1963-05-29

[Stage Direction]
"GLOBE AND mail"
Hon. J. P. Deschalelels (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I notice that my name appears on the front page of today's edition of the Globe and Mail in connection with the following:
(Text):
Shortly after the Liberal victory at the polls a dinner that became known as the Ruby Foo's party was held in Montreal. The dinner brought together successful Liberal candidates and Mr. Banks. Among those reported to have attended were public works minister Jean-Paul Deschatelets, Edmund Asselin, member for Notre Dame de Grace, and George Lachance, member for Lafontaine, who acted for Bernard Boulanger, director of the S.I.U.'s welfare plan at the Norris inquiry.
(Translation):
I am amazed that my name should be mentioned in that report since I have never met Mr. Harold C. Banks nor even spoken to him on the telephone. I do not know him and I could not even say what he looks like. Moreover, I have never set foot in Ruby Foo's restaurant and I regret to say that I never had the pleasure of eating out with my colleagues from Notre Dame de Grace (Mr. Asselin) and Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance).
Under the circumstances, I hope that the person who wrote the article will confirm my statement after checking the facts. I must add that the hon. members for Notre Dame de Grace and Lafontaine also deny the report. [Later:]


Mr. G. C. Lachance (Lafontaine):: Mr. Speaker, I did not have the opportunity, a few minutes ago, to speak following the statement made by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets). I should like to add that I fully support the statement he made to the effect that neither he nor the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace, nor myself have been invited to or have attended a dinner in Mr. Banks' company, with whom I have never had dinner. Furthermore, I might add that it has been two or three years since I last set foot in the restaurant where the dinner took place.
(Text):


Mr. Edmund Asselin (Noire Dame de Grace):: On a question of privilege, I thought the Minister of Public Works had made the matter clear. However, I think I should say I was neither invited to nor present at any such meeting as is referred to in the Globe and Mail this morning.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: May I, too, in conjunction with this, indicate that neither do I know Hal Banks, nor do I have any great desire to.
(Translation):


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier). In view of the almost disgraceful manner in which the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) denied a moment ago the report published in the Globe and Mail and since the same item reports also that there were meetings between the Minister of Justice and a Liberal organizer-


Mr. Speaker:: Would you come to the point?


Gilles Grégoire: My question is this: Is the Minister of Justice denying the report published today to the effect that he had discussions with one of the directors of the S.I.U.?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: The question is completely out of order, but in order to complete the report may I say the restaurant in question is in my constituency and I knew nothing about this meeting, nor had I had anything to do with it.



MAIN AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1963-64

[Stage Direction]
Messages from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting the main and supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1964, were presented by Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance) and read by Mr. Speaker to the house.
Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house I would like to make a statement concerning these estimates. The main estimates being tabled today are those which were prepared last fall and which have been the basis for the

Tabling of Estimates
operations conducted under authority oi special Governor General's warrants during April and May of the current year.
The supplementary estimates (A) are also being tabled today and contain the customary adjustments of the main estimates. Total budgetary expenditures in the main and supplementary estimates for 1963-64, including amounts already authorized by continuing statutes and moneys parliament is being requested to appropriate, amount to $6,545,504,515.
Because of the need for carrying on the financing of government operations by special warrant for the last two months of 1962-63 it will be necessary to await the appearance of the final expenditure figures for that year in order to make detailed comparisons. The government intends to report to parliament the total estimates and supply picture for 1962-63, following a detailed review being made to determine items and amounts which should properly be charged to the accounts of that year.
The royal commission on government organization, the Glassco commission, made suggestions for improving the form in which the estimates are presented to the house. These are at present under review but no change has been made in the form in which the estimates for the current fiscal year are now being presented.
With the permission of the house I now request that there be included in Hansard two tables relating to the estimates. The first table compares the 1963-64 estimates with the total budgetary estimates for several preceding years. The second table indicates the changes in the main estimates for 1962-63 and 1963-64, broken down by administration and operation, capital and other costs.
Mr. Speaker, there are two ways of effecting economies in government expenditures. The first is by a detailed examination of each item of expenditure and the particulars of each establishment. The second is by a realistic reappraisal of policies and programs approved in the past and carried forward from year to year more or less automatically. The purpose of such a reappraisal would be to see if certain programs that may have been quite justified and useful when originally introduced should now be dropped, or reduced in scope, in favour of new programs of greater importance under the economic and social conditions prevailing today. Both these approaches are needed if a thorough control over government expenditures is to be exercised. It may be, however, that the second approach of reappraising existing programs will provide greater opportunities for

eliminating or reducing less necessary government expenditures than a long drawn out examination of details, which sometimes degenerates into mere penny pinching.
Treasury board is now examining the programs of each department with the assistance and co-operation of the ministers concerned. Of necessity this examination will take some months to complete. Any reductions in the 1963-64 estimates which may result from this further examination and review will be reflected in the appropriations the house is asked subsequently to authorize.
The government is also pressing forward with a review of the recommendations made by the Glassco commission. Those recommendations of the commission that may be expected to result in greater efficiency throughout the public service or in useful savings of expenditures will be implemented as quickly as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give permission to the Minister of Finance to have printed in Hansard the explanatory notes and attached tables relating to the 1963-64 estimates?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For explanatory notes and tables referred to above, see appendix.]
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-
Kings): Mr. Speaker, the statement which has just been given to the house by the Minister of Finance in connection with the tabling of these estimates is, of course, of interest to all hon. members. I have not had an opportunity to see the statement, which sometimes has been given to financial critics prior to the tabling of the estimates. All I can say at the moment is that we have listened with interest to the minister's statement and will give proper consideration to the explanations he has given. I gather from what he said that treasury board may still be dealing with a revision of these estimates. I presume, however, that the estimates which are now put before hon. members are the final estimates of his government in so far as the financial year is concerned, and we will not expect these to be amended except as further expenditures are required.
I am very happy to see some reference finally made to the report of the Glassco commission-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Nowlan:: -and the fact that the present government is considering dealing with some of the economies which were recommended by that commission. At the moment, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing one can say in this matter except that we have before us today

the estimates for the coming year. I am not sure what procedure is going to be adopted by hon. gentlemen opposite in dealing with the estimates for the preceding year which, due to their own obstruction, were never approved by parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Clyde Nowlan: I assume that some legislation will be brought in to validate those estimates, otherwise I think we on this side of the house will have to take a very careful look at this matter to decide what procedure we are to adopt. But at the moment we welcome the tabling of the estimates today. I hope this government follow the economies which their predecessors attempted to institute. We will consider this matter and deal with it on a future occasion as circumstances warrant.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: That the messages of His Excellency together with the estimates presented this day be referred to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has he had, or does he contemplate having, any meetings or discussions with his counterpart in the United States, the secretary of defence; or have his officials, either military or civilian, had any discussions with their counterparts respecting the stationing on Canadian soil of United States air force units?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I understand that some informal intimations have been received of the possible extension to Canada of proposals for the dispersal of United States air defence squadrons. No official communication has been received.
As hon. members are aware, the government intends to make a full review of defence policy. In that review Canadian cooperation with the United States in the defence of North America will have an important place. Various suggestions which may be put forward concerning Canada-United States defence co-operation will be given careful consideration.
28902-5-27i
29.	1963	415
Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



NORTH PACIFIC CONVENTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Are press reports correct, emanating from the United States state department, to the effect that United States, Canadian and Japanese delegates will meet in Washington starting June 6 to discuss the international convention to regulate high seas fishing in the Pacific? If so, will the minister indicate what is to be the nature of these discussions, and whether it is the intention to refer the subject matter of this treaty to the marine and fisheries committee of this house prior to the date I have mentioned?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: The last portion of the question concerns a matter which I am sure the Minister of Fisheries will consider at the appropriate time. With regard to the other part of the question I may say that as I informed the house in answer to a question by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam on May 20, the renewal of the international north Pacific fisheries convention will be discussed at this meeting next week at which the Canadian government will be represented. There will be preliminary consideration of the continuation of the abstention principle.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question. May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether any arrangements are being made, or whether any consideration is being given, to allowing a delegation of parliamentary observers to attend this meeting in Washington, as was done in 1952 or 1953 when the treaty was originally signed in Tokyo?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No consideration has been given to that matter.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, in view of the lapse of some little time I wonder whether I might recall to the Minister of Fisheries the question which I asked earlier of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and ask him a related question.
My question is this. In view of the very deep dissatisfaction with the recent action of the government in respect to the north Pacific fisheries commission, will the minister assure the house that no further negotiations or action will be taken by the Canadian government in connection with this treaty until there

Inquiries of the Ministry has been an opportunity for the fullest parliamentary review of this whole question by the marine and fisheries committee?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member I wish to state first that the deep dissatisfaction which he has expressed on the decision taken earlier by this government is far from being general. In reply to his second question I wish to state that when the government decides to convene the standing committee on marine and fisheries, the house will be advised accordingly.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of a report in today's Montreal Gazette that United Nations secretary general U Thant proposed yesterday the establishment of a 200 man United Nations observer mission in Yemen, would the minister assure the house that a Canadian contingent will be offered to help staff the proposed mission?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I might say that I had an opportunity of discussing this matter with the secretary general yesterday afternoon. I can assure the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that the Canadian government will give the most serious consideration to any request which may be received from the secretary general in connection with the establishment of a United Nations observer mission in the Yemen.
I understand that in the report which the secretary general made to the security council he envisages the possibility of drawing upon personnel already serving in the area under the United Nations truce and supervisory organization and the United Nations emergency force. As the house is aware, Canada is one of the major participants in both these United Nations peace keeping operations.
The report which the secretary general has made to the security council was based on reports that were made to him by the distinguished Swedish soldier General Von Horn former head of the United Nations truce and supervisory organization who made an examination of this problem in the Yemen, and I am happy to say that he was assisted in the examination he made by Major Sharpe, a Canadian officer serving in the United Nations truce supervisory organization.



WORK OF CANADIAN DELEGATION AT SPECIAL SESSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I wish to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday in response to a question put by the hon. member for Oxford the minister indicated that he expected to meet with the secretary general of the United Nations at four o'clock that afternoon to discuss the financial crisis that body is experiencing. In view of published reports this morning that the minister did in fact meet the secretary and tell him the Canadian government's attitude towards this problem, and particularly the leading role being played by the Canadian delegation, could the minister inform the house as to the government's attitude toward the financial crisis, and in particular outline the leading role being played by the Canadian delegation in the solution of this crisis?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for the tribute he has made to the work of the Canadian delegation at the special assembly meeting. I did see the secretary general yesterday, and we did discuss the financial problems involved in meeting the cost of the operation of the peace keeping activities of the United Nations.
The Canadian delegation is now-as a matter of fact this very day-conducting negotiations with a working group towards what we hope will soon be a solution, at least for the period of 1963.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES WINNIPEG TRANSFER OF OVERHAUL AND MAINTENANCE BASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Poriage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. This is a further question to those already asked by the hon. members for Winnipeg South Centre and Winnipeg North Centre, and arises from the acute concern of residents of Kirkfield park, the greater Winnipeg area and Manitobans generally over the removal of the T.C.A. base in Winnipeg. My question is this. What steps are being taken by the government to assure that the T.C.A. overhaul base will remain in Winnipeg?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I was given notice of this question after I came into the house. I regret that I did not have it earlier, because I should have liked to prepare a more thorough answer.

The question as asked is limited to what steps are being taken to assure that the T.C.A. overhaul base will remain in Winnipeg. There has been no decision to change the decision of the former government to remove that base from Winnipeg. But there is a very real problem in Winnipeg resulting from the removal of the base from Winnipeg, which will be completed at the end of 1965. The government is giving very close consideration to attempting to get work of a similar nature wholly adequate to cover the situation and which will completely replace the work now being done at the base.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I do not want to misunderstand the minister, but did I understand him correctly to say that it had been a decision of the former government to remove the overhaul base from Winnipeg? If so, that is not the case.


George James McIlraith: Yes, what the hon. member says he heard me say is correct.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: A supplementary question. I would ask the minister whether he is aware that this decision was taken by T.C.A., and was postponed at the request and at the pressing of the previous government.


George James McIlraith: I am aware that certain statements were made by the then ministers at the time of the 1962 election and the 1963 election, and that a study was authorized dealing with this subject, and that the report of this study is not yet available. But I am quite accurate in saying that the decision was not reversed either by the former government or by this government.


Léon Balcer: A further supplementary question. Is it a fact that this study was ordered by the previous government?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Since so many of the Manitoba members have expressed concern over the proposed move of the T.C.A. repair and maintenance depot from Winnipeg, I should like to ask the Prime Minister when he proposes to make a statement that will reassure the workers and their families that the commitment made by him during the election campaign will be carried out.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to what commitment my hon. friend is referring, but I assure him-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -that this matter is now receiving far more active consideration than it received in the two years previous to the election.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: May
I ask a supplementary question. On March 30 the Prime Minister sent a wire to the Liberal candidate to the effect that a Liberal government would immediately clarify the position of T.C.A. I wonder when we can have that clarification.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Very shortly.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the fact that all the other hon. members from Winnipeg and surrounding constituencies have requested the retention in Winnipeg of T.C.A.'s maintenance and overhaul operations, will the minister, as the hon. member for St. Boniface, join in making these representations unanimous?
(Translation):



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
In keeping with a statement made by the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean on October 1, 1961, does the minister intend to recommend to the cabinet a reform of the superior court where judges would be appointed by the provinces?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, first I would have to be sure about the preamble of the hon. member's question. I doubt very much the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean made such a statement. In any case, if the hon. member would kindly send me a copy of his question, I shall take it into consideration.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I shall be pleased to send a photostat of the La Presse edition of October 2, 1961, to the Minister of Justice.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the question to be urgent, but nevertheless I shall accept the photostat mentioned by the hon. member.

Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):



ACTION TAKEN WITH RESPECT TO RISING PRICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice arising out of a statement made in Washington by the under secretary of agriculture regarding the rising price of sugar. In that connection he points out that the speculative bubble in sugar will burst under the weight of plentiful supplies.
Since I asked a question the other day, has the minister had any opportunity to look into this matter, and is he able to give the house any information having regard to the fact that the amount of sugar on hand in Canada as of March 31 last was considerably more than a year ago? Also, what present steps are being taken in connection with sugar prices which are proving so detrimental to those in the lower income tax brackets?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, apparently it is not a question we have heard, but a statement by the right hon. gentleman arising out of a press release from Washington.
I should like to point out to him and to the house, as I intended to do and tried to do on a former occasion, that the Combines Investigation Act is quite clear as to the responsibilities of the director of investigation and research with regard to investigations. The act is clearly directed and aimed at preventing, first, combinations in restraint of trade, which require a conspiracy to be proven, and, second, the abuses of a monopoly situation. The act is not concerned with the level of prices as such but rather with the manner in which they are established. The manner in which sugar prices have risen indicates no contravention of the statute.
However, my hon. friend did raise a question the other day which I brought to the attention of the director, and he has given me the following information which I should like to give to the house. The director has reported to me that the situation in Canada is a direct reflection of world market conditions over which Canada has no control, and that any action taken under the Combines Investigation Act cannot be expected to correct the situation.
In the light of the situation I am, therefore, exploring with my colleagues whether there are any other measures than can be taken within the constitutional authority of the federal government to alleviate the situation.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister this question. What com-
[Mr. Chevrier.l

munication has he or the department had with the various sugar wholesalers or processors in order to prevent or at least alleviate these skyrocketing prices which, as I said a moment ago, are not only bearing upon those in the low income tax brackets but in fact are affecting all Canadians? Is it not a fact that the amount of sugar on hand on March 31 was very much in excess of the previous year?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, as to communications the practice is, as my hon. friend knows or should know, that when there is a report forthcoming the minister has to table it in the house after a statutory period of time. No report has been made to me by the director, but the matter is under study.
In so far as the latter part of the right hon. gentleman's question is concerned, certainly there is no doubt that this situation is affecting the housewife and the ordinary person on the street. But by inference on the part of my right hon. friend is the answer to be control of prices? If that is what he has in mind, then I think he should so indicate to the house; because the house well knows that we did have control of prices under different circumstances. I am sure that is not what he is suggesting to the house at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister has asked me a question. Naturally I understand the constitutional position in Canada, but I am asking him what the government is doing with reference to these companies which are going to make a tremendous windfall of profit on the basis of 400 million pounds of sugar on hand and with prices up 9, 10 and 11 cents a pound. What communications has he or those connected with the administration had in order to bring to the attention of these corporations the tremendous increment that will be theirs as a result of whatever conditions may be?


Lionel Chevrier: The right hon. gentleman is now shifting his ground.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, yes. The other day he asked what the minister was doing, and he placed the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the minister. I have replied that under the statute there is machinery to deal with a monopoly and with price fixing combinations but in so far as profiteering and the level of prices are concerned these are matters over which the Combines Investigation Act has no jurisdiction. I did add that in so far as the general question was concerned I intended, with my colleagues, to see if under the constitutional authority in our country there was not some means of dealing with the situation, and I thought I had

given the house a satisfactory explanation under those circumstances.
I hope the right hon. gentleman will accept that, because I repeat that the situation is a world wide one which I as minister cannot prevent under the statute. However, in terms of prices I hope there is something that can be done, having regard to the constitutional position, and that aspect I am willing to consider and study with my colleagues.


John George Diefenbaker: When?



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is it the intention of the government either to discontinue or in any way limit or restrict the present r.o.p., program, or to reduce the number of r.o.p. inspectors?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the government's attitude in so far as record of performance is concerned will be to service record of performance as it should be serviced. We feel that any cutting back or austerity so far as the testing of cows is concerned is not proper austerity. These are good and efficient programs so far as livestock are concerned, and deserve to be serviced. We will be bringing them up to scratch as soon as possible.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the ever-increasing evidence linking excessive cigarette smoking with lung cancer, and having in mind the educational efforts being conducted against smoking by some of the provincial health departments, would the minister consider asking hon. members of this house to set the country an example on Friday, May 31, by suggesting that we observe the annual non-smoking day established by the government of British Columbia?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, in as inoffensive a way as possible I wonder whether I might direct Your Honour's attention to the question which has just been asked. It would not appear to me to be dealing with an urgent matter that has arisen since orders of the day yesterday,
Inquiries of the Ministry but rather concerns something of long standing which therefore does not come under the classification of urgent questions. This is the last day we have for the debate on the address, and to have things done today that are against the rules will deprive hon. members of an opportunity to speak to which they are entitled.


Mr. Speaker:: I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for New Westminster, and I feel there is no urgency in the question. It could be put on the order paper.



AIR POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I have been requested to ask this question because of concern in several parts of Canada. In view of that concern, and with air pollution increasing as a result of increased industrial activity, is the government giving consideration to the development of a new air pollution control code?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of this question, although I received it only as I was entering the chamber. In answer I should like to say briefly that if it is not, as a result of my hon. friend's interest it will be now.



EXPORTS OF GAS AND OIL TO UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the Canadian Press dispatch datelined Washington which appears in today's Montreal Gazette to the effect that the United States government is exerting pressure on Canada to reduce the rate of expansion of gas and oil exports to the United States, is the government prepared to give support to the Alberta-Montreal oil line project?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. gentleman's question is incorrect; therefore the question itself cannot be answered.


Reid Scott: May I ask a
supplementary question. The question asked by the hon. member indicated that the United States was expressing concern over our shipments of natural gas and oil. Has the government been asked to accept quotas or other restrictions on such shipments, and can the minister inform the house as to the government's response to such requests?

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Pearson: The Minister of Trade and Commerce was in Washington on Monday and Tuesday of this week. He discussed this matter with the United States authorities, and I believe that the danger to which my hon. friend referred, and about which the hon. member spoke previously, will not be realized.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON DISCUSSIONS WITH U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of his intention of asking this question. In reply I point out that it should be understood that all western countries, and indeed all members of the United Nations, are solemnly sworn to prevent aggression and to develop friendly relations amongst nations. This government considers that it could be useful in appropriate circumstances to give additional recognition to this fact in the form of a non-aggression pact such as that referred to by the hon. member. At the same time, we believe this question is closely linked to difficult political problems in Europe, and between east and west generally, and that it should not be considered in isolation from them. This is a subject on which we are in consultation with our allies, and I can assure the hon. member that all possibilities for reducing international tension by this or other means are under continuous review.']
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but in his absence I am directing it to the Prime Minister. According to a report published in the Winnipeg Free Press, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce was in Washington on Monday he entered into discussions regarding a study of the whole continental position with respect to energy. Can the Prime Minister say what was involved in those discussions or will a full statement on the matter be made to the house by the government at an early date?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce will be making a statement on this matter at an early date.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: have a question for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister immediately initiate whatever arrangements are necessary to re-establish the Canada-United States parliamentary committee in view of the need to provide an opportunity for an exchange of points of view about important current issues which might complicate our relationship with the United States?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. gentleman's interest in this matter. It is not a question of re-establishing this machinery, which is still in existence. It has not been very active in the last year or so, but it is proposed to convene a meeting of this congressionalparliamentary committee at a very early date, and discussions are already under way to that end.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My question is addressed to the Secretary of State 
for External Affairs. Would he care to clarify the Canadian position concerning the idea of a non-aggression pact between the NATO and Warsaw pact countries suggested by Mr. Paul Henri Spaak, former secretary general of NATO and prime minister of Belgium? I believe this suggestion was also referred to recently by the present secretary general Mr. Dirk Stikker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of his intention of asking this question. In reply I point out that it should be understood that all western countries, and indeed all members of the United Nations, are solemnly sworn to prevent aggression and to develop friendly relations amongst nations. This government considers that it could be useful in appropriate circumstances to give additional recognition to this fact in the form of a non-aggression pact such as that referred to by the hon. member. At the same time, we believe this question is closely linked to difficult political problems in Europe, and between east and west generally, and that it should not be considered in isolation from them. This is a subject on which we are in consultation with our allies, and I can assure the hon. member that all possibilities for reducing international tension by this or other means are under continuous review.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. My question arises out of urgent matters affecting Canadian National operations these days. Is the minister prepared to inform the house when the sessional committee to study the operations of the Canadian National will be set up?


George James McIlraith: I do not believe that can be done until after the throne speech debate is ended. However, I should expect the annual report would be referred to the committee right away.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yesterday I drew the attention of the Minister of National Defence to the fact that 20 Negroes from Harmon air force base had been

barred from the Clover club at Stephenville, Newfoundland. The minister said he was drawing this fact to the attention of the Secretary of State and asking him to communicate with the provincial authorities. I should like, therefore, to ask the Secretary of State if he has had any communication with the provincial authorities, and if so what action is likely to be taken to prevent a repetition of this unfortunate incident.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman, of course, knows that this matter comes exclusively within provincial jurisdiction. I did, however, communicate with the attorney general, who informed me that before any communication had been received from here he had heard the report and had asked to have an investigation made immediately by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This investigation is now under way.
(Translation):



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John N. Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm (Mr. Pigeon) asked a question concerning the teaching of French in the Eskimo schools of new Quebec.
1 have been asked by my minister to answer that question. After consultation with the churches that serve the north, the department established several years ago a policy to the effect that the teacher would be of the same religion as the majority of the pupils in each class.
In northern Quebec, more than 90 per cent of school age children are Anglicans served by English speaking teachers and missionaries.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question,
Mr. Speaker. Does the government intend to hire bilingual teachers to teach both languages to the Eskimos, that is French and English?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the hon. member is greatly interested in this question. In my opinion, it is a matter that both governments concerned should take into consideration.
(Text):



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Transport. Has the minister's department received recent representations from the mayor of Vancouver relative to the federal delay, which the mayor is reported to have alleged, in the construction of Vancouver international airport?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such representations, but I prefer to take the question as notice and will check on it before answering.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. What action has the government taken to relieve the urgent low water problem in the great lakes which is causing demands from various harbours for immediate dredging?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I did not receive any notice of this question, and I shall have to inquire and answer it tomorrow.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, but first I would like to tender my congratulations to him on becoming the first person of French origin and descent to attain that particular ministerial position. On Friday last a question was directed to the minister with respect to one Mr. Weldon Chan. At that time the minister indicated he might be in a position to give an answer toward the middle of this week, and I wonder whether he can answer it now.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. gentleman for his very kind words, but I would like to ask him whether I would be entitled to consider tomorrow as being the middle of the week?


Frank Howard: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to

Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In connection with a meeting of the Indian bands at Cedar lake and Moose lake, Manitoba, with technical representatives of the government of Manitoba to discuss the terms and conditions of the agreement under which Indians of these two reserves would move their homes to make way for the Grand Rapids power development, were representatives of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration present and, if so, who were the representatives of the federal government and when were these meetings held?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of his question. The answer is yes, and the representatives of the federal government were Mr. R. F. Battle, assistant director of operations, Indian affairs branch; Mr. A. G. Leslie, regional supervisor of Indian agencies, Manitoba; and a gentleman bearing a name which my very good friends on the other side will, like I am myself, be pleased to hear, is associated with the administration of Indian affairs-Mr. Richard Bell, Indian superintendent of The Pas Indian agency.
While I mention the name of Mr. Bell, Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell the house how grateful I am for the courtesies and amenities which my immediate predecessor extended to me on the day I assumed office. He is all the more deserving of my thanks because at that particular moment he was deeply engaged in making preparations for his marriage to the gracious lady who now shares his life, and I wish both of them the greatest happiness.
To complete the answer to the question, meetings were held at Moose lake with the Moose lake band on June 12, 1962 and at Cedar lake with the Chemawawin band on June 13 and 14, 1962.



RAYMOND RODGERS-INQUIRY AS TO PRESS GALLERY PRIVILEGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the house leader a question that perhaps you can assist him in answering, or that he can take as notice. I would like to ask the house leader if he is aware, to use a euphemism, that contrary to reports the difficulties between Raymond Spencer Rodgers and the press gallery still exist and, if they do, can he inform us what privileges have been given or denied to Mr. Rodgers?


