilliant young men in universities in the research program for the peaceful uses of atomic energy. These young people who at one time had to leave the province and the country to seek opportunities elsewhere can now find opportunities on their own doorstep.
During the last election campaign the Liberal party in Manitoba had a television or telethon program, or something like that, where you 'phoned in questions. One of my constituents 'phoned in a question and received a letter from the Liberal party of Manitoba in which they said:
The Whiteshell nuclear project has not been nor ever will be a campaign issue. The Liberal party has in the past, and will continue to support the establishment of all such similar projects for the province of Manitoba.
I was interested to listen to the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mrs. Konantz) when she said that she and the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet) are going to do such great things for Manitoba. Well, my hon. friends, where were they when the present Prime Minister, who claims to have such a broad national outlook, was trying to take this project away from Manitoba and put it into his own riding? The Minister of Veterans Affairs sat mute in the Manitoba legislature. Where is he now? The only thing he has done for the west is fire one of the most capable men on the veterans' pension commission. If that is the greatest contribution he is going to make to western Canada he may as well pack his bags and move to Ottawa, because surely this is not why the people of Manitoba elected him.
The Liberals paid great lip service to this nuclear project. Let us look at the headlines of just a little while ago. Here is a headline of the Beausejour Beaver of February 3, 1960, "Pearson for moving nuclear centre". Then we see this headline, "Liberals increase pressure against research centre". This is the kind of pressure that was brought to bear by the Liberal party in trying to take this project away from Manitoba and put it in the Prime Minister's own riding. There were marches

on Ottawa. Do hon. members remember the march of the women from Elliot Lake? They said there were 500 of them. I counted them; there were only 150. They did everything they could, and the present Prime Minister was the leader in the fight to take this project out of Manitoba and put it in his own riding. Is that a viewpoint for a national leader to take? Is this the national viewpoint of the Liberal party? If it is, it is little wonder that they received the verdict they did from western Canada. That is exactly the verdict they will continue to receive.
I talked about the north. We had that vision of the north. Do hon. members know what the present Prime Minister, that great leader with national vision, said? He said, when we brought in our roads to resources program, "You are building roads from igloo to igloo." Does not that harp back to the days when we were trying to build Canada and bind it together with the C.P.R.? They said in those days that we were building railways from tepee to tepee. The philosophy of the Liberal party has not changed. The philosophy of the Conservative party has not changed, because we adopt that same basic attitude toward our nation's problems and our nation building that we had in those days. It is little wonder that Harry Boulette-who was a Liberal candidate in the provincial election, I believe, in Manitoba in 1958 or 1959-came out in this election and supported me. He said that the policies of the former Liberal government had bankrupted the north country. He is known as the king of the north. He said that the policies of the Conservative government had breathed new life into the north country. It is no wonder the Liberals received such a small percentage of the votes in the north country, because when their own party supporters and party candidates desert them, they must indeed be bankrupt of ideas. Harry Boulette was not the only one. There was the candidate in Brandon-Souris who deserted the party because of their nuclear stand. He led an anti-nuclear demonstration in Winnipeg during the campaign. Therefore one does not wonder at the verdict given by the people of western Canada to this government.
I think it is about time that instead of fragmentation policies they sought to unite this country. I for one will be waiting eagerly for the ministers on the other side of the house to get up one by one and declare what are these nation building policies they are going to bring forth. I would like to see them brought forth, because we will certainly support them if they are good for Canada.
I must compliment the backbenchers of this parliament, because they are most certainly better behaved than were the backbenchers of the last parliament. We are not

going to behave in any way like the Liberals behaved last December 19. Do hon. members remember that day-


Mr. Matheson:: Alter six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Pipe down.


Joseph Slogan: -when they forced the prime minister to stop speaking. A friend of mine, after witnessing that incident, said, "You know, the House of Commons was once a gentlemen's club where most of its members spent their time hunting and shooting. After that demonstration it looked more like a railway brotherhood whose members spend most of their time shunting and hooting".
In the few minutes I have at my disposal, Mr. Speaker, I should like to acquaint the house with my constituency. It stretches from Winnipeg to the Ontario boundary; it goes 300 miles north; it covers some 30,000 square miles of territory, and there are 50,000 people in it who are representative of all nationalities and all creeds. It is a Canada in miniature. We have suburban areas and we have vast areas where you can go 100 miles without seeing a person. We have Indians, Metis, Ukrainians, Poles, Germans and people of all nationalities who came in the great immigration under the Liberal government-and I give them credit for this-not as immigrants but more as colonists, who settled, worked hard and built Canada. The sons and daughters of these people are, like myself, taking their place in the forefront in professions, business and all walks of life. As I said before, I regret that this government has not seen fit to recognize the people who represent one quarter of this country's population.
I hope the present Prime Minister will correct this and correct it soon because I think these people are very deserving. In saying this, I take nothing away from our other people. I spent some time in Quebec. The first school I went to was a French school that did not teach English. I have a great deal of respect for all nationalities and I have great respect for Canada. My only plea is that we look to Canada first, that we do not fragment our nation, that we do not fragment our policies. I think the government can count on the support of every hon. member in this house if they bring in policies which have as their basic aim the building of a great, united Canada for the betterment of future generations. If those policies are brought forth, then the government need not worry about being defeated in this house. But so long as they fragment our nation, so long as they adopt this narrow, partisan point of view which does not see the forest for the trees, then Canada will indeed be in a sorry state, and if it is it will not be long
The Address-Mr. Cyr before the people of Canada will again render their verdict and re-elect a Conservative government whose purpose is to unite Canada.
(Translation):


