1963-05-23

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that in accordance with the wishes of hon. members the other day a message was forwarded to Her Majesty expressing the loyalty and devotion of members of this house to Her Majesty on the occasion of the celebration in Canada of Her Majesty's birthday.
In reply I have received the following message:
Buckingham Palace May 23, 1963
The Speaker,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
I have received your message with very great pleasure. Please convey my sincere thanks to the members of the House of Commons in parliament assembled for their kind and loyal expression on the occasion of the celebration of my birthday.



ELIZABETH R. CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT PROVISION FOR GRANTING OF CERTIFICATES IN SPECIAL CASES

Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-66, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (grant of certificate).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Speaker, the bill I propose to introduce is entitled "An act to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (grant of certificate)". The purpose of the bill is this. In the Canadian citizenship courts today there are many wives of Canadian citizens who are not granted their citizenship papers because they do not know enough of the English or French language. This is because some of these wives who live in isolated areas and places, and even in urban areas, are not able to assimilate enough of the English or French language to learn sufficient to enable them to receive their citizenship certificates. This bill is to provide that in special cases where a wife has been in Canada for 10 or 15 years but is still not sufficiently
knowledgeable in the English or French language-and there are cases where the children of such a person have become citizens of this country along with her husband-she may be granted a certificate of citizenship.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS SASKATCHEWAN    REPORTED INTENTION TO APPOINT LIAISON COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether there is to be legislation introduced along the line indicated by Mr. Thatcher, the Liberal leader in Saskatchewan, in an interview which he gave, wherein he said that the Prime Minister was going to establish a five man liaison committee in Saskatchewan to work with a minister whose responsibility would be to look after Saskatchewan affairs. I should like to know whether this five man liaison committee will be set up by legislation, or what is the nature of this committee to which Mr. Thatcher has referred in such imposing terms.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the interest of the right hon. gentleman in this matter, but I can assure him that this is purely a party matter and does not require legislation.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have that assurance that we are not going to have a constitutional monstrosity.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has under consideration appointing the gentleman referred to, Mr. Thatcher, to the other place and creating him minister without portfolio in order to look after Saskatchewan's affairs.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the hon. gentleman's interest in the organization of our party, but I do not think it is necessary for me to whet that interest by telling him exactly how we propose to carry out this organization.
170	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN



WHEAT'-STEPS TO BE TAKEN TO PROTECT CANADIAN PRODUCERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, before asking a question I would like to draw the attention of the house to a change in the seating arrangements of our party. Our caucus has selected the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) as deputy house leader of our party, and I would like to welcome him to this position.
In directing my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce I would like to welcome him back from the GATT conference, I hope with his head bloody but unbowed. In view of the United States farmers' vote in favour of the unhampered production of wheat, will the minister inform the house what steps the government intends to take to protect the interests of Canadian wheat producers, and whether he will initiate discussions with the government of the United States regarding a joint program for the orderly disposition of wheat surpluses?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have only been home a few hours but I will do my best to answer the question. As hon. members are aware, the vote of the United States farmers yesterday rejected their government's proposal for a new price support program which was to have started on July 1, 1964. I think it is premature to draw any inferences from this result until the subject has been further clarified because it is, of course, possible for the congress of the United States to take further action.
May I say, in reply to the specific question asked by the hon. member, that the government of Canada is in constant consultation with the United States government on the question of the orderly disposition of wheat surpluses. When I was in Geneva I had some discussions with the representatives of the United States government, and these will be followed up immediately.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question may I ask the minister whether this means that the government will still be able to proceed with the implementation of its pledge to pay the farmers a guaranteed price of $2 a bushel for their wheat?


Mitchell William Sharp: I was not here, sir, but I understand that the Prime Minister made it clear this is a matter of government policy that will be announced in due course.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up the subject raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and put a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the President of the United States has stated publicly that the rejection of the United States government's wheat proposal will deal a serious blow to the whole economy of the United States, would the Prime Minister go to President Kennedy, as the previous government went to President Eisenhower, and get the assurance of the president that there will not be an extension of public law 480, particularly dealing with giveaways, to move more U.S. wheat into commercial markets?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to maintain my close and friendly contacts with the president on the protection of Canada's interests in this and other matters.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I would like an answer to the specific point I raised. Will the Prime Minister get the assurance from the President of the United States that there will not be an extension of giveaways in the commercial markets of the world?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope, Mr. Speaker, to be more effective in my representations on this and other matters than were the representations of the previous government.



OATS AND BARLEY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Agriculture a question with reference to the pamphlets put out indicating that the announcement of a higher initial price for oats and barley would be made prior to seeding. On page 142 of Hansard I am reported to have said:
-a pamphlet put out by the Liberal party during the campaign to the effect that the initial prices for oats and barley would be announced during seeding.
What I did say was "prior to seeding". That will have an effect on the answer of the minister.
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. As a guide to western farmers, can the minister inform the house whether there will be an open quota on grain delivery for the present crop year, as there was in the last?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minisier of Agriculture):: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, but I will have to take the question as notice and give an answer tomorrow.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In reference to this question of making announcements prior to seeding, one of the major factors, as the minister must know, is the question of price. Would the minister indicate to the house whether he knows the significance of the fact that barley, which is in short supply, has dropped six cents a bushel in price since the election, while American corn, the competitive feed, has gone up four cents a bushel?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of newspaper reports that the government has made certain commitments at the NATO conference with regard to Canada's contribution to NATO operations, prior information having been denied to the House of Commons, will the Prime Minister see to it that an early and full report is given to the House of Commons and an opportunity provided for the fullest discussion?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, no new commitments have been undertaken as a result of this council meeting in regard to the use of Canadian forces with NATO. The Secretary of State for External Affairs will be reporting to the house on this matter on Monday, when the council meeting is over. Meanwhile I should like to make it quite clear that the role of Canadian forces in NATO is not under consideration at this council meeting. That role will be the role which was undertaken for Canada by the previous government, and which has not been changed as a result of this meeting.
(Translation):


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister intend to appoint soon a Canadian representative to the Vatican, as have done almost all nations of the world, including England?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is, of course, a matter of government policy. It is being considered, as no doubt it
Inquiries of the Ministry was being considered during the last six years by the previous government.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the Ontario provincial police are adding officers to reduce the danger of fatalities caused by power boats, and in view of the fact that the inspector in charge has stated that the chief offenders in the resort areas are under the age of 16, is the minister planning any action to assist by prohibiting the operation of such boats by individuals up to this age limit, thereby lessening the danger of deaths from this cause in our resort areas? I realize that the minister may not be aware of the thinking of his department because I gave him notice of this question very late and, if he so desires, I shall wait until tomorrow for an answer.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minisier of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I understand and appreciate the hon. member's reference to being satisfied to wait until tomorrow for an answer. I take it he has in mind the danger arising out of the control of small boats commonly referred to as outboard motor boats, and that he has reference to a news item in the morning papers to the effect that the Ontario provincial police are purchasing a small power boat of another type to be used in Ontario resort areas, mainly the Muskoka lakes region and the Algonquin park area.
I can tell the hon. member that the whole subject of the control and regulation of small power boats has been receiving active consideration, and that I hope before very long to come before the house with some statements on the subject that I hope will meet with his approval. It is a subject of very great concern to the department. The difficulty arises because of the fact that the provincial authorities have more immediate control over many of the small lakes and rivers-and some not so small-in which these boats operate, and it is very difficult for the federal authority to have a thorough inspection system.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the minister for that answer. 1 did not want to miss this opportunity to have him make some further decision in these great days.

Inquiries of the Ministry



CAPE TORMENTINE, N.B.-BORDEN, P.E.I.   CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FERRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to answer a question I asked him a couple of days ago, and which he took as notice.


George James McIlraith: I am happy to be able to inform the hon. member that the planning for this project is going forward in accordance with decisions which have been taken. Discussions on general design with the Canadian National Railways are close to completion, and funds are available in this year's estimates to complete design specifications to the point where we hope to be ready to call tenders by the end of the fiscal year. I am not in a position, however, to give further details on actual design lay-out until the consultations mentioned have been completed.
(Translation):



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister tell the house whether the government intends to take the required steps to assist the farmers of Quebec since subsidies on lime have been reduced by 50 cents a ton?
(Text):


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I am a new member and I do not know the rules very well, but I understand that questions on orders of the day are supposed to be on urgent, important matters that have arisen since the previous day's sitting, and that other questions should be put on the order paper.
Not having had notice of the question, I suggest that perhaps the hon. member could put it on the order paper.


Harry William Hays: I should like also, Mr. Speaker, to answer a question raised yesterday by the hon. member for Shefford involving the subsidy on lime purchases.
Under its lime assistance policy the federal government shares with provinces the cost of direct assistance for the purchase by farmers of limestone for agricultural purposes. Last year the previous government placed a limitation on the extent of its participation based on the average contribu-

tion made over the previous four years to each province. The government has made no change in this policy.



REPORTED WITHDRAWAL OF SUBSIDY ON MILK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Shefford inquired concerning the 25 cents per hundredweight supplementary payment made on milk. At this time I should like to clarify the reply I made then.
Under the dairy support program in effect in 1962-63 a supplementary payment of 25 cents per hundredweight was made on all milk used for manufacturing purposes other than that from producers participating in the fluid milk market. For the current support year this 25 cents per hundredweight payment has been increased to 30 cents per hundredweight for milk from eligible shippers whose milk is used for the production of cheddar cheese. This action was taken to provide a modest incentive to the diversion of milk to cheddar cheese production, since both domestic requirement and export opportunities have increased for this product.
For milk used for the production of butter and skim milk powder the 25 cents supplementary payment has been replaced by a purchase program on skim milk powder designed to compensate producers of milk used for this purpose. At the same time the 25 cents supplementary payment was withdrawn on manufactured milk products for which production can be adjusted to meet domestic requirements. This action was based on the premise that such products should not require federal subsidization.


Mr. H. A. Moore (Wefaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture and first would like to congratulate him, as a fellow Albertan, on his appointment as minister. How does he expect fluid milk shipped to milk condensing plants, especially in the west, to be converted to cheese production when most of the cheese factories in the western areas were forced out of production during the period when western agricultural problems were ignored? Will it not be inclined to increase butter production?
(Translation):



CROP INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR EASTERN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether the government intends to establish a crop insurance program for eastern Canada?

(Text):


Harry William Hays: I should like to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. The Crop Insurance Act provides the basis for federal government participation in crop insurance programs in any province. In eastern Canada at the present time such a program is in effect in the province of Prince Edward Island. The province of Nova Scotia also has crop insurance legislation based on the federal act.
(Translation):


Clément Vincent: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask if that crop insurance which is being offered at present to the eastern provinces is the result of the legislation that was enacted in July 1959?
(Text):


Harry William Hays: I would have to take that as notice. I cannot tell the hon. member at this time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: I am sure hon. members, particularly the newer members, will not misunderstand me if I refer for a moment to the procedure concerning questions. I should like to point out that rule 39 of standing orders of the House of Commons deals with the whole subject, and it reads in part as follows:
Questions may be placed on the order paper seeking information from ministers of the crown . ..
Then the rule goes on to set out the basic principle in these words:
. . . but in putting any such question or in replying to the same no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same; and in answering any such question the matter to which the same refers shall not be debated.
In so far as the newer members are concerned, and particularly for my own benefit, perhaps we should refer to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citations 171 and following. I think this would be very helpful to all of us.
(Translation):


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. As you have just referred to Beauchesne's work, I take the opportunity to ask the Prime Minister if we will have the French edition soon?
Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope so, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the conflicting reports which we have been reading in the press concerning the results of the conference from which the minister has just returned, I wonder if he would be prepared at the earliest possible moment, perhaps tomorrow on motions, to give a short, but I hope full, explanatory statement of what appears to be a very confused situation.


Mitchell William Sharp: I thank the hon. member for his suggestion. I had intended to make a statement today but did not realize that the session began at eleven o'clock. Otherwise I should have been prepared. I do intend to make a statement tomorrow. I think it will satisfy the members of the house that Canada's interests were fully protected, and that the cause of world trade has been advanced.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: I should like also, Mr. Speaker, to reply to a question that was asked yesterday by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle in my absence. He asked me whether the government intends to send a general trade delegation to meet with representatives of mainland China so that general trade between that country and Canada could be expanded, thereby insuring a continued volume of grain sales in that market. I should like to assure the hon. member for Qu'Appelle that these discussions have been under way for some time, and that arrangements were made some days ago for a mission to go to Hong Kong early in June.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister would give us the composition of that delegation. Which departments are to be represented on it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the present intention is that the delegation should consist of representatives of the wheat board, of course, and it will probably have representatives of
174	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry two or three other departments, the Department of Trade and Commerce, Finance and National Revenue. Those are likely to be the departments represented.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the subject matter dealing specifically with wheat, or general trade?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the mission will be to sell wheat to China.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of published reports that government negotiations have been initiated to persuade Portugal, Israel, Hong Kong and Formosa to accept quotas on certain of their exports to Canada, and in view of the widespread interest of the business community in the implications of such negotiations, can the minister advise the house whether these negotiations are continuing and, if so, can he give the house an up to date report on such discussions and negotiations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm to the hon. member that discussions on this question are under way, but I am sorry I am not in a position to give any further information at the present time.


Reid Scott: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, could the minister indicate when he might be able to give us an up to date report on these negotiations?


Mitchell William Sharp: I certainly could not give an up to date report until the discussions are completed.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the widespread anxiety created by published statements that the greater part of the radioactive debris from the December, 1962 Russian atomic tests, including strontium 90, cesium 137 and carbon 14, is now starting to drift down over Canada, and in view of the fact that such published reports indicate that such debris will settle more heavily on Canada than on any other country in the world, can the minister outline to the house


the steps being taken by the government to protect Canadian livestock and food supplies from the dangers of contamination with its resultant danger to the health of the Canadian people?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question this morning. While I feel that the steps the government is taking to protect Canadian livestock and food supplies are not properly matters which should be given on orders of the day-and if my hon. friend wishes I shall be pleased to answer a question on the order paper-the matter is of such concern to many Canadians that I should like to comment at least in this way. We are testing air, precipitation, soil, milk, wheat and human tissue. We are bringing samples to Ottawa and having these tested, and we will continue to do so in an intensified way.
However, it is not correct to say that at the moment there are significant quantities of cesium 137. If there is no further atmospheric testing the level is one which, while we are watching it, is not of great concern; that is, it is not dangerous. The levels of strontium 90 and cesium 137 result from the heavy atomic testing of last fall. At the moment it is considered by the department that the levels reached will not be high enough to warrant government intervention, but a very close watch is being kept on this and a plan is prepared for use if necessary.
I should like to assure the hon. member and all hon. members of the house, and through them the country, that the closest attention is being paid to this particular problem.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister tell the house at how many points these samples are taken across Canada?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I do not have this information available, Mr. Speaker, but may I suggest to the leader of the New Democratic party that if he is prepared to put the question on the order paper I shall see that the answer is given.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare arising out of her answer to my colleague from Danforth. Has her department undertaken any research to establish the threshold of danger with regard to the radioactive substances referred to by my colleague and the hon. lady herself or, if not, on what basis does her

department base their judgment that the danger level has not yet been reached?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, in answer to this question I am not absolutely certain what testing is being done or has been done by my department. I do know of one basis used in ascertaining whether the danger level has been reached, which is not of Canadian origin. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the answer might be lengthy and will certainly require my investigation, and that if my friend wishes to pursue the matter he either see me in private or place this question on the order paper.



PROTECTION OF PUBLIC AGAINST IMPAIRMENT FROM SMOKING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I must apologize for not having given her notice of this question. Has a decision been made regarding the control of cigarettes in view of the announcement by the British Medical Association definitely linking cigarette smoking with cancer of the lungs, and the more recent announcement of the Canadian Medical Association on this subject? What steps is the department taking to deal with the problem of making teen-agers and others aware of the connection between cigarette smoking and cancer of the lung, a disease which is now steadily on the increase and which is proving so destructive to human life?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: As I recall it, the answer to the first part of the question is no. With respect to the rest of it, may I suggest the hon. member place it on the order paper.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of newspaper reports that plans are nearing completion for the construction of a multimillion dollar institution in British Columbia for the incarceration and treatment of drug addicts, and that tenders for construction will soon be called, can the minister inform the house whether the government is considering any policy decision that might require any changes in order to apply what is sometimes referred to as the English system of treating addicts as sick people and not necessarily as criminals?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of his question just prior to my coming into the house, and also acknowledge his continuing interest in this matter of great concern to my department.
In the few moments available to me after receiving notice of the question I checked with my department and was advised that under the legislation as it now stands it would not require a change in order for doctors to treat addicts. Any physician or institution which wishes to treat an addicted person by the so-called English system is quite at liberty to do so.
With respect to the larger matter of government policy, may I say to my hon. friend and to the house that I have not had sufficient time to go into this field as deeply as I would prefer before giving a definitive answer.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question. May I ask if it is now the intention of the government to proceed with the construction of a multimillion dollar institution in the province of British Columbia.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that such a question dealing with the construction of an institution might more properly be referred to my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works.


Harold Edward Winch: Then may I do so and ask the Minister of Public Works if the intention is to proceed with this construction.


Hon. J. P. Deschalelels (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this will be known very shortly when the estimates will be tabled.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I am sorry I did not have an opportunity of giving him notice, but I would be pleased to discuss this matter with him should he so desire.
My question is as follows. In view of the
continued refusal of Pacific Western Airlines to agree to a settlement of its dispute with the Canadian airline flight attendants association in a manner consistent with fair labour practices, will the minister investigate and report to the house on the actions of the air transport board, which appear to be giving aid and comfort to this company in its attempts to avoid a fair settlement?

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):	Mr. Speaker, the officers of the
Department of Labour have been in touch with this situation for some time, and only recently instructions were given to the officer on the west coast to lend whatever assistance he could in order to reach a satisfactory settlement in this situation. With respect to the other part of my hon. friend's question, I will be glad to look into it and possibly discuss the matter with the Minister of Transport.
(Translation) :




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Would the Minister of Labour be able to confirm the approaching departure of Mr. Hal Banks and of his assistants at the head of the Seafarers' International Union?
(Text):


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot help the hon. gentleman in that regard.


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out that I do not think that question is quite that pressing.
(Translation):



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Can the minister tell us whether negotiations have been initiated to obtain new contracts for the Valcartier arsenals, near Quebec, with a view to re-employing the workers who were laid off, several of whom live in Quebec city?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that the hon. member put his question on the order paper.
(Text):



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Since he took office have any changes been made in the 
method of awarding contracts for public works projects?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



CONSTRUCTION OF LAUNCHING WAYS FOR SMALL CRAFT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. I do so because this is a matter of public interest and national significance. Is the government giving consideration to changing the former government's policy with respect to the building of launching ways on navigable waters for the use of small craft? Further, have any discussions been held with the representatives of any provincial government on this question?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. The answer is no; there has been no change in the policy, and there was no meeting or discussion with any provincial representative. However, as the hon. member knows, we are always prepared to discuss this matter with any provincial government in relation to the promotion of tourist facilities.



REQUEST TO EXPEDITE INQUIRY INTO PRICE INCREASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice, and is as follows. In the light of the fact that the almost daily increases in the price of sugar are threatening to put small bakers out of business, can the minister do anything to expedite the investigation which he has already told this house his department is making, in answering questions from the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather)?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, there have already been two questions on this matter, and perhaps more; one from the hon. member for New Westminster, one from the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), and the hon. member who has just spoken, who sent me notice of his question a few minutes before the house met. I do have a reply on this subject. It is somewhat lengthier than usual but I hope the house will bear with me, because I think this is a matter of some importance.
I should like to put on the record the following information, which was given to me by the director of investigation and re-

search under the Combines Investigation Act. On the morning of May 21, 1963 the refinery price for sugar in Montreal was $16.19 net per 100 lbs. in a paper bag. On May 21, 1962 the comparable price was $7.03. The increase is $9.16. On May 15, 1962 the world spot price for raw sugar was $2.68 U.S., and on May 20, 1963 it was $12.30 U.S. The difference is $9.62 U.S., and when allowance is made for the fact that it ordinarily takes 107 lbs. of raw sugar to make 100 lbs. of refined sugar, the Canadian refiners, who must buy their raw sugar under pricing conditions that are directly affected by world market prices, have had a cost increase of $11.11 Canadian per 100 lbs. of refined sugar.
Between April 8 and May 20, 1963, the world spot price for raw sugar went up by $4.47 U.S. or approximately $4.83 Canadian. In the same period the net refinery price in Montreal increased from $11.98 to $16.19, or by $4.21.
Both these illustrations indicate that Canadian refinery prices have gone up less than the price for raw sugar. The figures given, however, are not completely reliable because they do not show the actual prices at which the refiners, who are continually making purchases of raw sugar for future requirements, have bought, but they are the best available figures for purposes of comparison and do show why the refiners have had to increase their prices. They also indicate that the price advances have not been out of line with increased costs for the basic and essential raw materials.
The two main reasons for lower prices on refined sugar in the United States at the present time are, first, that there is now no tariff on importation of raw sugar into the United States and, second, the United States prices are apparently lower than Canadian prices because of the different exchange values of the United States and Canadian dollars.
The increase in raw sugar prices is said to flow from increased demand, poor beet sugar crops in Europe for the past two years, and poor cane crops in Cuba. Speculation in the world sugar market may also play a part. None of these matters is under the control of the Canadian refiners.
Beet sugar production in Canada is substantial, but it only accounts for about one fifth of the country's requirements. In the present situation, sugar beet growers and beet sugar makers are not in a position to affect the price of sugar in cane sugar consuming areas in any significant way.
It is the practice of the combines branch to scrutinize all notable commodity price movements for the purpose of determining
Inquiries of the Ministry whether there may be cause for inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act. In the case of sugar, the director indicates that price changes of the nature experienced can take place without their necessarily having any significance under that act. The director will continue to keep the matter under surveillance.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether the negotiations with the United States respecting the Columbia river have reached the stage where he shares the optimism of Premier Bennett that an agreement will be reached at the June 3 meeting.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Premier Bennett will be discussing these matters with myself and other members of the cabinet on June 3 in a preliminary way. I should think it would be a little optimistic to deduce from this fact that complete agreement between British Columbia and ourselves will be reached at this one meeting, let alone agreement between Canada and the United States.	[DOT]


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question. Will there be representation from the United States interests at this meeting on June 3?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No. This will be a discussion between representatives of British Columbia and the federal government with a view to getting matters cleared up between ourselves before we can make a final arrangement with the United States.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the hon. gentleman give the house information on the present financial status of the unemployment insurance fund and its future prospects?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Hamilton South I wish to say that one of the first things I did on entering the Department of Labour was to inquire about the status of the unemployment insurance fund. The figures I have seen indicate

Inquiries of the Ministry that at the end of April this year the fund was in a deficit position in the amount of approximately $23 million. That situation has been met by loans for the month of April authorized by warrant in the amount of $25 million.
(Translation):



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the savings of $6 million effected by the Minister of Agriculture as a result of the cancellation of subsidies on milk, can the Minister of Finance tell us which taxes he intends to abolish in order that Canadians may benefit from those $6 million savings?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but that question is out of order.
(Text):



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation to extend the payment of family allowances to those up to and including 18 years of age if still attending school, which according to reports the minister promised at the time of her appointment?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question, but I am sure he will realize that his query relates to government policy which, in accordance with the usual practice, will be announced at such time as the Prime Minister decides.