Mr. Speaker:: That obviously is a question for the order paper.
[Mr. Orlikow.j


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, on the point you raised it surely refers to the privileges of the house, and this house last year thought seriously enough about it, when a petition was brought forward, to have it referred to a parliamentary committee. In this sense, if it is a question for the order paper, can you tell me who is the minister who is responsible for answering it? It is not really a question for a minister of the crown.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the hon. gentleman, I think his point of order answers itself. If the question is not one that can be answered by a minister of the crown, then it is not a proper one to be asked on the order paper.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I can see no other way to raise it than by asking the house leader, in order to get a reply. The proceedings and procedures of this house do not provide for a direct question to the Speaker. In effect, in this particular case the Speaker provides the continuum between two parliaments. As I understand this matter, it was left up in the air by the disappearance of the last parliament. It is, as far as I am concerned in raising it as a question, a matter of some urgency in that I feel this particular gentleman has a right to have the cancellation or diminution of his privileges reviewed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad to bring the hon. gentleman's question to the attention of His Honour the Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I may be able to complete the answer by saying that the matter is under very intense consideration.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria asked a question about a possible refit scheduled for the North Sydney marine railway. In accordance with the recommendation of the Canadian maritime commission for the refit of H.M.C.S. Thunder to take place at the North Sydney marine railway, a contract to that effect was signed on May 27.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 28, consideration of the motion of Miss Pauline Jewett for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to the speech

from the throne delivered by His Excellency the Administrator at the opening of the session.
(Translation):
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, today, employment offices in the Gaspe peninsula can supply us with rather accurate statistics on conditions at this time because in order to receive unemployment assistance benefits, heads of families, and all adults, must first report for employment at the national employment service office in order to qualify for social service relief. In my riding, more than 1,500 heads of families, or other adults, benefited from that social service last winter.
Though some legislation was adopted in the past which favoured one area or one province less than others, it should not be held against the Conservative party or the Liberal party. The blame should rest with the representatives of those areas.
On April 8 last, the people of Quebec expressed their confidence in the government members, after having given them a formal warning in June 1962. The era of great speeches containing fine promises by statesmen during the last 20 years, will not be accepted in Quebec from now on, and more particularly in my constituency.
Action is what is needed, and as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, industry has not been established in the Gaspe peninsula because our governments did not bother to do any planning.
Thanks to the Liberal government in Quebec, the whole of the Gaspe peninsula will have plenty of power this fall.
It is now up to the federal government to grant some fiscal advantages to industries who would set up there and, jointly with provincial authorities, to give them adequate means of transport and communication.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vil-leneuve (Mr. Caouette) stated on May 21 last, as can be seen on page 8 of the appendix to Hansard:
The whole Quebec electoral machine was at work and the Liberal members from Quebec are aware that all sorts of allowances, especially social allowances, were very generously distributed during the election campaign by the inspectors of colonization, the inspectors of all departments who paid amounts of $50, $60 and $75 to needy families in those ridings.
We have had examples of that from the Gaspe peninsula.
Mr. Speaker, in my riding, I lost some votes to the Social Credit because I spoke against the present system of unemployment assistance as distributed by our social services.
28902-5-28J
The Address-Mr. Cyr
As a former director of the welfare service of the town of Chandler, I contend that it is a tragedy for our society to pay relief to men of 20 to 50 years of age who are in perfect health but unable to find any employment.
These days there are state pensioners of 25.
Besides, all claimants of social welfare in my constituency suffered a decrease of 10 per cent in their benefits a few months before the election and even during the campaign as a result of an order in council adopted by the Quebec department of family and welfare concerning unemployment assistance. The Quebec Liberal government was blamed and the federal Liberal candidate took the blows.
Last year, Mr. Speaker, in order to get votes, some Social Credit organizers deluded some electors in my riding into a belief that Social Credit and social service were the same thing. I had to contend with that harmful propaganda during my election campaign. But, to me, the favourable result of my election campaign was never doubtful from the date of the convention on March 4, and I was certain of a Liberal victory after the visit of the Social Credit assistant leader in my riding. I am very thankful to him.
I stated that I was against unemployment assistance replacing jobs but I am not opposed to good social legislation. I do not want my words to be misinterpreted.
Having visited 4,000 people at home in my riding during the election campaign, I can state in this house that it is high time to change that system or those handouts of public funds, because our generation will be made up of people depending unwillingly, and in some cases quite willingly, on the governments.
Mr. Speaker, we must, in my constituency, increasingly encourage the people to enter the fishing industry, and therefore we must give them good fishing harbours and even subsidies or support prices as we do for some farm products.
For years, we have been living with the hope that the soil of our area would contain oil and large ore deposits. To date, only one company is operating a copper mine and it is high time the mining firms which hold prospecting concessions hasten their research. In addition, governments should, if need be, give subsidies to prospectors in order that in
424	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Cyr the near future we may know what are the possibilities for the development of the natural wealth in the peninsula.
Mr. Speaker, we will, in 1967, celebrate the centennial of confederation. This will cost millions of dollars to the government both for the celebration and the world fair to be held in Montreal.
In Charlottetown, a memorial building worth thousands of dollars will be built.
In 1934, for the celebration of the fourth centennial of the discovery of Canada, parliament appropriated a mere $100,000, and this with a proviso that the distribution of the funds would be made by the treasury board with some amounts being allocated to Gaspe, Three Rivers, Ottawa and Niagara. Senator L'Esperance was the president of the celebration committee at the time.
At the spot where Jacques Cartier claimed possession of Canada in the name of the king of France, a measly few thousand dollars were spent for the erection of a cross to commemorate the birth of a great country.
Mr. Speaker, we should take opportunity of the centennial of confederation to correct that insult and develop an historic park in Gaspe.
We French Canadians have learned in our Canadian history that Jacques Cartier claimed possession of Canada by erecting a cross in Gaspe in 1534, and I am afraid that some groups or organizations would like to strike that chapter off our Canadian history.
In the NATO letter of May 1963, which is distributed to all members of parliament, we are told about the 400 years of Canadian history and the origins of this country; yet, there is no mention of the fact that Cartier claimed possession of Canada in the name of the king of France in Gaspe, in 1534. However, Mr. Speaker, on page 5 of that review, we find a picture showing seven French sailors and a missionary planting a cross and we can read the following legend under the picture:
(Text):
Cartier first set foot on Prince Edward Island in 1534.
I do not want to take anything away from the history of Prince Edward Island. I like that island. I even spent one year at St. Dunstan's University in Charlottetown where I graduated in commerce. But let us give to Gaspe what belongs to Gaspe, and to Prince Edward Island what belongs to that island. (Translation):
The author of this article in the NATO publication has shown us that the history of Canada is incomplete, biased and prejudicial to harmonious relations in the country.


Mr. Speaker, I believe the time has come to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the members of this house to provide, in the legislation on a national flag, that this flag be hoisted for the first time at the exact spot where Jacques Cartier set foot in Canada, and to invite the premier of Prince Edward Island to remove the first shovelful of soil for the development of a historical park in Gaspe, just as the Hon. Jean Lesage, premier of the province of Quebec, removed the first shovelful of soil in Charlottetown to inaugurate the construction of the confederation centenary commemoration building.
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have delivered my maiden speech in this house. As there will be a vote today, I am deeply touched to be the last French Canadian member on the government side to speak on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I would have liked to refer to the scenic beauty of the Gaspe peninsula, to describe the sunset on the mountains or the moonlight on the sea below the cliffs of Gaspe north, as well as the sandy beaches of Gaspe south, of Roche-Percee, of the thousands of birds on Bonaventure island, of the hospitality of the Gaspe people, of the delicious fresh fish meals, of the ideal climate to fight hay fever, and of the winter sports resources of Mont Albert. But I wanted first of all to let you know about the unemployment problem in the Gaspe peninsula, and the possibilities of industrial development in the area and, finally, to relate a page of the history of this Canada of ours.
(Text):


Siegfried John Enns: My first duty is, of course, to offer the traditional words of congratulation to the mover (Miss Jewett) and the seconder (Mr. Choquette) of the address. I also wish to join those who have preceded me in congratulating the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker on their elevation to the high offices they now hold.
In commenting on the speech from the throne, I wish to be counted among those members of the house who hold that it is not given to any one party alone to devise useful legislation at all times. Obviously, useful legislation has been brought in by alternate governments from time to time over the years. Rather, I believe, each member has a duty to represent the will of the electorate which sent him here. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the house are widely experienced in world affairs, in business and in human relations. Some are dedicated to

objectives well beyond the limited goals of party power. We all belong to the world as it is today and must handle its affairs, whether in terms of imposing austerity or of increasing welfare services, making trade adjustments or providing for expensive defence measures; we must deal with all these matters not only with good intentions but on the basis of proven knowledge and experience.
Having said this, I must acknowledge that I consider some of the proposals raised in the speech from the throne to be very commendable. Many of them could have far reaching consequences depending, of course, on how they are implemented. That does not prevent me, however, from deploring the conspicuous lack of certain items which the Canadian people had come to expect as a result of oft-repeated election promises by the Liberal party. A very notable omission, and one which many Liberal supporters will find difficult to understand, is the fact that there is no early indication of an increase in old age pensions. We were told this would be done immediately-it would now appear that "immediately" is not part of the first 60 days of decision. Many of us are wondering what happened to the pledge to introduce a health plan. During the election campaign it was certainly listed high in the rating of priorities. Nor did we hear anything of the grand scholarship scheme in the speech from the throne.
Another shortcoming in the speech is the scant attention paid to agriculture. Coming from the prairies as I do, I cannot refrain from making the observation that the election results showed this section of the country, which has been called the bread basket of the nation, to be also politically the most perceptive. In addition to this being a well deserved tribute to the former prime minister, it is also a firm indication that the former minister of agriculture, Hon. Alvin Hamilton, rendered this country yeoman service in the discharge of his important office. There is no doubt that Manitoba voted for the return of the two cabinet ministers, the widely travelled former minister of northern affairs, Hon. Walter Dinsdale, together with the house leader and minister of veterans affairs and defence in the last parliament, Hon. Gordon Churchill. While all former cabinet ministers from the prairies were themselves re-elected, we certainly expected them to take their place again on the government side of the house. I have no doubt that in the next election several years hence this will be the case.
All prairie provinces, and Manitoba in particular, would have liked to see included some amendments to the Crop Insurance Act to make it possible for the provinces to ex-
The Address-Mr. Enns tend coverage. One of the greatest single problems confronting farmers today is the unpredictable and disconcerting way in which farm income varies from year to year. There are few occupations outside farming where instability and uncertainty are so great-and I am not talking about politicians here. There are few businesses where income may tumble from half of what it was the year before or probably be totally wiped out. This fluctuating farm income has far reaching effects well beyond the farmers themselves; it affects the towns and industries that are all dependant upon agriculture for their business.
To correct this omission in the speech from the throne you will notice, Mr. Speaker, that I have introduced a private member's motion on the order paper dealing with amendments to the Crop Insurance Act to allow provincial governments to re-insure with the federal government part of the residual risk in the early stages of a provincial crop insurance plan. It is my sincere hope that the government, in spite of the brief reference to agriculture in the speech from the throne, will continue to build on the tremendous advances in agriculture achieved under our administration.
Mr. Speaker, there are two matters of some urgency which have already been brought before the house in different ways, and I just want to make passing reference to them again. The first is the contentious question of the T.C.A. overhaul base. I deplore that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet) did not join with all the other Manitoba members in expressing concern and a desire to do what can be done to retain this important industry in Winnipeg. The second question of urgency pertains to the trans-Canada highway. I am certain that I can count on support for what I am about to say from Manitoba's only cabinet minister in the present government, since part of his riding, which is adjacent to Portage-Neepawa, contains a section of the trans-Canada highway which is responsible for Manitoba's highest mortality rate. The ever-increasing traffic on this two-lane highway is an ever-growing threat to any traveller on this stretch of the Queen's highway. I would ask that the federal government extend without any undue delay the four-lane divided highway from Headingley to No. 4 junction just west of Portage la Prairie.
Mr. Speaker, a week ago Tuesday after the ringing of the division bells a very significant vote was taken. Quite apart from how the subamendment was actually phrased by the leader of the New Democratic party, the vote centred around the nuclear issue. The new government was sustained on its vital stand for nuclear weapons by a narrow and most uncomfortable margin of only 11 votes. What
426	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Mullally frightens me over the outcome of this is that hon. members opposite now show no apparent misgiving over what until last January had caused many searching questions when they sat on this side regarding effective emergency measures, the dread effects of fallout, the futility of the arms race, and so on. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) reversed his convictions on that issue on January 12, and thereafter there have been no expressed misgivings from the Liberal party over nuclear arms for Canada. We are now, in effect, in the nuclear club.
In his C.B.C. broadcast of May 3, 1963, Professor Arthur L. Phelps of Kingston had this to say over the nuclear issue:
If Canada had taken-
-in the election, he is referring to-
-any effective policy against the nuclear thing it would have initiated a chain reaction around the world. It would, I think, have made both the United States and Russia re-assess their respective attitudes. It could have broken the log jam. Everything would have been dumped with a new sort of thud into the lap of the U.N. The result would be an unfixing of fixed attitudes. It would have set free a new kind of thinking. Indeed, it would have changed the international weather like a fresh wind. In fact, it would have underlined the truth just dawning in concerned informed minds that against nuclear war there is no defence anywhere, any more for anybody.
The Canadian people had a chance to give direction to political thought in our nuclear weapons problem. A brief wild gesture in the right direction might have changed the course of history. Canadians almost made that gesture, but we did not. Eventually this question will spread beyond party thinking, for I am convinced that there is a core of Canadian opinion in favour of an anti-nuclear stand. I refer to the repeated representations constantly being made to us by individuals, organizations, universities, and so on, and many of these are from high-minded persons who have as their main goal the ennobling aim of world peace.
Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of taking up my full allotted time since I am certain that my constituents are anxious to see some of the promised legislation enacted. I will therefore conclude by admonishing hon. members on the government benches to bring on good legislative proposals, for we on this side, together with all Canadians, hold high expectations from this government.