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with those who spoke before me to congratulate you on your appointment as Speaker of the house.
I should also like to commend the Deputy Speaker on his own appointment and the mover (Miss Jewett) and seconder (Mr. Choquette) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne who are the pride of the new and youthful Liberal team.
As the member for Gaspe, I am glad that the throne speech deals with questions which are of special concern to underdeveloped areas. It is the first time that a throne speech holds such promise for underdeveloped and labour surplus areas like Gaspe.
My riding which is a tourist attraction has a population of 65,300, 29,800 of whom have the right to vote.
In the first few months of 1963, there were 6,000 unemployed; three quarters of them received unemployment benefits and the others social security benefits.
Mr. Speaker, some people are alarmed when the unemployment level reaches 6, 7 or 8 per cent of the labour force in Canada. In my constituency, it goes over 50 per cent in wintertime and winter lasts six months down our way.
The federal legislation which was enacted in these last few years to relieve unemployment did not do so much for the underdeveloped areas of Quebec and the maritimes, but especially for the Gaspe peninsula.
During the past seven years, I was secretary treasurer of the town of Chandler and there are facts I know from personal experience which I should like to put on record mainly concerning the winter works program.
That legislation is more favourable to western municipalities and those of central Canada than to communities located in the province of Quebec and in the maritimes.
There are two seasons in Gaspe, summer and winter. This year, the winter works program covered the period from October 15 to May 31 regardless of whether the works were being carried out in Halifax, Chandler, Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver.
My colleague in the House of Commons, the member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deach-man) arrived in Ottawa around May 10 for the opening of the session and he told me that, before he left the Pacific coast, tulips

The Address-Mr. Cyr in Vancouver were a thing of the past and that summer flowers were in bloom.
On May 10, this same day, I had lunch with the students of the classical college of Gaspe seminary, and this same morning, my car became stuck during a snow storm at Murdoch ville.
The municipalities in my constituency can hardly benefit from the winter works program, because there is too much snow and the weather is too cold.
The Department of Labour will have to set up a committee to review the law and regulations governing the winter works program. When the time comes to pick out the members for this study, we will have to choose people from underdeveloped areas.
Mr. Speaker, the enacting of other legislation to help the areas suffering from chronic unemployment was not favourable to Gaspe peninsula. The point is about order in council No. PC-1961/326 amending the Income Tax Act in order to help industries in a surplus labour area.
The authorities of the town of Chandler and of 12 municipalities in the area submitted a brief in 1961 asking that our area be declared a surplus labour area.
On April 24, 1961, the deputy minister of labour replied as follows:
As you know, a survey was conducted last spring to see whether the village of Chandler could be recognized as an area of surplus labour for the purposes of the special capital cost allowance program. It has been ascertained that the area was not meeting the conditions required to be classified as such under the program.
To be recognized as a surplus labour area, (1) an area must have been classified by the Department of Labour in the surplus labour area category for at least 50 per cent of the summer months from 1953 to 1960 and (2) employment must have decreased during the same period. Our survey of the situation discloses that the village of Chandler has been classified in that category for less than 50 per cent of the necessary period and that employment in Chandler has increased during the same period. As you can see, Chandler meets neither of the two conditions.
Since the designation is based on the trend of employment and of unemployment during the period 1953-60 and since, according to the reports, your area does not meet the conditions, I hope you will understand that it would not be of much use to make a new survey.
Yours truly,
George V. Haythorne.
Mr. Speaker, during the fifties I was placement officer of the unemployment insurance office in Chandler, and I can assure you that the statistics related to the unemployed were in accordance with the applications filed at the office, but they did not give a real picture of the conditions prevailing in that area.
The Gaspe population was aware of the fact that there were no jobs available in the forest industry, in the building industry or elsewhere. So they felt that it was useless to report to a local office for employment since jobs were not available.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock? (Text):


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 29, 1963