Alexander Bell Patterson: A supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister would recommend that this action be taken.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I wonder whether the minister could tell the house whether his department has received complaints from Chinese groups in Vancouver relative to government surveillance of, or
TMr. MacEachen.]

interference with, alleged illegal Chinese immigrants? Further, could the minister give a brief outline of his department's policy in the matter of Chinese immigration?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of his intention to put this question. As to the first part of his question, I must say that I have not personally been made aware of any such complaints which are alleged to have been filed with my department. I shall inquire and endeavour to answer the first part of this question.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I wonder whether the minister could tell the house why the air transport board has refused a licence to B.C. Airlines to operate a charter plane from Vancouver to Sullivan Bay in order to transport loggers on behalf of the international woodworkers? Is this being done to protect Pacific Western Airlines, whose employees are on strike at the present time?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, with great deference I think that question is quite out of order. It is an assertion of something which the air transport board is reputed to have done. If the hon. member wants to find out what the air transport board has done in this particular connection, and why, I would be very glad to provide the fullest possible information. But I think in the form the question is put it cannot be answered, because it will be seen at once that any answer given would involve admissions which would not be in accordance with the facts.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since the hon. minister has now taken a hand in conducting the business of the house and in deciding what questions are in order, may I ask him this supplementary question. Has the air transport board refused a licence to B.C. Airlines to operate a charter plane from Vancouver to Sullivan Bay?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for putting the question in a form in which it can be answered. I will get the information for him and give him the answer.

(Translation):



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Remi Paul (Berlhier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? Could the minister tell the house if the national harbours board, which comes under his department, plans to abolish the tolls on the Champlain bridge, in Montreal?
(Text):


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I will also take that question as notice.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister of northern affairs, and also to take this opportunity of congratulating him on his good fortune in being appointed to a portfolio which as a result of the kind of vision referred to by Lord Home in this chamber yesterday has worked wonders in recent years.
My question is: has the general secretary for the resources ministers' council been selected and, if so, could the minister provide the house with his name and a brief resume of his qualifications?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, this first question from my immediate predecessor gives me an opportunity of telling the house how deeply I appreciate the kindnesses and consideration he has shown me in the transfer of our positions.
In reply to his question I might tell him that the executive of the resource ministers' council was to have met in Montreal on Saturday, May 25, for the purpose of appointing a secretary. Yesterday, however, we had a request from the chairman of the council, Mr. Levesque of Quebec, that the meeting be delayed until June 10. At that time I shall be delighted to tell my hon. friend the outcome of the meeting.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Arthur Laing: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I should like to
Inquiries of the Ministry reply to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) in respect to some motel sites in Banff townsite.
Last October steps were taken to permit construction of motels on two sets of lots in Banff where existing parks zoning regulations do not conflict with the recommendations of the Oberlander urban development plan. Public notices were published by the department on December 26, setting out the conditions under which the sites were to be awarded, and the closing date for receiving tenders was February 18. Later, at the request of the then minister, the closing date was moved to March 18.
The assessment of applications for developments that affect the character and general atmosphere of the national park merits a fair degree of time and effort. The then minister sought to have a determination made after April 16. As he had not all the facts he remitted the assessment to the department on or about April 22 for further consideration. Assessment of the 20 tenders has not been completed, and in a matter of days all interested parties will be informed of the final results.
(Translation):



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES REQUEST FOR INCLUSION OF FRENCH NAME ON AIRCRAFT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport. Since the present government is so well disposed towards bi-culturalism, does the minister expect that the words "Air Canada" will soon be painted on all T.C.A. aircraft? Last year, the present Minister of National Health and Welfare had introduced a bill in that regard.
(Text):


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the premise to his question. The government has moved forward very rapidly in the field of improving bilingual and bicultural relationships in this country and I am very happy to report that good progress has been made in the department over which I have the honour to preside.


Mr. Woolliams:: Just a matter of words, not action.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the interjection of the hon. member for Bow River, and perhaps it is well I did not hear it. As to the particular question asked by the hon. member for Chicoutimi, I cannot give him the answer at the moment.

The Address-Mr. Ryan


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will realize it is now well after 12 o'clock noon, and unless questions are of grave immediate urgency might I suggest that they be deferred to another day.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, May 22, consideration of the motion of Miss Pauline Jewett for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to the speech from the throne delivered by His Excellency the Administrator at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker.
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, to continue from where I left off at six o'clock yesterday, I would like to say to all hon. members, and particularly to all whose mother tongue is French, how pleased I am with the contents of the speech from the throne, and especially paragraphs 6 and 7. I am convinced that without the strengthening of our traditional bonds, and at the same time the recognition of the stimulating contribution of other cultures, this nation cannot flourish as it should. Indeed, it is in danger of disintegration if such steps are not taken. The leadership of the Conservative party never did pay proper attention in this direction, and it is doubtful whether there is still any awakening or realization there. That is the main reason they are back in opposition after such a short parole.
The Prime Minister is to be heartily congratulated, not only for the speed with which he has written to the premiers of the provinces enclosing to each of them the terms of reference for the proposed royal commission of inquiry on bilingualism and biculturalism, but especially for the incorporation in the terms of reference of the expressed provision that:
-the contribution made by the other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada and the measures that should be taken to safeguard that contribution-
-shall be taken into account.
The Prime Minister and his ministers are to be congratulated upon the whole content of the speech from the throne. They have not attempted to crowd the complete Liberal platform into it, as this would have meant biting off more than could properly be chewed. Instead, to the chagrin of the Leader of the Opposition, and contrary to his inclinations, a concise, clear course of action has been charted. It is a course that bespeaks decision and beneficial results for the nation. First things have been put first, and there is a new atmosphere of confidence throughout

Canada as a result of the April 8 verdict of the people and as a result of the insight and drive that the Prime Minister has continued to demonstrate since that day.
My constituents in Spadina will be particularly interested in the measures designed to promote steady employment, the system oi contributory portable pensions, the special assistance for technical training, the changes that will be made in the citizenship act to ensure full equality of rights for all Canadian citizens wherever they were born, and the promised review of immigration policy. The unspecified amendments to the National Housing Act are also of considerable interest.
With respect to employment plans I suggest that wherever possible the work to be done should be taken to the workers or provided in their close vicinity, and not vice versa. In this way the chance of a better future is offered to many persons without their being forced to leave their own environment and seek residence elsewhere, which almost always entails the heartache of separation and difficult periods of adjustment and social integration. This is particularly applicable to the landed immigrant, who should have the benefit of the advice and close association of his friends of his own nationality.
I much appreciate finding in the speech from the throne the paragraph on the establishment of a comprehensive system of contributory portable pensions. I should expect that this would take some time to evolve, due to the complexities of any such proposed system. The new Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) and her departmental assistants are to be complimented upon the hard work they have done and must no doubt still do in this respect. I receive many calls about this measure, particularly from the elderly who need and are looking forward to the extra $10 per month.
There are already two provincial institutions in Spadina that have been established for retraining purposes and they are heavily subsidized with federal grants, but more assistance in this direction is needed and particularly in this area to which so many people who lack job security seem to gravitate. The increased technical training of our youth is also a necessity and a priority. In both these connections planning should be so tied in that tradesmen will be trained for as much indoor work as possible in the winter months and as much outdoor work as possible in the milder months, and work when feasible should be scheduled accordingly. This should be given emphasis because of the particular severity of our winters. Our

planning, of course, should be for our country and its problems, and should not blindly follow that of other countries.
It is very pleasing to me that naturalized Canadian citizens will no longer be subject to deportation to their country of origin for catalogued misdemeanours or otherwise, and that they will in future, therefore, be deemed to be equal before our law. This will open the way to discussions with the United States for an agreement whereby our naturalized citizens will no longer be subject to the quota for their country of origin when seeking entry there.
It will, I know, take some time to review the Immigration Act and the regulations now in force under that act, but I am sure this will not prevent this new reform minded Liberal government from humanizing the application of the present harsh and inhuman regulations. Such action is needed and is in accordance with the spirit and tradition of this party. We on this side have always had a warm heart toward the immigrant. We have consistently realized the value to our country and its economy of a much larger population. Our domestic consumers' market still remains far too small to absorb the products of our farms and factories. Under the present circumstances, surely the need to relax regulations respecting close relatives can be met, particularly in respect of brothers and sisters, children over 21 and formally adopted children and their families. Many an immigrant saves sufficient money to sponsor a brother and can provide employment for him, only to be frustrated by the strict letter of some other regulation. The red tape and delay experienced during the last government's tenure of office by applicants for the entry of priority relatives, such as wives, parents and children under 21, should also be cut.
I congratulate the new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Favreau) upon his appointment. I remind him that he has power under the act to admit in special cases. I am sure that particularly because he is a Liberal it will not be necessary to remind him to exercise this power generously.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes to arms for our defence forces we should have the best available that we can reasonably afford to answer known threats, as history proves that only those able and willing to defend themselves survive. I believe that when it comes to co-operation with NATO and NORAD we should do our best to cooperate, for in unity only is there strength. I believe that when it comes to disarmament talks we should, with proper safeguards seek
The Address-Mr. Starr vigorously for an agreement to disarm. I am convinced that when it comes to communism an eye should be kept on the increased activity in central Toronto, as it appears to be leaving its soap boxes and following more respectable means of infiltration.
Both Canada and the United States, Mr. Speaker, are currently countries where 50 per cent of the people have 20 per cent of the wealth and 20 per cent of the people have 50 per cent of the wealth. In the light of this fact I believe that when it comes to questions of planning, and automation versus employment, a new sense of social justice must imbue both our industry and our government, even a good Liberal government which this one so brightly promises to be.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the latter remarks of the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) regarding immigration cases I am inclined to revive all my immigration cases and place them again before the new minister in the hope that now they will be disposed of favourably and quickly.
May I first of all, Mr. Speaker, congratulate you on your nomination to the honourable position which you now hold. In my opinion it was a wonderful choice, and every member of the House of Commons is agreed upon it. I am sure that all members of the house will wish you well and that you will apply to your new duties those principles of fairness and impartiality which have been traditional with those in your position.
I should also like to take the opportunity of congratulating the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Lamoureux) on his appointment as Deputy Speaker. I know his task will not be easy in presiding over the committees of the whole house, but I am sure he too will discharge his duties with fairness and impartiality.
I should also like to join those who have preceded me in this debate in congratulating the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, both of whom discharged their tasks in a worthy manner, particularly the lady from Northumberland, a neighbouring constituency to my own.
So far as the present government are concerned, Mr. Speaker, they can be assured of a high degree of co-operation from the official opposition, that is co-operation in all measures that take into account the realities of the situation and are designed to apply practical solutions to the problems. This I feel we have a right to expect, and this I feel the people of Canada also have a right to expect. The

The Address-Mr. Starr present Prime Minister has a difficult task, but he can be assured that we in the Conservative party will respect the position he holds, something that has been lacking in the past five years. When the Grits were in the opposition, and particularly during the last parliament, they disregarded and degraded the position of the prime minister, and continued to do so in the election campaign which followed. We will respect, Mr. Speaker, and understand the enormous responsibilities which rest upon the Prime Minister's shoulders. We will not allow ourselves, for merely partisan considerations or reasons, to forget that as Prime Minister of Canada he is entitled to consideration and respect from all sides of the house.
I just want to point out to the right hon. gentleman that, after all, he has not a mandate from all the people of Canada. He has a mandate from only 43 per cent of the people of this country, even though he had the advantage of the support of all the newspapers and other media in the metropolitan centres of this country. In spite of this he was only able to achieve a minority government when 43 per cent of the people voted for him. I think he should keep this in mind as he conducts the affairs of this country.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a critical time for Canada. In this critical time all of us, all the members of this house, are called upon to play a responsible and constructive part in the conduct of the affairs of this country. It is a time for enormous and far reaching decisions. I must say that a mere change of government does not alter the deep-cutting issues with which this country is faced. The issues remain, and they must be met.
However, I want to point out that Canada has been faced with problems ever since confederation, and will be faced with problems continuously from this day forward. Any young country which is growing has problems, and those problems must be faced and solutions must be found for them. Solutions must be provided in order that the initiative and energy of industry and labour in this country may continue to serve the economy, and above all that Canadians themselves may benefit to the maximum extent from the products of our labour and the exploitation of the resources of this country. This is a task of government now as it always has been, regardless of what government was in office.
These problems, Mr. Speaker, cannot be solved by presenting them in pious platitudes, nor can the government talk its way around them. I am referring particularly to these highfalutin' platitudes about decisions in 60


days. Decisions are called for now, and action, but that action must be courageous and resolute; because the greatest and perhaps the fatal mistake any government can make at this time is to resort to high sounding phrases which would have a reassuring effect and lull everyone, including the government, into a state of false complacency without coming to grips with the problems. I am afraid this is what is happening at this period of our life in this country. We might be lulled into a sense of security by the thought that we now have a government that has promised to make decisions within 60 days.
The government of which I had the honour to be a member under the leadership of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) addressed itself, regardless of the criticism we have faced, in a positive and practical manner to the tasks as they presented themselves to us. The measures we implemented have brought an unprecedented increase in the economic growth and a record rise in exports, a drop in imports, and a general, across the board increase in employment in this country. During the election campaign there were those who wanted to get the economy rolling, as they said in their propaganda. I say we got it moving, Mr. Speaker, and it is up to the government now to keep it moving.
We have heard a great deal from this government about 60 days of action. Some of the newspapers in the metropolitan areas picked this up and publicized it. As a matter of fact, after this government took office some of the newspapers kept track of the situation from day to day. I know one newspaper in the Toronto area that went so far as the 14th day, on which they publicized an announcement by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) to the effect that there would be 10,000 scholarships available. To this day nothing more has been heard about that, and this newspaper dropped the tabulation on the 14th day because no other action was forthcoming and no decision was made.
As a matter of fact, I believe some of the most important decisions were made in the choice of some of the cabinet ministers who were selected by the Prime Minister. This situation recalls the 100 days of Roosevelt's first term. He did not talk about 100 days of action, he implemented the action during the 100 days and then talked about it. In this country we have the situation reversed. They talk about 60 days of action but no action at all has been forthcoming. I commend this example of Roosevelt's 100 days of action to hon. gentlemen opposite.

The Address-Mr. Starr
As a member of the previous government I had some intimate concern with the problem of unemployment. To the new Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) I express my congratulations and my assurance that he can count upon me for complete understanding of the problems with which he will be faced. During the past several years we heard a great deal from hon. gentlemen opposite, when they were in the official opposition, about the problems which beset this country. As I pointed out earlier, Mr. Speaker, a young, growing nation such as Canada will always be faced with problems. Those problems must be resolved in the best way possible by whoever has that responsibility at the time. There has been some reference in this debate to unemployment. I do not wish to go into this subject at the moment to any great extent. The Prime Minister in his speech averaged out unemployment over the years prior to 1957. He also averaged out unemployment during the years since then, and pointed up the great differences that occurred in those years.
During the election campaign hon. gentlemen opposite promised the people of this country full employment. We will give them a reasonable time to implement this promise; then we will assess the results to ascertain whether they meant what they said or whether it was only a hoax perpetrated upon the Canadian people. I remember some of these hon. gentlemen, and I see some of their faces now-the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), who is not here-who showed a great deal of concern over the unemployment problem and certainly brought it to our attention with great vehemence. They were worried about unemployment in the provinces; they were worried about unemployment in their municipalities. It will be interesting to see what these gentlemen who now occupy the treasury benches and have the responsibility and opportunity are going to do about those problems in their provinces and constituencies. We will keep track of what is happening, what the situation is and what the results are.
By the measures implemented in the past two years by the former government we were able to reduce unemployment month by month and increase employment month by month and year by year. It will be interesting to see whether this government with its policies, will be able to continue that trend of decreasing unemployment. If they are not able to increase or at least continue that trend they will certainly hear from us, and I think we will be right in pointing out the serious problem to them. I hope they will
continue to maintain their concern now they are in office. But more important, I hope they will do something about the situation and continue what we started in the past, the results of which are now evident month by month and year by year.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, they will not take the attitude, for example, that because the Prime Minister has taken two trips out of the country, all our international and domestic problems will be solved. After all, we still have not felt the effects of trips which will no doubt be taken by the new Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin). I have watched him for a few days, and he has a faraway look. I think he visualizes some of the trips he might be making outside this country. I would say to him if he were here -and he can read it in Hansard-that the most important thing he has to remember is that primarily he is the member for Essex East including the city of Windsor. He was so concerned, and rightly so, about the economic situation in Windsor that he must apply himself to rectifying the situation in that city; then he can make trips abroad.


Mr. Churchill:: We will pin him down here.


Michael Starr: We will certainly keep our eye on what is happening in Windsor and to what extent he will be able to convince his colleagues on the treasury benches that they must rectify the situation with which he has been so vitally concerned for the past five and a half years.
One of the problems over which hon. gentlemen opposite expressed great concern was that of foreign control of Canadian industry. One of those who expressed concern was the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), who recently made one of his frequent excursions into print as the author of an article entitled "We must buy Canada back". I must say that I agree entirely with his analysis of that problem. We can have no employment security in this country as long as we are a nation of branch plants, as long as management decisions affecting the course of our production, and thereby the existence of jobs, continue to be made outside this country. It is to be hoped that this government will come to grips with this problem. One way to deal with it is to stimulate more production in Canada.
It is interesting to read the speech from the throne and see the proclamation by this government that they will establish a ministry of industry, that a minister will be appointed whose prime objective will be to have consultation with industry in order to build up more industry in Canada and thereby provide more jobs. On the other

The Address-Mr. Starr hand, however, we find that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) is now negotiating for the lowering of tariffs. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is as busy as a bee trying to lower tariffs and eliminate industry in Canada. The new minister of industry has not yet been appointed. He is behind the eight ball; he will never catch up with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce carries out his policies he will eliminate more Canadian industries in two years than the new minister will be able to establish in the next five years.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He will not have five years.


Michael Starr: The question is, who will win, and I am betting my money on the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is that the way to provide jobs for Canadians? I would point out to those on the treasury benches that they must give this matter very careful consideration, having in mind the manner in which many industries were established in this country in order to provide year round jobs.
One direct and tangible result of our policies in the past has been the manufacture of automatic transmissions and automobile parts in Canada. This has certainly given a great impetus to the automobile industry of this country. They talk about a standard economy in this country. The automobile industry is selling more cars than ever before. There are more people employed in that industry than ever before, and this industry affects every village, town and city across the country. Why are they enjoying such an impetus in their growth and prosperity? It is because they are selling cars. Are they exporting these cars? No, they are selling them to Canadians. Canadians are buying them, because under the Conservative government of five and a half years Canadians can now afford to buy cars.


Mr. Pickersgill:: It is just the new confidence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Graffiey:: Tricky, but inaccurate.


Michael Starr: The Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) need not go into any gyrations, because he must remember that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) has taken the subsidy off buttermilk.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: To save $6 million.


Michael Starr: One of the basic things this country needs, and which it has needed for some time, is vocational training. We dealt with that matter very effectively when we were in office. Because of the tremendous advance made in vocational training we will

have on the labour market skilled and trained young people possessing the basic qualifications which are required for jobs in industry. This is what we did in the short space of two and a half years. I think it is incumbent upon this government to see to it that when these young people emerge from vocational training, jobs will be available for them. We will make sure that we point this out to them from time to time. That is why it is urgent that the machinery of co-operation between management and labour, which we set up through such bodies as the productivity council, be not allowed to lapse into rust and disuse. We need more jobs in Canada. The best way of providing these jobs is through the co-operation of labour and management. They have a very important part to play. Therefore I hope the government will do everything they possibly can to bring about a greater degree of labour-management co-operation in this country.
Another problem is the effect of automation upon the labour force of this country, which is a terribly fearful thing to the older worker. We presented a bill designed to deal with this problem in a specific way. That bill was acclaimed by all who understood it and were interested in it. We hope that the new Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) and the government will again bring this bill in for consideration by this parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer for a few moments to our school building program designed to give Canadians the advantage of learning new trades and skills. I feel this is one of the basic problems confronting this country. I do not intend to go into detail regarding the expenditure which has been incurred in building these schools. I want to point out, nevertheless, that it is now giving 135,000 Canadians an opportunity to learn new trades and skills. I hope that after a careful assessment of this program, which is ending in October of this year, the present government will come to the proper decision and, if necessary, build more schools in order to provide education of this type for the people of Canada. There is no mention of this in the speech from the throne, even though it represents, in my opinion, the basic solution to the problem of unemployment.
The municipal winter works program has been effective in curbing the steady onset of seasonal unemployment, and I trust the new Minister of Labour will look sympathetically at these arrangements even though the minister of external affairs may be against them; I recall that he dismissed the program as a bagatelle when it was introduced into this house. My own feeling is that it has done well in providing jobs for Canadians each winter on a temporary basis.

I have mentioned labour-management cooperation because I believe this is a field in which the maximum degree of effort is required at the present time. It is a field where such efforts will yield the greatest possible results, because management has a direct and positive interest in increasing the rate of industrial growth while the labour unions have a direct and personal interest in keeping up the supply of new jobs. This is a task which any government must set itself in moving to correct those built-in disabilities which have helped to introduce unemployment. Government can only accomplish this task by enlisting the support of labour and management in a direct and positive way. I must point out that there is a great deal of good will on both sides, good will which must be placed at the service of the economy and of the people of Canada in general.
At this time I should like to say to the new Minister of Labour that he is indeed fortunate in the calibre of those people he will find at his disposal in the Department of Labour and the unemployment insurance commission, people who have been, are, and, I am sure, will be ready and willing to carry forward the policies he may be initiating.
I have mentioned these matters at some length because I believe they are the real problems and issues which must be kept in mind when we examine the outline of government policy as it appears in the speech from the throne. It is not my intention to pull this document apart, sentence by sentence and word by word. However, there are some general remarks which I feel called upon to make at this time. While giving the government the benefit of the doubt, as we are all inclined to do, nevertheless I am forced to point out that there is very little for labour in the speech from the throne. Some of the promises which have been made by the present occupants of the treasury benches, including the Prime Minister, come to mind. I think of the measure to introduce a minimum wage of $1.25, the regulation of hours of work and a number of other things. I have scanned the speech from the throne thoroughly and have yet to find anything in it directed toward labour in this country. There is one sentence relating to automation and manpower adjustment, but it is not clear what that sentence really means. I would think it refers to a bill similar to the one we introduced in the last parliament, and setting out the same policy that was contained in that measure-one, by the way, which failed to pass.
What about the proposal to set up a new department of industry? Will the new minister be able to give direction to industry?
The Address-Mr. Chretien Is that what is intended? If so, where does direction stop and regimentation begin? We should like to hear about this when the legislation setting up the new department is introduced. If the department is not going to give direction, what will be its function? We shall all be awaiting with interest the answers to these questions.
Also to be found in the speech is mention of an economic council to develop more employment and encourage efficient production. I venture to say that if this council is set up no effects will be felt in this country for at least four or five years. In fact there is nothing in this speech from the throne which would have an immediate effect. This economic council appears to be nothing more than a wrapping up of the national economic development board which we proposed and which was held up by the last parliament along with the measure to establish a productivity council. Hon. gentlemen opposite have thrown these into one basket and come up with this idea of forming an economic council.
I have no objection to this, because the measures we introduced were good measures which would have resulted in a continuation of the economic development already under way as a result of the other programs we implemented. But to try to pass these measures off as part of the bold, imaginative Liberal government program is just a little too much to swallow. I think hon. members opposite have perpetrated a hoax on the Canadian people.
They say they are going to set up a municipal loan board. What funds do they propose to make available to that board for loans? Is it $400 million? How much work is that going to provide? The municipal winter works program has seen $900 million spent in five years, giving jobs every winter to 135,000 Canadians for a period of 45 days. Yet hon. members opposite talk about solving the unemployment problem with $400 million. How is this money to be distributed? What criteria will be applied in granting loans to some municipalities and refusing them to others? Can any municipality get them? Is there to be a limit, or will Toronto and Montreal or some other large municipalities get all the money, leaving nothing for the others?