Mr. John Mullally (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join, first of all, with hon. members who have already spoken in extending to you, sir, my congratulations on your appointment as chairman of committees of the whole house. May I, through you, extend to Mr. Speaker my congratulations on his appointment to his esteemed office. I am sure that it is the sincere wish of all of us that

his tenure of office will be both successful and of long duration. May I also extend to the hon. member for Humber-St. George's (Mr. Batten) my congratulations on his appointment as deputy chairman of committees of the whole house.
It is a very distinct pleasure for me to extend my congratulations to my colleagues, the hon. members for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) and Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), for the brilliant manner in which they moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I also wish to take this occasion to express my gratitude to my colleagues who, by their many courtesies, have made my initiation to parliament much more enjoyable and much more meaningful. (Translation):
And now, Mr. Speaker, because I have a hard time with my French pronunciation, I ask my French speaking colleagues to be patient and indulgent.
Although I have studied French long enough in school and at college to be able to read it, I have spoken French too seldom to be fluent in it.
I hereby resolve to do something about it without delay. To that end, I call on my French Canadian colleagues to help me.
Living in a district of the island where French is seldom heard, I never had the opportunity to train my vocal chords in the use of the soft and gentle accents of the French language.
I am sorry that, because of my shortcomings, I have to stop murdering this beautiful language and take refuge right away in my mother tongue.
(Text):
It is my very great honour, Mr. Speaker, to represent the constituency of Kings, Prince Edward Island, in this house. Its physical beauty and rural charm are, I am sure, comparable with the most magnificent scenes anywhere in Canada. Cradled in the blue waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the fertile red soil, the green rolling countryside and the magnificent beaches of Prince Edward Island offer both native islander and visitor a landscape that is beautiful and an atmosphere that is relaxing. While we extol with justifiable pride the great natural beauties of our island, it is our island people that we most admire. I believe that the people I have the honour to represent are among the most sincere, the most generous, the most hospitable and the most independent people in Canada.
At this time, through you, Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend to them my sincere thanks for the great honour they have accorded me. and at the same time compliment them on
[Mr. Enns.l

their wisdom and foresight in electing a Liberal member. In this way they have made their contribution to the establishment of a Liberal government, a government that is destined to do great things for Canada and for the Canadian people, and at the same time make an outstanding contribution to the betterment of world conditions. I want to assure my constituents that I will always be mindful of my obligations to them, and that I will work at all times for those measures which will be of benefit to those whom I represent. May I also assure my honourable island friends opposite that the interests of my constituents will be in very capable hands, for many years to come.
While the rules of debate allow us to speak on a wide range of subjects during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I believe it is more in keeping with the spirit of the address, if not the letter, to confine one's remarks to a consideration of those matters which have been presented in the speech by His Excellency the Administrator, since this is an outline of the legislation the government proposes to present to parliament during this session. Therefore I shall discuss briefly various aspects of the speech dealing with trade, agriculture and fisheries, especially in their application to the area I represent and the Atlantic region in general. Of course, Mr. Speaker, in doing this we are very mindful that as members of parliament we must be concerned with national matters, while at the same time paying particular attention to the area we represent; because we cannot have a vigorous economy in the Atlantic provinces, for example, if the rest of the country is experiencing an economic recession. However, as legislation comes before parliament we will have an opportunity to discuss it both in its national and regional character.
In the Atlantic provinces our natural continental trading lines are north and south while the cherished political threads that bind Prince Edward Island to the rest of Canada run east and west. This has presented, and continues to present, one of the most serious obstacles to economic development and advancement in the Atlantic area. For this reason we are very concerned, probably more so than Canadians in other parts of the country, with all matters affecting trade. It is, therefore, a source of encouragement to us to learn from the speech from the throne that our far-seeing Liberal government believes that economic progress can best be achieved by steadily reducing the barriers limiting trade, and by taking those measures which are designed to expand Canada's export trade.
The Address-Mr. Mullally
The geographically natural trading routes for the Atlantic provinces lead us to the eastern seaboard of the United States, the Caribbean area and, indeed, in the broadest view to the entire European Atlantic community. I believe, therefore, that more efforts should be made, first of all, to establish a greater volume of trade between the Atlantic provinces and the West Indies and other areas in the Caribbean. Besides providing a new market for our products this would enable us to make use of carriage of goods by water, a very decisive factor at this time especially when rail freight is so prohibitively expensive, and rail service in general is being curtailed in eastern Canada.
Transportation is a great problem for us on Prince Edward Island because of the great distances that separate island producers from the markets of the rest of Canada. If proper investigation of these new markets and an easing of tariff restrictions could be arranged, then we would have a market closer at hand for our farm and fishery products, a market in the Caribbean and along the eastern seaboard of the United States which could efficiently and profitably be accommodated by water transport. We must therefore continually strive to seek ways and means to compensate for the difficulties under which we in the Atlantic provinces, in general, and we islanders, in particular, labour because of geographic and political exigencies.
Our government's program for agriculture as outlined in the speech from the throne will, I feel confident, appeal to the farmers in my constituency because it gives evidence of the government's concern for farmers everywhere. The provision of two ministers of agriculture should benefit farmers everywhere, in all parts of the country because, as the speech from the throne so clearly states, agriculture in both the Atlantic provinces and on the prairies will receive closer and more expert attention. This, of course, is quite understandable when the burden of this portfolio is, with forethought, divided in this manner. It is also very pleasing to read these words in the speech from the throne as found on page 7 of Hansard:
My ministers will institute new programs to make farming as a whole more stable and more prosperous.
We are faced with serious agricultural problems in my constituency which I am sure are not peculiar to this area alone. The relatively small size of our farms, the extremely high cost of machinery, the shortage of investment capital, the difficulties of transportation and the lack of an over-all well managed marketing program are only a few of the difficulties with which island farmers courageously do battle daily. Nearly 70 per

The Address-Mr. Mullally cent of the farms on the island are under 100 acres and with the high costs of present-day mechanized farm equipment the unit cost of production has become much too high in relation to the selling value of farm products, for island farmers to constitute effective competition. In the last decade, for example, the number of farm tractors on the island has increased by 75 per cent but at the same time the number of farms in operation has decreased by 30 per cent while the size of the farm unit has remained about constant. This means that overhead costs have risen to such a point that some measures must soon be taken to remedy the situation if economic tragedy for island farmers is to be averted.
As a rural islander, representing a rural constituency on Prince Edward Island, I would urge that some means be adopted to provide capital to enable island farmers to expand their land holdings. Land on the island is available but the capital necessary to exploit its productivity to the greatest financial advantage is not. The Farm Credit Corporation does not render our island farmers the longed-for assistance that we believed and hoped it would. The almost universal view with respect to the Farm Credit Corporation, which has so very often been expressed to me by island farmers, is that "we just got enough money from it to get into real trouble". We islanders believe that something should be done to make this federal agency a more effective vehicle of prosperity for island farmers.
Further, the cost of machinery for the small farm units presents a major obstacle to progress. As a feasible solution I exhort the executive to give immediate and serious consideration to the establishment of machinery banks by the federal government from which banks farm machinery could be rented by island farmers at a reasonable rate. In this way a machine could serve many farmers and its use would drastically reduce both the capital cost and the maintenance cost of the machinery.
Next, we require much more extensive research into practically every phase of the farm problem, especially into new crops, land use, methods of production and processing as well as the most economically effective methods of marketing. Much has been said, but little has been done on the island under ARDA, and its application, especially in relation to agriculture, has not, as island farmers see it, been clearly defined. It is quite conceivable that research, particularly in the nature of those things I have just mentioned, could be carried out as a project under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act.
Agriculture has undergone striking changes in our province, and if this industry is to survive and prosper we must propose and adopt new and imaginative measures, because this is the basic and most important industry on the island.
I was born and raised on an island farm. I know the farmers' problems and the difficulties under which they are labouring at this time. It is, therefore, with a knowledge gained from experience that I speak on their behalf.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I propose three measures which I believe will do much to improve the serious difficulties that our island farmers are facing at this time. First, I urge that easier credit terms and a more generous amount of investment capital be made available by the federal government to enable island farmers to expand their land holdings and extend their farm operations. Second, I propose the establishment of machinery banks by the federal government to help overcome the almost insurmountable difficulties in this field. Third, I propose the development of a program of research, financed by the federal government, into all aspects of island agriculture.
Now, Mr. Speaker, may I direct the attention of this house to our second basic industry, one which is of great concern to all of us in the Atlantic region, the fishing industry. We have been making very little progress for several years in this country in the development of the fishing industry. This is especially apparent when we compare our fishery development with the rapid progress other countries have been making in recent times. It is, therefore, Mr. Speaker, more than encouraging to know that our Liberal government has expressed its intention to launch, in consultation with the provinces, a program of national fisheries development. It is the sincere hope of all islanders, of the people I represent, and I am sure of all the Atlantic provinces generally, that this will be a truly national program, a program broad in its application and designed to restore this once great Canadian industry to its rightful place in our national economy. There is a great opportunity and a great need for farsighted and realistic action by our Liberal government to expand and develop this second basic resource industry of Prince Edward Island.
It is with justifiable pride, Mr. Speaker, that I notify this house that we in Kings county, Prince Edward Island, who are fishermen and who are associated with the fishing industry, are enthusiastic in our support of the Prime Minister's sustained efforts to establish a 12-mile limit for our coastal fisheries. The intention to secure the establishment of a 12-mile limit for the use of Canadian

fishermen, as stated in the speech from the throne, has received the enthusiastic approval of my constituents. It has been welcomed by them as one of those bold, imaginative steps by a Liberal government to protect their cherished rights. If Canada is to protect its great marine resources for present and future Canadians, it is imperative that our government take the necessary steps as quickly as possible to stop the depletion of our productive fishing grounds which is being caused by the incursion of modern fishing craft from other countries. After our government has negotiated satisfactory arrangements respecting our recognized historic fishing rights with the United States and France, then a unilateral declaration can be made to prevent foreign fishing fleets from exploiting our Canadian fishing resources.
I was closely associated with the fishing industry for several years. I am well aware of the problems and the thinking of our fishermen. I can say emphatically that this is one measure which they have sought for many years, and for which they will thank this Liberal government in the future.
There are many other items of legislation about which I should have liked to speak. However, since this is my first speech before this distinguished assembly. I thought I should deal with those matters which are of immediate concern to my people, the farmers and fishermen of Prince Edward Island. I am sure that there will be occasions, as the session progresses, to deal with other matters of concern.
I have some ideas about procedure, the rules and general matters affecting our functions as representatives of our constituencies, and as members of this house. However, after less than two weeks in this house I feel that it would be premature for me to assume a dogmatic attitude concerning the best methods to adopt for the successful and expeditious dispatch of the nation's business.


Douglas Mason Fisher: When one feels such an air of concentrated excitement, upon rising before this mass audience, and contemplates the thousands of Hansards that are going to be sent out and to become thumb-worn, as one's speech is gone over, it certainly makes him feel that he is making a great impact upon the Canadian people. Dispensing with the irony for a minute, I should like to extend congratulations to the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai), the congratulations of the entire lakehead region, upon his appointment as a parliamentary secretary. We are expecting a great deal from him and from the three cabinet ministers in the government representing northern Ontario. I do not know of a time in Canadian history when such an area, in
The Address-Mr. Fisher terms of population and in terms of such a natural geographic unit, had such powerful representation as in the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Garland) and the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Benidickson).
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the horizon that is in front of northern Ontario, as it contemplates the light that is flashing from these three cabinet beacons, is almost more than we can face. However, we are going to hope that all this power will be reflected in consideration of some of the problems we have, particularly in relation to mining, forestry, transportation, secondary industry and such things.
One of the points I noted during the Prime Minister's speech in the throne speech debate was his reference to the former prime minister's passionate preoccupation with personalities. While he did not say so, he implied that this was wrong, that the former prime minister had not learned anything from his experience. Well, the main burden of my remarks will be directed towards the election and its aftermath. I want to talk largely in terms of personalities, because it is my feeling that concentration on personalities does not cloak the realities of the day: personalities express them. It is for this reason I preface my remarks with no apology for dealing largely with personalities. Moreover, I do insist that this is perhaps the most important avenue down which to look at politics today.
If one were to sum up the election very briefly he could say that none of the four parties that actually contested the election came off very well. I know the Liberals take a great deal of satisfaction out of forming the government. However, any cold blooded analysis of the situation would show their relative failure was the greatest. I recall encountering a certain cabinet minister, whom I shall not name, just a few weeks before the election. He was talking in terms of 160 or 170 seats. There was a sort of gay abandon in his air. The concrete result achieved on April 8 certainly set that optimism in a different kind of focus.
As individual members of parliament in this house, we are all successful, of course, and that is good for us. However, our parties, and our party-I make that distinction-all failed in a national way. Not one of the parties can take any tremendous amount of satisfaction from the last election.
I want to dig into some of the reasons why we have this rather unpromising and unflattering position of the parties at the present time. I want to start particularly in terms of

The Address-Mr. Fisher the personalities and in terms of the institutions, such as parliament, and the party machines and party programs. My analysis is made, having before me several glaring points regarding the present political situation-glaring and obvious to me and 1 imagine to all other hon. members here.
The first is that we need several years, certainly at least 18 months, without a federal election in this country. I think we need that space for simple reasons, reasons of equity such as the redistribution problem and the fact that we should not go back to the Canadian people again on a basis that will be 13 or 14 years out of date. I think we need that space in terms of continuity of budgeting and taxation; in terms of some kind of stability of administration in the relationships between the cabinet and the actual administrators, and the relationship between the cabinet, the administrators and the House of Commons.
We need the absence of an election, for 18 months to two years, because all the parties need to reorganize their party positions and party platforms, and of course while they will be doing this in the House of Commons in terms of the programs and attitudes they develop, I certainly speak for my own party when I say we realize how much of this has to be done outside. I am not thinking particularly in terms of party organization but in terms of our own provision for the Canadian people in the future with sharper, more clear-cut policies supported by some kind of study in depth, and of detailed reasons why we think the Canadian people should accept them.
The second glaring factor that seems to me to support the absence of an election is the fact that party leaderships are in such an indecisive position. Later on I shall refer to some of the Gallup poll analyses on this particular matter, but I do not think this point needs to be emphasized. It is quite apparent if one looks at the party situations, particularly the major party situations. Their leadership problems are substantial and they certainly need time to be worked out.
The last point in support of co-operation on our part to see that there is not an election is perhaps a Machiavellian one, a mysterious one, but it is simply this, that at present, there is a general scepticism and even intolerance on the part of the public with politicians and political parties. Maybe I overdraw that point, but I certainly sense it and encounter it in the correspondence I get as both a politician and as someone doing a bit of newspaper practice. Despite our own party contacts who will tend to put up with us willy-nilly, there is an over-all feeling


in the country that we have let the people down and are responding with the negative kind of performance they experienced in the last parliament. Therefore the best thing we can do as politicians is to give them some time, not so much to forget but, if one wishes to use a sociological word, for us to reorientate ourselves.
If one looks at what the election revealed in terms of party support he will find some very amazing things. I am one who has never believed, with regard to the final outcome on election night, that the Gallup poll is a completely accurate forecast, but I do know from personal observation of its use in the United States, and particularly in England, it gets onto opinions that are pretty sharply held by the Canadian people.
I have their release for May 4, which is headed "Community size; religion had sharp effect on vote." It goes on to say that the Roman Catholic vote was strong for the Liberals, being 59 per cent of their total in English Canada shown. I had this put to me in very amusing terms in one town in my constituency. When one of my supporters was on the church steps going into mass she encountered the Liberal organizer who said to her, "Look, Eva, you are the only person in the parish not voting Liberal this time. How about it?" I mention that as an example of something those of us who are in politics in English speaking Canada are aware of, and the Gallup confirms that core of strength. The Meisel studies done earlier revealed this for previous elections. The core of strength in the Liberal party during the last election and for some years, if you want to put it that way, was in the Roman Catholic vote.
I want to analyse something else this same survey put forward. Actually I do not want to analyse it; I want to give it as a fact, that in centres of over 100,000 population the Liberals had a much greater response and got much more support than the Conservative party, but as one went down to the smaller towns in rural areas the Conservative vote went up and the Liberal vote went down.
There is one other item that the Canadian Gallup poll came forward with, and the heading is this, "Liberal, not Conservative, was party of higher income." At first it struck me there was some kind of clash here. If the Liberal party was the party of higher income, and if the Liberal party was the party that had the Catholic vote and if, as all of these later papers show, the best educated people in the country tended to vote Liberal, then you had a very peculiar combination indeed.
On looking at this I finally came to the conclusion that the poll is correct. These are the three sources of strength which the

Liberal party had in the last election. Here was their greatest strength based on the tendency in English speaking Canada, and this is all this analysis will help me to work out. The Liberals got their greatest strength from the Roman Catholic vote, over 50 per cent in real figures of the vote of people with university education, and they also came up with the vote in the major cities.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if you accept this as the basis of the strength of the party now in government and I, from my own experience feel this is so, you immediately begin to think of what this support means in terms of that party and what it will do. I happen to be one of those who, from observation, share the opinions expressed by Robert Fulford who recently did a biographical article in Maclean's magazine on the Prime Minister, in which he said as a politician the Prime Minister is almost completely eclectic, that he has an open mind and no set position, and that he takes things, or ideas as they come. If this analysis of the Prime Minister's personality is correct, then it is particularly important to know something about what the Liberal party may tend to do in view of the kind of support it has.
One of the election manifestations, and the Gallup poll does not show it, was that the communications industry was overwhelmingly in support of the Liberal party and the Prime Minister. It seems to me most of the people I know in the newspaper field were wearing Pearson hearts on their sleeves when working over their typewriters, and the same thing applied to the sound and television industry. I would sure like to have found somebody other than a Liberal working in the C.B.C. news and public affairs departments. If that may seem unfair I would like to point out it was unfair to all the other parties.
If anyone wants to get social-scientific on this, down at M.I.T. they made some studies which show that despite any objectivity a reporter wants to have, his application is conditioned by his basic bias, and it certainly was apparent the basic bias of the people doing reporting and commentating, in the newspaper field in particular, had swung first in complete antagonism to the former prime minister and second, in support of the Liberal party.
If any Liberals listening feel that this is a position devoutly to be maintained, I would like to point out to them that those same people are somewhat mercurial. If they will go back to 1958 they may remember that the hearts and the slaves were not red hearts but blue, and they were pulling for the then prime minister, Mr. Diefenbaker.
The other basis of Liberal support that is quite apparent-one of the hon. members
The Address-Mr. Fisher from Alberta mentioned it and I certainly encountered it in my area-is that of the large corporations, who were out and out in support of the Liberal party not only with the funds they put up but also in the kind of administrative support they could give. When I say this, I am not complaining. As a matter of fact, if you look at it rightly you can turn this to your advantage. It is possible to do this. There are certain people who do become suspicious when they discover that one political party has the support of the major corporations in this country. But I think this is important because it is this industrial group that in my experience as a member of parliament is the most effective pressure group which influences the kind of policy that a government is going to develop. There is one other group that I must congratulate the Liberal party for, in essence, getting away from their appeal. I always regretted, and I know other people with my approach have regretted it, the emphasis upon the so-called ethnic vote. I feel that one of the good things that has come out of the last two elections is that we are really going to stop thinking in terms of orienting toward the so-called ethnic groups.
The last group, and the one I feel is an important pressure group or idea group in the country, which the polls term college vote people, although they do not have to be college vote people, are the intellectuals in the country, the brains. I do not know that as Canadians we can feel we have too many of these, because it is pretty obvious from immigration statistics that a good many of them disappear and have been disappearing over the years into the United States. But it is a fact that I encountered in my contacts with university people that the overwhelming majority of people in the academic and university fields and in the fields that are close to and have a relationship with, you may say, high culture, were supporting the Liberal party. This was largely as a very strong reaction; not so much because they were seized with the Liberal party and what it was offering, but because of a tremendously strong reaction to the former prime minister and the kind of "little folk, little men" presentation that he was giving. If you want to look at these things and then put your focus on the Liberal party and its leadership, its personalities and its direction, it seems to me you come up with the answer that, given this kind of support, you can have both hopes and fears about where this government may go.
Anyone who has read the debates is aware that you only have to read a paragraph from

The Address-Mr. Fisher the speech of the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) and compare it with a paragraph from the speech of the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) to realize that here are two young people in the party and there is a considerable divergence in their views. The question from our point of view is, which kind of path or direction is the Liberal party going to take? This is, as far as we are concerned, the most important of all questions. One of the things that has not been mentioned before but which certainly ties in with the election campaign is this. I hope the Liberal party will get off their imitation and organizational mocking of the Democratic party, and particularly the Kennedy image kind of thing. It seems to me that if they read some of the more acute United States periodicals they would realize that they have been criticizing all this "vigor" stuff and a lot of American people are beginning to realize that the Kennedy administration is really not the answer, that in Kennedy they have not got a Truman-I was going to say, they have not got a Roosevelt, but certainly they have not got even a Truman in terms of real drive and accomplishment. In this regard there is on the American scene more image than content. I feel that the reversals in imagery the Liberal party had in the last campaign should lead them to consider that this is one thing they should eschew.
We think a number of things are possible for this party in this parliament and we are looking at the Liberal government and hoping it will do certain things. My colleagues may not agree with this, but I have marked up what I might call the three positions, the Gordon position, the Sharp position and the Pickersgill position. If I might use United States personalities, I would compare the Pickersgill position to that of Senator Harry Byrd, the Gordon position to that of Hubert Humphries and the Sharp position to that of Mr. McNamara, the United States secretary of defence. I am thinking more of attitudes of personalities rather than position. If we look at the Byrd position, or the Pickersgill position, this is really the attitude that the Liberal party can handle things very well by divine right. In their minds they have the ability to straighten out the country and keep it going. This I mention first because it is the aspect of the Liberal party about which we have the least hope, because I think this ability is questionable. We will be watching very closely for the emergence in domination in the party of the divine right concept. We have very little hope for that and we think it could tend to merge into what I call the Sharp position, or, in paradox terms, the


McNamara position, that is the administrator of some genius and moderation.
This, it seems to me, in the short run may be very fine, but if we are going to meet the economic problems that our party sees Canada facing and needing solutions for, we will have to have a more radical influence in charge within the Liberal party. Mind you, I have mentioned the fact that I do not think the Prime Minister-I do not want to phrase this in terms that he has not got any ideas in his head, because it is not really that, but he is the kind of person who will seize upon ideas that are beamed to his head and will give them, I hope, some leadership. What I am suggesting is that the direction we want the Liberal party to follow is one in which there will be radical and progressive ideas, ideas which show an increasing urgency on the part of the government to give leadership and accept responsibility in economic matters. This will determine our support, our appreciation and probably our antagonism, if that should become necessary, to the Liberal party. We want to watch very closely and distinguish the influence of the various pressure groups that I have mentioned earlier.
Something that is most encouraging to me is the fact that in the core support that the Liberal party has with the Roman Catholics in English speaking Canada there is a spirit abroad today in the Catholic church which is certainly excited and stimulated by the two great encyclicals of Pope John; these look at political matters and at the form of government organization and its relationships with the people in a most advanced and radical way. During the election campaign I used to read out parts of the encyclical "mater et magistra" and I would ask the audience where they thought they came from. It was surprising how often they thought they came from the New Democratic party platform.
We are looking for many things from the Liberal party and will be showing an intense interest in their personalities and what is revealed. We are going to be sensitive, to undertake quite a critical exegesis with regard to all their statements. For instance, we want to know how much influence Mr. Lamontagne is going to have. I give his name in the clear because it is important in the terms of what he stood for before he came into the cabinet. We do not want to get into joshing about the role of the great Tom Kent, but I think here again we will be watching to see what happens. Some of us at least will be hopeful that the kind of promises that Mr. Kent could make as a politician will appear in the program that is put before us.

One of the things I enjoyed most on the day the throne speech was put before us was the appearance of the former minister of agriculture on television, where he told us three times that this throne speech perpetuated a fraud. I felt this was a real dandy. I do not know quite where he figured the fraud started. I felt maybe he meant "perpetrated". But if he felt there was a fraud perpetuated I would have thought he would have nailed it down and pinpointed its beginning. Not unrelated to this, it occurs to me we had a former cabinet minister speak in this house yesterday; if the Liberals perpetuated a fraud at least he perpetuated one of the biggest switches we have seen. He came into this house and sounded like some mossback in political terms who had crawled in here from the early nineteenth century. The kind of opposition he was attempting was such a contrast to the general imaginative and visionary line-I am not being nasty about this-that the Diefenbaker government took at times; so different that it does not make sense to me. If this is the kind of opposition the Conservative party is going to turn to in its philosophical terms we welcome it as a political party but we wonder, frankly, where it is going to lead them.
Some people are going to ask: what about the attitude of your own party? I repeat again, as I said earlier, our party needs a more clearcut philosophy. We need to do more planning in depth about our own program as well as talking in general terms, as I know we do, about the beneficence of economic planning.
I wanted to touch on some of the calls we are hearing now about the need for parliamentary reform, because this comes into the future picture. One of the things I noted about this debate is the nice way in which the cabinet has moved back and given the new people an opportunity to speak. This is good tactics and it bespeaks a generosity on their part which is truly great. I remember that when in opposition we used to talk about the four horsemen who hogged all the talk. Now they have got all kinds of horsemen in the corral and a few of us are wondering if we are ever going to see some of the lead horses again. They have certainly not been apparent in this debate.
This reflects one of the problems I have noted in this house and that is the distinction between the government backbencher and any other backbencher and also the distinction between the backbencher at any time of any party and what I call the so-called stars of the House of Commons, where we definitely have a star system. One of the reasons, it seems to me, why we never get anywhere
The Address-Mr. Fisher with proposals for reform is because traditionally this parliament has been in the hands of a cluster of what you might call stars. I was amused at hearing one of the new brighter members of the Liberal party feeding me the line given to him by his leaders that the thing to do is to come in here and take your time; there is no rush; it is a complicated place and you have got to get used to it. I trust he sits and takes his time until eternity, in political terms.
Our system does not allow any real purpose for a backbencher. His responsibility is to get elected on election night. Then he must be counted on to do so again at the next election. In the interim, he vegetates and looks after his sacred riding.
If we were serious in this talk about parliamentary reform we have to come to some decisions about what standards of performance should be expected of backbenchers. Should we have a roll-call here so that we might have some standard of attendance? Let us just not demand more or better parliamentary committees. How are we going to get better committees if we do not allow backbenchers more scope and opportunity in terms of research facilities? I hear people talk about the importance of research, but one of the things which has never been really settled is whether this research should be centred on the party organization or on the parliamentary library or whether it should be fed directly to the member himself. We have no standard of performance here and the traditional line seems to be the amateur gentleman line best symbolized by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) when he rose a few years ago in this house with beautiful unction and told us he hoped the day would never come when being a member of parliament was a full time job. There is what you might call the amateur gentleman conception of the member of parliament, and then there is the one that it is a full time job which requires and demands all one's energy and support in terms of money and research and then opportunities within the House of Commons itself to do something.
Frankly, it is possible for anyone who is pushing and has a lot of gall-and I am pushing and I would certainly not deny that I have gall-to operate within the confines of this institution and, to some degree, to achieve what I set out to achieve for my constituency and perhaps for my party. But if we are going to reform this system we have to make reforms which will affect all members including some of the more shy ones or the ones who perhaps need a great deal more encouragement than somebody like me.