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


Mr. Jean Chretien (St. Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, as a new member in this house, allow me to offer you my most sincere congratulations on your appointment as Speaker of the house. I am sure that you will dis-

The Address-Mr. Chretien charge with dignity and impartiality the heavy responsibilities that have been entrusted to you by both sides oi the house.
I might be permitted also, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the movers of the address in reply, the hon. members for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) and Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), for having so splendidly performed their duty in the house.
(Text):
I am very glad to be a member of a party which has a leader of the calibre of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). Never has an English speaking Prime Minister had such a comprehension of biculturalism and the fact that Canada is a different nation from the United States. This is because one third of the population is French speaking and will always be so in the centuries to come.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to represent the riding of St. Maurice-Lafleche, which was set up in 1935, and which, even at that time, through the foresight of its electors, enabled a Liberal government to take over from a Conservative administration. In 1963, the electors of my riding of St. Maurice-Lafleche decided once again to help the Liberal party stop the spread of Social Credit and sound the beginning of the end for that party in the province of Quebec, and also to put in power a Liberal government to replace, once more, a Conservative administration.
Mr. Speaker, I succeed a Liberal member, Mr. J. A. Richard, who sat here for many years and served his riding and the house well. Therefore, on behalf of the electors of the riding of St. Maurice-Lafleche, I wish to pay tribute to that man who, although well in years, represented with dignity for many years the riding that did me the honour to elect me.
Mr. Speaker, since I have been elected, many of my English speaking colleagues have asked me questions on a problem of the day and wanted to know what I thought of the separatist movement in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I believe we should not give too much importance to that situation. However, I would like, in a few words, to try and clarify the matter for the information of my English speaking friends who represent ridings in other provinces.
In the last century the province of Quebec had a population of farmers and craftsmen. It was only in the last generation that Quebec started to become an industrial province. Such a deep transformation creates a number of problems. At the present time, with the changes the premier of Quebec, Hon. Jean


Lesage, is bringing about, especially in the field of education, thousands of young French Canadians will soon make their entry on the labour market while thousands of university graduates will start their active life, and they will all ask for adequate employment.
Now, Mr. Speaker, those qualified young men want to have their due place in a French Canadian community and in the community of the province of Quebec as a whole.
As a French Canadian, I must admit that we all have a place in this house. We may speak French or English here and we enjoy complete freedom. But, unfortunately, I find that in the past French Canadians in the province of Quebec were too often left in the background, more particularly in the industrial and commercial field.
Today, we are able to carry out some functions competently. But unfortunately some industrialists and businessmen in Quebec have but too often failed to be frank and honest enough or were prejudiced against their French speaking fellow citizens, to the point of limiting their progress to a certain level. However, at this time, I have to render due tribute to various financial, commercial and industrial institutions in the province of Quebec, which offer to Canadians of French origin more and more possibilities for an advancement, to which they, indeed, have a right.
As a matter of fact, La Presse of Saturday, May 11, 1963, reproduced an item published in the Financial Post and stating that French had become the fashion in Montreal and that, if industrialists in the province of Quebec began to offer possibilities of advancement to French Canadians, it was due to a recognition of the latter's increased competence and present economic strength, which had to be reckoned with, as well as of the need to negotiate with those people. That is why many corporations in the province of Quebec now offer some possibilities of advancement to French speaking Canadians. I hope this trend will develop more and more in the years to come, so that we may live in peace within the Canadian confederation, as we trust we shall.
Mr. Speaker, we may, of course, pass some legislation in this house. However, the Canadian people in general, and more particularly the English speaking Canadians, should, in the province of Quebec as in the other provinces, give French Canadians the same possibilities of progress so that there would be no such discrimination as has been noted in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the present separatist movement is not serious. On the other hand, I feel that at the last federal election, the people of Quebec showed their trust in the party that has always recognized the importance of the French Canadians. That explains why so many ridings in Quebec have elected Liberals to represent them in this house, even though no expert could have forecast a Liberal victory in that province. It must be admitted that Quebec, in these times of confusion, has put her trust in the Liberal party, and it is the Liberal party which will restore a climate of confidence in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m. (Translation) :
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, allow me to go back briefly over some things I said this morning.
This morning I was saying that at the present time, in the province of Quebec, a peaceful revolution was being carried out by the new government. I feel it is proceeding to the satisfaction of the people of Quebec. There is no reason to worry about the events reported these days in the newspapers, because on April 8 our people gave themselves an adequate representation in the federal government, that is a Liberal representation. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, to give hope to those thousands of young French Canadians who are now attending university and tomorrow will be out on the labour market, I believe the federal government should pass adequate legislation. It will have to recognize the existence of the province of Quebec, which may wish to be more independent from confederation than in the past. So the government of our province must be given the means to solve its own problems. The federal government will have to adopt laws on biculturalism that are adequate and recognize, on a national scale, that during the next hundred years, Canada will be different from the United States, a country where there are two languages and two cultures.
The Address-Mr. Chretien
I feel that under the present Prime Minister the government is going in that direction and I urge it to keep on going along that same path.
It will also have to study the sharing of taxes. The government of Quebec and the other provincial governments must be given sufficient financial resources to solve the numerous economic and educational problems that exist today, especially in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I feel it is the duty of this house to give the country progressive legislation. The people of Canada will find in the Liberal program the solution to their problems.
The solutions that we have put forward shall have to be applied rapidly and, in this regard, I have a suggestion to make. I believe hon. members should be given the opportunity to take a more active part in this task, by changing the procedure of committees, so that members can really go to the root of problems and offer possible solutions. Committees should be diversified and the most competent people in this house should be appointed to work on each problem and submit solutions to the government and then adequate legislation could be enacted.
Mr. Speaker, some newspapers said that the member for St. Maurice-Lafleche perhaps had gone against his own way of thinking by supporting the government when the vote was taken on a non-confidence motion proposed by the New Democratic party. During the campaign, I took a position by saying that I was against nuclear arms but that if Canada had been committed by the Conservative government to acquire them, I did not want the Liberal government to fail to respect those commitments, or to do in public life what we do not do in private life.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told us that this question would be discussed in the house in due course; he promised us that we would have an opportunity to discuss it. We only had half a day to deal with this problem and we were called to vote that same evening without having received all the information to which we were entitled.
I believe that problem is important, and the Prime Minister undertook to give us an opportunity for a full debate, not only an afternoon sitting. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I voted with the government.

The Address-Mr. Chretien
It was premature at the time to launch a debate when we were unable to discuss the NATO agreements. It was impossible to take a stand until we were made aware of the solution that would be offered at that time. That is why I voted with the government, and when the debate is really opened on this problem I shall give my opinion and shall analyse the problems honestly according to the mandate my constituents gave me.
Mr. Speaker, some members can deplore, of course, the fact I am so nervous and I understand so little English. In any case, I believe that my position is highly defensible and, as Canada has acquired a reputation in international affairs for keeping its commitments, if there were any commitments, the member for St. Maurice-Lafleche will certainly vote in favour of fulfilling them. However, I reserve a final decision until we have had an opportunity to discuss the whole problem. I will not be satisfied with only an afternoon discussion. That is the reason why, in my opinion, it should be said that this issue was raised a bit prematurely and at the wrong time.
Mr. Speaker, the member for St. Maurice-Lafleche, like all the hon. members of this house, will make it his duty, when the government raises the nuclear weapons issue before this house, to examine both sides of the coin in the most thorough manner.
I conclude my speech here. It was my maiden speech and I wish to thank the members of this assembly for giving me such kind attention. I believe that even though we occupy the government benches we must give the members of this house the assurance that we will give our point of view on every matter raised before the House of Commons.
Anyhow, it will be clear for everybody that the riding of St. Maurice-Lafleche wants a progressive representation. It made a point of ousting a Social Crediter in order to return a Liberal member. I believe that my electors gave me an extremely clear mandate.
Yesterday I heard the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) say that the Canadian economy was under the control of the Americans. Mr. Speaker, I wonder how it is that the hon. member for Villeneuve, who complains of that situation, is a dealer for the Chrysler corporation, which is owned by the Americans. I hope that he will be able to give us an explanation for that situation. If he was so convinced of his opinion he would obviously endeavour to sell cars from companies other than American companies.

(Text):


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, this is the third time I have had the honour to represent the great district of Athabasca, the place where there are reeds; but I assure you the reeds are not shaken in the wind, except in the wind of false propaganda which recently somewhat thinned our ranks. I trust this situation will be shortly changed again. However, I do not intend to waste the time of the house in recriminations. My attitude has always been one of positive suggestion and contribution.
Last September I challenged the present Prime Minister to bring forward policies superior to those of the administration of which I was a supporter, but in the speech from the throne I see little promise to Canadians of any such change. In any member of parliament or any member of a government I as a taxpayer and as a Canadian citizen look for more than promises and empty words. I look for character, and surely one of the important aspects of character and stability. It is not enough to mouth high sounding phrases about freedom, democracy, independence and sovereignty; those phrases must be implemented and the Canadian people must be guaranteed independence, progress and sovereignty.
We are asked to believe that this new administration is going to give us this stability, but I should like to review the record. A short 18 months ago the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) said that nothing could be gained by having atomic weapons on Canadian soil. At that time I thoroughly disagreed with that stand. I spoke on the same day, September 12, 1961, but what I said was, of course, ignored by members of the press because they only print what they want to print. They did not report what I said. At times they refuse to cover what they know is the bald truth.
At that time I begged the Minister of National Defence to reconsider his stand. He wanted to get out of NATO. It is in the record at page 8231 of Hansard of 1961. He said that nothing would be gained by adding atomic weapons to our arsenal or by joining the atomic club. Why the change? Eighteen months ago the Liberals were a family of bird watchers, but now I suggest that they have been watching the eagle much too carefully. Don't try to hang "zombie" around my neck. I served my country; I made a good stand.


An hon. Member:: You are not the only one.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I know I am not the only one. I ask those who served to remember those days and to call tor something better than the raise in pay of $4 per month recently granted the men of the services. I assume these young men are going to follow in the steps of their forefathers and brothers in arms. This magnificent contribution is like the $6 increase in old age pensions offered by the Liberals, these friends of the little people. I challenged you then and I challenge you now-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Save your applause; you might not want to give it later. I challenged you then and I challenge you now to be the party of the little people of the country. If you are, your ranks may well be swelled. The only man to lead an administration in this country in the last quarter of a century that was worthy of the little people is the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). He championed the little people to the point where the big money, the big press and the big mouths of Canada deserted him, and some members of his own party failed in the vision and wisdom required of a good John Diefenbaker Conservative.
I throw out that challenge now. I am not one who is inconsistent. I am consistent, because 18 months ago I nailed my colours to the mast and put out 22,000 copies of this pamphlet I hold in my hand. I will be pleased to give a copy to every member of the opposition, so they can find out where I stand and have always stood.


An hon. Member:: You are the opposition.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: If you want decision, read my pamphlet. Yes, at times I have been opposed to some of the policies of my own party, and I have stood up bravely and said so. I asked for acreage payments when many people were asking for deficiency payments, and we got acreage payments. I said the price of hogs was desperately low and that if something was not done about the situation the small family farmer would be destroyed. I stood up in caucus and in the house and advocated these things, but I did not get into the press and I do not expect to get into it today, either. I am not accusing the press of being bought, but I am accusing them of only printing the amount of truth they want to print.
If you want a clear picture of my position on the question of nuclear weapons, this is my point of view and it is personal. I think we should stand shoulder to shoulder with our American allies right down the line. I 28902-5-13
The Address-Mr. Bigg took this stand 18 months ago when the present Minister of National Defence said no, it would be treason to have atomic weapons on our soil. That was the consensus of the Liberal party until January, 1963. I can now stand conscientiously on the question of joint -I repeat the word "joint"-control of the atomic defences of North America. I would go as far as to join the United States army as a private soldier and give up my sovereignty and possibly my life to defend western democracy against any aggressor.
How many of you are willing to stand on this ground, and how long have you been willing to stand there? Not 18 months ago, because the foremost defence spokesman of your party said flatly-read Hansard if you have the time; do your homework before you come into the house-as found at page 8231 of Hansard that it would be tantamount to giving up our sovereignty as a nation if we allowed American generals to come and brainwash us into this foolish move. If you do not know that you do not do your homework in your own party. I know where I stand. Where do you stand? I will never vote for unilateral control of atomic weapons on Canadian soil. I will demand Canadian sovereignty in every phase of our national and political life. Do you dare to stand with me on that? Do we have to create a new party? This is where we stand. There is a word for any other stand, and you know it as well as I do.
You promised us a national flag, and thank goodness for that. If you ratify the one we have that will suit me fine. I said that in 1961. How many have the courage to stand alongside me on this issue? I feel that the flag under which our fathers died and under which we were willing to die is good enough for Canada. All across the hustings of this country during the last few months I have heard such disgraceful statements as these, that this flag does not give representation to all our people. What is this flag we are going to ratify? You promised it; have you the courage to carry out that promise? I am not afraid to take my stand, but I think many of you are.
I feel that we should not only stand beside our United States allies in the atomic defence of the western world, but I think we should also contribute money and manpower. I believe it is time we had a system of national service in this country. This would provide every young man with a chance to square his shoulders and learn a little discipline. How many of you would support me on that? I will risk my political reputation on that stand. I would not interfere with a young man's education, but this would make his education realistic in the twentieth century.
190	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Bigg
I feel that we should reform the Unemployment Insurance Act. I am not saying anything against the people who introduced this scheme, because it was done in an experimental fashion, but in many cases it has failed. It has put a premium on laziness and deception. In many cases it has encouraged unemployment. Let us reform this system. Let us encourage those who really want to work. Let us encourage farm labour so that the farmer can have the help he needs. Let us not have any of these second class citizens about whom the Liberals are always talking.
There has always been a lot of talk about selling our country to the United States. When the Conservatives are in power you say it, and when you are in power we say it. What are we going to do about it? We could make it worth while for Canadians to invest in their own country. We could give tax incentives. The Conservatives were accused of allowing the United States to have too big a share in our industries. However, the fact is that we bought more shares in United States companies than they bought in Canadian companies. We should give Canadians a chance to develop their own country.
I think it is time we stopped saying things are too hot to handle. How about the labour situation in Canada? Read the latest issue of Maclean's magazine. It is disgraceful that there should be 2,000 young seamen in this country who are being bullied by labour bosses, by criminals from across the line. Well, you talk about Canadian sovereignty. Are you fellows going to stand up and fight for Canada in the labour field? The answer is to give every labouring man in Canada a secret ballot controlled by government supervision so the men can elect the bosses they want rather than have appointments made by labour unions across the line. Have you got that kind of courage? I am standing here waiting. Is it too hot to handle?
Evidently you frankly admit you cannot get one man from your party to handle the Department of Agriculture in the same fashion the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) did. You are going to divide it. For goodness sake try to get two men who, together, will produce the results for agriculture that he did. We sold wheat to communist China on terms. What is wrong with Pakistan and India and all the other hungry countries? I do not have to go to Formosa to get my orders; my orders come from my heart, which tells me to help the hungry people of the world. If this government has the courage to put these things into effect, then I will vote for them. Do these things and you can challenge me then.


I suggest that right now the farmer is nowhere receiving parity. On the hustings you fellows were saying the western farmer had achieved parity. The western farmer has had attention for the first time in 25 years. The acreage payment is a clear attempt to give him parity. So long as I am in this house I will press for these acreage payments until he gets true parity, until he gets equality with the machinery companies concentrated largely in your great city of Toronto. They backed you up, but it will be some time before you get any backing from the farmers of western Canada. You will not receive their backing until you try to give them something like the square deal we have tried to give them. You talk about the western farmer getting better than a square deal. Take the hog price differential between the western and eastern guaranteed price; I refer to the $2 difference in the price of a dressed hog. This differential should be removed. The farmer should be given at least 25 cents a pound across the whole country. If there are too many business concerns and professional men going into hog production, we must cut down the quota and let the small farmer retain control of his own business. Don't talk to me about these things, because I have always earned my living by the sweat of my brow and the callouses on my hands.
What do those who occupy the front benches know about service in the armed forces when they come up with an increase of $4 per month? Just look at what they gave the generals, the men who brainwashed the rank and file by saying that the government was taking away their arms. Who was it wanted to ground the air force and make them into a bunch of bird watchers? It was the Liberal party. WTio was it pressed for the building of the F-104? I did, for one. I went to Cold Lake and told the boys we would keep them flying. The finest air force in the world was going to be reduced to a bunch of bird watchers. I do not care if they are eagle watchers. If I could have been at Cold Lake and talked to them the way I am talking to you I do not think they would have voted for you. You had them convinced that we were letting them down.
This is the party that refused to help build airfields in 1938 in order to train airmen for the Empire training scheme. I wanted to be an airman at that time, but I was denied that privilege. Some of my friends went over to England and took short term commissions. They were right there for the battle of Britain and were amongst the few who fought so well. It is difficult for me, a veteran of seven years standing, to sit here and listen to such gobbledygook as the statement that

The Address-Mr. Morison
we are unwilling to defend freedom, when 18 months ago you fellows wanted to reduce the air force to a bunch of bird watchers. I find it difficult, Mr. Speaker, to retain parliamentary decorum when speaking of these things.


Mr. Speaker:: I would advise the hon. member that as long as he applies this language to a party and not to a person he is in order.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I feel we should set up a national transportation policy to co-ordinate our roads, our railways and our airways. I have spoken about this before. I believe, too, that we should reassess our national parks system. I am tired of some people in this country telling me it would be wrong not to retain 17,500 square miles of parkland for the whooping cranes. There are only 28 of them. Yes, there are natural resources in Wood Buffalo park. There is enough gypsum alone to replaster every building in the world, yet this is denied to us because of the whooping cranes.
Do you not think it is time we as a nation and as a group of provinces got together to develop Canada for the good of the little people, whom the Liberal party are so fond of saying they represent? Now they are going to pretend that they came up with the idea of portable contributory pensions. I suppose this is an excuse for not giving the $10 to our old people, an offer which was made on every Liberal platform across the country during the election campaign. Once they were going to give them six bucks. I wonder if they will come through with the $10. They only gave the armed forces $4, so perhaps they will give our senior citizens the full $10.
I think I have made my position clear. When the Liberal party acts for the good of the little people of Canada I will vote for every single constructive measure they bring forward. But I am tired of double talk and gobbledygook, and I am tired of this terrible hypocrisy, which 18 months ago would have left us naked to our enemies. Today a whisper from Washington means more than the will of the people. I say to the government, beware of the steps you take.


Mr. J. B. Morison (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure today to address the house for the first time. I wish to add my congratulations to you upon your election to the demanding office of Speaker. I am sure that with your capabilities and well known talents, at the end of your term of office we shall all congratulate you just as warmly as we do now. I should also like to congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister upon having earned the right to form a government in this twenty sixth parliament. I am sure, because 28902-5-13i
of what I have seen in the last three or four days, that his decisiveness and enthusiasm will make this an excellent parliament. If I may quote the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) on Monday last, if he is correct in the Freudian slip of Mr. Kent, the Prime Minister will still be prime minister in the forty first parliament. I do not intend to be arrogant, Mr. Speaker, when I say that we Liberals are an indestructible lot, but the thought was prompted by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.
I should also like to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition and wish him a long and brilliant career, if it does last to the forty first parliament. The preceding speakers should also be congratulated upon the excellence of their speeches. They have inspired me to rise today and address the house.
I represent Wentworth, which is a riding that surrounds the ambitious city of Hamilton, Ontario. Our biggest centres of population are parts of Hamilton, Dundas

my home town-Ancaster and Stoney Creek. The Bur-lington-Aldershot area is referred to sometimes as the bedroom community of Hamilton, and I am happy to say that we have done a good job; the population is now three times what it was 15 years ago.
The riding has changed since its inception in 1904. At that time it was predominantly rural, the farmers were a hard working lot and there was a very small population. The riding now consists of approximately 70 per cent urban dwellings-most of them are single family-30 per cent rural and a small amount of commercial and light manufacturing. Our farms still have many fine orchards. We have tender fruit farms and beef and dairy farms.
As I say, the area has changed greatly. My predecessor, Mr. Sams, in campaigning continually stressed that he was going to continue in the manner of his predecessor, who was elected to this house in 1935. 1 am glad to say that our constituents realized that a change was necessary, and they gave me the honour of representing them in this parliament. I believe I am unique amongst my colleagues in that I appear to have very few problems from my constituents. Whether they have been lulled from long habit into not complaining, or have been uninformed that it is our wish to serve them here, I do not know.


An hon. Member:: Wait till the end of the 60 days.


John B. Morison: 1 hope I do not have to wait until the end of the 60 days. Whatever the reason may be, the sooner they realize that we are here to serve them, and the sooner they realize that we would like to help them

The Address-Mr. Morison with their problems-and we do have problems in Wentworth-the better pleased I shall be.
Our farmers, unlike the lucky, shall I say, western farmers, have been caught in a price squeeze between the cost of their products and their selling prices. The small businessman in Wentworth does need help. He must be encouraged to expand so he can help with his share of the municipal tax load. Also the urban communities, with their vast expansion, do need a municipal loan fund. These are the problems, then, that we face in Wentworth.
The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said of the speech from the throne that it was a national disappointment in every part of Canada. I disagree. After listening to the impassioned speech of the hon member for lies-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve) on behalf of French speaking Canadians, I cannot help thinking that every man, whether he lives in eastern Canada, western Canada, Quebec, or wherever it is, can hardly wait to welcome the committee on biculturalism. I do not think they will be disappointed in any way.
It was stated in the speech from the throne that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would strive to improve the welfare of all nations of the world. Now that we have accepted our commitments to the United Nations and NATO I think we are ready to go ahead and improve Canada's prestige and work to this end.
Many things were said against our trade policy. It was compared with the home consumption of automobiles, automobiles which Canadians are buying. I should like to remind hon. members that one Canadian in five relies upon exports for his job. We need jobs; we need trade. I should also like to remind hon. members that despite a minimum of growth in the last five years we have been having trouble with our balance of trade payments. Also, we have had some trying times with our currency. If ever, now is the time we must build up in the other nations of the world an ever increasing confidence in our currency. We must take a leading and constructive part, as Liberals, in world trade.
Certainly we are going to have problems. The only time we do not have problems is when we are dead. We are on the threshold of a new era in trade patterns, one which requires co-operation, imagination and bargaining. Certainly these will be the keynotes of our trade policy. The rest of the world too are going to have their share of problems. Germany has oil problems. Japan has problems because of her fast rate of expansion. The common market has France; Great Britain has Canada and the commonwealth to worry

about; Canada has her five wasted years. These difficulties must be faced. They will not go away.
Changes are taking place in the trading pattern and we must adapt to them. Commonwealth preferences are deteriorating. The trading world is becoming less tolerant of our anti-dumping laws. Trade barriers are being reduced whether we like it or not. If we are to prosper we must go into these market places and barter with a positive attitude. We are bound to lose in certain areas, but if these small losses give way to large gains in the future they will have been well worth while.
I should like to congratulate the Minister of Trade and Commerce on his achievements at GATT. His mission has been accomplished and Canada has taken the first step toward a basis from which to begin bargaining if the Kennedy round is realized in 1964. This is a step in our program of action, and it is a positive one. We must be ready to bargain and to trade. The markets are there. There are two hundred million thriving Europeans, and they are ready to buy. The Barbados have spoken to us. They are ready to trade in cooperation with us. We can supply the Caribbean. We have been invited into the Americas. These are markets we must foster with a positive attitude. We must be prepared to go in and sell.
I suggest that if hon. members on the other side of the house will stop taking a negative attitude and remember they are Canadians; if they will stand up to face these problems with the initiative and the confidence we have shown for the last 96 years, they will be proud one day to have formed the opposition during the period of the fine twenty sixth parliament.
(Translation):


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with all hon. members who preceded me to express my best wishes to you on the occasion of your appointment to the post of Speaker of the house. I also want to congratulate the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Lamoureux) for having been appointed chairman of the committees of the whole, and I also congratulate the deputy chairman of committees (Mr. Batten). We are sure that you will all discharge your responsibilities in the worthiest manner.
Moreover, I want very sincerely to congratulate the mover (Miss Jewett) and the seconder (Mr. Choquette) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Having had the same honour last year, I am convinced that they carried out their tasks honourably, and I hope they will have as much pleasure sitting in this house as I have had myself.

Mr. Speaker, those who believe that the government alone can, by an arbitrary policy, settle all the important issues we shall have to face in the future, should realize that as members of parliament and representatives of the Canadian people from coast to coast, it is our duty to mention that we want the government to do some planning for the future of this country, but not a planning of an imperious character.
The mandate of the government elected by the people is to guide, through a vigorous impulse, the national economy, while leaving the greatest latitude to private enterprise and individuals so that they may play their proper part. This government has no mandate to impose a bureaucratic system which, in its turn, will impose arbitrary policies upon the people which they will have to accept without a word.
Moreover, it should be well understood that the solution of our present problems depends more than ever on each and every one of us. As a matter of fact, the mission we have been entrusted with is not to defend any political colours as our friends opposite did too often, but to make every possible effort with the view of making Canadians aware of their responsibilities, in every field.
In a general way, Canadians should not rely only upon the government for settling their everyday problems.
To my mind, the state has to play a complementary part, that is to say it must provide that which our various organizations may be lacking, but it should not replace our institutions which, in spite of some statements to the contrary, have played a very useful and very important part in our economy, and which will yet be called upon to play a very important part in the raising of our standard of living.
As I am a farmer and therefore one of the rare representatives of that profession from the province of Quebec, I would like, at this point of my remarks, to speak about agriculture. On other occasions, I shall have an opportunity of dealing with other subjects which are also of interest to the riding of Nicolet-Yamaska.
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak about the Quebec farmer, for he is a progressive fellow, a man who knows exactly where he is heading.
In days gone by, it was the fashion to dwell on his individualistic traits. Today it is evident that though he may be an individualist, he has learned to fully appreciate the virtues of a co-operation which helps him solve the problems of his rural community and improve its lot.
Since the last war, we are witnessing a technical and economic revolution, which
The Address-Mr. Vincent needs the farmer in order to succeed. The farmer has already benefited from that revolution; unfortunately, he also suffered from it.
In agricultural regions where revenues are insufficient to ensure a decent standard of living, farmers are indirectly prevented from investing in order to modernize their farms and take advantage of economic and technical progress.
These farmers, as well as those who live in more prosperous areas, do not intend to bow under the burden of the agricultural problem. They know that new problems call for new solutions and that people must sometimes aim at larger fields of action to find them.
They have won the confidence of the Canadian government from 1957 to 1963. That is why that government, as suggested by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), whose ability is well known, established a legislation entitled Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act. The Conservative government then invested for that purpose the amount of $59 millions.
You know the aim of that legislation. Farmers found in A.R.D.A. that program established in 1961, principles and methods of co-ordination that would enable them to initiate a real rural development campaign. It is a campaign in which all must lend a hand, that is farmers, parishes, districts, provinces as well as agricultural organizations.
The Canadian government of that time never intended to interfere in any way with the farmers' liberty of action. That legislation aimed only at giving them the technical and financial assistance which would enable them to put their good will, their ability and their social and professional organizations at the service of an idea, our agricultural survival.
As everyone knows, the federal government, on October 15 last, signed an agreement with the Quebec government.
When we lost power on April 22 last, great strides were being made in the province of Quebec. Many programs were in progress and many others were arranged for next summer.
I now ask the government which presides over the destiny of Canada to remember that such a program of action calls upon all the human, natural, industrial and institutional resources of the community. The government will have to act but it must leave to the individuals, to private enterprise and to the co-operatives their own responsibilities. Furthermore it will have to help them by trusting them and refraining from submitting

The Address-Mr. Vincent the resources of the community to harsh regulations that would kill our farmers' legitimate ambitions and, should changes take place too quickly, miss the objectives aimed at.
Mr. Speaker, during the last electoral campaign, the Liberal candidates made promises. I see here, for instance, a promise made by the Liberal candidate in the riding of Nico-let-Yamaska; I quote from one of their election pamphlets:
Establish the following principle:	that the
producer must be able to sell a pound of milk at the same price he pays for a pound of feed.
Many farmers put faith in that promise. But today, unfortunately, they are finding out that those were empty words. We have noticed that, during the first 60 days of action, the Liberal government has removed, in order to save the Canadian taxpayers $6 million, the 25 cents subsidy per hundredweight of milk shipped by the farmers to the processing plants for the production of butter and powdered milk.


An hon. Member:: This is ruin.


Clément Vincent: Moreover, that policy has been totally changed.
I received recently from a co-operative in the county of Nicolet-Yamaska, from a parish in that Nicolet-Yamaska county-there are 36 of them-information regarding that new policy and the effects it would have on the farmers in that parish.
Last year, in that co-operative, half a million-500,000 pounds-of butter were made and this year, with the new dairy policy of the new Liberal government, in the first place, the method of paying the 12 cents subsidy per pound of butter has been changed.
Ordinary people, who are no experts on the matter, will say: "The government, instead of paying 12 cents on a pound of butter, will pay from now on 14J cents on a pound of butterfat", and they will believe it makes 2\ cents more.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. All those who know something about agriculture will tell you that, with 100 pounds of fat, one can make 122J pounds of butter. That is why one co-operative in particular, in just one of the parishes in my county, produced 500,000 pounds of butter using 408,163 pounds of fat. So if you figure out 500,000 pounds of butter at 12 cents per pound, you get a total of $60,000, and if you

figure out 408,163 pounds of fat at 14J cents a pound, you get a total of $59,183, an $817 difference because of the new Liberal policy. That is to say that, consequently, a single small butter factory in my riding suffers a loss of $817.
That might not seem a lot, but if one considers that, in my constituency, there are 36 parishes and if one multiplies, say, $817 by 36, one will get a possible total loss of $30,000 for the county of Nicolet-Yamaska, due to the new butter policy of the Liberal party. Moreover, we know that in 1962, that co-operative received from the federal government $72,987.96 in a single year, through the subsidies of 25 cents per hundredweight on milk and 12 cents per pound on butter.
The 25 cent per hundredweight subsidy which has been taken off had provided $19,884.15. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) will tell us that the price of powdered milk has been increased by 2J cents a pound. Well, those who know about these matters will tell you that with 7,953,662 pounds of whole milk you get only 7,058,296 pounds of skim milk, so that at 2J cents more for a pound of milk powder, and at 8 pounds of milk powder per hundredweight of skim milk, it comes to only 20 cents per hundredweight of skim milk, which means a loss of $5,767.54.
We therefore find that the average price for the year 1962 in that butter factory was $2.65, plus a subsidy of 25 cents per 100 pounds, as I mentioned earlier, and, plus 10 cents per 100 pounds for cooled milk, or a total of $3. However, as the payments are always three weeks late, the price for milk shipped since May 1, will be $2.80, plus 10 cents or a total of $2.90, which would mean a loss of 10 cents per 100 pounds on eight million pounds of milk, i.e., $8,000 for a single butter co-operative in my riding.
As I said before, we think that in a constituency like that of Nicolet-Yamaska, where there are 36 parishes, it means a total loss of between $250,000 and $300,000, thanks to the new policy of the Liberal party, which party, during the 1962 election, had promised to apply the principle that the milk producer could sell one pound of milk the same price as he might pay for one pound of feed.
Mr. Speaker, if we glance over the papers, we find that, according to a Liberal member, the main problem in the province of Quebec was the farm problem. This is what he said:

You may be sure that, as soon as a minister of agriculture will be appointed for eastern Canada, I shall be sitting on his doorstep.
Well, I shall immediately ask the minister to put some chairs on the doorstep of his office, but also not to forget to ask the hon. member to come in from time to time, because it is important not only that the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska be sitting on the minister's doorstep, but also that he enter the minister's office from time to time in order to discuss the farm problems peculiar to eastern Canada.
Thanks to the milk policy of the Conservative government, there has been an increase in the average milk price in the province of Quebec for milk testing 3.5 per cent. In 1954, under Liberal rule, it was on average $2.51. Those figures were supplied by the Department of Agriculture. In 1955, it was $2.51; in 1956, $2.58; in 1957, $2.70. That was for the last four years of the Liberal administration.
On the other hand, during the last four years of the Conservative administration the prices were as follows. In 1959, $2.75 plus 25 cents per 100 pounds. At this stage, I must say that the 25 cents per 100 pounds subsidy was not recorded in the statistics of the Department of Agriculture. The 25-cent per 100 pounds subsidy was directly added to the payments made by cheese and butter factories to the farmers of the province of Quebec. In
1960, $2.74 plus 25 cents per 100 pounds; in
1961, $2.69 plus 25 cents per 100 pounds; in
1962,	$2.75 plus 25 cents per 100 pounds. Those figures therefore show a difference of some 40 odd cents per 100 pounds of milk between the last four years of the Liberal administration and the last four years of the Conservative administration.
This means that a farmer selling 150,000 pounds of milk per year would get a difference of $660 per year for the five years of Conservative administration, or $3,300 for the full period, Mr. Speaker.
The price of milk produced by farmers in eastern Canada poses a most important problem. That is why I would now ask the Minister of Agriculture to thoroughly consider the possibility of improving the situation and correcting the anomalies in eastern Canada. Due to the great importance of the dairy industry in our parts, and since our farmers rely on that source of income, I am requesting such improvements to enable our farmers to get reasonable income.
There is also another problem affecting eastern Canada, that of feed grains. During the last election campaign, I read, for instance,
The Address-Mr. Vincent in the papers that a certain Mr. Hazen Argue who was a former member from a western province promised the wheat producers of western Canada a minimum price of $2 per bushel.
I ask the Minister of Agriculture to be very careful before he grants this $2 per bushel minimum price to the western wheat producers. I am asking him to fully consider what would happen should such a step be taken.
First, that would close eastern markets to western producers. Second, it would ruin farming in the east because with such prices as a result of that policy we could no longer raise cattle, go into the production of hogs, eggs or fowl.
In the course of the last session, we had on the order paper of the House of Commons, a bill to provide for the construction of grain warehouses in eastern Canada. I think that bill provided the machinery required to find a permanent solution to that matter of feed grain prices since it enabled western Canada to supply eastern Canada with feed grain at reasonable prices. I should like us to pass legislation whereby farmers, millers and eastern co-operatives could organize themselves into a purchasing board which could buy all the grain needed at harvest time. That bill should also provide for the storage of grain in eastern Canada in the warehouses which would have to be built, of course.
The federal government could pay for the transportation of that grain by ship, because at the present time we must already pay out almost $20 million in transportation subsidies for that grain from western Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative party is a progressive party. With our policies, from 1957 to 1963, we have tried to find other ways to stimulate our economic growth and this government must work in the same direction. We also introduced another bill which would be of interest for my riding: the national economic development board. When the Conservative administration introduced that bill in the house, they wanted to get together the best brains who, in a spirit of deep faith in the economic future of Canada, would have strived for that ideal. They would have advised the government on the measures that the elected representatives of the people had to take to develop long term farming and industrial policies.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the future of the country lies in each Canadian more than in the political colour of every minister.

The Address-Mr. Girouard
II the Liberals, during the last session, had co-operated with the government instead of preaching doom and gloom, instead of sowing fear without any reason across the country, we could have pooled our talents, not to insure the victory of a team, but to secure prosperity for the Canadian people, for each citizen. That was the objective of our party. The people must realize that and we must remind them of that.
Mr. Speaker, I should like all Canadians, from coast to coast, to realize that all the work done by our party from 1957 to this day was meant to enhance the greatness of this country, letting at the same time the individual and private enterprise play their own part.
I also wish that every Canadian, and more particularly my Quebec compatriots, could read in our minds the objective we had and still have in view. They would see that our objective was not only to be in power but rather to make our country, which means every province, economically strong and master of its own destiny, besides making Canadians happy within the framework of Canadian institutions.
By contrast to what we witnessed in the house during the last parliament, from a certain opposition party, our party intended to take its responsibilities, looking for the good of the nation before the good of the party.


Mr. Gerard Girouard (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to thank the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) for not having taken the floor before me; this gives me today a few minutes in which to be heard before this house. I know, of course, that under the old regime I would have had the opportunity to speak a few days ago, for if then the minority members were given a third rate treatment, that treatment is now fifth rate. I do not know if I owe this attention to my hon. friend the member for Hull (Mr. Caron); by the way, may I say that my hon. friend has won only half an election, as he ran his campaign both in his constituency and in my own.
I do not think that I have anything new to tell the house today, but I have fallen prey to that irrepressible instinct of the member of parliament which impels him, after
[Mr. Vincent.)
each election, to try and kill a few of the dangerous germs that fly around during the electoral campaign.
During the whole period, I heard exaggerated statements-so mean and pernicious that they went beyond anything that can be imagined-with regard to a party in which I am active, the Social Credit party.
Today, I take pleasure in reading an excerpt of a speech made by the Hon. Henri Bourassa in this house, at the time when he was a Liberal:
More particularly in the political field, I do not see any advantage, either for ourselves or for the true public opinion, to doubt ourselves or to teach the people to doubt the sincerity of our public men. There should be enough matter for criticism and blame in the actions of all political parties, without needing to impute unfavourable motives to any of them.
Of course, Henri Bourassa was a Liberal who later left his party to become an independent.
Mr. Speaker, I might forgive politicians to have resorted to certain means to win votes. But what terrified and astounded me was to see journalists of the province of Quebec, who are supposed to be intellectuals and boast about belonging to the elite, suffer such a loss of memory in the period from February to April. I am speaking of the few leaders of the Quebec press who, last year, were loudly and warmly cheering the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) and others for causing the Conservative party a lot of trouble and defending the French fact in this house. At that time, the newspapermen were loudly cheering, while candidly admitting that they knew nothing about Social Credit but that they admired the Social Crediters. No need to list their names, everybody knows that they supported the bloc populaire policy and were fighting in the ranks of the Action nationale.
Politically speaking, they never had an outstanding record. But today those gentlemen pose as the protectors of the nation and the saviours of the people. In any case, from February to April they forgot everything. Nothing was good in their opinion either in the Social Credit or among the Social Crediters notwithstanding the fact that they had been admiring them for a year. In my own constituency of Labelle, every morning I read newspapers filled with unfriendly editorials, malicious reports and statements out of context. I do not know why, but those people of the fourth estate decided at one

point to get behind the new wave of socialism which was the fashion in their set. Those gentlemen of the press at one point rallied a whole group of students in the province of Quebec, students I was working with not more than a year ago. Those students got together at the forum a few days before the election and, in the name of freedom of speech, tried to drown the speeches of the Social Credit speakers. Those responsible for such a situation were those gentlemen, the so-called saviours of the people who, we will never know why, decided during the election campaign to lose all memory of the past.
Mr. Speaker, Messrs. Andre Laurendeau, Pelletier and Gagnon decided to throw in their chips with the new socialist wave. Newspaper owners, who are a little more materialistic, opened their purse to amass betrayal money.
I wish to tell these newspaper men whom we used to admire and who have a role to play in the province of Quebec, who were calling for Quebec leaders within the Conservative party, that the Social Credit did have leaders, but I wish to tell them also that they are the ones who took it upon themselves to destroy them in the province of Quebec. I want to impress that on the house.
Those gentlemen of the press talk of unity, friendship and respect between the two nations. Let us first of all start by having respect for ourselves in the province of Quebec. They do not even respect the Quebec people themselves. I wish to tell those gentlemen of the press that they must stop throwing mud at us.
I say to those people that I am fed up with headlines about small bombs in mail boxes, about disgusting resignations, imaginary compromises and exaggerated contradictions. I say to them: stop acting in this way.
I heard yesterday the hon. member for lles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve) demanding once again equality on behalf of the province of Quebec. I admire him and I approve him, as do all Social Crediters. But I must tell those who direct public opinion to stop running us down in their headlines.
Mr. Speaker, I like to speak about Henri Bourassa, the man who founded Le Devoir, in Montreal, initiated all the journalistic movements, and his most ardent wish was 28902-5-14
The Address-Mr. Girouard that the Quebec press be at the service of truth. If Henri Bourassa had come back to life during the last election campaign, he would have taken hold of Caouette's whip to expel "those that bought and sold in the temple."
Mr. Speaker, there are 265 members in this house. I know that politicians make sharp distinctions between the Liberals whom I congratulate on their election, and the Conservatives who now form the opposition and who played a great role while they were in power. Distinctions are made also between the New Democratic party which gains in quality what it has lost in numbers, and the Social Credit party of which I am proud to be a member. However, in the eyes of the electorate, we form a homogeneous group, we are all members of the House of Commons. For them, we all have equal powers and our task is tremendous. That is why we will be criticized or praised according to whether or not we have shouldered our responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that I am biased but I am sure that the Canadian people endorse the Social Credit doctrine, regardless of the political party to which their elected representative belongs. Indeed, any member who has toured his riding at least once knows how heavily unemployment and taxes bear on the Canadian people and how a handful of remorseless financiers are growing fat at the expense of the less fortunate.
Even though the Liberal party was elected to office, I am sure it has been entrusted with the mission of helping those poor people.
I am glad to see that the party in power includes economists, people for whom I have the deepest respect. I know that economists can be of great use to a government. The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Pepin) should know that. Furthermore, I realize that those economists will be able to help us give a new direction to the Canadian economy. Those eminent gentlemen use the classic economic theory taught in the universities. It is quite good and already producing results. But with all the talent I know they have, I should like to see them go a little beyond that stage and use their training to try and rise a bit higher and find modern solutions to the current problems of this modern world.
And in this connection, Mr. Speaker, I
would tell them that, even if they finally
were to put the emphasis on consumption

The Address-Mr. Girouard instead of production, they would not go much farther than Keynes and the other neo-economists who have been preaching along that line for some time.
Mr. Speaker, at the last election, the Canadian people have shown that they wanted unemployment to end. Moreover, they want further industrial development and a more significant farm policy. They also hope for an unlimited expansion of our foreign trade, and in this last field I must say a good word for the party in power, because it seems to have made some achievements in the economic field even before it was elected.
Mr. Speaker, our present trade balance with the United States must at last be more favourable, if we are to assess it on the basis of the unusual number of U.S. dollars in circulation in our ridings a few weeks prior to the election.
I should like to remind these prominent economists of the words spoken in 1900 by Mr. Henri Bourassa and I quote:
When it comes to public business, politics government and finance, I do not have much faith in logic.
And he added this:
Good governments clothe the people with a wellfitting gown, suitable for their size, their way of life and their work of the moment.
Therefore, the government must adopt active and efficient policies for the whole country.
The party in power has obtained several mandates, including one concerning bicul-turalism. I know it is ready to take a step in that direction, but with hundreds of people in Quebec, I would like to repeat to the party in power what they know already, that the province of Quebec does not like quitters. I am ready to go the whole way. Some members on the government side must fight also and, if they were to resign, as did Henri Bourassa in 1900, I would say to them: go ahead, gentlemen, the province will respect you.
As I said the other day, I wonder if the members for Lotbiniere, St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville, Drummond-Arthabaska or lles-de-la-Madeleine (Messrs. Choquette, Dupuis, Pepin, Sauve) would be ready to make that sacrifice for their fellow citizens of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words now about federal-provincial relations. I know that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lamontagne) will have a heavy task too. First he will have to clear a reputation he himself built up. He will also have to prepare new

legislation, but above all to try and understand what is now in the constitution, not only in the written act but also in the spirit of the constitution.
Mr. Speaker, we could strive for years in this house to amend the constitution, to obtain further privileges and a recognized equality, but as long as members of the Liberal party will not be convinced that there is in the spirit of the constitution something else than what we have at present, we will get nowhere and commissions of inquiry will bring nothing constructive.
It is all very well to start with inquiries, but what I ask of my hon. friends is to be ready in their minds first of all to give our small French Canadian nation the little it claims in our great country.
At this point of my remarks, Mr. Speaker,
I should like to point to the house an editorial published in this morning's Le Devoir, under the signature of Mr. Claude Ryan.
I shall quote a few excerpts of this article to show you how low one can be when one decides to write intelligent things when one is devoid of intelligence. This article relates to the vote taken Tuesday night on the question of nuclear arms. Speaking of the party in power Mr. Ryan said:
First, we can see to what a lamentable depth a party can sink through servile obedience of its members to the sole decisions of their leader.
In other words, he upbraided the members on the government side of the house for being mere sheep. And he continued:
The aristocratic methods, which still prevail in the most important of our four political parties, create a rather paradoxical situation. One cannot be sure any longer that the views legally expressed in parliament reflect the nation's true feelings.
And Mr. Ryan went on to say:
Do the Liberals in Ottawa-more particularly those from Quebec-fully understand that their spirit of conformity puts the whole nation in an extremely ambiguous position?
Up to now, I am in agreement with Mr. Ryan. Of course, when all the members of a party decide to vote because their leader has chosen that course, they do tend to look like a flock of sheep. But what is rather amazing, is that a few lines further, the same man writes in the same editorial:
Faithful to their promises, the Quebec Crediters voted like good nationalists on this question. Those from the west followed Mr. Thompson.
And this is his conclusion:
This event should not be given more importance than it really has. But it is more and more obvious that this sham party will not be able to resist the ideological disintegration of its elements.