The Address-Mr. Fisher
The idea that the Americans have where a senator or a congressman conducts himself like a Roman pro-consul who can roam the world with tremendous resources at his command and defy the party at any time is really the thing that tends to frighten our party leaders, particularly our major party leaders. They do not like to give such scope. When the former government was in control, one of the things I used to notice was that everybody was somewhat fearful that if they did allow such latitude someone would commit a gaffe. I remember when one young fellow went to Paris and said something which was not approved-and what a tearing down he got. This reflects this hesitation on the part of Canadian party leaders to give the support and the free rein which are enjoyed elsewhere.
I see you are about to rise, Mr. Speaker, and I should just like to thank the house for this magnificent audience. I shall look forward to going into greater detail on some future occasion regarding the matter of parliamentary reform.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired and unless we have the unanimous consent of the house no question can be put to him about what he has said. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to answer a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thank you. I just wanted to ask the hon. member if, despite what he said in his interesting speech, he does not consider he is running the danger of casting himself in a role of being a mere observer of the political scene? Does he not think he is running in his travels a great distance from the old C.C.F. party which was a stimulating force in this house, and that his group, if he really represents it, will likely become insignificant and unimportant in the House of Commons?


Douglas Mason Fisher: There is no real answer to a question phrased that way, but I should like to point out to the hon. gentleman that if what he has been missing is partisanship or if he is missing a flaunting of the party program here I hope he feels I am not incapable of doing that.
I hope the hon. gentleman feels that given the kind of debate we have in which we have heard, not the stars of the party system but some of the more humble people in it, they would be interested in this somewhat philosophical discourse.


Mr. Reg Cantelon (Kindersley):: Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I first associate myself with the many other members who have congratulated you, sir, and the Speaker on your elections to the important posts you both now occupy?
I would also like to congratulate the mover (Miss Jewett) and seconder (Mr. Choquette) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and also the numerous other members who in speaking in this debate have made, as I am making, their first speeches in what is, to us, the strange atmosphere of this chamber. I assure them that if they were not nervous, I am.
It is a pleasure and a great honour to represent the constituency of Kindersley, one of the finest farming areas in the province of Saskatchewan. It not only has some of the finest grain land in the province but it also has some very fine pasture land. The combination of these two gives us a great diversification in farming. However, this constituency is not only fortunate in that respect but in others as well. We are fortunate in having oil, gas and salt located in my constituency, and founded on that base the industrialization of the constituency, I am sure, is only a matter of time.
It is a pleasure to me, too, to represent this constituency since the constituency has had the very great honour of having the former member for the constituency, Mr. R. L. Han-bidge, appointed as lieutenant governor for the province of Saskatchewan, a position which I am sure you will agree, as is evident from the applause, he will fill with distinction and charm.
Kindersley constituency, then, not only has some of the best wheat growing land, as well as some of the finest pasture land in the province, but because it has this industrial base it is growing very rapidly. I have in my constituency two of the fastest growing towns in the province of Saskatchewan. In common with much of this area Kindersley constituency suffers from the usual growing pains. Fifty years ago Kindersley constituency was nothing but wilderness with a few railway lines snaking across that wilderness. Settlement followed these lines, so that these railway lines are today an extremely important part of the lives of my people. Therefore, we are much concerned about the talk of railway line abandonment. I was pleased to hear the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mcll-raith) say that careful consideration was being given to this matter. May I respectfully suggest to him that if, and I repeat if, these railway line abandonments are to be proceeded with, then his government must find satisfactory means of enabling the farmer to send his crop to market. Not only must this

be done, but it must be done at fair prices for the alternative transportation services which will have to be provided.
We have one other problem which we hope the government can assist in solving. While only general indications have been given as to what type and kind of project the municipal development fund will assist, I would hope that it might provide funds to solve the matter of water shortage which a number of related communities in my constituency are presently greatly concerned with. Without water even the oil, gas and salt in my constituency is going to have a great deal of trouble in producing the industrial growth and expansion which I am sure would otherwise occur, but which will be limited by water shortage.
In general, the philosophic basis of the speech from the throne is easy to agree with. Its brevity is not necessarily a source of weakness. However, I am compelled to agree with my colleague the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) that the attempt in the address to spell out cures does so by multiplying the bureaucratic agencies, of which I am convinced we have enough today. I am also quite convinced that the people of Canada do not have much faith in the ability of a bureaucracy to solve their problems. Instead they want their government, through this parliament, to take effective and specific measures to do so. There seems little evidence of these measures in the speech from the throne, and what there are in some instances would indicate that sober second thought is needed.
I would in particular refer to the decision to appoint two ministers of agriculture. Without question this is an unpopular move in the west. The farm organizations have said so in very explicit and definite terms. I need repeat only one argument which seems incontrovertible. Two ministers will be one other factor dividing the country into regional blocs. Yesterday morning the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) refused to state whether there would be two departments, one for each minister. If there is and each is to have a department of his own, we have a proliferation of bureaucracy with, in my opinion, no increase in efficiency. If there is to be only one department, conflict will be certain to occur between the two heads, the two ministers of agriculture. However, we would all be prepared to accept gratefully two ministers of agriculture if they can do as good a job for the farmers as the former minister of agriculture did during the last five years. They have facing them an extremely difficult problem if they are to sell our grain. Every wheat grower hopes that they are successful in continuing the China wheat sales. How-
The Address-Mr. Cantelon ever, if they do not do better for the farmer than this government has done in the new milk and milk products sales regulations, I am afraid that the wheat farmer is in for real trouble. The exposition of its weaknesses by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) was masterful and he is to be commended for it. Even though this government does not like advice it would do well to heed his.
If the government is to sell our grain it will have to realize, as the Liberal government of 1956 failed to do, and as the past Conservative government did realize that the day of the seller's market in grain is gone. The seller must take every possible step to push sales. The last government succeeded. This government has already given evidence of its closed mind arrogance when it replied to the good advice of the previous minister of agriculture, as reported on a television interview, that it did not need advice from the last minister of agriculture, although there is no one better qualified to give such advice. There has been born into this world only one man who did not need advice from other men. This know-it-all attitude of the government does not give much hope for success.
The announcement of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) made prior to the opening of the house, that the government intended to use $10 million to provide 10,000 scholarships to university students is something that every educator in the dominion should welcome. Certainly I do. However, this welcome gesture is only that. It does not begin to cope with the two main problems facing the universities today-lack of accommodation and shortage of teaching personnel. These two problems can be solved and they will be solved by the universities themselves if they are given the necessary funds. And where are the universities to get this money, if it is not mostly supplied from the federal treasury? Yesterday morning the Prime Minister stated that the matter of university aid would be considered in relation to other financial needs of the country. This does not sound too hopeful for the universities.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to place on record some estimates of just what that need will be in the next few years. These estimates were supplied by the Canadian Teachers' Federation. In the academic year 1962-63 it is estimated that full time student enrolment in the universities will be 137,000. In 1965-66 it is estimated the enrolment will be 182,900. The operating expenses too, will rise per student. In 1962-63 the operating expense per student will be $1,797. There will be a regular increase each year, so that in 1965-66 the cost will have risen to $2,094. This will mean total

The Address-Mr. Cantelon operating expenditures in the millions of dollars-$246 million in 1962-63 and $383 million in 1965-66. Thus the percentage increase each year over expenditures of the previous year will run from 15 to 17 per cent.
The estimate of the need with regard to teaching personnel indicates an equally serious situation. If one dips into the past for a year or two he finds that in 1955-56 there were 6,000 persons teaching in the universities, while in 1960-61 the number was 9,000, an increase of 50 per cent in five years. The projected need indicates that in 1965-66, there will be 14,000 required and in 1970-71, there will be 25,000.
I repeat that the universities themselves can solve these problems if they are given the money. Since people are any country's greatest resource, it is my contention that this assembly is morally bound to provide the university institutions with the necessary funds. The past government's method of making grants to the universities does not violate provincial rights since the federal parliament does not maintain any control over how the universities spend the moneys. These grants can be readily increased.
Not only are our universities in difficulties but our secondary schools also need comparable help. To see that the provinces receive this help without violating the principle of non-interference with their educational rights may be more difficult. But the old saying, where there is a will there is a way, is just as applicable today as it ever was. We should have that will. One way in which the past government provided help was by assisting in vocational education. In 1960 some $10,694,000 was provided to the provinces in this way. The statistics for the year 1961 have not been released but I believe a fair estimate would be something over $25 million. However, between April, 1961 and January 28, 1963 the federal share of co-operative projects in this field amounted to $292,800,000. This is worth-while aid. The present government should continue it. The poorest child in the poorest region of Canada is entitled to the best education this country can provide. We cannot afford to waste our human resources. I have only touched on this matter and I hope in the future to be able to expand upon it.
Some other members have expressed their beliefs as to their parties and what they think those parties stand for. I should like to conclude by stating what I think the Progressive Conservative party has demonstrated it stands for today. First, it stands for a united Canada. Second, it stands for equality of opportunity for all parts of Canada and equal rights for all peoples, races and religions in Canada. Third, it stands for Canada

for Canadians. So long as it continues to support these principles I shall be proud to represent Kindersley as a member of the Progressive Conservative party.


Mr. M. L. Klein (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to add my congratulations to those that have already been extended to the new Speaker and Deputy Speaker on their appointments. My constituency is one constituency removed from that of the Speaker, and I might tell the house that the Speaker has enjoyed the confidence of his constituents for many years. They are happy that this house now shares their sentiments and high regard for him. I also wish to add congratulations to the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) on having set a very high standard of debate in this house.
I should like to take a moment to pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Leon Crestohl, who passed away some three days prior to the close of nominations. I may tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I campaigned in the constituency of Cartier and he was held in extremely high regard by his constituents. His passing is a loss not only to the constituency of Cartier but to Canada as well.
(Translation):
I have the honour of representing in this house the constituency of Cartier which is situated in the heart of Montreal, since St. Lawrence boulevard, which is the dividing line between east and west, crosses it from north to south.
Cartier is probably the most cosmopolitan riding in Canada, as several languages are spoken there. Almost half of my constituents are French speaking and the other half includes almost all ethnic groups.
All ethnic groups hope that the great French culture and the great English culture in our country will, as soon as possible, progress on an equal basis.
(Text):
The ethnic groups of Canada, who recognize the position held in this country by the French speaking and English speaking cultures, want to remind Canada that there is still a third culture in this country which may be called the multiculture of the ethnic groups. The ethnic groups now compose 25 per cent of the population of this country. When we admit immigrants to this country we are for the most part admitting the cream of the people of the countries from which they come, because it takes great courage for a man to pull up his roots and to emigrate to a foreign country.

He does not understand the language and he must enter into competition with the people there. These are the kind of people we want in Canada because when they build for themselves they help to build Canada.
It is true that it is a privilege for an immigrant to be allowed to enter Canada but this is not a one-way street because the immigrant or, for want of a better word, the new Canadian adds and contributes to the country. I submit that the United States of America entered upon its greatness when it allowed waves of immigrants to come into that coun-depends in large part upon the successes of the laboratories and research departments such as are now being operated in the United States of America. I would venture to say that if it were not for the scientists of the ethnic groups there would have been no Manhattan project.
In 1933, Hitler came to power in Germany and by act of God or by act of providence, Franklin Delano Roosevelt became president of the United States. It was then that the struggle between good and evil commenced. It was at that time, Mr. Speaker, that the United States of America welcomed to its borders the great German scientist, Albert Einstein who, under the protective roof of Princeton University, brought forward the formula that gave birth to the atomic age. Then, an equally great refugee, a great Italian scientist, Enrico Fermi, who was a world Nobel prize winner in 1939 and who fled from fascism, established himself in the United States of America and set off in the University of Chicago in 1945 the first nuclear reaction. These two great refugees, these two neo-Americans, both came from a race that knew the meaning of persecution.
It is a fortunate thing, Mr. Speaker, that these two scientists found their way to the United States. Had they remained in their lands of origin, it is possible that the atomic age might have belonged to Hitler or, perhaps to Stalin. If that had been the case, instead of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, it might have been London, Paris, New York or Montreal.
I am somewhat dismayed by some of the speeches I have heard which practically deprecated the existence of the United States of America. If we are to count our blessings, surely one of those blessings is the fact we are located geographically north of the United States of America instead of geographically north of the Soviet union. Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania once existed north of the Soviet union, but they no longer exist. We have been saying to Europe for more than a century: why can't you live in Europe the
The Address

Mr. Klein way we live here in America? We live beside the United States of America. We have a common border of 3,000 miles, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. There are no troops, no guns and no planes. To whom does the credit go, to us with 18 million people or to them with 180 million people? If the people of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia could speak to us today, they would tell us how fortunate we are that we are living next door to the greatest, the finest, most powerful democracy in the world.
Some of us have been saying, in effect: Yankee, go home. Some of us have gone beyond the South American countries and have said, "Yankee go home, and take your Yankee dollar with you." They have said, "We do not want your magazines; we do not want your nuclear warheads; we do not want any part of your culture. We want very little of you, but for God's sake if we are attacked you must come and defend us." Prior to April 8, we were not popular in England. We were not popular in the United States. It would seem to me that the only places where we might have won a popularity contest were in Cuba or red China.
I say it is a great commentary, Mr. Speaker, upon the greatness of the democracy to the south of us that we can say whatever we want against the United States without fear of oppressive retaliation. Hungary had freedom for three days. The people spoke out against the Soviet union and the red tanks rolled back into Budapest. In 1945, when the war ended the United States possessed the most destructive weapon that has ever been possessed in the world. She had in her hands the power to possess any country that she wanted. She could have threatened the sovereignty of any country she wanted. She did not take one foot of soil belonging to any other country and did not touch one inch of sovereignty belonging to any other nation on this globe. This is the kind of nation we have to the south of us.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that is indisputable, that if any nation in the western world has sovereignty today, if England has sovereignty, if France has sovereignty, and even if Canada has sovereignty today, it is due to the great nuclear deterrent power of the United States of America.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say that Canada should go forward in partnership with the United States, not as a satellite but as a partner, in this great North American adventure. God bless Canada, but God bless America too.