Some hon. Members:: 
Gérard Girouard: You can applaud, gentlemen; it seems that you have not understood the meaning of the editorial. The editorial writer blames the members from the government benches for having all voted like their leader, like a flock of sheep.
Then he blames the Social Credit members for having decided to vote according to their conscience.
This is the image of our party that our good newspapermen are trying to create in the mind of the public. I want to say once again that the newspapermen do not all fall in this category, but I blame the leaders like those I have named a moment ago, Lauren-deau, Pelletier, and Jean Louis Gagnon, as well as a few small-minded followers, who decided the new wave was worth more than the creation they could imagine.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal briefly with another question. We have had a vote recently on the issue of nuclear arms.
Under the circumstances, I had a clear mandate to vote in favour of the motion introduced by the N.D.P. However, I should like to add at this time that my personal convictions, those of the people of my riding and of my province, forced me to support the N.D.P. subamendment which I found ill-timed, ill-advised and ridiculous.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Gérard Girouard: Ill-timed, sir, because the subamendment was moved on the eve of a most important conference from which we hoped to get on that the subject the information that the former administration kept from us and which the present administration does not seem more eager to give us.
I found it ill-advised because we have called for the establishment of a defence committee and we felt that the present government would give in in that respect, thus enabling us to get a clearer picture before taking a decision. The subamendment was ridiculous because, had it carried, the Liberal government which has a clearcut policy on nuclear armaments might have been overthrown just like its predecessor which had no policy in that respect. That is why I found the subamendment most unpleasant. Yet, I voted for it because I had a clear mandate from my constituents who are strongly against nuclear weapons.
To be honest, I cannot help but feel somewhat grateful to those who voted against the motion. But that is when I realized that there 28902-5-14J
The Address-Mr. Girouard are always two sides to a major question. Some members told me that they did not wish to veto prematurely a question which the government promised to submit to the house for its approval sooner or later.
Others told me they feared that some communist influence might be behind the demonstrations staged by the C.I.N.D. and "The Voice of Women". By the way, I should like to speak about "The Voice of Women", not that I question their sincerity, but they intrigue me, those guardians of the home who of late have mothered peace. I wonder if those women, whether they be in Canada or in Rome, know exactly why they demonstrate and where they are going. I feel it would be easy to clear up the matter if the Prime Minister decided to reveal some private talk.
The only demand I have to make respecting nuclear weapons, is that I insist-and I believe all hon. members support me-that any final decision in this connection be taken by the house. I feel that if we had a free vote then, or to go even further, if we would disregard parliamentary procedure and hold a secret vote, not more than 40 or 50 members in the whole house would vote in favour of nuclear arms for Canada.
Mr. Speaker, if one day, in spite of my unimportant and dissenting opinion, the government party were to conclude such an arrangement with the United States, I ask them not to forget altogether all those years of struggle our country went through, when less than two centuries ago, Canadians were still shedding their blood to keep the freedom that our distinguished, but not too powerful neighbours, were trying to take away from them.
Mr. Speaker, I come now to the amendment moved to the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
When the former prime minister moved his amendment, I felt a great deal of indignation, because I could not help but think of the saying: "Opportunity makes the thief".
Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition thought that the government did not act quickly enough. At one time he said: "I find that the government's statement of intention is not enough to maintain or pursue the expansion launched by our government in 1962". With regard to this matter, Mr. Speaker-I do not know whether my party is involved by saying so-I say that the same chance may be given to the ministerial benches that we of the Social Credit have given to the Con-

The Address-Mr. W. D. Howe servative party in the past. Anyway, in order to soothe the Leader of the Opposition, I shall say that, though there is no great promise in the speech from the throne, after the last six years which the country spent under Conservative rule, Canada should not be too exacting.
Mr. Speaker, I shall now conclude my few remarks. I took great pleasure in being able to express my way of thinking. In concluding, I want to say that a few days ago, the Liberal party made some promises which seemed interesting from the point of view of the Canadian people. If the government carries out what the people want, it will apply what the Social Credit party always asked for, on behalf of the people. While strengthening our economy, the government promises to give us what we want in the matter of biculturalism.
I shall therefore conclude my remarks in stating that, if the government carries out the promises it made during the election campaign, it will be in absolute majority, because the 265 members of the house, in supporting such legislation, would only discharge their responsibilities, which consist in giving to the Canadian people all the happiness which political, economic and social security can mean.
(Text):


William Dean Howe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating you, sir, on election to your esteemed office. I have been told that this is considered a maiden speech. I do not know whether this is in reference to being launched, or because this is the time of life at which the greatest degree of nervousness takes place. A previous maiden speaker referred to this as going into orbit, and with this I must agree. However, when I consider the small percentage of hon. members who will probably be left in this chamber when I have finished my speech, I am sure the nervousness will be almost overcome. As to where I sit in this house, at least all I can do is advance. I do not think it is possible to get any further back, but at least I have my foot in the door. The geographical distance between here and some of the other seats is short. The distance is one of status rather than physical footage.
The riding I represent is large. It was established in 1952. Both the somewhat larger parties have ably represented this constituency in the past, but in this election the people felt they should try a party that can truly represent the interests of the working people.
As to my immediate predecessor, Bobby McDonald, I should like to say that, knowing him personally, I hope I shall be able to


represent our riding in as able a fashion as he did.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Dean Howe: I have always found him fair in every respect, and to follow him places a large burden of responsibility on my shoulders.
The city of Hamilton, the fifth largest in Canada and the largest industrial city in Canada, is well located at the extreme west end of lake Ontario. It is a natural port area on the great lakes which allows clear access for the shipment of the many commodities manufactured in that great city. I am not going to bore hon. members here with Hamilton's many advantages, because I am sure they are well known by reputation alone. Needless to say, with the amount of industry which takes place in this area there is a huge labour force that is deserving of social benefits which have not even been mentioned in the speech from the throne. We were particularly astounded at the omission of any medicare program. We were pleased during the campaign when we saw that the Liberals had included this in their platform, being careful, of course, not to offend the private companies as they turned right from their portended social policies to gain their support. Do the Liberals realize that they are dependant upon more than themselves to keep their present status? The effectiveness of any government has no relationship to the numerical majority of that party. I feel that stability would indicate the calibre of the men who make up the government and the sincerity of purpose, rather than party affiliation as a sole criterion for judgment. To me sincerity is more important than physical majority. There have been many successful minority governments.
The New Democratic party has pledged itself to support a minority government as long as this government is carrying out any legislation that is good for the people of Canada. What better way is there of maintaining effectiveness and honesty than if the minority party is kept to its election promises through the watchful guidance of a party interested in the welfare of the people? This minority government, as in the past, could be the finest government of them all. Monopolizing power by one party, with no thought of utilizing effective people of an opposition party, is ineffective administration. It is my sincere contention that voting for a majority government merely for the sake of majority is wrong. To vote for ineffectiveness and poor policies serves no useful purpose.
Our party proposed a plan that would give complete medical care to everyone. We do not think the quality of medical care should

be determined by how much a person can afford. Rather, this should be determined only by the degree of illness. We believe that any plan of medicare must be all inclusive and completely comprehensive. It must include doctors' care, hospital care, dental care, drugs, glasses and other necessary appliances. This plan would be for the benefit of the people and not one designed against the doctors-after all, I am one myself. It would be designed to meet these needs without the sacrifice of the doctor-patient relationship. Doctors would be paid on a fee for service basis rather than a salary. This would maintain a doctor's incentive. He would have the complete freedom to practise inside or outside the plan and also have complete freedom of choice of his patients. This would be completely democratic and yet maintain the dignity and pride of the medical profession which it so justly deserves, because of its sacrifices and unswerving loyalty to the ailing since the ancient inception of this profession.
We feel, too, that the people are equally deserving of the best care available. Through experience in the practice of medicine I find there is a large group of people who are medically indigent. Some of these people have sufficient to make them ineligible for medical welfare assistance, yet they can ill afford adequate medical care. There are new discoveries in treatment, in newly derived drugs that cannot be used on as high a percentage of patients as they should be. The exorbitant prices of these drugs makes it necessary for doctors to substitute cheaper ones rather than use the best in the case of many of his patients. Because of financial obstacles, must our Canadian people receive second or third rate substitutions?
When a patient enters my office I am forced to make two diagnoses-one has to do with a medical diagnosis and the other with the patient's financial ability to pay for the treatment I will have to prescribe, whether it be drugs, surgery or even time off work that many can ill afford. What about private plans? These are so covered with exceptions, exclusions and fine print that to interpret them would take the ability of a legal man. None of these plans include dentistry or appliances. A few of them partially cover drugs on a percentage basis. It was interesting to note that in yesterday's Globe and Mail on the editorial page there was an editorial called "Facing the Inevitable", and I would like to read this.
The dental profession is showing wisdom in its co-operative and constructive approach to prepaid dental care. At the joint annual conventions of the Canadian and Ontario Dental Associations at the week end, it was disclosed that sponsoring
The Address-Mr. W. D. Howe
bodies had already been set up by the profession in British Columbia and Quebec to administer prepaid plans, and that similar bodies were in the process of formation in Alberta and Ontario. The Ontario group should be ready by the end of the year to administer plans on behalf of a number of groups.
Dr. W. G. McIntosh, past president of the Canadian Dental Association, had some words of advice for his colleagues. He warned them not to resist social change:
"The only reason for the existence of our profession is to serve others. If we fail to make our services available or place them beyond reach of the public, then our status as a profession and our legal power of self-regulation will quickly disappear .. . The cry of no government control is outdated. It is now a question of how much government control and how it can be most efficiently used in the best interests of all concerned." "
By moving voluntarily into the prepaid field, the dentists are co-operating gracefully with the inevitable. Dental bills place a greater financial burden on some families than medical bills, and there are many families who cannot afford dental care or for whom dental care is not available. The need is twofold: there should be prepaid plans that will spread the costs and enable people to guard against sudden and enormous bills by paying a reasonable monthly premium; and dental services should be made much more widely available.
These are not needs that can be quickly satisfied. The first plans put into operation in Ontario will be in the nature of experiments. Until they have been working for some time it will not be possible to determine the full extent of the need for dental services or to fix firm premiums. It is also probable that the original plans will function only in urban areas; the shortage of dentists in many rural communities at the present time could make any sort of comprehensive prepaid scheme impossible. Before prepaid dental service can be made available to all its citizens, Canada will need many more dentists.
The dentists are wise, however, in proceeding with their pilot schemes now. It is an indication of their recognition of the need, and of their willingness to co-operate in meeting it.
It is interesting to note that even the Globe and Mail does not speak in a derogatory way about the possibility of this plan being government run. Is it not the prime responsibility of any responsible government to attend to the health of the people?
Great Britain has had a medical plan since 1948, and although the Labour party, which had the sagacity to institute this plan, has been out of power since 1951 the plan has not been withdrawn. Rather, the Tories have recently offered increased benefits. The doctors want it, the people want it and even the government wants it. If such a plan as this could be brought in during a period of austerity in Britain by a Labour party, and not removed by governments following them, surely Canada is in a better position than Britain was in post-war days to institute a plan of similar magnitude for our Canadian people?
The complaint that quality would be substituted by quantity is unjustified, as evidenced by the Norwegian health plan. Two of the standards used for the determination of

The Address-Mr. Brown quality of medical practice are the infant mortality rate and the average life expectancy at birth. Both of these are considerably more favourable in Norway than either here or in the United States. Although medical education in Norway is free, there are still fewer doctors per capita and therefore the improved statistics are not explainable on the ground that Norwegian doctors handle fewer patients.
There are only two countries in the western world which have not achieved some form of government operated medical health plan __the United States and Canada. This is something the people need and want. I feel that a speech from the throne which omits even to mention this subject is remiss in attending to the needs of the people. Is this not truly the duty of a duly elected government? The people are not asking to be branded by the stigma of receiving charity from either the government or other people but I do feel that anyone who is doing a job to the fullest of his ability should have equal rights and access to benefits available to everyone; he should not be looked upon as seeking charity, but, rather, recognized as a human being, not indigent but with equal rights. If any one right falls in this category it is the right to health.
A properly planned medical health scheme that is truly all-inclusive would advance the course of medical science, because it would not only look after the people but it would provide incentive to the doctors and advance the cause of scientific research without such duplication of effort as results today from the studies of private companies. It would make the latest scientific advances available to anyone whose medical condition required them. This would be the only criterion of their use, as the financial barrier would be removed. Also, education along medical lines would be made available to those who have the ability. Today, one needs both ability and opportunity. This would make the opportunity available to all those who have the ability.
Only through idealism is the realism of improvement accomplished. A goal set high remains an eternal objective even if never attained. Perfection is impossible to attain, but the closer we can come to it the better will be the life of our people. So, let us all work and build a new Canada with standards for our people that will be the envy of the world.
(Translation):


Mr. J. E. Brown (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin my remarks in the language of my French speaking compatriots, many of whom are my close friends.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate you upon your appointment as
IMr. Howe (Hamilton South).]
Speaker of this house. On all sides of the house you have been held in the highest regard. I know that you will discharge your duties with great distinction and impartiality.
Also to the Deputy Speaker and deputy chairman of committees, I should like to extend my sincere congratulations.
Mr. Speaker, one of the first matters mentioned in the speech from the throne is the establishment of a commission charged to study "thoroughly but urgently how the fundamentally bicultural character of Canada may be best assured."
As a representative of one of the major English speaking areas in Canada, I am glad to commend the government for its efforts to create a true bicultural relationship in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I truly love the traditions and background of English speaking Ontario. But I also love the traditions and background of our sister province of Quebec.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne forecasts decisive action on the part of the government to combat the serious unemployment problem that besets this country at the present time. My constituency of Brantford has felt the effects of this problem for quite some time. Many have suffered greatly, and for them I have had grave concern. I believe that across the country there is a good deal of optimism and satisfaction that the new Liberal government is endeavouring to bring Canada back to a greater degree of stability and a higher degree of prosperity, a prosperity which is more widely shared by the whole population than was the case in the past. I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and his colleagues for the leadership they are giving in face of many difficult national problems.
I hope I will be pardoned for the enthusiastic belief I have that Liberalism is not dead in Canada today. I believe it can still offer this country an effective path to greater freedom for the individual, and a richer and fuller life for the majority of the people of Canada. I have always found that somehow modern parliamentary Liberalism has an answer, and an effective answer, to our national problems, and I congratulate the government upon the leadership it is giving in this direction as outlined in the speech from the throne.
Of particular interest-and I mention it now only because I may very probably have more to say about it later-is the reference to the new national contributory portable pension plan. It was spoken of a great many times during the election campaign, and I am now looking forward very much to its implementation during this session of par-

liament. I believe in it because I believe that it will be a tremendous stride forward in social legislation when it comes into effect. It will be contributory; it will not be a handout. Every working man and woman knows full well that we must all somehow pay for this and for many other benefits which may come from such measures of social legislation. I believe that each and every such person looks forward to contributing to something from which he or she can benefit in years to come upon retirement. When the new minister brings down the bill implementing this legislation, it will be one of the most vital pieces of social legislation which has been introduced in this parliament in a generation.
Above all I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) upon his speeches in this debate. He gives promise of great leadership in the days to come and is bringing singular credit to this house and to the country in these days of decision.
There is one matter that I should like to bring before the house and the government in this debate. This might be said to be a local matter, but it is one which affects far more than the people of my own constituency. It would benefit the entire area in which I live in the province of Ontario, and one in regard to which representations will, I know, be made to the government in the near future. I refer to the deepening and the redevelopment of the Grand river for purposes of navigation. This may seem to be a small matter at first but, Mr. Speaker, I believe it to be a big one. I want you to know, sir, that it is one which will be of inestimable value to one of the most heavily populated parts of Canada.
The Grand river is a navigable stream- at least it has been for many years-as far as Brantford, that picturesque and historic city which I have the honour to represent in the House of Commons. The Encyclopaedia Britannica 1948 edition describes Brantford, Ontario, as a port of entry into Canada by water; and as such it was recognized from earliest times. It was a centre of civilization and gives evidence of having been an Indian capital in the days before the coming of the white man. The potentialities of the Grand river were recognized from earliest times by both wise Indians and white men alike. It traces a majestic course from its source in central Ontario to its mouth at lake Erie. It was at the fall of the river, which is also the ford of the river, to where the earliest white settlers in the area came. This river valley was chosen by the Indians of the Six Nations when they settled in Canada following the American revolution under their redoubtable chief Joseph Brant, that illustrious leader of men, both Indians and whites alike, and a valiant ally of the British crown. And as
The Address-Mr. Brown I said, the earliest white men followed Joseph Brant to settle at the ford of the river, at Brant's ford, there to establish the beginnings of the province of Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, did you know that when Brantford was a port whole families of people came from as far away as Virginia, bringing their slaves with them to spend their summers in the delightful climate of our part of Ontario? The historic Kerby hotel at Brantford was jammed to the doors every summer in the 1850's, and they had to set up an annex across the river to hold the crowds.
What I am saying is that this great river must be made navigable for the reasons I will outline. Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that in the last few years every municipality along the Grand river has spent large sums of money, some in the millions, establishing sewage disposal plants, with the help and direction of the provincial government, in order to put an end to the pollution of the river? The result is that it is rapidly being restored to its pristine beauty-to its old and rightful place in the life of all those important communities on its banks. It is being made ready for navigation again, and the federal government, this government will, I know, be called upon to give a little leadership in restoring navigation.
Perhaps commercial navigation may never develop again on the river-who knows? But navigation for pleasure craft will change the entire economic life of this whole area. The possibilities for recreation in the valley of the Grand, serving the whole area between what is called the Golden Horseshoe around lake Ontario and down to the region of lake Erie, are unlimited.
Hon. members will be well aware of the increased interest in boating and water sports over the last few years. The highways in our part of Ontario are full of people hauling boats either to Georgian bay or lake Erie. This should not be necessary when all they have to do is put their craft on the water at Brantford. Further down the river past the Six Nations Indian reservation and Chiefs-wood, the newly restored home of the Indian poetess, Pauline Johnson, is Caledonia, where above the dam the boating and water sports enjoyed are a sight to see.
With some dredging and a number of low dams, the entire Grand river and its flat lands on either side will become, in my view, a recreational area second to none in North America and serving a whole number of communities throughout its length, in the most densely populated parts of Canada.
With the river pollution coming to an end, with help from the federal government to

The Address-Mr. Korchinski promote navigation, and with the construction of certain small sized dams, the adjoining farm lands, always a credit to our province, will be enhanced in value by the possibility of irrigation, so that agriculture will be able to hold its accustomed place as a cornerstone of the economy of the Grand valley.
The redevelopment of the Grand river will also be one of those projects which the federal government can promote at this particular time, or in the near future, to alleviate the unemployment problem in the area. It is a public project that will bring about a good return on the investment made. There will be resultant prosperity ensuing from the establishment of this enviable recreational area, one which will be second to none in Canada.
Millions of dollars have been spent in past years on the Trent valley system and on the Rideau canal system, and I believe, and believe firmly, that the next great move on the part of government will be the redevelopment of the Grand river for navigation. Present day urban civilization requires a multiplicity of parklands and recreational areas, and the potential of the Grand river valley is tremendous in this respect.
As I said at the outset, great men of the past recognized its value and potential by settling there. Joseph Brant and the chiefs of the Indians of the Six Nations confederacy, after careful study, chose this area as above all a place worthy to establish in the wilderness a haven where British justice under the crown of England would flourish and prevail.
The white man, after the advent of railways, rather carelessly neglected some of our splendid waterways, including the Grand river. Today his descendants are turning to these rivers again for recreation and the Grand river area will, I confidently predict, from one end to the other become a retreat for countless thousands and a bulwark against the pressures of modern urban civilization.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Deputy Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate, like so many others I would first like to congratulate you on your election to the office you hold. I would also like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply for the manner in which they delivered their speeches. Those of us who have already made our maiden speeches know what an effort it is on such an occasion to express oneself when it appears that all eyes are turned on one. However, there was none of that nervousness, that I personally experienced, evident in those new members whom I have heard, and I admire them for that.

In particular I admire some of the Liberal members who can speak of the throne speech and make it appear as though it were something of which they could be exceedingly proud. During the recent election campaign we felt some bold action would be forthcoming, were the Liberals returned to office. We heard them say: "It is time for action; it is time we got a new government." But what do we find in the speech from the throne? We find that what the new government have done is to take legislation which we announced in the speech from the throne last session, reword it, alter it a bit and present it to the country as though it were theirs. They have copied it, and I admire them for doing that. I am glad they could see the wisdom in the legislation we had presented.
We left the country in a better position than the press, Liberal spokesmen and television commentators made it appear. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, quite a hoax was perpetrated on the Canadian people. I have before me a clipping from the Ottawa Journal of May 1 and under the heading, "A house left in good order" there appears this:
Official figures which came last week should be noted well by Canadians.
For what they showed, beyond any dispute whatever, is that when Mr. Diefenbaker last week handed over the government of Canada to Mr. Pearson he presented Mr. Pearson with a house in good order.


An hon. Member:: What about the unemployment?


Stanley James Korchinski: I will deal with that shortly. The article goes on to say:
He left Mr. Pearson a country whose national production in 1962 had climbed 8 per cent to a peak of $40.4 billion . . .
He left him with a country which, after years of trade deficits, had at last achieved a favourable trade balance.
The article continues:
He left him with a country whose reserves of gold and U.S. currency had been brought to $2,700,000,000-the greatest reached in years.
He left him with a country in which, during 1962, trade had reached an all-time high; in which manufacturing had jumped by 8 per cent, construction by 8.2 per cent, business capital investment by 4.8 per cent. . .
In short, Mr. Diefenbaker left Mr. Pearson with a country whose people were producing more, selling more, earning more and saving more than ever before in their history.
Is it any wonder that they followed through by keeping that type of effective legislation? Is it any wonder that they are continuing the program of technical assistance? The former minister of labour dealt with that earlier today. Is it any wonder that they want the Atlantic development board? Oh, they will change it a bit. Perhaps what they want is a few of their appointees on the board, but

they are not saying that it was bad legislation. I can remember when they spent days and days in the house-obstruction, that is what it was-trying to make it appear to the country that this was poor legislation.
What are they going to do about this legislation now? They are going to improve it. They are going to put in $100 million and that is supposed to solve the problem. They are going to make a few more appointments. So far as solving unemployment is concerned, no doubt they are going to appoint some of their men to the board and that will absorb jobs. I think they should take a lesson from the experience of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) who was premier of the province from which I come. He tried all these things. It is a wonder they did not discuss the matter with him because he has tried everything they are going to do now. He put up funds. He said one time that he was going to create all types of industry and that this was the answer to the problem there. What was the result? A woollen mill on the rocks, a shoe factory, a box factory-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: More industries than the province ever had and not one Tory in the legislature.


Stanley James Korchinski: -you name it. And so on down the line. You will find that the only type of industry that has ever been successful is one where there has been a monopoly, where you can charge as much as you want, where there is no competition. Then the industry will survive. This is supposed to be the answer to the unemployment problem. This is the bold action from a government which said that Canada is going to the dogs.


Mr. Gundlock:: Forty days gone.


Stanley James Korchinski: Somebody says that 40 days are gone. What have we got? Only a repetition of the same mistakes that the province of Saskatchewan made 20 years ago. The government will appoint the board. What power will it have? Will we put money into some industry and find it does not pan out and then put in more good money after bad as was done in the province of Saskatchewan?
What is going to happen with the present provincial leader in the province of Saskatchewan, Mr. Thatcher? He tried to kick down the door of the provincial legislature in order to tell the N.D.P. in that province that they are not doing the right thing. Yet the Liberals here in Ottawa are going to do the very thing that the C.C.F. proved was wrong in the province of Saskatchewan, and this is supposed to be the answer to the unemployment problem.
The Address-Mr. Korchinski
Let us go on. Will we have a repetition of the same mistakes, only to get the same answers? You have a development plan for the Atlantic provinces, you have legislation for central Canada, but what is going to be done for our province of Saskatchewan? For example, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam must be aware of all the potential that exists in my constituency. He said something about industries. I can show him silica sand deposits, I can show him timber, I can show him water resources, I can show him fish in that area. What has he done? Nothing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Have you heard about Squaw rapids and the timber board?


Stanley James Korchinski: I have heard about the timber board and all the timber board did was to lay off people in that area at a time when the N.D.P. were crying about unemployment. People have talked to me about it. Is it any wonder that people who know about the timber board will not support their party?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They do.