The Address-Mr. Dinsdale


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, this debate is in its final few minutes and I do not want to be the one to bring to a conclusion a discussion that has ranged over a very wide area of interests, domestic as well as external. The good book says that the last shall be first and the first shall be last. I should like to extend congratulations, for a very special reason, to the mover (Miss Jewett) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. She represents a professional group in Canada that has appeared only recently in governmental circles at the national level. I refer, of course, to the members of the teaching profession, and particularly professional political scientists. I should like to extend congratulations to her on the quality of her presentation and also because she has given the lie to that old saw which is said to apply to those in the teaching profession, to the effect that those who can, do and those who cannot, teach. I think that her accession to this house is a very worthwhile innovation indeed.
I should like to extend my congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker. I want to take this opportunity to return a compliment that you extended to me and about which you have no doubt forgotten. When I first came to this house back in 1951, you were one of the first members to invite me to the parliamentary restaurant to give me a fatherly talk on the duties and responsibilities of members in this chamber. Those are little courtesies that one does not forget in the hurly-burly of parliamentary life. I must admit I did not take all of your advice on that occasion, but as you sit in the chair presiding over the deliberations of this house and holding in your custody the rights and privileges of all hon. members, I am sure I can agree with everyone else who has spoken along these lines, that you will discharge your responsibilities with the distinction you have shown in all the duties you have undertaken in the house.
Mr. Speaker, it has become obvious during this debate that one of the prime slogans of the new government, incidentally a slogan that was imported from abroad, "let's get the economy moving again," was a rather unfortunate one from the standpoint of the new government. I think it has become evident, in the course of the many speeches already made, that the economy was moving much faster and more programs were proceeding than the members of the new administration had realized, or at least had cared to admit.
I think the slogan was chosen because they had become bamboozled by their own propaganda which, time out of number, came out


with slogans such as "The economy of Canada is sick," "We are confronted with runaway inflation," and that the former administration was stumbling and bumbling, or words to that effect. The stumbling and bumbling in the next few weeks will not apply to the administration that has just departed but to the new administration that has come in. I say that with modesty, because I realize there are tremendous problems confronting Canada, and any hon. member, whether he be a member of the government or not, has to recognize he is subject to all human foibles and there is no elixir of life, no universal solvent, that is going to resolve all the problems confronting Canada at present.
I am sure that very often in their quieter moments of meditation the new ministers- to paraphrase the title of one Broadway production that has been running for some time-have wished "Stop the world, I want to get off." I am sure some of them have had that same reaction to the rapid events and to the policies and programs they have taken over and for which they are now responsible.
So far as I can see, looking at the throne speech, the policies enunciated by the government thus far are either a continuation or an enlargement of programs and policies that were under way. In fact, if you look at it mathematically you find that the pieces of government legislation on the order paper to date number eight, whereas for the same period of the last parliamentary session there were 21 pieces of government legislation before the House of Commons. Yet these distinguished gentlemen who now occupy the treasury benches went about the country, either deliberately or deluded by their own propaganda techniques, telling the people of Canada that the former administration was a government of inaction without progress, without policy, without purpose.
I have been trying to imagine what might have persuaded the new administration to adopt this slogan "Let's get the economy going again," which resulted in the inevitable corollary

the famous 60 days of action. I believe such slogans resulted from a deep seated sense of guilt which has carried over from the period when members of the Liberal party last occupied the treasury benches. I quote as my authority in that respect none other than the leader of that party, the present Prime Minister, in the famous conclusion whereby he summed up the defeat of the government in 1957 when he said, in his typical choice of phraseology, the brass had got out of touch with the grass. The years of neglect, indifference and complacency had caught up with the previous administration, and returning to power on the waves of propaganda which largely constituted the last

election campaign, and now burdened with a sense of guilt for the lack of activity during their previous 22 years in office, they decided to try to make up for lost time, but there is an old saw which says more haste less speed. I am sure it has already been demonstrated to them that this is true.
We talk about the need of adjusting to the tremendous changes facing Canada and the world at the present time, but I would suggest that the time when Canada should have been adjusting to those changes was in the years immediately following world war II, and no amount of frenzied activity not connected with thought and planning is going to make up for the years that the locusts have eaten.
I have only time to deal with three areas which demonstrate that in this so-called program of getting the economy going again, this 60 days of decision, lack of careful foresight and planning is already evident. I shall deal first with the field of agriculture. It was obvious in the late forties and early fifties that our agricultural industry was faced with major problems, but the only answer we could get from the government of that day was that the farmers never had it so good, that all would be for the best in the best of all possible worlds. It was obvious then that there was a rural-urban drift under way, and this has now been recognized on all sides. The farmers were leaving their rural environment and moving to the new metropolitan communities. This now constitutes one of our major social problems, but nothing was done to assist in the adjustment to this fundamental process of social change. Mechanization was under way. The cost-price squeeze was one of the main reasons behind the rural-urban drift, but no action was taken to deal with it. There was educational rigidity and educational inadequacy, particularly in the rural communities.
The Liberal party talk about a government stumbling and fumbling, but in six years of Conservative administration the major problems that beset the agricultural community -and the well being of that community is basic to the national well being-were dealt with and the results are already evident. I do not have to go through the programs and the policies. The support of the rural communities is indicative of their endorsation of the programs that were speedily carried out. I know there is a tendency on the part of the pundits as well as the politicians to say that we now have a voting dichotomy in Canada between the rural and the urban community. But it is not a clearcut distinction of that kind. It is, rather, that the areas which were
The Address-Mr. Dinsdale more susceptible to the propaganda techniques of the Liberal party reluctantly moved in that direction in sufficiently large numbers to give a moderate majority. But in the areas where programs of national development really count, where there were real problems of social adjustment, the voters of Canada soundly endorsed the policies of the former administration.
I should just like to refer to the ARDA program, the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act. This is a major piece of legislation, arising out of the resources for tomorrow conference, which is going to transform the face of rural Canada as well as urban Canada in the next few years. It should have been undertaken at least a decade before it actually was dealt with. However, as I have already indicated, the immediate post-war years were marked with neglect, indifference and complacency. ARDA is just as broad as the people of Canada wish it to be. The most important aspect of ARDA is that it places the initiative in the hands of the local communities. No bureaucracy from the top can control the operations of ARDA. The program provides the legislative framework for local initiative to deal with local problems, alternative uses for land, new industrial activity in the transformation taking place in the rural communities, and retraining for the people who have been displaced in the great rural-urban drift that has been taking place during recent years.
What do we have substituted for this vigorous, visionary program? We have a plan to introduce two agricultural ministers in Canada. Mr. Speaker, I would say this is merely a political gimmick and will solve nothing. In fact it will only aggravate and intensify the problem, because agricultural matters in Canada, as is the case in other economic spheres, are indivisible; you cannot segregate or separate Canada into east and west in this regard.
Then I would refer to some of the statements made with regard to solving the wheat problem, the $2 a bushel wheat for example. I would point out that as the new government proceeds to implement this policy-and it is duty bound to do so because this was a solemn promise made during the election- they are going to wreak havoc in one of the major problem areas of the farming community in Canada; that is, to the preservation of the family farm. Their policy will have this effect because $2 a bushel wheat will give maximum support to the large farmer and minimum support to the smaller farmer, who is feeling the pressure of the cost-price squeeze at the moment. I say, Mr. Speaker, that a prosperous agricultural industry and a thriving agricultural community is still

The Address-Mr. Dinsdale basic to the welfare and the well being of Canada. The fact that this important sector of the economy was completely omitted from the speech from the throne is an indication of the new government's dereliction in this regard. I am sure that a good deal of the present economic upsurge can be traced to the increased purchasing power that has been made available by the successful agricultural program of the Conservative administration.
Mr. Speaker, there was no reference at all to the field of education in the speech from the throne. I would point out that we have had a crisis in education ever since the 1930's, and certainly since the end of world war II. Everybody used to talk about it and nobody did anything about it. When I first came into this house in 1951 it was impossible to have the subject even discussed intelligently because of the buck-passing technique, the logrolling technique between the constitutional authority of Ottawa and the authority of the provinces which was resorted to by the former Liberal administration. They said this was a subject under the purview of the provinces and there was therefore no responsibility at the Ottawa level. The former administration moved vigorously in this field. We instituted the vocational and technical training program, grants to universities doubled, we gave construction assistance to institutions housing the important faculties of the humanities and social sciences. These have all been a long step forward. In the face of the presentation made by the representatives of the Canadian university foundation just the other day I would quote from the Gordon commission report to remind the new administration that if they are going to take vigorous and visionary action they must do something constructive and positive in this area of education. In other words they must follow up the programs already initiated by the former Conservative administration. I quote from the Gordon commission report:
It is our duty ... to point out most emphatically that it is vitally important to Canada's future for the status of our universities to be improved and strengthened, and for their facilities to be increased ... In this connection it must suffice us to express the strong opinion that no government which bears any share of responsibility for the future economic development of this country can allow a solution to the pressing financial problems of the universities to go by default.
I would remind the new government, and particularly its Minister of Finance, of their responsibilities in this respect. During the recent election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) visited my constituency. I regret to say that he was not extended the hospitality for which western Canada is noted.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.
[Mr. Dinsdale.l


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I had nothing to do with it. In order to get into the mood of the occasion I wore a lovely, red trapper's coat just to show that everything was impartial and on a very high level. But the Prime Minister made the unfortunate mistake of holding his reception in the new building in Brandon College which had been provided by the forward looking educational assistance programs of the Conservative administration. He was there making promises about federal aid to education, about university scholarships and about all sorts of wonderful things that were going to happen in the field of education. I wish there had been some reference to this in the speech from the throne. Mr. Speaker, Brandon College, like other institutions of higher learning, languished for many years following world war II. That building in the city of Brandon in which the Prime Minister spoke was the first to be built under the construction grants program that had been made possible by the former administration.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is not what the college told me.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I personally had the privilege, Mr. Speaker, of turning the sod. I must bring my remarks to a conclusion. Right across the board, right across the whole gamut of educational activity in Manitoba there has been a wonderful transformation. This has been made possible by the increased amount of federal grants to the provincial government, which have gone up from $8 million to $45 million in Manitoba, resulting in many more millions of dollars being poured into the economy of the province. I speak of Manitoba because it is my native province. Vigorous and visionary programs of this kind constitute the reason why the present premier of Manitoba made the statement he did in the course of the last election campaign, namely that the former Conservative government had done more for the province of Manitoba than any previous administration.
Let me conclude by reminding hon. gentlemen in the government that parties are measured not by words, not by slogans, but by accomplishments. We on this side have an excellent record to present to the people of Canada in this respect. However, we make this final admonition. The nation is more important than the party, and I assure hon. gentlemen opposite that during all the deliberations of the present parliament, whether they be short or long, we on this side of the house will always place the welfare of the country above the welfare of the party. It is for this reason that the Conservative party down through the years has become identified

as the party which has done most to bring about national development and a greater sense of national unity.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt this motion?


Gordon Minto Churchill: On division.
Motion (Miss Jewett) agreed to, on division.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That the address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this house as are of the honourable the privy council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Lester Bowles Pearson: That this house at the next sitting will resolve itself into a committee to consider of the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That this house will at the next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope it will not be suggested by any hon. member that I am seeking to take away any of the rights of private members if I propose that at ten minutes before six o'clock, at the end of this debate, we do not embark upon private members' motions, which I believe would be the next item of business, but that Your Honour see it is six o'clock.
Perhaps before Your Honour looks at the clock I can say that in conformity with the announcement I made last Thursday night it would be the desire of the government to take up as a first item of business tomorrow the motion standing in the name of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister for the setting
29, 1963	441
Business of the House up of a committee on defence. Perhaps we might also have agreement, since there is agreement among all parties on this, that this motion could be amended without a formal motion to do so being made by my right hon. friend, to read "24 members" instead of "18 members" when it is taken up tomorrow.
If the debate on that motion should be concluded before the end of the day, the government would like to go ahead with the motion preceding the bill to set up the economic council of Canada. Should both these items be disposed of, the next item would be the resolution preceding the bill to set up the department of industry, and the next, the resolution respecting the Department of Agriculture.
I think that is as far as I should go, perhaps, in outlining business for tomorrow. As I announced last week, on Friday the Minister of Finance will be asking hon. members to grant to Her Majesty two months' supply both of the regular and of the supplementary estimates tabled earlier today. Once this has been disposed of-and, of course, having regard to the views expressed by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings in the last parliament we would expect that to take a very few minutes-the government would then proceed in the order I suggested for tomorrow with the items of government business on Friday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the house leader has given us an outline of the business, but I think he is going to run out of items very quickly. This is the tenth day of this parliament. There are only eight items of government business on the order paper. Last year on the tenth day we had 21 items.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I can speak for the government on this, but I express the earnest hope that we will run out of that business very quickly indeed, and I invite the co-operation of hon. members on the other side of the house in running out of that business. I can assure the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) that when that business is disposed of there will be plenty more to follow.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps on Friday the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings might have learned words of wisdom fiom the hon. member, now the Secretary of State, and will repeat some of the statements he made when we were dealing with interim supply.