Stanley James Korchinski: The situation in Saskatchewan is well known and certainly the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam should be quite well aware of that fact because the people indicated in no uncertain terms a year ago what they thought of that type of planning.
I come now to the municipal development board. This is merely an extension of legislation now in effect with regard to sewer and water programs. There will be a forgiveness clause. How long is the period to be? Nobody knows. There is nothing wrong with that type of legislation but it is repetition. Where is the bold new action we were led to believe would come from the Liberal party? There is nothing.
The provision for an economic council for Canada is just another name for the national productivity council. Again I say that all the Liberals will do will be to make new appointments and put a new man at the head of it. Perhaps some of their candidates who were not successful will be on that board. They were unsuccessful in one place but they will put them in another place, to make a success.
Contributory pensions are another idea that we had. They told us in the last session of parliament that their one big aim was to destroy a government that had nothing to offer, and yet they are offering the very things we did. Where is that bold new action? It is not coming and will not come from them. No.
They tell us that in a few years we will have a new flag. I wonder whether on his recent trip south the Prime Minister of Canada discussed this matter with the president and

The Address-Mr. Korchinski decided that perhaps one more star on their flag would be the solution. Is there agreement in this regard? After all, there seems to be agreement on everything else. It would appear from all the commentators in the press and on the radio that we have reached a wonderful Utopia. Just one little trip to the south and everything is fine.
As a matter of fact, I came through the United States myself when I drove to Ottawa. There is nothing wrong with going there, but to think that we will get all the answers because we have a new Prime Minister who cannot say no to anything seems to me to be stretching the imagination pretty far. The throne speech has been called imaginative, but you have to stretch your imagination to see what is in it that is new. Nothing, I say. After all, the flag of the country to the south has flown over military installations in this country in the past. There was nothing wrong with money from that country coming to Liberal headquarters during the campaign. That was wonderful. They had every assistance on television and in the press, all across Canada. To what avail? They could not convince the people, even with all their money. It is entirely up to the United States as to what they want to do, but I understand they want to have a member in this house, somebody to be their spokesman. Apparently the ambassadors are to sit on the sidelines. I understand that Congressman Hays has introduced a bill to this effect, which also makes provision for Canadian representation in their legislative bodies. Can you imagine Canada having an effective voice in their house of representatives and senate? Their spokesman would have every right to come into the Canadian House of Commons, tell us what they believe and perhaps give us an indication of what is necessary for Canada. Wonderful.
Now we come to some of the new ideas in the throne speech. One of them is to have two ministers of agriculture. I think it would be a good idea to have a lot of ministers of agriculture. That is evident from some of the experiences we have had in the last couple of days. I think the Prime Minister should have asked the new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) one thing: "Have you read the agricultural platform of the Liberal party?" In that way he would prepare himself for the type of questions that may be asked him. I am sure he has no idea, as is evident, of what is in that platform; if there is a platform; but they did put out some material it would be very nice if he had read it.
I asked a question the other day: What is the higher initial price for oats and barley? It was taken as notice. I have just had a phone call. Seeding is almost finished and I should like to know what that higher price for oats


and barley is. The former minister of agriculture rose today and told us that the price of barley has gone down. What did their platform mean? Is that not perpetrating a hoax? What were they trying to tell the people of the west? Is it any wonder they have so few members from the west? I have a pamphlet here issued by the Liberal party, and do you know what it says? "Ensure a minimum return on wheat". I emphasize the word "minimum" because that is exactly what we are heading for. It says "minimum".
Why do we need two ministers of agriculture? Would it be because they wish to have somebody to whom they can pass the buck? Whenever you do not want to make a decision, you hand it over to the other man.
Just a few minutes ago there were two members talking behind the curtains. They were both talking about sugar beets, but one was from Ontario and one was from Alberta. Who will look after the problem? How are you going to solve that? What about hogs? What about eggs? What about cattle? What about grain, for example, that will be sold in the east and grown in the west? Who is supposed to decide that problem? Where do we go? Is this an admission by the Liberals that they cannot possibly handle the problems with one minister? Already, they have taken the wheat board away from the department of agriculture. We used to have one minister who did a remarkable job. We had one of the greatest ministers of agriculture Canada ever had. The Liberals are admitting that they cannot handle these problems, so they take the wheat board away from the Minister of Agriculture. Then, they will split the remainder of the responsibilities in half. I understand, too, that they are supposed to set up another cabinet minister to deal with Saskatchewan. Then, there is supposed to be another committee. What are we going to have, Mr. Speaker? Who is supposed to be charged with these responsibilities? To whom do I go in the event that there are problems?- and there will be many agricultural problems, according to evidence already produced.
One of the first acts of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) was to reduce the price support on whole milk. I saw an article in the Ottawa Citizen of May 22 entitled, "Bread price rise may follow milk." It reads:
Rising prices of powdered milk across Canada could lead to higher prices for bread, dairy industry spokesmen say ...
The milk powder increases were sparked by the removal of a federal government subsidy to farmers of 25 cents for 100 pounds of whole milk.
To whom do I go with a problem like that? Already, it is evident that we cannot get answers. It is evident that there will be problems, and to whom do we go? A strange new

animal is going to make its appearance here, something with two heads. The other day the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) asked a question of the minister. What kind of answer did he get? He was informed that the new plan for the Department of Agriculture would save the treasury some $6 million. This is the first aim, to save the treasury money and forget about the farmers. They want to forget about the farmers, whether they are from the east or the west. Perhaps this is what the Prime Minister meant when he spoke in New Brunswick and said they were not going to spend a single nickel. Is this what he was referring to, that they were not going to cut off all grants?
We had the acreage payment, and what do we get? There was a promise of $2 per bushel for wheat. Apparently, however, this does not have the priority to be included within the 60 days of decision. When will it be included, Mr. Speaker, if ever? What are we supposed to do? Are we to wait until just before another election, only to find they will use that same old bribe? I can remember the years when they pitted the east against the west. During the last five or six years, we have been able to smooth this over. In other words, we have put the farmers in a position where for once they have had a fair share of attention given to them. The Liberals are putting us right back into that old position. They are doing this because they have only one thing in mind, to hang on to power. Since Saskatchewan did not give them any representatives, they will go in a roundabout way to see what they can do to get a few members from that area. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that they have a lot to learn.
The other day they sent an invitation to one of our more illustrious members, the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp), to sit on their side of the house. I can assure them he will teach them plenty. He has done a terrific job in bringing to the government's attention the needs of his constituency. I can assure the Liberals that if they would take the time to read some of the literature that has been published, such as the brief put out by the farmers' union, they would learn something. They offer us nothing but two heads for agriculture. The farmers had better be satisfied with that.
We are told the government will establish a ministry of industry which is supposed to solve the problems of industry. What will it do for my constituency? I have already pointed out the potentials existing in my area. We have mines, we have timber, we have water, we have good farmland and we have the people. If the government just deals with the areas of chronic unemployment, they will just deal with Toronto. They will
The Address-Mr. Korchinski deal with the cities because those are the areas in which chronic unemployment is evident. Will they concern themselves with other areas? Will they try to boost the economy of other areas? They will not, because that does not have priority. The Prime Minister has said that the best way to prosperity for farmers throughout the country is through the expansion of markets at home and abroad. Is it any wonder that he needs two ministers of agriculture? I think he will keep one at home and he will send the other one on a trip. I suggest that if he is going to send any minister of agriculture on a trip, he should send the present one, because obviously we have not had an indication from this minister that there will be $2 wheat or that there will be an increase in the initial price of oats and barley, or other legislation. The only indication we have received is that there will be an expansion of the Department of Agriculture. We are going to have more ministers, more secretaries and so on. This is supposed to solve the unemployment problem.
One of the things that was evident under the former administration was that the western farmers were getting their fair share of attention. One of the things that was evident was the amount of machinery the farmers were beginning to buy. I found over the last couple of years that the farmers were not grumbling as they had under the Liberal government. We managed to get them into a position where they received their share of attention. They were not unhappy over the fact the maritimes got its share of attention. They were not unhappy over the fact that eastern Canada got its share of attention. They were happy over the fact that for once they were getting their share of attention.
There was an article in the Winnipeg Tribune dated February 22, 1963 entitled "Western prosperity", and it read:
One of the indicators of relative farm prosperity is the statistics of farm implement sales. When farm income rises it is followed immediately by an increase in the consumption of goods of all kinds, particularly farm machinery.
According to figures released by the dominion bureau of statistics, sales of farm implements and equipment in 1962 were valued at wholesale prices as an estimated $279,019,000 or an increase over 1961 of 15.6 per cent. . .
There could hardly be a more concrete confirmation of the general proposition that the government's agricultural policies have benefited western Canada.
I should like the new government to take note of that because any time the western farmer gets his fair share of attention and is prosperous, that money will be channelled back into the east. We have been trying to remind the Liberals of this fact. Every time there is any indication the farmer might have

The Address-Mr. Korchinski a good crop, the agents will be on his doorstep to see what they can sell him. The farmer will buy just as he has in the past. This government should take note of that fact. Instead of running around setting up all kinds of ministers, I think they should get down to the basic problem of trying to put more money into the hands of the farmers. They should forget about playing politics and give the farmers the acreage payments, even if we did introduce them.
It is an odd thing, Mr. Speaker, but when we ask questions of the minister we do not get any replies. I cannot blame him if he does not have all the answers because this is a difficult department to administer and no doubt it is difficult for him to know all the answers. It is difficult to know all the answers, and we will not hold him to that. But here is one of the pamphlets put out by the Liberal party dealing with today's problems where they answer these problems. When will we get the answers? Do we have to wait for another throne speech to get some of the answers? We will never get them from this government.
What is going to happen if the decision of one minister on one course of action disagrees with the decision of the other minister? What are they going to do? Are they going to look around to see who gets more votes, or which has the biggest voting potential east or west. What about the maritimes? What about the people of British Columbia, the fruit producers? Mr. Speaker, I do not know how long I have been on my feet.


Some hon. Members:: Too long.


Stanley James Korchinski: Too long for the Liberals, they tell me.


An hon. Member:: Too long for the gallery, too.


Stanley James Korchinski: I think one of the things for which this throne speech will be noted is its omissions. I have plenty of pamphlets which I have picked up on the way. The Liberals had candidates all over the place, and they really concentrated on the western areas, mine being one of them. They offered everything. There was our program for the north, which the Prime Minister called a program of building roads from igloo to igloo. He has not mentioned anything about that in the speech from the throne. He is going to ignore that part of the country because there are not too many votes to be garnered there. They are not too concerned about that part of Canada. Do they think they will look after unemployment that way? One of their candidates said they were going to do something about roads to resources and roads to the north. What kind of a position does this put the candidates in from 

those areas? I am sure they must be somewhat ashamed of the manner in which the Liberal party is acting today in connection with those very things.
I have the pamphlets here. How can these candidates stand for the very things they thought their party leader would do for them? How can they answer these charges? They cannot, because it is impossible to do so. The Liberal party just does not do anything, period. That is exactly what they have been noted for in the past. This has been their theme for years. They will offer a little carrot here and perhaps talk about these things. Biculturalism is a wonderful thing. I think I have almost as many people in my constituency from different countries and of different nationalities as any hon. member. I think these people are interested in living together, because they have proved in the past that they can live together. But the Liberal party at election times just offers a little carrot here and there in order to get votes.
What about the scholarships which they promised? If this is supposed to solve part of the unemployment problem, why is there no mention of scholarships? They ignore that. Perhaps we will hear about scholarships before the next election. According to the speech from the throne one of the greatest problems in Canada today is unemployment. If unemployment is one of the greatest problems-and I assure the house that it is a problem-why are there not two ministers of labour? Why did they ignore labour in this respect? If they think that agriculture needs the attention of two ministers, why not appoint two ministers to deal with the problems of labour? It seems to me the only reason they are trying to give agriculture that type of attention is because they were sadly lacking in votes in agriculture areas. If so many people are suffering as the result of unemployment, I suggest to the Prime Minister that instead of filling his cabinet with unnecessary members he should appoint two ministers of labour, one for employment and one for unemployment, if he wishes.


Mr. Macdonald:: It would be Tory unemployment.


Stanley James Korchinski: I think that department could be improved, if he wishes, and I think there might be room for more people working within that department to see if we cannot solve this problem. It is a problem, I assure the house. I am sure that everybody in this house would like to see the day when we would have no unemployment. It does not matter where we sit, whether we are members of the official opposition, the other opposition parties, or the government, I am sure this

is first and foremost in our minds. But what do they do? They make it appear to the country that agriculture is sadly lacking in solutions. They make it appear that we need to have two ministers of agriculture, and at the same time they admit to having no solutions for these problems. They have none of the bold action about which they spoke. Where is the boldness now? They just tiptoe through the tulips; that is what they are doing. They are walking in darkness, because they haven't a clue. They had television and the newspapers on their side, and they had the money, and they sold ideas which were not exactly according to the facts.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret that I must interrupt the hon. gentleman and inform him that his time has expired.


Mr. Jack Davis (Coast-Capilano):: Mr. Deputy Speaker, like others before me I should like to congratulate you upon election to your high office, and through you I should like to extend my congratulations to the Speaker. I know that both of you will show the ability, integrity and impartiality of your high office in administering the affairs of this house.
The leader of the Social Credit party decried the fact that we talk politics in this House of Commons. This is the place where we should talk politics. But we should at least be agreed, not only upon our Speaker and his impartiality but upon many of the facts which are often in dispute. Among these I would include facts as to economic realities. The speech from the throne contains the proposal that this parliament pass legislation with respect to a national economic council. We need a national economic council in this country in order to determine what the current trends are. The council may make forecasts of various kinds, but these forecasts are merely an indication of what basic, underlying trends and forces are currently at work in our economy.
This national economic council must not be a secretive body. It must work with agencies, particularly economic research groups, representatives of management and representatives of trade unions. It must communicate freely and frequently with them. I would argue that it should be staffed in large part by men who are seconded for relatively short periods of time from management and labour. In that way the government would certainly be better informed, and industry, management and labour would know to a much greater extent where we are going. If where we are going does not satisfy management, industry and labour, then we obviously have to change things. But at least these trends will be clearly mapped out. We will not be
The Address-Mr. Davis arguing much about what has happened in the distant past or what is happening currently, but more about where we should be going and what should be done with respect to redirecting our economy in ways we think are most desirable.
In other words, we should be arguing more about long term goals and objectives, more about policy, more about politics in the sense of the fundamental shape of the Canadian economy and our nation in the years to come.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is pretty good now.


John (Jack) Davis: We need long term forecasting and long term planning, because at the moment we are looking ahead essentially a year at a time. Our annual budgets merely look ahead one year, but many investments made by individuals and industry are in assets, buildings and equipment which will last, not five or ten years, but 25, 50 years or even a century.
In order to make decisions intelligently we must be looking ahead not just one year but much further into the future, and the national economic development council will help us to do just that. It will remove a lot of uncertainties. Government will not be introducing policies and legislation whose provisions conflict with each other. Industries and individuals throughout this country will know better where they are going and what alternatives are open to them. They will be able to make their own decisions and invest in the light of the best possible information.
Also in the speech from the throne is a proposal for the setting up of a new department of industry. We have had traditionally in this country a Department of Trade and Commerce nominally, at least, concerned with international trade. More recently we have had a Department of Defence Production concerned primarily with buying munitions of war for our armed forces. But many of the decisions taken by these departments have influenced industry in this country. The setting up of a new department of industry will enable us to deal more directly and more frankly with industrial development in Canada.
The Glassco commission recommended the establishment of a purchasing department incorporating the Department of Defence Production. The new department of industry will be more than that. It will be a department whose actions, contracts and placement of requirements will influence industry to an undoubted extent, but within an over-all framework of flexible targets and long term objectives.
Economic research is one thing, but in addition to economic research we should do

The Address-Mr. Davis a great deal more scientific and basic research. We do not do much of the latter at the present time. The new department of industry will help to stimulate scientific and industrial research. It could do so in various ways, through tax incentives and so on.
I personally think we would be well advised to make Canada a tax haven in respect of research and development of various kinds. We should define research broadly and should free from the imposition of income tax the results of research, particularly royalties and revenues from the sale of what are essentially ideas. This would not only encourage the development of new industries in this country but it would cause some large international corporations, which so far have been very shy about carrying out any research here, to do so in the future.
Think of what this would mean in terms of employment for scientifically trained people, particularly for our youth. This is an area in which we have little to lose because at the present time we do not gain much from these activities. This is the type of activity which I sincerely hope the new department will encourage as part of a comprehensive program of revitalizing our country and increasing the opportunities of ownership in industry in Canada. I mention ownership because ownership generally follows ideas. The people who create new ideas are generally on the inside track. It is where research is done and where management is aware of the opportunities offered by scientific research that one finds opportunities to hold the equity control of new companies. I think this is important for Canada's future, particularly as the trend for many years now has been toward increased foreign ownership. This is one of the more positive and more liberal ways of increasing Canadian ownership in Canadian industry.
The new department of industry will have under its jurisdiction the national development corporation. This corporation will provide funds for the creation of certain new industries in circumstances where private enterprise does not, at least as yet, see its way clear to establish industries without substantial subsidy. I can think of various projects which I, personally, would like to see launched and I am sure every other hon. member has other projects in mind which he considers are on the verge of being economic propositions. Some of these could be accelerated if the government got into the picture at an early stage. One scheme which I have been pushing for years concerns the processing of uranium in this country to convert it into forms which are useable overseas in a variety of applications-power plants, submarines, cargo ships and so on. At present

we only produce raw natural uranium. We should be able to convert it into a more saleable form. Today, we are unable to sell a large part of our uranium production in its natural state. We would have to sell it to the United States atomic energy commission, and that commission is following a policy of making the United States self-sufficient in respect of uranium supplies. In other words, we cannot sell to the United States and we cannot process the product here.
I am not advocating the creation of large numbers of crown corporations one after the other. I think they might well be created at times but, surely, relatively low cost money is a sufficient advantage. It must be remembered that the majority of these corporations operate free of taxes in various respects and, certainly, free of income tax. Thus they enjoy a great advantage over the private sector of the economy.
If we go on in this way, if we continue this immense financial bias in the creation of crown companies we shall eventually arrive at the creation of a socialistic state north of the international boundary. I think we should develop a mechanism for selling off these crown corporations. This has been done in other parts of the world. West Germany, for example, sold the Volkswagen factory in such a way that the people were able to participate in its ownership. Shares were distributed in various areas in Germany and a tax incentive is still provided, all of which has ensured that the company is largely in the hands of West German nationals. I think we could devise ways in Canada of getting government out of business as well as into business, as well as ways of creating Canadian ownership and retaining ownership in this country. This is essential, and we need effective arrangements of this kind if, in fact, we are going to buy back a substantial amount of the ownership of industry within this great nation of ours.
I must insist on this: in order to grow we must also change, and in the process of change certain industries are bound eventually to decline; they must make way for newer and more vital industries. In speeches in our chambers of commerce the emphasis has always been on growth-on the growing industries rather than on the declining industries, those which have to receive government support in the form of subsidies and so on. Provision has been made for tremendous subsidies to the coal mining industry, for example. At the other extreme we are subsidizing nuclear power, which is not yet an economic proposition. At the same time we are heavily taxing the truly economic industries of oil and gas and, to a lesser extent, hydroelectric power. This is not the

way to improve the economy of the country unless, taking the long view, we are consciously allowing the old and less economic industries to die. One of the best ways of letting them die is to leave them in the private sector.
I believe we need more economic information, particularly economic information of a long term, fundamental type. But we must leave the policy-making essentially to the politicians, in other words to the members of this chamber, and have those policies debated in this chamber. We do need planning, but we do not have to be set inevitably on a course towards a collectivist state. I am a small "1" liberal. But I am also a big "L" Liberal in that I believe that at this time we have in the Liberal party the most effective team for bringing about a true nation with a true national identity and the maximum freedom for the individual in this country. I do not believe in buying the voter with his own taxes. I do not believe in running a continuous deficit in our budgets, because I believe that this is merely postponing to the future the shouldering of an immense financial burden. I believe it is merely confusing the individual Canadians of this country as to the course of events, if we do not lay long term policies before them but are merely borrowing on tomorrow and paying them subsidies and supports of one kind or another. In that way we are plunging inevitably toward some sort of collectivist state, and that is the main reason why I had no confidence in the Conservative party last year during the twenty fifth parliament.
We also have a tremendous deficit in our international balance of payments, a state of affairs which has existed for a number of years. This amounted to a substantial sum in the early fifties and it has continued in the last half dozen years. This, put in the most summary terms, means that we have been living beyond our means, that we have been borrowing from others. We have been able to borrow only because we mortgaged the resources and the ownership of industry in this country. We must not confuse the people any more. We must indicate, first, through long term economic projections, and then through distasteful policies, if necessary, what the alternatives are and what course we must follow if we are not only to balance our own budget internally but also to balance the budget we have with other countries, so as to buy back our inheritance and be independent, and really achieve this true north, strong and free.
The basic burden of my remarks this afternoon is essentially this. We need to look ahead. We need to go forward in the sense
The Address-Mr. Lambert of knowing a little more what is happening, what the fundamental forces at work today are, and where we are going if we do not consciously change course and set our sails toward the objective which we all agree is desirable. We need good communications, and good communications mean at least a national economic council and a department of industry which will carry out a number of tasks which industry needs to perform, including industrial research and development. The speech from the throne was only the beginning, but I believe we have started on our way. I believe we are beginning to raise our eyes and look ahead, and for this reason, Mr. Speaker, I trust we will find tonight a majority in this house in support of the government.
(Translation):


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate you upon your appointment as chairman of the committees of the whole. I am sure that your colleagues are confident that you will carry out these high functions to the satisfaction of all.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, I would particularly extend my congratulations, and perhaps my commiserations, through you to my esteemed successor in the chair you now occupy. I must say that to anyone in this house who has been elected Speaker, who has been elected by his peers to be the first among them within this house, it is indeed an honour and a great responsibility. I am sure you will convey to the hon. member for Mount Royal, our present Speaker, my most sincere congratulations and best wishes. I am sure he is going to find the position both interesting and challenging, and not without its moments of excitement.
I would also wish at the beginning of these few remarks this afternoon to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) as the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I was particularly struck by the calm deliberation and rather spontaneous fluency with which she delivered her first speech in this house. As you know, Mr. Speaker, sometimes on these rather aweinspiring occasions, such as one's first speech in the house, there is a tendency slavishly to follow a script, of course under the benign blind eye of Mr. Speaker. But here we did not have this, and while I must say that she did a very commendable job in moving the address in reply, I wish there had been rather more in the speech from the throne and then I think she could have done a better job.

The Address-Mr. Lambert (Translation):
I also wish to congratulate the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) on the manner he performed his task of seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I had the opportunity to visit his riding as the guest of his illustrious predecessor, the Hon. Raymond O'Hurley, who is one of my good friends. I therefore know that he represents a fine riding where the people are most kind.
(Text):
I should like to raise a little point here which might interest the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill). After all, we heard in the last speech some remarks by the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Davis). I recall on a previous occasion a former parliamentary secretary to the then prime minister express, shall we say, some ideas of his own, and he was accused of flying a kite. It is quite a responsibility for a parliamentary secretary to enunciate policy. This is a very neat point and I think the Secretary of State will remember the occasion. We have now heard the hon. member for Coast-Capilano indicate that he favours -and I wonder whether the government favours-the disposition or the disposal of crown corporations. This is a very important point, and I am wondering whether in this instance he is enunciating policy, or is he flying a kite for the government? He expressed ideas about many other things. I think perhaps he was expressing those ideas as his own, but I may say that in the position he now occupies he may go behind the curtain and listen to some advice from the Secretary of State.
I do not want to deliver a lecture to an hon. gentleman who was a colleague of mine at Oxford some years ago and whom I know as a man of whom Canada can be very proud. I think he is one of that post-war generation of young men who, in the family of Rhodes scholars-and here I excuse myself since I belong to them-have contributed a great deal to the public life of this country. I certainly welcome him and all those in this house who belong to that fraternity, if I may so describe it.
Before I turn to the speech from the throne I should like to acknowledge the support I have received from my constituency of Edmonton West.
Hon. members may not realize this. After all the press on numerous occasions has indicated, and not only the press but people who have some lack of knowledge about western Canada, that western Canada is composed only of rural constituencies and that the members on this side of the house

who adhere to the Conservative party represent only agrarian constituencies. That is far from the case.
It may be of interest to the house to know that the constituency I represent is either the seventh or eighth most populous in the country, and is closely followed by two constituencies in Calgary and another in Edmon-ton-Strathcona. As a matter of fact, the three Edmonton constituencies are just as urban as almost any other in the country. Therefore, the fact that the three Edmonton constituencies are represented by members of the Progressive Conservative party, together with two constituencies in Calgary-and we were not too far off making a clean sweep in Calgary -would show it is inaccurate to state that it was only the farmers of western Canada who supported the Conservative party. Western Canada as a whole did that.
It may be, as someone has said, that some of the eastern dailies did not get out there. Certainly they did not have many people out there to survey the scene and, if I may introduce a personal note, those who did come, as in 1962, in 1963 said I was one of those people earmarked for sure defeat by some prime candidate of the Liberal party. I think these commentators, when they came out west, used to go into Calgary. I do not know what form of ouija board they consulted, but they always forecast that I was going to be the loser. The people of Edmonton West did not share that opinion.
As a matter of fact this time not only did the Liberals send in a lot of party bigwigs- I think we had the visitations of even the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) and a few others-but we also had what I would consider the biggest flood of eastern Liberal money the west has ever seen. We all know the money had to be raised elsewhere because they were not raising it locally; but the net result was that my majority this time was doubled, and all the majorities of my colleagues in and about Edmonton were also increased. So, I say, let them send all the money they want and let them send the same people to visit the west and we are assured of being re-elected again.
The hon. member for Northumberland would have been far more effective if she had been supporting the type of speech which we had been led to expect, by the beating of bands and the sounding of trumpets prior to the opening of parliament. We were led to believe that this was going to be the speech of all speeches, that this was going to be the program that was to be the ultimate of all programs. The economy of Canada was to be

got going again. Well, Mr. Speaker, how can you get something going unless it had been previously stopped? I am sure there is not one hon. member opposite who will dare support the proposition that Canada's economy had slowed down to the point that it was almost stopped, because statistics-any kind at which they want to look-will absolutely refute that assertion.
I seem to recall that in 1962 the members of the opposition, and those people who supported them in the press, were forecasting a dire future for Canada. In May and June of 1962 they said we were going completely to the dogs, that our trade was going to be wiped away and we were heading for depression-mind you, not recession but depression. They also said the cost of living was going to zoom upwards. They did not mention that once in 1963.
We can look at the record in trade. 1 shall not give the figures because they have all been put on the record in the last few days. However, I shall refer to them briefly. It seems to me the Liberal party has suddenly discovered that Canada has got a deficit on its balance of international payments, but I ask when did Canada not have one? They seem to think this is a recent discovery, but I would point out in the matter of commodity trade, tremendous strides had been made, not by the former government but under the aegis of the government. They were made by Canadian business, by Canadian businessmen who did not believe those opposition forebodings of last year. Instead they went out and beat all records. The same is true of heavy industry which went out and beat the records of previous years. People in heavy industry did not believe the Liberal party, the New Democratic party or the Social Credit party. This in itself is a tribute to Canadian businessmen and industry.
Our industrial program has kept pace all the way along in 1963. If there was going to be a recession, 1962 was a flash in the pan. Steel and automobile production are up, and let me assure hon. gentlemen on the other side that the sales of automobiles back in January, February and March long predated any question that Liberals would form a minority administration. Record sales of automobiles are not a May wonder of 1963.
In addition, the cost of living has maintained an even keel, with a very minor advance, again showing that the forecasts, estimates and guesstimates of those experts, or so-called experts, of 1962 were very wrong.
What do they mean by "getting the economy going again"? I think it is just a mere slogan, something that has been borrowed from some other book. This was a catch phrase on another occasion, so let us not
The Address-Mr. Lambert hear any more about getting the economy rolling or going again. Let them maintain the momentum. Then we will listen to government spokesmen; but let us not hear any more about getting it rolling again. Maintain the momentum and let it go forward.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman not think it would be a good idea to get the half million unemployed, that we inherited as a legacy from hon. gentlemen opposite, going again at work?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. gentleman must have some form of telepathy because I was just coming to deal with the question of unemployment and those measures which seem to be proposed. When one looks at the question of unemployment he needs to cast his mind back to 1956 and 1957, when an industrial slow-down was approaching. It was certainly there then. It did not come as an event of July, 1957. It was already well on its way. Be that as it may, unfortunately at the present time there are some 462,000 unemployed in the whole of Canada. This is not to say that there is the same saturation of unemployment throughout all regions. The hon. member for lles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve) yesterday indicated, with I think the appropriate emphasis, and this a point that is quite forgotten, that unfortunately unemployment is much heavier in certain regions of Canada than it is in others, and that it has been chronically so. I have here an extract from Le Devoir of the other day commenting upon the latest release of the dominion bureau of statistics. This is the headline;
(Translation):
Le Devoir
Quebec has 40 per cent of the unemployed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of the country?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Of the country.
(Text):
That is not in the headline. But the point that the hon. member indicated is so. Even in 1956 Quebec unfortunately counted between 35 and 40 per cent of the unemployed. It has been consistently so. There is much heavier unemployment in the maritime provinces. Certainly in the area from which I come we have some unemployment, but the percentage is down to 4.4 and this article says that in the eyes of certain economists that is equivalent to full employment. But you must remember that when you talk about the total of unemployment or certain areas of unemployment you do not speak of the whole of the country. We have been partic-

The Address-Mr. Lambert ularly blessed in the past few years with a booming economy and advance.


Some hon. Members:: Social Credit.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Hon. members say "Social Credit". I would say no. It is because of oil put there by divine Providence; and there are many other things. The province of Manitoba is in good condition too, but the province of Saskatchewan is not in as good condition as Alberta or Manitoba. The point is that we must not forget that the question of unemployment is not necessarily a national problem, with the same degree of intensity throughout the country. Therefore certain steps have to be taken.
I note in the speech from the throne that the government is going to expand vocational and technical training. This is really the only immediate step they are considering. What are they doing but continuing the program inaugurated by the Conservative government some two years ago? I would say to the hon. member for tles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve) as I would say to his colleagues from the province of Quebec that it is indeed unfortunate-I will not go into the reasons why- that in that province they have not seen fit or have not been able to avail themselves of these facilities to the same degree as other regions of Canada have.
(Translation):
Some grants have been given to Ontario. Comparing the situation in Quebec and in Ontario, one of the ministers from Quebec said the other day that Quebec was entitled to so many million dollars under the technical training assistance program.
Are you aware of the fact that in my own county of Edmonton West we received more than $16 million in grants, while during the same period the province of Quebec was getting only $13 million? In that county we have paved the way to these grants, and as from next September, our students will be able to enroll in those schools.
I do not share my colleague's viewpoint. I do not believe that we should be giving grants all the time and indiscriminately. It is up to them to come and get those grants if they want to go ahead.
So, why complain?
Why those recriminations against the province of Ontario and western Canada? We wish to avoid disputes between regions. The assistance plan was available; it was up to them to try to share in it; they should have come into it to a greater extent.
(Text):
Now we come to another item, the municipal development and loan board. As has been indicated by other hon. members, I am wondering just what consultation has taken

place with the provinces in regard to this program.


William Heward Grafftey: None.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to anticipate the debate on item No. 2 under government orders on today's order paper but there is some elaboration of this point in the resolution found there which contains these words:
-to enable municipalities to augment or accelerate their capital works programs subject to the approval of the provinces concerned.
Just what consultation has been held with the provinces in this regard? There always has been agreement between the federal government and the provinces in these matters. There always has to be a program and there has to be agreement between the provinces and the federal government before any part of the program can be put into effect. If hon. members will consult the legislation I think they will see that a municipality may come before the board to borrow. Will that borrowing have to be within the limits on borrowing set by the provincial municipal board or equivalent body? What control will there be by that provincial authority? After all, the municipalities are creations of the provinces. What control on borrowings will there be if a municipality can come to the federal government and get either grants or loans for such works? This is something that we would like to know. It will be most interesting to discover what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) will disclose to us in this regard.
I was also intrigued by the other joint programs that have been announced in the light of the solemn undertaking by the Liberal party that they would be getting out of joint programs because there is a price that has to be paid for the collaboration of the province of Quebec, and so far as they were concerned this was it. Let us not also disregard the fact that there was an ultimatum served by the premier of the province of Quebec. I can go back to page 10 of Hansard of May 17 where the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), in reply to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), denied that this was so and said:
-I am aware of no ultimatum from the province of Quebec on any subject.
Yet we read in today's La Presse a report of a press conference with the premier of the province of Quebec in which he said that his speech was very definitely an ultimatum to the federal government. So what have they done in regard to this matter?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder what other members from other parts of Canada think?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As the hon. member tor Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) says, what do the other provinces say about these arrangements? What do other hon. members of this house have to say with regard to such treatment?
Then we come to another measure, the Canada development corporation proposed in the speech from the throne for the purpose of increasing Canadian ownership of industry. How is this going to be achieved? As was pointed out the other day by a financial writer, in order to have a change of ownership there must be consent. If there is at present foreign ownership of certain Canadian industries then you must have the consent of the present owners unless there is going to be expropriation or confiscation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit me to interrupt for one second to clear up one point, because this might be very deleterious to Canada. There is no thought whatsoever of any powers of expropriation in connection with this legislation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, I am glad the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) has clarified the legislation before it comes to us. However, I am still raising this question. It is a question in the minds of a lot of people.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is why I wanted to remove it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: All right, then; we have the Secretary of State disclosing particulars of a certain bill before it reaches us.
There are a lot of other things about which I should like to speak.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I would say a few words about our dual culture in Canada and the commission which the government proposes to set up in order to study the problem. I trust, as the hon. member for iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve) already said, and as some newspapers have pointed out, that this commission will not become a haven for the proteges of the Liberal party.
I would like the French members of that [DOT]commission not to be recruited in the province of Quebec only, because I must say to hon. members that the French fact in Canada is not present in that province alone.
Indeed, the question of bilingualism does not only interest the province of Quebec, or the English or French speaking citizens. I am somewhat astonished that people seem to limit the problem of bilingualism to eastern Canada. But, gentlemen, what are you going to do with those citizens that are of Ukrainian or German extraction, if they live in western Canada and who are much more numerous than their French speaking fellow citizens?
The Address-Mr. Hahn They cannot be ignored. They are living in Canada, they are Canadian citizens. Consequently, they may not be ignored. I think that an error is being committed when speaking merely of an investigation to settle certain problems that arise between the French and English elements.
But this is not all. Certainly, this is a problem which must be settled, but it does not only arise between French speaking and English speaking Canadians, because Canadian citizens of Ukrainian origin or of German origin also have a culture of their own.
I, therefore, urge hon. members from the province of Quebec to visit western Canada and to meet our fellow citizens of German and Ukrainian origin out there, instead of going to Florida, to Atlantic City or New York, as they are now doing. They should come and visit our beautiful part of the country, using the trans-Canada highway or travelling by the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific Railways or even trans-Canada airways.
Hon. members from the province of Quebec, come and see us. You will be most welcome and you will indirectly help to alleviate the burden of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) because you will contribute to a reduction of the deficit situation of the tourist industry. Spend your money in Canada. Go visit western Canada and discover what Canada and the Canadian people mean.
Besides, you could not make any such discovery in the papers, because there is a total lack of communication and co-operation between them. As a matter of fact you can read all the Montreal or Quebec city papers you want, you will find no report on western Canada unless it involves some scandal, some murder, or some serious highway accident. Except for those spectacular news items, nothing is ever said about western Canada.


Mr, Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is with regret that I must advise the hon. member that his time is up.
(Text) :


Mr. D. G. Hahn (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first to follow the traditions and customs of this house by extending to you my congratulations on your appointment to the position of responsibility you now have. The unanimous nature in which this appointment was approved by the house, I think, bears adequate testimony to your ability to discharge these responsibilities. I should like also to congratulate the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) upon the manner in which they have moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The standards they have set make it difficult for those of us who follow.

The Address-Mr. Hahn
I stand here in this assembly making my maiden speech, and I confess to the usual amount of nervousness that most new members must feel. However, I also confess to a feeling of pride. I, like everybody here, am proud to be a Canadian. As a Canadian, I am particularly proud to be able to stand in this house, the greatest of our Canadian institutions, and represent the people of my constituency. As a member of this institution, I am proud that I am standing on this side of the house supporting the new Liberal government, for I strongly feel that this government will be a great government.
As a new member, Mr. Speaker, I come to this house with a certain amount of idealism about it, with a certain amount of respect for the institution. I know that the last session of parliament has been discussed by many who felt it was not up to the mark. Since I have been here I have heard comments, particularly from some hon. members on the other side of the house, concerning the failures, and the causes of the failures of the last parliament. I have heard suggestions given, primarily to us on the government side, about what might be done to rectify the situation. Perhaps it is impertinent for me, as a new member, to discuss these things, but having sat here and listened to the things that have been said I feel, first of all, that I cannot help agreeing with many of the things that have been said from the other side of the house.
However, it seems to me that some things have been left unsaid. As I have said previously, we have a responsibility to recognize the rights of minority parties, to recognize the importance of parliament. However, I believe hon. gentlemen opposite must realize there are two sides to the question. There are two sides to this house. They, too, have a responsibility. They have the responsibility to conduct their opposition vigorously and to the best of their ability; but I think that all of us must bear in mind that we are here, not to continue the last election campaign but to conduct the nation's business. I think that if members on both sides of the house will recognize this, then, at the end of our first session, we new members will have kept our respect and idealism.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
David George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, before the recess I had completed my introductions and would now like to move on to the main points which I should like to discuss. My riding is Broadview, which is a downtown Toronto

riding. Most of the people in my riding depend either directly or indirectly on industry for their livelihood. To my constituents unemployment is a very real, critical problem. Throughout the campaign and since, many, many people have come to me with the problem of finding a job. There is not much point talking to these people about the booming conditions in our economy because to them it does not mean very much. While the figures that have been cited in this house do indicate that we have made progress in the last year, we still have not solved this most critical of problems. So that if I talk of boom to my people, they talk to me about jobs.
We all know that unemployment is probably the worst blight on our society. We all know what unemployment does to the selfesteem of a man who wants to work but who is rejected time after time. We know we cannot let this continue. We also know that while we have unemployment we cannot do many of the other things that we want to do for our people. There is no magic wand. Our economy cannot support advanced social measures while it is supporting a large number of people who should be working. It is imperative that this problem be recognized, that it be tackled and tackled effectively. I believe, from the measures I have seen in the speech from the throne, that our government is going to do just that.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to outline the basis of the problem as I see it and then show what I think we can do about it. First of all, where do the jobs come from? Over the next few years we have to find large numbers of new jobs each year. Where do we find them? I think we also know that most jobs must come from industry. Therefore if we are going to create new jobs, this is the area to which we must look. We know that in order to expand our industry we have to produce some of the things that we are now consuming but which we are bringing in from outside our country. We also know that probably one fifth of our jobs depend on exports. Therefore as our jobs must grow, so must we increase our exports.
How are we equipped now to do that job? What is the condition of our industry? I think we all know that you can sell a product either because it is cheap and competitively priced, or because it is of a unique design that nobody else has. These are the two criteria upon which you can make sales.
In Canada our manufacturers are generally producing for the Canadian market, a market of 18 million people. This is a low volume. Yet our wage structure is high in relation to our European competitors, and it is close to

that of our competitor to the south. We therefore have a situation of relatively high wage costs and low volumes of production. The two together mean that our costs are high.
What about our ability to design our own products and produce unique designs? We are not doing it, by and large, because most of our companies are either subsidiaries of foreign concerns, using the design of their parent concern outside this country, or they are Canadian concerns that are buying its research and development through licensing agreements with foreign concerns. We in this country are not producing our own unique designs. So that we do not have either low cost or unique design.
If I may cite an example from my own experience, we were producing home laundry equipment. This was a product designed in the United States and we were working under a licensing agreement. In Canada we produced in one year what the United States concern produced in five days. How could we hope to take a carbon copy of their product and try and compete with them in export markets? This was an impossibility.
My predecessor from Broadview, the former minister of trade and commerce, was very active in trying to stimulate exports. I believe that the principles upon which his trade drives were based were sound, but I also feel that somehow the cart got ahead of the horse. We had built up a sales force and were trying to sell before we had products to put on the market, and before we had negotiated the necessary trade agreements so that we did have a market. These are difficult problems to solve, and anybody who claims he can solve them overnight or in 60 days is not basing his claim on realism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That's for sure.


David George Hahn: But there is a vast difference between solving a problem and admitting that it exists and taking the action necessary to tackle it. And that is what we are doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David George Hahn: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the measures outlined in the speech from the throne will start the action necessary to effect the cures that we must have. I should like to look briefly at some of these measures. First of all, it has been said in this house that we have proposed nothing that will put people to work quickly. Well, I dispute that. The municipal loan fund is to me our shot in the arm, our shock treatment. It can and will put people to work quickly. That is one of its purposes. The type of things that will be done under this program are projects that can be
The Address-Mr. Hahn implemented and put into effect quite quickly. So that through the municipal loan fund we should be able to take up the slack, to put people to work, to get them to work in a hurry.
We also know that this is no long term cure. We know this will not solve the problem, because we know we must also increase our industry. This is why we are suggesting that we set up a department of industry. The department of industry will have the responsibility of solving what I call the technical problems that face us. It will have to tackle the problem of our high costs; it will have to tackle the problem of research and development in this country. It must also bring together management and labour so that instead of these two groups battling each other and treating each other with suspicion, as they have in the past, they will work together, realizing that their enemy is not each other but that they must join together and battle the common enemy of world competition around us.
We in Canada have the ability, the technical knowledge and the skill to do well in the area of research. I have only to point to the number of Beavers, Otters and Caribou flying around in the skies of the world to indicate what can be done by this country. While tax incentives may be one way of encouraging research they would be of little use, it seems to me, when a company would not realize the profit from its research work for a number of years, or in the case of a company without sufficient capital to launch a research project. I think some of the suggestions made by my hon. friend from Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) might be effective in dealing with this situation.
The new department of industry will have to look at the situation as our tariffs come down, and devise ways and means in which our industry can prepare itself to make an onslaught on world markets. This department could also produce some immediate short range benefits. During the election campaign the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) talked about what might be done in the automobile industry. The suggestions he had to make then could be applied in the case of many industries.
Let us take an example with which I am familiar, the home laundry equipment industry. We had a range of home laundry products consisting of 15 models with five different machine tops required for them. If we had received some direction from the government and knew our competitors were thinking along the same lines, we might have been able to reduce the volume of imported

The Address-Mr. Hahn parts considerably by cutting down the number of our model lines to perhaps seven or eight models and the number of machine tops required to probably two. On this basis we would have had sufficient volume to justify tooling up for the production of these tops in Canada. It would have provided employment for the tool and die shops, additional work in our factory and, perhaps, sufficient work for a porcelain enamel plant. If the government could encourage industry to take action of this kind, results would be produced in short order.
The creation of a department of industry will not solve our problems though it will create a mechanism through which they can be solved. We know we must expand our trade. I believe we all recognize the work being done by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) to set up, with the western nations, proper trading areas for us. It is useless for us in this country to resist the trends that are taking place around the world. We must join those trends and derive the maximum benefit from them. This is what is being done now.
To do the things we have to do will require money. We would normally expect that industry would provide its own financing. However, through the Canadian development corporation we also have a means of providing funds when traditional methods fail. I hope this corporation will halt the sale of our industry to foreign countries. I hope it will begin the process of buying back industry which has already been sold. I hope that by this means more capital may be provided for risk ventures. I know a number of people who have had ideas for good products but they did not have the capital to develop them; they had to take their ideas to the United States and have them developed there. I think we should be able to provide the risk capital here when it is needed for projects of this nature.
If we are to compete successfully in foreign markets we must accept the most advanced technology available. We must not turn our backs on the difficulties caused by automation. We must face them and enjoy the benefits automation can bring us. In order to do this we must weigh the problems automation is likely to bring before they descend on us, and we have to plan, as we are planning now, for the retraining of those put out of work as a result of automation. Of course, there is little use training people unless we make sure we are training them in an occupation which is likely to be needed. There is little sense training bricklayers to be butchers when what one really needs is electricians. So when we talk about retraining

we must also take steps to ensure we are training people for the right jobs.
I think the difficulties we now encounter have arisen because we did not adapt ourselves quickly enough to new conditions in the changing world around us. I think the formation of an economic council will serve to guard against our making a similar mistake in the future. I think this will be a means by which we can respond to technological changes before, rather than after, they hit us.
I believe the program we are undertaking now is practical and realistic. In these 60 days we are not going to cure all the problems which face us. We are going to begin the cure. During the election campaign we did not promise an instant cure for all the ills which beset the economy. What we did promise was that we would make the decisions necessary to effect a cure. We did promise to introduce realistic programs. We did promise to start on the road to a better future. I believe the measures contained in the speech from the throne indicate we have made that start.


Mr. Stuart A. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: The Address-Mr. S. Fleming where primary industry is not supplemented by secondary industry; where a single industry, either primary or secondary, maintains an entire region. It is in these circumstances that very often we find the most severe conditions of winter unemployment occurring and where there is growing evidence, also, that continued long term unemployment is likely to occur. The problems, to a large extent, originate in the inadequate utilization of existing resources, skills and knowledge, and the solution must therefore lie, at least in part, in a more effective use of these elements.
Then I went on to suggest that this problem can be offset by the creation of regional development councils.
From reading the speech from the throne and the reference to the creation of this new department of industry, you would think it might be suggested that no such councils have in fact been provided. In fact, on December 15, 1960, when this house passed the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, such councils were provided for. Personally I have always regretted that that act was called the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, because I think it could more properly have been called the rural rehabilitation and development act. It provides for the greater utilization of existing resources, skills and knowledge, and also provides for the utilization of local councils and for the co-operation of provincial and municipal governments in particular resource areas, primarily rural areas where the problem of hard-core unemployment and seasonal unemployment are most evident. So that this idea that area development policy or an area development agency is new, is a fresh one, or the answer to the problem, is entirely fallacious. These councils, which are already in being or can be brought into being within the scope of the A.R.D.A. program, are today at work and can be further utilized as the people in those various parts of the country who require this kind of assistance get the know-how to utilize available resources.
So, by picking out of the speech at almost any point the allegedly new ideas, we find either things that are not new or things that are simply providing a duplication of services that already exist, and in the case of the Canadian development corporation we might see the creation of a massive corporation. I am told it will be designed to encourage investment by Canadians in their own industries. But it will be a government agency, and it must be remembered there are private agencies capable of doing this. One in particular was created within recent months, the brochure of which was made available to all hon. members of the house. It might even be on their bookshelves right now.
These are a few of the matters I mention to indicate that this is not an adequate program for the times in which we live. It does
IMr. Fleming (Okanagan-Eevelstoke) .1
not add that new dimension which we were led to expect from the Liberal party in all its professions of a new Jerusalem for Canada, during the election and prior to the calling into session of parliament.
There is one other point on which I certainly do not intend to criticize the government. I only hope it will be able to live up to what it has claimed for itself, and that is its ability to resolve the continuing problem of reaching agreement with the province of British Columbia on the development of the Columbia river. No member of the house could be other than satisfied to learn that the premier of British Columbia is prepared to meet the Prime Minister of Canada in June, to initiate discussions on this question. But may I warn, if it is necessary, the members of the Liberal party and the members of the government that the mere fact the premier of British Columbia is prepared to discuss the subject with them is not necessarily a guarantee that the project will proceed.
By things I heard during the election campaign I am led to believe that the Liberal party wishes to renegotiate certain aspects of the present treaty, and from what we hear from the premier of British Columbia, I am led to believe that he wants certain concessions from the government of Canada.
I have no way of knowing exactly what direction the government's renegotiation commitment will take it, but I am somewhat apprehensive of what the premier of British Columbia will demand in concessions from the federal government. I would like to put three suggestions to the government for consideration on this matter. At this point I do not suggest they are sufficient to provide an entire resolution of the question, because the Columbia river development is complex. Indeed, it is very difficult for a layman to enter into this field without getting himself into trouble. I would suggest to the government however that studies be made of the costs estimates made after the treaty was negotiated, which seem to indicate that the Mica creek dam can be built approximately fifteen feet higher than was originally projected within the costs estimates. If it is possible to increase the height of the Mica creek dam within the present costs estimates, it might provide the opportunity to transfer part of the storage waters of the Arrow lakes to the reservoir behind Mica, and thus eliminate the flooding now contemplated. This in turn would reduce the pressure on the built up areas on the Arrow lakes and also preserve more productive farm land.
I do not know if this is a feasible suggestion, but I do believe its feasibility should be examined in the light of the knowledge that is now available to the government. Perhaps

it could lead the way to the suggestion, made three years ago by General McNaughton, before the external affairs committee of the house when he referred to the possibility of an intermediate Arrow program instead of high Arrow, if low Arrow program was not possible in the complex of over-all development.
I would also like to suggest that the government endeavour to persuade the province of British Columbia that, in a development as large as the Columbia river, the authority which supervises it, whether it be purely provincial or a joint authority shared by both the federal and provincial governments, these should be an over-all authority concerned not just with the building of dams for power generation and the storage of water, but with the redevelopment and relocation of the communities in the whole of the valley, that it provide for the diking and protection of lands where necessary, and that it assist in providing services in those communities to which a large number of workmen and their families will come, such as occurs when a program of this size is undertaken.
If it is true that 3,000 people will be employed for three years at Mica creek, then presumably the city of Revelstoke will have to provide additional water, sewage and other services for a substantial number of people. To the best of my knowledge this problem is not being faced up to by the province of British Columbia at the present time, and the federal government should assure that it be considered.
There is one further step that the federal government might take, and that is to offer the province of British Columbia an outright grant of half the costs of the construction of the transmission lines on the Mica creek project as a first step in the establishment of a national power grid in Canada. I assure the government, interested as this one professes to be in economic development in Canada, that any major step of this kind would lead to tremendous economic growth in British Columbia, and beyond British Columbia in the rest of Canada, if immense resources of electrical power could be moved to other places. In suggesting this I assume the government would be interested in any step that would lead to the establishment of a national power grid system.
In making this suggestion I would point out there are ample precedents for making an outright grant of this kind. These are found in the grants to the maritime provinces, and the grant which forms the federal government's share of the cost of atomic power development in the province of Ontario. This 28902-5-15
The Address-Mr. Ouellet
latter expenditure by the federal government will be an outright grant to the province of Ontario when it takes over the operation of the atomic power plant. Other precedents include the grant to Manitoba to combat Red river flooding, and the grant to Saskatchewan for the south Saskatchewan dam project. Such a grant would be one means of stimulating activities on the Columbia river.
I only hope that, after the meeting between the Prime Minister and the premier of British Columbia, one minister will be able to come into the house and say that the differences have been rectified. I know certain Liberal spokesmen have made it appear that this is a very simple question. For their sake I hope it is, and for the sake of the people of British Columbia. However, all I can say is that at the moment I would reserve my judgment until after that meeting takes place.
Briefly, Mr. Speaker, these are some of the points that have occurred to me as a consequence of reading the speech from the throne and listening to the debate on it. I am sorry I cannot be as enthusiastic as some previous speakers, because I think there is room for a great deal of doubt as to the competence and intentions of the government when it presents us with such a document which is simply a borrowing from a program already placed before the house, and when it includes measures that ultimately could do greater damage to Canada than any benefits they provided.
(Translation):


Mr. Gerard Ouellet (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I am speaking in the house for the first time, I will lose no time in congratulating you on your appointment to such an important office. I have no doubt that you will always discharge your great responsibilities with dignity.
I also want to congratulate the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) for the interesting speech she so graciously made to the members of parliament. I hope that she will always be happy and proud to have served her social and political team.
The election campaign is over and I see no point in continuing it here. Each of us has received a mandate from his electors. Each and every one of us has a precise duty to fulfil. Each member of the house, whatever his political allegiance, has formally committed himself to his fellow citizens and the whole country.
I want to show as far as possible my loyalty to that duty, because a sense of responsibility does consist first of all of selfrespect and of devotion to the community of which we are part.