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


[Stage Direction]
Table I is self-explanatory.
Table II gives a departmental analysis of the budgetary main estimates in three main categories:
(a)	Administration and operation,
(b)	Buildings, works and equipment, (i.e. capital items), and
(c)	Grants, subsidies and other items.
Parliament is also being asked to authorize the disbursement of moneys for loans, investments and advances (which add to the
government's active assets) in the total of $218,197,663 in addition to those advances which are made under continuing authority.
Not included in the totals mentioned above, but noted on page 5 of the estimates blue book for information, is the forecast of old age security pension payments amounting to $755,000,000. These pensions are not treated as budgetary expenditures since they are payable out of the old age security fund into which are placed the income, sales and corporation taxes levied for that purpose.
Table I
Total Budgetary Estimates (in millions of dollars)
			Final	
Main	Supplementary	supplementary	estimates	estimates	estimates	Total1963-64	6,314.7	230.8	1962-63	6,048.2*	181.0	* *	-1961-62	6,123.8	355.8	122.8	6,602.41960-61	5,732.2	169.9	178.2	6,080.31959-60	5,595.9	86.1	116.8	5,798.81958-59	5,178.8	144.8	282.8	5,606.41957-58	4,827.6	145.3	187.6	5,088.8***1956-57	4,526.1	153.5	89.8	4,769.41955-56	4,360.2	114.1	22.3	4,496.61954-55	4,491.8	22.0	50.8	4,564.6*This is the total of the revised estimates,	1962-63, tabled	October 18, 1962.	The mam	estimates, 1962	-63, which they	replaced,	totalled $6,276.2	million.	
**Final supplementary estimates for 196263 were not tabled prior to the dissolution of parliament. Certain additional items were covered by Governor General's warrants in February and March.
***This total is the amount appropriated for 1957-58. It is $71.7 million less than the amounts of the tabled estimates due to year-end financing by Governor General's warrants.


[Stage Direction]
(in millions of dollars)
[Stage Direction]
Administration
[Stage Direction]
Buildings, Works
[Stage Direction]
Grants, Subsidies
[Stage Direction]
and Operation
[Stage Direction]
and Equipment
[Stage Direction]
and other Items
[Stage Direction]
Total Estimates
[Stage Direction]
1963-64
[Stage Direction]
1962-63
[Stage Direction]
1963-64
[Stage Direction]
1962-63
[Stage Direction]
1963-64
[Stage Direction]
1962-63
[Stage Direction]
1963-64
[Stage Direction]
1962-63
[Stage Direction]
Agriculture
[Stage Direction]
54 5
[Stage Direction]
Atomic energy
[Stage Direction]
316
[Stage Direction]
Auditor general's office
[Stage Direction]
1.3
[Stage Direction]
Board of broadcast governors
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
3
[Stage Direction]
C.B.C
[Stage Direction]
1.9
[Stage Direction]
Chief electoral officer
[Stage Direction]
0.1
[Stage Direction]
Citizenship and immigration
[Stage Direction]
58.2
[Stage Direction]
Civil service commission
[Stage Direction]
5.0
[Stage Direction]
External Affairs-
Department	 22.4
International joint commission	 0.2
Finance	 146.7
Fisheries	 20.3
Forestry	 7.6
Governor General	 0.5
Insurance	 0.8
Justice-
Department	 10.1
Penitentiaries	 20.8
Labour-
Department	 79
U.I.C	 45.4
Legislation	 8.9
Mines and technical surveys-
Department	 29.1
Dominion coal board	 0.1
National film board	 5.3
N ational gallery	 1.1
National health and welfare	 45.1
National research council	 40.7
[Stage Direction]
64.1
[Stage Direction]
27.4
[Stage Direction]
28.8
[Stage Direction]
79.8
[Stage Direction]
62.4
[Stage Direction]
171.8
[Stage Direction]
155.4
[Stage Direction]
28.8
[Stage Direction]
13.5
[Stage Direction]
8.4
[Stage Direction]
0.9
[Stage Direction]
0.8
[Stage Direction]
46.0
[Stage Direction]
38.0
[Stage Direction]
1.3
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
1.3
[Stage Direction]
1.3
[Stage Direction]
0.3
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
0.3
[Stage Direction]
0.3
[Stage Direction]
1.8
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
85.8
[Stage Direction]
80.6
[Stage Direction]
87.6
[Stage Direction]
82.4
[Stage Direction]
0.1
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
0.1
[Stage Direction]
0.1
[Stage Direction]
55.8
[Stage Direction]
9.3
[Stage Direction]
9.3
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
67.5
[Stage Direction]
65.2
[Stage Direction]
4.5
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
5.0
[Stage Direction]
4.5
[Stage Direction]
21.2
[Stage Direction]
2.5
[Stage Direction]
1.7
[Stage Direction]
65.9
[Stage Direction]
62.6
[Stage Direction]
90.8
[Stage Direction]
85.4
[Stage Direction]
0.1
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
0.2
[Stage Direction]
0.1
[Stage Direction]
129.5
[Stage Direction]
0.2
[Stage Direction]
0.1
[Stage Direction]
1,156.1
[Stage Direction]
1,079.1
[Stage Direction]
1,303.0
[Stage Direction]
1,208.6
[Stage Direction]
19.1
[Stage Direction]
2.1
[Stage Direction]
3.9
[Stage Direction]
1.2
[Stage Direction]
1.4
[Stage Direction]
23.6
[Stage Direction]
24.5
[Stage Direction]
7.5
[Stage Direction]
1.1
[Stage Direction]
0.9
[Stage Direction]
7.9
[Stage Direction]
8.1
[Stage Direction]
16.7
[Stage Direction]
16.6
[Stage Direction]
0.5
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
0.5
[Stage Direction]
0.5
[Stage Direction]
0.8
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
0.8
[Stage Direction]
0.8
[Stage Direction]
9.9
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
10.1
[Stage Direction]
9.9
[Stage Direction]
19.4
[Stage Direction]
10.0
[Stage Direction]
7.7
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
30.7
[Stage Direction]
27.2
[Stage Direction]
7.8
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
109.5
[Stage Direction]
105.0
[Stage Direction]
117.4
[Stage Direction]
112.8
[Stage Direction]
47.3
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
58.0
[Stage Direction]
57.5
[Stage Direction]
103.4
[Stage Direction]
104.8
[Stage Direction]
8.5
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
8.9
[Stage Direction]
8.5
[Stage Direction]
28.4
[Stage Direction]
4.8
[Stage Direction]
7.4
[Stage Direction]
12.1
[Stage Direction]
12.1
[Stage Direction]
46.0
[Stage Direction]
48.0
[Stage Direction]
0.1
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
16.6
[Stage Direction]
17.6
[Stage Direction]
16.7
[Stage Direction]
17.7
[Stage Direction]
5.2
[Stage Direction]
0.2
[Stage Direction]
0.2
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
5.5
[Stage Direction]
5.4
[Stage Direction]
1.1
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
1.1
[Stage Direction]
1.1
[Stage Direction]
44.7
[Stage Direction]
2.3
[Stage Direction]
1.9
[Stage Direction]
1,157.5
[Stage Direction]
1,053.1
[Stage Direction]
1,204.9
[Stage Direction]
1,099.7
[Stage Direction]
36.5
[Stage Direction]
3.2
[Stage Direction]
2.6
[Stage Direction]
1.9
[Stage Direction]
1.0
[Stage Direction]
45.9
[Stage Direction]
40.1
[Stage Direction]
National revenue	
Northern affairs and national resources.
Post office	
Privy council	
Public archives and national library-
Public archives	
National library	
Public printing and stationery	
Public works	
R.C.M.P	
Secretary of state	
Trade and commerce-
Department	
General	
Transport-
Department	
Air transport board	
Board of transport commissioners....
Canadian maritime commission	
National harbours board	
St. Lawrence seaway authority	
Veterans affairs	
Total, Civil Departments....
Defence production-
Department	
Crown companies	
National defence	
Total, Defence Departments Total, Budgetary Estimates.
[Stage Direction]
Administration
[Stage Direction]
Buildings, Works
[Stage Direction]
Grants, Subsidies
[Stage Direction]
and Operation
[Stage Direction]
and Equipment
[Stage Direction]
and other Items
[Stage Direction]
Total Estimates
[Stage Direction]
1963-64
[Stage Direction]
1962-63
[Stage Direction]
1963-64
[Stage Direction]
1962-63
[Stage Direction]
1963-64
[Stage Direction]
1962-63
[Stage Direction]
1963-64
[Stage Direction]
1962-63
[Stage Direction]
78.3
[Stage Direction]
77.1
[Stage Direction]
0.3
[Stage Direction]
0.3
[Stage Direction]
_
[Stage Direction]
78.6
[Stage Direction]
77.5
[Stage Direction]
33.0
[Stage Direction]
32.4
[Stage Direction]
28.8
[Stage Direction]
30.6
[Stage Direction]
22.1
[Stage Direction]
17.7
[Stage Direction]
83.9
[Stage Direction]
80.7
[Stage Direction]
191.5
[Stage Direction]
190.2
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
191.5
[Stage Direction]
190.2
[Stage Direction]
4.0
[Stage Direction]
3.4
[Stage Direction]
4.9
[Stage Direction]
2.6
[Stage Direction]
7.3
[Stage Direction]
1.0
[Stage Direction]
16.2
[Stage Direction]
7.0
[Stage Direction]
0.7
[Stage Direction]
0.7
[Stage Direction]
0.7
[Stage Direction]
0.7
[Stage Direction]
0.4
[Stage Direction]
0.4
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
0.4
[Stage Direction]
0.4
[Stage Direction]
4.1
[Stage Direction]
3.7
[Stage Direction]
0.1
[Stage Direction]
0.1
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
4.2
[Stage Direction]
3.8
[Stage Direction]
80.4
[Stage Direction]
80.9
[Stage Direction]
58.3
[Stage Direction]
60.9
[Stage Direction]
40.0
[Stage Direction]
50.0
[Stage Direction]
178.7
[Stage Direction]
191.8
[Stage Direction]
60.4
[Stage Direction]
59.2
[Stage Direction]
3.1
[Stage Direction]
3.3
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
63.4
[Stage Direction]
62.5
[Stage Direction]
4.9
[Stage Direction]
5.0
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
4.9
[Stage Direction]
5.0
[Stage Direction]
31.9
[Stage Direction]
28.3
[Stage Direction]
0.1
[Stage Direction]
0.1
[Stage Direction]
32.0
[Stage Direction]
28.4
[Stage Direction]
0.8
[Stage Direction]
0.6
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
0.8
[Stage Direction]
0.6
[Stage Direction]
124.5
[Stage Direction]
116.9
[Stage Direction]
76.9
[Stage Direction]
97.5
[Stage Direction]
50.2
[Stage Direction]
38.9
[Stage Direction]
251.6
[Stage Direction]
25.34
[Stage Direction]
0.6
[Stage Direction]
0.6
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
0.6
[Stage Direction]
0.6
[Stage Direction]
1.3
[Stage Direction]
1.3
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
12.1
[Stage Direction]
12.8
[Stage Direction]
13.4
[Stage Direction]
14.1
[Stage Direction]
0.3
[Stage Direction]
0.3
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
26.4
[Stage Direction]
17.1
[Stage Direction]
26.7
[Stage Direction]
17.4
[Stage Direction]
3.1
[Stage Direction]
5.2
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
3.1
[Stage Direction]
5.2
[Stage Direction]
2.8
[Stage Direction]
2.1
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
2.8
[Stage Direction]
2.1
[Stage Direction]
63.6
[Stage Direction]
63.6
[Stage Direction]
2.6
[Stage Direction]
2.5
[Stage Direction]
269.6
[Stage Direction]
265.2
[Stage Direction]
335.9
[Stage Direction]
331.4
[Stage Direction]
1,259.4
[Stage Direction]
1,211.3
[Stage Direction]
254.8
[Stage Direction]
276.4
[Stage Direction]
3,181.0
[Stage Direction]
2,944.1
[Stage Direction]
4,695.2
[Stage Direction]
4,431.8
[Stage Direction]
22.8
[Stage Direction]
18.4
[Stage Direction]
22.8
[Stage Direction]
18.4
[Stage Direction]
6.3
[Stage Direction]
6.8
[Stage Direction]
0.4
[Stage Direction]
0.4
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
6.7
[Stage Direction]
7.2
[Stage Direction]
1,227.5
[Stage Direction]
1,209.3
[Stage Direction]
328.4
[Stage Direction]
347.2
[Stage Direction]
34.1
[Stage Direction]
34.3
[Stage Direction]
1,590.0
[Stage Direction]
1,590.8
[Stage Direction]
1,256.6
[Stage Direction]
1,234.5
[Stage Direction]
328.8
[Stage Direction]
347.6
[Stage Direction]
34.1
[Stage Direction]
34.3
[Stage Direction]
1,619.5
[Stage Direction]
1,616.4
[Stage Direction]
2,516.0
[Stage Direction]
2,445.8
[Stage Direction]
583.6
[Stage Direction]
624.0
[Stage Direction]
3,215.1
[Stage Direction]
2,978.4
[Stage Direction]
6,314.7
[Stage Direction]
6,048.2
[Stage Direction]
(Details do not necessarily add to totals, due to rounding.)
[Stage Direction]


Thursday, May 30, 1963