The Address-Mr. Ouellet
Mr. Speaker, it is a formidable honour to speak before this distinguished assembly; therefore, I trust that in listening to me, you will keep in mind that I am a farmer anxious to make my small contribution to the conduct of the business of this house, in order to improve materially and without delay the lot of the members of my profession.
I should like now to thank and congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) for the likely appointment in the near future of a minister of agriculture who will have the appropriate legislation implemented in order to relieve eastern farmers of the very difficult situation they have been experiencing far too long.
I have complete admiration for this unique decision. If you allow me, I would say that since my active participation in our political group, this project to have two members of the federal cabinet, one to take care of the eastern farmers and the other to look after the farmers of the west, is in keeping with the needs of the times.
I am still prouder of the appointment to the federal ministry of the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay), that beautiful riding next to the constituency of Rimouski, which I have the honour to represent in this parliament. I also offer special congratulations to the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Lamontagne). These two ministers, natives of my riding will help, I hope, the progress of our area. Congratulations to the Prime Minister for the selection of these two distinguished men.
The farmer whom you are listening to right now was secretary treasurer of the local chapter of the united farmers; for three years, he was general adviser of the U.F.C. of which he was an active member during 31 years. In May 1955, I left my village where I had been manager of the caisse populaire during 18 years and a member of a farm co-operative for 17 years, to become a full time farmer.
I have been secretary of both the municipal council and the school board for several years. When I left my village to work on the farm, I did not think for once that I would come back to public life. However, the Social Credit party drafted me and, today, I find myself in a position of honour but which is difficult none the less, as I am sure you will agree.
Today I urge the hon. minister who represents my area to see to it that further consideration be given to granting the eastern farmers substantially reduced purchase prices for feed-a little over $20 per ton for grain
[Mr. Ouellet.)
intended for cattle bred by eastern farmers, without reducing the fair revenues of the western farmers.
In my humble opinion, this is a suggestion of prime importance in order to maintain our farm establishments, the reduction of which becomes a source of concern today for those who wish to remain true to their forefathers' vocation.
Everyone will admit the indispensable part played by agriculture in a Christian civilization. Our family farms are faced today with problems worthy of the concern of all men of good will and I believe that each and every one of us should be among them.
When the necessary measures have been taken to pass legislation aimed at helping the eastern farmer, we shall be sure that all members of my profession will be able to carry out their duties to the national community. It will not be an easy task though I must admit that worthy efforts have been made in the past.
However, we farmers, after having established a host of works designed to promote and protect the general interest of our profession, consider that time has come to urge our government to take as soon as possible the steps necessary for that purpose.
Here we must be possessed with a spirit that unites all groups. This must be our goal; we must seek fear of God first of all and respect for all human beings in civil and religious fields.
And so, we Canadians will then live in peace and quiet, because we will have found a true basis for unity.
The county of Rimouski sent me to parliament. More than 30,000 voters expect me to let the house know about their most urgent needs.
In that county, numerous associations work towards the expansion and the success of local and regional undertakings. May I point out that the runway of the Rimouski airport is in a sorry state of disrepair. I have been most urgently asked to try and get some repair work done without delay, as it is essential not to allow dangerous defects on the runway to slow down air traffic. Besides, the far end of the main runway should be covered with asphalt for more than 1,000 feet.

At Trois Pistoles, that maritime town in my county, there is urgent need of improving the wharf. The town is indeed a natural maritime centre with a future. Its population wants a study to be made which would lead to the means of improving the north-south ferry service. There is no doubt that following a careful study by competent people, supported by fair-minded statesmen, our maritime, industrial and agricultural district would know a splendid development. It is a worth-while undertaking. The time is for action, because we are facing a more than urgent need.
And what about our labour class? Though there has been notable progress from the professional point of view, in the various trades, thanks to specialized institutions, from the marine school to the agricultural school, the labour market is still cluttered. It would therefore be appropriate to pass legislation for carrying out important public works which would increase our national assets, our common heritage.
In co-operation with hon. members from our part of the country, as well as from the maritime provinces, the Atlantic provinces will know days of greater security and national equity. That is the price of confederation.
May I also congratulate the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Sauve) for his remarkable speech in favour of our part of the country. In some ways, it is more to be admired than to be imitated, and I think that his wishes and his requests will incite our leaders to bring about positive results. I thank all those men in advance who will do the necessary tasks to carry out our projects.
Is it not true that the light comes from the east, as the sun rises there?
I hope that I may be allowed to submit here to your good attention words spoken in this house by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), our national leader:
Money has been the key to the organization of society. Money makes economic democracy possible by making consumer choice the arbiter of economic direction. We can go back, if we so desire, to Great Britain during the 1500's when the renaissance was just developing, when the industrial revolution was beginning to take its embryonic form.
Here, again, this development was preceded with a development for the facility of the medium of exchange in the monetary system which ultimately resulted in the present monetary system.
As we look for democracy, for a system of government, let us remember that economic democracy is at the root of democratic democracy. The one is not complete, and the one cannot survive unless it has the other. X am concerned because of the trend towards increased governmental control, increased taxation. This is actually an abandonment of our monetary system, an 28902-5-15J
The Address-Mr. Ouellet abridgement or an attempted abridgement of economic democracy. It does not enlarge the human spirit, but abridges it instead. It does not enlarge human dignity. It subjects individuals to the indignity of government by bureaucracy. If it promotes equality, it is precisely at the expense of that precious individuality that has been the spark kindling the fire of western civilization. As the Austrian writer Heimito von Doderer said, contemplating the difference between east and west, that in the east, "individual life does not rebel. There is too little of it for rebellion. One soul mingles with the other like smoke. But in the west, every life has its own special, if invisible, garden plot. A man stands alone between the tended flower beds and the little porticos of a house from which no one, by law and equity, is entitled to expel him . . . This is the only way he knows how to be. Only in this way can he be big or little, crooked or straight, good or bad".
So, as we consider this new path let us remember the old fundamentals that are basic to the very way of life we mutually agree is the way we should live. Is the new path we are taking, then, a new path or is it an old one? Is it the collapse of economic democracy which is forcing us to take actions which are contrary to the basic principles under which we live? Perhaps this sounds strong, but look at the socialist governments behind the iron curtain. It is the logical confusion of bigger and bigger governments. Creative ideas have never sprung from groups, they spring from individuals. No committee has ever painted a piece of art. No board of directors has ever written a symphony. No commission has ever invented a scientific machine. In our awe of the power of the organization compared with that of the individual, let us not forget the complementary need of the organization, however complex, for the individual's vision, skill and ability. It is the contact between the aspired mind of the individual and his creator that enables him to bring to others a glimpse of the infinite and the eternal that lie outside the view of ordinary men. This suppression of creativity carries with it the seeds of decay of every socialist state.
There is another member who, I believe, deserves the compliments of the house, and I am thinking of the member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman). As I listened to him yesterday, I felt admiration for this man who filled his bounden duty of coming here and paying tribute to his opponent, the hon. Mr. Howard Green, this great Canadian who has served his country so well. The hon. Mr. Green will go down in history as a valiant contriver for peace with honour.
Allow me to express once again my gratitude and my congratulations to the Leader of the Opposition for having appointed the hon. Mr. Earl Rowe as Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. This gentleman of the Canadian political scene deserves our respect and our friendship.
There is a remarkable man sitting among us, who is attracting attention: it is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), dauntless servant of democracy, of freedom and, therefore, of civilization.
224	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. M. W. Martin
In closing Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the house that when I came to parliament, I felt everywhere at home, that everybody I met had been most kind to me, and that I shall never forget the warm welcome which was given to me by the Clerk of the House. Believe me, it is most pleasing for a farmer to feel that way.
In carrying out my mandate, I shall need the co-operation of those who sit on the government side. I do hope that everyone of them will grant me his full co-operation for the welfare of all the voters of my riding, and I thank them in advance.
Social Credit is the answer, the cure of democracy or of Christian civilization against the communist, the atheist, and the leftist pressures, and it is also the cure against capitalist rightist dictatorship.
(Text):


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: My first words, Mr. Speaker, must be words of congratulation to you upon your elevation to your present office. Shortly after April 8 when it became apparent to everyone in the country that we were going to be afflicted with another Liberal government, many of us entered into a little guessing game as to just which members might be chosen for the various posts in this new government. I might say that, in so far as the over-all picture was concerned, I did not come out too well. I would say, however, Mr. Speaker, that in so far as the choice of a Speaker was concerned I am happy to announce that I was in full agreement with the choice long before it was actually made.
(Translation):
Second, I must say that we who have had the privilege, during the last session, of seeing how the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Lamoureux) handled himself, are not surprised at the honour bestowed upon him, and the new members are happy to find that the confidence that was put in him when he was appointed Deputy Speaker and chairman of committees was justified.
(Text):
I should like to congratulate also the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the remainder of the cabinet ministers upon the new responsibilities they have accepted in this chamber. Particularly, I should like to convey my congratulations to my colleagues from northern Ontario. It is quite some time since the treasury benches have been filled with so many representatives of the great northern part of this province.
(Translation) :
And now, Mr. Speaker, having given credit where credit is due, I would ask the house


to bear with me for a moment while I say a few words on a subject which is giving me some concern.
Not too long ago, when the simultaneous translation system was installed in this house, I had some misgivings due to the fact that, in my opinion, it is easier to put on an earphone in order to understand what is being said in another language than to learn that other language. The installation of that equipment could postpone rather than bring forward the day when hon. members would be proficient in our two official languages.
(Text):
However, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the doubts that may have been in my mind at the time, I must say that after some considerable time this new system has worked very well. One thing I have noticed, and I think it is very good, is this. In years past, when an hon. member was speaking in a language that some other hon. members could not understand we saw quite an exodus from the chamber, but now we see hon. members turn on their apparatus and listen to the simultaneous translation. But I should like to register a mild protest in regard to what appears to me to be a new practice that is growing up in the house. I refer to the practice of repeating everything in both languages. This is not necessary, because we have the simultaneous translation system. To my mind bilingualism means being able to speak one or other of our two official languages, and if they are given equal status I see no need for everything to be repeated in both languages. After all, if I say, "Mr. Speaker" and the translator says "Monsieur l'Orateur", I see no need for my saying "Monsieur l'Orateur" so that the translator can say "Mr. Speaker". To my mind this is almost a mockery of bilingualism and makes no use of the instantaneous translation system which we have. I think the speech from the throne at the beginning of this session set an excellent example which we would do well to follow; that is, of speaking first in one language and then the other. To my mind this gives equal status to both languages and I think this is the way it should be. This is one problem with which we are faced in this country today, the problem of bilingualism and biculturalism. It has received a great deal of attention. If we stop to consider this question, I think we must realize that this situation is rather a reflection upon the Liberal and Conservative governments which we have had in the past. If we consult the Parliamentary Guide we find that we have for some 50 years been governed in this country by a Liberal government-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Murdo William Martin: -and for some 46 years by a Conservative government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Murdo William Martin: Now that the back-patting is over, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I think the unrest we see in the country today is a condemnation of both these governments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Murdo William Martin: We have seen, particularly during the last election campaign, the old parties trying to blame the problems of this country upon the new parties that are growing up in Canada today. They completely ignore the fact that the only reason for the new parties is the failure of the old parties. The problems that we face in this nation today have arisen from a long, long line of small grievances. These grievances have for far too many years been hidden; and hiding solves nothing. Certainly if hiding solved anything, all these problems would have been solved in 96 years. The greatest danger that we face today is that we may go from one extreme to the other.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, allow me to say here that I shudder when I hear irresponsible people speak about the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada. I was born and educated in Quebec. I served in Quebec regiments, both French and English. As far as I am concerned, Quebec is not only my birthplace, but also the cradle of our nation. Quebec is Canada; how could it be separated from it? (Text):
The thing that raises most fear in my mind, Mr. Speaker, is that the acts of terrorism we see being committed today may prevent a proper solution to these problems which we have had over the years. I should like to make an appeal to both the English and French citizens of our country and ask them to use forbearance at the present time; for the English Canadian to realize that there are grievances which need correction, and for the French Canadian to realize that we will not solve problems in this country of ours by acts of terrorism.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would come to a matter that is of great importance to the constituency which I have the honour to represent. During this session, or certainly during this year, parliament will have to deal with the problem, because it is a measure that is up for consideration. I am referring, of course, to the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, which has run its three year course and this year is up for renewal, amendment, or whatever is the will of this parliament. I realize, of course, that we will
23, 1963
The Address-Mr. M. W. Martin have another chance to discuss this matter in possibly more detail when the legislation is before the house. All I wish to do now is impress upon the government the importance of this particular matter.
The Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act was first passed by a Liberal government. It has twice been extended by a Conservative government. In fact, the last time it was dealt with the assistance provided under the act was increased by some 25 per cent. Many years have passed since this measure was enacted, and I think we should now realize that in addition to the original purpose of this act-which was of course to foster and maintain the gold mining community-this is a very important matter to our country today. One of the major problems that has plagued this country for a number of years is that we are importing more than we are exporting. Every year this problem is with us. I think we should realize that gold is one product that Canada has in quantity. In fact, Canada is the second highest gold producing country in the world. This is one product that we will never have more of than we can export. We may have a glut of copper, iron, lumber, paper-yes, even of wheat-but gold is one thing we will never have a glut of in this country. Consequently, if we realize the true significance of this product and its value to our country, we should realize that this matter is really the responsibility of the country and the gold mining industry should therefore, in its present circumstances, be subsidized by the country as a whole. It should not be subsidized, as it has been for far too long in the past, by the industry itself, by the people working in that industry and by the merchants and citizens of the communities which are supported by the gold mines. However, I have not changed my opinion that if this act is to serve the purpose for which it was originally passed, some changes must be made to ensure that the benefit of this subsidy paid by the people of Canada shall accrue to the municipalities, to the people working in those municipalities and to those who serve them.
I should like to devote the remainder of my time to a question which I have found to be the number one problem in the riding I represent. There are some who may think that when I deal with this matter I am venturing upon a provincial field, but such is not the case. This subject has a direct interest for the federal government, and more particularly for the Department of National Health and Welfare. I am only sorry that the minister is unable to be here while we are dealing with this matter. I have in mind the great number of cases in my constituency, and, I assume,

The Address-Mr. M. W. Martin in similar constituencies, of people who sustain injuries in the course of their work. Because of the present regulations and practices of the workmen's compensation board of the province of Ontario, these injured workmen become foisted upon the municipal welfare rolls which are supported in their turn by the federal government through the Department of National Health and Welfare.
It is my intention to list just a few of these cases. I can assure hon. members I have hundreds of them on my files. During the last election campaign between 300 and 400 of them came to my attention. I am thinking in particular, now, of a case where a man sustained a broken ankle. After treatment the cast was removed from his ankle and he was instructed by his doctor to take some exercise. While walking across his yard, his ankle buckled under him and he fell, twisting his back, as a result of which he had to spend two or three more weeks in hospital. The compensation board refused to accept that there was any connection between the two accidents. The man's wife and his seven children are now wards of the municipality with 40 per cent of their welfare costs being paid by the federal government.
Many cases arise where there is a delay of six weeks, ten weeks, three months, four months or even five months before a payment is made to these injured workers. Again the situation arises where they must go to the municipality for welfare assistance and where the costs are passed right back to the federal government. I wonder how long we can go on fooling ourselves by believing that we have no real responsibility for what is going on with regard to these particular welfare payments because the money does not appear, in the first instance, to be coming directly from the federal pocket. I think this is a subject which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) and, indeed, the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) might well look into. I can assure them both I can provide hundreds of cases to back up the statements I am making tonight. I sometimes wonder why it is practically impossible to bring this matter adequately to the attention of the public and of those concerned. I have had occasion to write to newspapers, to Toronto daily papers, listing as many as 15 of these cases including the claim numbers, dates and so forth, but not a word will appear in the press. It makes one wonder sometimes if there is not a conspiracy of silence in connection with this matter. I believe the trouble is that the board has been in office far too long. They are looking back with such pride on things they did ten or 15 years ago that they are not even aware of the situation

which prevails today. This is certainly one of the most urgent problems which faces my constituency and I sometimes wonder if a similar situation prevails in all the other constituencies across the province and across Canada.
The whole field of public welfare needs review and revision. I encountered one situation which seems impossible to me in this day and age. It was the case of a man who had an unusually large family, at least for our part of the country. He had some 17 children. Because of the demands of this large family he naturally got behind in paying his bills-an affliction which affects most of us. Of course, the garnishees began to come in and as soon as that happened the man lost his job and had to fall back on municipal welfare relief. Because of the size of his family he was receiving the maximum payment which, in Ontario, is $180 a month. Finally he was able to get a job where he was protected from garnishees. It was a job with the Ontario department of highways. There was one problem, though, he had to take a $20 cut to go to work. His wages came to $160. If he had not gone to work he would have faced a non-support charge and would have gone to jail. 1 think this is a situation which bears looking into. It is an aspect of one of the most pressing problems which faces the new minister as she assumes her duties.
In line with the general trend on this 31st day of decision I think it would be appropriate if I ended my remarks at this point, since we shall have ample time to deal with these matters in the days ahead.


Mr. Joseph P. O'Keefe (St. John's East):: It
is a distinct pleasure for me to begin this, my maiden speech, by offering to you, Mr. Speaker, my congratulations on your election. I know you will fill this high office in a most impressive way and in keeping with the finest of our parliamentary traditions. I am very conscious of the honour which is mine to be speaking in this house for the first time. I feel even more honoured to be speaking as the representative of St. John's East. Historic old St. John's East has now returned happily, and I am confident permanently, to the Liberal vote.
To stand in this parliament of Canada is an experience that for all of us I believe is a memorable one. It is significant in the fact that we are now the chosen representatives not only of the districts from which we come but of the length and breadth of Canada as a whole. I, like many hon. members here, have entered parliament for the first time. They may or may not be awed by the intricacies of constitutional procedure and the varied and complicated order of business; I know

I am. But I know that down deep in our hearts is the dedicated determination to serve worthily and well the people who have sent us here and have entrusted to us their hopes and aspirations. I am very proud to represent St. John's East and I feel that what is good for that district is good for Newfoundland.
Canada's newest province has received some definite and specific undertakings which, when implemented in full, will go far to remove most of the special handicaps under which our province has been operating since confederation. The most forthright of these commitments has been the undertaking of a federal offer of 90 per cent of the cost of completing the trans-Canada highway. This, as you know, has been pledged to all the Atlantic provinces, but our province is the only one with a very large unfinished portion of our national highway. Obviously the task is quite beyond the means of our provincial government. It will be remembered, too, that the MacPherson commission strongly recommended its completion at federal cost as a basic national obligation. This, sir, I suggest it is.
Almost above all else Newfoundland vitally needs communications, not only of the physical or material kind-roads such as the Marine drive, with all its maritime magnificence, our long-sought and so badly needed east coast ferry and other ferries and roads- but communications or meetings of minds, so that what is said or sought in Newfoundland is understood and appreciated in Ottawa. This has not always been so in the past.
The 12-mile limit for our hard pressed fishermen is another all important project. Its success, of course, will depend upon the agreement or acquiescence of our American friends. This, I feel, is likely to be forthcoming since the United States associated itself with the six-plus-six resolution which failed by only a very small margin to gain the required two thirds majority at the last law of the sea conference.
The question of fishery development on a national basis is for us of the greatest importance. What will be done in this respect will, of course, depend upon the outcome of a conference which our Prime Minister has offered to call. This will have to be hammered out into a sound economic program that will produce maximum results from efficient direction, financing and supervision.
Newfoundland needs the restoration of the former system of the tax rental agreement. This plan, as you know, Mr. Speaker, made sure that the poorer provinces shared in Canada's growth. Under this system our province will benefit from the expected expansion of our Canadian economy and so would
The Address-Mr. O'Keefe acquire a substantial contribution towards the annual increase in the cost of maintaining our vital public services. What is of crucial, over-riding importance, however, is that our new national policy will consider all these things and others in terms of what is required to overcome inherent disabilities in all the provinces.
I will not dwell at any great length on all, or even many, of the needs of Newfoundland. Some good was done for St. John's East and other districts and provinces by the previous government. After all, they held power for nearly six years, so they could scarcely help doing some good. Yet a great deal more needs to be done now. From time to time I am quite sure that Newfoundland's representatives, all seven of us-all we had to offer- will be heard on behalf of the oldest part of this new country.
Mr. Speaker, the prevailing standards of living in Newfoundland, it seems to me, are maintained to a very large degree by the expenditure of either the federal or provincial governments on various public services, social security and welfare. In places such as Bell island, with its labour surplus, the standard of living is still lower. Of all of this great district, I am painfully anxious that something be done for so long neglected Bell island.
I should like to devote the remainder of my speech to telling you and the house of my native province of Newfoundland and of its natural grandeur, just as others have done with their provinces. However, my people have sent me here to represent them and to act as their spokesman. This is my duty and this I am determined to do as best I can. For this reason I am going to take the few minutes at my disposal to lay before you some details of a situation about which I feel very strongly both the house and the nation should be informed and about which I can no longer remain silent.
Mr. Speaker, my district includes the large island in Conception bay that we call Bell island, with its large town of Wabana, a beautiful Beothic Indian name meaning "land of the rising sun". Some 14,000 people make their homes on this island. I only wish I could tell you that they also make their living there, but that is not so. These 14,000 people do not make a living on Bell island. These men and women, all of them fine Newfoundlanders and Canadians, are doomed by forces seemingly beyond their control to live in circumstances which in case after case approach utter destitution. Do not misunderstand me, sir. I am not saying that each and every one of these fine souls is unable to earn his or her daily bread, for that is not so. But what is true, and tragically true, is that of these 14,000 the staggering number of

Division
5,500 are on relief, existing on the hated, soul-searing dole.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being 9.30 o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 4 of standing order 38, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on any amendment now before the house.


Mr. Byrne:: I was	paired; had I voted
would have voted against the amendment. (Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bal-cer). Otherwise, I would have voted against the amendment.
(Text):


Mr. Cardiff:: I was paired with the hon. member for Algoma West (Mr. Nixon). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Chalterton:: I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Groos). Had

I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Regan:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
Division


Mr. More:: I was paired with the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Roxburgh). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
231
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 24, 1963